diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15153bff02905df630f182ee71d4782843767e72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.md
@@ -0,0 +1,279 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 785-2 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 11
+
+
+
+Case 9.695ev-öb5r58-RAA3 bRum Resument on on Files 9334K67 0487920391 page 1 of 10
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+CASE NO.:08-CV-80736-KAM
+JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2,
+Petitioners,
+VS.
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+Respondent.
+ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS' MOTION TO JOIN UNDER RULE 21 AND
+MOTION TO AMEND UNDER RULE 15
+This cause is before the Court on Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's Corrected Motion
+Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action ("Rule 21 Motion") (DE 280), and Jane Doe 1 and Jane
+Doe 2's Protective Motion Pursuant to Rule 15 to Amend Their Pleadings to Conform to
+Existing Evidence and to Add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as Petitioners ("Rule 15 Motion") (DE
+311). Both motions are ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that they
+should be denied.
+I. Background
+This is an action by two unnamed petitioners, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, secking to
+prosecute a claim under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 377l. (DE 1).
+Generally, they allege that the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by
+failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffiey Epstein,
+who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (Id.). Petitioners initiated
+this action in July 2008. (Id.).
+GIUFFRE002844
+
+
+Case 9.6958.36558-RAA3 b6RumeRpsumenteRed on Files 93534k67 04 37920391 Hage 2 of 10
+On December 30, 2014, two other unnamed victims, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4, moved
+to join as petitioners in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. (DE 280).
+Petitioners (Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2) support the Rule 21 Motion. (Id. at 11). Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 argue that they "have suffered the same violations of their rights under the [CVRA]
+as the" Petitioners, and they "desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights as well." (Id. at
+1). The Government vehemently opposes joinder under Rule 21. (DE 290). The Government
+argues that Rule 15 is the proper procedural device for adding parties to an action, not Rule 21.
+(ld. at I).
+"[OJut of an abundance of caution," Petitioners filed a motion to amend their petition
+under Rule 15, conforming the petition to the evidence and adding Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as
+petitioners. (DE 311 at 2). The Government opposes the Rule 15 Motion as well. (DE 314).
+Among other things, the Government argues that amending the petition to include Jane Doe 3
+and Jane Doe 4 should be denied because of their undue delay in seeking to join the proceedings,
+and the undue prejudice that amendment will cause. (Id.).
+After considering the parties' submissions and the proposed amended petition, the Court
+finds that justice does not require amendment in this instance and exercises its discretion to deny
+the amendment.
+Il. Discussion
+"The decision whether to grant leave to amend a complaint is within the sole discretion of
+the district court." Laurie v. Ala. Ct. Crim. Apps., 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001). "The
+court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Justice does
+not require amendment in several instances, "including] undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive
+2
+GIUFFRE002845
+
+
+Case 96958v-öb558-RAA3 bRum Resument 8F63 on Files 0334K67 04 87920491 bage 3 of 10
+on the part of the movant, ... undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the
+amendment, [and] futility of amendment.?" Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Foman v.
+371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the parties, the
+court must consider "the importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits
+of a dispute." 6|
+&
+Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 1488, p. 814 (3d ed. 2010). Justice does
+not require amendment where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially
+advance the resolution of the litigation on the merits. See Herring v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 894
+F.2d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 1989).
+A. Rule 21 Motion
+Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's first attempt to join in this proceeding was brought under
+Rule 21. (DE 280). "If parties seek to add a party under Rule 21, courts generally use the
+standard of Rule 15, governing amendments to pleadings, to determine whether to allow the
+addition." 12
+Fed. Prac. & Fed. P.., p. 432 (3d ed. 2013); see also Galustian v.
+Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 729-30 (4th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases and noting that Rule 15(a) applies
+to amendments seeking to add parties); [
+v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F.3d 1357, 1365 (10th Cir.
+1993) ("A motion to add a party is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ....").
+Rule 21, "Misjoinder and Non-joinder of Parties," provides the court with a tool for
+correcting the "misjoinder" of parties that would otherwise result in dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P.
+21. Insofar as Rule 21 "relates to the addition of parties, it is intended to permit the bringing in
+of a person, who through inadvertence, mistake or for some other reason, had not been made a
+party and whose presence as a party is later found necessary or desirable." United States v. Com.
+Bank of N. Am., 31 F.R.D. 133, 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) (internal quotation marks omitted).
+3
+GIUFFRE002846
+
+
+In their Rule 21 Motion, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doc 4 do not claim that they were omitted
+from this proceeding due to any "inadvertence" or "mistake" by Petitioners; rather, they seck to
+join this proceeding as parties that could have been permissively joined in the original petition
+under Rule 20 ("Permissive Joinder of Parties"). As courts generally use the standards of Rule
+15 to evaluate such circumstances, the Court will consider the joinder issue as presented in the
+Rule 15 Motion.' The Court will consider the arguments presented in the Rule 21 Motion as if
+they are set forth in the Rule 15 Motion as well. Because the arguments are presented in the Rule
+15 Motion (and because the Court is denying the Rule 15 Motion on its merits, as discussed
+below), the Rule 21 Motion will be denied.
+The Court also concludes that portions of the Rule 21 Motion and related
+filings should be stricken from the record. Pending for this Court's consideration is a Motion
+for Limited Intervention filed by Alan M. Dershowitz, who seeks to intervene to "strike the
+outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and [to] request[] a show cause order to
+the attorneys that have made them." (DE 282 at I). The Court has considered Mr. Dershowitz's
+arguments, but it finds that his intervention is unnecessary as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+12(f) empowers the Court "on its own" to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
+redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
+Petitioners' Rule 21 Motion consists of relatively little argumentation regarding why the
+Court should permit them to join in this action: they argue that (1) they were sexually abused by
+' The Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard
+governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478
+FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal
+Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 408, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).
+4
+GIUFFRE002847
+
+
+Jeffrey Epstein, and (2) the Government violated their CVRA rights by concealing the nonprosecution agreement with them. (DE 280 at 3; see id. at 7-8). However, the bulk of the Rule
+21 Motion consists of copious factual details that Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 "would prove" "Ti]f
+allowed to join this action." (Id. at 3, 7). Specifically, Jane Doe 3 proffers that she could prove
+the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein
+sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, "including numerous
+prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known
+Prime Minister, and other world leaders." (Id. at 3-6). She names several individuals, and she
+offers details about the type of sex acts performed and where they took place. (See id. at 5)?
+At this juncture in the proceedings, these lurid details are unnecessary to the
+determination of whether Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 should be permitted to join Petitioners'
+claim that the Government violated their rights under the CVRA. The factual details regarding
+with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent
+to this central claim (i.e., that they were known victims of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed
+them CVRA duties), especially considering that these details involve non-parties who are not
+related to the respondent Government. These unnecessary details shall be stricken.
+The original Rule 21 Motion (DE 279) shall be stricken in its entirety, as it is wholly
+superseded by the "corrected" version of the Rule 21 Motion (DE 280). From the corrected Rule
+21 Motion, the Court shall strike all factual details regarding Jane Doc 3 between the following
+sentences: "The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the existence of its NPA from
+" Jane Doe 4's proffer is limited to sexual acts between Mr. Epstein and herself. (See DE
+280 at 7-8).
+5
+GIUFFRE002848
+
+
+Jane Doe #3, in violation of her rights under the CVRA" (id. at 3); and The Government was
+well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the
+attachment to the NPA" (id. at 6). As none of Jane Doe 4's factual details relate to non-parties,
+the Court finds it unnecessary to strike the portion of the Rule 21 Motion related to her
+circumstances. Regarding the Declaration in support of Petitioners' response to Mr.
+Dershowitz's motion to intervene (DE 291-1), the Court shall strike paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13,
+15, 19 through 53, and 59, as they contain impertinent details regarding non-parties. Regarding
+the Declaration of Jane Doe 3 in support of the Rule 21 Motion (DE 310-1), the Court shall strike
+paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49, as they contain impertinent details regarding nonparties. Jane Doe 3 is free to reassert these factual details through proper evidentiary proof,
+should Petitioners demonstrate a good faith basis for believing that such details are pertinent to a
+matter presented for the Court's consideration.
+As mentioned, Mr. Dershowitz moves to intervene "for the limited purposes of moving to
+strike the outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and requesting a show cause
+order to the attorneys that have made them." (DE 282 at 1). As the Court has taken it upon itself
+to strike the impertinent factual details from the Rule 21 Motion and related filings, the Court
+concludes that Mr. Derschowitz's intervention in this case is unnecessary. Accordingly, his
+motion to intervene will be denied as moot.? Regarding whether a show cause order should
+" This also moots Mr. Dershowitz's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in
+Support of Motion for Limited Intervention. (DE 317). Denying Mr. Dershowitz's motion to
+¡tervene also renders moot Petitioners' motion (DE 292) to file a sealed document supporting i
+'sponse to Mr. Dershowitz's motion. It will accordingly be denied as moot, and DE 293 (th
+6
+GIUFFRE002849
+
+
+Case 96958v-öb598-RAA3 bRumeRpsument eFe on Files 93534k67 04 87920991 page 7 of 10
+issue, the Court finds that its action of striking the lurid details from Petitioners' submissions is
+sanction enough. However, the Court cautions that all counsel are subject to Rule |1's mandate
+that all submissions be presented for a proper purpose and factual contentions have evidentiary
+support, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(I) and (3), and that the Court may, on its own, strike from any
+pleading "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
+B.
+Rule 15 Motion
+Between their two motions (the Rule 21 Motion and Rule 15 Motion), Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 assert that "they desire to join in this action to vindicate their rights [under the
+CVRA] as well." (DE 280 at I). Although Petitioners already seek the invalidation of Mr.
+Epstein's non-prosecution agreement on behalf of all "other similarly-situated victims" (DE 189
+at 1; DE 311 at 2, 12, 15, 18-19), Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doc 4 argue that they should be fellow
+travelers in this pursuit, lest they "be forced to file a separate suit raising their claims" resulting
+in "duplicative litigation" (DE 280 at 11). The Court finds that justice does not require adding
+new parties this late in the proceedings who will raise claims that are admittedly "duplicative" of
+the claims already presented by Petitioners.
+The Does' submissions demonstrate that it is entirely unnecessary for Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 to proceed as parties in this action, rather than as fact witnesses available to offer
+relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative testimony. (See, c.g., DE 280 at 2 (Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 "are in many respects similarly situated to the current victims"), 9 ("The new victims
+will establish at trial that the Government violated their CVRA rights in the same way as it
+violated the rights of the other victims."), 10 (Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doc 4 "will simply join in
+motions that the current victims were going to file in any event."), 11 (litigating Jane Doe 3 and
+7
+GIUFFRE002850
+
+
+Jane Doe 4's claims would be "duplicative"); DE 298 at 1 n.1 ("As promised ... Jane Doe No. 3
+and Jane Doe No. 4 do not seek to expand the number of pleadings filed in this case. If allowed
+to join this action, they would simply support the pleadings already being filed by Jane Doe No. 1
+and Jane Doe No. 2."); DE 311 at 5 n.3 ("[A]ll four victims (represented by the same legal
+counsel) intend to coordinate efforts and avoid duplicative pleadings."), 15 (Jane Doe 3 and Jane
+Doe 4 "challenge the same secret agreement i.e., the NPA that the Government executed with
+Epstein and then concealed from the victims. This is made clear by the proposed amendment
+itself, in which all four victims simply allege the same general facts.")). As the Does argue at
+length in their Rule 15 Motion, Jane Doe I's original petition "specifically allege[s] that the
+Government was violating not only her rights but the rights of other similarly-situated victims."
+(DE 311 at 2). The Court fails to see why the addition of "other similarly-situated victims" is
+now necessary to "vindicate their rights as well." (DE 280 at I).
+Of course, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 can participate in this litigated effort to vindicate
+the rights of similarly situated victims there is no requirement that the evidentiary proof
+submitted in this case come only from the named parties. Petitioners point out as much, noting
+that, regardless of whether this Court grants the Rule 15 Motion, "they will call Jane Doe No. 3
+as a witness at any trial." (DE 311 at 17 n.7). The necessary "participation" of Jane Doe 3 and
+Jane Doe 4 in this case can be satisfied by offering their properly supported and relevant,
+admissible, and non-cumulative testimony as needed, whether through testimony at trial
+(see DE 280 at 9) or affidavits submitted to support the relevancy of discovery requests' (sce
+* The non-party Jane Does clearly understand how to submit affidavits. (See DEs 291-1,
+310-1).
+8
+GIUFFRE002851
+
+
+id. at 10). Petitioners do not contend that Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4's "participation in this
+case" can only be achieved by listing them as parties.
+As it stands under the original petition, the merits of this case will be decided based on a
+determination of whether the Government violated the rights of Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, and all
+"other similarly situated victims" under the CVRA. Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 may offer
+relevant, admissible, and non-cumulative evidence that advances that determination, but their
+participation as listed parties is not necessary in that regard. See Herring, 894 F.2d at 1024
+(District court did not abuse its discretion by denying amendment where "addition of more
+plaintiffs
+... would not have affected the issues underlying the grant of summary judgment."); cf
+Arthur v. Stern, 2008 WL 2620116, at *7 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (Under Rule 15, "courts have held
+that leave to amend to assert a claim already at issue in [another lawsuit] should not be granted if
+the same parties are involved, the same substantive claim is raised, and the same relief is
+sought.")! And, as to Jane Doe 4 at least, adding her as a party raises unnecessary questions
+about whether she is a proper party to this action.®
+Petitioners also admit that amending the petition to conform to the evidence by
+including references to the non-prosecution agreement itself is "unnecessary" as the "existing
+petition is broad enough to cover the developing evidence in this case." (DE 311). The Court
+" The Court expresses no opinion at this time whether any of the attestations made by
+Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 in support of their motion will be relevant, admissible, and noncumulative.
+Any "duplicative" litigation filed by Jane Doe 4 would necessarily raise the issue of whether she
+9
+GIUFFRE002852
+
+
+Case 90958v865§8-RA3 belumeRpsument 78553 onfiles 0334K7 0488992045 obae 10 of 10
+agrees, and it concludes that justice does not require amending the petition this late in the
+proceedings.
+III. Conclusion
+Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: the Rule 21 Motion
+(DE 280) is DENIED; the Rule 15 Motion (DE 311) is DENIED; Intervenor Dershowitz's
+Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 282) and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply in
+Support of Motion for Limited Intervention (DE 317) are DENIED AS MOOT; Petitioners'
+Motion to Seal (DE 292) is DENIED AS MOOT; the following materials are hereby
+STRICKEN from the record:
+•
+•
+DE 279, in its entirety.
+DE 280, all sentences between the following sentences:
+"The Government then concealed from Jane Doe #3 the
+existence of its NPA from Jane Doe #3, in violation of her
+rights under the CVRA" (DE 280 at 3); and "The
+Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was
+egotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in th
+tachment to the NPA" (DE 280 at 6
+•
+DE 291-1, paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, 19 through 53,
+and 59.
+•
+•
+DE 310-1, paragraphs 7 through 12, 16, 39, and 49.
+DE 293, in its entirety.
+DONE AND ORDERED in
+•at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
+Florida, this 6" day of April, 2015.
+KENNETH A. MARRA
+United States District Judge
+10
+GIUFFRE002853
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d73a7ce2f20a3e005e6cbcb4d3f54b54b15ef9b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -147,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de22e7079462c261236a84df67350215b94e98a0c31373ffa25a917f0fed9056",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4eebb1c6684f490c3731930fdede56e5b417707b0aea531541618c8ab82b2506",
+  "output_sha256": "e8482301bf5711daa0832866eb397aa6754ef5d48e1df79edd1fca6061028bf0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0c0809025f2536cad1a4443cf5594f04e60c52a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.md
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 165-1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 2
+MINISTÈRE
+DE LA JUSTICE
+Liberté
+Egalité
+Fraternité
+Direction des affaires criminelles et des grâces
+Sous-direction de la justice pénale spécialisée
+Bureau de l'entraide pénale internationale
+Paris, le 9 mars 2021
+Monsieur le garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice
+à
+Department of Justice (D.O.J)
+Par l'intermédiaire d'Andrew FINKELMAN, magistrat de liaison
+Ambassade des Etats-Unis d'Amérique à Paris
+J'ai l'honneur de porter à votre connaissance que la procédure et les conditions
+d'extradition sont régies en France par les articles 696 et suivants du code de procédure pénale.
+L'article 696-2 de ce code prévoit ainsi que « le gouvernement français peut remettre, sur leur
+demande, aux gouvernements étrangers, toute personne n'ayant pas la nationalité française qui, étant l'objet d'une
+poursuite intentée au nom de l'Etat requérant ou d'une condamnation prononcée par ses tribunaux, est trouvée sur
+le territoire de la Républigue. »
+L'article 694 4 précise expressément que :
+« L'extradition n'est pas accordée :
+1° Lorsque la personne réclamée a la nationalité française, cette dernière étant appréciée à
+l'époque de l'infraction pour laquelle l'extradition est requise».
+Ainsi, le fait que la personne recherchée ait la nationalité française constitue un obstacle
+insurmontable à son extradition. Dès lors que cette nationalité s'apprécie au moment de la
+commission de l'infraction, la perte de la nationalité, postérieurement à la commission de cette
+dernière, est sans incidence sur la procédure d'extradition, et ne permet pas de lever cet obstacle.
+Le Chef du Bureau de l'Éntraide Pénale Internationale
+Philippe JEGALE
+13, place Vendôme - 75042 Paris Cedex 01
+Téléphone : 01 44 77 60 60
+www.justice.gouv.fr
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 165-1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 2
+MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
+Liberty
+Equality
+Fraternity
+Directorate of Criminal Affairs & Pardons
+Specialized Criminal Justice Sub-Directorate
+International Criminal Assistance Bureau
+Paris, March 9, 2021
+His Honor the Keeper of Seals, Minister of Justice
+To the
+Department of Justice (D.O.J)
+Through Andrew FINKELMAN, Liaison Magistrate on behalf of the
+Embassy of the United States of America located in Paris, France
+I hereby inform you that in France, all removal proceedings and conditions are
+governed by Articles 696 et sq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
+Article 696-2 of said Code provides that: "The
+government is able to remit to
+foreign governments upon their request any individual who is not a l
+citizen and who is subject to a
+lawsuit brought on behalf of the requesting State, or who is subject to a sentence passed by the Court of said
+requesting State, and who is located on the territory of the
+Republic."
+Article 694-4 expressly specifies as follows:
+"Removal is not granted:
+1- When the individual claimed to have
+citizenship, said citizenship having been
+assessed at the time of the offense on the basis of which removal is being
+requested."
+WHEREBY, the fact that the wanted individual is a
+national constitutes an
+insuperable obstacle to his/her removal. As long as said nationality is assessed at the time the
+offense was committed, any loss of nationality subsequent to said offense has no bearing upon
+the removal proceedings and shall not supersede said assessment of nationality.
+Head of the International Criminal Assistance Bureau
+Philipe ME gE
+13, place Vendôme - 75042 Paris Cedex 01 - France
+Telephone: (011) 33.1.44.77.60.60
+www.justice.gouv.fr
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cba7a45d8e76ee1361dabd91efe0e4e11c29ee90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de26615e73646799f92936a5f23bee1ccd7f97d5c6aa2a24b93cd0f9356a3c62",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "75fa5dba0369ebccb7b30d331d5349f5e0965c05051ff1aad8a6f54ca9a58aed",
+  "output_sha256": "3ed1dc472c5a2156ea3074df9091025c65dd9beb31fbe5798b1b59523a55b78e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b62f0b8bb686bd88f84e519905758f6542e40e10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 6
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S
+FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFE
+Plaintiff hereby serves her responses and objections to Defendant's First Set of
+Discovery Requests.
+GENERAL OBJECTIONS
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests violates Local Civil Rule 33.3. Defendant
+has served interrogatories that are in direct violation of that Rule because the interrogatories are
+not "restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to
+the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and the
+existence, custodian, location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent
+insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar nature." Local
+Civil Rule 33.3(a). Instead, they seek information under subsections (b) and (c) of Local Civil
+Rule 33.3, and therefore, they should not be served because they are not "a more practical
+method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition," and
+because they were served in advance of the period "30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date."
+Local Civil Rule 33.3(b), (c). The interrogatories you served violate Local Rule 33.3 and we ask
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 6
+the nature of the Income, whether a loan, investment proceeds, legal settlement, asset sale,
+gift, or other source.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 10
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and seeks confidential financial
+information.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information covered by
+confidentiality provisions.
+objects to this information in that any payment
+information for the sexual trafficking she endured at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and
+Ghislaine Maxwell is in the possession, custody and control of the Defendant and Jeffrey
+Epstein.
+11.
+Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered
+as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell "past and future lost wages and
+past and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings - precise amounts yet to be
+computed, but not less than $5,000,000."
+Response to Interrogatory No. 11
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it prematurely seeks expert witness disclosures.
+incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures, which includes her
+computation of damages.
+12.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, that You suffered from subsequent to any
+Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 6
+b.
+the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d.
+whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e.
+the medical expenses to date;
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+g.
+for each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 12
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case.
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal
+privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+13.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal
+drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b.
+the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d.
+whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e.
+the medical expenses to date;
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 6
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 13
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case.
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency privilege, investigative privilege, spousal
+privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to
+this request in that it is not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the abuse she
+suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
+14.
+Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You
+engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,
+including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate
+sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else
+concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the
+outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 14
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim.
+objects to this request in that it seeks sexual assault information for a
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 6
+Response to Request No. 37
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the agency
+privilege, investigative privilege, spousal privilege, accountant client privilege, and any other
+applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks personal financial
+information.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad as it has no time
+limitation.
+produces herewith documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to
+GIUFFRE003190 and will continue to supplement her production.
+Dated: March 16, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLF
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+Ellen Brockman
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+575 Lexington Ave
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 446-2300
+38
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 6
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 16, 2016, I electronically served Plaintiff
+Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests on the following:
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+39
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e10977baf65a31e08a714aac556e328284dc91a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -72,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de281cfc8c57ee6cd3163e746a6de5ec99b60b3703c317a17e9fa07a9404fdaa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f359d243306bca25917cebe54be94666196d5168b3ca7f82f7e20a0b30e162a9",
+  "output_sha256": "64a9d47a8c4cbb87b132b59f0bddf7de3112a5f50f601943ebe4612f1bb34f41",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2021514ddb37d6560d5b665abaed438c3f77029
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 408-4 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1839f6082a01f6c23a4a080c0e510ede7c7252f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de2e09f3c68a841aad05d9a538cd4fc385ef243827070fb4c74b604145b6d9ac",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2501abc4a82a1e1b512f03538b6b122b38bb8f141de05f32708883c228e1d79e",
+  "output_sha256": "8dd7346f7e73b95f7d39f85d986a50fc04c0aafdf88c9dcbc932c57160cf4a52",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4d23cfabe8b8e0967ab33ee97bec6bdfb5f6601
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.md
@@ -0,0 +1,815 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 31
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-R WS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE (DE 362)
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 31
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page
+. ii
+I.
+INTRODUCTION
+II.
+FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
+•
+B.
+II.
+The Litigation Involving Dershowitz - The Florida Defamation Case.
+DERSHOWITZ RELEASES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN VIOLATION
+OF A FLORIDA COURT ORDER...
+THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS CASE
+IV. ARGUMENT
+A.
+Legal Standard
+B. These Are Not Judicial Documents and Therefore Should Not be Disclosed
+C. Even Were the Court to Deem the Documents to be Judicial Documents, the
+Presumption of Access is Weak
+No Right of Access Exists Under the First Amendment
+E.
+..1
+3
+...5
+8
+9
+10
+10
+. 11
+15
+18
+The Second Circuit Has a Presumption Against Modifying Protective Orders
+Upon Which Parties Reasonably Relied
+20
+The Record in this Case Shows That the Protective Order Was Not
+Improvidently Granted
+20
+The Parties and Deponents in This Case Have Reasonably Relied Upon
+the Protective Order..
+21
+Dershowitz Seeks These Materials For an Illegitimate Purpose Which
+Disqualifies Him from Relief.
+. 22
+4.
+Under This Court's Order, Non-Parties Cannot Challenge Confidentiality
+Designations and Dershowitz has Already Agreed to be Bound by the
+Parties' Confidentiality Designations
+V.
+CONCLUSION
+24
+. 25
+i
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 31
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page
+Cases
+Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc.,
+No. 12 Civ. 6608, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014)
+v. Cryovac, Inc.,
+805 F.2d 1 (Ist Cir. 1986).
+Bond v. Utreras,
+585 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir.2009)
+Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
+115 F.R.D. 73 (M.D. Ga. 1987).
+Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
+263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.2001) .
+Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd.,
+No. 10 Civ. 8086, 2012 WL 6217646 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012)
+Dorsett v. County of Nassau,
+289 F.R.D. 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)...
+Dorsett v. County of Nassau,
+762 F.Supp.2d 500 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)
+Edmondson v. State of Neb. ex. rel. Meyer,
+383 F.2d 123 (8th Cir. 1967).
+Flynn v. Hubbard,
+82 F.2d 1084 (1st Cir. 1986)
+Forsyth County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
+2009 WL 1312511 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2009).
+Gosmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C.,
+2012 WL 1382557 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)...
+In re September 11 Litigation,
+262 F.R.D. 274 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).
+In re Teligent, Inc.,
+640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.2011)..
+In re Zyprexa Injunction,
+474 F.Supp.2d 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)
+15,16
+13
+13
+24
+13
+15
+22,23
+17
+25
+. 25
+25
+. 14
+. 21
+21
+17,19
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 31
+Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc.,
+165 Fed.Appx. 878 (2d Cir.2005)..
+Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein,
+No. 9:08-cv-80119-cv-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2009)
+Joy v. North,
+692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1982).
+Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,
+447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ..
+Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc.,
+998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993)..
+Levin v. U.S.,
+633 Fed. Appx. 69 (2nd Cir. 2016)
+LiButti v. United States,
+107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997)..
+Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc.,
+1996 WL 346352 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1996)
+Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc.,
+156 F.Supp.3d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)...
+Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
+435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
+Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.,
+594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.1979).
+Master Card Intern. Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass'n, Inc.,
+471 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006)..
+Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore Nat., LLC,
+2009 WL 2135294 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
+Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau,
+730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013).
+Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.,
+98 S.Ct. 1306, 435 U.S. 589 (1978).
+S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com,
+273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001).
+23
+4
+17
+12
+13
+• 1,10
+• 5
+• 1,10
+17
+15
+22
+11
+.. 23
+19,20
+24
+14
+ili
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 5 of 31
+Stern v. Cosby,
+529 F.Supp.2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
+U.S. v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"),
+44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995).
+U.S. v. Amodeo ("Amodeo II"),
+71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995).
+Rules
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).
+Other Authorities
+8A Richard L. Marcus,
+Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (3d ed. Westlaw 2012)
+ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TAKING THE STAND: My LIFE IN THE LAW (2013).
+"Did Dershowitz Shell Out Big Bucks to Get Settlement in Sex Case?"
+by Vivia Chen, April 12, 2016
+Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (3d ed. Westlaw 2012)
+How Alan Dershowitz Bullied Rape Victims to Protect a Serial Child Molester,"
+by Rania Khalek, January 10, 2015
+The Talented Mr. Epstein, by Vicky |
+in Vanity Fair (Jan. 2005).
+Vanity Fair Reminds Us When Jeffrey Epstein Wasn't a Creep,
+by Ray Gustini, in The Wire (June 21, 2011)
+16
+..passim
+.. passim
+1,10
+21
+24
+..9
+21
+..5
+. 3
+..3
+iv
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 6 of 31
+I.
+INTRODUCTION
+The Court has before it a request from a non-party (Alan Dershowitz) to intervene in this
+case for the purpose of extracting and publicizing several emails and a draft manuscript from the
+Protective Order that has long been entered in this case. Dershowitz does not seek public access
+of these documents for the legitimate purpose of informing the public on this Court's
+adjudication of its Article III powers. Instead, Dershowitz make clear that his purpose is to
+advance his own agenda, and continue to wage his media war on
+as he has already
+appeared on national news calling her a "prostitute" and a "bad mother."' This is not the typical
+intervention case where a non-party seeks documents it lacks access to, or where a news
+organization seeks to inform the public on court proceedings. Here, Alan Dershowitz seeks to
+inject himself into this litigation for the wrongful purpose of conducting a public smear
+campaign of
+He has no interests beyond his own. And, he has already violated
+another court order directing him to stop wrongfully leaking confidential information to the
+media. Unsurprisingly, Dershowitz's motion fails to cite a single case in which a court granted a
+non-party, who already possessed the sealed documents in dispute, the right to freely disseminate
+those documents in the public domain for self-serving purposes.
+His motion for permissive intervention is committed to the discretion of the Court, and
+the Court should deny it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear,
+Inc., 1996 WL 346352, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 1996) (Sweet, J.) (denying leave to intervene);
+Levin v. U.S., 633 Fed. Appx. 69, 70 (2nd Cir. 2016) (affirming denial of motion to intervene,
+"[bjecause of the fact-intensive nature of an intervention decision, we review for "abuse of
+discretion' a district court's order denying intervention ... by permission.")
+'McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 7 of 31
+His attenuated reasoning hardly
+provides the kind of compelling reason needed to pierce the Protective Order. Instead,
+Dershowitz seeks these documents for the primary purpose of conducting a media blitz against
+in advance of trial - clearly to assist his joint defense partner, Defendant Maxwell,
+by poisoning the jury pool in this case.
+Dershowitz has no legal basis for his request. The documents in questions are not judicial
+documents, and thus neither a First Amendment nor common law right of access applies.
+Moreover, both the parties in this case have long reasonably relied on the existing Protective
+Order.
+If Dershowitz is permitted to cherry pick the documents
+that he finds favorable and extract them from the protective order to serve his purposes, it would
+seem only fair that
+be permitted to lift the protective order from currentlyconfidential documents and testimony in the court file which would support her position.
+This Court entered the Protective Order "upon a showing of good cause." Dershowitz is
+not a party to this litigation and provides no sound reason for modification. Accordingly, this
+Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety.
+2
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 8 of 31
+FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
+3
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 9 of 31
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 10 of 31
+Finally, in Dershowitz's vociferous attacks on
+here, the Court will see an
+eerie parallel to the Jeffiey Epstein criminal investigation. Back in 2005, when the Palm Beach
+Police Department was first investigating Epstein's sexual abuse, the Department accumulated
+overwhelming evidence placing underage girls at Epstein's residence who gave statements that
+they were being sexually abused, the accounts bearing chillingly similar details. As he did to
+, Dershowitz called those girls liars and defamed them as prostitutes," in an effort to
+convince the State Attorney that these girls could not even believably establish that they had ever
+even gone to Epstein's mansion. Later, Dershowitz would remarkably write to tell the Justice
+Department that "Epstein never targeted minors."
+B.
+The Litigation Involving Dershowitz - The Florida Defamation Case's
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 11 of 31
+Dershowitz also misleadingly describes the Florida defamation action' between himself
+and Cassell and
+Remarkably, Dershowitz fails to note that same documents he seeks
+here (to use in the next installment of his media campaign) are the exact type of documents that
+Judge
+quashed from Dershowitz's subpoena he served on
+in the Florida
+Action. In short, a judge has already ruled that Dershowitz should be denied access to these
+documents. This baseless motion is nothing more than an attempt to make an end-run around
+Judge
+Order, by coming to this Court, and asking for what he was denied by another
+court.
+Indeed, Dershowitz fails to reveal three significant facts to this Court. First, Dershowitz
+fails to reveal to this Court is that he has already been sharply rebuked by a Florida judge for his
+efforts to take confidential materials to the media. Second, Dershowitz fails to tell this Court that
+the only ongoing component to his Florida Action concerns sanctions against him for violating
+that Court's Order by his continuing to reveal confidential materials. Third, Dershowitz fails to
+tell this Court that the judge in the Florida Action already denied his request to access these
+materials.' The parties to the Florida Action have settled all claims.
+was not a party to the litigation between the attorneys in the Florida Action.
+During the course of the litigation, however, Dershowitz subpoenaed discovery from
+and Cassell v. Dershowitz, Case No. CACE 15-000072, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial circuit
+in and for Broward County, Florida (the "Florida Action"). presided over by Judge
+1 MeCawley Dec. at Exhibit 12, November 12, 2015 Order on Motion to Quash.
+6
+
+
+Filed 08/29/16 Page 12 of 31
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 13 of 31
+DERSHOWITZ RELEASES CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN VIOLATION
+OF A FLORIDA COURT ORDER
+The pending sanction motion in the Florida Court is an illustrative example of how
+Dershowitz willingly violates Court orders. On December 11, 2015, in a transparent attempt to
+play his case to the media rather than try it before the court, Dershowitz filed a false affidavit
+with the Florida court purporting to describe confidential settlement communications with
+counsel and attempting to discredit
+He filed his affidavit in the public court
+file, despite knowing
+standing objections. He then alerted the media (specifically
+the New York Times) to these statements. After
+filed an emergency motion to seal the
+affidavit, the court found in favor of
+that the communications in the affidavit were in
+fact confidential settlement negotiations that should not have been disclosed and granted
+motion. McCawley Dec., Ex. 15. During the hearing, the Florida court admonished
+Dershowitz not to reveal any other confidential settlement negations:
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, if the intent here is to continue to spew the
+onfidential settlement negotiations and have Dershowitz go to New York or othe
+ocations to say these things again, I would object to that. I think this Court needs to b
+very stern in its response that these are not appropriate to be disclosed.
+THE COURT: Well, I think he is aware of that.
+MR. SAFRA [Dershowitz's attorney]: I'm aware, and I will convey to my client... ?
+had a pending motion for sanctions against Dershowitz for his conduct in
+wrongfully revealing and flatly mischaracterizing these settlement disclosures. McCawley Dec.
+2 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 14, December 18, 2015, Emergency Motion to Seal Hr. Tr. at 25:23-26:9 (emphasis
+added).
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 14 of 31
+Sealed Ex. 16, Motion for Sanctions. Before that motion was heard, Dershowitz willfully
+violated the court's order and again disclosed the confidential settlement communications, for
+which
+again sought sanctions. McCawley Dec. Sealed Ex. 17, Supplement to Motion for
+Sanctions. However, before the sanction motions were heard, Dershowitz settled the underlying
+litigation. Dershowitz has insisted upon keeping confidential the monetary settlement that
+resolved the claims against him.3 The trial court declined to retain jurisdiction to hear
+sanctions claims after the settlement.
+attorneys have appealed the ruling
+to the Florida Court of Appeals and filed an opening brief on August 25, 2016.
+III. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS CASE
+This is a case concerning sex abuse of minors, brought by a woman who was herself a
+minor victim of sex abuse. Accordingly, this Court has recognized from the outset the paramount
+importance of a protective order in this case, announcing at one of the first hearings in the case
+that that "of course there should be a protective order in this case."4 Thereafter, on March 18,
+2016, "[u]pon a showing of good cause," the Protective Order was entered (DE 62 at p. 1). The
+following month,
+Furthermore, as this Court will remember,
+se March 17, 2016. Hearing Transcript at 4:25-S:1. McCawley Dee. at Exhibit 18.
+-
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 15 of 31
+Indeed,
+this Court temporarily placed the entire docket under seal. June 23, 2016, Order. DE 251. Under
+these rulings, both parties designated hundreds of pages of materials confidential under the
+Court's Order.
+IV.
+ARGUMENT
+A. Legal Standard
+The Court may deny Dershowitz's motion without even reaching the merits of whether
+the contested documents are judicial documents, which they absolutely are not. Fed. R. Civ. P.
+24(b)(3); Liz Claiborne, Inc. v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc., 1996 WL 346352, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
+June 26, 1996) (Sweet, J.) (denying leave to intervene); Levin v. U.S., 633 Fed. Appx. 69, 70
+(2nd Cir. 2016) (affirming district court's denial of motion to intervene, explaining "[bJecause of
+the fact-intensive nature of an intervention decision, we review for 'abuse of discretion' a district
+court's order denying intervention ... by permission."). Accordingly, this Court can deny
+Dershowitz's motion on the grounds that taking these documents to the media
+and because, having sat on the documents for months, the motion is untimely,?
+Dershowitz's motion mentions, then proceeds to ignore, the policy rationale that
+underlies both the First Amendment and common law right of access to judicial documents. Both
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 16 of 31
+legal principles exist so that courts may have accountability to the public; they do not exist to
+enable individuals on a personal vendetta to advance a public smear campaign against a victim of
+childhood sexual abuse. U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Amodeo II") ("The
+presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,
+particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the
+public to have confidence in the administration of justice."). Indeed, the motion to intervene is
+devoid of any citations to precedent that allows an individual to exploit these bedrock legal
+principles solely for his personal benefit, rather than the public at large. Furthermore, the Court
+should not overlook the fact that that Dershowitz already possesses these documents because
+they were sent to him by Maxwell's counsel who has named him as a witness, and, as
+demonstrated below, the Second Circuit does not provide a right of access to protected material
+when an individual seeks to use it solely for harm.
+B. These Are Not Judicial Documents and Therefore Should Not be Disclosed
+The Court can end its legal analysis of this motion quickly, as, contrary to Dershowitz's
+suggestion, the documents in question are not judicial documents. This fact is fatal to the motion,
+as neither the First Amendment nor the common law right of access applies in a scenario where
+the materials in question are not judicial documents. U.S. v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir.
+1995) ("Amodeo ") (noting material must be a "judicial document" to be "accessible to the
+public").
+Dershowitz only became aware of the documents he now seeks because
+produced them in discovery. It is established law in the Second Circuit that documents simply
+exchanged in the civil discovery context do not come within the purview of the First Amendment
+or the common law right of access. "Documents that play no role in the performance of Article
+IIl functions, such as those passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 17 of 31
+presumption's reach..." Amodeo I, 71 F.3d at 1050. Dershowitz suggests that because a
+subpoenaed third party filed one of the documents as an attachment to a motion to quash, and
+because Defendant filed the others as an exhibit to an opposition to extend discovery, that
+converts them into judicial documents and triggers the presumption of access. This argument is
+unavailing. The Second Circuit has held that the "mere filing of a paper or document with the
+court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access.
+We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and
+useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document." Amodeo I, 44
+F.3d at 145.
+A review of the case law reveals that every circuit to have directly addressed this point
+has found that documents filed as exhibits to non-dispositive discovery motions do not qualify as
+judicial documents. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.
+2006) ("We have, however, carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial
+records for a sealed discovery document [attached] to a non-dispositive motion, such that the
+usual presumption of the public's right of access is rebutted"') (internal citation and quotations
+omitted); Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 n. 8 (7th Cir.2009); Chi. Tribune Co. v.
+Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312-13 (11th Cir.2001) (holding that "material
+filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access, whereas discovery
+material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require judicial resolution of the merits is
+subject to the common-law right");
+v. Cryovac, /nc., 805 F.2d 1, 10 (Ist Cir. 1986)
+("Although we agree that the public has a right of access to some parts of the judicial process, we
+conclude that this right does not extend to documents submitted to a court in connection with
+discovery proceedings."); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc., 998 F.2d 157,
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 18 of 31
+164 (3d Cir. 1993) ("holding that discovery motions and supporting materials are subject to a
+presumptive right of access would make raw discovery, ordinarily inaccessible to the public,
+accessible merely because it had to be included in motions precipitated by inadequate discovery
+responses or overly aggressive discovery demands. This would be a holding based more on
+expediency than principle.")
+Therefore, five federal appellate courts have already rejected the argument that
+Dershowitz advances here. Dershowitz acknowledges that the Second Circuit has not yet reached
+this specific issue, but the holdings in Amodeo I and Amodeo II demonstrate that when the
+Second Circuit reaches this issue, it will reach exactly the same result. In Amodeo I/ the Second
+Circuit held that documents "passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the
+presumption's reach..." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050. In Amodeo I the Second Circuit noted the
+"mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial
+document subject to the right of public access." Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. Additionally, in the
+case cited by Dershowitz, S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir. 2001), the Second
+Circuit rejected an argument that would *transform every document that a court reviews into a
+"judicial document' presumptively open to the public, despite well-settled law to the contrary."
+The Second Circuit has held (1) discovery materials are not judicial documents; (2) the
+mere filing of a document with the court does not render it a judicial document; and (3) a court
+simply reviewing a piece of discovery material does not make the document a "judicial
+document." Therefore, there is no question that the Second Circuit would resolve the issue at
+hand in exactly the same way that every other circuit to address the issue has. This Court should
+follow every other circuit, and the guidance from the Second Circuit, and find that the mere
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 19 of 31
+filing of a piece of discovery material as part of a non-dispositive discovery motion does not
+convert the material into a judicial document.
+Finally, the
+cannot qualify as "judicial documents" on the separate and
+independent basis that the Court has not considered them, as the motion to which they are
+attached is still pending. Here again, Dershowitz's motion misses the point of the First
+Amendment and common law rights of access. It is not the filing of a piece of discovery that
+makes it a judicial document, it is the Court's review and consideration of that document that
+converts the document's status. Gosmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 2012 WL
+1382557, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Court did not weigh these documents [attached as exhibits] in
+its review of the parties' motions, considers them immaterial to the motions, and therefore does
+not consider them to be judicial documents."). As
+has shown, these principles exist
+for the accountability of the courts to the public, not for the personal benefit of an individual.
+In the face of this uniform precedent from the courts of appeal, Dershowitz cites only to a
+handful of district court opinions, many of which do not support the relief he seeks. For example,
+in Dershowitz's first-cited case, Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, /nc., No. 12 Civ. 6608,
+2014 WL 4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014), the Court proceeded to deny access and
+instead sealed the materials at issue. In Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10 Civ.
+8086, 2012 WL 6217646, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) the court noted the materials at issue
+were nothing more than legal argument, and it gave the parties time to show "good cause" for
+keeping the documents sealed. The Court can reject these outlier opinions out of hand, as they do
+not comport with the holdings of the First, Third, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, nor are
+they in-line with the Second Circuit's case law in Amodeo I, Amodeo Il and TheStreet.Com.
+* It may well be the case that the Court never considered
+in ruling on the motion for
+extension of time in relation to the opposition motion to which it was attached. The Order makes no mention of it.
+DE June 20, 2016, Order. If the Court did not consider those exhibits, they do not qualify as judicial documents.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 20 of 31
+There simply is no legal basis for this Court to find that the documents Dershowitz seeks
+qualify as "judicial documents." First, it is not clear that this Court has even reviewed or
+considered them, and if it has not, that fact alone is dispositive. Second, the law throughout the
+country is clear that routine, raw discovery materials submitted as exhibits to non-dispositive
+discovery motions do not convert into "judicial documents" and trigger a right of public access.
+The Court should find that these documents are not "judicial documents" and summarily deny
+Dershowitz's motion.
+C. Even Were the Court to Deem the Documents to be Judicial Documents,
+the Presumption of Access is Weak
+Even if the Court found these documents to be judicial documents - which they
+categorically are not - Dershowitz's motion still fails because the common law presumption of
+access is extremely weak and easily overcome here by countervailing factors. Lugosch v.
+Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that if a court finds
+documents to be judicial, it must then assess the weight of the presumed access and determine if
+countervailing factors override the presumption).
+Once again, Dershowitz's own cited cases are his undoing. In Alexander Interactive, the
+Court found that because the documents were submitted merely as exhibits to a motion to
+compel, "the presumption in favor of public access is weak."2014 WL 4346174 at *2. It then
+proceeded to seal the documents in question, despite acknowledging the public right of access.
+See also Stern v. Cosby, 529 F.Supp.2d 417, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("the presumption of public
+access - if any - that attaches to the transcript and videotape is low, at best. No such presumption
+attaches at all to the videotape, and even if the transcript is filed for purposes of a motion to
+compel, the presumption that would attach to the transcript would be low. On any such motion, I
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 21 of 31
+would not be making any decision on the merits, but I would simply be reviewing excerpts of the
+transcripts to resolve a discovery dispute.").
+This ruling is in-line with the Second Circuit's directive regarding how to assess the
+weight of the presumption of access. "[T]he presumption of access must be governed by the role
+of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such
+information to those monitoring the federal courts. Generally, the information will fall
+somewhere on a continuum from matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that come
+within a court's purview solely to insure their irrelevance." Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049. This is
+not a situation where the documents were relied upon as part of a dispositive summary judgment
+motion (where the presumption is highest). If the Court relied on the documents at all, which is
+not clear, it was for the limited purpose of determining entitlement to discovery. In this context,
+as the courts in Alexander Interactive, Stern and Amodeo I/ noted, the presumption is weakest.
+Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1050 ("Where testimony or documents play only a negligible role in the
+performance of Article III duties, the weight of the presumption is low and amounts to little more
+than a prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason."). Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880,
+893 (2d Cir.1982) ("Discovery involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly
+preparation for trial, not to educate or titillate the public."); In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474
+F.Supp.2d 385, 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) ("Nonparties who are prohibited from accessing
+confidential documents ... cannot claim an infringement on their freedom of speech: The right
+to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information...
+Discovery involves the use of compulsory process to facilitate orderly preparation for trial, not to
+educate or titillate the public.") (internal citations and quotations omitted); Dorsett v. County of
+Nassau, 762 F.Supp.2d 500, 519 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("Assuming for the sake of argument that the
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 22 of 31
+IAU Report did satisfy the judicial document inquiry, since the Report was passed between the
+parties in discovery, it lies entirely beyond the presumption's reach.").
+Given that the presumption of access here is weak, if it exists at all, [
+overcomes it with her countervailing evidence.
+easily
+Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc.,
+156 F.Supp.3d 425, 445 N7 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("As for competing considerations that counsel in
+favor of allowing the parties to file their briefs under seal, the privacy interests of the parties in
+preventing the public disclosure of private business figures and communications are not
+insignificant. The Court therefore concludes that the balance of interests is in favor of allowing
+the parties' briefs to be filed under seal."). This decision is particularly instructive here, as it
+involved summary judgment filings, where the access presumption is highest, as opposed to the
+discovery brief exhibits at issue here, where the presumption is lowest.
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 23 of 31
+otherwise protected material to enable a non-party to conduct a public smear campaign. Amodeo
+II, 71 F.3d at 1051 ("The nature and degree of injury must also be weighed. This will entail
+consideration not only of the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also of how the
+person seeking access intends to use the information..personal vendettas….need not be aided.")
+(Emphasis added).
+In sum, the documents Dershowitz seeks involve no presumption of access whatsoever,
+as they are not judicial documents, but were the Court to find otherwise, the applicable
+presumption of access would be the lowest that exists under Second Circuit law.
+requests that, in accord with the governing law, the Court hold that
+outweigh any weak presumption of access.
+D.
+No Right of Access Exists Under the First Amendment
+Dershowitz should not have advanced a First Amendment right of access argument
+because it is wholly without merit. First and foremost, the documents at issue must be "judicial
+documents" to trigger a First Amendment right of access, and, as stated above, the materials at
+issue here are not. Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 166 (2d Cir. 2013) ("We
+must conduct an independent review of the Report to determine (a) whether it is a judicial
+document to which the First Amendment right applies") (emphasis added).
+Should the Court find otherwise, there remains no right of access under the First
+Amendment. As the Second Circuit has said, "[e]ven when it applies, moreover, the First
+Amendment right creates only a presumptive right of access." Id. at 164 (Emphasis original). The
+right does not attach here because Dershowitz's motion fails the Second Circuit's "experience
+and logic" test for triggering a First Amendment right of access. That test "asks both whether the
+documents have historically been open to the press and general public and whether public access
+plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Id.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 24 of 31
+Dershowitz's motion fails both parts of the test. "Protective orders prohibiting dissemination of
+materials discovered before trial are not the kind of classic prior restraint that require[ ] exacting
+First Amendment scrutiny." In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F.Supp.2d at 417 (Internal quotations
+omitted).
+That argument is meritless, as it ignores the existence of the Protective
+Order in this case. Moreover, there is no "historical openness" to the press of a party's raw
+discovery materials, quite the opposite. As _
+established above, the Second Circuit has
+found that there is no public right of access to material exchanged in discovery. Amodeo II, 71
+F.3d at 1050 (documents "*passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the
+presumption's reach..."). And again, the Court should not lose sight of the policy rationale
+behind the First Amendment right of access: the accountability of the courts to the public.
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 25 of 31
+Second, public interest in a case would only
+matter if the material was sought to allow the public to monitor the Court's actions (which is
+why the courts in this district often recognize a news agency's standing to challenge protective
+orders"*), not to feed any purported interest in Dershowitz personally. Again, the First
+Amendment right protects the public's right to oversee the function of the Court; it does not exist
+Newsday, 730 F.3d at
+164 ("the need for public access to court proceedings is grounded in the need for federal courts ...
+to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration
+of justice.") (emphasis added). The Court must reject Dershowitz's misguided attempt to
+manipulate a public right for his personal benefit.
+E.
+The Second Circuit Has a Presumption Against Modifying Protective
+Orders Upon Which Parties Reasonably Relied
+The Second Circuit has expressly acknowledged that its protective order modification test
+has, as a general matter, a "strong presumption against the modification of a protective order, and
+orders should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or
+some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 59 (2d
+Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of motion to lift confidentiality provisions of the protective order). 33
+The Record in this Case Shows That the Protective Order Was Not
+Improvidently Granted
+20
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 26 of 31
+Despite Dershowitz's argument, the Protective Order, entered "[u]pon a showing of good
+cause," was not improvidently granted. (DE 62 at p.1). Indeed, even after the entry of the
+Protective Order,
+Indeed, "once a discovery
+protective order is in place, the applicable standard requires plaintiff seeking to modify the
+order to show improvidence in the grant of the protective order or some extraordinary
+circumstance or compelling need." In re September 11 Litigation, 262 F.R.D. 274 (S.D. N.Y.
+2009). Dershowitz's attempts to claim improvidence, carelessness, or shortsightedness of this
+Court in granting the Protective Order are unavailing. To the contrary, this Court has,
+The Parties and Deponents in This Case Have Reasonably Relied
+Upon the Protective Order
+The Second Circuit has been hesitant to permit modifications that might "unfairly disturb
+the legitimate expectations of the parties or deponents." Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D.
+54, 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Indeed, "[i]t is presumptively unfair for courts to modify protective
+orders which assure confidentiality and upon which the parties have reasonably relied." Id., 289
+F.R.D. at 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (denying motion to lift
+21
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 27 of 31
+confidentiality of report of policing failures surrounding the murder of a young mother).
+"Consequently, in a major decision in this field, Martindell v. International Telephone &
+Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.1979), the Second Circuit determined that 'absent a
+showing of improvidence in the grant of a Rule 26(c) protective order or some extraordinary
+circumstance or compelling need ... a witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of
+a protective order against any third parties."" Id., quoting Martindell v. International Telephone
+& Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d at 296 (denying governmental access for criminal investigative
+purposes civil deposition transcripts taken under a protective order).
+In this case,
+- and multiple other deponents - reasonably relied on this
+Court's Protective Order in giving testimony and producing documents.
+Medical Diagnostic Imaging, PLLC v. Carecore Nat.,
+LLC, 2009 WL 2135294, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (denying motion to modify protective order
+because parties and third parties have reasonably relied upon the terms of the protective order).
+Under Martindell, this Court cannot take away those protections after the fact.3®
+3.
+Dershowitz Seeks These Materials For an Illegitimate Purpose Which
+Disqualifies Him from Relief
+"A litigant's purpose in seeking modification of an existing protective order is also
+relevant for determining whether to grant a modification. Requests to modify protective orders so
+that the public may access discovery materials is arguably subject to a more stringent
+3é "The Second Circuit has explicitly rejected the notion that the Martindell standard should be limited to cases
+where the government seeks to modify a protective order. Rather, Martindell has been applied even when the third
+party seeking access to discovery is a private litigant. Dorsett v. County of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. at 66, citing Iridiun
+India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., 165 Fed.Appx. 878, 880 (2d Cir.2005).
+22
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 28 of 31
+presumption against modification because there is no public right of access to discovery
+materials." Dorsett, 289 F.R.D. at 65 (Internal citations and quotations omitted). Dershowitz's
+own words admit the true purpose behind the instant motion, and wholly contradict the flimflam
+he has presented to this Court: "My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to
+speak in court."?
+Indeed, in over 50 statements to the press, he has explained to the world (if not this
+Court) his reasons for maintaining his attacks on
+in the media, in which he has
+publicly called her a "prostitute" and a "bad mother" to her three minor children. McCawley
+Dec. at Exhibit 20, Local 10 News, January 22, 2015. For example, Dershowitz has made the
+following statements:
+• "The end result of this case should be she [Jane Doe No. 3] should go to jail, the lawyers
+should be disbarred and everybody should understand that I am completely and totally
+innocent." McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 21, CNN International, New Day, January 6, 2015.
+Dershowitz also stated, in an interview in Newsmax, that he is "considering" bringing a
+lawsuit against Jane Doe No. 3. "And we're considering suing her for defamation as well, but
+ight now she was trying to hide in Colorado and avoid service, but we found her and w
+erved her and now she'll be subiected to a deposition "3
+By his own words, Dershowitz wants to intimidate and harass
+with the specter of his
+sending her "to jail. *39
+Even Dershowitz's own cited cases militate against the Court feeding his proposed public
+relations campaign: Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 435 U.S. 589,
+598 (1978) ("It is uncontested that the right to... copy judicial records is not absolute... access
+has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes"). In
+37 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 22, Australian Broadcasting System (ABC), January 6, 2015.
+38 McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 23, Newsmax, April 8, 2015
+3ª Dershowitz has previously written: "There's an old saying: 'If you have the law on your side, bang on the law. If
+you have the facts on your side, bang on the facts. If you have neither, bang on the table.' I have never believed
+that, but I do believe in a variation on that theme: If you don't have the law or legal facts on your side, argue your
+case in the court of public opinion." ALAN DERSHOWITZ, TAKING THE STAND: MY LIFE IN THE LAW (2013).
+23
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 29 of 31
+Nixon, the Supreme Court warned that lower courts should "exercise an informed discretion as to
+the release" of materials, because, "[o]therwise, there would exhibit a danger that the court could
+become a partner in the use of the subpoenaed material to gratify private spite or promote public
+scandal, with no corresponding assurance of public benefit." Nixon v. Warner Communications,
+Inc., 98 S.Ct. at 1315, 435 U.S. at 603 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Under Nixon,
+this Court should not allow itself to be Dershowitz's partner in gratifying his private spite
+40
+4.
+Under This Court's Order, Non-Parties Cannot Challenge
+Confidentiality Designations and Dershowitz has Already Agreed to
+be Bound by the Parties' Confidentiality Designations in Exchange for
+Receipt of Documents
+The Protective Order (DE 62) does not allow non-parties, like Dershowitz, to make a
+challenge to the confidentiality designations or the efficacy of the Order. To the contrary, the
+Protective Order only states that parties can object to the confidentiality designations: "A party
+may object to the designation of particular CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION by giving written
+notice to the party designating the disputed information ... it shall be the obligation the party
+designating the information as CONFIDENTIAL to file an appropriate motion requesting that
+the Court determine whether the disputed information should be subject to the terms of this
+Protective Order." (DE 62 at 9| 11, p. 4). This Court's Protective Order does not allow for nonparties to challenge these designations. Accordingly, Dershowitz cannot challenge the
+designations under this Order.
+' Similarly, under applications to intervene under Rule 24(a), numerous courts have declined to allow a mere
+"reputational" interest to justify intervention. Calloway v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 115 F.R.D. 73, 74 (M.D. Ga.
+1987) (interest in his reputation alone ... does not constitute the required interest relating to the property or
+transaction which is the subject of the present action necessary to allow intervention"); Flynn v. Hubbard, 82 F.2d
+1084, 1093 (Ist Cir. 1986) (*the church merely claimed] a generalized injury to reputation [that] identifies no legal
+detriment arising from a default judgment against Hubbard."); Edmondson v. State of Neb. ex. rel. Meyer, 383 F.2d
+123 (8th Cir. 1967) (The mere fact that Edmondson's reputation is thereby injured is not enough [to support
+intervention]."); Forsyth County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009 WL 1312511, at *2 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2009)
+(interest in protecting its reputation ... is not direct, substantive, or derived from a legal right").
+24
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 30 of 31
+Importantly, Dershowitz admits that he has agreed to be bound by the provisions of the
+Protective Order in exchange for receiving the documents. Accordingly, he has agreed to the
+confidentiality restrictions placed on the documents, no matter what the documents contained. As
+Dershowitz explicitly admits that he agreed to be bound by the Protective Order so that he could
+be privy to all of the discovery in this case, he also agreed to be bound by its confidentiality
+provisions, as well as the provisions that only allow parties to bring challenges to the Protective
+Order.
+V.
+CONCLUSION
+Based on the foregoing, the Court should deny Dershowitz's motion in its entirety.
+August 29, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLI
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+25
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 406 Filed 08/29/16 Page 31 of 31
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 29, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing
+System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+26
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..392a62a749c3609227299898e187b8473961f326
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -533,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de351d217be144af46533ae06f76f784054920f147bbc84ed2fc67b2ad95a871",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 34,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b4b7d80eb236542ee45d60295fa0f6e8f8097bdb93489271c0c6d62ea4086636",
+  "output_sha256": "c383e58cb2069f4092b3307501b628c080faa8d5ea9a7cc38c689ee642e749e7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bfc50b33f388517a0c52c7f04d1c1a5484ecac50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.md
@@ -0,0 +1,306 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 435
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 11
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUD
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 11/11/21
+United States of America,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+-v-
+OPINION & ORDER
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+Before the Court is the Defense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness,
+Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v.
+Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed
+a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted
+a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt.
+No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part
+Defendant's motion, to be followed by this opinion.
+I.
+Legal standard
+Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule
+states:
+A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
+education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
+(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
+of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 2 of 11
+(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
+(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
+(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
+The Court exercises a "gatekeeper function" in assessing the admissibility of expert
+testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an
+expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme
+Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been
+subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and
+whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d
+259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94).
+But Rule 702 ultimately sets a "liberal" and "permissive" standard of admissibility.
+Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert
+admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with "the exactness of hard
+science methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL
+3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v.
+470 F.3d
+1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)).
+Il. Discussion
+As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the additional materials filed by the
+Government in support of Dr. Rocchio's expertise should be excluded as failing to comply with
+the Court's order that the Government make all expert witness disclosures by April 23, 2021.
+Dkt. No. 250. But that Order, made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G),
+required only that the Government provide an adequate summary of the intended topics and
+opinions of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, which the Government did here in a timely manner. See
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 3 of 11
+Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 262. The Defense cites only one case, United States v. L
+which
+involved the distinct situation where a district court excluded expert testimony because the notice
+itself was untimely. 818 F. App'x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court concludes that the
+Government's supplemental materials in further response to the Defense's motion are timely and
+may be considered in resolving the Daubert motion.
+Turning to the proffered expert opinions, as articulated in the Government's disclosure
+and at the Daubert hearing, Dr. Rocchio would offer five expert opinions. First, that perpetrators
+of sexual abuse of minors frequently use manipulation or coercion short of physical force as part
+of a strategic pattern, often referred to as grooming, to make the minor vulnerable to abuse.
+Second, that manipulation and grooming can prevent the minor from understanding their
+experience as abuse and so prevent disclosure. Third, that abuse can cause long-term traumatic
+and psychological consequences. Fourth, that the presence of another individual can facilitate
+sexual abuse of minors. And fifth, that nondisclosure, incremental disclosure, and secrecy are
+common among victims of sexual abuse and that memory can be affected by a variety of factors,
+including the effects of trauma.
+The Defense does not contest that Dr. Rocchio has the qualifications to express opinions
+on these subjects. Dr. Rocchio has a PhD in clinical psychology and is a clinical instructor at the
+Alpert Medical School of |
+University. She has more than two decades of experience
+treating hundreds of victims of trauma, many of which were minor victims of sexual abuse. She
+has published peer-reviewed articles on trauma and sexual abuse and has given numerous talks in
+addition to her teaching. Given these papers, and her credible and extensive hearing testimony,
+the Court therefore finds Dr. Rocchio qualified as an expert.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 11
+The Defense instead argues that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable, that it is not relevant
+to the jury's determination, and that its prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh its
+probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this
+circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful
+consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court
+concludes that Dr. Rocchio's anticipated testimony is admissible with one exception. The Court
+will address first why Dr. Rocchio's testimony is admissible and then address the one opinion
+that it will exclude.
+First, Dr. Rocchio's method is reliable and well-accepted in her profession. It is for this
+reason that several courts in this circuit have admitted the testimony of similar experts, such as
+testimony on so-called trauma bonding to explain why prostitutes may not flee from their pimps
+even when not physically restrained. In United States v. Kidd, the court admitted the testimony,
+finding it to be "quite common[ I" and accepted in the academic literature. 385 F. Supp. 3d at
+263. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18-
+Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v.
+Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United
+States v.
+,. No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021).
+Their decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to consider the admission
+of such experts. A number of courts have admitted experts on the particular topic of grooming at
+issue here, a sample of which include the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d
+576, 585 (7th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir.
+2006), the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021), the
+Tenth Circuit in United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2010), the Eighth
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 5 of 11
+Circuit in United States v.
+860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017), and the District of
+Massachusetts in Doe ex rel. Pike v. Pike, 405 F. Supp. 3d 243, 249 (D. Mass. 2019).
+Here, Dr. Rocchio has extensive experience treating minors who have been sexually
+abused, and those decades of relevant experience, combined with her formal training, are an
+adequate basis for her to testify on methods that perpetrators of sexual abuse often use to build
+trust with their victims, whether that be grooming or other forms of manipulation and coercion.
+The Government has also provided several articles on the subject of grooming that convince the
+Court that it is a well-accepted theory in Dr. Rocchio's field. Though the Second Circuit has not
+ruled on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic
+literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abuse of minors. See United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d
+179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006). The Defense cites to several contrary articles that suggest experts
+disagree on the kinds of behaviors that define grooming. But if experts disagree on the proper
+interpretation of evidence, "it is not the Court's role to resolve the dispute through exclusion of
+one of the expert's opinions." In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 80 (S.D.N.Y.
+2017).
+Moreover, Dr. Rocchio addressed these contrary articles during the Daubert hearing,
+identifying points of agreement and disagreement. Based on her testimony, the parties'
+submission and accompanying exhibits, the Court concludes that the core concept of grooming is
+well-accepted in the relevant literature, even if experts continue to debate the details.
+The Defense's primary argument is that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable because it is
+based on her personal experience with the clients she has treated, that Dr. Rocchio did not verify
+whether those clients were truthful, and that Dr. Rocchio has not and cannot identify an error
+rate. The Court finds that these objections are misplaced in the field of clinical psychology,
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 6 of 11
+particularly when studying the causes and effects of sexual abuse of minors. The Court agrees
+with Judge Engelmayer's response to this argument:
+The absence of large quantity statistical studies is explained by a practical reason
+that should be obvious to all. Studying the circumstances and psychological
+drivers of trafficked women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in
+laboratory animals. In those studies, laboratory conditions literally can be
+achieved. ...
+That strictly quantitative mode of inquiry is not realistic or even ethical in the
+context of studying sex trafficking. The causes and contributors to sex trafficking
+by their nature must be studied retrospectively. They cannot ethically be studied
+otherwise. Subjects cannot be tested to see under what circumstances they would
+and would not, on a going forward basis, tall prey to the predations of sex
+traffickers. Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a study, given the
+small size of the populations under review, and given the inherently
+individualized circumstances presented by different perpetrators, victims, and
+contexts in this tumultuous and emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the
+vocabulary of error rates and statistical significance is an unusually poor fit.
+Tr. at 29-30, United States v. Randall, 19-Cr.-131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335.
+For the reasons Judge Engelmayer gave—which Dr. Rocchio echoed in her testimony—
+the Court finds that the error-rate factor listed by Daubert is not determinative as to the reliability
+of Dr. Rocchio's method.
+For similar reasons, the Court rejects the Defense's argument that Dr. Rocchio's method
+is unreliable because she relied on the reports of her clients. Given the realities of studying
+sensitive criminal acts like sexual abuse, a researcher can only rarely verify reports with absolute
+certainty. Yet that does not mean a clinical or forensic psychologist accepts all statements at
+face value. Rather, as the Government notes, part of Dr. Rocchio's profession is to examine and
+diagnose her patients consistent with her significant training and specialized knowledge.
+Further, on the forensic side of her practice, Dr. Rocchio regularly investigates and verifies
+sexual abuse. She reports "remarkable consistency" between the reports of her clinical patients
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 7 of 11
+and her forensic findings. Nov. 10 Tr. at 40. That said, the Defense is of course free to crossexamine Dr. Rocchio about how she evaluates her patients.
+The Defense also suggests that Dr. Rocchio's experience is based on an unrepresentative
+sample of alleged victims because her patients self-selected seeking treatment with her. Yet the
+Defense does not explain why Dr. Rocchio's experience with a large number of patients would
+not be applicable to the alleged victims in this case. To the extent the Defense wishes to argue
+that Dr. Rocchio's experience is under-representative, that is a topic for cross-examination.
+Further, the Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's experience treating victims of sexual
+abuse does not make her an expert on grooming, which would require experience with
+perpetrators themselves. This argument overlooks the fact that, as she testified, Dr. Rocchio also
+relied on literature that includes studies of sexual abusers' reported behaviors. But more
+importantly, the Court concludes, as other courts like the Ninth Circuit have, that extensive
+experience with victims can be used to study perpetrators' process of victimization. See
+Halamek, 5 F.4th at 1088. That is especially so here where the crux of Dr. Rocchio's expected
+testimony is the effect that grooming behaviors have on the minor, not the perpetrator's mental
+state when performing the behaviors.
+Second, the Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are relevant to the Government's
+case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as the Second Circuit
+has explained, expert testimony cannot "constitute evaluations of witness credibility"- that is,
+expert testimony is inadmissible if it "comments] directly, under the guise of expert opinion, on
+the credibility of trial testimony from" specific fact witnesses. Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398.
+Additionally, if the expert's "opinion is one that the jury could reach with their own 'common
+knowledge and common sense,' no expert testimony is warranted." Edmondson v. RCI Hosp.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 8 of 11
+Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV-2242 (VEC), 2020 WL 1503452, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020)
+(quoting 4 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273
+F.3d 91, 101 (2d Cir. 2001) (explaining that "the district court should not admit testimony that is
+"directed solely to lay matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the
+expert's help"" (quoting United States v. Castillo, 924 F.2d 1227, 1232 (2d Cir. 1991))). Dr.
+Rocchio's first and second opinions may assist the jury in understanding how a minor may be
+enticed, induced, or coerced into illegal sexual activity without physical force. These opinions
+may also assist a jury in assessing evidence that some alleged victims repeatedly interacted with
+Jeffrey Epstein, seemingly voluntarily, even after they suffered abuse. Dr. Rocchio's fourth
+opinion is similarly relevant to the charges that require proving intentional enticement or
+inducement.
+Dr. Rocchio's third and fifth opinions pertain to issues that will arise in the case based on
+anticipated cross-examination by the Defense. Specifically, the third opinion becomes relevant if
+the Defense impeaches an alleged victim based on their substance abuse. And the fifth opinion
+may become relevant if the Defense impeaches an alleged victim based on an ostensible delay in
+fully disclosing sexual abuse. At the Daubert hearing, the Defense stated that they intended to
+pursue both lines of impeachment at trial. Nov. 10 Tr. at 156-57. The Court therefore finds
+these elements of Dr. Rocchio's testimony relevant to matters the Defense intends to put in issue
+during anticipated cross-examination. The Court also concludes that these opinions satisfy the
+other relevant Daubert requirements. Namely, they would assist the jury in understanding
+concepts that require expert knowledge without directing the jury to reach any conclusion as to a
+witness's credibility. Additionally, both Dr. Rocchio's opinion about sexual abuse's connection
+to substance abuse and her opinion about delayed disclosure are "are outside the ken of the
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 9 of 11
+average person," and so appropriate for expert testimony. United States v. Felder, 993 F.3d 57,
+72 (2d Cir. 2021). Nor would admission of these opinions cause unfair Rule 403 prejudice since
+they are relevant rebuttal to impeachment points that the Defense will put in issue.
+The Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's testimony is not relevant because the Government
+represents that she will testify only to general principles and not offer "testimony regarding any
+specific victim." Dkt. No. 386 at 3. The Defense has the law backwards on this point. As
+explained above regarding the Second Circuit's Nimely decision, an expert may not testify as to a
+specific witness's credibility. 414 F.3d at 398. And as other courts have explained in admitting
+similar testimony, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is appropriate because she does not testify as to any
+specific witness's credibility. See, e.g..
+, No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at
+*7;
+, 860 F.3d at 1140 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that an expert may testify "regarding
+the general characteristies that sexually abused children exhibit" but may not usurp the jury's
+role of assessing the credibility of any specific victim); United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086,
+1097-98 (9th Cir. 2021) (same).
+This analysis is referred to in the case relied upon by the Defense, United States v.
+Raymond, and in portions of the Defense's briefing, as a question of "fit." 700 F. Supp. 2d at
+149. But Daubert's "fit" requirement is really just a specialized relevance inquiry that asks
+"whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it
+will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute." Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV-
+09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at
+591). Fit is satisfied if the expert's opinion would assist the jury's decision on a relevant
+question of fact without "usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to
+the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it." Id. (quoting
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 10 of 11
+United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). For the reasons already provided, the
+Court finds that fit is satisfied here.
+Third, the probative value of Dr. Rocchio's testimony is not substantially outweighed by
+403 prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. The Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's testimony would not unduly
+""'simplify' an otherwise complex case" or mislead jurors by a supposedly infallible expert. Dkt.
+No. 386 at 11. Dr. Rocchio's opinions speak only to concepts and will not (and indeed may not)
+suggest that the jury find any alleged victim witness to be credible or to find Ms. Maxwell guilty.
+The more general nature of Dr. Rocchio's opinions, which the Court heard in detail at the
+Daubert hearing, therefore mitigates its prejudicial effect. Telles, 6 F.4th at 1097. It is the jury's
+role to determine whether and how Dr. Rocchio's opinions apply to the facts of this case and the
+credibility of the witnesses.
+Last, as previously mentioned, the Court will grant in part the Defense's Daubert motion.
+The Defense argues that Dr. Rocchio's opinion that grooming can be done to facilitate sexual
+abuse by a third party or that the presence of a third party can otherwise facilitate grooming is
+unreliable. The Defense calls this "grooming-by-proxy." E.g., Dkt. No. 386 at 9. Terminology
+aside, the Court agrees with this narrower objection to Dr. Rocchio's testimony. As discussed at
+the hearing, this phenomenon is not identified in the relevant literature regarding child sexual
+abuse and has not been subjected to peer review. Instead, the Court understands this opinion to
+be an extrapolation of the broader principle of how grooming functions through the development
+of trust. That extrapolation may be logical and follow common sense, but it is for the jury to
+make on the facts of this case. The Court therefore excludes Dr. Rocchio's opinion that the
+presence of a third party can facilitate grooming. Dr. Rocchio's core opinions about grooming,
+however, remain admissible under the Rule 702 and Daubert standard and remain relevant
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 11 of 11
+pursuant to Rule 401 and not unduly prejudicial. As discussed, the jury may extrapolate from the
+opinions that the presence of a third party creates the atmosphere of trust that can facilitate
+grooming. Moreover, as the Government explains, Dr. Rocchio's testimony is still relevant
+because the Government alleges both that Ms. Maxwell "in fact participated in sexual abuse of
+minors" and that she "conspired with a predator who groomed and sexually abused minors."
+Dkt. No. 397 at 27.
+The Court therefore denies the Defense's motion to exclude Dr. Rocchio's testimony
+except as to the opinion that the presence of a third party can facilitate grooming.
+This resolves docket number 386.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 11, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alie So Matter
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1]
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22a5020870be1b49b01e69569c2bf93150052f07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -134,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de4bcb35939f85ee2d49cf02ef97d4dd73725eaf1cc14ca8871b1c4621c92d42",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 12,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "80171be658c735c5a93470aef0c090e1350a76d3d8d7b5cc011c6af22124216a",
+  "output_sha256": "8c4bdad013f4f5b8688950cfdb6491b628286f29ed8f2f8213f8a510ef63622c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22b07b9770a69b5dc0f4e1aba685f2d32a86c33e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 822
+Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+------
+Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion for Bifurcated Trial
+Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of
+Any Reference to Financial Information in the Liability Phase
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON, |
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+1, AND
+I, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 822 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 4
+REDACTED
+PAGES 1-8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP |
+Document 822
+Filed 03/30/17
+
+Conclusion
+Dated: March 30, 2017.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+150 East 10* Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 822 Filed 03/30/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 30, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Reply in Support of
+Motion for Bifurcated Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of Any Reference to
+Financial Information in the Liability Phase via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+_ JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b63d6af02018c6be014e65779488eb23322b468c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -59,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de4e3983f0d15bdbb5482ca0e4b722ffd713797129fa78b3baa5a8a48118c3e0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "99c46198f1f8ff0f70cdd963ee0c42986000dbcfabd42bb5d7416933ea17027c",
+  "output_sha256": "4a2931b40bc36da3ae1be72f0ee53dd67bc49c6cbf55da109db70364833c35c9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d512d04c712ea1d048ef751c6a29796b91530582
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 782-1 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac5495ec653ee55726e27f18f0ee9d500ccdeec3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de734daada086c49bd55b8299f40e46ba3e78c89eeedffa7d51d090a584e0a36",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0b71efaac37784954e189654759ce07a60c84b870ec32a842b0ca8aa2324f47d",
+  "output_sha256": "120a83150df78b46c69ec1b760c46477952fb55d6606c6be93e3245c798dfbb8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbdf7b2a572948a23eae9350b0fd1fe2f807da26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 184 |
+Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 1
+BSF
+BOIES
+| SCHILLER
+FLEXNER
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Telephone: (954) 377-4223
+Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+March 26, 2021
+VIA ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+I write on behalf of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") and the victims it represents. On
+March 24, 2021
+Me Dezendant proposed rile 3S su pens to B on the peter dain bictions ta
+in ate lines of che don t else ailrom piece o
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e1b1279446026b67d8c37b160c333af1af243548
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de79ea56d1f03e4b7a116d8219be1107d3872e0e1532a24d94fc4fd99e97a4b0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3c1cde1c8f522890e47186f8e5e44e70ca9c72e294ba77d865aba1b02a77c347",
+  "output_sha256": "8863f01d4c24d30a7d352f6cde6375e1edaa4c89b3c56f581845f3812d86acc6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ee7001bb99ab1ef2072df3b1ed1f12920786a07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 340-9 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70e1cb446355f086d544773653972575e095c104
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de8101b66612ea34313365c38a1b44df6277e343527b4f246a2d13d4fc2b47ef",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "82865d9d2c1879119f226aad5abf2c0ee1e913c16a3044cefbfe92c3f375d7b1",
+  "output_sha256": "e8b5360f80c8dbe6a5fb6eb7a0a49c33c8981eaafce6f341e2bfc16fe797b550",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc04d5bdf468a13fed4927f8e34c52a47dd4a6a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.md
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 751-9 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 751-9 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 3
+Buckingham Palace issues second denial of underage sex
+claims against Prince Andrew
+www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/04/buckingham-palace-issues-second-denial-underage-sex-claims-againstprince.html
+June 6, 2012: In this file photo, Britain's Prince Andrew leaves
+father Prince Philip. (AP)
+Edward VIl hospital in London after visiting his
+Buckingham Palace officials have again denied claims made by a woman who alleged that she was forced to have
+sex while underage with Prince Andrew,
+of York.
+The second denial comes after two Sunday papers in Britain published interviews with the woman in which she
+claimed that she was forced by American financier Jeffrey Epstein to have sex with Prince Andrew at least three
+times between 1999 and 2002. The woman alleges that the encounters took place in London, New York, and on a
+Caribbean island owned by Epstein.
+A Palace spokesman has said that the allegations are "false and without any foundation."
+"It is emphatically denied that the
+of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with (the woman)," the
+statement continued. The denials are unusual because
+officials typically do not comment on allegations
+against members of the
+family.
+The woman's claims are part of a lawsuit in a Florida court relating to how prosecutors handled a sexual abuse case
+against American financier Jeffrey Epstein. The woman, identified in court papers only as "Jane Doe No. 3," is one
+of two new accusers asking a West Palm Beach, Florida, judge to allow them to join the existing lawsuit against
+Epstein. The
+is not named as a defendant in the case, and no criminal charges or formal allegations have
+been made against him.
+1/2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 751-9 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 3
+The women have objected to how U.S. prosecutors handled Epstein's case, and want authorities to reconsider a
+plea deal that allowed Epstein to avoid much more serious federal charges and potentially longer prison time.
+Epstein served 13 months of an 18-month sentence after pleading guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution
+before being released in 2009.
+It was not the first time Prince Andrew has faced media scrutiny over his friendship with Epstein. In July 2011 the
+stepped down from his role as a U.K. trade ambassador after he was photographed with Epstein in New York.
+Prince Andrew is the second son and third child of Queen Elizabeth Il and Prince Philip,
+of Edinburgh. He is
+fifth in line to the British throne behind his older brother Prince Charles, nephew Prince William, grandnephew
+Prince
+and nephew Prince Harry.
+The Sunday Mirror reported that Prince Andrew was on a skiing holiday in Switzerland, where he had been staying
+with his ex-wife Sarah
+and their daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.
+In a further bizarre twist to the story, prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz, who is also named in the court
+documents, told the BBC that he is planning legal action against the woman.
+"If she believes she has been hurt by me and Prince Andrew, she should be suing us for damages," the former
+Harvard Law professor said. "I welcome that lawsuit. I welcome any opportunity that would put her under oath and
+require her to state under oath these false allegations."
+The Associated Press contributed to this report.
+2/2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b206b7d43e3098ab2bd97f8cbbee63256a596c3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de8e7c81a7472453f298d5604a2506919ab5ca41a2eb623f2d6cfc432c835c00",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "58b17f1fae48c8be0c1e86abac921d7237eac48888f884acf1a8a8ba37a21f66",
+  "output_sha256": "6a4e1171e8131370dd2e5abfe85a38a7c65d8addd0bb7f29f8f9069b0cd2dce7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6389c3db0fc9c54cd4809cfbe35c191be6ea81b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 148-3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5cbf429d45de3d3558a420286073e2474591ab80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "de9476e00c6ac1204edbe8b459fda7c68c8ee75b5cecff28dd984d7811e4c4bf",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f4672b7ac070531e43838a19f67f342c2f00fb2274a119bff488ea6cf894e755",
+  "output_sha256": "610db1fe631f8c288f8b8afe33c2c046743bc945082bd8a85b65c29ebcee261b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa3ec70a33138dafd6d805041384a5d5db7d4fac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 185-14 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dca54aeb99db4704f348b0f675eb61957fe26fa1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "deabadf6ddb3d837e2a732b5cbca8037727deae901ca30dc8d12febc7139ffa2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b35204d2c72b1587d47e52891b79311c37a841a23450a3fd80787f017a1fd5f2",
+  "output_sha256": "b9522550c33737e2b9ee71a18cfa9b341bcf063e530e070e1dd790c804a65ecc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c369e1bf4e37378e8f9b3622da8068147c5f51b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 50 Filed 08/26/19 Page 1o/‡
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+DATE FORD: 8/26/19
+Government,
+- against -
+19 CR. 490 (RMB)
+ORDER
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+The hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. will be held in
+Courtroom 110 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse located at 40 Foley Square.
+Dated: New York, New York
+August 26, 2019
+Richard 1. Berman
+RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8093f18a500207a761dc178abaf3c65a367807c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "deacaef93bbe9f3ac02c879e5cb65cc6720066b3053bfd6b1ad2d9bd2a956ae9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "61ad906cb86e18f76cd20555fd713e5a45be4b0cfa2f6d3ea94548f0cedb9122",
+  "output_sha256": "de7761802168b7084ce45e1b044b504685159973a4c3fbe5a547aaee874906cb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd9a73c6c9f96a76fb9b0f1cf880a97e3702cfa3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15078 @@
+
+
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 2 of 349
+DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
+OFFICE OF
+PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
+REPORT
+Investigation into the
+U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida's
+Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of
+Jeffrey Epstein and Its Interactions with Victims during the Investigation
+November 2020
+NOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS SENSITIVE, PRIVILEGED, AND PRIVACY
+ACT PROTECTED INFORMATION. DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THE REPORT OR
+ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE OFFICE OF
+PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 3 of 349
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 4 of 349
+EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
+The Department of Justice (Department) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
+investigated allegations that in 2007-2008, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
+Southern District of Florida (USAO) improperly resolved a federal investigation into the criminal
+conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by negotiating and executing a federal non-prosecution agreement
+(NPA). The NPA was intended to end a federal investigation into allegations that Epstein engaged
+in illegal sexual activity with girls.' OPR also investigated whether USAO prosecutors committed
+professional misconduct by failing to consult with victims of Epstein's crimes before the NPA was
+signed or by misleading victims regarding the status of the federal investigation after the signing.
+OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+The Palm Beach (Florida) Police Department (PBPD) began investigating Jeffrey Epstein
+in 2005, after the parents of a 14-year-old girl complained that Epstein had paid her for a massage.
+Epstein was a multi-millionaire financier with residences in Palm Beach, New York City, and
+other United States and foreign locations. The investigation led to the discovery that Epstein used
+personal assistants to recruit girls to provide massages to him, and in many instances, those
+massages led to sexual activity. After the PBPD brought the case to the State Attorney's Office, a
+Palm Beach County grand jury indicted Epstein, on July 19, 2006, for felony solicitation of
+prostitution in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07. However, because the PBPD Chief and the
+lead Detective were dissatisfied with the State Attorney's handling of the case and believed that
+the state grand jury's charge did not address the totality of Epstein's conduct, they referred the
+matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in West Palm Beach for a possible federal
+investigation.
+The FBI brought the matter to an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA), who opened a file with
+her supervisor's approval and with the knowledge of then U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta.
+She worked with two FBI case agents to develop a federal case against Epstein and, in the course
+of the investigation, they discovered additional victims. In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her
+supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a
+lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and
+addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges.
+For several weeks following submission of the prosecution memorandum and proposed
+indictment, the AUSA's supervisors reviewed the case to determine how to proceed. At a
+July 31, 2007 meeting with Epstein's attorneys, the USAO offered to end its investigation if
+Epstein pled guilty to state charges, agreed to serve a minimum of two years' incarceration,
+registered as a sexual offender, and agreed to a mechanism through which victims could obtain
+monetary damages. The USAO subsequently engaged in additional meetings and communications
+with Epstein's team of attorneys, ultimately negotiating the terms of a state-based resolution of the
+federal investigation, which culminated in the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007. The
+As used in this Report, including in quoted documents and statements, the word "girls" refers to females who
+were under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged conduct. Under Florida law, a minor is a person under the age
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 5 of 349
+NPA required Epstein to plead guilty in state court to the then-pending state indictment against
+him and to an additional criminal information charging him with a state offense that would require
+him to register as a sexual offender—specifically, procurement of minors to engage in prostitution,
+in violation of Florida Statute § 796.03. The NPA required Epstein to make a binding
+recommendation that the state court sentence him to serve 18 months in the county jail followed
+by 12 months of community control (home detention or "house arrest"). The NPA also included
+provisions designed to facilitate the victims' recovery of monetary damages from Epstein. In
+exchange, the USAO agreed to end its investigation of Epstein and to forgo federal prosecution in
+the Southern District of Florida of him, four named co-conspirators, and "any potential
+co-conspirators." Victims were not informed of, or consulted about, a potential state resolution or
+the NPA prior to its signing.
+The signing of the NPA did not immediately lead to Epstein's guilty plea and incarceration,
+however. For the next nine months, Epstein deployed his extensive team of prominent attorneys
+to try to change the terms that his team had negotiated and he had approved, while simultaneously
+seeking to invalidate the entire NPA by persuading senior Department officials that there was no
+federal interest at issue and the matter should be left to the discretion of state law enforcement
+officials. Through repeated communications with the USAO and senior Department officials,
+defense counsel fought the government's interpretation of the NPA's terms. They also sought and
+obtained review by the Department's Criminal Division and then the Office of the Deputy Attorney
+General, primarily on the issue of federal jurisdiction over what the defense insisted was "a
+quintessentially state matter."
+After reviewing submissions by the defense and the USAO, on
+June 23, 2008, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General informed defense counsel that the
+Deputy Attorney General would not intervene in the matter. Only then did Epstein agree to fulfill
+his obligation under the NPA, and on June 30, 2008, he appeared in state court and pled guilty to
+the pending state indictment charging felony solicitation of prostitution and, pursuant to the NPA,
+to a criminal information charging him with procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.
+Upon the joint request of the defendant and the state prosecutor, and consistent with the NPA, the
+court immediately sentenced Epstein to consecutive terms of 12 months" incarceration on the
+solicitation charge and 6 months' incarceration on the procurement charge, followed by 12 months
+of community control. Epstein began serving the sentence that day, in a minimum-security Palm
+Beach County facility. A copy of the NPA was filed under seal with the state court.
+On July 7, 2008, a victim, identified as "Jane Doe," filed in federal court in the Southern
+District of Florida an emergency petition alleging that the government violated the Crime Victims'
+Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, when it resolved the federal investigation of Epstein
+without consulting with victims, and seeking enforcement of her CVRA rights.? In responding to
+the petition, the government, represented by the USAO, revealed the existence of the NPA, but did
+not produce it to the petitioners until the court directed it to be turned over subject to a protective
+order; the NPA itself remained under seal in the federal district court. After the initial filings and
+hearings, the CVRA case was dormant for almost two years while the petitioners pursued civil
+cases against Epstein.
+Emergency Victim's Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim's [sic] Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771,
+Doe v. United States, Case No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2008). Another victim subsequently joined
+the litigation as "Jane Doe 2.*
+il
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 6 of 349
+Soon after he was incarcerated, Epstein applied for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's work
+release program, and the Sheriff approved his application. In October 2008, Epstein began
+spending 12 hours a day purportedly working at the "Florida Science Foundation," an entity
+Epstein had recently incorporated that was co-located at the West Palm Beach office of one of
+Epstein's attorneys. Although the NPA specified a term of incarceration of 18 months, Epstein
+received "gain time," that is, time off for good behavior, and he actually served less than 13 months
+of incarceration. On July 22, 2009, Epstein was released from custody to a one-year term of home
+detention as a condition of community control, and he registered as a sexual offender with the
+Florida Department of Law Enforcement. After victims and news media filed suit in Florida courts
+for release of the copy of the NPA that had been filed under seal in the state court file, a state judge
+in September 2009 ordered it to be made public.
+By mid-2010, Epstein reportedly settled multiple civil lawsuits brought against him by
+victims seeking monetary damages, including the two petitioners in the CVRA litigation. During
+the CVRA litigation, the petitioners sought discovery from the USAO, which made substantial
+document productions, filed lengthy privilege logs in support of its withholding of documents, and
+submitted declarations from the AUSA and the FBI case agents who conducted the federal
+investigation. The USAO opposed efforts to unseal various records, as did Epstein, who was
+permitted to intervene in the litigation with respect to certain issues. Nevertheless, the court
+ultimately ordered that substantial records relating to the USAO's resolution of the Epstein case
+be made public. During the course of the litigation, the court made numerous rulings interpreting
+the CVRA. After failed efforts to settle the case, the parties' cross motions for summary judgment
+remained pending for more than a year.
+In 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. At his
+March 2017 confirmation hearing, Acosta was questioned only briefly about the Epstein case. On
+April 17, 2017, the Senate confirmed Acosta's appointment as Labor Secretary.
+In the decade following his release from incarceration, Epstein reportedly continued to
+settle multiple civil suits brought by many, but not all, of his victims. Epstein was otherwise able
+to resume his lavish lifestyle, largely avoiding the interest of the press. On November 28, 2018,
+however, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about state and federal
+criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that Epstein had coerced
+girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach estate.? The Miami Herald
+reported that in 2007, Acosta entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein in the form of the
+NPA, which permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison
+sentence by pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges." According to the Miami
+Herald, the government also immunized from prosecution Epstein's co-conspirators and
+concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA. Through its reporting, which included
+interviews of eight victims and information from publicly available documents, the newspaper
+painted a portrait of federal and state prosecutors who had ignored serious criminal conduct by a
+wealthy man with powerful and politically connected friends by granting him a "deal of a lifetime"
+that allowed him both to escape significant punishment for his past conduct and to continue his
+Julie K.
+"Perversion of Justice," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. https://www.miamiherald.com/
+news/local/article220097825 html.
+ili
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 7 of 349
+abuse of minors. The Miami Herald report led to public outrage and media scrutiny of the
+government's actions. 4
+On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the CVRA case petitioners' Motion for
+Partial Summary Judgment, ruling that the government violated the CVRA in failing to advise the
+victims about its intention to enter into the NPA. The court also found that letters the government
+sent to victims after the NPA was signed, describing the investigation as ongoing, "mislead [sic]
+the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility." The court also highlighted
+the inequity of the USAO's failure to communicate with the victims while at the same time
+engaging in "lengthy negotiations" with Epstein's counsel and assuring the defense that the NPA
+would not be "made public or filed with the court." The court ordered the parties to submit
+additional briefs regarding the appropriate remedies. After the court's order, the Department
+recused the USAO from the CVRA litigation and assigned the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
+Northern District of Georgia to handle the case for the government. Among the remedies sought
+by the petitioners, and opposed by the government, was rescission of the NPA and federal
+prosecution of Epstein.
+On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York obtained
+a federal grand jury indictment charging Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of minors and
+one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. The indictment alleged that from
+2002 until 2005, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims in both New York and Florida
+whom he sexually abused and exploited. Epstein was arrested on the charges on July 6, 2019. In
+arguing for Epstein's pretrial detention, prosecutors asserted that agents searching Epstein's
+Manhattan residence found thousands of photos of nude and half-nude females, including at least
+one believed to be a minor. The court ordered Epstein detained pending trial, and he was remanded
+to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in
+Manhattan.
+Meanwhile, after publication of the November 2018 Miami Herald report, the media and
+Congress increasingly focused attention on Acosta as the government official responsible for the
+NPA. On July 10, 2019, Acosta held a televised press conference to defend his and the USAO's
+actions. Acosta stated that the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office "was ready to allow Epstein to
+walk free with no jail time, nothing." According to Acosta, because USAO prosecutors considered
+this outcome unacceptable, his office pursued a difficult and challenging case and obtained a
+resolution that put Epstein in jail, forced him to register as a sexual offender, and provided victims
+with the means to obtain monetary damages. Acosta's press conference did not end the
+controversy, however, and on July 12, 2019, Acosta submitted to the President his resignation as
+See, e.g., Ashley Collman, "Stunning new report details Trump's labor secretary's role in plea deal for
+billionaire sex abuser," The Business Insider, Nov. 29, 2018; Cynthia McFadden, "New Focus on Trump Labor
+Secretary's role in unusual plea deal for billionaire accused of sexual abuse," NBC Nightly News, Nov. 29, 2018; Anita
+Kumar, "Trump labor secretary out of running for attorney general after Miami Herald report," McClatchy Washington
+Bureau, Nov. 29, 2018; Emily Peck, "How Trump's Labor Secretary Covered For A Millionaire Sex Abuser,"
+Huffington Post, Nov. 29, 2018; Julie K. L
+•. et al., "Lawmakers issue call for investigation of serial sex abuser
+Jeffrey Epstein's plea deal," Miami Herald, Dec. 6, 2018.
+5
+Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 21, 2019) (Opinion and Order, 9:08-80736-CIV-
+Marra).
+iv
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 8 of 349
+Secretary of Labor. In a brief oral statement, Acosta explained that continued media attention on
+his handling of the Epstein investigation rather than on the economy was unfair to the Labor
+Department.
+On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found hanging in his cell and was later pronounced dead.
+The New York City Chief Medical Examiner concluded that Epstein had committed suicide.
+As a result of Epstein's death, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
+New York filed a nolle prosequi to dismiss the pending indictment against Epstein. On
+August 27, 2019, the district court held a hearing at which more than a dozen of Epstein's
+victims—including victims of the conduct in Florida that was addressed through the NPA-spoke
+about the impact of Epstein's crimes. The court dismissed the Epstein indictment on
+August 29, 2019.
+After Epstein's death, the federal district court in Florida overseeing the CVRA litigation
+denied the petitioners their requested remedies and closed the case as moot. Among its findings,
+the court concluded that although the government had violated the CVRA, the government had
+asserted "legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation," and therefore had
+not litigated in bad faith. The court also noted it expected the government to "honor its
+representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the proper
+treatment of crime victims," as well as honoring its promise to meet with the victims.
+On September 30, 2019, CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe I" filed in her true name a petition
+for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, seeking
+review of the district court's order denying all of her requested remedies. In its responsive brief,
+the government argued that "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach
+prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in [the Southern
+District of Florida] because no criminal charges were brought." Nevertheless, during oral
+argument, the government conceded that the USAO had not been "fully transparent" with the
+petitioner and had "made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was ongoing when in
+fact the NPA had been signed." On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied
+the petition, ruling that CVRA rights do not attach until a defendant has been criminally charged
+On August 7, 2020, the court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel's
+opinion; as of the date of this Report, a briefing schedule has been issued, and oral argument is set
+for December 3, 2020.
+II.
+THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION
+After the Miami Herald published its investigative report on November 28, 2018,
+J.S. Senator Ben Sasse, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency
+Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, sent a December 3, 2018 letter to OPR, citing the Miami
+lerald's report and requesting that OPR "c
+lead's report and registing a rena restigation into the in aces ident 2d thi
+Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs advised Senator Sasse that OPR had opened
+V
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 9 of 349
+an investigation into the matter and would review the USAO's decision to resolve the federal
+investigation of Epstein through the NPA.°
+After the district court issued its ruling in the CVRA litigation, on February 21, 2019, OPR
+included within the scope of its investigation an examination of the government's conduct that
+formed the basis for the court's findings that the USAO violated the CVRA in failing to afford
+victims a reasonable right to confer with the government about the NPA before the agreement was
+signed and that the government affirmatively misled victims about the status of the federal
+investigation.
+During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands
+of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department components, including the Office of
+the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
+The records included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected
+and reviewed materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein. OPR also
+examined extensive publicly available information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and
+other court records, and reviewed media reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books
+relating to the Epstein case.
+In addition to this extensive documentary review, OPR conducted more than 60 interviews
+of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel;
+current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former Department attorneys and senior
+managers, including a former Deputy Attorney General and a former Assistant Attorney General
+for the Criminal Division; and the former State Attorney and former Assistant State Attorney in
+charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed several victims and attorneys
+representing victims, and reviewed written submissions from victims, concerning victim contacts
+with the USAO and the FBI.
+OPR identified former U.S. Attorney Acosta, three former USAO supervisors, and the
+AUSA as subjects of its investigation based on preliminary information indicating that each of
+them was involved in the decision to resolve the case through the NPA or in the negotiations
+leading to the agreement. OPR deems a current or former Department attorney to be a subject of
+its investigation when the individual's conduct is within the scope of OPR's review and may result
+in a finding of professional misconduct. OPR reviewed prior public statements made by Acosta
+and another subject. All five subjects cooperated fully with OPR's investigation. OPR requested
+that all of the subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal
+investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim
+notification and consultation. OPR received and reviewed written responses from all of the
+subjects, and subsequently conducted extensive interviews of each subject under oath and before
+a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel and had access to relevant
+contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The subjects reviewed and
+provided comments on their respective interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report. OPR
+The federal government was closed from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019. After initiating its
+investigation, OPR also subsequently received other letters from U.S. Senators and Representatives inquiring into the
+status of the OPR investigation.
+vi
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 10 of 349
+carefully considered the comments and made changes, or noted comments, as OPR deemed
+appropriate; OPR did not, however, alter its findings and conclusions.
+Finally, OPR reviewed relevant case law, statutes, regulations, Department policy, and
+attorney professional responsibility rules as necessary to resolve the issues presented in this case
+and to determine whether the subjects committed professional misconduet.
+As part of its investigation, OPR examined the interactions between state officials and the
+federal investigators and prosecutors, but because OPR does not have jurisdiction over state
+officials, OPR did not investigate, or reach conclusions about, their conduct regarding the state
+investigation.? Because OPR's mission is to ensure that Department attorneys adhere to the
+standards of professional conduct, OPR's investigation focused on the actions of the subject
+attorneys rather than on determining the full scope of Epstein's and his assistants' criminal
+behavior. Accordingly, OPR considered the evidence and information regarding Epstein's and his
+assistants' conduct as it was known to the subjects at the time they performed their duties as
+Department attorneys. Additional evidence and information that came to light after June 30, 2008,
+when Epstein entered his guilty plea under the NPA, did not affect the subjects' actions prior to
+that date, and OPR did not evaluate the subjects' conduct on the basis of that subsequent
+information.
+OPR's investigation occurred approximately 12 years after most of the significant events
+relating to the USAO's investigation of Epstein, the NPA, and Epstein's guilty plea. As a result,
+many of the subjects and witnesses were unable to recall the details of events or their own or
+by extensive, contemporaneous emails among the prosecutors and communications between the
+government and defense counsel. These records often referred to the interactions among the
+participants and described important decisions and, in some instances, the bases for them.
+III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
+OPR's primary mission is to ensure that Department attorneys perform their duties in
+accordance with the highest professional standards, as would be expected of the nation's principal
+law enforcement agency. Accordingly, OPR investigates allegations of professional misconduct
+against current or former Department attorneys related to the exercise of their authority to
+In August 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced that he had directed the Florida Department of
+Law Enforcement to open an investigation into the conduct of state authorities relating to Epstein. As reported, the
+investigation focuses on Epstein's state plea agreement and the Palm Beach County work release program.
+OPR was cognizant that Acosta and the three managers all left the USAO during, or not long after resolution
+of, the Epstein case, while the AUSA remained with the USAO until mid-2019. Moreover, as the line prosecutor in
+the Epstein investigation and also as co-counsel in the CVRA litigation until the USAO was recused from that
+litigation in early 2019, the AUSA had continuous access to the USAO documentary record and numerous occasions
+to review these materials in the course of her official duties. Additionally, in responding to OPR's request for a written
+response, and in preparing to be interviewed by OPR, the AUSA was able to refresh her recollection with these
+materials to an extent not possible for the other subjects, who were provided with relevant documents by OPR in
+preparation for their interviews.
+vii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 11 of 349
+investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice.? OPR also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations
+of misconduct against Department law enforcement agents when they relate to a Department
+attorney's alleged professional misconduct.
+In its investigations, OPR determines whether a clear and unambiguous standard governs
+the challenged conduct and whether a subject attorney violated that standard. Department
+attorneys are subject to various legal obligations and professional standards in the performance of'
+their duties, including the Constitution, statutes, standards of conduct imposed by attorney
+licensing authorities, and Department regulations and policies. OPR finds misconduct when it
+concludes by a preponderance of the evidence that a subject attorney violated such a standard
+intentionally or recklessly. Pursuant to OPR's analytical framework, when OPR concludes that
+(1) no clear and unambiguous standard governs the conduct in question or (2) the subject did not
+intentionally or recklessly violate the standard that governs the conduct, then it concludes that the
+subject's conduct does not constitute professional misconduct. In some cases, OPR may conclude
+that a subject attorney's conduct does not satisfy the elements necessary for a professional
+misconduct finding, but that the circumstances warrant another finding. In such cases, OPR may
+conclude that a subject attorney exercised poor judgment, made a mistake, or otherwise acted
+inappropriately under the circumstances. OPR may also determine that the subject attorney's
+conduct was appropriate under the circumstances. '
+IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED
+In this investigation, OPR considered two distinct sets of allegations. The first relates to
+the negotiation, execution, and implementation of the NPA. The second relates to the USAO's
+interactions with Epstein's victims and adherence to the requirements of the CVRA. The two sets
+of issues are described below and are analyzed separately in this Report.
+A. The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA
+In evaluating whether any of the subjects committed professional misconduct, OPR
+considered whether any of the NA's provisions violated a clear or unambiguous statute,
+professional responsibility rule or standard, or Department regulation or policy. In particular, OPR
+considered whether the NPA violated standards relating to (1) charging decisions, (2) declination
+of criminal charges, (3) deferred or non-prosecution agreements, (4) plea agreements, (5) grants
+28 C.F.R. § 0.39a(a)(1). OPR has authority to investigate the professional conduct of attorneys occurring
+during their employment by the Department, regardless of whether the attorney left the Department before or during
+OPR's investigation. Over its 45-year history, OPR has routinely investigated the conduct of former Department
+attorneys. Although former Department attorneys cannot be disciplined by the Department, OPR's determination that
+a former Department attorney violated state rules of professional conduct for attorneys could result in a referral to an
+appropriate state attorney disciplinary authority. Furthermore, findings resulting from investigations of the conduet
+of Department attorneys, even former employees, may assist Department managers in supervising future cases.
+10
+In some instances, OPR declines to open an investigation based upon a review of the initial complaint or after
+a preliminary inquiry into the matter. In December 2010, one of the attorneys representing victims in the CVRA
+litigation raised allegations that Epstein may have exerted improper influence over the federal criminal investigation
+and that the USAO had deceived the victims of Epstein's crimes about the existence of the NPA. Pursuant to its
+standard policy, OPR declined to open an investigation into those allegations at that time in deference to the
+then-pending CVRA litigation.
+viii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 12 of 349
+of immunity, or (6) the deportation of criminal aliens. The potentially applicable standards that
+OPR considered as to each of these issues are identified and discussed later in this Report. OPR
+also examined whether the evidence establishes that any of the subjects were influenced to enter
+into the NPA, or to include in the NPA terms favorable to Epstein, because of an improper motive,
+such as a bribe, political consideration, personal interest, or favoritism. OPR also examined and
+discusses in this Report significant events that occurred after the NPA was negotiated and signed
+that shed additional light on the USAO's handling of the Epstein investigation.
+B.
+The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA
+To address the district court's adverse judicial findings, OPR assessed the manner, content,
+and timing of the government's interactions with victims both before and after the NPA was
+signed, including victim notification letters issued by the USAO and the FBI and interviews
+conducted by the USAO. OPR considered whether any of the subject attorneys violated any clear
+and unambiguous standard governing victim consultation or notification. OPR examined the
+government's lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed, as well as the
+circumstances relating to the district court's finding that the USAO affirmatively misled Epstein's
+victims about the status of the federal investigation after the NPA was signed.
+V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
+OPR evaluated the conduct of each subject and considered his or her individual role in
+various decisions and events. Acosta, however, made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal
+investigation of Epstein through a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of
+the initial offer to the defense that set the beginning point for the subsequent negotiations that led
+to the NPA. Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he participated in its drafting and approved
+it, with knowledge of its terms. During his OPR interview, Acosta acknowledged that he approved
+the NPA and accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for
+the NPA and for the actions of the other subjects who implemented his decisions. Acosta's overall
+responsibility for the government's interactions or lack of communication with the victims is less
+clear, but Acosta affirmatively made certain decisions regarding victim notification, and OPR
+evaluates his conduct with respect to those decisions.
+A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA
+With respect to all five subjects of OPR's investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects
+did not commit professional misconduct with respect to the development, negotiation, and
+approval of the NPA. Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a
+subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing
+the conduct at issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict
+Epstein on federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state.
+Furthermore, none of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable
+standards.
+As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and
+Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his
+decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to
+ix
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 13 of 349
+initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not
+find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations,
+such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense
+efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed
+appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration
+requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one
+of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier,
+or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show
+that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on
+the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper
+role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a
+state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional
+misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other
+subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions.
+Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation
+through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of
+Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA
+was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its
+investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein
+was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should
+be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state
+authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties
+inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had
+no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were
+completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the
+consideration required under the circumstances.
+In sum, Acosta's application of federalism
+principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too
+narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use
+the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the
+NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other
+jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination
+and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NºA was a
+unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.
+B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions with
+Victims
+OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional
+misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not have
+a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA to consult with victims before entering into the
+NPA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without a federal criminal
+charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department did not interpret CVRA
+rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal courts had not
+established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal charges were
+brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation was for the purpose
+of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series of government
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 349
+interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's
+treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is contradictory to the
+Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of a crime endure.
+OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to
+certain vietims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that
+failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
+was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
+FBI when communicating with victims, and were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
+Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the
+government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill
+the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
+frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the
+investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies
+responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and
+oversight regarding communication with victims.
+After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision
+whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights
+requirements.
+Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute
+professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to
+make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal
+investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important
+proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had
+communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the
+Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
+made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
+that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.
+OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA
+after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and
+conversations with victims'
+attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct.
+Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating
+impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him,
+evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing
+victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and
+discussions with victims" attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to
+victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them.
+After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims,
+OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to
+victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the
+misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret
+from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The
+overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims
+feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes
+xi
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 15 of 349
+that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the
+Department.
+VI.
+ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
+The Report is divided into three chapters. In Chapter One, OPR describes the relevant
+tederal, state, and local law enforcement entities involved in investigating Epstein's criminal
+conduct, as well as the backgrounds of the five subjects and their roles in the events in question.
+OPR provides a brief profile of Epstein and identifies the defense attorneys who interacted with
+the subjects.
+In Chapter Two, OPR sets forth an extensive account of events relating to the federal
+investigation of Epstein. The account begins with the initial complaint in March 2005 by a young
+victim and her parents to the local police a complaint that launched an investigation by local law
+enforcement authorities and continues through the mid-2006 opening of the federal
+investigation; the September 2007 negotiation and signing of the NPA; Epstein's subsequent
+efforts to invalidate the NPA through appeals to senior Department officials; Epstein's June 2008
+guilty plea in state court; and, finally, efforts by the AUSA to ensure Epstein's compliance with
+the terms of the NPA during his incarceration and until his term of home detention ended in July
+2010. After describing the relevant events, OPR analyzes the professional misconduct allegations
+relating to the decisions made regarding the development and execution of the NPA. OPR
+describes the relevant standards and sets forth its findings and conclusions regarding the subjects'
+Chapter Three concerns the government's interactions with victims and the district court's
+findings regarding the CVRA. OPR describes the relevant events and analyzes the subjects'
+conduct in light of the pertinent standards.
+OPR sets forth the extensive factual detail provided in Chapters Two and Three, including
+internal USAO and Department communications, because doing so is necessary for a full
+understanding of the subjects' actions and of the bases for OPR's conclusions.
+xii
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 16 of 349
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...
+I. OVERVIEW OF FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+II. THE INITIATION AND SCOPE OF OPR'S INVESTIGATION.
+III. OVERVIEW OF OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
+IV. ISSUES CONSIDERED
+The Negotiation, Execution, and Implementation of the NPA
+The District Court's Conclusion That the USAO Violated the CVRA
+V. OPR'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
+A. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the NPA
+B. Findings and Conclusions Relating to the Government's Interactions
+with Victims...
+VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT..
+CHAPTER ONE: SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS
+I.
+THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
+A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
+Southern District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
+B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies..
+II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE
+III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS..
+A. Jeffrey Epstein ....
+B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys.
+CHAPTER TWO: THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+I.
+II.
+OVERVIEW
+MARCH 2005 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM
+BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY
+STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ….....
+A.
+The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation...
+The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State
+Grand Jury
+C.
+D.
+Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges
+PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's
+Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation
+xiii
+...V
+. vii
+viii
+viii
+ix
+. ix
+ix
+..x
+xii
+..1
+1
+.1
+..4
+..4
+..8
+..8
+..8
+.11
+11
+11
+.14
+15
+.16
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 17 of 349
+III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE
+DEFENSE TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO
+A. May 2006 - February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated,
+and the USAO Opens a Case File
+1.
+The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO.
+2.
+May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File...
+3.
+July 14, 2006: Villafaña Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case.
+Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO
+Moves Forward with a Federal Investigation
+5.
+October 2006 - February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel
+Initiate Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and
+Press for a Meeting ...
+6.
+February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and
+Villafaña and Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case
+B.
+February - May 2007: Villafaña and the FBI Continue to Investigate;
+Villafaña Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment
+for USAO Managers to Review
+C. May - June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum
+and Proposed Charges........
+D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which
+Villafana Oppose..........
+E. June 2007: Villafaña Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum
+F. The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel
+IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO
+RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
+A.
+June - July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution,
+which the Defense Rejects....
+1.
+Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a
+State-based Resolution
+2.
+July 2007: Villafaña and Menchel Disagree about the
+Proposed State Resolution
+B.
+Villafaña Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from
+Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts.
+C.
+July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the
+Federal Investigation.
+D.
+Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of
+Incarceration
+The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami.
+xiV
+16
+.16
+.17
+.18
+..18
+20
+22
+.24
+.24
+.27
+.30
+.33
+33
+35
+36
+37
+.40
+.45
+48
+48
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 18 of 349
+2.
+The Subjects' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein
+a Sentence with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration.
+E. Villafaña Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential
+Agreement with the Defense.
+V. THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD
+GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF
+INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE
+TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES
+A. July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team,
+which Makes a Counteroffer.
+B.
+In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of
+Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest
+C.
+August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who
+Meet with Acosta...
+Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys
+Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative
+Steps Are Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose
+Villafaña's Efforts to Obtain the Computer Evidence..
+3.
+September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and
+FBI Supervisors Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz,
+and
+VI.
+SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE
+PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED
+A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months .
+B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with
+the State Attorney ....
+C.
+The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration
+Was Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months.
+D.
+The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea
+to Federal Charges ....
+E.
+F.
+The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges
+Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the
+Terms of the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects
+G.
+Villafaña and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta
+Urges That They "Try to Work It Out"
+H.
+Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaña Sends a
+Final Version to the Defense.
+.49
+.51
+53
+54
+.55
+.59
+59
+60
+.62
+63
+63
+.64
+66
+68
+.72
+.76
+.77
+XV
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 19 of 349
+I.
+The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA
+"State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender
+Registration Requirement ....
+The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators"
+K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender
+Registration Requirement .....
+L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause.
+VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE
+NPA IS SIGNED
+VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS..
+A. September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an
+Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum
+B.
+October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz
+Meet for Breakfast....
+C.
+Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea;
+the Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney
+Representative and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum
+D.
+E.
+Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea
+Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision
+Relating to Monetary Damages for the Victims
+F.
+Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges
+to It and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct
+1.
+December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to
+Acosta Letters and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about
+the Federal Investigation and Villafaña
+2.
+As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New
+USAO Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence,
+and Acosta Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel
+The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department
+Review of the USAO's Actions..
+Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning
+Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It
+5.
+January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with
+Makes Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct
+Who
+6.
+Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence
+IX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW
+A.
+February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division
+.78
+.79
+.81
+83
+84
+87
+.87
+.94
+94
+98
+98
+99
+.99
+..100
+1101
+102
+103
+104
+xvi
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 20 of 349
+B. May - June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy
+Attorney General...
+.108
+X. JUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND
+SERVES HIS CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
+A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court .
+B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release
+XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS
+PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS
+I. OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
+II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
+A. The United States Attorneys' Manual
+110
+111
+.113
+117
+119
+119
+120
+120
+USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination
+of a Federal Prosecution.
+.120
+ri
+3.
+5.
+6.
+USAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy
+.122
+USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements
+..123
+USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements
+.124
+USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity
+.125
+USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest..
+...125
+B.
+Other Department Policies...
+..125
+Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges..
+..125
+2.
+Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens.
+127
+C.
+Case Law...
+127
+Prosecutorial Discretion
+.127
+ri
+Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party
+.128
+D.
+State Bar Rules.
+.129
+FRPC 4-1.1 - Competence...
+.130
+2.
+FRPC 4-1.3 - Diligence
+.130
+3.
+FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others
+..130
+FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice..
+.131
+PART THREE: ANALYSIS
+133
+I.
+Il.
+OVERVIEW ...
+133
+ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS
+ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT.
+133
+xvii
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 21 of 349
+Ill.
+OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND
+UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR
+STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN
+NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA
+A. U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or
+Cases as They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline
+to Prosecute Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional
+Misconduct.
+B.
+No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a
+Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation
+of Epstein
+C.
+The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and
+Unambiguous Standards ....
+Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required
+Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of
+Incarceration .............
+The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential
+Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous
+Department Policy ....
+The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to
+Deportation of Criminal Aliens.
+IV.
+THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE
+INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA
+TERMS FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND
+BENEFITS TO EPSTEIN..
+A.
+OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity,
+or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration...
+B.
+Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews
+Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were
+Improperly Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations
+The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence
+Establishing That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors
+2.
+The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by
+Reasonable Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not
+Improper Influences..
+3.
+Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records
+Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence,
+Legal Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact
+on Victims........
+Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That
+the Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences.
+xviii
+134
+.135
+.136
+.137
+.137
+..139
+..140
+140
+..141
+.142
+..142
+.143
+144
+.149
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 22 of 349
+D.
+OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with
+Defense Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other
+Factors Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or
+Provided Improper Benefits to Epstein
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended
+Any Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting
+Relationships with His Attorneys
+2.
+The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense
+Counsel Did Not Influence Their Actions
+E.
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with
+Defense Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein.
+The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with
+Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations.
+2.
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a
+Deal Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel
+F.
+Villafaña's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA
+Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafaña, or Other Subjects,
+Intended to Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by
+Favoritism or Other Improper Influences.
+G.
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña
+Agreed to the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential
+Co-conspirators" in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity,
+or Other Influential Associates
+H.
+OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein
+Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment
+on That Basis.
+ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL
+INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA
+A.
+.150
+.150
+..151
+.155
+.155
+160
+163
+166
+.168
+169
+Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution
+B.
+The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was
+Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative
+Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case
+C.
+OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of
+Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or
+That It Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution
+D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA
+E. Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process .
+xix
+.170
+.175
+..179
+..182
+..182
+
+
+
+CHAPTER THREE: ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS
+AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS
+PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+I. OVERVIEW ...
+II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771..
+A. History..
+B. Enumerated Rights...
+III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF
+"CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION
+A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review"
+2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance.
+IVUSAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE
+TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION
+A. USAO Training.
+B. The Automated Victim Notification System
+C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets.
+V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS
+A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters.
+B. August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims...
+C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered ...
+VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH
+VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED
+A. The Case Agents and Villafaña Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about
+Resolving the Federal Investigation..
+B. Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafaña Expresses Concern That Victims
+Have Not Been Consulted......
+July 2007: Villafaña's Email Exchanges with Menchel
+Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not
+to Consult Victims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors
+Do Not Currently Recall Such Instructions
+3.
+September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs
+Acosta, of Oosterbaan's Opinion That Consultation with Victims
+Was Required
+VII.
+SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE
+USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS
+189
+189
+189
+. 189
+...189
+.191
+192
+..192
+.193
+194
+194
+..195
+.196
+196
+..196
+..198
+.200
+200
+.201
+.202
+.202
+204
+204
+206
+XX
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 24 of 349
+A. September - October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about
+the NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about
+Potential Impeachment...
+207
+B.
+October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim
+Notifications..
+210
+October - November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to
+Investigate, and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Victim Stating
+That the Case is "Under Investigation"
+.211
+D.
+The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by
+Letter about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal
+Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan
+212
+E.
+December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will
+Defer to the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the
+State Plea Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal
+Resolution, "as Required by Law"
+216
+January - June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the
+Department in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO
+Continue Investigating Epstein.
+.220
+1.
+Villafaña Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That
+Epstein Will Breach the NPA
+220
+The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with
+Victims..
+3.
+Villafaña, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims
+.221
+.224
+February - March 2008: Villafaña Takes Additional Steps to
+Prepare for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bonc
+Attorneys for Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay
+227
+5.
+March - April 2008: Villafaña Continues to Prepare for Filing
+Federal Charges
+.227
+VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED
+MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION
+. 228
+IX. JUNE 2008: VILLAFAÑA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE
+ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME
+THE CVRA PETITIONERS ...
+229
+X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008
+PLEA HEARING...
+231
+XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE
+COURT HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT
+XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS
+. 234
+. 235
+A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafaña Notifies Some
+Victims' Attorneys....
+.235
+xxi
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 25 of 349
+B.
+July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated
+.236
+C. July 2008: Villafaña Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter
+to Listed Victims..
+.237
+D. July - August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to
+Victims Residing Outside of the United States
+.238
+E.
+August - September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to
+Disclose the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim
+Notification Letter...
+.239
+2010-2011: Department and Congressional Actions Regarding
+Interpretation of the CVRA ..
+G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status
+PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS
+STATUTORY PROVISIONS …..
+A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771
+241
+.242
+. 247
+247
+.247
+B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141,
+Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607)..
+.248
+Il.
+DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES
+FOR VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES)..
+III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
+A. FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others
+B. FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice..
+PART THREE: ANALYSIS.
+I. OVERVIEW ...
+249
+.. 253
+.253
+.253
+• 255
+. 255
+II. THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
+STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING
+THE VICTIMS
+. 255
+A. At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO
+to Notify Victims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing
+of Criminal Charges....
+.256
+B. OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation
+Was Intended to Silence Victims...
+258
+Ill.
+LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE
+STATEMENTS BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE
+STATUS OF THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
+. 261
+A. The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent
+by the FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing
+the Status of the Case as "Under Investigation"
+.262
+xxii
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 26 of 349
+B.
+Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed,
+the FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding
+the Status of the Federal Investigation
+IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S
+DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE
+COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS
+STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY
+FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL
+INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING
+A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether
+to Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not
+Violate Any Clear or Unambiguous Standard
+B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That
+Victims Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the
+State Plea Hearing..
+V.
+VILLAFANA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER
+ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN
+WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION"
+BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME
+VICTIMS.
+VI.
+THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND
+WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS
+WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE
+FEDERAL INVESTIGATION...
+CONCLUSION..
+METHODOLOGY ..
+Exhibit 1: State Indictment
+Exhibit 2: September 6, 2007 Draft Non-Prosecution Agreement
+Exhibit 3: September 24, 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement
+Exhibit 4: Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement
+Exhibit 5: State Information
+263
+265
+265
+.269
+.273
+.. 280
+- 283
+287
+xxiii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 27 of 349
+xxiv
+
+
+
+CHAPTER ONE
+SIGNIFICANT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS
+THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
+A. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
+of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
+The Department of Justice (Department) is a cabinet-level executive branch department
+headed by the United States Attorney General. The stated mission of the Department is to enforce
+federal law and defend the interests of the United States; ensure public safety; provide federal
+leadership in preventing and controlling crime; seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful
+behavior; and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. The Department enforces
+federal criminal law through investigations and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal
+statutes. It also engages in civil litigation. During the period relevant to this Report, the
+Department had approximately 110,000 employees in 40 components. The Department's
+headquarters are in Washington, D.C., and it conducts most of its work through field locations
+around the nation and overseas.
+The prosecution of federal criminal laws is handled primarily through 94 U.S. Attorney's
+Offices, each headed by a presidentially appointed (with advice and consent of the U.S. Senate)
+U.S. Attorney who has independent authority over his or her office but is overseen by the Attorney
+General through the Deputy Attorney General.' The Department's Criminal Division, headed by
+an Assistant Attorney General, includes components with specialized areas of expertise that also
+prosecute cases, assist in the prosecutions handled by U.S. Attorney's Offices, and provide legal
+expertise and policy guidance. Among the Criminal Division components mentioned in this
+Report are the Appellate Section, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the Computer Crime and
+Intellectual Property Section, and, most prominently, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
+(CEOS).
+CEOS, based in Washington, D.C., comprises attorneys and investigators who specialize
+in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation crimes, especially those involving technology,
+and they assist U.S. Attorney's Offices in investigations, trials, and appeals related to these
+offenses. CEOS provides advice and training to federal prosecutors, law enforcement personnel,
+and government officials. CEOS also works to develop and refine proposals for prosecution
+policies, legislation, government practices, and agency regulations.
+The U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) (revised in 2018 and renamed the Justice Manual)
+is a compilation of Department rules, policies, and guidance governing the conduct of Department
+employees. It includes requirements for approval by, or consultation with, the Criminal Division
+Two U.S. Attorney's Offices, in the judicial districts of Guam and of the Northern Mariana Islands, are
+headed by a single U.S. Attorney. The Attorney General and the U.S. District Court have authority to appoint acting
+and interim U.S. Attorneys.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 29 of 349
+or other divisions having responsibility for specific criminal enforcement, such as the Civil Rights
+Division. In this Report, OPR applies the USAM provisions in effect at the relevant time.
+During the period most relevant to this Report, the Attorney General was Michael
+Mukasey, the Deputy Attorney General was Mark Filip, and the Assistant Attorney General for
+the Criminal Division was Alice Fisher. The Chief of CEOS was Andrew Oosterbaan.
+The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO) handles federal
+matters in the Southern District of Florida judicial district, which covers the counties of Miami-
+Dade, Broward, Monroe, Palm Beach, L
+, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee, and
+Highlands, an area of over 15,000 square miles. During the period relevant to this Report, the
+USAO had a staff of approximately 200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and 200 support
+personnel. The main office is in Miami; staffed branch offices are located in Fort Lauderdale,
+West Palm Beach (covering Palm Beach County), and Fort Pierce; and an unstaffed branch office
+is located in Key West. The West Palm Beach USAO office is approximately 70 miles from the
+Miami office. The USAO is headed by the U.S. Attorney; the second-in-command is the First
+Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA), who serves as principal advisor to the U.S. Attorney and
+supervises all components of the USAO, including the Criminal, Civil, and Appellate Divisions,
+each of which is headed by a Chief. During the period relevant to this Report, the West Palm
+Beach office consisted of two criminal sections and was headed by a Managing AUSA.
+The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the principal federal law enforcement agency
+and is part of the Department. It maintains field offices that work with U.S. Attorney's Offices.
+The FBI field office in Miami, headed by a Special Agent in Charge, has satellite offices, known
+as Resident Agencies, one of which is located in West Palm Beach and covers Palm Beach County.
+The Epstein investigation was handled by Special Agents assigned to a particular West Palm Beach
+Resident Agency squad, headed by a Supervisory Special Agent. FBI responsibility for advising
+crime victims of their rights and of victim services available to them is handled by non-agent
+Victim Specialists.
+The following chart shows the Department's organizational structure during the period
+relevant to this Report:
+2
+
+
+
+SOLICITOR
+GENERAL
+OFFICE OF THE
+SOLICITOR
+GENERAL
+OFFICE OF
+JUSTICE
+PROGRAMS
+EXECUTIVE
+OFFICE FOR THE
+UNITED STATES
+OFFICE OF
+DISPUTE
+RESOLUTION
+ASSOCIATE
+ATTORNEY GENERAL
+COMMUNITY
+ORIENTED
+POLICING
+SERVICES
+OFFICE OF
+INFORMATION
+AND PRIVACY
+FOREIGN CLAIMS
+SETTLEMENT
+COMMISSION
+CIVIL RIGHTS
+DIVISION
+ANTITRUST
+DIVISION
+TAX DIVISION
+OFFICE OF
+VIOLENCE
+AGAINST
+WOMEN
+2006 - 2008
+Attorney
+General
+Deputy
+Attorney General
+CIVIL DIVISION
+ENVIRONMENT
+AND NATURAL
+RESOURCES
+DIVISION
+COMMUNITY
+RELATIONS
+SERVICE
+OFFICE OF
+LEGAL POLICY
+OFFICE OF
+LEGISLATIVE
+AFFAIRS
+OFFICE OF INTER.
+GOVERNMENTAL
+AND PUBUC
+LASON
+OFFICE OF
+PUBLIC
+AFFAIRS
+OFFICE OF
+LEGAL
+COUNSEL
+FEDERAL
+BUREAU OF
+INVESTIGATION
+DRUG
+ENFORCEMENT
+ADMINISTRATION
+EXECUTIVE
+OFFICE FOR
+UNITED STATES
+ATTORNEYS
+UNITED
+STATES
+ATTORNEYS
+BUREAU OF
+ALCONaL,
+TOBACCO,
+FIREARMS, &
+EXPLOSIVES
+3
+CRIMINAL
+DIVISION
+BUREAU OF
+PRISONS
+UNITED STATES
+MARSHALS
+SERVICE
+U.S. NATIONAL
+CENTRAL
+BUREAU
+INTERPOL
+OFFICE OF THE
+FEDERAL
+DETENTION
+TRUSTEE
+NATIONAL
+SECURITY
+DIVISION
+OFFICE OF THE
+INSPECTOR
+GENERAL
+JUSTICE
+MANAGEMENT
+DIVISION
+EXECUTIVE
+OFFICE FOR
+IMMIGRATION
+REVIEW
+OFFICE OF
+PROFESSONAL
+RESPONSIBILTY
+OFFICE OF THE
+PARDON
+ATTORNEY
+UNITED STATES
+PAROLE
+COMMISSION
+NATIONAL DRUG
+INTELLIGENCE
+CENTER
+PROFESSIONAL
+RESPONSIBILITY
+ADVISORY
+OFFICE
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 31 of 349
+B. The State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
+Florida state criminal prosecutions are primarily managed by an Office of State Attorney
+in each of the state's 20 judicial circuits, headed by a State Attorney who is elected to a four-year
+term. Palm Beach County constitutes the 15th Judicial Circuit. Barry Krischer was the elected
+State Attorney for that circuit from 1992 until January 2009. During the period relevant to this
+Report, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, based in the City of West Palm Beach,
+had more than 100 attorneys and several investigators, and a Crimes Against Children Unit headed
+by Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek.
+The incorporated Town of Palm Beach occupies the coastal barrier island off the city of
+West Palm Beach. Its law enforcement agency is the Palm Beach Police Department (PBPD).
+Michael Reiter, who joined the PBPD in 1981, served as PBPD Chief from 2001 to February 2009.
+The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO), based in the City of West Palm Beach, is
+the largest law enforcement agency in the county. Through its Department of Corrections, the
+PBSO operates the Main Detention Center and, during the period relevant to this Report, housed
+minimum-security detainees, including those on work release, at its Stockade facility. The current
+Sheriff has served continuously since January 2005.
+II. THE SUBJECT ATTORNEYS AND THEIR ROLES IN THE EPSTEIN CASE
+R. Alexander Acosta was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
+Florida in June 2005, at age 36. In June 2006, President
+W. Bush formally nominated
+Acosta, and after Senate confirmation, Acosta was sworn in as the U.S. Attorney in October 2006.
+After graduating from law school, Acosta served a federal appellate clerkship; an 18-month
+term as an associate at the firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Washington, D.C.; approximately four years
+as a policy fellow and law school lecturer; and nearly two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney
+General in the Department's Civil Rights Division. He was presidentially appointed in 2002 as a
+member of the National Labor Relations Board, and in 2003 as Assistant Attorney General in
+charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, where he served from August 2003 until his
+appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney, and where he oversaw, among other things, the prosecution
+of human trafficking and child sex-trafficking cases. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta's office was in the
+USAO's Miami headquarters, although he traveled to the USAO's branch offices.
+During Acosta's tenure as U.S. Attorney, the USAO initiated the federal investigation of
+Epstein, engaged in plea discussions with Epstein's counsel, and negotiated the federal nonprosecution agreement (NPA) that is the subject of this Report. Acosta made the decision to
+resolve the federal investigation into Epstein's conduct by allowing Epstein to enter a state plea.
+Acosta was personally involved in the negotiations that led to the NPA, reviewed various iterations
+of the agreement, and approved the final agreement signed by the USAO. Acosta continued to
+provide supervisory oversight and to have meetings and other communications with Epstein's
+attorneys during the nine-month period between the signing of the NPA on September 24, 2007,
+and Epstein's entry of guilty pleas in state court pursuant to the terms of the agreement, on June 30,
+2008. On December 8, 2008, after the presidential election and while Epstein was serving his state
+prison sentence, Acosta was formally recused from all matters involving the law firm of
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 32 of 349
+Kirkland & Ellis, which was representing Epstein, because Acosta had begun discussions with the
+firm about possible employment.
+After leaving the USAO in June 2009, Acosta became the l
+of the Florida International
+University College of Law. In April 2017, Acosta became the U.S. Secretary of Labor, but he
+resigned from that post effective July 19, 2019, following public criticism of the USAO's handling
+of the Epstein case.
+Jeffrey H. Sloman joined the USAO in 1990 as a line AUSA. In 2001, he became Deputy
+Chief of the USAO's Fort Lauderdale branch office Narcotics and Violent Crimes Section, and in
+2003, became the Managing AUSA for that branch office. In early 2004, Sloman was appointed
+Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division. In October 2006, Sloman became the FAUSA, and
+Sloman's office was located with Acosta's in the Miami office's executive suite.
+As FAUSA, Sloman was responsible for supervising the Civil, Criminal, and Appellate
+Divisions, and he was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation.
+Although Sloman had relatively little involvement in the decisions and negotiations that led to the
+NPA and did not review it before it was signed, he personally negotiated an addendum to the NPA,
+which he signed on behalf of the USAO in October 2007. After subordinates Matthew Menchel
+and Andrew Lourie left the USAO, Sloman directly engaged with the line AUSA,
+Villafaña,
+on Epstein matters, and participated in meetings and other communications with defense counsel.
+After Acosta was formally recused from the Epstein matter in December 2008, Sloman became
+the senior USAO official supervising the matter. When Acosta left the USAO, Sloman became
+the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and in January 2010, the Attorney
+General appointed Sloman to be the Interim U.S. Attorney for the district. Sloman left the USAO
+to enter private practice in June 2010.
+Matthew I. Menchel joined the USAO in 1998 after having served as a New York County
+(Manhattan) Assistant District Attorney for 11 years. After several years as a line AUSA, Menchel
+became Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes Section. In October 2006, Menchel became the Chief'
+of the USAO's Criminal Division, based in Miami. As Criminal Division Chief, Menchel was
+part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein investigation, and he participated in meetings
+and other communications with defense counsel. Menchel participated in the decision to extend a
+two-year state-based plea proposal to Epstein and communicated it to the defense. Shortly after
+that plea offer was extended to Epstein in early August 2007, and before the precise terms of the
+NPA were negotiated with defense counsel, Menchel left the USAO to enter private practice.
+Andrew C. Lourie joined the USAO as a line AUSA in 1994, after having served for three
+years as an AUSA in New Jersey. During his 13-year tenure at the USAO, Lourie served two
+terms on detail as the Acting Chief of the Department's Criminal Division's Public Integrity
+Section, first from September 2001 until September 2002, and then from February 2006 until July
+2006. Between those two details, and again after his return to the USAO in July 2006, Lourie was
+a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, serving as the Managing AUSA for the West
+Palm Beach branch office. Lourie was part of the supervisory team that oversaw the Epstein
+investigation and negotiated the NPA, participating in meetings and other communications with
+defense counsel. During September 2007, while the NPA was being negotiated, Lourie
+transitioned out of the USAO to serve on detail as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 33 of 349
+for the Department's Criminal Division, a position in which he served as Chief of Staff to Assistant
+Attorney General Alice Fisher. Lourie left the Department in February 2008 to enter private
+practice.
+Ann
+C. Villafaña joined the USAO in September 2001 as a line AUSA. She served
+in the Major Crimes Section in Miami until January 2004, when she transferred to the West Palm
+Beach branch office. Villafaña handled the majority of the child exploitation cases in West Palm
+Beach, along with other criminal matters. In 2006, she was designated as the USAO's first
+coordinator for Project Safe Childhood, a new Department initiative focusing on child sexual
+exploitation and abuse.?
+In 2006, Villafaña assumed responsibility for the Epstein investigation. As the line AUSA,
+Villafaña handled all aspects of the investigation. Villafaña determined the lines of inquiry to
+pursue, identified the witnesses to be interviewed, conducted legal research to support possible
+charges, and sought guidance from others at the USAO and in the Department. Villafaña, along
+with the FBI case agents and the FBI Victim Specialist, had direct contact with Epstein's victims.
+She handled court proceedings related to the investigation.
+She drafted a prosecution
+memorandum, indictment, and related documents, and revised those documents in response to
+comments from those in her supervisory chain of command. Villafaña participated in meetings
+between members of the USAO and counsel for Epstein, and prepared briefing materials for
+management in preparation for those meetings and in response to issues raised during those
+meetings. Although Acosta made the decision to utilize a non-prosecution agreement to resolve
+the federal investigation and approved the terms of the NPA, Villafaña was the primary USAO
+representative negotiating with defense counsel and drafting the language of the NPA, under her
+supervisors' direction and guidance, and she signed the NPA on behalf of the USAO. Thereafter,
+Villafaña monitored Epstein's compliance with the NPA and addressed issues relating to his
+conduct. After two victims pursued a federal civil lawsuit seeking enforcement of their rights
+under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 ("the CVRA litigation" or "the
+CVRA case*), in July 2008, Villafaña served as co-counsel to the lead attorney representing the
+USAO until February 2019, when the USAO was recused from handling the litigation.? Villafaña
+left the USAO in August 2019 to join another federal government agency.
+The following chart shows the USAO positions filled by the subjects, or other USAO
+personnel, during the period of the Epstein investigation.
+Project Safe Childhood is a nationwide initiative launched by the Department in May 2006 to combat the
+growing epidemic of technology-facilitated child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices
+and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute
+individuals who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims.
+After the district court issued its February 21, 2019 opinion finding misconduct on the part of the government,
+the Department re-assigned the CVRA case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.
+6
+
+
+
+United States Attorney
+First Assistant
+United States Attorney
+Criminal Chief
+Managing Assistant
+United States Attorney
+West Palm Beach Office
+Assistant
+United States Attorney
+May 23,2006-
+USAO opens federal
+investigation into
+Jeffrey Epstein
+2006
+Jeff Sloman
+USAO Roles and Responsibilities in Epstein Investigation
+Mid-2006 through Mid-2009
+2007
+2008
+Alexander Acosta
+Jeff Sloman
+Matthew Menchel
+Andrew Lourie
+Marie Villafana
+Sept 24, 2007 -
+NPA is signed
+June 30, 2008-
+Epstein pleads guilty in
+state court
+7
+2009
+Jeff Sloman (Acting)
+July 22, 2009-
+Epstein is released from
+incarceration
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 35 of 349
+III. JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
+A. Jeffrey Epstein
+Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1953.4 Although he did not graduate
+from college, he taught physics and mathematics to teens at an elite private school in Manhattan
+from 1974 until 1976. Through connections made at the school, he was hired at the Wall Street
+firm of Bear Stearns, where he from junior assistant to a floor trader to become a limited
+partner before leaving in 1981. An enigmatic individual whose source of wealth was never clear,
+Epstein reportedly provided wealth management and advisory services to a business entrepreneur
+through whom Epstein acquired a mansion in midtown Manhattan, where he resided. In the early
+1990s, Epstein acquired a large residence in Palm Beach, Florida. He also owned a private island
+in the U.S. Virgin Islands, a ranch in New Mexico, and a residence in Paris, France. He traveled
+among his residences in a private Boeing 727 jet.
+Epstein reportedly was an investor, founder, or principal in myriad businesses and other
+entities, in numerous locations. Although frequently referred to as a billionaire, the sources and
+extent of his wealth were never publicly established during his lifetime. He associated with
+prominent and wealthy individuals from business, political, academic, and social circles, and
+engaged in substantial philanthropy. Epstein maintained a large corps of employees, including
+housekeeping staff and pilots, as well as numerous female personal assistants, several of whom
+traveled with him.
+B. Epstein's Defense Attorneys
+Jeffrey Epstein employed numerous criminal defense attorneys in responding to the
+allegations that he had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm Beach,
+Florida estate. As different law enforcement entities became involved in investigating the
+allegations, he added attorneys having particular relevant knowledge of, or connections with, those
+entities. At the outset of the state investigation, Epstein retained nationally prominent Miami
+criminal trial attorney Roy Black. He was also represented by a local criminal defense attorney
+who was a former Palm Beach County Assistant State Attorney, and by nationally prominent
+Harvard Law School professor and criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz., who was a selfdescribed close friend of Epstein. After initial plea negotiations with the State Attorney's Office,
+Epstein replaced the local attorney with Jack Goldberger, a prominent West Palm Beach criminal
+defense attorney whose law partner was married to the Assistant State Attorney handling the
+Epstein case; once Epstein hired Goldberger, the Assistant State Attorney was removed from the
+Epstein case on the basis of that conflict of interest. Another prominent attorney who began
+representing Epstein during the state investigation was New York City attorney Gerald Lefcourt,
+Epstein's background has been extensively researched and reported in the media. See, eg., Landon
+Jr., "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery," New York, Oct. 28, 2002; Vicky
+*The Talented Mr.
+Epstein," Vanity Fair, Mar. 2003; James Barron, "Who Is Jeffrey Epstein? An Opulent Life, Celebrity Friends and
+Lurid Accusations," New York Times, July 9, 2019; Lisette Voytko, "Jeffrey Epstein's Dark Façade Finally Cracks,"
+Forbes, July 12, 2019.
+After Epstein's death, his net worth was estimated to be approximately $577 million, based on his will and
+trust documents. https://time.com/5656776/jeffrey-epstein-will-estate/.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 36 of 349
+whose law firm website cites his "national reputation for the aggressive defense" of "high-profile
+defendants in criminal matters."
+In late 2006, after the USAO opened its investigation, Epstein hired Miami criminal
+defense attorneys who were former AUSAs. One, Guy
+, had also served as the U.S.
+Attorney for the Southern District of Florida and as Director of the Department's Executive Office
+for United States Attorneys, the component charged with providing close liaison between the
+Department and the U.S. Attorneys. Another, Lilly Ann
+as a Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section before leaving in 2005. In August 2007,
+immediately after the USAO offered the terms that ultimately led to the NPA, two attorneys from
+the firm of Kirkland & Ellis, one of the largest law firms in the country, contacted the USAO on
+Epstein's behalf: Kenneth Starr, former federal judge and Solicitor General, who was serving as
+of Pepperdine University School of Law while of counsel to the firm; and Jay Lefkowitz, a
+litigation partner who had served in high-level positions in the administrations of Presidents
+| H.W. Bush and |
+W. Bush. They were joined by nationally prominent Boston
+Weinberg. After the NPA was signed, former U.S. Attorney
+Joe D. Whitley joined the defense team, as did the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS and
+another former U.S. Attorney, who was also a retired federal judge.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 37 of 349
+10
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 38 of 349
+THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+OVERVIEW
+In the following sections in this chapter, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
+details the significant events leading to, and during, the federal investigation of Epstein; the
+negotiation and signing of the NPA; and the defense's subsequent nine-month effort to stop the
+NPA from taking effect. OPR also describes more briefly the events occurring after Epstein pled
+guilty in state court, as the USAO sought to hold him to the terms of the agreement. In describing
+events, OPR relies heavily on contemporaneous documents, particularly emails. In many
+instances, the emails not only describe meetings and identify the participants, but also set forth the
+issues under discussion, the alternatives considered, and the basis for certain decisions. When
+helpful to explain the actions taken by the subjects, OPR also includes the subjects' explanations
+as provided in their written responses to, or interviews with, OPR, or explanations provided by
+witnesses.
+A timeline of key events is set forth on the following page.
+Il.
+MARCH 2005 - MAY 2006: EPSTEIN IS INVESTIGATED BY THE PALM
+BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PALM BEACH COUNTY STATE
+ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
+A. The Initial Allegations and the PBPD Investigation
+In March 2005, the parents of a 14-year-old girl reported to the PBPD that a man had paid
+their daughter $300 to give him a massage in his Palm Beach home.° The PBPD began
+investigating Epstein, identified as the recipient of the massage, and two of his personal assistants,
+who were also implicated by the complainant. The investigation soon expanded beyond the initial
+claim, to encompass allegations that during 2004 and 2005, Epstein, through his female assistants
+6
+As previously noted, "girls" refers to females under the age of 18. Epstein's contacts with girls and young
+women previously had come to the attention of the PBPD. In March 2004, a PBPD officer documented a telephone
+complaint that a 17-year-old girl had been giving Epstein topless massages at his residence for several months for
+$200 per massage. The girl claimed that there were nude photos of other girls throughout Epstein's home and offered
+to cooperate with a police investigation. The PBPD report relating to this complaint described the information as
+"unverified," and it was not pursued.
+On November 28, 2004, the police received and recorded information that young women had been observed
+coming and going from Epstein's residence. The police suspected Epstein was procuring prostitutes, but because the
+PBPD did not have evidence that the women seen entering Epstein's home were minors, and typically did not
+investigate prostitution occurring in private residences, it did not open an investigation into the matter.
+11
+
+
+
+Timeline of Key Events for Federal Epstein Investigation - May 2006 through October 2008
+May 23 - Villafaña opens
+federal investigation into
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Sept 7 - Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña
+[tothers] meet with Epstein's counsel
+July 14 - Villafaña
+first briefing to
+Acosta and Sloman
+Sept 12 - Lourie, Villafada [tothers]
+meet with Epstein's counsel and the
+State Attorney's Office to discuss
+state-based resolution
+Oct 2 - Sloman becomes
+First Assistant United
+States Allorney; Menchel
+becomes Criminal Chief
+Sept 24 - NPA is signed. Lourie
+leaves USAO for position in
+DOJ Criminal Division
+Jo Jul Ang Sep Det Now Dee 31 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jal Ang Sep Oet Nor Thee
+Jan
+Feh
+May 1 - Villafada
+completes draft
+prosecution memorandum
+Oct 12 - Acosta has
+breakfast meeting
+with Lelkowitz
+June 26 - Sloman, Menchel,
+Lourie, Villafaña, and FBI meet
+with Epstein's counsel
+Oct 29/30 - NPA
+Addendum signed
+July 26 - Villafaña learns from Menchel
+that Acosta decided to offer Epstein a
+two-year state-based resolution
+July 31 - Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafaña,
+and FBI agents meet with Epstein's counsel to
+propose two-year state-based resolution
+Feb 25-29 - DOJ
+Criminal Division/CEOS
+begins review
+Mar
+Apr
+May 19 - Epstein's counsel sends
+letter to Deputy Allorney General's
+Office requesting review
+June 23 - Deputy Attorey
+General's Office sends letter
+to Epsiein's counsel
+declining to intervene
+June 30 - Epstein pleads
+guilty in state court and is
+sentenced
+Jes
+Jal
+Ang
+Sep
+Oct
+2008
+Jaly 7 - Jane Doe files an
+emergency petition against
+the United States asserting
+violations of the CVRA
+Oct 10 - Epstein
+begins work
+release program
+May 15 - Criminal Division letter
+to Epstein's counsel supporting
+federal Epstein prosecution
+Aug 3 - Menchel's last day at USAO; sends
+letter to Epstein's counsel reiterating terms
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 40 of 349
+and some of the victims as well, regularly recruited local high-school-age girls to give him
+massages in his home that, in some cases, led to sexual activity.
+Through their interviews with victims, the police learned more about Epstein's conduct.
+Some girls had only one encounter with Epstein, while others had many encounters with him. The
+nature of the massages varied. According to victims, some girls remained fully clothed while they
+massaged Epstein, some wore only their underwear, and some were fully nude. Victims stated
+that during these massages, Epstein masturbated himself. Some victims alleged that he touched
+them during the massage, usually fondling their breasts or touching their vaginas directly or
+through their clothing. Some victims reported that Epstein used a vibrator to masturbate them, and
+some stated that he digitally penetrated them. Some victims who stated that they saw him more
+often alleged that Epstein engaged in oral and vaginal sex with them. According to one victim, an
+Epstein female assistant participated, on at least one occasion, in sexual activity with the victim at
+Epstein's direction.?
+Although the allegations varied in the specific details, for the most part they were consistent
+in describing a general pattern of conduct by Epstein and several of his assistants. According to
+the information provided to, and evidence gathered by, the PBPD, Epstein's assistants scheduled
+up to three massage appointments each day, often contacting the girls to make an appointment
+while Epstein was en route to Palm Beach from one of his other residences. Typically, when a girl
+arrived at Epstein's home for a massage, she was taken upstairs to the
+bedroom and
+bathroom area by one of Epstein's assistants, who set up a massage table and massage oils. When
+the assistant left the room, Epstein entered, wearing only a robe or a towel. After removing his
+clothing, Epstein lay face down and nude on the massage table, instructed the girl to remove her
+clothing, and then explained to her how he wished her to perform the massage. During the
+massage, Epstein masturbated himself, often while fondling the girl performing the massage.
+When Epstein climaxed, the massage was over. Usually, Epstein paid the girl $200 for the
+massage, and if she had not been to his home before, Epstein asked for her phone number to contact
+her in the future. Epstein encouraged the girls who performed these massages to find other girls
+interested in performing massages for him, and promised that if a girl brought a friend along to
+perform a massage, each girl would receive $200. Several of the victims acknowledged to the
+PBPD that they had recruited other girls on Epstein's behalf.
+The evidence regarding Epstein's knowledge of the girls' ages was mixed. Some girls who
+recruited other girls reportedly instructed the new recruits to tell Epstein, if asked, that they were
+over 18 years old. However, some girls informed the PBPD that they told Epstein their real ages.
+Police were able to corroborate one girl's report that Epstein sent flowers to her at her high school
+after she performed in a school play. In addition, an employee of Epstein told the PBPD that some
+of the females who came to Epstein's residence appeared to be underage.
+Epstein was aware of the PBPD investigation almost from the beginning. He retained local
+criminal defense counsel, who in turn hired private investigators. In October 2005, the PBPD,
+with the assistance of the State Attorney's Office, obtained a search warrant for Epstein's
+residence. When police arrived at Epstein's home on October 20, 2005, to execute the warrant,
+According to the PBPD records, investigators obtained no allegations or evidence that any person other than
+this female assistant participated in the sexual activity with the girls.
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 41 of 349
+they found computer monitors and keyboards in the home, as well as disconnected surveillance
+cameras, but the computer equipment itself-including video recordings and other electronic
+storage media—were gone. Nonetheless, the PBPD retrieved some evidence from Epstein's home,
+including notepads on which Epstein's assistants documented messages from many girls over a
+two-year span returning phone calls to confirm appointments. The police also found numerous
+photographs of naked young females of indeterminate age. Police photographs taken of the interior
+of Epstein's home corroborated the victims' descriptions to police of the layout of the home and
+bedroom and bathroom area. The police also found massage tables and oils, one victim's
+high school transcript, and items the police believed to be sex toys.
+B. The State Attorney's Office Decides to Present the Case to a State Grand Jury
+State Attorney Barry Krischer explained to OPR that the Epstein case was unusual in that
+police brought the case to his office without having made an arrest. Krischer was unfamiliar with
+Epstein, and the case was assigned to the Crimes Against Children Unit. PBPD Chief Michael
+Reiter stated in a 2009 civil deposition that when the PBPD initially brought the case to the State
+Attorney's Office in 2005, Krischer was supportive of the investigation and told Reiter, "Let's go
+for it," because, given the nature of the allegations, Epstein was "somebody we have to stop."
+Krischer told OPR, however, that both the detectives and the prosecutors came to recognize that
+"there were witness problems."
+Assistant State Attorney and Crimes Against Children Unit Chief Lanna Belohlavek told
+OPR that she and an experienced Assistant State Attorney who initially worked with her on the
+case "were at a disagreement" with the PBPD "over what the state... could ethically charge."
+According to Belohlavek, she did not believe the evidence the police presented would satisfy the
+elements of proof required to charge Epstein with the two felony crimes the police wanted filed,
+unlawful sexual activity with a minor (Florida Statute § 794.05(1))) and lewd and lascivious
+molestation of a minor (Florida Statute § 800.04(5)), and the police "were not happy with that."
+In addition, victims had given contradictory statements to police, and the original complainant,
+who could have supported a charge requiring sexual offender registration, recanted her allegation
+of sexual contact. Belohlavek offered Epstein a resolution that would result in a five-year term of
+probation, which he rejected.?
+Records publicly released by the State Attorney's Office show that, beginning in early
+2006, attorneys for Epstein sought to persuade the state prosecutors to allow Epstein to plead "no
+contest" rather than guilty. To that end, the defense team aggressively investigated victims and
+presented the State Attorney's Office with voluminous material in an effort to undermine some of
+the victims' credibility, including criminal records, victims" social media postings (such as
+MySpace pages) about their own sexual activity and drug use, and victim statements that appeared
+to undercut allegations of criminal activity and Epstein's knowledge of victims' ages. Krischer
+Belohlavek stated that she did not consider charging procurement of a minor for prostitution—the charge
+Epstein ultimately pled to pursuant to the NPA-because the police had not presented it.
+In April 2006, the State Attorney's Office offered Epstein an opportunity to plead guilty to the third degree
+felony of aggravated assault with the intent to commit a felony, with adjudication withheld and five years of probation
+with no unsupervised contact with minors.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 42 of 349
+told OPR that Epstein's local counsel brought attorney Alan Dershowitz to see Krischer and the
+Assistant State Attorney, but Dershowitz was "overly aggressive" and threatened, "We're going
+to destroy your witnesses; don't go to court because we're going to destroy those girls." According
+to Krischer, Dershowitz so "tainted the waters" that Epstein also hired local attorney Jack
+Goldberger, with whom Krischer had "a working relationship." Because the husband of the
+Assistant State Attorney was Goldberger's law partner, Belohlavek recused the Assistant State
+Attorney to remove "even the appearance of any kind of conflict" of interest, and Belohlavek took
+over the case. Goldberger, together with Gerald Lefcourt, a nationally known New York criminal
+defense attorney also representing Epstein, then directed their efforts at Belohlavek and Krischer
+to dissuade the office from prosecuting Epstein, largely by attacking the credibility of the victim
+witnesses.
+Meanwhile, the State Attorney's Office took the unusual step of preparing to present the
+case to a grand jury. Krischer told OPR that under state law as it existed until changed in 2016,
+his office prosecuted minors as young as 14 for prostitution.'° The possibility that Epstein's
+victims themselves could have been prosecuted caused "great consternation within the office," and
+according to Krischer, resulted in the decision to put the case before the grand jury. " Belohlavek
+told OPR that her office took the allegations against Epstein "seriously, because ... it was an
+organized scheme to involve young girls by offering them money. And I wouldn't say that we ...
+thought they were prostitutes... [but] I think there was solicitation." However, she said, although
+Epstein's "behavior was reprehensible, ... I'm limited by ... the state statutes as to what I can
+charge." Krischer told OPR, "There were so many issues involving the victim-witnesses that to
+my mind, in consultation with my [prosecutors], the only way to achieve, to my mind, real justice
+was to present the case to the grand jury and not to direct-file" criminal charges against Epstein.
+C. Florida State Procedure for Bringing Criminal Charges
+Federal criminal procedure requires that a felony charge that is, any charge punishable
+by imprisonment for one year or more be brought by a grand jury unless waived by a defendant.'?
+Under Florida law, however, a grand jury is required to bring criminal charges only in a death
+penalty case. ' For all other cases, a State Attorney has concurrent authority to file criminal
+charges by means of a document called an "information" or to seek a grand jury indictment.
+Although Florida criminal cases are routinely charged by information, state grand juries are often
+utilized in sensitive or high-profile cases, such as those involving allegations of wrongdoing by
+public officials. ' Florida grand jury proceedings are subject to strict secrecy rules that, among
+10
+12
+13
+Belohlavek told OPR that prostitution was a misdemeanor charge, and she did not handle misdemeanors.
+ecause the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation into the State Attorney's Office
+andling of the Epstein case was pending at the time OPR interviewed Krischer, he declined to further explain to OP
+his office's prosecutive decisions.
+U.S. Const. amend. V; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a), (b). The sole exception under the rule is felony criminal
+contempt, which need not be charged by indictment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(1).
+Fla. Const. Art. 1, $ 15(a).
+14
+The Florida Bar, The Grand Jury, Reporters Handbook - The Grand Jury, available at https://www floridabar.
+org/news/resources/rpt-hbk/rpt-hbk-13/.
+15
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 43 of 349
+other things, prohibit anyone from being present while grand jurors deliberate and vote, and
+proscribe the release of the notes, records, and transcripts of a grand jury.'
+D. PBPD Chief Reiter Becomes Concerned with the State Attorney's Office's
+Handling of the State Investigation and Seeks a Federal Investigation
+In 2006, PBPD Chief Reiter perceived that Krischer's attitude had changed and, according
+to Reiter's statements in his 2009 deposition, Krischer said that he did not believe the victims were
+credible. Reiter was disturbed when Krischer suggested that the PBPD issue a notice for Epstein
+to appear in court on misdemeanor charges, leading Reiter to begin questioning Krischer's
+objectivity and the State Attorney's Office's approach to the case. As Reiter explained in his
+deposition:
+This was a case that I felt absolutely needed the attention of the State
+Attorney's Office, that needed to be prosecuted in state court. It's
+not generally something that's prosecuted in a federal court. And I
+knew that it didn't really matter what the facts were in this case, it
+was pretty clear to me that Mr. Krischer did not want to prosecute
+this case.
+On May 1, 2006, Reiter submitted to Krischer probable cause affidavits and a case filing
+ackage relating to Epstem
+jackie elain ano pet used to rhis perse lass. Inhis trada mital lete, which was later mait
+public, Reiter criticized Krischer, noting that he found the State Attorney's Office's "treatment of
+these cases [to be] highly unusual." • Reiter urged Krischer "to examine the unusual course that
+your office's handling of this matter has taken" and to consider disqualifying himself from
+prosecuting Epstein. '
+III. THE FBI AND THE USAO INVESTIGATE EPSTEIN, AND THE DEFENSE
+TEAM ENGAGES WITH THE USAO
+A. May 2006 - February 2007: The Federal Investigation Is Initiated, and the
+USAO Opens a Case File
+In early 2006, a West Palm Beach FBI Special Agent who worked closely with
+AUSA Ann
+Villafaña on child exploitation cases—and who is referred to in this Report as
+"the case agent"— mentioned to Villafaña in "casual conversations" having learned that the PBPD
+was investigating a wealthy Palm Beach man who recruited minors for sexual activity. The case
+agent told Villafaña that the PBPD had reached out to the FBI because the State Attorney's Office
+was considering either not charging the case or allowing the defendant to plead to a misdemeanor
+15
+Fla. Stat. § 905.27 (2007).
+16
+See Larry
+"Palm Beach chief focus of fire in Epstein case," Palm Beach Post, Aug. 14, 2006.
+17
+As noted, Krischer generally declined in his OPR interview to explain his office's prosecutive decisions;
+however, regarding allegations of favoritism to Epstein's defense counsel, Krischer told OPR, "I just don't play that
+way."
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 44 of 349
+charge. Villafaña suggested meeting with the PBPD, but the case agent explained that before
+formally presenting the case to the FBI, the PBPD wanted to see how the State Attorney's Office
+decided to charge Epstein.
+1.
+The PBPD Presents the Matter to the FBI and the USAO
+In May 2006, the lead Detective handling the state's investigation met with Villafaña and
+the FBI case agent to summarize for them the information learned during the state's
+investigation.' At the time, neither Villafaña nor the case agent had heard of Epstein or had any
+knowledge of his background.
+According to Villafaña, during this meeting, the Detective expressed concern that "pressure
+had been brought to bear on ... Krischer by Epstein's attorneys," and he and Chief Reiter were
+concerned the state would charge Epstein with only a misdemeanor or not at all. ' The Detective
+explained that the defense had hired private investigators to trail Reiter and the Detective, had
+raised claims of various improprieties by the police, and, in the view of the PBPD, had orchestrated
+the removal of the Assistant State Attorney initially assigned to handle the matter, who was viewed
+as an aggressive prosecutor, by hiring a defense attorney whose relationship with the Assistant
+State Attorney created a conflict of interest for the prosecutor. Further, given the missing computer
+equipment and surveillance camera videotapes, the Detective believed Epstein may have been
+"tipped off" in advance about the search warrant.
+During the meeting, Villafaña reviewed the U.S. Code to see what federal charges could
+be brought against Epstein. She focused on 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 (enticement of minors into
+prostitution or other illegal sexual activity and use of a facility of interstate or foreign commerce
+to persuade or induce a minor to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity) and 2423
+(travel for purposes of engaging in illegal sexual conduct). As they discussed these charges, the
+Detective told Villafaña that Epstein and his assistants had traveled out of the Palm Beach
+International Airport on Epstein's private airplane, and flight logs sometimes referred to
+passengers as "female" without a name or age, which the Detective suspected might be references
+to underage girls. However, the Detective acknowledged that he was unable to confirm that
+suspicion and did not have firm evidence indicating that Epstein had transported any girls interstate
+or internationally. Nevertheless, Villafaña believed Epstein could be prosecuted federally, in part
+because of his own interstate and international travel to the Southern District of Florida to abuse
+girls. Villafaña discussed with the Detective and the case agent the additional investigation needed
+to prove violations of the federal statutes she had identified. She told them that if the evidence
+supported it, the case could be prosecuted federally, but she assured them that opening a federal
+investigation would not preclude the State Attorney's Office from charging Epstein should it
+choose to do so.
+18
+The Detective died in May 2018.
+19
+In his 2009 deposition, Reiter testified that after he referred the Epstein matter to the FBI, a Town of Palm
+Beach official approached Reiter and criticized his referral of the investigation to the FBI, telling Reiter that the victims
+were not believable and "Palm Beach solves its own problems."
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 45 of 349
+2.
+May 2006: The USAO Accepts the Case and Opens a Case File
+On May 23, 2006, Villafaña prepared the paperwork to open a USAO case file. Villafaña
+told OPR that several aspects of the case implicated federal interests and potentially merited a
+federal prosecution: (1) the victimization of minors through the use of facilities of interstate
+commerce (the telephone and airports); (2) the number of victims involved; (3) the possibility that
+Epstein had been producing or possessing child pornography (suggested by the removal of the
+computer equipment from his residence); and (4) the possibility that improper political pressure
+had affected the State Attorney Office's handling of the case. The investigation was named
+"Operation Leap Year" because the state investigation had identified approximately 29 girls as
+victims of Epstein's conduct.?
+Villafaña told OPR that from the outset of the federal investigation, she understood that
+the case would require a great deal of time and effort given the number of potential victims and
+Epstein's financial resources. Nonetheless, Villafaña was willing to put in the effort and believed
+that the FBI was similarly committed to the case. Villafaña discussed the case with her immediate
+supervisor, who also "thought it would be a good case" and approved it to be opened within the
+USAO's file management system, and on May 23, 2006, it was formally initiated.
+July 14, 2006: Villafaña Informs Acosta and Sloman about the Case
+Because Villafaña was not familiar with Epstein, she researched his background and
+learned that he "took a scorched earth approach" to litigation. Villafaña was aware that Epstein
+had hired multiple lawyers to interact with the State Attorney's Office in an effort to derail the
+state case, and she believed he would likely do the same in connection with any federal
+investigation.
+Therefore, Villafaña arranged to meet with U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Jeffrey
+Sloman, who at the time was the Criminal Division Chief.'' Villafaña told OPR that she had never
+before asked to meet with "executive management" about initiating a case, but the allegations that
+Epstein had improperly influenced the State Attorney's Office greatly troubled her. Villafaña
+explained to OPR that she wanted to ensure that her senior supervisors were "on board" with the
+Epstein investigation. In addition, she viewed Sloman as a friend, in whom she had particular
+confidence. At this point, although Villafaña's immediate supervisor was aware of the case,
+Villafaña did not inform Andrew Lourie, who was then in charge of the West Palm Beach office
+and her second-line supervisor, about the matter or that she was briefing Acosta and Sloman.
+Villafaña met with Acosta and Sloman in Miami on July 14, 2006. She told OPR that at
+the meeting, she informed them that the PBPD had identified a group of girls who had provided to
+Villafaña opened "Operation Leap Year" during the same month in which the Department launched its
+"Project Safe Childhood" initiative, and Acosta designated Villafaña to serve as the USAO's Project Safe Childhood
+coordinator.
+21
+Although Acosta had been formally nominated to the U.S. Attorney position on June 9, he was not confirmed
+by the Senate until August 3, 2006, and was not sworn in until October 2006. In September 2006, Acosta announced
+the appointments of Sloman as FAUSA and Matthew Menchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, and they
+18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 46 of 349
+Epstein massages that were sexual in nature, and that Epstein had used "various types of pressure"
+to avoid prosecution by the state, including hiring attorneys who had personal connections to the
+State Attorney. Villafaña said that part of her goal in speaking to Acosta and Sloman at the outset
+of the federal investigation was to sensitize them to the tactics Epstein's legal team would likely
+employ. Villafaña explained, "When you have a case that you know people are going to be getting
+calls about ... you just want to make sure that they know about it so they don't get ... a call from
+out of the blue." According to Villafaña, she told Acosta and Sloman that the FBI was willing to
+put the necessary resources into the case, and she was willing to put in the time, but she "didn't
+want to get to the end and have [the] same situation occur" with a federal prosecution as had
+occurred with the state. She told OPR, "I remember specifically saying to them that I expected
+the case would be time and resource-intensive and I did not want to invest the time and the FBI's
+resources if the Office would just back down to pressure at the end." According to Villafaña,
+Acosta and Sloman promised that "if the evidence is there, we will prosecute the case." In a later
+email to Lourie and her immediate supervisor, Villafaña recounted that she spoke with Acosta and
+Sloman because she "knew that what has happened to the state prosecution can happen to a federal
+prosecution if the U.S. Attorney isn't on board," but Acosta and Sloman had given her "the |
+light" to go forward with the Epstein investigation.
+Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that they did not recall the July 2006 meeting with
+Villafaña. Each told OPR that at the time the federal investigation was initiated, he had not
+previously heard of Epstein."
+Acosta told OPR that he understood from the outset that the case involved a wealthy man
+who was "doing sordid things" with girls, and that it "seemed a reasonable matter to pursue"
+federally. Epstein's wealth and status did not raise any concern for him, because, as Acosta told
+OPR, the USAO had prosecuted "lots of influential folks." When asked by OPR to articulate the
+federal interest he perceived at the time to be implicated by the case, Acosta responded, "the
+exploitation of girls or minor females." Regarding Villafaña's view that she had been given a
+light" to proceed with the investigation, Acosta told OPR that he would not likely have
+explicitly told Villafaña to "go spend your time" on the case; rather, his practice would have been
+simply to acknowledge the information she shared about the case and confirm that a federal
+investigation "sound[ed] reasonable."
+Sloman told OPR that he could not recall what he initially knew about the Epstein
+investigation, other than that he had a basic understanding that the State Attorney's Office had
+"abdicated their responsibility" to investigate and prosecute Epstein. In his OPR interview,
+loman did not recall with specificity Villafaña's concern about Epstein's team pressuring th
+tate Attorney's Office, but he said he was never concerned that political pressure would affec
+the USAO, noting that as of July 2006, the USAO had recently prosecuted wealthy and politically
+connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
+22
+Lourie told OPR that when he first heard about the Leap Year investigation, he likewise was unaware of
+Epstein. On July 24, 2006, Villafaña emailed to Sloman a link to a Palm Beach Post article that described Epstein as
+a "Manhattan money manager" and "part-time Palm Beacher who has socialized with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and
+Kevin Spacey." Sloman forwarded the article to Acosta.
+19
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 47 of 349
+Late July 2006: The State Indicts Epstein, and the USAO Moves
+Forward with a Federal Investigation
+Several days after Villafaña spoke with Acosta and Sloman, on July 19, 2006, Assistant
+State Attorney Belohlavek presented the case to the state grand jury.2 Krischer told OPR that
+"the whole thing" was put before the grand jury. According to a statement made at the time by the
+State Attorney's Office spokesman, the grand jury was presented with a list of charges from highest
+to lowest, without a recommendation by the prosecutor, and deliberated with the prosecutor out of
+the room.'4 The state grand jury returned an indictment charging Epstein with one count of felony
+solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.07, a felony under state law because
+it alleged three or more instances of solicitation.?5 The indictment did not identify the person or
+persons solicited and made no mention of the fact that Epstein had solicited minors. On July 23,
+2006, Epstein self-surrendered to be arrested on the indictment, but was not detained, and the
+charges were made public.
+Villafaña told OPR that she decided to move forward with the federal investigation at that
+point because she believed the State Attorney's Office would permit Epstein to enter a plea to a
+reduced misdemeanor charge and that once he entered a guilty plea, the Department's Petite policy
+might preclude a federal prosecution.? Villafaña told OPR that at the time, she "definitely
+believed that we were going to proceed to [a federal] indictment, assuming that ... we had
+sufficient evidence."
+23
+Villafaña and the FBI obtained and examined records of the state grand jury proceeding, and Lourie reviewed
+them. Because the grand jury records have not been ordered released publicly, OPR does not discuss their substance
+in this Report.
+24
+Larry 1
+.. "Police say lawyer tried to discredit teenage girls," Palm Beach Post, July 29, 2006, citing
+statement by State Attorney's Office spokesman Michael Edmondson.
+25
+Indictment in State v. Epstein, 2006CF9454AXX (July 19, 2006), attached as Exhibit I to this Report.
+26
+In pertinent part, the state indictment read, "[BJetween the 1st day of August [2004] and October 31, 2005,
+[Epstein] did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, ... on three
+or more occasions." The 15-month time frame and lack of detail regarding the place or manner of the offense made
+it impossible to identify from the charging document which victim or victims served as the basis for the charge in the
+state indictment. Belohlavek explained to OPR that the charge did not list specific vietims so that she could go forward
+at trial with whichever victim or victims might be available and willing to testify at that time.
+27
+The Petite policy is a set of guidelines used by federal prosecutors when considering whether to pursue federal
+charges for defendants previously prosecuted for state or local offenses. The Constitution does not prohibit the federal
+government from prosecuting defendants who have been charged, acquitted, or convicted on state charges based on
+the same criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the long-standing principle that the prohibition
+against double jeopardy does not apply to prosecutions brought by different sovereigns. See, e.g.. Gamble v. United
+States, 587 U.S.
+, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1966-67 (2019) (and cases cited therein): Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S
+187, 195 (1959) (and cases cited therein): and United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922). Nonetheless, to
+better promote the efficient use of criminal justice resources, the Department developed policies in 1959 and 1960 to
+guide federal prosecutors in the use of their charging discretion. See Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.A.2, for a
+more detailed discussion of the Petite policy.
+20
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 48 of 349
+On July 24, 2006, Villafaña alerted Sloman, who informed Acosta, that the State Attorney's
+Office had charged and arrested Epstein.? On that same day, the FBI in West Palm Beach formally
+opened the case, assigning the case agent and, later, a co-case agent, to investigate it. Villafaña
+told Sloman that the FBI agents "are getting copies of all of the evidence and we are going to
+review everything at [the] FBI on Wednesday," and she noted that her target date for filing federal
+charges against Epstein was August 25, 2006. Acosta emailed Sloman, asking whether it was
+"appropriate to approach [State Attorney Krischer] and give him a heads up re where we might
+go?" Sloman replied, "No for fear that it will be leaked straight to Epstein."29
+Although Lourie learned of the case at this point from Sloman, and eventually took a more
+active role in supervising the investigation, Villafaña continued to update Acosta and Sloman
+directly on the progress of the case.3' Villafaña's immediate supervisor in West Palm Beach had
+little involvement in supervising the Epstein investigation, and at times, Villafaña directed her
+emails to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie without copying her immediate supervisor. In the
+immediate supervisor's view, however, "Miami" purposefully assumed all the "authority" for the
+case, which the immediate supervisor regarded as "highly unusual."31
+By late August 2006, Villafaña and the FBI had identified several additional victims and
+obtained "some flight manifests, telephone messages, and cell phone records that show the
+communication and travel in interstate commerce" by Epstein and his associates. Villafaña
+reported to her supervisors that the State Attorney's Office would not provide transcripts from the
+state grand jury voluntarily, and that she would be meeting with Chief Reiter "to convince him to
+relinquish the evidence to the FBI." Villafaña also told her supervisors that she expected "a
+number of fights" over her document demands, and that some parties were refusing to comply
+"after having contact with Epstein or his attorneys."
+Villafaña's reference to anticipated "fights" and lack of compliance led Sloman to ask
+whether she was referring to the victims. Villafaña responded that the problems did not involve
+victims, but rather a former employee of Epstein and some business entities that had objected to
+document demands as overly burdensome. Villafaña explained to Sloman and Lourie that some
+victims were "scared and/or embarrassed," and some had been intimidated by the defense, but
+"everyone [with] whom the agents have spoken so far has been willing to tell her story." Villafaña
+28
+On the same day, Sloman emailed Lourie, whom Villafaña had not yet briefed about the case, noting that
+Operation Leap Year was "a highly sensitive case involving some Palm Beach rich guy."
+29
+During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall what he meant by this remark, but speculated that it was
+likely that "we didn't trust the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office," and that he believed there may have been "some
+type of relationship between somebody in the [State Attorney's Office] and the defense team."
+After Villafaña sent a lengthy substantive email about the case to her immediate supervisor, Lourie, Sloman,
+and Acosta on August 23, 2006, Lourie emailed Sloman: "Do you and Alex [Acosta] want her updating you on the
+case?* Sloman responded, "At this point, I don't really care. If Alex says something then I'll tell her to just run it
+through you guys."
+OPR understood "Miami" to be a reference to the senior managers who were located in the Miami office,
+that is, Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel. Records show, and Villafaña told OPR, that she believed Epstein's attorneys
+"made a conscious decision to skip" her immediate supervisor and directed their communications to the supervisory
+chain above the immediate supervisor—Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta.
+21
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 49 of 349
+also informed Sloman and Lourie that the FBI was re-interviewing victims who had given taped
+statements to the PBPD, to ensure their stories "have not changed," and that "[a]ny discrepancies
+will be noted and considered." She conceded that "[g]etting them to tell their stories in front of a
+jury at trial may be much harder," but expressed confidence that the two key victims "will stay the
+course." She acknowledged that the case "needs to be rock solid."
+The case agent told OPR that in this initial stage of the investigation, the FBI "partnered
+up very well" with the USAO. She recalled that there was little higher-level management oversight
+either from the FBI or the USAO, and "we were allowed to do what we needed to do to get our
+job done." This included continuing to identify, locate, and interview victims and Epstein
+employees, and obtaining records relating to Epstein's travel, communications, and financial
+transactions. The case agent viewed the case as "strong."
+5.
+October 2006 - February 2007: Epstein's Defense Counsel Initiate
+Contact with Villafaña, Lourie, and Sloman, and Press for a Meeting
+Just as Epstein had learned of the PBPD investigation at its early stage, he quickly became
+aware of the federal investigation, both because the FBI was interviewing his employees and
+because the government was seeking records from his businesses. One of Epstein's New York
+attorneys, Gerald Lefcourt, made initial contact with Villafaña in August 2006. As the
+inserain. As resethe spate investiga step steersuade it attorney to had ne rideral
+with the Department and relationships with individual USAO personnel.33 One of Epstein's
+Miami lawyers, Guy L
+1, a former career AUSA and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
+Florida, made an overture on Epstein's behalf in early November 2006.34
+telephoned
+Villafaña, a call that Sloman joined at Villafaña's request.
+offered to provide Villafaña
+32
+Villafaña told OPR that Epstein's lawyers wanted to stop the investigation "prematurely."
+33
+Chapter One, Section III.B of this Report identifies several of the attorneys known to have represented
+Epstein in connection with the federal investigation, along with a brief summary of their connections to the
+Department, the USAO, or individuals involved in the investigation. At least one former AUSA also represented
+during civil depositions individuals associated with Epstein. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues recognized
+Epstein was selecting attorneys based on their perceived influence within the USAO, and they viewed this tactic as
+"ham-fisted" and "clumsy." Menchel told OPR, "[O]ur perspective was this is not going to ... change anything."
+34
+served in the USAO for over 10 years, and was U.S. Attorney from 2000 to 2002. He then served for
+two years as Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the Department's administrative office serving the
+U.S. Attorneys.
+Early in the investigation, Lourie voluntarily notified the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer that
+Lourie was friends with
+and also had a close friendship with
+| law partner, who also was a former AUSA
+and also represented Epstein. Lourie requested guidance as to whether his relationships with and law
+partner created either a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety mandating recusal. The Professional
+Responsibility Officer responded that Lourie's relationships with the two men were not "covered" relationships under
+the conflict of interest guidelines but deferred to Sloman or Menchel "to make the call." Thereafter, Sloman authorized
+Lourie to continue supervising the case. During his OPR interview, Lourie asserted that his personal connection to
+did not influence his handling of the case.
+22
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 50 of 349
+""anything' she wanted" without the necessity of legal process.
+and Sloman to discuss the Epstein investigation, but Villafaña declined.
+asked to meet with Villafaña
+Shortly thereafter, Lilly Ann
+, a former AUSA, contacted Sloman and advised him
+that she also represented Epstein.
+was employed by the USAO from 2000 to September
+2005 and had been a Deputy Chief of the USAO's Major Crimes section at the time Menchel was
+the Chief. According to Sloman's contemporaneous email recounting the conversation, when
+indicated to him that his participation in
+call with Villafaña led the defense team
+to believe that the matter had been "elevated" within the USAO, Sloman tried to "disabuse" her of
+that notion.
+said that Epstein "wanted to be as transparent and cooperative as possible"
+in working with the USAO. Despite the fact that
+had already made contact with the USAO
+on Epstein's behalf,
+sent a letter to Villatana on November 15, 2006, in which she asserted
+that she and Gerald Lefcourt were representing Epstein and asked that the USAO direct all contact
+or communications about Epstein to them. In response, Villafaña requested that the defense
+provide documents and information pertinent to the federal investigation, including the documents
+and information that Epstein had previously provided to the State Attorney's Office, and
+"computers, hard drives, CPUs [computer processing units], and any other computer media"
+removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant in October 2005. In
+January 2007,
+contacted Villataña to schedule a meeting, but Villafaña responded that
+she wanted to receive and review the documents before scheduling a meeting with
+Immediately after receiving Villafaña's response,
+bypassed Villafaña and phoned
+Lourie, with whom she had worked when she was an AUSA, to press for a meeting. Lourie agreed
+to meet with
+and Lefcourt. Lourie explained to Villafaña that
+was concerned
+that federal charges were "imminent," wanted to meet with the USAO and "make a pitch," and
+promised that once given the opportunity to do so, if the USAO "wanted to interview Epstein, that
+would be a possibility." Villafaña told Lourie that
+had not yet provided the documents
+she had promised, and Villafaña wanted "the documents not the pitch." Lourie explained to OPR,
+however, that it was his practice to grant meetings to defense counsel; he considered it "good for
+us" to learn the defense theories of a case and believed that "information is power." Lourie further
+explained that learning what information the defense viewed as important could help the USAO
+form its strategy and determine which counts relating to which victims should be charged. Lourie
+also believed that as a general matter, prosecutors should grant defense requests to make a
+presentation, because "[p]art of [the] process is for them to believe they are heard." In addition to
+agreeing to a meeting, Lourie sent
+a narrowed document request, which responded to
+_ complaint that the USAO's earlier request was overbroad but which retained the
+demand for the computer-related items removed from Epstein's home. The meeting was scheduled
+for February 1, 2007, and Lourie asked
+to provide the documents and materials to the
+USAO by January 25, 2007.
+Villafaña did not agree with Lourie's decision to meet with
+and Lefcourt. Indeed,
+two days after Lourie agreed to the meeting, Villafaña alerted him that she had spoken again with
+and learned that Epstein was not going to provide the requested documents. As Villafaña
+told Lourie, "I just get to listen to the pitch and hear about how the girls are liars and drug users."
+She told OPR that in her view, "it was way too early to have a meeting," she already knew what
+the defense would say, and she could not see how a meeting would benefit the federal investigation.
+She explained to Lourie the basis for her objections to the meeting, but Lourie "vehemently"
+23
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 51 of 349
+disagreed with her position. Villafaña and a West Palm Beach AUSA with whom she was
+consulting about the investigation, and who served for a time as her co-counsel, both recalled
+meeting with Lourie in his office to express their concerns about meeting with defense counsel.
+They perceived Lourie to be dismissive of their views. According to Villafaña, Lourie believed
+that a meeting with the defense attorneys would be the USAO's chance to learn the defense's legal
+theories and would position the USAO to arrange a debriefing of Epstein, through which the USAO
+might learn information helpful to a prosecution. Villafaña told OPR, however, that while this
+strategy might make sense in a
+-collar crime case, she did not believe it was appropriate or
+worthwhile in a child exploitation case, in which the perpetrator would be unlikely to confess to
+the conduct. Villafaña also told OPR that she did not believe the USAO could extract information
+about the defense legal theories without telling the defense the precise crimes the USAO intended
+to charge, which Villafaña did not want to reveal.
+6.
+February 2007: Defense Counsel Meet with Lourie and Villafaña and
+Present the Defense Objections to a Federal Case
+At the February 1, 2007 meeting with Lourie and Villafaña,
+and Lefcourt set out
+arguments that would be repeated throughout the months-long defense campaign to stop the federal
+investigation. In support of their arguments, the defense attorneys provided a 25-page letter, along
+with documents the defense had obtained from the state's investigative file and potential
+impeachment material the defense had developed relating to the victims.
+In the letter and at the meeting, defense counsel argued that (1) the allegations did not
+provide a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction; (2) the evidence did not establish that
+Epstein knew girls who provided him with massages were minors; (3) no evidence existed proving
+that any girl traveled interstate to engage in sex with Epstein; (4) the USAO would violate the
+Petite policy by initiating federal prosecution of a matter that had already been addressed by the
+state; and (5) there were "forensic barriers" to prosecution, referring to witness credibility issues.
+The letter suggested that "misleading and inaccurate reports" from the PBPD "may well have
+affected" the USAO's view of the case. The letter also claimed that the State Attorney's Office
+had taken into account the "damaging histories of lies, illegal drug use, and crime" of the state's
+two principal victims (identified by name in the letter), and argued that "with witnesses of their
+ilk," the state might have been unable "to make any case against Epstein at all." Lourie told OPR
+that he did not recall the meeting, but Villafaña told OPR that neither she nor Lourie was persuaded
+by the defense presentation at this "listening session."
+B.
+February - May 2007: Villafaña and the FBI Continue to Investigate;
+Villafaña Drafts a Prosecution Memorandum and Proposed Indictment for
+USAO Managers to Review
+Correspondence between Villafaña and defense counsel show that Villafaña carefully
+considered the defense arguments concerning the victims' credibility, and she reviewed audiotapes
+the statement but acknowledged that he could have.
+24
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 52 of 349
+of the state's victim interviews and partial transcripts provided by defense counsel.36 Villafaña
+also pursued other investigative steps, which included working with the FBI to locate an expert
+witness to testify about the effect of sexual abuse on victims. She also continued collecting records
+relating to Epstein's business entities, in part to help establish the interstate nexus of Epstein's
+bucasions, Vilatana sou
+activity. On several occasions, Villafaña sought guidance from CEOS, which had considerable
+national expertise in child exploitation cases, about legal issues relating to the case, such as
+whether charges she was considering required proof that the defendant knew a minor victim's age.
+USAO procedures generally required that a proposed indictment be accompanied by a
+prosecution memorandum from the AUSA handling the case. The prosecution memorandum was
+expected to explain the factual and legal bases for the proposed charges and address any significant
+procedural, factual, and legal issues of which the AUSA was aware; witness-related issues;
+expected defenses; and sentencing issues. Routine prosecutions could be approved by lower-level
+supervisors, but in high-profile or complex cases, proposed indictments might require review and
+approval by the Criminal Division Chief, the FAUSA, or even the U.S. Attorney.
+Accordingly, Villafaña drafted an 82-page prosecution memorandum directed to Acosta,
+Sloman, Menchel (who had replaced Sloman as the USAO's Criminal Division Chief the previous
+October, when Sloman became the FAUSA), Lourie, and her immediate supervisor, dated May 1,
+2007, supporting a proposed 60-count indictment that charged Epstein with various federal crimes
+relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors. The prosecution memorandum set forth
+legal issues and potential defenses relating to each proposed charge; explained why certain other
+statutes were rejected as proposed charges; described the evidence supporting each count and
+potential evidentiary issues; and addressed the viability and credibility of each of the vietims who
+were expected to testify at trial.
+Villafaña's immediate supervisor told OPR that she read the prosecution memorandum,
+had only a few small edits to the indictment, and advised Lourie that she approved of it. The
+immediate supervisor told OPR that she viewed the case as prosecutable, but recognized that the
+case was complex and that Villafaña would need co-counsel.
+In his OPR interview, Lourie recalled thinking that the prosecution memorandum and
+proposed indictment "were very thorough and contained a lot of hard work," but that he wanted to
+employ a different strategy for charging the case, focusing initially only on the victims that
+presented "the toughest cases" for Epstein meaning those about whom Epstein had not already
+raised credibility issues to use in cross-examination. Lourie told OPR that although he had some
+concerns about the case-particularly the government's ability to prevail on certain legal issues
+and the credibility challenges some of the victims would face he did not see those concerns as
+insurmountable and was generally in favor of going forward with the prosecution.
+Although indictments coming out of the West Palm Beach office usually did not require
+approval in Miami, in this case, Lourie understood that "[b]ecause there was front office
+involvement from the get-go," he would not be the one making the final decision whether to go
+36
+Lefcourt and
+provided the recordings during a follow-up meeting with Lourie and Villafaña on
+February 20, 2007, and thereafter furnished the transcripts.
+25
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 53 of 349
+forward with charges in this case. Lourie forwarded a copy of the prosecution memorandum to
+Menchel. Lourie's transmittal message read:
+did a 50 [sic] page pros memo in the Epstein case. I am going
+to start reading it tonight... It's a major case because the target is
+one of the richest men in the country and it has been big news. He
+has a stable of attorneys, including Dershowitz, [Roy] Black,
+Lefcourt, C
+, and Lily [sic] |
+•. Jeff Sloman is familiar
+with the investigation. The state intentionally torpedoed it in the
+grand jury so it was brought to us. I am going to forward the pros
+memo to you so you can start reading it at the same time I do. The
+FBI is pushing to do it in Mid [sic] May, which I think is not critical,
+but we might as well get a jump on it. I have some ideas about the
+indictment (needs to be ultra lean with only clean victims), so I am
+not sending that yet.
+Lourie explained to OPR that by "clean" victims, he meant those for whom the defense did not
+have impeachment evidence to use against them.
+A few days later, Lourie emailed Menchel, asking if Menchel had read the prosecution
+memorandum. Lourie directed Menchel's attention to particular pages of the prosecution
+memorandum, noting that the "keys" were whether the USAO could prove that Epstein traveled
+for the purpose of engaging in sexual acts, and the fact that some minor victims told Epstein they
+were 18.3' Lourie asked for Menchel's "very general opinion as to whether this is a case you think
+the office should do," and reminded Menchel that the State Attorney's Office "went out of their
+way to get a no-bill on this ... and thus only charged adult solicitation, which they would bargain
+away to nothing."
+During his OPR interview, Menchel said that Lourie's email transmitting the prosecution
+memorandum was his "official introduction" to the case and at that point in time, he had never
+heard of Epstein and had no information about his background. He recalled that the USAO had
+been asked to review the case because the state had not handled it appropriately. Menchel told
+OPR, however, that he had little memory about the facts of the case or what contemporaneous
+opinions he formed about it.
+Acosta told OPR that he could not recall whether he ever read Villafaña's prosecution
+memorandum, explaining that he "would typically rely on senior staff," who had more
+prosecutorial experience, and that instead of reading the memorandum, he may have discussed the
+case with Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, who he assumed would have read the document. Acosta
+37
+In various submissions to the USAO, the defense contended that the federal statute required proof that
+engaging in a sexual act was the "paramount or dominant purpose" of Epstein's travel, but that Epstein's travel was
+motivated by his desire to live outside of New York for over half of each year for tax purposes. The defense also
+asserted that the federal statutes at issue required proof that the defendant knew the victims were under 18, but that
+Epstein "took affirmative steps to ensure that every woman was at least 18 years of age." In her prosecution
+memorandum, however, Villafaña set forth her conclusion that the statute only required proof that engaging in a sexual
+act was one of the motivating factors for the travel. She also concluded that the statutes did not require proof that the
+defendant knew the victims were minors.
+26
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 54 of 349
+recalled generally having conversations with Sloman and Menchel about the Epstein case, but he
+could not recall with specificity when those conversations took place or the details of the
+discussions.
+Sloman told OPR that because of his broad responsibilities as FAUSA, he left it to
+Menchel, as a highly experienced trial attorney and the Criminal Division Chief, to work directly
+with Acosta, and Sloman recalled that it was Menchel and Lourie who conducted a "granular
+review" of the charging package. Acosta confirmed to OPR that Sloman and Menchel "were a
+team" who became involved in issues as needed, and if Sloman perceived that Menchel was taking
+the lead on the Epstein matter, Sloman may have deferred to Menchel.
+C.
+May - June 2007: Miami Managers Consider the Prosecution Memorandum
+and Proposed Charges
+When she submitted the prosecution memorandum, Villafaña intended to file charges by
+May 15, 2007, and the FBI planned to arrest Epstein immediately thereafter. Villafaña, however,
+had not obtained authorization to indict on that schedule. The managers in Miami wanted time to
+analyze the lengthy prosecution memorandum and consider the potential charges and charging
+strategy. Just a few days after he received the prosecution memorandum, and after learning that
+the FBI was planning a press conference for May 15, Sloman advised Villafaña that "[t]his Office
+has not approved the indictment. Therefore, please do not commit us to anything at this time."38
+On May 10, 2007, with Menchel's concurrence, Lourie sent a copy of Villafaña's
+prosecution memorandum to CEOS Chief Andrew Oosterbaan, who in turn sent it to his deputy
+and another CEOS attorney, asking them to assess the legal issues involved in the case and
+describing it as a "highly sensitive" case involving "a high profile, very rich defendant."'" After
+CEOS reviewed the materials, Oosterbaan responded to Lourie with an email stating that the
+memorandum was "exhaustive" and "well done" and noting that Villafaña "has correctly focused
+on the issues as we see them." He summarized CEOS's analysis of the application of key facts to
+the statutes she proposed charging, concurring in Villafaña's assessments but noting that further
+research was needed to determine whether certain statutes required proof of a defendant's
+knowledge of victims' ages. Oosterbaan offered to assign a CEOS attorney to work with Villafaña
+on the case. Lourie forwarded Oosterbaan's email to Menchel and Villafaña.
+Meanwhile, contemporaneous emails show that Lourie, at least, was already considering
+an early resolution of the case through a pre-indictment plea agreement. *° After Lourie spoke with
+38
+Lourie later reported to Menchel that the FBI had "wanted to arrest [Epstein] in [the] Virgin Islands during a
+beauty pageant ... where he is a judge." The case agent recalled that she and her co-case agent were disappointed
+with the decision, and that the Supervisory Special Agent was "extremely upset" about it. After the federal
+investigation began, and except for his self-surrender to face the state indictment in July 2006, Epstein largely stayed
+away from West Palm Beach, only returning occasionally.
+39
+Before becoming Chief of CEOS, Oosterbaan was an AUSA at the USAO for about ten years and was good
+friends with Lourie.
+In her prosecution memorandum, Villafaña argued against pre-charge plea negotiations, arguing that it "may
+undermine our arguments for pretrial detention." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not consider strengthening
+a bail argument to be a valid ground to decline to meet with defense counsel about a case.
+27
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 55 of 349
+the FBI squad supervisor on May 9, 2007, to explain that charges against Epstein would not be
+quickly approved, he reported to Menchel that the FBI was "not happy" about the delay, adding,
+"I did not even tell them I think we should bring [Epstein] in, once we decide to charge him, and
+offer a pre-indictment deal, figuring a judge might never agree to such a deal post indictment. That
+would have sent them thru the roof." Lourie explained to OPR that he thought a judge, after seeing
+in the deal, iring a juries s
+an indictment charging the full nature and scope of Epstein's conduct, might not agree to a plea
+involving substantially less time or to dismiss substantive charges.*
+Lourie told OPR that despite Oosterbaan's favorable opinion of the case, "[t]his was ... a
+bit of uncharted territory," involving facts that were unlike the case law Oosterbaan had cited.
+Although Lourie had some concerns about the legal issues and about the witnesses, he "probably"
+did not see any impediment to going forward with the case; in fact, Lourie "was not in favor of
+walking away, which is what the defense wanted [the USAO] to do." But while Lourie "thought
+we could have won and we could have prevailed through appeal," he "didn't think the odds were
+nearly as good as you want in a criminal case, and ... the things that we had to gain [through a
+plea agreement] were much more than [in] a normal criminal case," in which the only cost of a
+loss would be that the defendant did not go to jail. Lourie told OPR that to the best of his
+recollection, he thought a plea agreement would be a good result, and although the government
+might have to "give up some jail time," there were other benefits to a plea, such as the ability to
+require Epstein to register as a sex offender and the availability of monetary damages for the
+victims. Lourie recalled "thinking that this case should settle and we should set it up so we can
+settle it" by, for example, charging Epstein by complaint and then negotiating a plea to limited
+charges in a criminal information. Villafaña told OPR that she agreed with Lourie that a criminal
+complaint charging an "omnibus conspiracy" containing "all of the information related to what the
+case was about" would be a good way to "get things moving" toward a pre-indictment plea.
+Although Lourie and Villafaña believed a pre-indictment plea agreement was a desired
+resolution, there was no guarantee that Epstein would agree to plead guilty, and they continued to
+work together to shape an indictment. On May 10, 2007, Lourie emailed Villafaña:
+[M]arie
+I believe that Epstein's att[orneys] are scared of the victims they
+don't know. Epstein has no doubt told them that there were many.
+Thus I believe the f[ir]st indictment should contain only the victims
+they have nothing on at all. We can add in the other ones that have
+myspace [sic] pages and prior testimony in a [superseding
+indictment]. I think for the first strike we should make all their
+nightmare[]s come true. Thoughts?42
+41
+ourie explained to OPR that the government's dismissal of counts in an indictment required the court'
+e Tral an ehensive icemen, ivas notsilv satande seeing to be dumind extent of Epstein's conduct a.
+42
+Lourie's references to MySpace pages and "prior testimony" referred to the impeachment information
+brought forward by defense counsel.
+28
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 56 of 349
+Lourie followed up his email to Villafaña with one to Menchel, in which Lourie reiterated
+the potential benefits of a pre-indictment plea, explaining that he and Villafaña believed "the best
+thing to do is charge Epstein by complaint, assuming we decide to charge him. ... The
+[sentencing] guidelines will be in the 20 year range, so we would need to plead him to one or two
+conspiracies to cap him and there is no telling if a judge would go for that once we indict."43
+Menchel responded that he and Acosta would read the prosecution memorandum and "[wle can
+discuss after that."
+Later that afternoon, Villafaña sent Lourie an email, which Lourie forwarded to Menchel,
+explaining that a "conservative calculation" of Epstein's potential sentencing exposure under the
+U.S. Sentencing Guidelines would be 168 to 210 months, and that in her view, the facts warranted
+an upward departure from that range. Villataña told OPR that although Lourie proposed some
+changes to the draft indietment, at that point no one had told her that the evidence was insufficient
+to support the proposed charges or that the office did not want to go forward with the case.
+In an email to Acosta and Menchel on May 11, 2007, Lourie recommended charging
+Epstein by complaint and seeking a pre-indictment plea:
+My current thoughts are that we should charge him. Not sure that I
+agree with the charging strategy as it is now, but at this point I think
+we only need to get on the same page as to whether the statutes cover
+the conduct and whether the conduct is the type we should charge.
+I think the answer to both is yes, although there is some risk on some
+of the statutes as this is uncharted territory to some degree. We can
+decide later what the [charging document] should look like precisely
+and which victims should be charged.
+I also think if we choose to go forward, we should start with a
+complaint, arrest him, detain him ... and then try to see if he wants
+a pre-indictment resolution. That would give us more control [over]
+a plea than if we indiet him and need the court's approval to dismiss
+counts. We will need to cap him with conspiracy counts to make a
+plea attractive and the court could give us a hard time with that if we
+try to dismiss indicted counts.
+Although her supervisors were communicating among themselves about the case, Villafaña
+was unaware of those discussions and was frustrated that she was not receiving more feedback.
+She continued preparing to charge Epstein. Two weeks after submitting the prosecution
+memorandum, on May 14, 2007, Villafaña informed Lourie and Menchel by email that Epstein
+was flying to New Jersey from the Virgin Islands, and she asked whether she could file charges
+the next day. Menchel responded that "LyJou will not have approval to go forward tomorrow,"
+and explained that Acosta "has your [prosecution] memo," but was at an out-of-town conference,
+adding, "This is obviously a very significant case and [A]lex wants to take his time making sure
+43
+Lourie told OPR that he was referring to one or two counts of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the general
+"omnibus" federal conspiracy statute that carries a maximum sentence of five years.
+29
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 57 of 349
+he is comfortable before proceeding." Menchel told Villafaña he had "trouble understanding" why
+she was in a "rush" "given how long this case has been pending."44
+OPR questioned Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and Acosta about the timeline for reviewing
+the prosecution memorandum and the proposed charges. Acosta and Menchel believed Villafaña's
+timeline was unrealistic from the start. Acosta told OPR that Villafaña was "very hard charging,"
+but her timeline for filing charges in the case was "really, really fast." Menchel described Villafaña
+as "out over her skis a little bit" and "ahead of" Acosta in terms of his analysis of the case.45
+Menchel said it was clear to him that Acosta "was going to be the one making the call" about
+whether to go forward with charges, and Acosta needed more time to make a decision. Menchel
+told OPR, "This [was] not a case [we were] going to review in two weeks and make a decision
+on." Sloman told OPR that although he did not conduct a "granular review" of the proposed
+charges, he believed Menchel and Lourie had done so and "obviously" had concluded that "the
+facts and the law didn't suggest that the right thing to do was to automatically indict." Lourie told
+OPR that he believed "the case was moving ahead."
+Villafaña continued to seek direction from her managers. On May 15, 2007, she emailed
+Sloman, noting that "li]t seemed from our discussion yesterday that pestering Alex [Acosta] will
+not do any good. Am I right about that?" Sloman responded, "Yes." On May 21, 2007, three
+weeks after submitting the prosecution memorandum, Villafaña emailed Sloman and Menchel
+asking for a sense of the direction where we are headed-i.e., approval of an indictment something
+like the current draft, a complaint to allow for pre-indictment negotiations, an indictment
+drastically different from the current draft?" Sloman responded only, "Taken care of."46
+D. Defense Counsel Seek a Meeting with Senior USAO Managers, which
+Villafaña Opposes
+Meanwhile, Epstein's defense counsel continued to seck additional information about the
+federal investigation and a meeting with senior USAO managers, including Acosta. In a May 10,
+2007 email to Menchel, Lourie reported that Epstein's attorneys "want me to tell them the statutes
+44
+Villafaña explained to OPR that the "rush" related to her concern that Epstein was continuing to abuse girls:
+"In terms of the issue of why the hurry, because child sex offenders don't stop until they're behind bars. That was our
+time concern." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not recall Villafaña offering this explanation to him. OPR
+notes that in their respective statements to OPR and in their comments on OPR's draft report, Menchel and Villafaña
+expressed contradictory accounts or interpretations of certain events. When it was necessary for OPR to resolve those
+conflicts in order to reach its findings and conclusions, OPR considered the extensive documentary record and the
+testimony of other subjects and witnesses, to the extent available.
+45
+Sloman similarly recalled that Menchel thought Villafaña was "ahead of where the office was internally" and
+that caused "discontent" between Villafaña and Menchel. Villafaña was not the only one, however, who was surprised
+that the indictment was not approved immediately. The case agent told OPR that it seemed "everything changed"
+after Villafaña submitted the prosecution memorandum, and the momentum towards an indictment abated. Villafaña's
+immediate supervisor told OPR that from her perspective, it appeared "Miami didn't want the case prosecuted."
+However, Menchel rebuked Villafaña in his July 5, 2007 email to her for having "led the agents to believe that [filing
+charges in] this matter was a foregone conclusion."
+46
+Sloman could not recall during his OPR interview what he meant by this remark, but he speculated that he
+had spoken to Menchel, and Menchel was going to take care of it.
+30
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 58 of 349
+we are contemplating so Dershowitz can tell us why they don't apply."47 Lourie told Menchel, "I
+don't see the downside," but added, "l
+is against it." Menchel responded that it was
+"premature" to provide the information. During his OPR interview, Menchel could not specifically
+recall why he believed it was "premature" to provide the defense with the requested information,
+but speculated that it was too soon after the prosecution memorandum had been circulated for
+Acosta to have made a decision about how he wanted to proceed. This recollection is consistent
+with the May 2007 emails reflecting that Acosta wanted time to consider the proposed prosecution.
+On May 22, 2007, defense counsel Lefcourt emailed Lourie a letter to "confirm" that
+Epstein's attorneys would be given an opportunity to meet with Lourie before the USAO reached
+a final decision on charging Epstein. Lourie forwarded the letter to Menchel and Sloman, but
+noted that Epstein's defense team was "really ready for the next level," rather than another meeting
+with him. Lourie suggested that Menchel meet with defense counsel, adding, "Whether Alex
+would be present or grant them another meeting after that is his call." Lourie also emailed
+Lefcourt, clarifying that Lourie had not promised to call Epstein's counsel before filing charges,
+and suggesting that Epstein's counsel make their next presentation to Menchel.
+Although Lourie's emails show that he had no objection to more senior USAO managers
+meeting with defense counsel, Villafaña opposed such a meeting. Several emails indicate that
+Menchel traveled to West Palm Beach to meet with Lourie and Villafaña on the afternoon of
+May 23, 2007.48 On that same date, Villafaña drafted an email, which she planned to send to
+Sloman and Menchel, expressing her disagreement with meeting with defense counsel. Although
+the email was written for Sloman and Menchel, Villafaña sent it as a draft only to her immediate
+supervisor, seeking her "guidance and counsel" as to how to proceed.
+Hi Jeff and Matt - I just want to again voice my disagreement with
+promising to have a meeting or having a meeting with Lefcourt or
+any other of Epstein's attorneys. As I mentioned, this is not a case
+where we will be sitting down to negotiate whether a defendant will
+serve one year versus two years of probation. This is a case where
+the defendant is facing the possibility of dozens of years of prison
+time. Just as the defense will defend a case like that differently than
+they would handle a probation-type case, we need to handle this case
+differently. Part of our prosecution strategy was already disclosed
+at the last meeting, and i am concerned that more will be disclosed
+at a future meeting.
+My co-chair ... who has prosecuted more of these cases than the
+rest of us combined and who actually worked on the drafting of
+ome of the child exploitation statutes, also opposes a meeting. W
+lave been accused of not being "strategic thinkers" because of ou
+47
+Dershowitz had joined Lefcourt and
+| in representing Epstein for the federal case.
+31
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 59 of 349
+opposition to these meetings, but we are simply looking at this case
+as a violent crime prosecution involving stiff penalties rather than as
+collar or public corruption case where the parties can
+amicably work out a light sentence. *9
+With respect to the "policy reasons" that Lefcourt wants to discuss,
+those were already raised in his letter (which is part of the indictment
+package) and during his meeting with Andy and myself. Those
+reasons are: (1) he wants the Petit [sic] policy to trump our ability
+to prosecute Epstein, (2) this shouldn't be a federal offense, and
+(3) the victims were willing participants so the crime shouldn't be
+prosecuted at all. Unless the Office thinks that any of those
+arguments will be persuasive, a meeting will not be beneficial to the
+prosecution, it will only benefit the defense. With respect to
+Lefcourt's promised legal analysis, that also has already been
+provided. The only way to get additional analysis is to expose to the
+defense the other charges that we are considering. In my opinion
+this would seriously undermine the prosecution
+The defense is anxious to have a meeting in order to delay the
+investigation/prosecution, to find out more about our investigation,
+and to use political pressure to stop the investigation.
+I have no control over the Office's decisions regarding whether to
+meet with the defense or to whom the facts and analysis of the case
+will be disclosed. However, if you all do decide to go forward with
+these meetings in a way that is detrimental to the investigation, then
+I will have to ask to have the case reassigned to an AUSA who is in
+agreement with the handling of the case.
+After receiving this draft, the immediate supervisor cautioned Villafaña, "Let's talk before
+this is sent, please."0 Villafaña told OPR that the supervisor counseled Villafaña not to send the
+email to Sloman or Menchel because Villafaña could be viewed as insubordinate. She also told
+Villafaña that if Villafaña did not stay with the case, "the case would go away" and Epstein "would
+never serve a day in jail."
+Villafaña told OPR that at that point in time, she believed the USAO was preparing to file
+charges against Epstein despite agreeing to accommodate the defense request for meetings. She
+also told OPR, on the other hand, that she feared the USAO was "going down the same path that
+the State Attorney's Office had gone down." Villafaña believed the purpose of the defense request
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel noted Menchel's view that the nature of :
+lefendant's crimes and potential penalty does not affect whether prosecutors are willing to meet with defense counse
+to discuss the merits of a case.
+50
+The immediate supervisor recalled telling Villafaña that she and Villafaña were "not driving the ship," an
+once "the bosses" made the decision, "there's nothing else you can do."
+32
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 60 of 349
+for meetings was to cause delay, but "the people in my office either couldn't see that or didn't
+want to see that," perhaps because of "their lack of experience with these types of cases" or a
+misguided belief "that [Epstein's] attorneys would not engage in this behavior." Villafaña told
+OPR that she "could not seem to get [her supervisors] to understand the seriousness of Epstein's
+behavior and the fact that he was probably continuing to commit the behavior, and that there was
+a need to move with necessary speed." Nonetheless, Villafaña followed the guidance of her
+immediate supervisor and did not send the email.
+Like Lourie, Menchel told OPR that he believed meeting with defense counsel was good
+practice. Menchel told OPR that he saw "no downside" to hearing the defense point of view.
+Defense counsel might make a persuasive point "that's actually going to change our mind," or
+alternatively, present arguments the defense would inevitably raise if the case went forward, and
+Menchel believed it would be to the USAO's advantage to learn about such arguments in advance.
+Menchel also told OPR that he did not recall Villafaña ever articulating a concern that Epstein was
+continuing to offend, and in Menchel's view, Epstein was "already under a microscope, at least in
+Florida," and it would have been "the height of stupidity" for Epstein to continue to offend in those
+circumstances.
+E. June 2007: Villafaña Supplements the Prosecution Memorandum
+While Villafaña's supervisors were considering whether to go forward with the proposed
+charges, Villafaña took additional steps to support them. On June 14, 2007, she supplemented the
+prosecution memorandum with an addendum addressing "credibility concerns" relating to one of
+the victims. In the email transmitting the addendum to Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her
+immediate supervisor, Villafaña reported, "another Jane Doe has been identified and interviewed,"
+and the "different strategies" about how to structure the charges left Villafaña unsure whether "to
+make ... changes now or wait until we have received approval of the current charging strategy."
+The addendum itself related to a particular victim referred to as the minor who "saw Epstein most
+frequently" and who had allegedly engaged in sexual activity with both Epstein and an Epstein
+assistant. In the addendum, Villafaña identified documents she had found corroborating four
+separate statements made by this victim.
+Villafaña told OPR that the only victim about whom any supervisor ever articulated
+specific credibility issues was the victim discussed in the addendum. Loure told OPR that he had
+no specific recollection of the addendum, but it was "reasonable" to assume that the addendum
+addressed one particular victim because no one had identified specific concerns relating to any
+other victim. Villafaña's immediate supervisor similarly told OPR that to her recollection, the
+discussions about credibility issues were generic rather than tied to specific victims.
+F.
+The June 26, 2007 Meeting with Defense Counsel
+with
+Menchel agreed to meet with defense counsel on June 26, 2007, communicating directly
+about the arrangements. At Menchel's instruction, on June 18, 2007, Villafaña sent
+a letter to defense counsel identifying what she described as "the statutes under consideration. "51
+S1
+Villafaña sent copies of this letter to both Menchel and
+Villafaña told OPR that she objected to
+sending this information to the defense. Although Menchel did not recall directing Villafaña to send the letter to
+33
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 61 of 349
+On that same day, Villafaña emailed Lourie, Menchel, Sloman, and her immediate supervisor
+complaining that she had received no reply to her query about making changes to the proposed
+indictment and asking again for feedback. During his OPR interview, Lourie observed that
+Villafaña's request for feedback reflected her desire to "charge this case sooner than ... everybody
+else," but Acosta was still considering what strategy to pursue. Sloman told OPR that he did not
+know whether Villafaña received any response to her request, but he believed that at that point in
+time, Menchel and Lourie were evaluating the case to make a decision about how to proceed.
+The day before the June 26 meeting, defense counsel Lefcourt transmitted to the USAO a
+19-page letter intended to provide "an overview of our position and the materials we plan to present
+in order to demonstrate that none of the statutes identified by you can rightly be applied to the
+conduct at issue here." Reiterating their prior arguments and themes, defense counsel strongly
+contested the appropriateness of federal involvement in the matter. Among other issues, Lefcourt's
+letter argued:
+• Voluntary sexual activity involving "young adults 16 or 17 years of age" was
+"strictly a state concern."
+• Federal statutes were not meant to apply to circumstances in which the defendant
+reasonably believed that the person with whom he engaged in sexual activity was
+18 years of age.
+• One of the chief statutes the USAO had focused upon, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), was
+intended to address use of the internet to prey upon child victims through 'internet
+trolling," but Epstein did not use the internet to lure victims.
+• The "travel" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), prohibits travel "for the purpose of"
+engaging in illicit sexual conduct, but Epstein traveled to Florida to visit family,
+oversee his Florida-based flight operations, and "engage in the routine activities of
+daily living."
+Lefcourt also argued again that "irregularities" had tainted the state's case and would "have a
+significant impact on any federal prosecution.52
+Lourie sent to Menchel, with a copy to Villafaña, an email dividing the defense arguments
+into "weaker" and "stronger" points. Lourie disagreed with the argument that 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
+was limited to "internet trolling," and described this as "our best charge and the most defensible
+for federal interest." On the other hand, Lourie believed the defense argument that Epstein did not
+travel to Florida "with the purpose'" of engaging in illicit sex with a minor was more persuasive.
+Lefcourt, he told OPR that he "wouldn't take issue" with Villafaña's claim that he had done so. Menchel also told
+OPR that he did not recall Villafaña objecting at that point to providing the information to the defense.
+52
+Lefcourt claimed there were deficiencies in the PBPD search warrant and "material misstatements and
+omissions" in the PBPD probable cause affidavit. As an example, he contended that the police had lacked probable
+cause to search for videotapes, "since all the women who were asked whether they had been videotaped denieo
+knowledge of any videotaping." (Emphasis in original).
+34
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 62 of 349
+Lourie opined that the government could argue "that over time [Epstein] set up a network of illegal
+high school massage recruits that would be difficult to duplicate anywhere else," which supported
+the conclusion that the massages must have been a motivating purpose of his travel, if not the sole
+purpose. However, Lourie expressed concern about "getting to the jury" on this issue and noted
+that he had not found a legal case factually on point. Villafaña told OPR that she disagreed with
+Lourie's analysis of the purpose of travel issue and had discussed the matter with him. 3 Villafaña
+also recalled that there were aspects of the defense submissions she and her colleagues considered
+"particularly weak."
+On June 26, 2007, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, Villafaña, the case agent, and the West Palm
+Beach squad supervisor met at the Miami USAO with Epstein attorneys Dershowitz, Black,
+Lefcourt, and l
+• Dershowitz led the defense team's presentation. From the USAO
+perspective, the meeting was merely a "listening session."4 Echoing the arguments made in
+Lefcourt's letter, Dershowitz argued that the USAO should permit the state to handle the case
+because these were "traditionally state offenses." The case agent recalled being uncomfortable
+that the defense was asking questions in an attempt to gain information about the federal
+investigation, including the number of victims and the types of sexual contact that had been
+involved.
+Villafaña told OPR that when Epstein's attorneys left the meeting, they appeared to be
+"under the impression that they had convinced us not to proceed." But Menchel told OPR, "[T]hey
+obviously did not persuade" the USAO because "we ... didn't drop the investigation." According
+to Villafaña, Lourie, and Menchel, during a short post-meeting discussion at which Lourie
+expressed concern about the purpose of travel issue and Menchel raised issues related to general
+credibility of the victims, the prevailing sense among the USAO participants was that the defense
+presentation had not been persuasive. Villafaña told OPR that she "left [the meeting] with the
+impression that we were continuing towards" filing charges.
+IV. ACOSTA DECIDES TO OFFER EPSTEIN A TWO-YEAR STATE PLEA TO
+RESOLVE THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
+USAO internal communications show that in July 2007, Acosta developed, or adopted, the
+broad outline of an agreement that could resolve the federal investigation. The agreement would
+leave the case in state court by requiring Epstein to plead guilty to state charges, but would
+accomplish three goals important to the federal prosecutors: Epstein's incarceration; his
+registration as a sexual offender; and a mechanism to provide for the victims to recover monetary
+53
+Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie had, at times, expressed concern about the prosecution's ability to prove
+Epstein's knowledge of the victims' ages, particularly with regard to those who were 16 or 17 at the time they provided
+massages.
+54
+In his written response to OPR, Menchel indicated that he had no independent recollection of the June 26,
+2007 meeting. In his OPR interview, Menchel said that although he had little memory of the meeting, to the best of
+his recollection the USAO simply listened to the defense presentation, and in a contemporaneous email, Menchel
+opined that he viewed the upcoming June 26 meeting as "more as [the USAO] listening and them presenting their
+position."
+35
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 63 of 349
+damages." During a two-month period, the subject attorneys were involved to varying degrees in
+converting the broad outline into specific terms, resulting in the NPA signed by Epstein on
+September 24, 2007. The subjects, including Acosta, were generally able to explain to OPR both
+the larger goals and the case-related factors they likely considered during the process of
+conceptualizing, negotiating, and finalizing this resolution. However, the contemporaneous emails
+and other records do not reflect all of the conversations among the decision makers, and their
+deliberative and decision-making process is therefore not entirely clear. In particular, Menchel
+and Acosta had offices located near each other and likely spoke in person about the case, but
+neither had a clear memory of their conversations. Therefore, OPR could not determine all of the
+facts surrounding the development of the two-year state plea resolution or the NPA.
+In the following account, OPR discusses the initial key decision to resolve the federal
+investigation through state, rather than federal, charges, and sets forth many of the numerous
+communications that reflect the negotiations between the parties that led to the final NPA. OPR
+questioned each of the subjects about how the decision was reached to pursue a state resolution,
+and OPR includes below the subjects' explanations. The subjects' memories of particular
+conversations about this topic were unclear, but from their statements to OPR, a general consensus
+emerged that there were overlapping concerns about the viability of the legal theories, the
+willingness of the victims to testify, the impact of a trial on the victims, the overall strength of the
+case that had been developed at that time, and the uncertainty about the USAO's ability to prevail
+at trial and through appeal. In addition, Acosta was concerned about usurping the state's authority
+to prosecute a case involving an offense that was traditionally handled by state prosecutors. Based
+on this evidence, OPR concludes that Acosta may well have formulated the initial plan to resolve
+the matter through a state plea. In any event, Acosta acknowledged to OPR that, at a minimum,
+he approved of the concept of a state-based resolution after being made aware of the allegations
+and the evidence against Epstein as set forth in Villafaña's prosecution memorandum.
+Furthermore, Acosta approved of the final terms of the NPA.
+A.
+June - July 2007: The USAO Proposes a State Plea Resolution, which the
+Defense Rejects
+A few days after the June 26, 2007 meeting,
+emailed Villafaña, advising her that
+Epstein's defense team would submit additional material to the USAO by July 11, 2007, and hoped
+"to be able to reach a state-based resolution shortly thereafter."5® In a July 3, 2007 email, Villafaña
+told Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and her immediate supervisor that she intended to initiate plea
+discussions by inviting
+"to discuss a resolution of the federal investigation that could
+55
+State laws require that a person convicted of specified sexual offenses register in a database intended to allow
+law enforcement and the public to know the whereabouts of sexual offenders after release from punitive custody, and,
+in some cases, to restrict such individuals' movements and activities. The Florida Sexual Offender/Predator Registry
+is administered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
+of 2006 established a comprehensive, national sex offender registration system called the Sex Offender Registration
+and Notification Act (SORNA), to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior laws and to strengthen
+the nationwide network of sex offender registrations.
+In this email,
+also requested a two-week extension of time for compliance with the USAO's demands
+for records, which included a demand for the computer equipment that had been taken from Epstein's residence before
+the October 2005 state search warrant and that Villafaña had been requesting from the defense since late 2006.
+36
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 64 of 349
+include concurrent time." The email primarily concerned other issues, and Villafaña did not
+explain what the resolution she had in mind would entail. Villafaña requested to be advised,
+"[ilf anyone has communicated anything to Epstein's attorneys that is contrary to this." Villafaña,
+who was aware that Menchel and Lourie had been in direct contact with defense counsel about the
+case, explained to OPR that she made this request because "people were communicating with the
+defense attorneys," and she suspected that those communications may have included discussions
+about a possible plea.
+In response to Villafaña's email, Menchel notified Villafaña that he had told
+*a
+state plea [with] jail time and sex offender status may satisfy the [U.S. Attorney]," but
+had responded that it "was a non-starter for them."58 During his OPR interview, Menchel had no
+independent recollection of his conversation with
+and did not remember why the defense
+deemed the proposal a "non-starter." However, Menchel explained that he would not have made
+the proposal to
+without Acosta's knowledge. He also pointed out that in numerous emails
+before the June 26, 2007 meeting, he repeatedly noted that Acosta was still deciding what he
+wanted to do with the Epstein case. Acosta agreed, telling OPR that although he did not remembe
+a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based resolution, Menchel would not havi
+discussed a potential resolution with
+"without having discussed it with me."
+1.
+Acosta's Explanation for His Decision to Pursue a State-based
+Resolution
+Subsequent events showed that the decision to resolve the case through state charges was
+pivotal, and OPR extensively questioned Acosta about his reasoning. In his OPR interview, Acosta
+explained the various factors that influenced his decision to pursue a state-based resolution. Acosta
+said that although he, Sloman, and Menchel "believed the victims" and "believed [Epstein] did
+what he did," they were concerned "about some of the legal issues... and some of the issues in
+terms of testimony."59 Acosta also recalled discussions with his "senior team" about how the
+victims would "do on the stand."
+Acosta told OPR that "from the earliest point" in the investigation, he considered whether,
+because the state had indicted the case, the USAO should pursue it.
+57
+Villafaña explained to OPR that she intended to recommend a plea to a federal conspiracy charge and a
+substantive charge, "consistent with the Ashcroff Memo, which would be the most readily provable offense," with a
+recommendation that the sentence on the federal charges run concurrent with the state sentence, or that [Epstein]
+would receive credit for time in state custody towards his federal release date." See n.65 for an explanation of the
+Villafaña was then in trial and on July 4, 2007, likely before reading Menchel's email, Villafaña responded
+to defense counsel regarding the demand for records and also noted, "If you would like to discuss the possibility of a
+federal resolution ... that could run concurrently with any state resolution, please leave a message on my voicemail."
+59
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Sloman stated he had no involvement in assessing the Epstein case or
+deciding how to resolve it, and that OPR should not identify him as among the people upon whom Acosta relied in
+reaching the two-year-state-plea resolution through the NPA. However, Sloman also told OPR that he had little
+recollection of the Epstein case, while Acosta specifically recalled having discussed the case with both Sloman and
+Menchel.
+37
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 65 of 349
+[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so
+here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign ...
+state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind ... the
+whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state ...
+is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what
+they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except
+in the most unusual of circumstances.
+Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein would have
+become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. As Acosta
+explained in a public statement he issued in 2011, "the federal responsibility" in this unique
+situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no
+miscarriage of justice."6° Furthermore, Acosta saw a distinction between a case that originated as
+a federal investigation and one that had already been indicted by the state but was brought to the
+federal government because of a perception that the state charge was inadequate. In the latter
+circumstance, Acosta viewed the USAO's role only as preventing a "manifest injustice."6l Acosta
+explained that "no jail time" would have been a manifest injustice. But it was his understanding
+that if Epstein had pled guilty to state charges and received a two-year sentence to a registrable
+offense, "it would never have come to the office in the first place," and therefore would not be
+viewed as a manifest injustice.
+Acosta also told OPR he was concerned that a federal prosecution in this case would result
+in unfavorable precedent, because the Epstein case straddled the line between "solicitation" or
+"prostitution," which Acosta described as a traditional state concern, and "trafficking," which was
+an emerging matter of federal interest. Acosta contended that in 2006, "it would have been
+extremely unusual for any United States Attorney's Office to become involved in a state
+solicitation case, even one involving underage teens," because solicitation was "the province of
+state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR,
+, "I'm not saying it was the right view -- but there are at least
+some individuals who would have looked at this and said, this is a solicitation case, not a trafficking
+case." Acosta was concerned that if the USAO convicted Epstein of a federal charge, an appeal
+might result in an adverse opinion about the distinction between prostitution and sex trafficking.
+Acosta also told OPR that he was concerned that a trial would be difficult for Epstein's
+victims. In Acosta's estimation, a trial court in 2007 might have permitted "victim shaming."
+which would have been traumatic for them. In addition, the fact that the state grand jury returned
+a one-count indictment with a charge that would not require jail time suggested to Acosta that the
+state grand jury found little merit to the case. 2 Acosta told OPR:
+60
+Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The
+Daily Beast.
+Acosta was referring to the Petite policy provision allowing the presumption that a prior state prosecution
+has vind the heraleven federal in as to be one endance erior til entice was manifestly nadelate
+federal prosecution." USAM § 9-2.031.D.
+62
+Acosta told OPR he was unaware that USAO prosecutors believed the State Attorney's Office had
+deliberately undermined the case before the state grand jury. Menchel told OPR that he understood that the State
+38
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 66 of 349
+I do think it's important to look back on this, and try to be in the
+shoes of the thought process in 2006 and '07 when trafficking
+prosecutions were tairly new, when ... more so than today, some
+jurors may have looked at this as prostitution, and ... [a] judge's
+tolerance for victim shaming may have ... caused more hesitation
+on the part of victims....
+Finally, Acosta told OPR that a state-based resolution offered more flexibility in fashioning
+a sentence, because he believed prosecutors would have difficulty persuading a federal district
+court in the Southern District of Florida to approve a federal plea for a stipulated binding sentence
+that differed from the otherwise applicable federal sentencing guidelines range. *
+In summarizing his thinking at the time, Acosta told OPR,
+The way the matter came to the office was, the state wasn't doing
+enough. It didn't provide for prison time. It didn't provide for
+registration, and then you had the restitution issue. There were legal
+issues... There were witness issues. And ... we could go to trial
+•.. and we may or may not prevail. Alternatively, we could look at
+a pre-indictment resolution, and at various points, the office went
+back and forth between a federal pre-indictment resolution, and a
+state pre-indictment resolution.
+Acosta told OPR that, in the end, "there was a preference for deferring to the state" because, in
+part, the facts of the Epstein case at the time appeared to constitute solicitation or prostitution
+rather than trafficking, and a federal prosecution would be "uncharted territory." Acosta explained
+that he did not view it as problematic to defer resolution of the case to the state, although as the
+Epstein case played out, the federal role became "more intrusive" than he had anticipated, because
+the defense tried to get the state to "circumvent and undermine" the outcome.
+Attorney's Office could have proceeded against Epstein by way of an information, but decided to go into the grand
+jury because the State Attorney's Office "didn't like the case" and wanted "political cover" for declining the case or
+proceeding on a lesser charge.
+Menchel told OPR, however, that the federal judges in West Palm Beach were highly regarded and were
+generally viewed as "pro-prosecution."
+Acosta said that "dismissing a number of counts and then doing a [Rjule 11 is not something that [South
+Florida federal district] judges tend to do." Other subjects also told OPR that the federal judges in the Southern District
+of Florida were generally considered averse to pleas that bound them on sentencing, commonly referred to as "Rule
+11 (c) pleas."
+a plea agreement. The court is required to impose that sentence if the court accepts the plea agreement; if the court
+does not accept the agreed upon plea and sentence, the agreement is void. Villafaña told OPR that Rule 11(c) pleas
+were "uncommon" in the Southern District of Florida, as the "judges do not like to be told ... what sentence to
+impose." Menchel similarly told OPR that the USAO viewed federal judges in the Southern District of Florida as
+averse to Rule 11(c) pleas, although Menchel had negotiated such pleas. Villafaña told OPR that she had never offered
+a Rule 11(c) plea in any of her cases and had no experience with such pleas.
+39
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 67 of 349
+Menchel could not recall who initially suggested a state plea, but noted to OPR that his
+own "emails ... make clear that this course of action was ultimately decided by Alex Acosta." He
+referenced, among others, his May 14, 2007 email to Villafaña informing her that Acosta was
+deciding how he wanted to handle the case. Menchel surmised that a state resolution accomplished
+two things that Acosta viewed as important: first, it resolved any Petite policy concerns, and
+second, it afforded more flexibility in sentencing than a federal plea would have allowed. Menchel
+told OPR that the state plea proposal did not reflect any minimization of Epstein's conduct and
+that any state plea would have been to an offense that required sexual offender registration. He
+told OPR, "I don't think anybody sat around and said, you know, it's not that big a deal. That was
+not the reaction that I think anybody had from the federal side of this case." Rather, Menchel said,
+"The concern was if we charge him [as proposed], there's going to be a trial."
+2.
+July 2007: Villafaña and Menchel Disagree about the Proposed State
+Resolution
+Villafaña told OPR that she was angry when she received Menchel's July email explaining
+that he had proposed to
+resolving the federal investigation through a state plea. In
+Villafaña's view, the proposed state resolution "didn't make any sense" and "did not correspond"
+to Department policy requiring that a plea offer reflect "the most serious readily provable
+offense."6S In her view, a plea to a state charge "obviously" would not satisfy this policy. Villafaña
+also told OPR that in her view, the USAM required the USAO to confer with the investigative
+agency about plea negotiations, and Villafaña did not believe the FBI would be in favor of a state
+plea. Villafaña also believed the CVRA required attorneys for the government to confer with
+victims before making a plea offer, but the victims had not been consulted about this proposal.
+Villafaña told OPR she had met with some of the victims during the course of the investigation
+who had negative impressions of the State Attorney's Office, and she believed that "sending them
+back to the State Attorney's Office was not something" those victims would support.
+regarding Departy ma Policy hona Singear Crinmal Crimal orientses Disposit orCharges, and Sentencinon
+(known as the "Ashcroft Memo"), which provided, in pertinent part:
+[In all federal criminal cases, federal prosecutors must charge and pursue the
+most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts
+of the case, except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, United States
+Attorney, or designated supervisory attorney in the limited circumstances
+described below. The most serious offense or offenses are those that generate the
+most substantial sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, unless a mandatory
+to prove a charge at trial. Thus, charges should not be filed simply to exert
+leverage to induce a plea. Once filed, the most serious readily provable charges
+may not be dismissed except to the extent permitted [elsewhere in this
+Memorandum].
+See also Chapter Two, Part Two, Section II.B.1.
+40
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 68 of 349
+In light of these concerns, Villafaña emailed Menchel, expressing her strong disagreement
+with the process:
+[It is inappropriate for you to enter into plea negotiations without
+consulting with me or the investigative agencies, and it is more
+inappropriate to make a plea offer that you know is completely
+unacceptable to the FBI, ICE [Immigration and Customs
+Enforcement], the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate
+the Ashcroft memo, the U.S. Attorney[s'] Manual, and all of the
+various iterations of the victims' rights legislation. Strategically,
+you have started the plea negotiations as though we are in a position
+of weakness, anxious to make the case go away, by telling the
+defense that we will demand no federal conviction. We left the
+meeting on June 26th in a stronger position than when we entered,
+and your statement that a state resolution would satisfy us takes
+away that advantage. If you make it seem like the U.S. Attorney
+doesn't have faith in our investigation, Epstein has no incentive to
+make a deal.
+Second, your discussion makes it appear that my investigation is for
+"show" only and completely undermines my ability to deal with
+Epstein's attorneys directly....
+• = = =
+I would like to make a presentation to the U.S. Attorney, Jeff
+[Sloman], Andy [Lourie], and you with our side of the investigation
+and a revised indictment. The presentation will address the points
+raised by Epstein's counsel and will convince you all of the strength
+of the case.
+In the meantime, please direct all communications from Epstein's
+counsel to me.
+Menchel told OPR he realized Villafaña was "very anxious" to file charges in the case.
+Villafaña had put a "tremendous" amount of effort into the investigation, and Menchel "was not
+unsympathetic at all to her desires" to pursue a federal case. However, as Menchel told OPR,
+Villafaña's supervisors, including Acosta, were "trying to be a little bit more dispassionate," and
+her urgency was "not respectful" of Acosta's position. Menchel viewed the tone of Villafaña's
+email as "highly unacceptable," and her understanding of applicable law and policy incorrect. In
+particular, Menchel pointed out that although the Ashcroft Memo requires prosecutors to charge
+the "most readily provable offense," there is nevertheless room for "flexibility," and that the U.S.
+Attorney has discretion —directly or through a designated supervisor such as Menchel to waive
+the policy.
+41
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 69 of 349
+Menchel's reply email began with a rebuke:
+Both the tone and substance of your email are totally inappropriate
+and, in combination with other matters in the past, it seriously calls
+your judgment into question.
+As you well know, the US Attorney has not even decided whether
+to go forward with a prosecution in this matter, thus you should have
+respected his position before engaging in plea negotiations.
+Along that same line, despite whatever contrary representations you
+made to the agents in this matter, it was made clear to you by the US
+Attorney and the First Assistant from the time when you were first
+authorized to investigate Mr. Epstein that the office had concerns
+about taking this case because of petit [sic] policy and a number of
+legal issues. Despite being told these things, you prepared a pros
+memo and indictment that included a definitive date for indictment.
+It has come to my attention that you led the agents to believe that
+the indictment of this matter was a foregone conclusion and that our
+decision to put off that date and listen to the defense attorneys
+concerns is indicative of the office having second thoughts about
+indicting. As you well knew, you were never given authorization
+by anyone to seek an indictment in this case. "6
+In the email, Menchel went on to explain the circumstances of his conversation with
+_ and respond to Villafaña's complaints:
+Lilly
+called me before, not after, the June 26th meeting. It
+was an informal discussion and not in the nature of an official plea
+offer but rather a feeling out by both sides as to what it might take
+to resolve the matter. As you are also well aware, the only reason
+why this office even agreed to look into the Epstein matter in the
+first instance was because of concerns that the State had not done an
+adequate job in vindicating the victims' rights. As you and the
+agents conceded, had Epstein been convicted of a felony that
+resulted in a jail sentence and sex offender status, neither the FBI
+nor our office ever would have interceded. You should also know
+that my discussion with Lilly
+was made with the US
+Attorney's full knowledge. Had Lilly
+expressed interest in
+pursuing this avenue further, I certainly would have raised it with all
+the interested individuals in this case, including you and the agents.
+In any event, I fail to see how a discussion that went nowhere has
+hurt our bargaining position. I am also quite confident that no one
+66
+Menchel also sent this message to Sloman and copied Lourie.
+42
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 70 of 349
+on the defense team believes that the federal investigation in this
+matter has been for show.
+Nor are your arguments that I have violated the Ashcroft memo, the
+USAM or any other policy well taken. As Chief of the Criminal
+Division, I am the person designated by the US Attorney to exercise
+appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are
+appropriate and consistent with the Ashcroft memo and the USAM
+- not you.
+As for your statement that my concerns about this case hurting
+Finally, you may not dictate the dates and people you will meet with
+about this or any other case. If the U.S. Attorney or the First
+Assistant desire to meet with you, they will let you know. Nor will
+I direct Epstein's lawyers to communicate only with you. If you
+want to work major cases in the district you must understand and
+accept the fact that there is a chain of command - something you
+disregard with great regularity.
+Villafaña acknowledged to OPR that as Criminal Division Chief, Menchel had authority to
+deviate from the Ashcroft Memo requiring that guilty pleas be to the most serious readily provable
+offense. She disagreed, however, with his representation about her initial meeting with Acosta
+and Sloman regarding the Epstein investigation, noting that Menchel had not been at that
+meeting. ' Villafaña told OPR that no one had communicated to her the "concerns" Menchel
+mentioned, and she had not been given an opportunity to respond to those concerns.
+A week later, Villafaña replied to Menchel's email, reiterating her concerns about the
+process and that filing charges against Epstein was not moving forward:
+Hi Matt -- My trial is over, so I now have [ ] time to focus back on
+this case and our e-mail exchange. There are several points in your
+Neither Menchel nor Villafaña could recall for OPR to what concerns they were referring. In commenting
+on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney noted that Acosta's concerns were "the possibility that bringing a case with
+serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of
+trafficking laws and result in an aggregate greater harm to trafficking victims."
+68
+Menchel confirmed to OPR that he was not involved in the decision to initiate the federal investigation.
+69
+Villafaña characterized Menchel's email as "meant to intimidate" and told OPR that she felt "put in [her]
+place" by him. She perceived that Menchel was making it clear that she should not "jump the chain of command."
+Menchel, however, asserted to OPR that Villafaña had a "history of resisting supervisory authority" that warranted
+his strong response.
+43
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 71 of 349
+e-mail that I would like to address, and I also would like to address
+where we are in the case.
+First, I wanted to address the comment about jumping the chain of
+command. After that concern was brought to my attention severa
+months ago, I have tried very hard to be cognizant of the chain of
+command... If there is a particular instance of violating the chain
+of command that you would like to discuss, I would be happy to
+discuss it with you.
+The statement that I have not respected Alex's position regarding
+the prosecution of the case demonstrates why you hear the
+frustration in the tone of my e-mail. For two and a half months I
+have been asking about what that position is. I have asked for
+direction on whether to revise the indictment, whether there are
+other issues that Alex wants addressed prior to deciding, whether
+there is additional investigation that needs to be done, etc. None of
+that direction has been forthcoming, so I am left with ... victims,
+and agents all demanding to know why we aren't presenting an
+indictment. Perhaps that lack of direction is through no fault of
+yours, but I have been dealing with a black box, so I do not know to
+whom I should address my frustration. My recollection of the
+original meeting with Alex and Jeff is quite different than your
+summary. In that meeting, I summarized the case and the State
+Attorney's Office's handling of it. I acknowledged that we needed
+to do work to collect the evidence establishing a federal nexus, and
+I noted the time and money that would be required for an
+investigation. I said that I was willing to invest that time and the
+FBI was willing to invest the money, but I didn't want to get to the
+end and then have the Office be intimidated by the high-powered
+lawyers.
+I was assured that that would not happen. Now I feel like
+there is a
+ceiling that prevents me from moving forward while
+vidence suggests that Epstein is continuing to engage in thi
+riminal behavior. Additionally, the FBI has identified two mor
+victims. If the case is not going to go forward, I think it is unfair to
+give hope to more girls.
+As far as promising the FBI that an indictment was a foregone
+conclusion, I don't know of any case in the Office where an
+investigation has been opened with the plan NOT to indict. And I
+have never presented an indictment package that has resulted in a
+eclination. I didn't treat this case any differently. I worked witl
+he agents to gather the evidence, and I prepared an indictmen
+package that I believe establishes probable cause that a series of
+crimes have been committed. More importantly, I believe there is
+44
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 72 of 349
+proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Epstein's criminal culpability.
+Lastly, I was not trying to "dictate" a meeting with the U.S. Attorney
+or anyone else. I stated that I "would like" to schedule a meeting,
+asking to have the same courtesy that was extended to the defense
+attorneys extended to the FBI and an Assistant in the Office. With
+respect to your questions regarding my judgment, I will simply say
+that disagreements about strategy and raising concerns about the
+forgotten voices of the victims in this case should not be classified
+as a lapse in judgment. This Office should seek to
+spirited
+debate about the law and the use of prosecutorial discretion.
+[Mly first and only concern in this case (and my other child
+exploitation cases) is the victims. If our personality differences
+threaten their access to justice, then please put someone on the case
+whom you trust more, and who will also protect their rights.
+In the meantime, I will be meeting with the agents on Monday to
+begin preparing a revised indictment package containing your
+suggestions on the indictment and responding to the issues raised by
+Epstein's attorneys. ... If there are any specific issues that you or
+the U.S. Attorney would like to see addressed, please let me know.?
+Villafaña did not get the meeting with Acosta that she requested. She viewed Menchel's
+message as a rejection of her request to make a presentation to Acosta, and she told OPR that even
+though she regarded Sloman as a friend, she did not feel she could reach out even to him to raise
+her concerns." Menchel, however, told OPR that he did not "order" Villafaña to refrain from
+raising her concerns with Acosta, Sloman, or Lourie, and he did not believe his email to Villafaña
+foreclosed her from meeting with Acosta. Rather, "the context of this exchange is, she is running
+roughshod over the U.S. Attorney, and what I am saying to her is, there is a process. You're not
+in charge of it. I'm not in charge of it. [Acosta's] in charge of it." Acosta, who was apparently
+not aware of Villafaña's email exchange with Menchel, told OPR that from his perspective,
+Villafaña was not "frozen out" of the case and that he would have met with her had she asked him
+directly for a meeting.
+B.
+Villafaña Attempts to Obtain the Computer Equipment Missing from
+Epstein's Palm Beach Home, but the Defense Team Opposes Her Efforts
+As the USAO managers considered in July 2007 how to resolve the federal investigation,
+one item of evidence they did not have available to assist in that decision was the computer
+equipment removed from Epstein's home before the PBPD executed its search warrant. Although
+Villafaña took steps to obtain the evidence, defense counsel continued to oppose her efforts.
+70
+Menchel forwarded this email to Sloman.
+71
+Villafaña told OPR that she later spoke to Menchel, asking Menchel to redirect L
+to Villafaña, but that
+Menchel responded it was not Villafaña's "place" to tell him to whom he should direct communications.
+45
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 73 of 349
+Early in the federal investigation, Villafaña recognized the potential significance of
+obtaining the missing computer equipment. Villafaña told OPR that she and the FBI agents went
+through every photograph found in Epstein's house, but found none that could be characterized as
+child pornography. Nevertheless, Villafaña told OPR that investigators had learned that Epstein
+used hidden cameras in his New York residence to record his sexual encounters, and she believed
+he could have engaged in similar conduct in his Palm Beach home. In addition, the computer
+equipment potentially contained surveillance video that might have corroborated victim statements
+about visiting Epstein's home. More generally, in Villafaña's experience, individuals involved in
+child exploitation often possessed child pornography.? Villafaña's co-counsel, who had
+substantial experience prosecuting child pornography cases, similarly told OPR, "Epstein was a
+billionaire. We knew his house was wired with video, it would be unusual [for] someone with his
+capabilities not to be video recording" his encounters.
+As the investigation continued, Villafaña took various steps to acquire the computer
+equipment removed from Epstein's Palm Beach residence. As noted previously in this Report, in
+her initial request to Epstein's counsel for documents, she asked defense counsel to provide "[t]he
+computers, hard drives, CPUs, and any other computer media (including CD-ROMs, DVDs,
+floppy disks, flash drives, etc.) removed from" the residence. Although Lourie subsequently
+narrowed the government's request for documents, the request for computer equipment remained.
+The defense, however, failed to comply with the request.
+Villafaña learned that the computer equipment was in the possession of a particular
+individual. After consulting the Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
+and Office of Enforcement Operations about the appropriate legal steps to obtain the computer
+equipment, Villafaña described her plan in an email to Menchel. She asked Menchel for any
+comments or concerns, but OPR did not find an email response from him, and Menchel told OPR
+that he did not recall Villafaña's efforts to obtain the computer equipment.
+In May 2007, following the plan she had outlined to Menchel, Villafaña initiated action
+requiring production of the computer equipment by a particular date. In her email to Villafaña on
+June 29, 2007,
+requested a two-week extension, indicating that she hoped a "state-based
+resolution" to the case would soon be reached.? Villafaña advised her supervisors of the request,
+and responded to
+that she "would like to get the computer equipment as soon as possible."
+Nonetheless, Villafaña eventually agreed to an extension.
+Meanwhile, Epstein attorney Roy Black wrote separately to Villafaña, demanding to know
+whether Villafaña had complied with applicable Department policies before seeking the computer
+In addition, Villafaña became aware that in August 2007, FBI agents interviewed a minor victim who stated
+that she had been photographed in the nude by Epstein's assistant, who told the vietim that Epstein took pictures of
+the girls.
+This email led Villafaña to ask her supervisors if any of them had discussed with the defense a possible
+resolution of the case, which resulted in Villafaña's exchange of emails with Menchel about their respective views of
+the case. See Section IV.A.2 in this Part.
+46
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 74 of 349
+equipment.? After further communications on this issue involving Black, [
+. Villafaña, and
+Lourie, Black took legal action that effectively halted production of the computer equipment to the
+USAO until the issue could be decided by the court—which, as explained below, never happened
+because the parties entered into the NPA.
+C. July 2007: The Defense Continues Its Efforts to Stop the Federal Investigation
+In addition to their efforts to stop the government from obtaining the computer equipment,
+defense counsel also sent letters to the USAO, dated July 6, 2007, and July 25, 2007, reiterating
+their objections to a federal investigation of Epstein. The July 25, 2007 letter included a lengthy
+"case analysis chart" purporting to support the defense argument that Epstein had committed no
+federal offense. The July 25 letter also noted that the defense had been consulting with the former
+Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, reporting that she "supports our position without reservation that
+this is not a matter upon which the federal statu[t]es should be brought to bear."75
+While the defense was reiterating its objections to the federal investigation, CEOS
+expressed its endorsement of Villafaña's legal analysis and proposed charges. On July 18, 2007,
+CEOS Chief Oosterbaan emailed Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, stating that he had read
+Villafaña's prosecution memorandum "closely," and noting that "[s]he did a terrific job. As we
+opined to Andy [Lourie] back in May, [CEOS] agree[s] with her legal analysis. Her charging
+decisions are legally sound." Oosterbaan observed:
+I have also reviewed the arguments contained in the letters from
+defense counsel. Their legal analysis is detailed and comprehensive,
+but I find none of their arguments persuasive. That is not to say that
+all the arguments are completely devoid of merit. I expect the judge
+to consider some of the arguments closely. Nevertheless, while the
+law applicable here is not always crystal clear, the balance of
+available precedent favors us. From the prosecution memorandum
+it is clear that
+has anticipated the strongest legal arguments,
+scrutinized the applicable law, and has charged the case accordingly.
+And, while with this prosecution the government clearly faces a
+strong and determined defense team, it is a challenge well worth
+facing. I also happen to know that there is absolutely no concern ...
+about facing the challenges this case presents.
+In closing, Oosterbaan renewed his offer to have CEOS "help you with this prosecution," and to
+send "whatever and whoever you need" to assist.
+Villafaña forwarded Black's letter to Menchel, explaining the circumstances relating to the removal of the
+computer equipment from Epstein's home, the steps she had taken to make the required consultations in the
+Department, and that she and Lourie had worked together on her response to Black.
+The news that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief was advising the Epstein team led to an email
+change between Sloman and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, who commented, "By the way, let me know if you want n
+, put something in writing to you with our position and detailing all of the child prostitution cases she supervis
+with similar facts."
+47
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 75 of 349
+D. Acosta Decides on a Resolution That Includes a Two-Year Term of
+Incarceration
+The next critical step in the development of the NPA was the decision to propose a twoyear term of imprisonment. Although presented to the defense as the "minimum" the USAO would
+accept, in actuality the two-year proposal became only the starting point for the negotiations, with
+the result that the defense continued to chip away at it as the negotiations continued. The
+contemporaneous emails make no mention of any rationale for the decision to propose two years
+as the government's beginning negotiating position, and nobody with whom OPR spoke was able
+to recall how the decision was made. As discussed below, Acosta did offer OPR an explanation,
+but OPR was unable to find contemporaneous evidence supporting it.?
+While the defense was communicating its objections to the federal investigation to
+Villafaña, Lourie, Menchel, and Sloman, Villafaña continued moving toward filing charges. On
+July 19, 2007, the day after receiving Oosterbaan's email supporting a potential prosecution,
+Villafaña emailed Lourie and Menchel seeking approval to take further investigative steps
+regarding three of Epstein's assistants. However, Menchel directed Villafaña to "hold off'... until
+we decide what course of action we are going to take on [E]pstein which should happen next
+week." Menchel told OPR that he did not specifically recall why he asked Villafaña to wait, but
+he assumed it was because Acosta was deciding what course of action to take on the case.
+On Monday, July 23, 2007, Menchel submitted a resignation notice to Acosta, stating that
+he would be leaving the USAO effective August 6, 2007.?
+1. The July 26, 2007 Meeting in Miami
+Early on the morning of Thursday, July 26, 2007, Villafaña informed Menchel that she was
+preparing a new draft indictment containing revisions he had suggested, including removal of all
+but three of the "travel counts" and "a large number of [the] overt acts," and the addition of overt
+acts and counts relating to two additional victims; she would not, however, have the revised
+indictment ready in time "for our discussion today" at their 2:00 p.m. meeting. Menchel told OPR
+that the fact that he had both proposed revisions to the indictment and also directed Villafaña to
+delay the investigative steps involving the assistants indicated that he was "trying to do something"
+with the case, but was waiting for Acosta to decide the "underlying issue" of whether to proceed
+with federal charges.
+Acosta made that decision on or before July 26, 2007. On that afternoon, Villafaña met in
+Miami with Menchel. She told OPR that Sloman, as well as the FBI case agents and their
+supervisors, were also present, with Lourie participating by telephone. Villafaña told OPR that
+she expected that the meeting, requested by Menchel, would address the direction of the
+investigation. However, Villafaña told OPR that after everyone had assembled, Menchel entered
+the room and stated that Acosta "has decided to offer a two-year state deal." According to
+76
+See Section IV.D.2 in this Part.
+77
+As carly as May 4, 2007, Menchel had informed Acosta that he was intending to leave the USAO to enter
+private practice.
+48
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 76 of 349
+Villafaña, Menchel left the meeting after almost no discussion, leaving Villafaña "shocked and
+stunned."
+Menchel told OPR that he did not recall the July 26, 2007 meeting. Nonetheless, he
+strongly disputed Villafaña's description of events, asserting that it would have been "directly at
+odds with his management style" to convene such a meeting, announce Acosta's decision, and
+leave without discussion. Acosta told OPR that he had "decided and endorsed this resolution at
+some point," but he did not recall being aware that Menchel was going to announce the decision
+at the July 26 meeting; in addition, although Acosta did not recall the circumstances of Menchel's
+relaying of that decision, he said it "would have been consistent with" his decision for Menchel to
+do so. Neither Sloman nor Lourie recalled the meeting. The FBI case agent recalled attending a
+meeting at the USAO in Miami with her co-case agent and supervisors, together with Villafana,
+Lourie (by telephone), Menchel, and Sloman, at which they discussed how to proceed with the
+Epstein case. According to the case agent, at this meeting the FBI insisted that Epstein be
+registered for life as a sexual offender, and the co-case agent advocated for waiting until the court
+had ruled on the USAO's ability to obtain Epstein's computer equipment.
+Regardless of exactly how Acosta's decision regarding the two-year term was
+communicated to Villafaña and the FBI agents, and regardless of who initially proposed the
+specific term, the record shows that Acosta ultimately made the decision to offer Epstein a
+resolution that included a two-year term of imprisonment, as he acknowledged.?
+2.
+The Subjeets' Explanations for the Decision to Offer Epstein a Sentence
+with a Two-Year Term of Incarceration
+Villafaña asserted that she was not consulted about the specific two-year term before the
+decision was made. " Villafaña told OPR that she had worked hard to develop a strong case, and
+none of her supervisors had identified to her any specific problem with the case that, in her view,
+explained the decision to extend an offer for a two-year sentence. Villafaña also told OPR that
+Menchel provided no explanation for this decision during the July 26, 2007 meeting, and Villafaña
+did not ask for an explanation because she accepted his statement that it was Acosta's decision.
+Villafaña described the proposal as "random," and told OPR, "[W]e're all [sentencing] guidelines
+people, so 24 months just makes no sense in the context of the guidelines. There's no way to get
+to 24 months with this set of offenses."80
+78
+OPR notes that Villafaña did not appear hesitant to send emails to her supervisors setting forth her views and
+objections, and there is no reference before this meeting in any of her emails indicating that a decision had been made
+to offer a two-year term of incarceration. Therefore, given that a meeting had been arranged involving Menchel and
+Villafaña, and possibly most of the other primary USAO and FBI participants, it seems logical that Acosta made a
+OPR found no evidence in the documentary record indicating that Villafaña had knowledge of Acosta's
+decision or the two-year term before the July 26, 2007 meeting at which she said she learned of it.
+80
+From the time the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect in 1987, they have been the mechanism for
+calculating federal criminal sentences. Since 2005, the Guidelines have been non-binding, but the federal courts are
+required to consider them. As noted in the commentary to USAM § 9-27.710,
+49
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 77 of 349
+Sloman also told OPR that he did not know how the decision to offer a two-year plea offer
+was reached, but he believed that Acosta made the decision based on recommendations from
+Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña. He opined to OPR that the decision was likely based on an
+assessment by Menchel and Lourie of the litigation risks presented by the case. Sloman added
+that he did not know how a two-year sentence might have related to specific charges or to either
+state or federal sentencing guidelines. Lourie likewise told OPR he did not recall how the two-year
+term was decided upon, or by whom, but he speculated that it may have been presented by the
+defense as the most Epstein would accept, and that the decision would have been reached by
+Acosta following "extended consideration, research, and discussion," among Acosta, Sloman,
+Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña.$2
+Menchel told OPR that he did not recall discussing a two-year plea deal with Acosta or
+who reached the decision that two years was an appropriate sentence. Menchel also told OPR,
+however, that he recalled believing that if the USAO had filed the contemplated federal charges,
+Epstein would have felt he had "nothing to lose" and "undoubtedly" would have chosen to take
+the case to trial. Menchel recalled believing there was a real risk that the USAO might lose at trial,
+and in so doing, might cause more trauma to the victims, particularly those who were reluctant to
+testify. Menchel told OPR that he did not believe that anyone at the time looked at two years "as
+a fair result in terms of the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not
+if we took this case to trial, would we risk losing everything," and "if we ... felt we could have
+gotten more time, we would have, without having to press it to the trial."
+Acosta told OPR that "I had decided and endorsed" the two-year resolution "at some
+point," and that it resulted from "back and forth" discussion "over the course of some days or a
+week or two." As noted earlier in this Report, Acosta viewed the USAO's role in this case merely
+as a "backstop" to the state's prosecution, which he explained to OPR was "a polite way of sayingl,
+'Jencouraging the state to do a little bit more.[']'$3
+Acosta said that he understood two years?
+imprisonment to have represented the sentence Epstein faced under one of the original charges the
+PBPD was considering at the outset of the state investigation.* Acosta also told OPR that he
+81
+the attorney for the government has a continuing obligation to assist the court in
+its determination of the sentence to be imposed. The prosecutor must be familiar
+with the guidelines generally and with the specific guideline provisions applicable
+to his or her case. In discharging these duties, the attorney for the government
+should ... endeavor to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information
+upon which the sentencing decisions will be based.
+In Sloman's view, Menchel and Lourie were "two of the finest trial lawyers" in the USAO.
+82
+Lourie noted that Sloman and Menchel were "two extraordinarily experienced people in [Acosta's] front
+office who had tried ... gobs and gobs of cases."
+83
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney asserted that OPR's use of Acosta's quote, "a little
+bit more," "unfairly minimized" Acosta's and the USAO's efforts to achieve justice in this case. Acosta's attorney
+also asserted that the phrase was "clearly soft-spoken understatement," that the terms obtained were "substantially
+more onerous than the state's alternative resolution," and that Acosta was "clearly declining the invitation to take the
+State to task and soft-pedaling an obvious distinction."
+84
+OPR examined this assertion and was unable to verify that the proposed two-year term of imprisonment
+corresponded with the charges that the PBPD considered at the outset of the state investigation or with the charge in
+50
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 78 of 349
+understood that the PBPD would not have asked the FBI to investigate Epstein if the state had
+pursued the appropriate charges. In other words, in Acosta's view, "[T]his was, rightly or wrongly,
+an analysis that distinguished between what is necessary to prevent manifest injustice, versus what
+is the appropriate federal outcome to that." Acosta told OPR that he believed he had discussed his
+concerns about the case with Lourie, Sloman, or Menchel, although he could not recall any specific
+conversation with them.
+E. Villafaña Drafts a "Term Sheet" Listing the Requirements of a Potential
+Agreement with the Defense
+A meeting with defense counsel was scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2007. Villafaña told
+OPR that between July 26 and July 30, 2007, she had "some sort of discussion" with her
+supervisors that resulted in her creation of a "term sheet" identifying the proposed terms for
+resolving the federal investigation through state charges. Sometime during that period, Villataña
+left a voicemail message for Menchel. During their OPR interviews, neither Villafaña nor
+Menchel could recall what Villafaña said in that message. On July 30, 2007, Menchel emailed
+Villataña:
+I received your voicemail this morning. I don't see any reason to
+change our approach. I think telling them that unless the state
+resolves this in a way that appropriately vindicates our interests and
+the interests of the victims, we will seek [federal charges] conveys
+that we are serious. While Lilly |
+] has represented in the
+past that this would likely not happen, I never conveyed it in quite
+these terms before. In any event, this is the course of action that the
+US Attorney feels comfortable taking at this juncture.
+The following day, July 31, 2007, Villafaña emailed a one-page "Terms of Epstein
+Non-Prosecution Agreement" to Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie. Villafaña told OPR she had never
+before seen or heard of a non-prosecution agreement and that it was a concept "completely foreign"
+to her 85 Villafaña told OPR that the idea of styling the two-year state plea agreement with Epstein
+the state indictment. OPR considered various potential state charges involving various numbers of victims and found
+no obvious reasonable state sentencing guidelines calculation that would have resulted in a two-year sentence.
+Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements were standard, though infrequently used, vehicles for
+resolving certain federal criminal cases against corporate entities. A 2008 Departmental memorandum explained:
+The terms "deferred prosecution agreement" and "non-prosecution agreement"
+have often been used loosely by prosecutors, defense counsel, courts and
+commentators. As the terms are used in these Principles [of Federal Prosecution
+of Business Organizations], a deferred prosecution agreement is typically
+predicated upon the filing of a formal charging document by the government, and
+the agreement is filed with the appropriate court. In the non-prosecution
+agreement context, formal charges are not filed and the agreement is maintained
+by the parties rather than being filed with a court. Clear and consistent use of
+these terms will enable the Department to more effectively identify and share best
+practices and to track the use of such agreements. These Principles do not apply
+51
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 79 of 349
+as a "non-prosecution agreement" came from Acosta, although Menchel may have communicated
+that terminology to her. According to Villafaña, she asked that it include a mechanism for the
+victims to be provided monetary compensation through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 in lieu of the restitution
+that would have been available if Epstein were pleading guilty to federal charges. S Acosta told
+OPR that he "developed and approved" the term sheet."
+Before the document was presented to defense counsel, two terms were dropped from
+Villafaña's draftone providing that the agreement would apply only to already-identified
+victims, and another requiring the deal to be accepted, and Epstein to plead guilty, within the
+month. The final term sheet was as follows:
+to plea agreements, which involve the formal conviction of a corporation in a
+court proceeding.
+Memorandum from Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig S. Morford to Heads of Departmental Components and
+United States Attorneys at n.2 (Mar. 7, 2008), available at https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resourcemanual-163-selection-and-use-monitors. Villafaña did not have significant experience prosecuting corporate entities.
+A civil remedy for personal injuries suffered by victims of certain crimes is provided for in the federal
+criminal code at 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Subsection (a) of the statute, as in effect from July 27, 2006, to
+March 6, 2013, provided as follows:
+Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section
+2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of
+this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless
+of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any
+appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such
+person sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any
+person as described in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to have sustained
+damages of no less than S150,000 in value.
+Villafaña also told OPR that she asked that the terms include the requirement that Epstein plead to an offense that
+required him to register as a sexual offender; however, sex offender status was also mentioned in Menchel's July 3,
+2007 email to Villafaña recounting his preliminary discussions with
+52
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 80 of 349
+CONFIDENTIAL PLEA NEGOTIATIONS
+TERMS OF EPSTEIN NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+Epstein pleads guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by the
+Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office charging him with:
+(a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat.
+800.04(4):
+(b) solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of FL.
+Stat. 796.03; and
+(e) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of age,
+in violation of Fl. Stat. 794.05.
+Epstein and the State Attorney's Office make a joint, binding
+recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without any
+opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing: and without
+probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment.
+Epstein agrees to waive all challenges to the information filed by the State
+and the right to appeal.
+Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal
+investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Epstein will not contest
+the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Souther District of
+Florida over his person and the subject matter. Epstein will not contest that
+the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were victims of
+Violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections) 2422 and/or 2423.
+•
+After Epstein enters his state court plea and is sentenced, the FBI and the
+U.S. Attorney's Office will close their investigations.
+V.
+THE USAO PRESENTS EPSTEIN WITH KEY TERMS OF A DEAL: PLEAD
+GUILTY TO STATE CHARGES REQUIRING A TWO-YEAR TERM OF
+INCARCERATION AND SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION, AND AGREE
+TO A MEANS FOR THE VICTIMS TO OBTAIN MONETARY DAMAGES
+Although the USAO term sheet was presented to Epstein's defense team on July 31, 2007,
+it took almost another two months to reach a final agreement in the form of the NPA. The
+contemporaneous emails show that over the course of those two months, defense counsel offered
+multiple counter-proposals to the USAO's stated terms, and alternated between working out the
+state plea disposition and seeking an alternative federal plea arrangement. The emails make clear
+that as the negotiations intensified in September 2007, the prosecutors became increasingly
+frustrated, particularly with what they perceived as the defense tactic of agreeing to terms and
+provisions but then backtracking or altering the agreed-upon terms in subsequent communications.
+It is apparent that the defense persistence achieved some measure of success, at least concerning
+53
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 81 of 349
+the period of imprisonment, because the USAO failed to hold firm to its proposal of "at least two
+years in prison." The USAO did, however, consistently reject defense proposals to change other
+terms, particularly the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender.
+A.
+July 31, 2007: The USAO Presents Its Proposal to the Defense Team, which
+Makes a Counteroffer
+Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, Villafaña, and the case agents met with Epstein attorneys
+Lefcourt,
+, and Black on July 31, 2007, with Menchel "leading the meeting" for the
+USAO.*7
+The USAO presented the term sheet, and Villafaña distributed a federal sentencing
+guidelines calculation showing that if prosecuted federally, Epstein faced a sentencing range of
+188 to 235 months' incarceration.
+Villafaña recalled that during the meeting, Epstein's attorneys opposed the requirement of
+sexual offender registration, argued that Epstein would not be safe in prison, suggested that Epstein
+serve a sentence of home confinement or "community control" in lieu of incarceration, and
+emphasized that a state resolution provided greater sentencing flexibility." Villafaña told OPR
+that when Epstein's attorneys expressed concern during the meeting about Epstein's security in a
+state prison and argued for a home confinement sentence, Menchel suggested Epstein plead to a
+federal charge so that he could serve his time in a federal facility. A few days after the meeting,
+Villafaña emailed Menchel, stating that she had "figured out a way to do a federal plea with a 2-1/2
+year cap."
+Although Acosta had authorized a plea to state charges, emails and other correspondence
+show that during the negotiations, the parties also considered structuring a plea around federal
+87
+Villafaña was the only witness with whom OPR spoke who had a substantive memory of this meeting.
+88
+According to the Florida Department of Corrections fact sheet for defendants subjected to community control,
+The Community Control supervision program was created as a diversion to
+incarceration or imprisonment; therefore it is an intensive supervision program
+where you are confined to your home unless you are working, attending school,
+performing public service hours, participating in treatment or another special
+activity that has been approved in advance by your officer. The program was
+designed to build accountability and responsibility along with providing a
+punishment alternative to imprisonment. While on Community Control
+supervision (also known as "house arrest") you will not be allowed to leave your
+home to visit family or friends, go out to dinner or to the movies, go on vacation,
+or many of the other activities you are used to being able to do ..., but it does
+allow you to continue to work to support yourself and your family or attend school
+in lieu of being incarcerated and away from loved ones.
+Florida Dept. of Corrections, Succeeding on Community Control at 1, http://www.dc.state.fl.us/cc/ccforms/
+Succeeding-on-Community-Control.pdf.
+89
+Villafaña told OPR that she was concerned about a state resolution because the defense team "had a lot of
+experience with the state system. We did not." Villafaña anticipated there would be ways to "manipulate" a state
+sentence and the USAO would be "giving up all control," and she told OPR that she discussed this concern with
+Lourie, although she could not recall when that discussion occurred.
+54
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 82 of 349
+charges in addition to state charges. On behalf of the defense team, |
+July 31, 2007 meeting with an August 2, 2007 letter to Menchel:
+We welcomed your recognition that a state prison sentence is neither
+appropriate for, nor acceptable to, Mr. Epstein, as the dangers of the
+state prison system pose risks that are clearly untenable. We
+acknowledge that your suggestion of a plea to two federal
+misdemeanors was an attempt to resolve this dilemma. Our
+proposal is significantly punitive, and if implemented, would, we
+believe, leave little doubt that the federal interest was demonstrably
+vindicated. °0
+followed up on the
+added, "We must keep in mind that Jeffrey Epstein is a 54-year-old man who has never
+been arrested before. He has lived an otherwise exemplary life."
+The "significantly punitive" proposal described in the defense letter involved no period of
+mandatory incarceration. Instead,
+suggested two years of home confinement, with regular
+reporting to and visits from a community control officer; payment of restitution, damages, court
+and probationary costs, and law enforcement costs; random drug testing; community service;
+psychological counseling; and a prohibition on unsupervised contact with the victims. The letter
+specifically referred to the victim damages-recovery procedure that the government had proposed
+under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and represented that Epstein was "prepared to fully fund the identified
+group of victims which are the focus of the [USAO] - that is, the 12 individuals noted at the
+meeting on July 31, 2007." Under the defense proposal, the state would incarcerate Epstein only
+if he failed to comply with the terms of supervised custody.
+also advised that the defense
+team was seeking a meeting with Acosta.
+B.
+In an August 3, 2007 Letter, the USAO States That a Two-Year Term of
+Imprisonment Is the Minimum That Will Vindicate the Federal Interest
+Villafaña told OPR that she and her managers agreed the counteroffer was unacceptable,
+and she conferred with Lourie or Menchel about the government's response. Villafaña drafted for
+Menchel's signature a letter asserting that the USAO considered a two-year term of imprisonment
+to be the minimum sentence that would "vindicate" the federal interest in the Epstein investigation.
+Villafaña's draft stated that the USAO "has never agreed that a state prison sentence is not
+appropriate for Mr. Epstein," but was willing to allow Epstein to enter a guilty plea under Federal
+Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) to a federal felony charge with a binding recommendation
+for a two-year term of incarceration. Villafaña specified that Epstein would also be required to
+concede liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for all of the victims identified during the federal
+investigation, "not just the 12 that formed the basis of an initial planned charging instrument."
+90
+The USAO countered, however, that it "never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate" and that
+"a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer." Records show that throughout the
+Epstein matter, the USAO attorneys identified instances when defense attorneys misstated or otherwise did not
+accurately describe events or statements. Accordingly, in evaluating the subject attorneys' conduct, OPR did not rely
+on uncorroborated defense assertions.
+55
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 83 of 349
+Menchel made several substantive changes to Villafaña's draft letter. He specified that "a
+two-year term of state imprisonment" was the minimum sentence that would satisfy the federal
+interest in the case. (Emphasis added.) With regard to the option of a federal plea, Menchel wrote
+that the USAO "would be willing to explore a federal conviction" and retained the reference to a
+Rule 11(c) plea. Menchel also removed the reference to the specific state offenses to which Epstein
+would be required to plead guilty. Menchel forwarded the redraft to Acosta, suggesting that they
+speak about it the next morning, as well as to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña.
+The final letter, as shown on the following pages, was identical to Menchel's redraft, except
+that it omitted all reference to a federal plea under Rule 11(c)."
+Menchel told OPR that he did not disfavor Rule 11(c) pleas but knew that the USAO believed the judges
+were generally averse to them. He did not recall why the provision was dropped from the letter, but "assumed" it was
+a decision by Acosta. In a September 6, 2007 email, Villafaña told Sloman that she and Menchel had discussed a
+Rule 11(c) plea, but she opined that Menchel "must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafaña told OPR
+that Lourie, too, had told her Acosta did not want to do a Rule 11(c) plea.
+56
+
+
+
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of Florida
+99 NE 4 Sress
+Miami, FL 33132
+(305) 961-9/00 - Telephone
+(305) 530-6444 - Facsimile
+August 3, 2007
+VIA FACSIMILE
+Lilly Ann
+Esq.
+Re: Leffrey Epstein
+Dear Lilly:
+Thank you for your letter of August 2*' regarding your proposal on how to resolve the
+Epstein matter.
+As we explained at our meeting on July 31, 2007, the Office believes that the federal
+interest will not be vindicated in the absence of a two-year term of state imprisonment for
+Mr. Epstein. That offer was not meant as a starting point for negotiations, it is the minimum
+term of imprisonment that will obviate the need for federal prosecution. The Office has
+never agreed that a state prison sentence is not appropriate for Mr. Epstein. Rather we
+simply stated that if Mr. Epstein preferred to serve his sentence in a federal penctentiary, we
+would be willing to explore a federal conviction that may allow that in lieu of any state
+resolution.
+Further, as I made clear in our follow up telephone conversation after the
+meeting, a plea to two federal misdemeanors was never extended or meant as an offer.
+We also would reiterate that the agreement to Section 2255 liability applies to all of
+the minor girls identified during the federal investigation, not just the 12 that form the basis
+of an initial planned charging instrument.
+As you know, the ability to engage in flexible plea negotiations is dramatically
+changed upon the return of an indictment. Once an indictment is returned, the Office does
+not intend to file a Superseding Information containing a lesser charge or to dismiss the case
+in favor of state prosecution.
+57
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 85 of 349
+LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
+AUGUST 3, 2007
+PAGE 2
+Please let us know your client's decision by no later than August 17. I have conferred
+with U.S. Attorney Acosta who has asked me to communicate that the two-year term of
+incarceration is a non-negotiable minimum to vindicate a federal interest, and, at this time,
+he is not inclined to meet with counsel for Mr. Epstein.
+Sincerely,
+R. Alexander Acosta
+United States Attorney
+Matthew Menchel
+Chief, Criminal Division
+cc:
+Roy Black
+Gerald B. Lefcourt
+R. Alexander Acosta
+Jeffrey Sloman
+Andrew Lourie
+A.
+Villafaña
+Menchel told OPR that in his view, the two-year sentence established a "floor" for
+negotiations and if Epstein rejected the offer, subsequent offers would require him to accept more
+jail time rather than less. Menchel told OPR that the USAO was "leaving our options open" by
+retaining the option of a federal plea because he thought the defense was "trying ... to get him
+into a federal penitentiary." The letter's deadline of August 17, 2007, for acceptance of the
+government's offer was intended to accommodate Villafaña's request that the deadline provide
+letter on Friday, August 3, 2007, which was his last day at the USAO before joining a private law
+firm."2
+The following Monday, August 6, 2007, Villafaña contacted Menchel by email at his new
+firm to inquire whether the letter to Epstein's counsel had gone out on Friday. Villafaña explained
+92
+Menchel told OPR that the timing of the letter to
+with his impending departure from the USAO.
+I was a "total coincidence," and had nothing to do
+58
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 86 of 349
+to OPR that she "wanted to know whether this letter went out. Because ... if the letter didn't go
+out we can make this all go away and restart." Menchel confirmed to her that he had sent the letter
+out by email.
+Later that day, the West Palm Beach FBI squad supervisor told Sloman that he understood
+Epstein had rejected the USAO's proposal, and he asked when Epstein would be charged.
+Villafaña told OPR that the squad supervisor "yelled at" Sloman about the USAO's decision not
+to prosecute Epstein federally. Sloman similarly told OPR that the squad supervisor "like
+[Villataña] ... [a]nd the agents felt very strongly about the case."93
+C. August - September 2007: Epstein Hires Additional Attorneys, Who Meet
+with Acosta
+1.
+Acosta Agrees to Meet with Epstein's New Attorneys
+Villafaña told OPR that Epstein's team was "incensed" that Acosta would not meet with
+them and that the USAO had set such a short deadline to respond to its offer. Around this time,
+Epstein added to his team Kenneth Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, two prominent attorneys from the law
+firm Kirkland & Ellis, whom Acosta knew from his employment a decade earlier as an associate
+at the firm. On the evening of August 6, 2007, Sloman emailed Acosta: "Just saw Menchel. I
+didn't know Kirkland made a call into you. You were right. Unbelievable." During their OPR
+interviews, neither Acosta nor Sloman remembered the call from Kirkland & Ellis and could
+provide no additional information about the contact." A reply email from Acosta to Sloman
+indicates that the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys were considering elevating to the Department their
+objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. In that email, Acosta stated, "They
+are likely to go to DC. We should strategize a bit. We are not changing positions, and that should
+be made clear."
+The next day, Acosta wrote to Sloman:
+[Epstein's] attorneys want to go to DC on the case, on the grounds
+of a process foul, i.e., that I have not met with them. I'm concerned
+that this will delay matters.
+I am thinking of heading this off, by (i) agreeing to meet to discuss
+general legal policy only (the only matter in which DC has arguable
+93|
+In an email to Lourie reporting the conversation, Sloman reported that he told the squad supervisor that "it's
+a tad more complicated" and commented, "The guy is killing me." The squad supervisor told OPR that he did not
+remember this exchange with Sloman, but he recalled the agents being "upset" with the proposed resolution of the
+case and he likely would have told Sloman, "When do we indict? Why don't we just move forward?"
+94
+Acosta told OPR that as a junior associate with Kirkland & Ellis from September 1995 to March 1997, he
+had worked on at least one matter each with Starr and Lefkowitz, and since that time, he had professional
+acquaintanceships with both.
+Menchel told OPR that he did not remember the timing of the call, but he did remember an occasion on which
+he entered Acosta's office as Acosta was finishing a phone conversation, and Acosta stated, "[T]hat was Ken Starr,"
+and told Menchel the call related to the Epstein case.
+59
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 87 of 349
+jurisdiction), while making clear that we are not talking about the
+details of the case, and (ii) asking [CEOS Chief] Oosterba[an] to
+participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting.
+Thoughts?
+Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental "scrutiny of the NPA scheme" and
+that "li]f anything," he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to "drop
+this case."96
+Leading to the Meeting with Defense Counsel, Investigative Steps Are
+Postponed, and the Defense Continues to Oppose Villafaña's Efforts to
+Obtain the Computer Evidence
+On August 8, 2007, Villafaña informed Acosta that she had spoken with Oosterbaan, who
+was willing to join a meeting with the defense; although he could not do so in person until after
+August 21, he was willing to participate by phone in order "to stay firm on our August 17th
+deadline." Villafaña also reiterated that she wanted to contact Epstein's assistants in New York
+and to interview some of Epstein's colleagues and former employees there. Noting that "there was
+some concern about [taking the proposed investigative steps] while we are trying to negotiate a
+plea, " Villafaña asked Acosta for guidance. Lourie also emailed Acosta and Sloman, asking that
+the USAO "stick to our deadline if possible." Lourie pointed out that CEOS "has no approval
+authority" and opined it was "a bit extreme to allow the defense to keep arguing this [case] to
+different agencies." Acosta replied, "This will end up [at the Department] anyhow, if we don't
+meet with them. I'd rather keep it here. Brin(g]ing [the Chief of CEOS] in visibly does so. If our
+deadline has to slip a bit... it's worth it."
+As a result, the investigative steps were postponed. On August 10, 2007, Villafaña emailed
+Lourie inquiring whether she could "still go ahead" with the New York trip and whether she could
+oppose Black's request to stay the litigation concerning the government's efforts to obtain
+Epstein's computer equipment until after Acosta's meeting with the defense team. Villafaña was
+reluctant to delay the litigation and reported to Lourie that agents recently had interviewed a girl
+who began seeing Epstein at age 14 and who was photographed in the nude by an Epstein assistant.
+On August 13, 2007, Villafaña advised Black that the USAO was not willing to agree to a stay of
+the litigation. However,
+reached out to Lourie on August 22, 2007, and obtained his
+agreement to a joint request for a stay until the week after Acosta's meeting with defense counsel,
+which was scheduled for September 7, 2007.
+Villafaña told OPR that, in her opinion, the defense efforts to put off the litigation
+concerning the computers was "further evidence of the importance of [this] evidence."97 Villafaña
+suspected the computers contained evidence that "would have put this case completely to bed."
+In context, Acosta appeared to mean that although he was not concerned about the Department reviewing the
+NPA or its terms, he did have concerns that the Department would decide the USAO should not have accepted the
+case because of a lack of federal interest and might direct the USAO to end its involvement in the matter.
+97
+Menchel told OPR, on the other hand, "there could be a lot of reasons why" defense counsel would resist
+"turn[ing] over an entire computer."
+60
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 88 of 349
+She believed that access to the computer evidence would strengthen the government's negotiating
+position, but that her supervisors "did not seem to recognize that." Villafaña said she did not
+understand why her supervisors were uninterested in determining what the computers contained.
+Instead, they instructed Villafaña to "keep calling the judge" to ask for a delay in the litigation
+proceedings.
+Sloman told OPR that he recalled an issue about the computers, but did not recall "what
+the thinking was at the time" about pursuing that evidence or why Villafaña was "ordered to stand
+down." Acosta, Menchel, and Lourie all told OPR that they did not recall Villafaña's effort to
+obtain the computer evidence or that there had been litigation relating to it. Lourie, however, told
+OPR that the computers might have contained "very powerful evidence" that possibly "could have
+changed our advice to [Acosta], or his decision making." In his OPR interview, Menchel was
+uncertain whether the computer evidence would have been useful, but also acknowledged to OPR,
+"You always want more as a prosecutor."
+On August 31, 2007, in preparation for the upcoming September 7, 2007 meeting with
+defense counsel that he planned to attend, CEOS Chief Oosterbaan traveled to West Palm Beach
+to meet with Villafaña and the case agents and to examine the case file. He explained to OPR that
+he wanted to see the file before meeting with the defense so that he could best "represent] the
+interests of the prosecution team," and that he was in favor of going forward with the case.
+According to Villafaña, during his review of the file, Oosterbaan told her that the case was "really
+good" and offered to assist Villafaña at trial.
+On September 6, 2007, the day before the meeting with defense counsel, Sloman sent
+Villafaña an email asking, "Please refresh my recollection. What is the 'deal' on the table?"
+Sloman told OPR that his question reflected the fact that in his capacity as FAUSA, he was
+involved in "a hundred other things" at that time." Villafaña sent Sloman the term sheet and
+explained to him, "You and Matt [Menchel] and I had also discussed a possible federal plea to an
+Information charging a 371 conspiracy, with a Rule 11 plea with a two-year cap, but I think Matt
+must have asked Alex about it and it was nixed." Villafaña continued:
+There are three concerns that I hope we can address tomorrow. First,
+that there is an absolute drop-dead date for accepting or rejecting
+because it is strategically important that we indict before the end of
+September, which means ... September 25th. Second, the agents
+and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which
+as Drew [Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the
+law. And third, I do not want to make any promises about allowing
+Epstein to self-surrender because I still believe that we have a good
+chance of getting him detained."
+98
+Sloman noted that with the attention given to the Epstein investigation, "it seems like ... this was the only
+case [in the office], but there were other cases."*
+61
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 89 of 349
+Villafaña added that the PBPD Chief had alerted the FBI that an upcoming news article would
+report that Epstein was "going to plead to a state charge" and the PBPD Chief" wanted to know if
+the victims had been consulted about the deal." Sloman forwarded Villafaña's email to Acosta
+with a note that read simply, "fyi."
+Later that evening, Villafaña circulated to Sloman, Lourie, and Oosterbaan two alternative
+documents: a draft federal plea agreement and a draft NPA. ' The draft federal plea agreement,
+following the USAO's standard format, called for Epstein to plead guilty to a five-year conspiracy
+under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to entice minors to engage in prostitution, an offense requiring registration
+as a sexual offender, with a Rule 11(c) binding sentence of two years' imprisonment. The draft
+NPA contained the terms presented to the defense team on July 31, 2007, and called for Epstein to
+enter a state plea by September 28, 2007. Villafana told OPR that because she had never seen a
+non-prosecution agreement before, she relied on a template she found either using USAO or the
+Department's internal online resources, but she did not do any additional research regarding the
+use of non-prosecution agreements. 'I
+September 7, 2007: Acosta, Other USAO Attorneys, and FBI
+Supervisors
+Meet with Epstein Attorneys Starr, Lefkowitz, and
+On Friday, September 7, 2007, Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, Villafaña's co-counsel,
+Oosterbaan, and one or two supervisory FBI agents met at the USAO's West Palm Beach office
+with defense attorneys
+and, for the first time, Starr and Lefkowitz. '°2 This was Acosta's
+first meeting with Epstein's defense team. Villafaña understood the purpose of this meeting was
+to afford Epstein's counsel an opportunity to "make a pitch" as to why the case should not be
+prosecuted federally. Villafaña recalled that at a "pre-meet" before defense counsel arrived,
+Acosta did not express concern about the viability of the prosecution or the strength of the case.
+Acosta told OPR that the meeting was not "a negotiation," but a chance for the defense to
+present their arguments, which were made by Starr and focused primarily on federalism. Villafaña
+similarly recalled that the meeting mainly consisted of the defense argument that the Epstein case
+should remain a state matter in which the USAO should not interfere. Both Villafaña and her
+co-counsel recalled that Starr addressed himself directly to Acosta, and that Starr, who had held
+Senate-confirmed positions in the government, commented to Acosta that he and Acosta were "the
+only people in this room who have run the [gantlet] of confirmation by the Senate." Acosta did
+not recall the comment, but he told OPR, "[Black in July, we had decided that we were going
+100
+The initial draft NPA is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Report.
+101
+OPR was unable to identify a template upon which she might have relied.
+102
+Lourie was not present. During September 2007, he was traveling between Florida and Washington, D.C.,
+as he transitioned to his new detail post as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Chief of Staff to the head
+of the Department's Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. He served in that detail until he left
+the Department in February 2008.
+62
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 90 of 349
+forward, that either there is this pre-indictment resolution, or we go forward with an indictment.
+The September meeting did not alter or shift our position. 103
+Villafaña told OPR that after hearing the defense argument, Acosta reiterated that the
+federal interest in the case could be vindicated only by a state plea to an offense that required
+sexual offender registration, resulted in a two-year term of incarceration, and was subject to the
+18 U.S.C. § 2255 process for providing compensation to the victims. When defense counsel
+objected to the registration requirement, Acosta held firm, and he also rejected the defense proposal
+for a sentence of home confinement. In a subsequent email exchange with Criminal Division
+Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker, who supervised CEOS, Oosterbaan reported
+that the meeting was "non-eventful," noting that defense counsel argued "federalism" and might
+approach Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher to present that argument
+directly to her.
+VI. SEPTEMBER 2007: THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS INTENSIFY, AND IN THE
+PROCESS, THE REQUIRED TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS REDUCED
+Acosta had dispensed with the August 17, 2007 plea deadline specified in Menchel's
+August 3, 2007 letter, in order to allow the defense to meet with him. After that meeting, and
+although Villafaña continued to plan to file charges on September 25, no new plea deadline was
+established, and the negotiations continued through most of September.
+The defense used that time to push the USAO to make concessions. Because Acosta was
+not willing to compromise on the issue of sexual offender registration or providing a means
+through which the victims could seek monetary damages, the negotiations focused on the term of
+imprisonment. As the contemporaneous emails show, the USAO did not hold to its position that
+a two-year term of imprisonment was "the minimum" that the USAO would accept. To reach an
+agreement with the defense on Epstein's sentence, the USAO explored possible pleas in either
+federal or state court, or both, and Villafaña spent considerable time and effort working with
+defense counsel on developing alternative pleas with various outcomes. In the course of that
+process, the agreement was revised to require that Epstein accept a sentence of 18 months, with
+the understanding that under the state's sentencing procedures, he would likely serve just 15
+months.
+A. The Incarceration Term Is Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months
+Shortly after the September 7, 2007 meeting, Epstein attorney Gerald Lefcourt, who had
+not been present at the meeting, spoke with both Acosta and Lourie, and made a new counteroffer,
+proposing that Epstein serve 15 months in jail followed by 15 months in home confinement. On
+the afternoon of Monday, September 10, 2007, Villafaña emailed Sloman, identifying issues she
+wanted to discuss with him, including her concern that defense counsel was pushing for a
+resolution that would allow Epstein to avoid incarceration and possibly sexual offender
+registration. Villafaña stated that Lefcourt's counteroffer was "a reasonable counteroffer in light
+of our starting position of 24 months," but added that it was "a really low sentence." Villafaña
+103
+Sloman echoed this point, telling OPR that Starr's presentation focused on the issue of federalism, but the
+USAO had already decided to defer prosecution to the state and after the meeting, the USAO continued on that path.
+63
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 91 of 349
+noted that the revised charges involved 19 victims, so the defense proposal for a 15-month sentence
+amounted to less than one month per victim. Villafaña requested that "whatever the U.S. Attorney
+decides to do," the agreement with Epstein should "follow ... a version of my written nonprosecution agreement" in order to "avoid any state shenanigans and ... keep the defense on a
+strict timeline."
+Later that day, Villafaña circulated to Acosta and Sloman a revised NPA that called for a
+20-month jail sentence to be followed by 10 months of home confinement. This redrafted NPA
+contained a provision that specified, "With credit for gain time, Epstein shall serve at least
+17 months in a state correctional institution."104 Acosta reviewed the revised NPA and amended
+it to include a statement clarifying that it was Epstein's obligation "to undertake discussions with
+the State of Florida to ensure compliance with these procedures." Villafaña sent her version of the
+revised NPA to Lefcourt that afternoon and forwarded Acosta's proposed change to him the
+following day, after she learned of it.
+On September 11, 2007, the court contacted Villafaña to inquire whether the USAO would
+be prepared to proceed with the litigation concerning the computers the following day. At
+Sloman's direction, Villafaña asked the court to delay the hearing, and the court rescheduled it for
+the following week. At the same time, anticipating that plea negotiations would fail, Villafaña
+circulated a revised indictment to her co-counsel and Oosterbaan, seeking their feedback before
+sending it "through the chain of command." Villafaña also sent Oosterbaan the revised NPA and
+told him she was "still shooting for 9/25" to bring charges, assuming the defense declined the
+USAO's offer. Oosterbaan responded, "The counter-offering is unfortunate, but I suppose it's
+understandable." 105
+That afternoon, Lourie asked Villafaña, "What is our latest offer?" Villafaña responded,
+"Plead to the three specified [state] charges, a 30-month sentence, split 20 in jail and 10 in
+'community control,' and agree that the girls are victims for purposes of damages. We also put in
+deadlines for a plea and sentencing date."
+B. September 12, 2007: The USAO and Defense Counsel Meet with the State
+Attorney
+Attorney'S Office in those discussions until September 12, 2007. On that day, Lourie, Villafaña,
+and another USAO supervisor who would be replacing Lourie as manager of the USAO's Wes
+Palm Beach office, and Epstein attorneys Lefkowitz, Lefcourt, and Goldberger met with Stat
+Attorney Barry Krischer and Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek. Other than Villafaña,
+ew of the participants had any memory of the meeting or the results of it. The available evidenc
+ndicates that the USAO made additional concessions during the meeting
+104
+Through "gain time," Florida inmates can earn a reduction in their sentence for good behavior.
+105
+Oosterbaan told OPR that he did not recall having read the NPA at this juncture and "had no involvement
+with it."
+64
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 92 of 349
+Villafaña told OPR that during the meeting, the group discussed the draft NPA, but she did
+not think they gave a copy to Krischer and Belohlavek. Neither Krischer nor Belohlavek expressed
+concern about proceeding as the USAO was proposing. According to Villafaña, Belohlavek
+explained that a plea to the three state counts identified in the draft NPA would affect the state's
+sentencing guidelines, and that it would be better for the guidelines calculation if Epstein pled
+guilty to just one of the three counts. Villafaña recalled that when Belohlavek confirmed that
+Epstein would be required to register as a sexual offender if he pled to any one of the three charges,
+Lourie, speaking for the USAO, agreed to allow Epstein to enter his plea to just one state charge
+in addition to the pending state indictment, and the defense attorneys selected the charge of
+procurement of minors to engage in prostitution.' Lourie, however, disputed Villafaña's
+recollection that he made the final decision, stating that it was "illogical" to conclude that he had
+the authority to change the terms of agreement unilaterally.'?
+During the meeting, defense counsel raised concerns about Epstein serving time in state
+prison. Villafaña also told OPR that Lourie, the other supervisor, and she made clear during the
+meeting that they expected Epstein to be incarcerated 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during
+the entirety of his sentence, and they did not "particularly care" whether it was in a state or local
+facility. Belohlavek explained to OPR that in order for Epstein to serve his time in a county
+facility, rather than state prison, his sentence on each charge could be no more than 12 months, so
+that, for example, consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months-totaling 18 months could be
+served in the county jail. Villafaña told OPR:
+Our thing was incarceration 24 hours a day. So during this meeting,
+I remember [the defense] talking about ... a one year count followed
+by a six-month count ... that [Epstein] could serve them back to
+back but at the county jail, rather than having to go to a state facility.
+But then I said, "But if you do that, it's still going to have to be round
+the clock incarceration." And Barry Krischer said yes. And [he]
+said that to avoid [Epstein being extorted while incarcerated], he
+would be kept in solitary confinement.
+Villafaña did not recall whether she and Lourie agreed to an 18-month sentence during that
+meeting, but she told OPR that in her view, allowing Epstein to serve his sentence in the county
+jail was not a "concession" because he would be incarcerated regardless.
+Neither Lourie nor the other USAO supervisor present could recall any substantive details
+of the September 12, 2007 meeting, and Krischer and Belohlavek told OPR they did not remember
+the meeting at all. Krischer did, however, recall that he was "not offended at all" when he learned
+of the proposed federal resolution, requiring Epstein to plead to both the pending state indictment
+and an additional charge requiring sexual offender registration, explaining to OPR that Epstein
+"was going to plead guilty to my indictment, we were going to add an additional charge, he was
+106
+Later, the defense would claim that they had mistakenly understood that the selected charge would not
+involve sexual offender registration.
+107฿
+As noted below, a contemporaneous email indicates that shortly after the meeting, Lourie and Villafaña spoke
+with Acosta and Sloman, who concurred with the agreement.
+65
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 93 of 349
+going to become a registered sex offender, and he was going to go actually do time-which he
+hadn't done up to this point." Krischer asked, "Why would I turn that down?" Krischer also noted
+that at that time, sexual offender registration "was not the norm" in Florida, and he recognized that
+"it was clearly something that was important to the U.S. Attorney's Office. "108
+Acosta told OPR that he did not recall if he learned what transpired at the September 12
+meeting, nor did he recall why the USAO team agreed to permit Epstein to plead guilty to only
+one charge. Acosta told OPR, however, that he recognized that Villafaña and Lourie needed "some
+degree of discretion to negotiate"; that in the give and take" of negotiations, they might propose
+a concession; and he was comfortable with the concession as long as the charge to which Epstein
+ultimately pled "captured the conduct" in an "appropriate" way.
+Although Epstein's attorneys expressed interest in Epstein serving his time in a county
+facility (rather than state prison), one of Epstein's attorneys alternatively expressed interest in
+Epstein serving his time in a federal facility, and along with discussions about the possible state
+resolution, the USAO and Epstein's counsel also discussed a possible federal plea with a sentence
+running concurrently to the sentence Epstein would receive on the already indicted state charge.
+Later that day, Villafaña sent Lefkowitz an email advising that she and Lourie had talked with
+Acosta and Sloman, and they were "all satisfied in principle with the agreement." 109 The next day,
+September 13, 2007, Villafaña sent an email to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and two other supervisors,
+identifying potential federal offenses that would yield a two-year sentence. Villafaña also emailed
+defense counsel, stating that she had been "spending some quality time with Title 18"'—referring
+to the code of federal criminal statutes—to make sure there would be a "factual basis" for any
+federal plea, and identifying the federal statutes she was considering.
+The Evidence Does Not Clearly Show Why the Term of Incarceration Was
+Reduced from 24 Months to 20 Months to 18 Months
+OPR reviewed the contemporaneous records and asked Acosta, Villafaña, and Lourie to
+explain how the jail term Epstein would have to accept came to be reduced from two years to 18
+months. Lourie had no recollection of the process through which the term of incarceration was
+reduced. Villafaña and Acosta offered significantly different explanations.
+Villafaña told OPR:
+We had this flip flop between is it going to be a state charge, is it
+going to be a federal charge, is it going to be [a] state charge, is it
+going to be a federal charge? And to get to a federal charge, there
+was no way to do 24 months that made any sense. So somehow it
+ended up being 20 months and then it got to be 18 months. And
+these were calls that if I remember correctly, Jay Lefkowitz was
+108
+109
+Belohlavek, however, told OPR that sexual offender registration "was a common occurrence" for enumerated
+state crimes, but the state crime charged in the state indictment against Epstein was not one of them.
+The email does not indicate what the parties meant by "the agreement."
+66
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 94 of 349
+having directly with Alex Acosta, and Alex Acosta agreed to 18
+months.
+Villafaña further explained to OPR:
+Regarding going from 24 months to 20 months, I recall a discussion
+that 24 months of federal time was really 20 months after gain time,
+so Epstein should be allowed to plead to 20 months' in the state.
+Epstein's counsel represented that he wouldn't get gain time like
+that in the [s]tate, and someone above me agreed. Later, of course,
+as shown in the agreements, Epstein's counsel (Jay Lefkowitz) got
+Alex to agree that Epstein should be allowed to earn gain time in the
+[state, so the 20 months in the state became at least 17 months.
+Regarding going from 20 months' to 18 months, ... this came from
+a negotiation between Epstein's counsel and Andy or Alex where
+the federal statutory max could only be 24 or 18, so 18 was agreed
+to. I also recall that, after Epstein's counsel decided that they
+wanted to proceed with an NPA and only a state guilty plea, I asked
+Alex why we didn't return to 20 months because the reason why we
+went to 18 months was because that was the only way to end up with
+a federal statutory maximum.'o
+However, a subsequent account of the history of negotiations with Epstein's attorneys,
+drafted by Villafaña for Acosta several weeks after the September 12, 2007 meeting with the State
+Attorney's Office, stated that "a significant compromise" reached at the meeting "was a reduction
+in the amount of jail time - from [the originally proposed] twenty-four months down to eighteen
+months, which would be served at the Palm Beach County Jail rather than a state prison facility."
+Acosta also noted to OPR that Villafaña was engaged in a "tough negotiation," and he was willing
+to allow her the discretion to reduce the amount of incarceration time without him "secondguessing" her. Acosta acknowledged that he "clearly approved it at some point."
+Based on this record, OPR could not definitively determine when, how, or by whom the
+decision was made to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 months to 18 months. It
+understood at the time that the state gain time requirement would further reduce the actual amount
+of time Epstein would spend incarcerated.
+110
+By "federal statutory maximum," Villafaña referred to 12-month and 6-month misdemeanors.
+67
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 95 of 349
+The Parties Continue to Negotiate but Primarily Focus on a Potential Plea to
+Federal Charges
+During the remainder of September, Villafaña conducted plea negotiations and drafted the
+final NPA, mainly with Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. In a September 13, 2007 email to CEOS
+Chief Oosterbaan, Villafaña reported that the plea negotiations were "getting fast and furious."
+She said that the defense wanted to establish a "victim's fund" through which Epstein could make
+payments to the victims, rather than having the victims file individual § 2255 court actions for
+damages, which she speculated was "to keep this stuff out of the public [c]ourt files."
+According to the email documentation, by Friday, September 14, 2007, the parties had
+moved toward a "hybrid" federal plea agreement, incorporating a plea to state charges, which
+would allow Epstein to serve his sentence for all the charges concurrently in a federal prison.
+Villafaña informed Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other colleagues that negotiations with Lefkowitz
+had resulted in a tentative agreement for Epstein to plead to two federal charges: harassment to
+prevent a witness from reporting a crime (18 U.S.C. § 1512(d)(2), which was then a one-year
+misdemeanor), and simple assault on an airplane (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), a six-month
+misdemeanor). Villafaña reported that Lefkowitz "put in a pitch for only 12 months, I put in a
+pitch that [Epstein] plead to 24 with a 20-month recommendation, and we decided that we would
+be stuck with the 18 months.
+Later that day, Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz a draft "hybrid" plea agreement and information
+mirroring the agreement in principle she had described to her supervisors, but which she noted had
+"not yet been blessed" by them. The agreement provided that Epstein would plead guilty to the
+two federal charges for which the parties would jointly recommend that he be sentenced to the
+statutory maximum penalty of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 2 years of supervised release,
+and that he would also plead guilty to the state registrable offense of procurement of minors to
+engage in prostitution, for which Epstein and the State Attorney's Office would make a joint,
+binding recommendation that he be sentenced to serve at least 20 months in prison followed by 10
+months of community control (home confinement). Although not specified in the draft agreement,
+the negotiations evidently expected the federal and state terms would run concurrently. In addition
+to payment of restitution, Epstein would not oppose jurisdiction or victim status for any of the
+victims identified in the federal investigation at that point specified as numbering 40—who
+elected to file suit for damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. A guardian ad litem would be appointed
+to communicate with the defense on the victims' behalf.
+Lourie, however, quickly made clear that he was not in favor of the proposal. In response
+to Villataña's email about the potential federal charges, but after Villafaña sent the proposal to
+Lefkowitz, Lourie told her, "The assault [charge] sounds like a stretch and factually [is] sort of
+silly'"''' Lourie also told Sloman, Acosta, and another supervisor that he did not "like the assault
+charge" and believed that it would not "go smooth with every judge." Acosta responded, "If we
+need,! let's find a different charge." On Saturday, September 15, 2007, Villafaña emailed
+Lefkowitz, using her personal email address, reporting that she had "gotten some negative reaction
+111
+The charge was to be based on an incident in which Epstein "put great pressure' ... on [one of his female
+assistants] to call the girls to set up appointments."
+68
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 96 of 349
+to the assault charge" and suggesting a different factual scenario to support a federal charge.'2 At
+this point, Sloman left on vacation, and he informed Acosta and Villafaña that in his absence
+Lourie had agreed "to help finalize this." Lourie spent the following work week at his new post
+at the Department in Washington, D.C., but communicated with his USAO colleagues by phone
+and email.
+In a Sunday, September 16, 2007 email, Villafaña informed Lefkowitz that she had drafted
+a factual proffer to accompany a revised "hybrid" federal plea proposal. In that email, Villafaña
+also noted that she was considering filing charges in the federal district court in Miami, "which
+will hopefully cut the press coverage significantly." This email received considerable attention 12
+years later when it was made public during the CVRA litigation and was viewed as evidence of
+the USAO's efforts to conceal the NPA from the victims. Villafana, however, explained to OPR
+that she was concerned that news media coverage would violate the victims' privacy. She told
+OPR, "||]f [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into
+the courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper," and that such publicity
+was less likely to happen in Miami, where the press "in general does not care about what happens
+in Palm Beach."
+Lefkowitz responded to Villafaña with a revised version of her latest proposed "hybrid"
+plea agreement, in a document entitled "Agreement." Significantly, this defense proposal
+introduced two new provisions. The first related to four female assistants who had allegedly
+facilitated Epstein in his criminal scheme. The defense sought a government promise not to
+prosecute them, as well as certain other unnamed Epstein employees, and a promise to forego
+immigration proceedings against two of the female assistants:
+Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also
+precludes the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might
+otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female
+assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate
+entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal
+investigation .... Further, no immigration proceeding will be
+instituted against [two named female assistants] as a result of the
+ongoing investigation.
+The second new provision related to the USAO's efforts to obtain Epstein's computers:
+Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement
+resolves any and all outstanding [legal process] that have requested
+witness testimony and/or the production of documents and/or
+computers in relation to the investigation that is the subject of the
+Agreement. Each [legal process] will be withdrawn upon the
+execution of the Agreement and will not be re-issued absent reliable
+Villafaña told OPR that she sometimes used her home email account because "[nJegotiations were occurring
+t nights, on weekends], and while I was [away from the office for personal reasons], ... and this occurred during
+me when out of office access to email was very limited." Records show her supervisors were aware that at times sh
+used her personal email account in communicating with defense counsel in this case.
+69
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 97 of 349
+evidence of a violation of the agreement. Epstein and his counsel
+agree that the computers that are currently under [legal process] will
+be safeguarded in their current condition by Epstein's counsel or
+their agents until the terms and conditions of the Agreement are
+fulfilled.
+Later that day, Villataña sent Lefkowitz a lengthy email to convey two options Lourie had
+suggested: "the original proposal" for a state plea but with an agreement for an 18-month sentence,
+or pleas to state charges and two federal obstruction-of-justice charges. Villafaña also told
+Lefkowitz she was willing to ask Acosta again to approve a federal plea to a five-year conspiracy
+with a Rule 11(c) binding recommendation for a 20-month sentence. Villafaña explained:
+As to timing, it is my understanding that Mr. Epstein needs to be
+sentenced in the state after he is sentenced in the federal case, but
+not that he needs to plead guilty and be sentenced after serving his
+federal time. Andy recommended that some of the timing issues be
+addressed only in the state agreement, so that it isn't obvious to the
+judge that we are trying to create federal jurisdiction for prison
+purposes.
+With regard to prosecution of individuals other than Epstein, Villafaña suggested standard
+federal plea agreement language regarding the resolution of all criminal liability, "and I will
+mention "co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes
+and all of the other persons that we could charge." Villafaña told OPR that she was willing to
+include a non-prosecution provision for Epstein's co-conspirators, who at the time she understood
+to be the four women named in the proposed agreement, because the USAO was not interested in
+prosecuting those individuals if Epstein entered a plea. Villafaña told OPR, "[W]e considered
+Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting anyone
+else." She did not consider the possibility that Epstein might be trying to protect other, unnamed
+individuals, and no one, including the FBI case agents, raised that concern. Villafaña also told
+OPR that her reference to "all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge"
+related to her concern that if the plea agreement contained information about uncharged conduct,
+the court might ask for more information about that conduct and inquire why it had not been
+charged, and if the government provided such information, Epstein's attorneys might claim the
+agreement was breached. '3
+With regard to immigration, Villafaña told OPR that the USAO generally did not take any
+position in plea agreements on immigration issues, and that in this case, there was no evidence that
+either of the two assistants who were foreign nationals had committed fraud in connection with
+their immigration paperwork, "and I think that they were both in status. So there wasn't any reason
+113
+OPR understood Villafaña's concern to be that if the government were required to respond to a court's inquiry
+into additional facts, Epstein would object that the government was trying to cast him in a negative light in order to
+influence the court to impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon term.
+70
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 98 of 349
+for them to be deported." !4 As to whether the foreign nationals would be removable by virtue of
+having committed crimes, Villafaña told OPR she did not consider her role as seeking removal
+apart from actual prosecution.
+Villafaña concluded her email to Lefkowitz by expressing disappointment that they were
+not "closer to resolving this than it appears that we are," and offering to meet the next day to work
+on the agreement:
+Can I suggest that tomorrow we either meet live or via
+teleconference, either with your client or having him within a quick
+phone call, to hash out these items? I was hoping to work only a
+half day tomorrow to save my voice for Tuesday's hearing ..., if
+necessary, but maybe we can set a time to meet. If you want to meet
+"off campus" somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have
+all the necessary decision makers present or "on call," as well."s
+Villafaña told OPR that she offered to meet Lefkowitz away from the USAO because conducting
+negotiations via email was inefficient, and Villafaña wanted "to have a meeting where we sat down
+and just finalized things. And what I meant by off campus is, sometimes people feel better if you
+go to a neutral location" for a face-to-face meeting.
+On the morning of Monday, September 17, 2007, the USAO supervisor who was taking
+over Lourie's duties as manager of the West Palm Beach office asked Villafaña for an update on
+the plea negotiations, and she forwarded to him the email she had sent to Lefkowitz the previous
+afternoon. Villafaña told the manager,
+"As you can see ... there are a number of things in their
+last draft that were unacceptable. All of the loopholes that I sewed up they tried to open."
+Shortly thereafter, Villafaña alerted the new manager, Acosta, and Lourie that she had just
+spoken with Lefkowitz, who advised that Epstein was leaning towards a plea to state charges under
+a non-prosecution agreement, and she would be forwarding to Lefkowitz "our last version of the
+Non-Prosecution Agreement." Acosta asked that Villafaña "make sure they know it[']s only a
+draff" and reminded her that "[t]he form and language may need polishing." Villafaña responded,
+"Absolutely. There were a lot of problems with their last attempt. They tried to re-open all the
+loopholes that I had sewn shut." Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz the draft NPA that she had provided
+to Lefcourt on September 11, 2007, noting that it was the "last version" and would "avoid [him]
+having to reinvent the wheel." She also updated the FBI case agents on the status of negotiations,
+noting that she had told her "chain of command ... that we are still on for the [September] 25th
+[to bring charges] ..., no matter what."
+After receiving the draft NPA, Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to provide for his review a factual
+proffer for a federal obstruction of justice charge, and, with respect to the NPA option, asked, "[f
+According to the case agents, the West Palm Beach FBI office had an ICE agent working with them at the
+beginning of the federal investigation, and the ICE agent normally would have looked into the immigration status of
+any foreign national, but neither case agent recalled any immigration issue regarding any of the Epstein employees.
+115
+Lefkowitz was based in New York City but traveled to Miami in connection with the case.
+71
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 99 of 349
+we go that route, would you intend to make the deferred [sic] prosecution agreement public?"
+Villafaña replied that while a federal plea agreement would be part of the court file and publicly
+accessible, the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would remain part
+of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request,
+but it is not something that we would distribute without compulsory process." • Villafaña told
+OPR that she believed Epstein did not want the NPA to be made public because he "did not want
+people to believe him to have committed a variety of crimes." As she explained to OPR, Villafaña
+believed the NPA did not need to be disclosed in its entirety, but she anticipated notifying the
+victims about the NPA provisions relating to their ability to recover damages.
+E. The Parties Appear to Reach Agreement on a Plea to Federal Charges
+Negotiations continued the next day, Tuesday, September 18, 2007. Responding to
+Villafaña's revised draft of the NPA, Lefkowitz suggested that Epstein plead to one federal charge
+with a 12-month sentence, followed by one year of supervised release with a requirement for home
+detention and two years of state probation, with the first six months of the state sentence to be
+served under community control. Villafaña replied, "*I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go
+below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppose the suggestion)." Shortly
+thereafter, Villafaña emailed Acosta, Lourie, and the incoming West Palm Beach manager:
+Hi all - I think that we may be near the end of our negotiations with
+Mr. Epstein, and not because we have reached a resolution.
+mentioned yesterday, I spent about 12 hours over the weekend
+drafting Informations, changing plea agreements, and writing
+factual proffers. I was supposed to receive a draft agreement from
+them yesterday, which never arrived. At that time, they were
+leaning towards pleading only to state charges and doing all of the
+time in state custody.
+Late last night I talked to Jay Lefkowitz who asked about Epstein
+pleading to two twelve-month federal charges with half of his jail
+time being spent in home confinement pursuant to the guidelines.
+told him that I had no objection to that approach but, in the interest
+of full disclosure, I did not believe that Mr. Epstein would be eligible
+because he will not be in Zone A or B.''' This morning Jay
+Lefkowitz called and said that I was correct but, if we could get
+Mr. Epstein down to 14 months, then he thought he would be
+eligible.
+My response: have him plead to two separate Informations. On the
+first one he gets 12 months' imprisonment and on the second he gets
+FOIA requires disclosure of government records upon request unless an exemption applies permitting the
+government to withhold the requested records. See 5 U.S.C. § 552.
+117
+Sentences falling within Zones A or B of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines permit probation or confinement
+alternatives to imprisonment.
+72
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 100 of 349
+twelve months, with six served in home confinement, to run
+consecutively.
+I just received an e-mail asking if Mr. Epstein could just do 12
+months imprisonment instead.
+As you can see, Mr. Epstein is having second thoughts about doing
+jail time. I would like to send Jay Lefkowitz an e-mail stating that
+if we do not have a signed agreement by tomorrow at 5:00,
+negotiations will end. I have selected tomorrow at 5:00 because it
+gives them enough time to really negotiate an agreement if they are
+serious about it, and if not, it gives me one day before the Jewish
+holiday to get [prepared] for Tuesday ... [September 25] , when 1
+plan to [file charges], and it gives the office sufficient time to review
+the indictment package.
+Do you concur?
+A few minutes later, the incoming West Palm Beach manager emailed Lourie, suggesting that
+Lourie "talk to Epstein and close the deal." Is
+Within moments, Lourie replied to the manager, with a copy to Villafaña, reporting that he
+had just spoken with Lefkowitz and agreed "to two fed[eral] obstruction[] charges (24 month cap)
+with nonbinding recommendation for 18 months. When [Epstein] gets out, he has to plead to state
+offenses, including against minor, registrable, and then take one year house arrest/community
+confinement." By reply email, Villafaña asked Lourie to call her, but there is no record of whether
+they spoke.
+F.
+Defense Counsel Offers New Proposals Substantially Changing the Terms of
+the Federal Plea Agreement, which the USAO Rejects
+Approximately an hour after Lourie's email reporting the deal he had reached with
+Lefkowitz, Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a revised draft plea agreement. Despite the agreement Lourie
+believed he and Lefkowitz had reached that morning, Lefkowitz's proposal would have resulted
+in a 16-month federal sentence followed by 8 months of supervised release served in the form of
+home detention. Lefkowitz also inserted a statement in his proposal explicitly prohibiting th
+JSAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration authorities to institute immigratio
+proceedings against two of Epstein's female assistants.
+Villafaña circulated the defense's proposed plea agreement to Lourie and two other
+supervisors, and expressed frustration that the new defense version incorporated terms that wer
+'completely different from what Jay just told Andy they would agree to." Villafaña also pointer
+out that the defense "wants us to recommend an improper calculation" of the sentencing guidelines
+The manager told OPR that he probably meant this as a joke because in his view the continued back-andforth communications with defense counsel "was ridiculous," and the only way to "get this deal done" might be to
+have a direct conversation with Epstein.
+73
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 101 of 349
+and had added language waiving the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) "so he can
+keep all of his information confidential. I have already told Jay that the PSI language ... was
+unacceptable to our office." Of even greater significance, in a follow-up email, Villafaña noted
+that the defense had removed both the requirement that Epstein plead to a registrable offense and
+the entire provision relating to monetary damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
+In the afternoon, Villafaña circulated her own proposed "hybrid" plea agreement, first
+internally to the management team with a note stating that it "contains the 18/12 split that Jay and
+Andy agreed to," and then to Lefkowitz. Regarding the prosecution of other individuals, she
+included the following provision: "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability of the
+defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal
+conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement," including
+but not limited to the conspiracy to solicit minors to engage in prostitution.
+In her email to Lefkowitz, transmitting the plea agreement, Villafaña wrote:
+Could you share the attached draft with your colleagues. It is in
+keeping with what Andy communicated to me was the operativ
+'deal." The U.S. Attorney hasn't had a chance to review all of the
+language, but he agrees with it in principle.
+[The West Palm Beach manager] and I will both be available at 2:00.
+... One of my suggestions is going to be (again) that we all sit down
+together in the same room, including Barry [Krischer] and/or Lanna
+[Belohlavek], so we can hash out the still existing issues and get a
+signed document.
+Villafaña also emailed Acosta directly, telling him she planned to meet with Epstein's
+attorneys to work on the plea agreement, and asking if Acosta would be available to provide final
+your trial lawyer needs discretion to do their job." Villafaña told OPR, however, that she did not
+understand Acosta to be giving her discretion to conduct the negotiations as she saw fit; rather, she
+believed Acosta did not want to engage in face-to-face negotiations because "he wanted to have
+an appearance of having sort of an arm's length from the deal."'19 Villafaña replied to Acosta's
+119
+As noted throughout the Report, Villafaña's interpretation of her supervisors" motivations for their actions
+often differed from the supervisors' explanations for their actions. Because it involved subjective interpretations of
+individuals" motivations, OPR does not reach conclusions regarding the subjects" differing views but includes them
+as an indication of the communication issues that hindered the prosecution team. See Chapter Two, Part Three,
+Section V.E.
+74
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 102 of 349
+message, "That is fine. [The West Palm Beach manager] and I will nail everything down, we just
+want to get a final blessing."
+Negotiations continued throughout the day on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, with
+Villafaña and Lefkowitz exchanging emails regarding the factual proffer for a plea and the
+scheduling of a meeting to finalize the plea agreement's terms. During that exchange, Villafaña
+made clear to Lefkowitz that the time for negotiating was reaching an end:
+I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by
+Monday. I will not miss my [September 25 charging] date when this
+has dragged on for several weeks already and then, if things fall
+apart, be left in a less advantageous position than before the
+negotiations. I have had an 82-page pros memo and 53-page
+indictment sitting on the shelf since May to engage in these
+negotiations. There has to be an ending date, and that date is
+Monday.
+Early that afternoon, Lourie—who was participating in the week's negotiations from his
+new post at the Department in Washington, D.C.—asked Villafaña to furnish him with the last
+draft of the plea agreement she had sent to defense counsel, and she provided him with the "18/12
+split" draft she had sent to Lefkowitz the prior afternoon. After reviewing that draft, Lourie told
+Villafaña it was a "[glood job" but he questioned certain provisions, including whether the
+USAO's agreement to suspend the investigation and hold all legal process in abeyance should be
+in the plea agreement. Villafaña told Lourie that she had added that paragraph at the "insistence"
+of the defense, and opined, "I don't think it hurts us." Villafaña explained to OPR that she held
+this view because "Alex and people above me had already made the decision that if the case was
+resolved we weren't going to get the computer equipment."
+At 3:44 p.m. that afternoon, Lefkowitz emailed a "redline" version of the federal plea
+agreement showing his new revisions, and noted that he was "also working on a deferred [sic]
+prosecution agreement because it may well be that we cannot reach agreement here." The defense
+redline version required Epstein to plead guilty to a federal information charging two misdemeanor
+counts of attempt to intentionally harass a person to prevent testimony, the pending state
+indictment charging solicitation of prostitution, and a state information charging one count of
+coercing a person to become a prostitute, in violation of Florida Statute § 796.04 (without regard
+to age). Neither of the proposed state offenses required sexual offender registration. Epstein
+would serve an 18-month sentence and a concurrent 60 months on probation on the state charges.
+The redline version again deleted the provisions relating to damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 and
+replaced it with the provision requiring creation of a trust administered by the state court. It
+retained language proposed by Villafaña, providing that the plea agreement "resolves the federal
+criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida
+growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this
+plea agreement," but also re-inserted the provision promising not to prosecute Epstein's assistants
+and the statement prohibiting the USAO from requesting, initiating, or encouraging immigration
+proceedings. It also included a provision stating the government's agreement to forgo a
+presentence investigation and a promise by the government to suspend the investigation and
+withdraw all pending legal process.
+75
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 103 of 349
+G. Villafaña and Lourie Recommend Ending Negotiations, but Acosta Urges
+That They "Try to Work It Out"
+In the late afternoon of Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Villafaña expressed her
+increasing frustration to her supervisors. She emailed the defense redline version of the plea
+agreement to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, identifying all of the provisions
+she had "specifically discussed with [the defense team] and rejected, that they have re-inserted into
+the agreement." (Emphasis in original). Villafaña opined, "This is NOT good faith negotiations."
+Lourie responded that he would "reach out to Alex to discuss."
+Lourie immediately emailed Acosta the following:
+I looked at the latest draft from Jay [Lefkowitz] and I must agree
+with
+. Based on my own conversations with him, his draft is
+out of left field. He claims to orally agree to our terms and then
+sends us a document that is the opposite. I suggest we simply tell
+him that his counter offer is reiected and that we intend to move
+forward with our case.
+Acosta replied:
+Why don't we just call him. Tell him
+You agree, and then change things.
+That's not acceptable, and is in bad faith. Stop it or we'll
+indict.
+Try to work it out.
+It seems that we are close, and itf'Is worth trying to overcome what
+has to be painfully ... annoying negotiating tactics.
+Acosta explained to OPR that he recognized,
+[t]his negotiation was a pain, but if it was the right position, the fact
+that you've got annoying counsel on the other side doesn't it make
+it less of a right position. You tell them stop being annoying, you
+try to work it out, and if not, then you indict.
+In response to Acosta's instruction, Lourie responded, "Ok will do." He also forwarded to
+Acosta the latest version of the USAO draft "hybrid" plea agreement that Villafaña had sent to
+Lefkowitz the previous day, which Lourie had requested and obtained from Villafaña earlier that
+afternoon.
+76
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 104 of 349
+everything, but I really do not think that Mr. Epstein is going to engage in serious negotiations
+until he sees the Indictment and shows up in mag [federal magistrate judge] court." She suggested
+charging Epstein on a federal conspiracy charge, and if he refused to plead to that offense,
+superseding with additional charges and going to trial. She complained that after seven weeks of
+negotiations, "we are just spinning our wheels." Her proposed email to Lefkowitz detailed all of
+the objectionable provisions in his draft, and concluded, "If you or your client insists on these,
+there can be no plea agreement."
+H.
+Acosta Edits the Federal Plea Agreement, and Villafaña Sends a Final Version
+to the Defense
+The next day, Thursday, September 20, 2007, Villafaña emailed Assistant State Attorney
+Belohlavek and informed her:
+Our deadline is Monday evening for a signed agreement and
+arraignment in the federal system. At this time, things don't look
+promising anyway, but I will keep you posted. In their latest draft,
+they changed what they agreed to plead to in the state from
+solicitation of minors for prostitution (a registrable offense) to
+forcing adults into prostitution (a non-registrable offense). We will
+not budge on this issue, so it is looking unlikely that we will reach a
+mutually acceptable agreement. If that changes, I will let you know.
+Acosta sent Lourie "[sJome thoughts" about the USAO version of the proposed "hybrid"
+federal plea agreement he had received from Lourie the evening before, commenting that "it seems
+very straightforward" and "we are not changing our standard charging language" for the
+defense. 20 Noting that the draft was prepared for his signature, Acosta told Lourie that he did not
+typically sign plea agreements and "this should not be the first," adding that the USAO "should
+only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement." 2' Lourie forwarded the email
+to Villafaña with a transmittal message simply reading, "I think Alex's changes are all good ones.
+Please try to incorporate his suggestions, change the signature block to your name and send as
+final to Jay." Lourie also noted to Acosta and Villafaña that he believed the defense would want
+to go back to the initial offer of a state plea with a non-prosecution agreement. When Villafaña
+sent the revised plea agreement to Lefkowitz later that afternoon, she advised him that if the
+defense wanted to return to the original offer of a state plea only, the draft NPA she had sent to
+him on September 17, 2007, would control.
+120
+substantially diverged.
+The USAO had standard federal plea agreement language, from which this "hybrid" plea agreement had
+forward with it."
+77
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 105 of 349
+1.
+The Defense Rejects the Federal Plea Agreement, Returns to the NPA
+"State-Only" Resolution, and Begins Opposing the Sexual Offender
+Registration Requirement
+After having spent days negotiating the federal charges to be included in a plea agreement,
+by the afternoon of September 20, 2007, the defense rejected the federal plea option, and the parties
+resumed negotiations over the details of an NPA calling for Epstein to plead to only state charges.
+Through multiple emails and attempts (some successful) to speak directly with Acosta and other
+supervisors, defense attorneys vigorously fought the USAO's insistence that Epstein plead to a
+state charge requiring sexual offender registration.
+After receiving the federal plea agreement, Lefkowitz spoke with Villafaña. She reported
+to Acosta and Lourie that Lefkowitz told her the defense was "back to doing the state-chargesonly agreement" and wanted until the middle of the following week to work out the details, but
+that she had told defense counsel that "we need a signed agreement by tomorrow [Friday] or we
+are [filing charges] on Tuesday."
+Lefkowitz emailed Villafaña about the draft NPA that she had sent to him, pointing out
+nat it called for a 20-month jail sentence followed by 10 months of community control, rather tha
+8 months in jail and 12 under community control, and to ask if the USAO had "any flexibility
+on the § 2255 procedure. Villafaña responded:
+The 18 and 12 has already been agreed to by our office, so that is
+not a problem. On the issue about 18 [U.S.C. §] 2255, we seem to
+be miles apart. Your most recent version not only had me binding
+the girls to a trust fund administered by the state court, but also
+promising that they will give up their [8] 2255 rights.
+I reviewed the e-mail that I sent you on Sunday with the comments
+in some of your other changes. In the context of a non-prosecutio
+greement, the office may be more willing to be specific about no
+pursuing charges against others. However, as I stated on Sunday,
+the Office cannot and will not bind Immigration.
+Also, your timetable will need to move up significantly. As [State
+Attorney] Barry [Krischer] said in our meeting last week, his office
+can put together a plea agreement, [and an] information, and get you
+all before the [state] judge on a change of plea within a day.
+Villafaña alerted Krischer that evening that negotiations were "not going very well" and
+that defense counsel "changed their minds again, and they only want to plead to state charges, not
+concurrent state and federal." She added, "If we cannot reach ... an agreement, then I need to
+[charge] the case on Tuesday [September 25] and I will not budge from that date."
+In response to Villafaña's report of her conversation with Lefkowitz about the defense
+preference for a "state-charges-only agreement," Lourie alerted her that, "He wants to get out of
+[sexual offender] registration which we should not agree to." Lourie emailed Acosta:
+78
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 106 of 349
+I think Jay [Lefkowitz] will try to talk you out of a registrable
+offense. Regardless of the merits of his argument, in order to get us
+down in time they made us an offer that included pleading to an
+offense against a minor (encouraging a minor into prostitution) and
+touted that we should be happy because it was registrable. For that
+reason alone, I don't think we should consider allowing them to
+come down from their own offer, either on this issue or on time of
+incarceration.
+Lefkowitz attempted to reach Acosta that night, but Acosta directed Villafaña to return the
+call, and told Lourie that he did not want to open "a backchannel" with defense counsel. Lourie
+instructed Villafaña, "U can tell [Jay that [A Jlex will not agree to a nonregistration offense."
+On the morning of Friday, September 21, 2007, Villafaña emailed Acosta informing him
+that "it looks like we will be [filing charges against] Mr. Epstein on Tuesday," reporting that the
+charging package was being reviewed by the West Palm Beach manager, and asking if anyone in
+the Miami office needed to review it. Villafaña also alerted Lourie that she had spoken that
+morning to Lefkowitz, who "was waffling" about Epstein pleading to a state charge that required
+sexual offender registration, and she noted that she would confer with Krischer and Belohlavek
+"to make sure the defense doesn't try to do an end run."
+That same morning, Epstein attorney
+who had not been involved in negotiations
+for several weeks, emailed Sloman, advising, "[1] want to finalize the plea deal and there is only
+one issue outstanding and [!] do not believe that [A]lex has read all the defense submissions that
+would assist in his determination on this point ... [U]pon resolution, we will be prepared to sign
+as soon as today." From his out-of-town vacation, Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta, who
+replied, "Enjo[y] vacation. Working with [M]arie on this." Sloman also forwarded
+email to Lourie and asked, "Do you know what she's talking about?" Lourie responded that
+"has not been in any negotiations. Don't even engage with yet another
+J. The USAO Agrees Not to Criminally Charge "Potential Co-Conspirators"
+Lefkowitz, in the meantime, sent Villafaña a revised draft NPA that proposed an 18-month
+sentence in the county jail, followed by 12 months of community control, and restored the
+provision for a trust fund for disbursement to an agreed-upon list of individuals "who seek
+reimbursement by filing suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255." This defense draft retained the
+provision promising not to criminally charge Epstein's four female assistants and unnamed
+employees of the specific Epstein-owned corporate entity, but also extended the provision to "any
+potential co-conspirators" for any criminal charge arising from the ongoing federal investigation.
+This language had evolved from similar language that Villafaña had included in the USAO's
+earlier proposed draft federal plea agreement. '22
+Lefkowitz also again included the sentence
+122
+The language in the USAO's draft federal plea agreement stated, "This agreement resolves the federal
+criminal liability of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any
+criminal conduct by those persons known to the [USAO] ...."
+79
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 107 of 349
+precluding the government from requesting, initiating, or recommending immigration proceedings
+against the two assistants who were foreign nationals.
+At this point, Lefkowitz again sought to speak to Acosta, who replied by email: *I am
+happy to talk. My caveat is that in the middle of negotiations, u try to avoid[] undermining my
+staff by allowing 'interlocutor[ly" appeals so to speak so I'd want [M]arie on the call[.] I'll have
+her set something up."
+Villafaña sent to Lefkowitz her own revised NPA, telling him it was her "attempt at
+combining our thoughts," but it had not "been approved by the office yet." She inserted solicitation
+of minors to engage in prostitution, a registrable offense, as the charge to which Epstein would
+plead guilty; proposed a joint recommendation for a 30-month sentence, divided into 18 months
+in the county jail and 12 months of community control; and amended the § 2255 provision. 123
+Villafaña's revision retained the provision suspending the investigation and holding all legal
+process in abeyance, and she incorporated the non-prosecution provision while slightly altering it
+to apply to "any potential co-conspirator of Epstein, including" the four named assistants, and
+deleting mention of the corporate entity employees. Finally, Villafaña deleted mention of
+immigration proceedings, but advised in her transmittal email that "we have not and don't plan to
+ask immigration" proceedings to be initiated. '24
+Later that day, Villafaña alerted Lourie (who had arrived in Florida from Washington, D.C.
+early that afternoon) and the new West Palm Beach manager (copying her first-line supervisor and
+co-counsel) that she had included language that defense counsel had requested "regarding
+promises not to prosecute other people," and commented, "I don't think it hurts us." There is no
+documentation that Lourie, the West Palm Beach manager, or anyone else expressed disagreement
+with Villafaña's assessment. Rather, within a few minutes, Villafaña re-sent her email, adding
+that defense counsel was persisting in including an immigration waiver in the agreement, to which
+Lourie responded, "No way. We don't put that sort of thing in a plea agreement." Villafaña replied
+to Lourie, indicating she would pass that along to defense counsel and adding, "Any other
+thoughts?"' When Lourie gave no further response, Villafaña informed defense counsel that Lourie
+had rejected the proposed immigration language.
+OPR questioned the subjects about the USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential
+co-conspirators." Lourie did not recall why the USAO agreed to it, but he speculated that he left
+that provision in the NPA because he believed at the time that it benefited the government in some
+way. In particular, Lourie conjectured that the promise not to prosecute "any potential
+co-conspirators" protected victims who had recruited others and thus potentially were
+co-conspirators in Epstein's scheme. Lourie also told OPR, "I bet the answer was that we weren't
+going to charge" Epstein's accomplices, because Acosta "didn't really want to charge Epstein" in
+123
+Villafaña noted that she had consulted with a USAO employee who was a *former corporate counsel from a
+hospital" about the § 2255 language, and thought that the revised language "addresses the concern about having an
+unlimited number of claimed victims, without me trying to bind girls who I do not represent."
+124
+Villafaña gave OPR an explanation similar to that given by the case agents that an ICE Special Agent had
+been involved in the carly stages of the federal investigation of Epstein, and Villafaña believed the agent knew two of
+Epstein's female assistants were foreign nationals and would have acted appropriately on that information. Villatana
+80
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 108 of 349
+federal court. Sloman similarly said that he had the impression that the non-prosecution provision
+was meant to protect named co-conspirators who were also victims, "in a sense," of Epstein's
+conduct. Although later press coverage of the Epstein case focused on Epstein's connection to
+prominent figures and suggested that the non-prosecution provision protected these individuals,
+Sloman told OPR that it never occurred to him that the reference to potential co-conspirators was
+directed toward any of the high-profile individuals who were at the time or subsequently linked
+with Epstein.'?5 Acosta did not recall the provision or any discussions about it. He speculated
+that if he read the non-prosecution provision, he likely assumed that Villafaña and Lourie had
+"thought this through" and "addressed it for a reason." The West Palm Beach manager, who had
+only limited involvement at this stage, told OPR that the provision was "highly unusual," and he
+had "no clue" why the USAO agreed to it.
+Villafaña told OPR that, apart from the women named in the NPA, the investigation had
+not developed evidence of "any other potential co-conspirators. So, ... we wouldn't be
+prosecuting anybody else, so why not include it? ... I just didn't think that there was anybody
+that it would cover." She conceded, however, that she "did not catch the fact that it could be read
+as broadly as people have since read it."
+K. The USAO Rejects Defense Efforts to Eliminate the Sexual Offender
+Registration Requirement
+On the afternoon of Friday, September 21, 2007, State Attorney Krischer informed
+Villafaña that Epstein's counsel had contacted him and Epstein was ready to agree "to all the
+terms" of the NPA-except for sexual offender registration. According to Krischer, defense
+counsel had proposed that registration be deferred, and that Epstein register only if state or federal
+law enforcement felt, at any point during his service of the sentence, that he needed to do so.
+Krischer noted that he had "reached out" to Acosta about this proposal but had not heard back
+from him. Villafaña responded, "I think Alex is calling you now." Villafaña told OPR that, to her
+knowledge, Acosta called Krischer to tell him that registration was not a negotiable term. 26
+Later that afternoon, Villafaña emailed Krischer for information about the amount of "gain
+time" Epstein would earn in state prison. Villafaña explained in her email that she wanted to
+include a provision in the NPA specifying that Epstein "will actually be in jail at least a certain
+number of days to make sure he doesn't try to 'convince' someone with the Florida prison
+authorities to let him out early." Krischer responded that under the proposal as it then stood,
+Epstein would serve 15 months. He also told Villafaña that a plea to a registrable offense would
+not prevent Epstein from serving his time "at the stockade"— the local minimum security detention
+facility. '27
+125
+Sloman also pointed out that the NPA was not a "global resolution" and other co-conspirators could have
+been prosecuted "by any other [U.S. Attorney's] office in the country."
+126
+Krischer told OPR that he did not recall meeting or having interactions with Acosta regarding the Epstein
+case or any other matter.
+127
+The State Attorney concluded his email: "Glad we could get this worked out for reasons I won't put in
+writing. After this is resolved I would love to buy you a cup at Starbucks and have a conversation." Villafaña
+responded, "Sounds great." When asked about this exchange during her OPR interview, Villafaña said: "Everybody
+81
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 109 of 349
+At some point that day, Acosta spoke with Lefkowitz by phone regarding the need for
+Epstein to plead to a registrable offense. Throughout the weekend, with Villafaña's Monday
+deadline looming, defense counsel pressed hard to eliminate the sexual offender requirement. On
+Saturday, September 22, 2007, L
+sent a series of emails to Lourie. In the first, she provided
+details from a press report about a Florida public official who the previous day had pled guilty to
+child sex abuse charges and was sentenced to a term of probation. She noted that she "spoke to
+[M]att [Menchel]" and asked Lourie to call her. Two hours later she sent Lourie a second, lengthy
+email, strongly objecting to the registration requirement, and outlining "all arguments against
+registration [as a sexual offender] in this case." In this email, L
+claimed that there had been
+a "miscommunication" during the September 12, 2007 meeting, and that "we only agreed to the
+solicitation with minors because we believed and Krischer and Belohlavek confirmed it was
+NOT registrable."
+complained that lifetime sexual offender registration was a "life
+sentence" that was "uncalled for," "does not make sense," and was "inappropriate" to impose
+"simply [because] the FBI wants it, in return for all there [sic] efforts." She listed numerous
+reasons why Epstein should not have to register, including his lack of a prior record or history of
+sexual offenses; the lack of any danger of recidivism; the ease with which he could be "tracked"
+without registering; and that it would be "virtually impossible to comply" with four separate state
+registration requirements. A few minutes later,
+sent Lefcourt's phone number to Lourie
+"in case you want to speak to him directly."
+In another email sent less than two hours later,
+told Lourie she was writing again
+because "you are a very fair person. This resolution in the Epstein case is not reasonable. [I]t is a
+result of a misunderstanding at a meeting." She stated that Epstein's attorneys had "consistently
+emphasized their goal of 18 months in a federal camp" and "[e]veryone knew that a registerable
+offense precluded" a camp designation.
+added, "Therefore it would have been wholly
+inconsistent with that primary goal of [Epstein's] safety to lightly concede to registration at that
+meeting."
+concluded, "[I]mposing a life sentence on him is not something anyone will
+eventually be proud of. Please reconsider and help me get a fair result."
+Lourie responded to none of the
+emails, but he did reach out to Acosta for a phone
+conversation. By email late that night, at 10:26 p.m., Lefkowitz asked Lourie to phone him.
+The next day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta—with copies to Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña—
+to "follow up on our conversation Friday," asking Acosta again to reconsider the requirement that
+Epstein plead to a registrable offense. Lefkowitz wrote that there had been a "misunderstanding"
+at the September 12, 2007 meeting:
+Before the meeting, Mr. Krischer and Ms. Belohlavek, a sex
+prosecutor for 13 years, told us that solicitation of a minor ... is not
+a registerable offense. However, as it turned out, [it] is a registerable
+offense and our discussion at the meeting was based on a mistaken
+assumption. We suggest that Mr. Epstein enter two pleasone to
+the Indictment and a second to a non-registerable charge.
+has offered to buy me a cup of coffee. I have had coffee with no one." Krischer told OPR that the "reasons" to which
+he referred related to the pressure he had been getting from Chief Reiter about the Epstein case.
+82
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 110 of 349
+Lefkowitz set forth arguments similar to those
+had presented to Lourie, as to why
+registration "based on the facts alleged in this case ... simply does not make sense." In the event
+that Acosta did not agree to their proposed charges, Lefkowitz offered as an alternative "to stipulate
+that the state offense" would "constitute a prior sexual offense for purposes of enhanced recidivist
+sentencing" should Epstein ever again commit a federal sex offense against minors. As Lefkowitz
+further argued, "By accepting this option, you would be substituting the certainty of recidivist
+sentencing for the humiliation of registration." Emails reflect that, carly that afternoon, Acosta,
+Lourie, and Villafaña discussed the matter in a conference call.
+Lefkowitz also sent a revised version of the NPA to Villafaña that omitted identification of'
+the charge to which Epstein would plead guilty. Later that day, Lefkowitz emailed Acosta:
+I got a call from [Marie who said you had rejected our proposal.
+Does that mean you are not even prepared to have [Epstein] commit
+now to plead to the registerable offense near the end of his 18 month
+sentence and then be sentenced to 12 month[s] community control
+for that charge? I thought that was exactly what you proposed
+[F]riday although you wanted, but were not able, to do it with some
+kind of federal charge).
+But that still gives you a registerable sex offense, 30 months total,
+and 18 in jail.
+How can that not satisfy you —while still ensuring that [E]pstein is
+not unduly endangered in jail?
+Acosta responded, "I do not mean to be difficult, but our negotiations must take place with the
+AUSAs assigned to the case." Acosta added that he had spoken with Lourie and Villafaña, and
+they had "discretion to proceed as they believe just and appropriate." Acosta copied Villafaña,
+and she emailed Acosta to thank him "for the support."
+L. The Defense Adds a Confidentiality Clause
+Throughout that Sunday evening, Lefkowitz had numerous email exchanges with
+Villafaña, and apparently a conference call with Lourie (who was returning to Washington, D.C.)
+and Villafaña. Later that evening, Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a new version of the NPA that, for the
+first time, included a confidentiality term:
+It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that it not be
+Government agrees to provide Epstein notice before the disclosure
+of this Agreement.
+After making additional revisions, Villafaña sent this NPA to Acosta and Lourie as the
+"final" version, asking Acosta to let her know what he thought of it. Among her revisions, she
+changed the confidentiality provision to the following:
+83
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 111 of 349
+The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of
+any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of
+Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding
+the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein
+before making that disclosure. '28
+VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007: ACOSTA MAKES FINAL EDITS, AND THE NPA IS
+SIGNED
+The contemporaneous emails show that Villafaña continued to update Acosta as the parties
+negotiated the final language and that Acosta reviewed and edited the NPA. Shortly after midnight
+on Monday, September 24, 2007, Acosta sent Villafaña "[s]mall edits" to the "final" NPA she had
+sent to him. Among his changes was language modifying provisions that appeared to require the
+State Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein
+enter his guilty plea by a certain date. Acosta explained in his email, "I'm not comfortable with
+requiring the State Attorney to enter into a [joint sentencing] recommendation" or "requiring a
+State court to stick with our timeline" for entry of the guilty plea and sentencing. Accordingly,
+Acosta substituted language that required Epstein alone to make a binding sentencing
+recommendation to the state court, and required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to enter his guilty
+plea and be sentenced by the specified dates. Acosta also instructed Villafaña to restore a reference
+to Epstein's wish "to reach a global resolution of his state and federal criminal liabilities." Lourie,
+who had returned to the Department in Washington, D.C., had a phone conversation with
+Lefkowitz and sent additional comments on the final draft to Acosta and Villafaña. Villafaña sent
+a new revision, incorporating edits from Acosta and Lourie, to Lefkowitz later that morning.
+On the afternoon of September 24, 2007, Villafaña circulated the new "final" version of
+the NPA to Acosta, Sloman, Lourie, and other supervisors, and asked Lefkowitz to send her the
+signed agreement. After Lefkowitz electronically transmitted to Villafaña a copy of the NPA
+signed by Epstein, she emailed her immediate supervisor and her co-counsel: "They have scanned
+and emailed the signed agreement. It is done."
+In his transmittal email, Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to "[p]lease do whatever you can to
+keep this from becoming public." Villafaña responded:
+I have forwarded your message only to Alex, Andy, and [the West
+Palm Beach manager]. I don't anticipate it going any further than
+hat. When I receive the originals, I will sign and return one cop
+o vou. The other will be placed in the case file, which will be kep
+confidential since it also contains identifying information about the
+girls.
+When we reach an agreement about the attorney representative for
+the girls, we can discuss what I can tell him and the girls about the
+128
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Lourie observed that because the NPA contained names of uncharged
+co-conspirators and other protected information, the USAO would have a duty to redact the information before
+disclosing the NPA.
+84
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 112 of 349
+agreement. I know that Andy promised Chief Reiter an update when
+a resolution was achieved.... [The West Palm Beach manager] is
+calling, but [he] knows not to tell Chief Reiter about the money
+issue, just about what crimes Mr. Epstein is pleading guilty to and
+the amount of time that has been agreed to. [He] also is telling Chief
+Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone.
+OPR questioned Villafaña about this email. She explained that she generally kept
+confidential the terms of the resolution of any case. She understood that "the way that the [Epstein]
+case was resolved" needed to remain confidential, but the victims could be informed about what
+happened because by the NPA's terms, they needed to know what the agreement was about.
+Villafaña emailed the West Palm Beach manager, asking him to tell PBPD Chief Reiter
+"the good news" but "leave out the part about damages," and explained that she wanted to meet
+with the victims herself to explain how the damages provision would work. Villafaña also told
+him that Lourie had asked that Reiter share information about the NPA only with the PBPD
+Detective who had led the state investigation of Epstein. 29 Villafaña forwarded to Acosta, Lourie,
+and the West Palm Beach manager Lefkowitz's email asking that the USAO try to keep the NPA
+from becoming public. Acosta responded that the agreement "already binds us not to make public
+except as required by law under [the Freedom of Information Act]," and asked, "[W Jhat more does
+he want?" Villafaña replied, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief or FBI
+or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Soon thereafter, Acosta emailed Lourie, Villafaña,
+and the West Palm Beach manager to set up a call to discuss "who we tell and how much," adding,
+"Nice job with a difficult negotiation."
+The final NPA, as signed by Epstein, his attorneys Lefcourt and
+and Villafaña,
+contained the following pertinent provisions:
+Charges:
+Sentence:
+Damages:
+Epstein would plead guilty to the pending Palm Beach County indictment,
+plus one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, a
+registrable offense.
+The parties would make a joint, binding recommendation for a 30-month
+sentence divided as follows: consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months
+in the county jail, without opportunity for withholding adjudication or
+sentencing and without community control or probation, followed by
+12 months of community control, consecutive. 130
+As long as the identified victims proceeded exclusively under 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2255, Epstein would not contest federal court jurisdiction or the victims'
+status as victims. The USAO would provide to Epstein a list of individuals
+129
+The West Palm Beach manager told OPR that he called Chief Reiter, who was "fine" with the outcome.
+130
+Withholding adjudication or sentencing referred to a special sentence in which the judge orders probation
+but does not formally convict the defendant of a criminal offense. See Fla. Stat. § 948.01 (2007).
+85
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 113 of 349
+Timing:
+Immunity:
+Other:
+it had identified as victims.' The USAO, with the good faith approval of
+Epstein's counsel, would select an attorney representative for the victims,
+whom Epstein would pay.
+Epstein would make his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be sentenced
+by October 26, 2007. The USAO had no objection to Epstein self-reporting
+to begin serving his sentence by January 4, 2008.
+The USAO would not initiate criminal charges against "any potential
+co-conspirator of Epstein," including four named personal assistants.
+Epstein was obligated to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's
+Office to ensure compliance with this agreement.
+Epstein waived his right to appeal.
+Breach:
+Disclosure:
+other inmate.
+The federal investigation would be suspended and all pending legal process
+held in abeyance unless and until Epstein violated any term of the
+agreement. Evidence "requested by or directly related to" the pending legal
+process, "including certain computer equipment," would be kept inviolate
+until all the NPA terms had been satisfied
+The USAO would be required to notify Epstein of any alleged breach of the
+agreemen, thi would require aspirate prost the ertin lays
+The parties "anticipate[d]" that the agreement would not be made part of
+That evening, Lefkowitz emailed Lourie to express concern about the notification he
+understood would be given to Chief Reiter, stating, "I am very concerned about leaks unduly
+prejudicing Jeffrey [Epstein] in the media."33 He added, "I have enjoyed working with you on
+The USAO had not informed the defense of the victims' identities at this point. The parties anticipated tha
+e USAO would send Epstein's attorneys a list of victims when Epstein fulfilled his obligation under the NPA t
+enter his state guilty pleas.
+132
+The final NPA is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Report.
+133
+On October 3, 2007, the Miami FBI media officer notified the USAO that the New York Post had reported
+86
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 114 of 349
+this matter." Lourie responded with an assurance that the Reiter notification was only "so he does
+not find out about it in the paper," and he concluded: "I enjoyed it as well. Mr. Epstein was
+fortunate to have such excellent representation."
+VIII. POST-NPA NEGOTIATIONS
+Almost immediately after the NPA was signed, conflicts arose about its terms, and the
+difficult negotiation process began anew. The USAO quickly realized that there were numerous
+issues concerning the monetary damages provision that were not resolved in the NPA, and the
+parties differed in their interpretations of the § 2255 provision, in particular the role and duties of
+the attorney representative for the victims. As negotiations regarding the damages provision
+continued, the defense was able to delay having Epstein enter his guilty plea in state court.
+A. September - October 2007: Sloman's Concerns about Selection of an
+Attorney Representative Lead to a Proposed NPA Addendum
+The first controversy centered on the appointment of an attorney representative for the
+victims. Initially, Villafaña reached out to a private attorney who was one of several suggested to
+her for that role. Villafaña notified Lefkowitz that she was recommending the attorney to serve as
+the victims" representative and suggested a phone conference to discuss what information the
+USAO could disclose to the attorney about the case. Villafaña told Lefkowitz that she had never
+met the attorney, but he had been recommended by "a good friend in our appellate section" and by
+one of the district judges in Miami. 34 Over the next few days, Villafaña exchanged messages with
+the attorney about the possibility of his serving as the attorney representative. She also exchanged
+emails with Lefkowitz, passing along procedural questions raised by the attorney.
+By this time, Lourie had fully transitioned to his detail at the Department's Criminal
+Division. Sloman, who had been on vacation during the week the NPA was finalized, returned to
+the office, reviewed the final agreement, and immediately expressed his disapproval of the
+provision authorizing the USAO to select an attorney representative for the victims, which he
+believed might raise the appearance of a conflict of interest. Instead, he proposed that a special
+_ make the selection. Although evidently frustrated by Sloman's belated proposal, Villafaña
+conveyed to Lefkowitz the suggestion that a special
+representative, rather than having the USAO make the selection. '35 She provided Lefkowitz with
+probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge, with the
+understanding that he will do prison time." Dan Mangan, ''Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal Moneyman to Get Jail For
+Teen Sex Massages," New York Post, Oct. 1, 2007. ABC News later reported that federal charges "could carry more
+substantial prison time. Now, Epstein's high-powered lawyers, including Kenneth Starr, ... may try to get him out
+of registering as a sex offender ...." Scott Michels, "Money Manager Said to Plan to Plead Guilty to Prostitutior
+Charges: Jeffrey Epstein may serve about 18 months in prison for soliciting prostitutes," ABC News, Oct. 11, 2007.
+The "good friend" was an AUSA whom Villafaña was dating. The defense subsequently raised this as a
+misconduct issue, alleging that Villafaña was "closely associated" with the individual nominated for the victims'
+representative position. (
+135
+In a separate email to the proposed attorney representative, Villafaña commented, "[O]f course they tell me
+this now."
+87
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 115 of 349
+a proposal regarding the special
+responsibilities, along with a draft letter to send to the
+special
+explaining the procedure for selecting an attorney representative.
+Lefkowitz objected to this proposal in a letter to Villafaña, pointing out that the NPA did
+not provide for the appointment of a special
+More importantly, Lefkowitz used the
+discussion of the special
+as an opening to press for other alterations to the language of the
+NPA or, at least, to its interpretation. Focusing on the attorney representative, Lefkowitz argued
+that the attorney's role should be viewed as limited to negotiating settlements and that the attorney
+was precluded from filing lawsuits on behalf of victims who could not reach a negotiated
+settlement with Epstein. Lefkowitz proposed:
+[T]he selected attorney should evaluate the claims of each identified
+individual, negotiate a total fund amount with Mr. Epstein, then
+distribute the monies based on the strength of each case. For those
+identified individuals who elect not to settle with Mr. Epstein, they
+may proceed on their own, but by doing so, they would not be suing
+under § 2255 as contemplated by [the NPA] and therefore may not
+continue to be represented by the selected attorney.
+Lefkowitz also objected to Villafaña's draft letter to the special
+asserting that it was
+essential for the defense to participate in crafting a "mutually acceptable communication" to the
+victims. Going further, Lefkowitz claimed that any contact between the USAO and the victims
+about the § 2255 provision would violate the agreement's confidentiality provision. Lefkowitz
+admonished the government not to contact the victims "to inform them of the resolution of the
+case, including [the] appointment of the selected attorney and the settlement process."
+Villafaña forwarded Lefkowitz's letter to Sloman, complaining that the defense
+interpretation of the § 2255 procedure violated the clear language of the NPA and asking, "Can I
+please just indict him [Epstein]?" Days later,
+emailed Sloman, and then sent a follow-up
+letter, asking that Sloman "help resolve" the issue regarding the attorney representative's role, and
+arguing that Epstein had never intended by signing the NPA to promise to pay fees for the victims'
+civil lawsuits in the event a settlement could not be reached. When Villafaña explained to Sloman
+her views on
+arguments, Sloman responded, "I suggest that you communicate your
+proposal back to [
+1. The more "voices' they hear the more wedges they try to drive
+between us." Villafaña agreed, noting that "[t]here are so many of them over there, I am afraid we
+are getting triple-teamed."136
+Villafaña sent
+a letter regarding the roles of the special
+and attorney
+representap ve. Treme day, yeserday, expreso serious disiremens vo A citata s
+view of the process for victims to claim § 2255 damages under the NPA. Lefkowitz reiterated the
+defense position that the attorney representative's role was meant to be limited to negotiating
+settlements for the victims, rather than pursuing litigation. Lefkowitz claimed that a requirement
+136
+Villafaña also alerted Sloman that a newspaper was reporting that defense counsel was writing a letter to
+Acosta asking for reconsideration of the requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender. Villafaña commented,
+"It appears they don't understand that a signed contract is binding."
+88
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 116 of 349
+that Epstein pay the victims' legal fees incurred from contested litigation would "trigger profound
+ethical problems," in that the attorney representative would have an incentive to reject settlement
+offers in order to incur more fees. In addition, Lefkowitz rejected Villafaña's view that Epstein
+had waived the right to challenge § 2255 liability as to victims who did not want to settle their
+claims, and contended that any such victims "will have to prove, among other things, that they are
+victims under the enumerated statutes." Finally, Lefkowitz again argued that the USAO should
+not discuss the settlement process with the victims who were to be identified as eligible for
+settlement under § 2255:
+Ms. Villafaña proposes that either she or federal agents will speak
+with the [victims] regarding the settlement process. We do not think
+it is the government's place to be co-counsel to the [victims], nor
+should the FBI be their personal investigators. Neither federal
+agents nor anyone from your Office should contact the [victims] to
+inform them of the resolution of the case, including appointment of
+the attorney representative and the settlement process. Not only
+would that violate the confidentiality of the Agreement, but
+Mr. Epstein also will have no control over what is communicated to
+the [victims] at this most critical stage. We believe it is essential
+that we participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication
+to the [victims]. We further believe that communications between
+your Office or your case agents and the [victims] might well violate
+Rule 6(e)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
+powers of the federal grand jury should not, even in appearance, be
+utilized to advance the interests of a party to a civil lawsuit. '37
+Lefkowitz concluded, "I look forward to resolving these open issues with you during our 4:30 call
+today."138
+Villafaña was at that time on sick leave, and Sloman and Acosta exchanged emails about
+crafting an addendum to the NPA to address the method of appointing an attorney representative
+and to articulate the representative's duties. The next day, October 11, 2007, Sloman exchanged
+emails with Lefkowitz about the text of a proposed addendum.
+B.
+October 12, 2007: Acosta and Defense Attorney Lefkowitz Meet for Breakfast
+On the morning after his scheduled afternoon phone call with Lefkowitz, Acosta exchanged
+emails with Lefkowitz, arranging to meet for breakfast the following day, on October 12, 2007, at
+a Marriott hotel in West Palm Beach. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was previously
+cheduled to be in West Palm Beach for a press event on October 11 and to speak at the Paln
+each County Bench Bar conference the following midday, and that he stayed overnight at th
+Marriott.
+137
+138
+Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2)(B) relates to secrecy of federal grand jury matters.
+OPR did not locate any emails indicating what happened on the call.
+89
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 117 of 349
+However, as with Villafaña's publicly released emails to Lefkowitz, this meeting between
+Acosta and Lefkowitz drew criticism when the media learned of it during the CVRA litigation. It
+was seen either as further evidence of the USAO's willingness to meet with Epstein's attorneys
+while simultaneously ignoring the victims, or as a meeting at which Acosta made secret
+agreements with the defense.
+Two letters written later in 2007 refer to the breakfast meeting. In a December 2007 letter
+to
+1, Acosta stated that he had "sua sponte proposed the Addendum to Mr. Lefkowitz at an
+October meeting in Palm Beach .... in an attempt to avoid what I foresaw would likely be a
+litigious selection process."139 In an October 23, 2007 letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta, less than
+two weeks after the breakfast meeting, Lefkowitz represented that during the meeting, Acosta
+assured me that [the USAO] would not intervene with the State
+Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or contact any of the
+identified individuals, potential witnesses, or potential civil
+claimants and their respective counsel in this matter; and that neither
+[the USAO] nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding the sentence
+Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as the
+sentence does not violate state law. '40
+However, two days after receiving this letter, Acosta revised a response letter drafted by
+Sloman, adding the term "inaccurate" to describe Lefkowitz's claims that Acosta had promised
+not to intervene with the State Attorney's Office, contact individual witnesses or claimants, or
+intervene regarding Epstein's sentence. '41 The draft response stated, "IS]uch a promise equates to
+the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot and will not agree to this."142
+Acosta told OPR that he did not remember the breakfast meeting, but he speculated that
+the meeting may have been prompted by defense complaints that Villafaña had recommended "her
+boyfriend's partner" to serve as attorney representative. '43 Acosta said that "the way this was
+reported [in the press] was that I negotiated [the NPA] over breakfast," which was inaccurate
+because the NPA had been signed weeks before the breakfast meeting. '44 When asked about
+139
+In fact, Sloman and Lefkowitz had been working on language for the Addendum before Acosta's breakfast
+meeting with Lefkowitz. It is possible that Acosta was not aware of Sloman's efforts or had forgotten about them
+when writing the December 7, 2007 letter.
+140
+This letter is discussed further in the following section of this Report.
+141
+OPR did not find evidence establishing that the response was ever sent.
+Sloman's initial draft response referred to a conversation the previous day in which Acosta had "clarified"
+Lefkowitz's claims about what Acosta had purportedly said in the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting.
+As noted previously, the attorney whom Villafaña recommended was a friend of another AUSA whom
+Villafaña was then dating, but had no professional relationship with either Villafaña or the other AUSA.
+144
+crimes and the number of people involved.
+"Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump cabinet member gave
+a serial sex abuser the deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018. The NPA, however, was finalized and signed
+90
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 118 of 349
+Lefkowitz's description of their breakfast meeting discussion, Acosta told OPR that there were
+"several instances" in which Lefkowitz and other defense counsel mischaracterized something he
+or an AUSA said, in a way that was misleading.
+Emails show that, immediately after the breakfast, Acosta phoned Sloman, who then
+emailed to Lefkowitz a revision to the Addendum language they had been negotiating and who
+also later reported to Villafaña that Lefkowitz's "suggested revision has been rejected." Other
+emails show that the parties continued to be at odds about the proposed language for the NPA
+addendum for several days after the breakfast meeting.
+C. Acosta Agrees to the Defense Request to Postpone Epstein's Guilty Plea; the
+Parties Continue to Negotiate Issues concerning the Attorney Representative
+and Finally Reach Agreement on the NPA Addendum
+A week after his breakfast meeting with Acosta, Lefkowitz-citing a scheduling conflict—
+sent Acosta an email seeking his agreement to postpone Epstein's entry of his guilty plea in state
+court from October 26, 2007, the date agreed to in the NPA, to November 20, 2007. In his email,
+Lefkowitz reported that the State Attorney's Office had agreed to the postponement, and he noted
+that Acosta had said during the breakfast meeting that he "didn't want to dictate a schedule to the
+state."145
+Acosta solicited input from Sloman, who later that day emailed Lefkowitz and agreed
+to the postponement.
+With Lourie having departed from the USAO, Sloman became more involved in
+negotiating the NPA addendum than he had been in the negotiations leading to the NPA, and he
+quickly came up against the problem Villafaña and Lourie had faced: the defense attorneys
+continued to negotiate provisions to which they had seemingly already agreed. Between October
+12 and 19, 2007, in a series of email exchanges and phone conversations, Acosta, Sloman,
+Villafaña, and Lefkowitz continued working on language for the NPA addendum addressing the
+process for selection of the attorney representative and describing which of the representative's
+activities Epstein would be required to reimburse. Although it appeared that progress was being
+made towards reaching agreement on the terms of an addendum, on October 19, 2007, Lefkowitz
+emailed Sloman identifying "areas of concern" with a proposal the USAO had made days before.
+Sloman forwarded this email to Acosta, noting that it "re-ploughs some of what we accomplished
+this week," and raised "unnecessary" issues. Sloman reported to Acosta that a victim in New York
+had filed a civil lawsuit against Epstein, and Villafaña was concerned that "this may be the real
+reason for the delay in the ... plea. She thinks that [Epstein] ... want[s] to knock that lawsuit out
+before the guilty plea to deter others." Sloman also alerted Acosta that newspaper reports
+indicated that Epstein had planted false stories in the press in an attempt to discredit the victims.
+almost three weeks before the breakfast meeting occurred. OPR discusses the breakfast meeting further in its analysis
+at Chapter Two, Part Three, Section IV.E.2.
+145
+Assuming Acosta made the remark Lefkowitz attributed to him, it was consistent with the position Acosta
+had taken before the NPA was signed. As noted previously, during the NPA negotiations, Acosta had instructed
+Villafaña to omit language requiring the State Attorney's Office to take action by a certain date, because he was *not
+comfortable with requiring the State" to comply with a specific deadline. During his interview, Acosta told OPR that
+"we as federal prosecutors are not going to walk in and dictate to the state attorney."
+91
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 119 of 349
+On October 22, 2007, Sloman responded to the issues Lefkowitz had raised, rejecting some
+defense proposals but agreeing to modify certain language in the proposed addendum to "satisfy
+your concern."46 Noting that the addendum and a revised letter to the special |
+attached, Sloman ended by stating, "[T]his needs to be concluded. Alex and I believe that this is
+as far as we can go. Therefore, please advise me whether we have a deal no later than COB
+tomorrow ...."
+Nonetheless, the next day, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a three-page letter reiterating the Epstein
+team's disagreements with the USAO's interpretation of the NPA. Lefkowitz noted, however, that
+Epstein had "every intention of honoring the terms of [the NPA] in good faith," and that the defense
+letter was not intended to be "a rescission or withdrawal from the terms of the [NPA]." Lefkowitz
+I also want to thank you for the commitment you made to me during
+our October 12 meeting in which you promised genuine finality with
+regard to this matter, and assured me that your Office would not
+intervene with the State Attorney's Office regarding this matter; or
+contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses, or
+potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter;
+and that neither your Office nor the [FBI] would intervene regarding
+the sentence Mr. Epstein receives pursuant to a plea with the State,
+so long as that sentence does not violate state law. Indeed, so long
+as Mr. Epstein's sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the
+Agreement, he is entitled to any type of sentence available to him,
+Sloman forwarded the letter to Villafaña, commenting, "Wait [until] you see this one."
+Villafaña replied:
+Welcome to my world. I love the way that they want to interpret
+this agreement.
+146
+The defense raised issues concerning the attorney representative, the statutory limit on damages, and
+inclusion of certain victims.
+92
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 120 of 349
+Why don't we agree to mutual recission [sic] and indict him?
+Acosta also weighed in, sending both Villafaña and Sloman an email with a subject line
+that read "This has to stop," in which he stated:
+Just read the letter.
+We specifically refused to include the provision saying tha
+we would not communicate. If I recall the conference call, we tol
+him we could not agree to a gag order using those words.
+2.
+The purpose of the agreement was not an out of court
+settlement.
+Seems that they can't take no. Let's talk re how to
+proceed. I'm not sure we will ever agree on a letter [to the special
+about how to select an attorney representative] at this point.
+Notwithstanding Acosta's assessment and prediction, after Sloman sent to Lefkowitz a new
+draft addendum and they spoke by phone, the parties reached agreement on the addendum's
+terms. '47
+On October 25, 2007, Sloman sent a letter to the person whom the USAO had selected to
+serve as special
+I, outlining the special
+duties. A few days later, on October 29,
+2007, Epstein and his attorneys Lefcourt and
+signed the NPA addendum. '48 Villafaña's
+name was printed as the USAO representative, but at Villafaña's request, Sloman signed the
+addendum for her on behalf of the USAO.
+Villafaña later emailed Sloman thanking him for "the advice and the pep talk," which
+apparently related to the defense attorneys' allegation of impropriety concerning her initial
+selection of the private attorney to assist the victims. Villafaña explained to Sloman:
+The funny thing is that I had never met (and still haven't met) or
+spoken to [the private attorney] before I asked him if he would be
+agreed that the Special
+that the defense's attacks on me could harm the victims.
+Sloman responded that defense counsel had "put an ... insidious spin" on Villafaña's role in
+proposing the private attorney, but Sloman added, "I hope that you understand that these ad
+hominem attacks against you do not diminish in our eyes what you and the agents have
+accomplished."
+147
+Acosta and Villafaña were copied on this email.
+The Addendum is attached as Exhibit 4 to this Report.
+93
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 121 of 349
+D. Epstein Further Delays His Guilty Plea
+The addendum did not bring the case to conclusion. Instead, the matter entered a new,
+protracted phase, which involved the upper echelons of the Department of Justice. Despite the
+fact that Epstein and his attorneys had signed the NPA, they pursued a new strategy of appealing
+to senior Department managers with the goal of setting aside the NPA entirely. Although
+ultimately unsuccessful, the strategy delayed the entry of Epstein's guilty plea by months.
+On October 29, 2007, Villafaña emailed Sloman, raising several issues that she wanted
+Sloman to address with Lefkowitz. Among other things, Villafaña pointed out that the NPA
+required Epstein to use his "best efforts" to comply with the agreement, but he had failed to comply
+with the timeline established by the NPA when he sought and obtained a plea hearing
+postponement from October 26 to November 20. Responding to Lefkowitz's attempts to limit the
+USAO's communications with various entities and individuals, Villafaña noted that the USAO
+needed to be able to communicate with the State Attorney's Office and the victims' attorney "to
+[e]nsure that Epstein is abiding by the terms of the agreement."
+That same day, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed Sloman that the state judge
+assigned to the case had scheduled Epstein's plea and sentence in early January 2008. Belohlavek
+assured Sloman that the "plea and sentence will definitely occur before the January 4th date that
+was agreed on by all for the sentencing." 49 Nonetheless, emails over the course of the next month
+show that the USAO, the State Attorney's Office, and defense counsel continued to communicate
+regarding the date of the guilty plea, with the USAO asserting that a proposed January 7, 2008
+date for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea was "unacceptable," while the defense contended that
+Epstein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various
+potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of
+Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008. 50
+E.
+Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA's § 2255 Provision Relating to
+Monetary Damages for the Victims
+With Epstein's plea hearing delayed, he launched a new effort to undermine the validity of
+the NPA, this time within the Department. On November 16, 2007, Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr
+called the office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher and left a
+message that he was calling regarding Epstein.!S!
+At Fisher's request, Lourie, who in late
+September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher's Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff,
+returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call, and Lourie also could
+149
+The NPA had required Epstein's plea and sentencing to occur by October 26, 2007, but provided that Epstein
+could report to begin serving his sentence on January 4, 2008.
+150
+State v. Epstein, No. 2006-CF-9454, Notice of Hearing (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Dec. 7, 2007).
+151
+In a meeting with Acosta and Sloman on November 21, 2007, Lefkowitz informed them that Starr had placed
+a call to Fisher.
+94
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 122 of 349
+not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about
+Epstein's wish to have the Department review the case. '52
+On November 28, 2007, Starr requested, by letter, a meeting with Fisher. In his letter, Starr
+argued that the USAO improperly had compelled Epstein to agree to pay civil damages under
+18 U.S.C. § 2255 as part of a state-based resolution of a criminal case. On the same day, Lefkowitz
+emailed Sloman, complaining about the USAO's plan to notify victims about the § 2255 provision
+and alerting Sloman that Epstein's counsel were seeking a meeting with the Assistant Attorney
+General "to address what we believe is the unprecedented nature of the section 2255 component"
+of the NPA. After Lourie sent to Sloman a copy of the Starr letter, Sloman forwarded it to
+Villafaña, asking her to prepare a chronology of the plea negotiations and how the § 2255 provision
+evolved. Villafaña responded that she was "going through all of the ways in which they have tried
+to breach the agreement to convince you guys to let me indict."
+In Washington, D.C., Lourie consulted with CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, asking for his
+thoughts on defense counsel's arguments. At the same time, at Lourie's request, Villafaña sent
+the NPA and its addendum to Lourie and Oosterbaan. Oosterbaan responded to Lourie that he was
+"not thrilled" about the NPA; described Epstein's conduct as unusually "egregious," particularly
+because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was "pretty advantageous for the defendant
+and not all that helpful to the victims." He opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General
+would not and should not consider or address the NPA "other than to say that she agrees with it."
+During her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr's letter or discussing it with
+Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her "agree[ing] with it" referred to a federal
+prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she
+"played no role in" the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it
+was signed.
+As set forth in more detail in Chapter Three of this Report, Villafaña planned to notify the
+victims about the NPA and its § 2255 provision, as well as about the state plea hearing, and she
+provided a draft of the notification letter to Lefkowitz for comments. On November 29, 2007,
+Lefkowitz sent Acosta a letter complaining about the draft notification to the victims. Lefkowitz
+asked the USAO to refrain from notifying the victims until after defense counsel met with Assistant
+Attorney General Fisher, which he anticipated would take place the following week. Internal
+emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr,
+but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place, and OPR found no
+Acosta promptly responded to Lefkowitz by letter, directing him to raise his concerns about
+victim notification with Villafaña or Sloman. Acosta also addressed Epstein's evident efforts to
+stop the NPA from being enforced:
+152
+In a short email to Fisher, the next day, Lourie reported simply: "He was very nice. Kept me on the phone
+for [a] half hour talking about [P]epperdine," referring to the law school where Starr served as
+95
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 123 of 349
+[S]ince the signing of the September 24th agreement, more than two
+months[] ago, it has become clear that several attorneys on your
+legal team are dissatisfied with that result.
+...•
+[You], Professor Dershowitz, former Solicitor [General] Starr,
+former United States Attorney
+and Messrs.
+Black, Goldberger and Lefcourt previously had the opportunity to
+review and raise objections to the terms of the Agreement. The
+defense team, however, after extensive negotiation, chose to adopt
+the Agreement. Since then counsel have objected to several steps
+taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office to effectuate the terms of the
+Agreement, in essence presenting collateral challenges to portions
+of the Agreement.
+It is not the intention of this Office ever to require a defendant to
+enter a plea against his wishes. Your client has the right to proceed
+to trial. If your client is dissatisfied with his Agreement, or believes
+that it is unlawful or unfair, we stand ready to unwind the
+Agreement.
+In a separate, seven-page letter to Starr, with Villafaña's and Sloman's input, Acosta
+responded to the substance of Starr's November 28 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher.
+Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta, rather than her office, responded to the letter,
+but she conjectured that "probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since [the
+Criminal Division wasn't] going to respond."153
+In his seven-page letter, sent to Starr on December 4, 2007, Acosta wrote:
+The Non-Prosecution Agreement entered into between this Office
+and Mr. Epstein responds to Mr. Epstein's desire to reach a global
+resolution of his state and federal criminal liability. Under this
+Agreement, this District has agreed to defer prosecution for
+enumerated sections of Title 18 in favor of prosecution by the State
+of Florida, provided ... Mr. Epstein satisfies three general federal
+interests:
+(1) that Mr. Epstein plead guilty to a "registerable"
+offense; (2) that this plea include a binding recommendation for a
+sufficient term of imprisonment; and (3) that the Agreement not
+harm the interests of his victims.
+Acosta explained in the letter that the USAO's intent was "to place the identified victims
+in the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more;
+no less." Acosta documented the USAO's understanding of the operation of the NPA's § 2255
+The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starr's letter raised issues that had not been previously
+raised with the USAO, and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance.
+96
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 124 of 349
+provision, recounted the history of NPA negotiations, and described the post-signing efforts by
+Epstein's counsel to challenge portions of the NPA. Acosta's letter concluded:
+Although it happens rarely, I do not mind this Office's decision
+being appealed to Washington, and have previously directed our
+prosecutors to delay filings in this case to provide defense counsel
+with the option of appealing our decisions. Indeed, although I am
+confident in our prosecutors' evidence and legal analysis, I
+nonetheless directed them to consult with the subject matter experts
+in [CEOS] to confirm our interpretation of the law before approving
+their [charges]. I am thus surprised to read a letter addressed to
+Department Headquarters that raises issues that either have not been
+raised with this Office previously or that have been raised, and in
+fact resolved, in your client's favor.
+I am troubled, likewise, by the apparent lack of finality in this
+Agreement. The AUSAs who have been negotiating with defense
+counsel have for some time complained to me regarding the tactics
+used by the defense team. It appears to them that as soon as
+resolution is reached on one issue, defense counsel finds ways to
+challenge the resolution collaterally. My response thus far has been
+that defense counsel is doing its job to vigorously represent the
+client. That said, there must be closure on this matter. Some in our
+Office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to
+mount collateral challenges to provisions of the Agreement, ever
+after Mr. Epstein has entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the
+I would reiterate that it is not the intention of this Office ever to force
+the hand of a defendant to enter into an agreement against his
+wishes. Your client has the right to proceed to trial. Although time
+is of the essence ... I am directing our prosecutors not to issue
+victim notification letters until this Friday ... to provide you with
+time to review these options with your client. ... We expect a
+written decision by [December 7, 2007] at 5 p.m., indicating
+whether the defense team wishes to reaffirm, or to unwind, the
+Agreement.
+Acosta explained to OPR that he did not view his letter as "inviting" Departmental review,
+but he believed the Department had the "right" to address Epstein's concerns. Moreover, the
+USAO's only option at that time was to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA, which would have
+prompted litigation as to whether Epstein was, in fact, in breach. Acosta noted that defense counsel
+repeatedly proclaimed Epstein's intent to abide by the agreement, making any USAO effort to
+declare him in breach more difficult. In fact, the day after receiving Acosta's letter, Starr and
+Lefkowitz responded to Acosta (with copies to Sloman and Assitant Attorney General Fisher) that
+97
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 125 of 349
+the defense "[flirst and foremost" reaffirmed the NPA and that Epstein "has no intention of
+unwinding the agreement."
+On December 7, 2007—the deadline set by Acosta in his December 4, 2007 letter to Starrthe defense transmitted to the USAO a one-sentence "Affirmation" of the NPA and its addendum,
+signed by Epstein. '4
+F.
+Despite Affirming the NPA, Defense Counsel Intensify Their Challenges to It
+and Accuse Villafaña of Improper Conduct
+December 7 and 11, 2007: Starr and Lefkowitz Send to Acosta Letters
+and "Ethics Opinions" Complaining about the Federal Investigation
+and Villafaña
+On the same day that the defense team sent Epstein's "Affirmation" to the USAO, Starr
+and Lefkowitz sent to Acosta two "independent ethics opinions"-one authored by prominent
+criminal defense attorney and former U.S. Attorney Joe Whitley, which assessed purported
+improprieties in the federal investigation of Epstein, and the other, by a prominent retired federal
+judge and former U.S. Attorney, arguing against the NPA's use of the civil damages recovery
+provision under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 "as a proxy for traditional criminal restitution."
+Days later, on December 11, 2007, Starr sent a letter to Acosta transmitting two lengthy
+submissions authored by Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to the
+"background and conduct of the investigation." These submissions repeated arguments previously
+raised by the defense but also asserted new issues. In one submission, 20 pages long, Lefkowitz
+addressed the "improper involvement" of federal authorities in the investigation and criticized
+Villafaña for a number of alleged improprieties, including having engaged in "unprecedented
+federal overreaching" by seeking to prosecute Epstein federally, "insist[ing]" that the State
+Attorney's Office "charge Mr. Epstein with violations of law and recommend a sentence that are
+significantly harsher than what the State deemed appropriate," and requiring that Epstein plead
+guilty to a registrable offense, a "harsh" condition that was "unwarranted."155
+Lefkowitz also argued that the federal investigation relied upon a state investigation that
+was "tainted" by the lead PBPD Detective's misrepresentation of key facts in affidavits and
+interview summaries, leading the USAO to make its charging decision based on flawed
+information that "compromised the federal investigation." Finally, Lefkowitz criticized federal
+involvement in the state plea process as a violation of "the tenets of the Petite Policy." In a second,
+13-page submission, Lefkowitz reiterated Epstein's complaints about the § 2255 component of the
+NPA, arguing, among other things, that federal prosecutors "should not be in the business of
+helping alleged victims of state crimes secure civil financial settlements."
+The Affirmation read: "I, Jeffrey E. Epstein do hereby re-affirm the Non-Prosecution Agreement and
+Addendum to same dated October 30, 2007."
+155
+Villafaña sent Lefkowitz a five-page letter responding to the accusations made against her personally.
+98
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 126 of 349
+Notwithstanding these voluminous submissions, Lefkowitz added that Epstein
+"unconditionally re-asserts his intention to fulfill and not seek to withdraw from or unwind" the
+NPA.
+2.
+As a Result of the Starr and Lefkowitz Submissions, the New USAO
+Criminal Chief Begins a Full Review of the Evidence, and Acosta
+Agrees to Meet Again with Defense Counsel
+After reviewing Starr's and Lefkowitz's letters, Sloman notified Villafaña that "in light of
+the recent Kirkland & Ellis correspondence" he had asked Robert Senior, who had succeeded
+Menchel as Chief of the USAO's Criminal Division, to review de novo the evidence underlying
+the proposed revised indictment, and Sloman asked Villafaña to provide Senior with all the state
+and FBI investigative materials.
+In the meantime, Acosta agreed to meet with Starr and other Epstein defense attorneys to
+discuss the defense complaints raised in Lefkowitz's December 11, 2007 submissions. 156 The
+meeting took place in Miami on December 14, 2007. The defense team included Starr,
+Dershowitz, Lefcourt, and Boston attorney
+Weinberg. The USAO side included Acosta,
+Sloman, Villafaña, and another senior AUSA, with the Miami FBI Special Agent in Charge and
+Assistant Special Agent in Charge also present. In addition to previously raised arguments, during
+this meeting, Epstein's attorneys raised a new argument-that the state charge to which Epstein
+had agreed to plead guilty did not apply to the facts of the case.
+The Defense Notifies Acosta That It May Pursue a Department Review
+of the USAO's Actions
+Shortly after the December 14, 2007 meeting, Lefkowitz notified Acosta that if the issues
+raised at the meeting could not be resolved promptly, the defense team may "have no alternative
+but to seek review in Washington." Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the
+defense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for review and
+"to in fact review this case in an expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date."
+Starr and Lefkowitz then sent to Acosta a lengthy letter, with numerous previously submitted
+defense submissions, reviewing issues discussed at the meeting, and advising that Epstein sought
+a "prompt, independent, expedited review" of the evidence by "you or someone you trust." The
+letter reiterated Epstein's position that his conduct did not amount to a registrable offense under
+state law or a violation of federal law, and with respect to the NPA's § 2255 provision, that it was
+"improper" to require Epstein to pay damages "to individuals who do nothing but simply assert a
+claim" under the statute.
+As Assistant Attorney General Fisher's Chief of Staff, Lourie had informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr
+would speak to Acosta to "resolve the[] fairly narrow issues" raised in Starr's correspondence with Acosta. Acosta
+had the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions of December 11 forwarded to Fisher.
+99
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 127 of 349
+Acosta Attempts to Revise the NPA § 2255 Language concerning
+Monetary Damages, but the Defense Does Not Accept It
+Acosta undertook to respond to defense counsel's continuing concern about the § 2255
+provision. He sent to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker language that he
+proposed including in a revision to the NPA's § 2255 implementation section. Mandelker
+forwarded the language to her counterpart in the Civil Division, who responded to Mandelker and
+Acosta that he did not have "any insight" to offer. On December 19, 2007, after Acosta and
+Sloman had a phone conversation with Starr and Lefkowitz, Acosta sent to
+a letter
+proposing to resolve "our disagreements over interpretation[]" by replacing the existing language
+of the NPA relating to § 2255 with a provision that would read:
+Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an
+offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255,
+will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she
+would have had, if Mr. Epstein [had] been tried federally and
+convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing
+this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's
+attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to
+name ... as victims of an enumerated offense by Mr. Epstein. Any
+judicial authority interpreting this provision, including any authority
+determining which evidentiary burdens if any a plaintiff must meet,
+shall consider that it is the intent of the parties to place these
+identified victims in the same position as they would have been had
+Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less.
+Acosta also noted that he had resisted his prosecutors' urging to declare the NPA breached by the
+defense delays. '57
+Lefkowitz responded by letter a few days later, suggesting that Acosta's proposal raised
+"several troubling questions" and that "the problem arises from the incongruity that exists when
+attempting to fit a federal civil remedies statute into a criminal plea agreement."158 In a follow-up
+letter to Acosta, to address the USAO's concern that Epstein was intentionally delaying the entry
+of his guilty plea, Lefkowitz asserted that "any impediment to the resolution at issue is a direct
+cause of the disagreements between the parties," and that defense counsel had at all times made
+and will continue to make sincere efforts to resolve and finalize issues as expeditiously as
+possible."
+Acosta told OPR that despite this assurance from defense counsel, he was "increasingly
+frustrated" by Epstein's desire to take an "11th hour appeal" to the Department so soon before the
+157
+As described in detail in Chapter Three, Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter also addressed defense objections
+to notifying the victims about the NPA and the state plea.
+158
+After Starr and Lefkowitz had another conversation with Acosta and Sloman, Lefkowitz sent a second letter
+to Acosta reiterating concerns with the § 2255 provision and asserting that the provision was "inherently flawed and
+becoming truly unmanageable." In the end, the defense team rejected Acosta's December 19, 2007 NPA modification
+letter.
+100
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 128 of 349
+scheduled January 4, 2008 plea hearing. As soon became apparent, Acosta was unable to achieve
+an expedited review so that Epstein could plead guilty and be sentenced by
+January 4, 2008, and the plea and sentencing date was rescheduled. On January 2, 2008, Sloman
+spoke with Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, who confirmed that the change of plea hearing
+had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafaña, Sloman said that Epstein's
+local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts
+"did not fit the proposed state charge," and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with that
+assessment.!59 The next day, Villafaña sent to Acosta and Sloman a local newspaper article
+reporting that Epstein's state plea hearing was reset for March and in exchange for it the federal
+authorities would drop their investigation of him. Acosta also sent to Sloman and Villafaña an
+email memorializing a statement made to him by Lefkowitz in a phone call that day: 'I
+[Lefkowitz] may have made a mistake 6 months ago. [Belohlavek] told us solicitation [is] not
+registrable. It turns out that the actual offense charged is. "160
+5.
+January 7, 2008: Acosta and Sloman Meet with
+, Who Makes
+Additional Allegations of USAO Misconduct
+On January 7, 2008, Acosta and Sloman met with defense attorney
+at her request.
+According to meeting notes made by Sloman, among other things,
+alleged that the
+USAO's media spokesperson had improperly disclosed details of the Epstein case to a national
+news reporter, and
+"suggested that the USAO could avoid any potential ugliness in DC
+by agreeing to a watered-down resolution for Epstein." After Acosta excused himself to attend
+another meeting and Sloman refused to speak further with
+"without a witness present,"
+she left. Later that day, Acosta and Sloman spoke by phone with Starr, Lefkowitz, and
+who expressed concern about the "leak" to the news media, reiterated their objections to the NPA,
+and pressed for the "watered-down resolution," which they specified would mean allowing Epstein
+to plead to a charge of coercion instead of procurement, avoid serving time in jail, and not register
+as a sexual offender. A note in the margin of Sloman's handwritten notes of the conversation
+reads: "We're back to where we started in September."
+That evening, Villafaña expressed concern that the delay in resolving the matter was
+affecting the USAO's ability to go forward with a prosecution should Epstein renege on his
+agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein
+was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims,
+interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country, making contact
+with "potential sources of information" in the Virgin Islands, and re-initiating proceedings to
+obtain Epstein's computers.
+In the meantime, USAO Criminal Division Chief Robert Senior performed a "soup to nuts"
+review of the Epstein investigation, reviewing the indictment package and all of the evidence
+Villafaña had compiled. He told OPR that he could not recall the reason for his review, but opined
+159
+Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall this incident, but she noted that the PBPD report did set forth
+facts supporting the charge of procurement of a minor.
+160฿
+Although the meeting Lefkowitz had with Lourie, Villafaña, Krischer, and Belohlavek to discuss the state
+resolution was only four months prior, not six, Lefkowitz's reference was likely to the September 12, 2007 meeting.
+101
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 129 of 349
+that it was to establish whether, if the plea fell apart, he, as Chief, would agree "that we can go
+forward with" the charges. He did recall being concerned, after completing the review, that "we
+did not have... a lot of victims... lined up and ready to testify" and that some victims might "not
+be favorable for us." Nevertheless, he concluded that the proposed charges were sound, and he
+told Acosta that he would approve proceeding with a federal case.
+6.
+Acosta Asks CEOS to Review the Evidence
+Notwithstanding Senior's favorable review, Acosta and Sloman told Starr and Lefkowitz
+that they "appreciated]" that the defense wanted a "fresh face" to conduct a review, and noted that
+the Criminal Chief had not undertaken the "in-depth work associated with the issues raised by the
+defense." They told the defense team that Acosta had asked CEOS to "come on board" and that
+CEOS Chief Oosterbaan would designate an attorney having "a national perspective" to conduct
+a fresh review in light of the defense submissions. Oosterbaan assigned a CEOS Trial Attorney
+who Villafaña understood was to review the case and prepare for trial in the event Epstein did not
+"consummate" the NPA. The CEOS Trial Attorney traveled to Florida to review the case
+materials, and to meet with Villafaña to discuss the case and interview some of the victims. After
+one such meeting, Villafaña wrote to Acosta and Sloman:
+We just finished interviewing three of the girls. I wish you could
+have been there to see how much this has affected them.
+One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview
+wice within a 20 minute span. She regained her composure enoug
+o continue a short time, but she said that she was having nightmare
+about Epstein coming after her and she started to break down again,
+so we stopped the interview.
+The second girl ... told us that she was very upset about the 18
+month deal she had read about in the paper. She said that 18 months
+was nothing and that she had heard that the girls could get
+restitution, but she would rather not get any money and have Epstein
+spend a significant time in jail.
+These girls deserve so much better than they have received so far,
+and I hate feeling that there is nothing I can do to help them. '61
+The CEOS Trial Attorney had substantial experience prosecuting child exploitation cases.
+She told OPR that in her view, the victim witnesses in this case presented a number of challenges
+for a prosecution: some of the victims did not want to admit they had sexual contact with Epstein;
+some had recruited other victims to provide Epstein massages, and thus could have been charged
+as accomplices; some had "drug histories and ... things like that"; some could appear to have been
+"complicit"; and there was no evidence of physical violence against the victims. She did not regard
+161
+Villafaña added, "We have four more girls coming in tomorrow. Can I persuade you to attend?"
+102
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 130 of 349
+these victim issues as insurmountable but, based on these alone, the CEOS Trial Attorney
+considered a potential prosecution of Epstein to be a "crap shoot." In addition, she told OPR that
+there were novel legal issues in the case that also presented difficulties, although she believed these
+difficulties could be overcome. Shortly after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with the victims,
+however, "things just stopped" when Oosterbaan instructed her to cease her involvement in the
+case and CEOS engaged in the Criminal Division review sought by Epstein's defense team.
+IX. FEBRUARY - JUNE 2008: THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW
+Epstein's defense attorneys sought a broad review from the Department, one that would
+encompass the defense complaints about federal jurisdiction, specific terms in the NPA, and the
+various allegations of professional misconduct by USAO attorneys and other personnel. The
+Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA
+or any specific provisions. Nonetheless, the process took several months as the defense
+appealed first to CEOS and the Department's Criminal Division, and then to the Office of the
+Deputy Attorney General. The chart set forth on the following page shows the positions and
+relationships among the individuals in those offices involved in communicating with the USAO
+or defense beginning in November 2007 or in those offices' reviews, which continued through
+June 2008.
+On February 28, 2008, USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior sent to the Civil Rights Division written
+notification of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter" involving Epstein and others "that
+may result in charges of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591." USAM § 8-3.120 required a U.S. Attorney to notify the
+Civil Rights Division, in writing, "[a]t the outset of a criminal investigation ... that may implicate federal criminal
+ivil rights statutes, ... and in no event later than ten days before the commencement of the examination of witnesse
+efore a grand jury." The provision also required notification to CEOS in cases involving sex trafficking of minor:
+The written notification was to identify the targets of the investigation, the factual allegations to be investigated, the
+statutes which may have been violated, the U.S. Attorney's assessment of the significance of the case, whether the
+case was of "national interest," and the U.S. Attorney's proposed staffing of the matter.
+Villafaña became aware of this requirement in late February 2008, and she prepared a written notification
+that was edited by Sloman, who discussed it with Acosta. After briefly summarizing the facts, Senior advised:
+The Office anticipates charges of violations of Title 18, United States Code,
+Sections 371, 2422, 2423, and 1591. The investigation of the case by the City of
+Palm Beach Police Department has resulted in press coverage because of the
+titillating nature of the facts, but we see this case as similar to other "child
+prostitution" cases charged by our office, and not a matter of "national interest"
+as defined by the U.S. Attorney's Manual.
+In the notification, Senior stated that CEOS "has been involved and is currently reviewing the matter," he
+anticipated the case would be staffed by USAO and Department personnel, and "[if we determine that the case should
+be [charged], a copy [of the charging document] will be forwarded to you." OPR did not locate a response from the
+Civil Rights Division to the notification.
+103
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 131 of 349
+Criminal Division
+Office of the Deputy
+Attorney General
+Alice Fisher
+Assistant Attorney
+General
+Mark Filip
+Deputy Attorney
+General
+Andrew Lourie*
+Principal Deputy
+Assistant Attorney
+General
+John Roth
+Senior Associate
+Deputy Attorney
+General
+Sigal Mandelker
+Deputy Assistant
+Attorney General
+Andrew
+Oosterbaan
+Chief, CEOS
+* Until late Feb. 2008
+A. February - May 15, 2008: Review by CEOS and the Criminal Division
+On February 21, 2008, soon after the CEOS Trial Attorney met with victims, Oosterbaan
+spoke with Lefkowitz about CEOS's role. In a subsequent email to Villafaña, Sloman, and Senior,
+Oosterbaan explained:
+I told [Lefkowitz] that all I want to do is help the process move
+will help the process to move forward - then I don't think it's
+advisable for CEOS to partner with the USAO on the case. He wants
+to think about that (and probably talk to his co-counsel about
+104
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 132 of 349
+whether it is better to have us partnered in the case or just serve a
+review function) and he said he'd get back to me later today.
+Oosterbaan told OPR that this email reflects that he likely told Acosta that he intended to
+limit CEOS's role to review only, and Acosta asked him to "make sure the defense is okay with
+that," to preempt a possible defense complaint about CEOS's involvement in the review.
+Oosterbaan explained to OPR that "the defense ke[pt] bringing up new arguments and new
+problems and [the USAO was saying] look if we're going to do this, if you've got a problem with
+it, tell us now."
+By February 25, 2008, Lefkowitz told Oosterbaan, who informed Sloman, that the CEOS
+role should be "review only." Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice,
+and Oosterbaan continued to keep his direct supervisor, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
+Mandelker, informed of the defense team contacts. Sloman emailed Lefkowitz that CEOS was
+"ready to proceed immediately" with a review of the matter. Sloman advised Lefkowitz that "in
+the event CEOS decides that a federal prosecution should not be undertaken against Mr. Epstein,
+this Office will close its investigation," but that, "should CEOS disagree with Mr. Epstein's
+position, Mr. Epstein shall have one week to abide by [the NPA]." Sloman forwarded this email
+to Villafaña, who responded, "Why would we possibly let him keep the same deal after all he has
+put us through? And after we have discovered 6 new girls...
+The defense soon signaled that the CEOS review would not end Epstein's requests for the
+Department's involvement. On February 29, 2008, Lefkowitz requested a defense meeting with
+Oosterbaan on March 12, 2008. ° Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and "made it
+clear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support the
+prosecution." On March 6, 2008, Acosta alerted Sloman and Oosterbaan that Starr and Lefkowitz
+had called him to express "concern" about Oosterbaan's participation in the case, and indicated
+that "they may ask for more senior involvement." Acosta "informed them that they certainly had
+the right to ask whomever they wanted for whatever they thought appropriate, and that whatever
+process would be given them was up to whomever they asked."
+The next day, Lefkowitz followed up with Acosta in an email:
+We appreciate that you will afford us as much time as Main Justice
+determines is appropriate for it to conduct a review of this matter.
+As you have suggested, we will initiate that review process with
+Drew Oosterbaan, and engage in a discussion with him about all of
+the facts and circumstances, as well as the legal and policy issues
+associated with this case.... However, due to our misgivings
+(engendered because Drew has told us that he sees himself as a
+prosecutor and has already made clear he would be ready and willing
+to prosecute this case himself] we may well find it necessary to
+The defense team meeting with CEOS was originally to be set for late January, but never got scheduled for
+hat time. On February 25, Sloman informed Lefkowitz that the USAO was "very concerned about additional delays
+in the Departmental review process, but would agree to a short extension of the March 3 deadline "to provide CEO:
+time to engage in a thorough review."
+105
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 133 of 349
+appeal an adverse determination by him within the DOJ. Ken [Starr]
+and I appreciate that you understand this and have no objection to
+our seeking appellate review within DOJ.
+Starr, Lefkowitz, and
+Weinberg attended the March 12, 2008 meeting, as well as
+the former Principal Deputy Chief of CEOS, who had joined the Epstein defense team.
+Oosterbaan, Mandelker, and a current CEOS Deputy Chief represented the Department. The
+current CEOS Deputy Chief told OPR that it was primarily a "listening session" with Starr doing
+most of the presentation. Oosterbaan told OPR that he recalled "some back and forth" because the
+defense team was saying "some outrageous things." Both Oosterbaan and his Deputy Chief were
+disturbed that the former CEOS Principal Deputy Chief, who had been an aggressive advocate for
+child exploitation prosecutions, was supporting the defense position, although according to the
+CEOS Deputy Chief, the former Principal Deputy Chief gave only a "weak pitch" that was not
+After the meeting, Starr and Lefkowitz made multiple written submissions to the Criminal
+Division. One submission provided a lengthy list of USAO actions that "have caused us serious
+concern," including the following:
+"Federal involvement in a state criminal prosecution without any
+communication with state authorities"; 164
+the issuance of legal process and document requests for items that
+"had no connection to the conduct at issue";
+the nomination "of an individual closely associated with one of the
+Assistant United States Attorneys involved in this case" to serve as
+the victims" attorney representative;
+the "insistence" on a victim notification letter inviting the victims to
+make sworn statements at Epstein's sentencing; and
+the purported existence of a "relationship" between Sloman and a
+law firm representing several of the alleged victims in civil suits
+against Epstein. l65
+164
+This complaint appeared to be at odds with Villafaña's understanding that the defense objected to USAO
+communications with the state authorities. In November 2007, Sloman noted to Lefkowitz, "Your recent
+correspondence attempting to restrict our Office from communicating with the State Attorney's Office... raises
+concern." In a March 2008 email reporting to CEOS about the state case, Villafaña noted that she did not know
+whether a state "misdemeanor deal [was] back on the table because the defense demanded that we have no contact
+with the State Attorney's Office, so I haven't spoken with the [Assistant State Attorney] in over 6 months." Villafaña
+later reported to Acosta and Sloman that when Krischer complained to her that the USAO had not been communicating
+with him, she explained to Krischer that "it was the defense who were blocking the channels of communication."
+165
+In approximately 2001, Sloman briefly left the USAO and for a few months was in private practice with a
+Miami attorney, whose practice specialized in plaintiffs' sexual abuse claims. During 2007-2008, the attorney
+106
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 134 of 349
+In another letter, Starr renewed the defense accusation that the USAO improperly disclosed
+information about the case to the media, and accused Sloman and Villafaña of "encouraging civil
+litigation" against Epstein. Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on
+May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the
+defense team's various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley.
+Meanwhile, Oosterbaan's Deputy Chief drafted a decision letter to be sent from Oosterbaan
+to Lefkowitz, and over the course of several weeks, it was reviewed by and received input from
+Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as
+the Criminal Division's Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of
+Enforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy). Oosterbaan told OPR that, notwithstanding
+the defense submissions on a wide variety of issues and complaints, CEOS's review was limited
+to determining whether there was a basis for a federal prosecution of Epstein.
+Oosterbaan's letter, sent to Lefkowitz on May 15, 2008, notified the defense team that
+CEOS had completed its independent evaluation of whether prosecution of Epstein for federal
+criminal violations "would contradict criminal enforcement policy interests." The letter specified
+that CEOS's review addressed the "narrow question" of whether a legitimate basis existed for a
+federal prosecution, and that CEOS did not conduct a de novo review of the facts, analyze issues
+relating to federal statutes that did not pertain to child exploitation, or review the terms of the NPA
+or the prosecutorial misconduct allegations. The letter stated that based on its examination of the
+material relevant to its limited review of the matter, CEOS had concluded that "federal prosecution
+in this case would not be improper or inappropriate" and that Acosta "could properly use his
+discretion to authorize prosecution in this case."
+On May 19, 2008, Lefkowitz reached out to Acosta to request a meeting and specifically
+asked that Acosta "not shunt me off to one of your staff." Lefkowitz made several points in support
+of the request for a meeting: (1) CEOS's letter acknowledged that federal prosecution of Epstein
+would involve a "novel application" of relevant federal statutes; l6° (2) CEOS's conclusion that
+federal prosecution would not be "an abuse of discretion" was "hardly an endorsement" of the
+case; 167 (3) CEOS did not address Epstein's prosecutorial misconduct allegations; and (4) "critical
+new evidence," in the form of recent defense counsel depositions of victims confirmed "that
+represented Epstein victims. The Epstein defense team alleged in the letter that Sloman's past association with the
+attorney caused Sloman to take actions to favor victims' potential civil lawsuits against Epstein.
+166
+Oosterbaan's letter stated, "Mr. Acosta can soundly exercise his authority to decide to pursue a prosecution
+even though it might involve a novel application of a federal statute." This statement referred to a defense argument
+based on a prior Departmental expression of concern about a Congressional proposal to expand federal law to adult
+prostitution where no force, fraud or coercion was used." Oosterbaan stated that "the Department's efforts are properly
+focused on the commercial sexual exploitation of children"- even if wholly local —and "the exploitation of adults
+through force, fraud, or coercion." He then observed that the fact "that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look
+precisely like the cases that came before it is not dispositive."
+167
+Oosterbaan began his letter, however, by making it clear that CEOS had considered "the narrow question as
+to whether there is a legitimate basis for the U.S. Attorney's Office to proceed with a federal prosecution of
+Mr. Epstein."
+107
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 135 of 349
+federal prosecution is not appropriate in this case."68 Lefkowitz alluded to the possibility of
+seeking further review of the matter by the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General, should
+the defense be unable to "resolve this matter directly with" Acosta.
+Acosta declined the request to respond personally and directed Lefkowitz to communicate
+with the "trial team." That same day, Sloman sent Lefkowitz a letter asking that all further
+communication about the case be made to Villafaña or her immediate supervisor, and reiterating
+that Acosta would not respond personally to counsel's email or calls. Sloman noted that the USAO
+had "bent over backwards to exhaustively consider and re-consider" Epstein's objections, but
+"these objections have finally been exhausted." Sloman advised that the USAO would terminate
+the NPA unless Epstein complied with all of its terms by the close of business on
+June 2, 2008.
+B. May - June 23, 2008: Review by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General
+Also on May 19, 2008, Starr and Whitley co-authored a letter to Deputy Attorney General
+Mark Filip asking for review "of the federal involvement in a quintessentially state matter."169 In
+the letter, they acknowledged that CEOS had recently completed "a very limited review" of the
+Epstein case, but contended that "full review of all the facts is urgently needed at senior levels of
+the Justice Department." They argued that federal prosecution of Epstein was "unwarranted," and
+that "the irregularity of conduct by prosecutors and the unorthodox terms of the [NPA] are beyond
+any reasonable interpretation of the scope of a prosecutor's responsibilities." They followed up
+with a second letter on May 27, 2008, in which they asserted "the bedrock need for integrity in the
+enforcement of federal criminal laws" and "the profound questions raised by the unprecedented
+extension of federal laws ... to a prominent public figure who has close ties to President Clinton"
+required Departmental review. On this latter point, they argued that Epstein "entered the public
+arena only by virtue of his close personal association with former President Bill Clinton," and that
+there was "little doubt" that the USAO "never would have contemplated a prosecution in this case
+if Mr. Epstein were just another 'John."" This was the first defense submission mentioning
+Epstein's connection to President Clinton and raising the insinuation that the federal involvement
+in the investigation was due to politics.
+In the May 27, 2008 letter to the Deputy Attorney General, Starr and Whitley used the
+existing June 2, 2008 deadline for the entry of Epstein's guilty plea to argue that it made the need
+for review of the case "all the more exigent." John Roth, a Senior Associate Deputy Attorney
+General who was handling the matter, instructed the USAO to rescind the deadline, and on
+May 28, 2008, Sloman notified Lefkowitz that the USAO had postponed the deadline pending
+completion of the review by the Deputy Attorney General's office. ° Meanwhile, the Criminal
+168
+Under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220, defendants are permitted to depose victims, and Epstein's
+counsel utilized that procedure aggressively and expansively to conduct sworn interviews of multiple victims,
+including vietims who were not part of the state prosecution, to learn information about the federal investigation.
+169
+In addition to having served as U.S. Attorney in two different districts, Whitley had served as Acting
+Associate Attorney General, the Department's third-highest position.
+170
+On May 28, 2008, Attorney General Mukasey was in Miami for unrelated events and had lunch at the USAO
+with Acosta and other senior managers. OPR found no indication that the Epstein matter was discussed.
+108
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 136 of 349
+Division forwarded to Roth the prior defense submissions, describing them as "an enormous
+amount of material" regarding the Epstein matter. On June 3, 2008, Sloman sent to Roth a lengthy
+letter from Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General, recounting in detail the history of negotiations
+with Epstein's counsel culminating in the NPA, and addressing Epstein's claims of professional
+misconduct. Among the documents submitted with the letter were the prosecution memorandum,
+one of the proposed charging documents, and the NPA with its addendum and Acosta's
+December 19, 2007 letter to
+As the review was ongoing in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, State Attorney
+Krischer mentioned to the USAO's West Palm Beach manager that Krischer and Epstein's local
+defense attorney Jack Goldberger had arrived at a resolution of Epstein's case that would involve
+a 90-day jail term, but Krischer provided no further information. Upon learning of this, Villafaña
+wrote to her immediate supervisor: "Please tell me that you are joking. Maybe we should throw
+him [Epstein] a party and tell him we are sorry to have bothered him." Villafaña and her immediate
+supervisor later had phone and email exchanges with Krischer and with Epstein's local counsel to
+insist that the state plea comply with the terms of the NPA, or "we will consider it a breach of the
+agreement and proceed accordingly."I
+Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR he had never heard of Epstein before receiving
+Starr's letter. Following the office's standard protocol, Starr's letter was handled by John Roth,
+an experienced senior federal prosecutor who had served some years before as an AUSA in the
+USAO. Roth also told OPR that he had never before heard of Epstein. Roth explained to OPR
+that he did not conduct an independent investigation, interview witnesses, or meet with Epstein's
+counsel, and instead limited his review to written materials submitted by Epstein's attorneys and
+by Sloman to the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as materials that the defense team and
+the USAO had previously provided to CEOS and the Criminal Division front office, and that
+CEOS furnished to him. Roth discussed the matter with two senior staff colleagues, as well as
+with the Deputy Attorney General, who also reviewed the submissions.
+Roth told OPR that it was his understanding that Epstein had reneged on the NPA, and
+because he believed the NPA was a "dead letter," he did not review the terms of the agreement or
+ratify it post hoc. On the other hand, Deputy Attorney General Filip told OR he understood that
+the NPA was still in effect and that Epstein was trying to undermine the federal jurisdictional basis
+for the agreement. Apart from addressing Epstein's federalism arguments, however, Deputy
+Attorney General Filip did not believe it was the "mission" of the Office of the Deputy Attorney
+General to review the Epstein case de novo or to examine the NPA's terms or determine whether
+the NPA reached the "right balance" between state and federal punishment. He told OPR, "[Wle
+heard an appeal... [Epstein] wanted a meeting to argue for relief. We didn't give him a meeting
+and we didn't give him [any] relief." Deputy Attorney General Filip told OPR that no one in his
+office who looked at Epstein's arguments "felt that it was a sympathetic appeal." In particular, he
+told OPR that defense counsel's argument that there was no basis for a federal prosecution was
+"ludicrous," and the assertion that the USAO's investigation of Epstein was politically motivated
+"just seemed unserious."
+171|
+Villafaña urged Sloman, "Someone really needs to talk to Barry."
+109
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 137 of 349
+On Monday, June 23, 2008, Roth sent a brief letter to Starr and Lefkowitz informing them
+that the office had "completed a thorough review" of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter
+and did not believe intervention by the Deputy Attorney General was warranted in view of the
+"considerable discretion" vested by the Department in U.S. Attorneys. He added, "Even if we
+were to substitute our judgment for that of the U.S. Attorney, we believe that federal prosecution
+of this case is appropriate."
+Immediately after receiving a copy of Roth's letter, Villafaña notified defense counsel that
+Epstein would have until close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the NPA
+by entering his guilty plea, being sentenced, and surrendering to begin serving his sentence. On
+June 26, 2008, Roth alerted the Office of the Attorney General that Epstein's counsel might try to
+contact the Attorney General to request additional review and urged the Attorney General not to
+take defense counsel's calls. Roth told OPR that he was concerned that Epstein's team would try
+to take a further appeal in order to delay resolution of the case.
+Meanwhile, Starr sent a concluding email to Acosta, acknowledging they had reached "the
+end of a long and arduous road" and adding, "While I am obviously very unhappy at what I believe
+is the government's treatment of my client, a man whom I have come to deeply admire, I recognize
+that we have filed and argued our "appellate motions' and lost.... I would like to have ... some
+closure with you on this matter so that in the years to come, neither of us will harbor any ill will
+over the matter."
+X. JUNE 2008 - JUNE 2009: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS PLEAS AND SERVES HIS
+CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
+On Friday, June 27, 2008, Villafaña renewed her requests to Epstein's local attorneys
+Goldberger and Black for a copy of the state plea agreement reached with the State Attorney's
+Office, noting that their failure to provide it was a material breach of the NPA. After receiving
+and reviewing the plea agreement form, which was not yet signed, Villafaña sent another letter to
+Goldberger and Black, informing them that the proposed sentencing provision did not comply with
+the requirements of the NPA. Specifically, as written, the plea agreement called for a sentence of
+12 months in "the Palm Beach County Detention Facility," followed consecutively by "18 months
+Community Control" with a special condition that the defendant serve "the first 6 months [of
+community control] in the Palm Beach County Detention Facility." Villafaña objected to the
+community control provision, reminding Goldberger and Black that the NPA required Epstein to
+"make a binding recommendation of eighteen months imprisonment, which means confinement
+twenty-four hours a day at the County Jail." In a subsequent email to Sloman, Villafaña recounted
+that she had spoken about the issue with Goldberger, who "swore' that Epstein would be in
+custody 24-hours-a-day during the community confinement portion of his sentence." Villafaña
+added that Goldberger "let it slip that Epstein would not be at the jail, he would be at the stockade
+....Since we specifically discussed this at the meeting with [the State Attorney] months ago that
+Epstein would be at [the jail], this certainly violates the spirit of the [NPA] agreement."*172
+Villafaña told Sloman, "[SJomething smells very bad."
+172
+The Main Detention Center for Palm Beach County is a facility housing maximum, medium, and minimum
+custody adult males, as well as juvenile and special population male and female inmates.
+See
+110
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 138 of 349
+The next day, Villafaña asked Goldberger to change the plea agreement by inserting the
+word "imprisoned" after "6 months," and Goldberger agreed to do so. Villafaña, however, did not
+ask that the agreement be amended to clarify that the reference to "the Palm Beach County
+Detention Facility" meant the jail, rather than the Stockade. The final signed plea agreement form
+further clarified the sentence, providing that after serving 12 months in the Palm Beach County
+Detention Facility, Epstein would be "sentenced to 6 months in the Palm Beach County Detention
+Facility... to be served consecutive to the 12 month sentence," followed by "12 months
+Community Control." The word "imprisoned" was hand written after "6 months" but then crossed
+out and replaced by "jail sentence."173
+A. June 30, 2008: Epstein Enters His Guilty Pleas in State Court
+Epstein, with his attorney Jack Goldberger, appeared in Palm Beach County court on
+June 30, 2008, and entered guilty pleas to the indictment charging him with one felony count of
+of the case; instead she only recited the charging language in the indictment and the criminal
+information:
+[B]etween August 1, 2004 and October 31, 2005, the defendant in
+Palm Beach County did solicit or procure someone to commit
+[prostitution] on three or more occasions. And ... between
+August 1, 2004 and October 9, 2005, the defendant did procure a
+minor under the age of 18 to commit prostitution in Palm Beach
+County also.!?5
+The court found this to be "a sufficient factual basis to support the pleas," and engaged in
+a colloquy with Belohlavek regarding Epstein's victims:
+The Court:
+Are there more than one victim?
+Ms. Belohlavek: There's several.
+http://www.pbso.org/inside-pbso/corrections/general/. The "Stockade" was a "lower security 'camp-style' facility"
+co-located with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Both were administered by the Sheriff's Office.
+Plea in the Circuit Court, signed June 30, 2008, and filed in court. Villafaña complained to Goldberger when
+she learned later about the change from "imprisoned" to "jail sentence."
+174
+The Information is attached as Exhibit 5.
+175
+State v. Epstein, case nos. 06-CF-9454 and 08-CF-9381, Transcript of Plea Conference at 41-42 (Fifteenth
+Judicial Circuit, June 30, 2008) (Plea Hearing Transcript). Belohlavek told OPR that reciting the statutory language
+of the charge as the factual basis for the plea was the typical practice for a state court plea.
+111
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 139 of 349
+The Court:
+Are all the victims in both these cases in
+agreement with the terms of the plea?
+Ms. Belohlavek:
+I have spoken to several myself and I have
+spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the
+other victim, and I believe, yes.
+The Court:
+And with regard to the victims under age
+eighteen, is that victim's parents or guardian
+in agreement with the plea?
+Ms. Belohlavek:
+That victim is not under age 18 any more and
+that's why we spoke with her counsel.
+The Court:
+And she is in agreement with the plea?
+Ms. Belohlavek: Yes.'6
+When the court asked if the plea was "in any way tied to any promises or representations
+by any civil attorneys or other jurisdictions," Goldberger and Belohlavek, with Epstein present,
+spoke with the judge at sidebar and disclosed the existence of the "confidential" non-prosecution
+agreement with the USAO, and the court ordered that a copy of it be filed under seal with the court.
+After the court accepted Epstein's guilty pleas, and imposed sentence on him pursuant to
+the plea agreement, Epstein was taken into custody to begin serving his sentence immediately.
+In the aftermath of the plea, numerous individuals familiar with the investigation expressed
+positive reactions to the outcome, and Villafaña received several congratulatory messages.
+Oosterbaan wrote, "Congratulations,
+-at long last! Your work on this matter was truly
+exceptional, and you obtained a very significant result that will serve the victims well." One senior
+colleague who was familiar with the case noted, "This case only resolved with the filthy rich bad
+guy going to jail because of your dedication and determination." Another wrote, "If it had not
+been for you, he would have gotten away with it." The CEOS Trial Attorney who had worked
+briefly with Villafaña told her, "But for your tenacity, he'd be somewhere ruining another child's
+life." One victim's attorney stated, "[G]reat job of not letting this guy off." But Villafaña was not
+satisfied with the outcome, responding to one colleague, "After all the hell they put me through, I
+don't feel like celebrating 18 months. He should be spending 18 years in jail."
+Acosta later publicly stated that the FBI Special Agent in Charge called him "to offer
+congratulations" and "to praise our prosecutors for holding firm against the likes of Messrs. Black,
+Plea Hearing Transcript at 20, 42. OPR was unable to determine to which victims Belohlavek was referring,
+and Belohlovek did not recall during her OPR interview, but it is possible that she was referring only to the victims of
+the charged crimes rather than to all of the victims identified in either the state or federal investigations. Belohlavek
+told OPR that because of the nature of the charges (that is, involving prostitution), she did not know whether
+"technically under the law" the girls were "victims" whom she was required to notify of the plea hearing.
+112
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 140 of 349
+Dershowitz, Lefkowitz and Starr."" In that same later public statement, Acosta noted that he
+received communications from Dershowitz, Starr, and Lefkowitz, who "all sought to make peace"
+with him; Acosta referred to it as "a proud moment."
+On July 7, 2008, an Epstein victim filed an emergency petition against the Department, in
+federal court in Miami, alleging violation of her rights under the CVRA; a second victim joined
+the petition soon thereafter. The history of the litigation and issues relating to it are discussed in
+Chapter Three of this Report.
+B. Epstein Is Placed on Work Release
+A few days after Epstein's guilty plea, Villafaña reported to Sloman that Epstein was
+incarcerated at the low-security Stockade, rather than the Main Detention Center where county
+prisoners were usually housed. She also told Sloman that according to the Sheriff's Office, Epstein
+was eligible for work release. Although the USAO had made clear that it expected Epstein to be
+incarcerated 24 hours a day, every day, the subject of work release had not been addressed
+explicitly during the NPA negotiations, and the NPA itself was silent on the issue. Epstein's
+acceptance into the work release program as a convicted sexual offender was seen by many as
+another special benefit given to Epstein. Because the decision to allow Epstein into the work
+release program was made by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office, OPR did not investigate whether
+any state, county, or Sheriff's Office rules were violated. OPR did examine the USAO's
+consideration of work release prior to signing the NPA and its subsequent unsuccessful efforts to
+ensure that Epstein remained incarcerated 24 hours a day.
+The first specific reference to work release was made weeks after the NPA was signed,
+when Lefkowitz asserted, in his October 23, 2007 letter to Acosta, that, "so long as Mr. Epstein's
+sentence does not explicitly violate the terms of the [NPA] he is entitled to any type of sentence
+available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work release."
+In November 2007, Sloman had an exchange of letters with Lefkowitz about the USAO's
+understanding that Epstein had agreed to serve his full jail term in "continuous confinement,"
+pointing out that the NPA "clearly indicates that Mr. Epstein is to be incarcerated." Sloman noted
+that Florida's Department of Corrections's rules did not allow individuals registered as sexual
+offenders to participate in work release, and thus Epstein would not be eligible for a work release
+program. Sloman concluded that the USAO "is putting you on notice that it intends to make certain
+that Mr. Epstein is "treated no better and no worse than anyone else' convicted of the same
+offense," and that if Epstein were to be granted work release, the USAO would "investigate th
+easons why an exception was granted in Mr. Epstein's case."17
+However, also in November, State Attorney Krischer told Sloman that Epstein was, in fact,
+eligible to petition for work release because his sexual offender registration would not take place
+177
+Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The Daily
+Beast. The FBI Special Agent in Charge told OPR that he had no recollection of such a call, but acknowledged that
+it could have occurred.
+178
+Sloman provided a draft of this letter to Acosta for his approval before the letter was sent to Lefkowitz.
+113
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 141 of 349
+until after Epstein completed his sentence, but that Krischer would oppose such a petition "if it is
+in the agreement."|79 On November 16, 2007, the case agents met with Belohlavek and asked if
+the State Attorney's Office would oppose a request that Epstein be granted work release.
+Belohlavek was noncommittal, and when the agents asked that she include language in the state's
+plea agreement prohibiting Epstein from participating in work release, she responded that she
+would have to discuss the issue with the State Attorney, '8 Krischer later told OPR that work
+release was "within the control of the Sheriff's Office, not my office." The state's plea agreement
+with Epstein did not address the issue of work release.
+The day after Epstein entered his June 30, 2008 plea, Villafaña and her immediate
+supervisor met with a Palm Beach Sheriff's Office official to discuss work release. According to
+Villafaña, the official told them, "Epstein would be eligible for work release and will be placed on
+work release," a statement that contradicted the information the case agents had been given by a
+jail supervisor the previous November, as well as statements made by defense attorney Jack
+Goldberger to Villafaña just days before the plea was entered, when he "specifically told
+[Villafaña] that [Epstein] would not get work release." Villafaña alerted the Sheriff's Office
+official that although Epstein told the court during his plea proceeding that he had worked "every
+day" for a "couple of years" at the "Florida Science Foundation," that entity did not even exist
+until November 2007.18' Moreover, the address Epstein provided to the court for the "Florida
+Science Foundation" was the office of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafaña and her
+supervisor asked that the Sheriff's Office notify the USAO if Epstein applied for work release.
+Acosta told OPR that he was aware Villafaña was trying to ensure that Epstein did not get
+work release, and he would not have contradicted her efforts. Acosta explained that the USAO
+expected Epstein would be "treated just like everyone else," but that, as shown by "our subsequent
+communications with the [S]tate [A]ttorney's [O]ffice," having Epstein on work release "was not
+what our office envisioned."
+In August 2008, Villataña spoke with defense attorney Black about ensuring Epstein's
+compliance with the NPA, and raised the issue of work release. Villafaña later reported to Acosta
+and Sloman that Black assured her he had "reminded the team that ... 18 months IN JAIL is a
+material term of the agreement."
+The USAO never received notice of Epstein's work release application. On October 10,
+2008, less than three-and-a-half months after Epstein entered his guilty plea, the Palm Beach
+Sheriff's Office placed him into the work release program, permitting him to leave the Stockade
+179
+According to Sloman, Krischer explained that even without registration Epstein would be "treated" as a "sex
+offender" and that "just like any other sex offender, he can petition the court for work release."
+180
+In the November 16, 2007 email, on which she copied Acosta, Villafaña also indicated that she was
+"reviewing all of the statutes" to determine whether there was any impediment to a state judge granting Epstein work
+release. In a subsequent email, the FBI case agents informed Villafaña that they had also spoken with a "jail
+supervisor," who advised them that although Epstein, as a sexual offender, would not qualify for work release, the
+judge could nevertheless order him placed on work release if he was sentenced to a year or less of incarceration.
+181
+During the plea hearing, Epstein told the court he was "President" of the Florida Science Foundation, it had
+been in existence for 15 years, and he worked there "every day." Plea Hearing Transcript at 27-29.
+114
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 142 of 349
+for up to 12 hours per day, six days per week, to work at the "Florida Science Foundation" office
+in West Palm Beach. 82 In mid-November 2008, Villafaña learned that Epstein was on work
+release. She notified Acosta, Sloman, and the USAO Criminal Division Chief of this development
+in an email, and asked, "Can I indict him now?"
+On November 24, 2008, Villafaña sent defense attorney Black a letter, notifying him that
+the USAO believed Epstein's application to and participation in the work release program
+constituted a material breach of the NPA. Villafaña reminded Black that she had "more than a
+dozen e-mails" expressing the USAO's "insistence" that Epstein be incarcerated for 18 months,
+and that her June 27, 2008 letter to counsel made clear that this meant "confinement for twentyfour hours a day." Villafaña noted that Goldberger had not inserted the word "imprisoned" into
+the plea agreement, as he had agreed to do, but instead inserted the term "jail sentence." Villafaña
+told counsel:
+The [USAO's] Agreement not to prosecute Mr. Epstein was based
+upon its determination that eighteen months' incarceration (i.e.,
+confinement twenty-four hours a day) was sufficient to satisfy the
+federal interest in Mr. Epstein's crimes. Accordingly, the U.S.
+Attorney's Office hereby gives notice that Mr. Epstein has violated
+the [NPA] by failing to remain incarcerated twenty-four hours a day
+for the eighteen-month term of imprisonment. The United States
+will exercise any and all rights it has under the [NPA] unless
+Mr. Epstein immediately ceases and desists from his breach of this
+agreement.
+According to Villafaña, the FBI case agent spoke with the Stockade's work release
+coordinator and reported back that that the work release coordinator told her he had been led to
+believe the government knew Epstein had applied for the program, and that he had been threatened
+with legal action if he did not allow Epstein to participate in work release.
+On November 26, 2008, the USAO advised the Department that Acosta was recused from
+all matters involving the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, which was still heavily involved in the
+Epstein case, because Acosta was discussing with the firm the possibility of employment. '3 As a
+result, Sloman became the senior USAO official responsible for making final decisions related to
+Epstein.
+Also on November 26, 2008, Black responded to Villafaña's letter, acknowledging that
+Epstein was serving his sentence in the Palm Beach County Work Release Program, but denying
+that Epstein was in breach of the NPA. 184 Black noted that the NPA did not prohibit work release;
+the NPA expressly provided that Epstein was to be afforded the same benefits as any other inmate;
+182
+183
+Michele Dargan and David Rogers, "Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein "treated differently,'" Palm
+Beach Daily News, Dec. 13, 2008.
+The recusal was formally approved by the Department on December 8, 2008.
+184
+Black forwarded the email to Sloman, noting that Villafaña "is very concerned about anything Epstein does"
+and that the defense team would "abide by" Sloman's decision on the issue.
+115
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 143 of 349
+Florida law treated work release as part of confinement; and the Palm Beach County Sheriff's
+Office had discretion to grant work release to any inmate. Black also claimed that Acosta
+"recognized that Mr. Epstein might serve a portion of his sentence through the Work Release
+Program" and pointed out that the December 6, 2007 draft victim notification letter sent to
+Lefkowitz for review specifically referred to the victim's right to be notified "if [Epstein] is
+allowed to participate in a work release program."
+On December 3, 2008, in advance of a scheduled meeting with Black, Villafaña sent
+Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior an email about Epstein's participation in the work
+release program:
+It appears that, since Day 1, Goldberger and Krisher [sic] ... have
+been scheming to get Epstein out on work release. For example, the
+indictment incorrectly charges Epstein for an offense that would
+have made him ineligible for work release if it had been charged
+correctly. (Remember that Krisher [sic] also went along with letting
+us believe that Epstein was pleading to a registrable offense when
+Epstein's folks and Krisher [sic] believed that ... the offense was
+not registrable.) Krisher [sic] and Goldberger also told us that
+Epstein would be housed at the Palm [Beach County] Jail, not the
+Stockade, but he would not have been eligible for work release if at
+the jail....
+As part of his work release, Epstein has hired off-duty Sheriff's
+deputies to provide him with "protection." It appears that he is
+paying between $3000 and $4100 per week for this service, despite
+the work release rules barring anyone from the Sheriff's Office (and
+the Sheriff's Office itself from having "any business transactions
+with inmates ... while they are in the custody or supervision of the
+Sherifl....
+Villafaña added that she and her immediate supervisor believed that the USAO "should not budge
+on the 24-hour-a-day incarceration" requirement. Referring to the CVRA litigation, Villafaña also
+pointed out that two victims had brought suit against the USAO "for failing to keep them informed
+about the investigation," and the office had "an obligation to inform all of the victims upon
+Epstein's release."
+On December 11, 2008, Villafaña wrote to the Corrections Division of the Palm Beach
+County Sheriff's Office to express the USAO's view that Epstein was not eligible for work release
+and to alert the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's work release application contained several
+inaccuracies and omitted relevant information. Villafaña pointed out that Epstein's application
+identified his place of employment as the "Florida Science Foundation," and the telephone number
+listed in the application for the "Florida Science Foundation" was the telephone number to the law
+firm of Epstein's attorney Jack Goldberger. Villafaña also noted that the individual identified in
+the work release file as Epstein's "supervisor" at the "Florida Science Foundation" had submitted
+publicly available sworn filings to the Internal Revenue Service indicating that Epstein worked
+only one hour per week and earned no compensation, but that same individual had represented to
+116
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 144 of 349
+the Sheriff's Office that Epstein's duties required him to work six days a week for 12 hours per
+day. Finally, Villafaña pointed out that Epstein's purported "supervisor"—who as the
+Foundation's vice president was subordinate to Epstein, the Foundation's president-had
+promised to alert the Sheriff's Office if Epstein failed to comply with his work schedule, but the
+"supervisor" lived and worked in the New York metropolitan area and was unable to monitor
+Epstein's activities on a day-to-day basis. The Sheriff's Office neither acknowledged nor
+responded to Villafaña's letter.
+In March 2009, Sloman met in Miami with Dershowitz for, as Dershowitz characterized it
+in a subsequent email, "a relaxed drink and conversation," which included a discussion of the
+Epstein case. After that encounter, Dershowitz emailed Sloman, expressing appreciation for
+Sloman's "assurance that the feds will not interfere with how the Palm Beach sheriff administers"
+Epstein's sentence "as long as he is treated like any similarly situated inmate." Sloman responded:
+Regarding Mr. Epstein, the United States Attorney's Office will not
+interfere with how the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office administers the
+sentence imposed by the Court. That being said, this does not mean
+that the USAO condones or encourages the PBSO to mitigate the
+terms and conditions of his sentence. Furthermore, it does not mean
+that, if contacted for our position concerning alternative custody or
+in-home detention, we would not object. To be clear, if contacted
+we will object. Naturally, I also expect that no one on behalf of
+Mr. Epstein will use my assurance to you to affirmatively represent
+to PBSO that the USAO does not object to an alternative custody or
+home detention.
+A week later, Dershowitz emailed Sloman again, this time expressing appreciation for
+Sloman's "willingness to call the sheriff and advise him that your office would take no position
+on how he handled Epstein's sentence," as long as Epstein did not receive special treatment, but
+adding, "[LJet's put any call off for a while."
+Epstein's sentence required that he be confined to his home for a 12-month period
+following his release from prison. On July 22, 2009, almost 13 months after he began serving his
+sentence, Epstein was released from the Stockade and placed on home confinement. 5 At this
+time, he registered as a sexual offender.
+XI. POST-RELEASE DEVELOPMENTS
+In the summer of 2009, allegations surfaced that Epstein had cooperated with the U.S.
+Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York's investigation of investment bank Bear
+Stearns, and that he had been released early from his 18-month imprisonment term because of that
+117
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 145 of 349
+cooperation.' When Villafaña spoke with attorneys in the Eastern District of New York,
+however, an AUSA there told Villafaña that "[t]hey had never heard of" Epstein, and he had not
+cooperated with the Bear Stearns case. '87 During her OPR interview, Villafaña told OPR that to
+her knowledge, the rumor of Epstein's cooperation was "completely false."
+Villafaña and the USAO continued to monitor Epstein's compliance with the terms of the
+NPA. In August 2009, Villafaña alerted her supervisors that Epstein was in apparent violation of
+his home detention he had been spotted walking on the beach, and when stopped by the police,
+he claimed that he was walking "to work" at an office nearly eight miles from his home. Villafaña
+passed this information along to the Palm Beach County probation office. ' By letter dated
+September 1, 2009, Black wrote to Sloman seeking the USAO's agreement to transfer supervision
+of the community control phase of Epstein's sentence to the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epstein
+maintained his "primary residence." In response, Villafaña notified Black that the USAO opposed
+such a request and would view it as a violation of the NA. Three months later, Sloman met with
+Dershowitz and, among other issues, informed him that the USAO opposed early termination of
+Epstein's community control supervision and would object to a request to transfer Epstein's
+supervision to the U.S. Virgin Islands.
+After serving his year on home detention in Florida, Epstein completed his sentence on
+July 21, 2010.
+186
+See "Out of Prison," New York Post, July 23, 2009.
+The New York AUSA had emailed Villafaña, "We're the prosecutors in [the Bear Stearns case] .... We
+saw the below article from the New York Post and wanted to ask you about this defendant, Epstein, who we had never
+heard of until this morning. We've since learned that he is pretty unsavory." Villafaña reported to Sloman and other
+supervisors that she "just got off the phone with the prosecutors from the Bear Stearns case in [the Eastern District of]
+New York. They had seen the NY Post article that claimed that Epstein got such a low sentence because he was
+cooperating with the feds on the Bear Stearns prosecution. They had never heard of him." In a second email, she
+confirmed, "There has been absolutely no cooperation here or in New York, from what they told me."
+188
+Black later wrote a letter to Villafaña claiming that Epstein had "specific authorization to walk to work," the
+distance between his home and office was "less than three miles," and when the matter was "fully investigated,"
+Epstein was found to be in "total compliance" with the requirements of his sentence.
+118
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 146 of 349
+PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS
+I.
+OPR'S ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
+OPR finds professional misconduct when an attorney intentionally violates or acts in
+reckless disregard of a known, unambiguous obligation imposed by law, rule of professional
+conduct, or Department regulation or policy. In determining whether an attorney has engaged in
+professional misconduct, OPR uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to make factual
+findings.
+An attorney intentionally violates an obligation or standard when the attorney (1) engages
+in conduct with the purpose of obtaining a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously
+prohibits; or (2) engages in conduct knowing its natural or probable consequence, and that
+consequence is a result that the obligation or standard unambiguously prohibits. An attorney acts
+the unambiguous applicability of the obligation or standard, that the attorney's conduct involves a
+substantial likelihood that he or she will violate, or cause a violation of, the obligation or standard;
+and (3) the attorney nonetheless engages in the conduct, which is objectively unreasonable under
+all the circumstances. Thus, an attorney's disregard of an obligation is reckless when it represents
+a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that an objectively reasonable attorney would
+observe in the same situation.
+If OPR determines that an attorney did not engage in professional misconduct, OPR
+determines whether the attorney exercised poor judgment, engaged in other inappropriate conduct,
+made a mistake, or acted appropriately under all the circumstances. An attorney exercises poor
+judgment when, faced with alternative courses of action, he or she chooses a course of action that
+is in marked contrast to the action that the Department may reasonably expect an attorney
+exercising good judgment to take. Poor judgment differs from professional misconduct in that an
+attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not
+have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard. In addition, an
+attorney may exhibit poor judgment even though an obligation or standard at issue is not
+sufficiently clear and unambiguous to support a professional misconduct finding. A mistake, on
+the other hand, results from an excusable human error despite an attorney's exercise of reasonable
+care under the circumstances.
+An attorney who makes a good faith attempt to ascertain the obligations and standards
+imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given situation does not commit professional
+misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith attempt to ascertain and comply with
+the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not limited to, the fact that the attorney
+reviewed materials that define or discuss one or more potentially applicable obligations and
+standards, consulted with a supervisor or ethics advisor, notified the tribunal or the attorney
+representing a party or person with adverse interests of an intended course of conduct, or took
+119
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 147 of 349
+affirmative steps the attorney reasonably believed were required to comply with an obligation or
+standard.
+II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
+A. The United States Attorneys' Manual
+Among its many provisions, the United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) includes
+general statements of principles that summarize appropriate considerations to be weighed, and
+desirable practices to be followed, by federal prosecutors when discharging their prosecutorial
+responsibilities. '89 The goal of the USAM is to promote "the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial
+authority and contribute to the fair, evenhanded administration of the Federal criminal laws," and
+to promote public confidence that important prosecutorial decisions will be made "rationally and
+objectively on the merits of each case." USAM § 9-27.001.
+Because the USAM is designed to assist in structuring the decision-making process of
+government attorneys, many of its principles are cast in general terms, with a view to providing
+guidance rather than mandating results. Id.; see also USAM § 9-27.120, comment ("It is expected
+that each Federal prosecutor will be guided by these principles in carrying out his/her criminal law
+enforcement responsibilities .... However, it is not intended that reference to these principles will
+require a particular prosecutorial decision in any given case."); USAM § 9-27.110, comment
+("Under the Federal criminal justice system, the prosecutor has wide latitude in determining when,
+whom, how, and even whether to prosecute for apparent violations of Federal criminal law.").
+However, USAM § 9-27.130 provides that AUSAs who depart from the principles of federal
+prosecution articulated in the USAM may be subject to internal discipline. In particular, USAM
+§ 9-27.130 states that each U.S. Attorney should establish internal office procedures to ensure that
+prosecutorial decisions are made at an appropriate level of responsibility and are consistent with
+the principles set forth in the USAM, and that serious, unjustified departures from the principles
+set forth in the USAM are followed by remedial action, including the imposition of disciplinary
+sanctions when warranted and deemed appropriate.
+U.S. Attorneys have "plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters" and may
+modify or depart from the principles set forth in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of
+fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001,
+9.27-140. The USAM provisions are supplemented by the Department's Criminal Resource
+Manual, which provides additional guidance relating to the conduct of federal criminal
+prosecutions.
+USAM Provisions Relating to the Initiation and Declination of a
+Federal Prosecution
+Federal prosecutors do not open a case on every matter referred to them. USAM § 9-2.020
+explicitly authorizes a U.S. Attorney "to decline prosecution in any case referred directly to
+189
+In 2018, the USAM was revised and reissued as the Justice Manual. In assessing the subjects" conduct, OPR
+relies upon the standards of conduct in effect at the time of the events in issue. Accordingly, unless otherwise noted,
+citations in this Report are to the 1997 edition of the USAM, as revised through January 2007.
+120
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 148 of 349
+him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise." Whenever a U.S. Attorney closes a
+case without prosecution, the file should reflect the action taken and the reason for it. USAM
+§ 9-27.220 sets forth the grounds to be considered in making the decision whether to commence
+or decline federal prosecution. A federal prosecutor should commence or recommend prosecution
+if he or she believes that admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a
+conviction of a federal offense, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no federal interest; (2) the
+person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate
+alternative to prosecution. A comment to this provision indicates that it is the prosecutor's task to
+determine whether these circumstances exist, and in making that determination, the prosecutor
+"should" consult USAM §§ 9-27.230, 9-27.240, or 9-27.250, as appropriate.
+USAM § 9-27.230 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a federal
+prosecutor should weigh in determining whether a substantial federal interest would be served by
+initiating prosecution against a person:
+Federal law enforcement priorities; 190
+The nature and seriousness of the offense; 191
+The deterrent effect of prosecution;
+The person's culpability in connection with the offense;
+5.
+6.
+The person's history with respect to criminal activity;
+The person's willingness to cooperate in the investigation
+or prosecution of others; and
+The probable sentence or other consequences if the person
+is convicted.
+The USAM contemplates that, on occasion, a federal prosecutor will decline to open a case
+in deference to prosecution by the state in which the crime occurred. USAM § 9-27.240 directs
+jurisdiction. A comment to this provision explains:
+A comment to this provision directs the prosecutor to consider carefully the extent to which a federal
+prosecution would be consistent with established federal prosecutorial priorities.
+121
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 149 of 349
+Some offenses, even though in violation of Federal law, are of
+particularly strong interest to the authorities of the state or local
+jurisdiction in which they occur, either because of the nature of the
+offense, the identity of the offender or victim, the fact that the
+investigation was conducted primarily by state or local
+investigators, or some other circumstance. Whatever the reason,
+when it appears that the Federal interest in prosecution is less
+substantial than the interest of state or local authorities,
+consideration should be given to referring the case to those
+authorities rather than commencing or recommending a Federal
+prosecution.
+Another comment cautions that in assessing whether to defer to state or local authorities, "the
+Federal prosecutor should be alert to any local conditions, attitudes, relationships or other
+circumstances that might cast doubt on the likelihood of the state or local authorities conducting a
+thorough and successful prosecution."
+USAM § 9-27.260 identifies impermissible considerations relating to the decision whether
+to initiate or decline a federal prosecution. Specifically, the decision may not be based on
+consideration of the person's race, religion, sex, national origin, or political association, activities,
+or beliefs; the prosecutor's "own personal feelings" about the person or the victim; or the possible
+effect of the decision on the prosecutor's own professional or personal circumstances. When
+opting to decline federal prosecution, the prosecutor should ensure that the reasons for that decision
+are communicated to the investigating agency and reflected in the office files. USAM § 9-27.270.
+USAM § 9-2.031: The Petite Policy
+Although the Constitution does not prohibit prosecutions of a defendant by both state and
+federal authorities, even when the conduct charged is identical in both charging jurisdictions, the
+Department has a long-standing policy, known as the Petite policy, governing federal prosecutions
+charged after the initiation of a prosecution in another jurisdiction based on the same or similar
+conduct,! The general principles applicable to the prosecution or declination decision are set
+forth in USAM § 9-2.031, "Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ('Petite Policy')," which
+contains guidelines for a federal prosecutor's exercise of discretion in determining whether to bring
+a federal prosecution based on the substantially same act or transaction involved in a prior state or
+tederal proceeding. The policy applies "whenever there has been a prior state or federal
+prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement,
+or a dismissal or other termination on the merits after jeopardy has attached."
+In circumstances in which the policy applies, a prosecutor nonetheless can initiate a new
+federal prosecution when three substantive prerequisites exist. The prerequisites are as follows:
+(1)
+The matter must involve a substantial federal interest. The determination whether
+a substantial federal interest is involved is made on a case-by-case basis. Matters
+192
+See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 27-29 (1977); Petite v. United States, 361 U.S. 529 (1960).
+122
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 150 of 349
+that come within the national investigation and prosecution priorities established
+by the Department are more likely to satisfy this requirement than other matters.
+(2)
+The prior prosecution must have left the substantial federal interest "demonstrably
+unvindicated." In general, the Department presumes that a prior prosecution has
+vindicated federal interests, but that presumption may be overcome in certain
+circumstances. As relevant here, the presumption may be overcome when the
+choice of charges in the prior prosecution was based on factors such as
+incompetence, corruption, intimidation, or undue influence. The presumption may
+be overcome even when the prior prosecution resulted in a conviction, if the prior
+sentence was "manifestly inadequate in light of the federal interest involved and a
+substantially enhanced sentence—including forfeiture and restitution as well as
+imprisonment and fines-is available through the contemplated federal
+prosecution."
+(3)
+The government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal
+offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and
+sustain a conviction.
+However, the satisfaction of the prerequisites does not require a prosecutor to proceed with a
+federal investigation or charges nor is the Department required to approve the proposed
+prosecution.
+The Petite policy cautions that whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state
+jurisdiction, federal prosecutors should consult with their state counterparts "to determine the most
+appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests
+involved." If a substantial question arises as to whether the Petite policy applies to a particular
+prosecution, the prosecutor should submit the matter to the appropriate Assistant Attorney General
+for resolution. Prior approval from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General must be obtained
+before bringing a prosecution governed by this policy.
+3.
+USAM Provisions Relating to Plea Agreements
+Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve an investigation or pending case through a
+plea agreement. USAM §§ 9-27.330; 9-27.400. Negotiated pleas are also explicitly sanctioned
+by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1). ' Regardless of whether the plea agreement is
+offered pre-charge or post-charge, the prosecutor's plea bargaining "must honestly reflect the
+totality and seriousness of the defendant's conduct." USAM § 9-27.400, comment. 94 The
+importance of selecting a charge that reflects the seriousness of the conduct is echoed in USAM
+§ 9-27.430, which directs the prosecutor to require a defendant to plead to an offense that
+represents the most serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the
+As previously noted, Rule 11(c)(1)(C) permits the parties to agree to resolve the case in exchange for a
+specific sentence, subject to the court's acceptance of the agreement.
+See also USAM § 9-27.300 ("Once the decision to prosecute has been made, the attorney for the government
+should charge ... the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of the defendant's conduct, and that is
+likely to result in a sustainable conviction.").
+123
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 151 of 349
+defendant's criminal conduct, has an adequate factual basis, makes likely the imposition of an
+appropriate sentence and order of restitution, and does not adversely affect the investigation or
+prosecution of others. USAM § 9-27.420 specifies:
+In determining whether it would be appropriate to enter into a plea
+agreement, the attorney for the government should weigh all
+relevant considerations, including:
+1.
+The defendant's willingness to cooperate in the
+investigation or prosecution of others;
+2.
+The defendant's history with respect to criminal
+activity;
+3.
+The nature and seriousness of the offense or offenses
+charged;
+The defendant's remorse or contrition and his/her
+willingness to assume responsibility for his/her conduct;
+5. The desirability of prompt and certain disposition of
+the case;
+The likelihood of obtaining a conviction at trial;
+The probable effect on witnesses;
+The probable sentence or other consequences if the
+defendant is convicted;
+9.
+The public interest in having the case tried rather
+than disposed of by a guilty plea;
+10.
+The expense of trial and appeal;
+11.
+The need to avoid delay in the disposition of other
+pending cases; and
+12. The effect upon the victim's right to restitution.
+USAM Provisions Relating to Non-Prosecution Agreements
+USAM § 9-27.600 authorizes government attorneys to enter into a non-prosecution
+agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation. The provision explains that a non-prosecution
+agreement is appropriate for this purpose when, in the prosecutor's judgment, the person's timely
+cooperation "appears to be necessary to the public interest and other means of obtaining the desired
+cooperation are unavailable or would not be effective." A comment to this provision explains that
+such "other means" include seeking cooperation after trial and conviction, bargaining for
+124
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 152 of 349
+cooperation as part of a plea agreement, or compelling cooperation under a "use immunity" order.
+The comment observes that these alternative means "are clearly preferable to permitting an
+offender to avoid any liability for his/her conduct" and "should be given serious consideration in
+the first instance." USAM §§ 9-27.620 and 9-27.630 set forth considerations a prosecutor should
+take into account when entering into a non-prosecution agreement. Generally, the U.S. Attorney
+has authority to approve a non-prosecution agreement. USAM § 9-27.600 comment. However,
+USAM § 9-27.640 directs that a government attorney should not enter into a non-prosecution
+agreement in exchange for a person's cooperation without first obtaining the approval of the
+appropriate Assistant Attorney General, or his or her designee, when the person is someone who
+"is likely to become of major public interest."
+These USAM provisions do not address the uses of non-prosecution agreements in
+circumstances other than when needed to obtain cooperation.
+5.
+USAM Provisions Relating to Grants of Immunity
+Nothing in the USAM directly prohibits the government from using the criminal exposure
+of third parties in negotiating with a criminal defendant. Instead, the provision that addresses
+immunity relates only to the exchange of limited immunity for the testimony of a witness who has
+asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See USAM §§ 9-23.100 et seq.
+6.
+USAM/C.F.R. Provisions Relating to Financial Conflicts of Interest
+Department employees are expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all ethics-related
+laws, rules, regulations, and policies. See, generally, USAM § 1-4.000 et seq. Specifically, a
+government attorney is prohibited by criminal statute from participating personally and
+substantially in any particular matter in which he has a financial interest or in which such an
+interest can be imputed to him. See 18 U.S.C. § 208 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401-402. In addition,
+a Department employee should seek advice from an ethics official before participating in any
+matter in which his impartiality could be questioned. If a conflict of interest exists, in order for
+the employee to participate in the matter, the head of the employee's component, with the
+concurrence of an ethics official, must make a determination that the interest of the government in
+the employee's participation outweighs the concern that a reasonable person may question the
+integrity of the Department's programs and operations. The determination must be made in
+writing. See 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.501-502.
+B.
+Other Department Policies
+Department Policies Relating to the Disposition of Charges
+Department. Over the span of several decades, each successive Attorney General has articulated
+those priorities in policy memoranda issued to all federal prosecutors. As applicable here, on
+September 22, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum regarding
+"Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and
+Sentencing" (Ashcroft Memo). The Ashcroft Memo, which explicitly superseded all previous
+Departmental guidance on the subject, set forth policies "designed to ensure that all federal
+125
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 153 of 349
+prosecutors adhere to the principles and objectives" of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the
+Sentencing Guidelines, and the PROTECT Act "in their charging, case disposition, and sentencing
+practices. "195
+The Ashcroft Memo directed that, 'in all federal cases, federal prosecutors must charge
+and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of
+the case," except as authorized by an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or designated
+supervisory authority in certain articulated limited circumstances. The Ashcroft Memo cautioned
+that a charge is not "readily provable" if the prosecutor harbors a good faith doubt, based on either
+the law or the evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial. The Ashcroft
+Memo explains that the "basic policy" "requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all
+charges that are determined to be readily provable" and would yield the most substantial sentence
+under the Sentencing Guidelines.
+The policy set forth six exceptions, including a catch-all exception that permits a prosecutor
+to decline to pursue readily provable charges "in other exceptional circumstances" with the written
+or otherwise documented approval of an Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Attorney, or "designated
+supervisory attorney." As examples of circumstances in which such declination would be
+appropriate, the Ashcroft Memo cites to situations in which a U.S. Attorney's Office is
+"particularly over-burdened," the trial is expected to be of exceptionally long duration, and
+proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total number of cases the office could resolve.
+The Ashcroft Memo specifically notes that "[c]harges may be declined ... pursuant to a plea
+agreement only to the extent consistent" with the policies established by the Memo.
+On January 28, 2005, Deputy Attorney General James Comey issued a memorandum
+entitled "Department Policies and Procedures Concerning Sentencing." That memorandum
+reiterated that federal prosecutors "must continue to charge and pursue the most serious readily
+provable offenses," and defined that term as the offenses that would "generate the most substantial
+sentence" under the Sentencing Guidelines, any applicable mandatory minimum, and any
+statutorily required consecutive sentence.
+Importantly, although the Ashcroft and Comey memoranda limit an individual line
+prosecutor's ability to decline "readily provable" charges in their entirety, no such restriction is
+placed upon the U.S. Attorneys, who retained authority to approve exceptions to the policy. In
+addition, the policy applies to "readily provable" charges, thus inherently allowing a prosecutor
+195
+the United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The
+Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub.
+L. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650, was directed at preventing child abuse. It included a variety of provisions designed to
+improve the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against children. Among other things, the PROTECT Act
+provided for specific sentencing considerations for certain sex-related offenses, such as those involving multiple
+occasions of prohibited sexual conduct or those involving material with depictions of violence or with specified
+numbers of images.
+126
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 154 of 349
+flexibility to decline to bring a particular charge based on a "good faith doubt" that the law or
+evidence supports the charge.
+2.
+Department Policy Relating to Deportation of Criminal Aliens
+On April 28, 1995, the Attorney General issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors
+entitled "Deportation of Criminal Aliens," directing federal prosecutors to actively and directly
+become involved in the process of removing criminal aliens from the United States. In pertinent
+part, this memorandum notes that prosecutors can make a major contribution to the expeditious
+deportation of criminal aliens by effectively using available prosecution tools for dealing with
+alien defendants. These tools include (1) stipulated administrative deportation orders in
+connection with plea agreements; (2) deportation as a condition of supervised release under
+18 U.S.C. § 3853(d); and (3) judicial deportation orders pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d). The
+memorandum further directs:
+All deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless
+extraordinary circumstances exist. Accordingly, absent such
+circumstances, Federal prosecutors should seek the deportation of
+deportable alien defendants in whatever manner is deemed most
+appropriate in a particular case. Exceptions to this policy must have
+the written approval of the United States Attorney.
+See also USAM § 9-73.520. A "criminal alien" is a foreign national who has been convicted of a
+crime. 196
+Stipulated administrative deportation orders can be based "on the conviction for an offense
+to which the alien will plead guilty," provided that the offense is one of those enumerated in
+8 U.S.C. § 1251 as an offense that causes an alien to be deported. Under 8 U.S.C.
+§ 1251(a)(2)(A)(i), any alien who is convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" within five years
+after the date of entry (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident
+status), and is either sentenced to confinement or confined to prison for one year or longer, is
+deportable.
+C. Case Law
+1.
+Prosecutorial Discretion
+On many occasions, the Supreme Court has discussed the breadth of the prosecutor's
+discretion in deciding whether and whom to prosecute. In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357
+(1978), the Court considered the propriety of a prosecutor's threat during plea negotiations to seek
+more serious charges against the accused if the accused did not plead guilty to the offense
+originally charged. The defendant, Hayes, opted not to plead guilty to the original offense, and
+196
+According to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "The term "criminal alien" refers to aliens who have
+been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border
+Patrol." See U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Enforcement Statistics,
+Criminal Alien Statistics Fiscal Year 2020, available at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcementstatistics/criminal-alien-statistics.
+127
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 155 of 349
+the prosecutor indicted him on more serious charges. Hayes was thereafter convicted and
+sentenced under the new indictment. The state court of appeals rejected Hayes's challenge to his
+conviction, concluding that the prosecutor's decision to indict on more serious charges was a
+legitimate use of available leverage in the plea-bargaining process. Hayes filed for review of his
+conviction and sentence in federal court, and although Hayes lost at the district court level, the
+U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that the prosecutor's conduct constituted
+impermissible vindictive prosecution.
+The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's ruling. The Court opined that "acceptance
+of the basic legitimacy of plea bargaining necessarily implies rejection of any notion that a guilty
+plea is involuntary in a constitutional sense simply because it is the end result of the bargaining
+process." Id. at 363. A long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe a crime has been
+committed, "the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a
+grand jury, rests entirely in his discretion." Id. at 364 (emphasis added). The Court explained that
+selectivity in enforcement of the criminal law is not improper unless based upon an unjustifiable
+standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Id.
+These principles were reiterated in Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), a case
+involving the government's policy of prosecuting only those individuals who reported themselves
+as having failed to register with the Selective Service system. The petitioner in Wayte claimed
+that the self-reported non-registrants were "vocal" opponents of the registration program who were
+being punished for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court rejected this
+argument, stating that the government has "broad discretion" in deciding whom to prosecute, and
+that the limits of that discretion are reached only when the prosecutor's decision is based on an
+unjustifiable standard. Id. at 607-08. Because the passive enforcement policy was not intended to
+have a discriminatory effect, the claim of selective prosecution failed.
+In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), the Supreme Court considered whether a state
+prosecutor acting within the scope of his duties could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation
+of the defendant's constitutional rights when the defendant alleged that the prosecutor and others
+had unlawfully conspired to charge and convict him. The Court held that 'in initiating a
+prosecution and in presenting the State's case," conduct that is "intimately associated with the
+judicial phase of the criminal process," the prosecutor enjoyed absolute immunity from a civil suit
+for damages. Id. at 430-31. In Harrington v. Almy, 977 F.2d 37 (Ist Cir. 1992), the court applied
+Imbler to a challenge to a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute. The court noted that "given the
+availability of immunity for the decision to charge, it becomes even more important that
+symmetrical protection be available for the decision not to charge." Id. at 41 (emphasis in
+original).
+Finally, in an analogous area of the law, in Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), the
+Supreme Court concluded that an agency's decision not to undertake an enforcement action is not
+reviewable under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §$ 500-706.
+Plea Agreement Promises of Leniency towards a Third Party
+Case law regarding promises made during plea negotiations not to prosecute a third-party
+arises in two contexts. First, defendants have challenged the voluntariness of the resulting plea
+128
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 156 of 349
+when prosecutors have used third parties as leverage in plea negotiations. Numerous courts have
+made clear, however, that a plea is not invalid when entered under an agreement that includes a
+marty it aple enotared See party or teresatese to a prose or 24 30 4c in
+arty it a plea is not entered. See, e.g..
+1990) (rejecting claim that plea was involuntary because of pressure placed upon a defendant by
+the government's insistence that a defendant's wife would not be offered a plea bargain unless he
+pled guilty); [
+v. Kemp, 760 F.2d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 1985) (in order to satisfy "heavy
+burden" of establishing that the government had not acted "in good faith," a defendant challenging
+voluntariness of his plea on grounds that the prosecutor had threatened to bring charges against
+the defendant's pregnant wife had to establish that government lacked probable cause to believe
+the defendant's wife had committed a crime at the time it threatened to charge her); Stinson v.
+State, 839 So. 2d 906, 909 (Fla. App. 2003) ("In cases involving ... a promise not to prosecute a
+third party, the government must act in good faith ... [and] must have probable cause to charge
+the third party.").
+The second context concerns situations in which courts have enforced prosecutors'
+promises of leniency to third parties. For example, in State v. Frazier, 697 So. 2d 944 (Fla. App.
+1997), as consideration for the defendant's guilty plea, the prosecutor agreed and announced in
+open court that the government would dismiss charges against the defendant's niece and nephew,
+who had all been charged as a result of the same incident. When the state reneged and attempted
+to prosecute the niece and nephew, the trial court dismissed the charges against them, and the state
+appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that under contract law
+principles, the niece and nephew were third-party beneficiaries of the plea agreement and were
+therefore entitled to enforce it.
+Apart from voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a
+prosecutor's promise not to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of
+prosecutorial discretion.
+D.
+State Bar Rules
+During the period relevant to this Report, the five subject attorneys were members of the
+bar in several different states and were subject to the rules of professional conduct in each state in
+which they held membership. '97 In determining which rules apply, OPR applied the local rules of
+the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Local Rules) and the choice-of-law
+197
+198
+The subjects' membership in state bars other than Florida would not affect OPR's conclusions in this case.
+These rules have been in effect since December 1994.
+129
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 157 of 349
+is subject to all rules of the court.'' Attorney Admission Rule 6(b)(2)(A) makes clear that
+attorneys practicing before the court are subject to the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct
+(FRPC). Moreover, the choice-of-law provisions contained within the relevant state's rules of
+professional conduct make the FRC applicable to their conduct.
+1. FRPC 4-1.1 - Competence
+FRPC 4-1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client.200
+Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation
+reasonably necessary for the representation. A comment to the rule clarifies that the factors
+relevant to determining a lawyer's competence to handle a particular matter include "the relative
+complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general experience, the lawyer's
+training and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give
+the matter, and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a lawyer
+of established competence in the field." The comment further notes that "i]n many instances the
+required proficiency is that of a general practitioner." With respect to particular matters,
+competence requires inquiry into and analysis of the factual and legal elements of the problem.
+The comment to Rule 4-1.1 explains that "[t]he required attention and preparation are determined
+in part by what is at stake; major litigation and complex transactions ordinarily require more
+extensive treatment than matters of lesser complexity and consequence."
+2.
+FRC 4-1.3 - Diligence
+FRPC 4-1.3 specifies that a lawyer should act with reasonable diligence and promptness in
+representing a client. A comment to this rule explains, "A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf
+of a client despite opposition, obstruction, or personal inconvenience to the lawyer and take
+whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor." A
+lawyer must exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but is not required "to press for every
+advantage that might be realized for a client."
+3.
+FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others
+FRPC 4-4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact
+or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule
+explains that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or
+omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular
+statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances."
+See also 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a), providing that government attorneys are subject to state laws and state and
+local federal court rules governing attorneys in each state where the government attorney engages in his duties.
+200
+The federal prosecutor does not have an individual "client," but rather represents the people of the United
+States. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 547 (duties of U.S. Attorney); 28 C.F.R. § 0.5(b) (the Attorney General represents
+the United States in legal matters).
+130
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 158 of 349
+FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
+FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
+deceit, or misrepresentation.
+FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice
+of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
+In Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 87 (Fla. 2000), the court noted that FRPC
+4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to
+"conduct in connection with the practice of law." In Florida Bar v. Shankman, 41 So. 3d 166, 172
+(Fla. 2010), for example, an attorney's continuous hiring and firing of firms to assist in the client's
+matter resulted in delayed resolution of the case and constituted a violation of FRPC 4-8.4(d) due
+to the delay in the administration of justice and the increased costs to the client. 201
+OPR also examined FRPC 4-3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Nothing in the text of that rule,
+however, was relevant to the issues addressed in this Report. A comment to FRPC Rule 4-3.8 notes that Florida has
+adopted the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function.
+These "standards," however, are not binding rules of conduct but rather provide guidance to prosecutors. Indeed, the
+ABA has expressly stated that these standards "are not intended to serve as the basis for the imposition of professional
+discipline, to create substantive or procedural rights for accused or convicted persons, to create a standard of care for
+civil liability, or to serve as a predicate for a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss a charge." OPR does not consider
+the ABA standards as binding on the conduct of Department prosecutors.
+131
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 159 of 349
+132
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 160 of 349
+PART THREE: ANALYSIS
+OVERVIEW
+Following the Miami Herald report in November 2018, media scrutiny of and public
+attention to the USAO's handling of its Epstein investigation has continued unabated. At the heart
+of the public's concern is the perception that Epstein's 18-month sentence, which resulted in a 13-
+month term of actual incarceration, was too lenient and inadequately punished Epstein's criminal
+conduct. Although many records have been released as part of civil litigation stemming from
+Epstein's conduct, the public has received only limited information regarding the decision-making
+process leading to the signed NPA. As a result, questions have arisen about Acosta and his staff's
+motivations for entering into the NPA. Publicly released communications between prosecutors
+and defense counsel, the leniency of the sentence, and an unusual non-prosecution provision in the
+NPA have led to allegations that Acosta and the USAO gave Epstein a "sweetheart deal" because
+they were motivated by improper influences, such as their preexisting and personal relationships
+with his attorneys, or even corrupt influences, such as the receipt of personal benefits from Epstein.
+Through its investigation, OPR has sought to answer the following core questions: (1) who
+was responsible for the decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA and for its
+specific terms; (2) did the NPA or any of its provisions violate Department policies or other rules
+or regulations; and (3) were any of the subjects motivated to resolve the federal investigation by
+improper factors, such as corruption or favoritism. To the extent that available records and witness
+interviews shed light on these questions, OPR shows in detail the process that led to the NPA, from
+the initial complaint to the USAO through the intense and often confusing negotiation process.
+After a thorough and detailed examination of thousands of contemporaneous records and extensive
+interviews of subjects and witnesses, OPR is able to answer most of the significant questions
+concerning the NPA's origins and development. Although some questions remain, OPR sets forth
+its conclusions and the bases for them in this Part.
+ACOSTA REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE TERMS OF THE NPA AND IS
+ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT
+Although Acosta did not sign the NPA, he approved it, with knowledge of its terms. He
+revised drafts of the NPA and added language that he thought appropriate. Acosta told OPR that
+he either was informed of, or had access to information concerning, the underlying facts of the
+case against Epstein. OPR did not find any evidence suggesting that any of his subordinates misled
+him about the facts or withheld information that would have influenced his decision, and Acosta
+did not make such a claim to OPR. As Acosta affirmed in his OPR interview, the "three pronged
+resolution, two years ..., registration and restitution, ... ultimately that was approved on my
+authority. ... [U]ltimately, I approved it, and so, I ... accept that. I'm not ... pushing away
+responsibility for it."
+In making its misconduct assessments, OPR considers the conduct of subjects individually.
+Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villataña were involved in the matter to varying degrees, at
+133
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 161 of 349
+different points in time, and regarding different decisions. Menchel, for example, participated in
+formulating the USAO's initial written offer to the defense, but he had no involvement with actions
+or decisions made after August 3, 2007. Sloman was absent during part of the most intense
+negotiations in September 2007 and did not see the final, signed version of the NPA until he
+returned. Villafaña and Lourie participated in the negotiations, and Lourie either made decisions
+during the September 12, 2007 meeting with the defense and State Attorney's Office, or at least
+indicated agreement pending Acosta's approval. In any event, whatever the level of Sloman's,
+Menchel's, Lourie's, and Villafaña's involvement, they acted with the knowledge and approval of
+Acosta.
+Under OPR's analytical framework, an attorney who makes a good faith attempt to
+ascertain the obligations and standards imposed on the attorney and to comply with them in a given
+situation does not commit professional misconduct. Evidence that an attorney made a good faith
+attempt to ascertain and comply with the obligations and standards imposed can include, but is not
+limited to, the fact that the attorney consulted with a supervisor.22 In this regard, OPR's
+framework is similar to a standard provision of the professional conduct rules of most state bars,
+which specify that a subordinate lawyer does not engage in misconduct if that lawyer acts in
+accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of
+professional duty. See, e.g., FRPC 4-5.2(b). Therefore, in addition to the fact that OPR did not
+find a violation of a clear and unambiguous standard as discussed below, OPR concludes that
+Menchel, Sloman, Lourie, and Villafaña did not commit professional misconduct with respect to
+any aspect of the NPA because they acted under Acosta's direction and with his approval.
+III. OPR FOUND THAT NONE OF THE SUBJECTS VIOLATED A CLEAR AND
+UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY RULE OR
+STANDARD, OR DEPARTMENT REGULATION OR POLICY, IN
+NEGOTIATING, APPROVING, OR ENTERING INTO THE NPA
+A central issue OPR addressed in its investigation relating to the NPA was whether any of
+the subjects, in developing, negotiating, or entering into the NPA, violated any clear and
+unambiguous standard established by rule, regulation, or policy. OPR does not find professional
+misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous
+standard. OPR considered three specific areas: (1) standards implicated by the decision to decline
+a federal court prosecution; (2) standards implicated by the decision to resolve the federal
+investigation through a non-prosecution agreement; and (3) standards implicated by any of the
+NPA's provisions, including the promise not to prosecute unidentified third parties. As discussed
+below, OPR concludes that in each area, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his
+decisions were based on corrupt or improper influences, the U.S. Attorney possessed broad
+discretionary authority to proceed as he saw fit, authority that he could delegate to subordinates,
+and that Acosta's exercise of his discretionary authority did not breach any clear and unambiguous
+standard. As a result, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and
+202
+The failure to fully advise a supervisor of relevant and material facts can warrant a finding that the subordinate
+attorney has not acted in "good faith." OPR did not find evidence supporting such a conclusion here, and Acosta did
+not claim that he was unaware of material facts needed to make his decision.
+134
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 162 of 349
+unambiguous standard or engaged in professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or
+entering into the NPA, including its addendum.
+A. l
+U.S. Attorneys Have Broad Discretion to Resolve Investigations or Cases as
+They Deem Appropriate, and Acosta's Decision to Decline to Prosecute
+Epstein Federally Does Not Constitute Professional Misconduct
+The U.S. Attorneys exercise broad discretion in enforcing the nation's criminal laws.203
+As a general matter, federal prosecutors "are designated by statute as the President's delegates to
+help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to take Care that the Laws be faithfully
+executed."" United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quoting U.S. Const. art. II,
+§ 3). Unless based on an impermissible standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary
+classification, a prosecutor's charging decisions—including declinations —are not dictated by law
+or statute and are not subject to judicial review. See United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 762
+(1997) ("Such discretion is an integral feature of the criminal justice system, and is appropriate,
+so long as it is not based upon improper factors.").
+Department policy guidance in effect at the time the USAO was handling the Epstein case
+helped ensure "the reasoned exercise of prosecutorial authority," but did not require "a particular
+prosecutorial decision in any given case." USAM §§ 9-27.001, 9-27.120 (comment). Rather than
+mandating specific actions, the USAM identified considerations that should factor into a
+prosecutor's charging decisions, including that the defendant was "subject to effective prosecution
+in another jurisdiction." USAM § 9-27.220. Importantly, U.S. Attorneys had "plenary authority
+with regard to federal criminal matters" and could modify or depart from the principles set forth
+in the USAM as deemed necessary in the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their
+individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9-27.140. As stated in the USAM, "It]he United
+States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest
+discretion in the exercise of such [prosecutive] authority," which includes the authority to decline
+prosecution. USAM § 9-2.001.
+In addition, the USAM contemplated that federal prosecutors would sometimes decline
+federal prosecution in deference to a state prosecution of the same conduct and provided guidance
+in the form of factors to be considered in making the decision, including the strength of the other
+jurisdiction's interest in prosecution, the other jurisdiction's ability and willingness to prosecute
+etfectively, and the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted in the other
+jurisdiction. USAM § 9-27.240.204 A comment to this provision stated that the factors are
+"illustrative only, and the attorney for the government should also consider any others that appear
+relevant to hi[m]/her in a particular case."
+See, e.g., Wayle, 470 U.S. at 607; United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 380 n.11 (1982);
+Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 364; Imbler, 424 U.S. 409.
+The discretionary authority under USAM § 9-27.240 to defer prosecution in favor of another jurisdiction i
+listinct from the Petite policy, which establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion in determining whether t
+bring a federal prosecution based on conduct substantially the same as that involved in a prior state or federal
+proceeding. See USAM § 9-2.031.
+135
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 163 of 349
+As the U.S. Attorney, and in the absence of evidence establishing that his decision was
+motivated by improper factors, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under federal law and under the
+USAM to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate. As discussed in detail below,
+OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta, or the other subjects, were motivated or
+e demid nea
+influenced by improper considerations. Because no clear and unambiguous standard required
+Acosta to indict Epstein on federal charges or prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the
+state, OPR does not find misconduct based on Acosta's decision to decline to initiate a federal
+prosecution of Epstein.
+B. No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Precluded Acosta's Use of a
+Non-Prosecution Agreement to Resolve the Federal Investigation of Epstein
+OPR found no statute or Department policy that was violated by Acosta's decision to
+resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through a non-prosecution agreement.
+The prosecutor's broad charging discretion includes the option of resolving a case through
+a non-prosecution agreement or a related and similar mechanism, a deferred prosecution
+agreement. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). These agreements
+"afford a middle-ground option to the prosecution when, for example, it believes that a criminal
+conviction may be difficult to obtain or may result in unwanted collateral consequences for a
+defendant or third parties, but also believes that the defendant should not evade accountability
+altogether." Id. at 738. As with all prosecutorial charging decisions, the choice to resolve a case
+through a non-prosecution agreement or a deferred prosecution agreement "resides fundamentally
+with the Executive" branch. Id. at 741.
+OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard in the USAM prohibiting the use of a nonprosecution agreement in the circumstances presented in Epstein's case. The USAM specifically
+authorized and provided guidance regarding non-prosecution agreements or deferred prosecution
+agreements made in exchange for a person's timely cooperation when such cooperation would put
+the person in potential criminal jeopardy and when alternatives to full immunity (such as
+testimonial immunity) were "impossible or impracticable." USAM § 9-27.600 (comment). 205 The
+"cooperation" contemplated was cooperation in the criminal investigation or prosecution of
+another person. In certain circumstances, government attorneys were required to obtain approval
+from the appropriate Assistant Attorney General before entering into a non-prosecution agreement
+in exchange for cooperation.
+Epstein, however, was not providing "cooperation" as contemplated by the USAM, and the
+USAM was silent as to whether a prosecutor could use a non-prosecution agreement in
+circumstances other than in exchange for cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of
+another. Notably, although the USAM provided guidance and approval requirements in cases
+nvolving cooperation, the USAM did not prohibit the use of a non-prosecution agreement in othe
+ituations. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the USAM did not establish a clear and unambiguou
+obligation prohibiting Acosta from ending the federal investigation through a non-prosecution
+205
+USAM § 9-27.650 required that non-prosecution agreements in exchange for cooperation be fully
+memorialized in writing. Although this requirement was not applicable for the reasons given above, the NPA complied
+by fully memorializing the terms of the agreement.
+136
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 164 of 349
+agreement that did not require Epstein's cooperation nor did the USAM require Acosta to obtain
+Departmental approval before doing so.
+C. The NPA's Individual Provisions Did Not Violate Any Clear and
+Unambiguous Standards
+Although Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, had discretion generally to resolve the case through a
+non-prosecution agreement that deferred prosecution to the state, OPR also considered whether a
+clear and unambiguous standard governed any of the individual provisions of the NPA.
+Specifically, OPR examined Acosta's decision to permit Epstein to resolve the federal
+investigation by pleading guilty to state charges of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution
+and solicitation to prostitution, with a joint, binding recommendation for an 18-month sentence of
+incarceration. Because, as noted above, OPR found no clear guidance applicable to nonprosecution agreements not involving cooperation, OPR examined Departmental policies relating
+to plea offers to assess the propriety of the NPA's charge and sentence requirements. OPR also
+examined the provision declining to prosecute Epstein's unidentified "potential co-conspirators,"
+to determine whether that provision violated Departmental policy regarding grants of immunity.
+Finally, OPR considered whether there was a clear and unambiguous obligation under the
+Department's policy regarding the deportation of criminal aliens, which would have required
+further action to be taken against the two Epstein assistants who were foreign nationals.
+After considering the applicable rules and policies, OPR finds that Acosta's decision to
+resolve the federal investigation through the NPA did not violate any clear and unambiguous
+standards and that Acosta had the authority to resolve the federal investigation through a state plea
+and through the terms that he chose. Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta did not commit
+professional misconduct in developing, negotiating, or approving the NPA, nor did the other
+subjects who implemented his decisions with respect to the resolution. 206
+1.
+Acosta Had Authority to Approve an Agreement That Required
+Epstein to Plead to Offenses Resulting in an 18-Month Term of
+Incarceration
+Federal prosecutors have discretion to resolve a pending case or investigation through a
+plea agreement, including a plea that calls for the imposition of a specific, predetermined sentence.
+USAM $§ 9-27.330, 9-27.400; see also Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1).
+206
+OPR also considered whether Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña failed to comply with
+professional ethics standards requiring that attorneys exercise competence and diligence in their representation of a
+client. Attorneys have a duty to provide competent, diligent representation to their clients, which generally requires
+the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See, e.g., FRPC
+4-1.1, 4-1.3. The requirement of diligence obligates an attorney to exercise "zeal" in advocating for the client, but
+does not require the attorney "to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client." See FRPC 4-1.3
+(comment). Although OPR criticizes certain decisions made during the USAO's investigation of Epstein, those
+decisions, even if flawed, did not violate the standard requiring the exercise of competence or diligence. The subjects
+exhibited sufficient knowledge, skill, preparation, thoroughness, and zeal during the federal investigation and the NPA
+negotiations to satisfy the general standards established by the professional responsibility rules. An attorney may
+attain a flawed result but still exercise sufficient competence and diligence throughout the representation to meet the
+requirements of the standard.
+137
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 165 of 349
+Longstanding Department policy directs prosecutors to require the defendant to plead to the most
+serious readily provable charge consistent with the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal
+conduct, that has an adequate factual basis, is likely to result in a sustainable conviction, makes
+likely the imposition of an appropriate sentence and restitution order, and does not adversely affect
+the investigation or prosecution of others. See USAM $§ 9-27.430, 9-27-300, 9-27.400
+(comment). The genesis of this policy, the Ashcroft Memo, specifically requires federal
+prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial
+sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the Ashcroft Memo articulates an important
+exception: a U.S. Attorney or a "designated supervisory attorney" may authorize a plea that does
+not comport with this policy. 27 Moreover, the Ashcroft Memo explains that a charge is not
+"readily provable" if the prosecutor harbors "a good faith doubt," based on either the law or the
+evidence, as to the government's ability to prove the charge at trial.
+By its plain terms, the NPA arguably does not appear to satisfy the "most serious readily
+provable charge" requirement. The draft indictment prepared by Villafaña proposed charging
+Epstein with a variety of federal crimes relating to sexual conduct with and trafficking of minors,
+and Epstein's sentencing exposure under the federal guidelines was in the range of 168 to 210
+months' imprisonment. The original "term sheet" presented to the defense proposed a "nonnegotiable" requirement that Epstein plead guilty to three state offenses, in addition to the original
+state indictment, with a joint, binding recommendation for a two-year term of incarceration.
+Instead, Epstein was permitted to resolve his federal criminal exposure with a plea to the state
+indictment and only one additional state offense, and an 18-month sentence.
+As discussed more fully later in this Report, Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie
+perceived risks to going forward to trial on the federal charges Villafaña outlined in the prosecution
+memorandum and identified for OPR concerns with both the evidence and legal theories on which
+a federal prosecution would be premised. On the other hand, Villafaña felt strongly that federal
+charges should be brought, and the CEOS Chief reviewed the prosecution memorandum and twice
+opined that the charges were appropriate. OPR found it unnecessary to resolve the question
+whether federal charges against Epstein were readily provable, however, because Acosta had
+In addition to specified "Limited Exceptions," this authorization is available in "Other Exceptional
+Circumstances," as follows:
+Prosecutors may decline to pursue or may dismiss readily provable charges in
+other exceptional circumstances with the written or otherwise documented
+approval of an Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, or designated
+supervisory attorney. This exception recognizes that the aims of the Sentencing
+Reform Act must be sought without ignoring the practical limitations of the
+federal criminal justice system. For example, a case-specific approval to dismiss
+charges in a particular case might be given because the United States Attorney's
+Office is particularly over-burdened, the duration of the trial would be
+exceptionally long, and proceeding to trial would significantly reduce the total
+number of cases disposed of by the office.
+However, such case-by-case
+exceptions should be rare; otherwise the goals of fairness and equity will be
+jeopardized.
+Ashcroft Memo at § I.B.6. See also USAM §$ 9-2.001 and 27.140 (U.S. Attorneys" authority to depart from the
+USAM).
+138
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 166 of 349
+authority to deviate from the Ashcroft Memo's "most serious readily provable offense"
+requirement.
+Although Acosta could not recall specifically how or by whom the decision was made to
+allow Epstein to plead to only one of the three charges identified on the original term sheet, or how
+or by whom the decision was made to reduce the sentencing requirement from two years to 18
+months, Acosta was aware of these changes. He reviewed and approved the final NPA before it
+was signed. Department policy gave him the discretion to approve the agreement, notwithstanding
+any arguable failure to comply with the "most serious readily provable offense" requirement.
+Furthermore, the Ashcroft Memo does not appear to preclude a U.S. Attorney from deferring to a
+state prosecution, so it is not clear that the Memo's terms apply to a situation involving state
+charges. Accordingly, OPR concludes that the negotiation of an agreement that allowed Epstein
+i gy, i one that at
+to resolve the federal investigation in return for the imposition of an 18-month state sentence did
+not violate a clear and unambiguous standard and therefore does not constitute professional
+misconduct.
+2.
+The USAO's Agreement Not to Prosecute Unidentified "Potential
+Co-Conspirators" Did Not Violate a Clear and Unambiguous
+Department Policy
+Several witnesses told OPR that they believed the government's agreement not to prosecute
+unidentified "potential co-conspirators" amounted to "transactional immunity," which the
+witnesses asserted is prohibited by Department policy. Although "use immunity" protects a
+witness only against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of
+the witness, and is frequently used by prosecutors, transactional immunity protects a witness from
+prosecution altogether and is relatively rare.
+OPR found no policy prohibiting a U.S. Attorney from declining to prosecute third parties
+or providing transactional immunity. One section of the USAM related to immunity but applied
+only to the exchange of "use immunity" for the testimony of a witness who has asserted a Fifth
+Amendment privilege. See USAM § 9-23.100 et seq. Statutory provisions relating to immunity
+See SAM 39-23
+also address the same context. See 18 U.S.C. § 6002; 21 U.S.C. § 884. Moreover, apart from
+voluntariness or enforceability concerns, courts have not suggested that a prosecutor's promise not
+to prosecute a third party amounts to an inappropriate exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See,
+e.g..
+, 909 F.2d at 741-43; Kemp, 760 F.2d at 1248; Stinson, 839 So. 2d at 909; Frazier,
+597 So. 2d 945. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that was violated by the USAO':
+agreement not to prosecute "potential co-conspirators," and therefore cannot conclude that
+negotiating or approving this provision violated a clear and unambiguous standard or constituted
+professional misconduct.
+Notwithstanding this finding, in Section IV of this Part, OPR includes in its criticism of
+Acosta's decision to approve the NPA his approval of this provision without considering its
+potential consequences, including to whom it would apply.
+139
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 167 of 349
+The NPA Did Not Violate Department Policy Relating to Deportation
+of Criminal Aliens
+During the negotiations, the USAO rejected a defense-offered provision prohibiting the
+USAO from "request[ing], initiat[ing], or in any way encourag[ing] immigration authorities to
+institute immigration proceedings" against two female assistants. However, OPR considered
+whether the April 28, 1995 memorandum imposed any obligation on the USAO to prosecute
+Epstein's two female assistants who were known to be foreign nationals as Villafaña urged in
+her prosecution memorandum—and thus trigger their removal, or conversely, whether it precluded
+the USAO from agreeing not to prosecute them as part of a negotiated resolution. OPR found
+nothing in the policy that created a clear and unambiguous standard in either regard.
+The Attorney General's April 28, 1995 memorandum regarding "Deportation of Criminal
+Aliens" directed federal prosecutors to become involved actively and directly in the process of
+removing criminal aliens from the United States, and, along with USAM § 9-73.520, provided that
+"[a]ll deportable criminal aliens should be deported unless extraordinary circumstances exist."
+However, Epstein's two assistants were not "deportable" unless and until convicted of a crime that
+would have triggered their removal. But neither the policy memorandum nor the USAM imposed
+an obligation on the USAO to prosecute or secure a conviction against a foreign national nor did
+either provision preclude the USAO from declining to prosecute an alien using the same broad
+discretion that otherwise applies to charging decisions.
+The policy guidance also requires "prompt and close coordination" with immigration
+officials in cases involving alien defendants and specifies that prosecutors must notify immigration
+authorities before engaging in plea negotiations with alien defendants. OPR learned during its
+investigation that an ICE agent participated in the Epstein investigation in its early stages.
+Moreover, because the USAO never engaged in plea negotiations with the two female assistants,
+who, in any event, had not been charged and were therefore not "defendants," no further
+notification was required
+IV. THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECTS WERE
+INFLUENCED BY IMPROPER MOTIVES TO INCLUDE IN THE NPA TERMS
+FAVORABLE TO EPSTEIN OR TO OTHERWISE EXTEND BENEFITS TO
+EPSTEIN
+OPR investigated whether any of the subjects—Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or
+Villafaña —was influenced by corruption, bias, or other improper motive, such as Epstein's wealth,
+status, or political associations, to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein, or
+whether such motives otherwise affected the outcome of the federal investigation. OPR
+considered the case-specific reasons the subjects identified as the motivation for the USAO's
+July 31, 2007 "term sheet" and Acosta's approval of the NPA in September 2007. OPR also
+thoroughly examined various factors forming the basis for allegations that the subjects were
+motivated by improper influences, including the subjects' preexisting relationships with defense
+counsel; the subjects' numerous meetings with Epstein's team of nationally known attorneys;
+emails between the subjects—particularly Villafaña —and defense counsel that appeared friendly,
+casual, and deferential to defense counsel; and inclusion in the NPA of a broad provision declining
+140
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 168 of 349
+to prosecute all of Epstein's co-conspirators. These factors are analyzed in the following
+discussions throughout this Section of the Report.
+As a threshold matter, OPR's investigation of the subjects' decisions and actions in the
+Epstein matter uncovered no evidence of corruption such as bribery, gratuity, or illegal political or
+personal consideration. In addition, OPR examined the extensive contemporaneous documentary
+record, interviewed witnesses, and questioned the subject attorneys. The evidence shows three
+sets of issues influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA. The first-of
+main concern to Acostainvolved considerations of federalism and deference to state authority.
+The second arose from an assessment by Acosta's senior advisers—Sloman, Menchel, and
+Lourie-that the case carried substantial litigation risks, including both witness issues and what
+some viewed as a novel application of certain federal statutes to the facts of the Epstein case. 208
+The third was Acosta's aim of obtaining a greater measure of justice for victims of Epstein's
+conduct and for the community than that proposed by the state.
+Although the NPA and the process for reaching it can be criticized, as OPR does, OPR did
+not find evidence supporting a conclusion that the subjects were motivated by a desire to benefit
+Epstein for personal gain or because of other improper considerations, such as Epstein's wealth,
+status, or associations. That is not to say that Epstein received no benefit from his enormous
+wealth. He was able to hire nationally known attorneys who had prestige, skill, and extensive
+experience in federal and state criminal law and in conducting negotiations. He had the resources
+to finance an aggressive approach to the case that included the preparation of multiple written
+submissions reflecting extensive research and analysis, as well as multiple in-person meetings
+involving several of his attorneys and USAO personnel. He assembled a defense team well versed
+in the USAO and the Department, with the knowledge to maneuver through the Department's
+various levels and offices, a process unknown to many criminal defense attorneys and infrequently
+used even by those familiar with the Department's hierarchy. Access to highly skilled and
+prominent attorneys is not unusual in criminal cases involving corporations and their officers or
+certain other
+collar defendants, but it is not so typical for defendants charged with sex crimes
+or violent offenses. Nonetheless, while recognizing that Epstein's wealth played a role in the
+outcome because he was able to hire skilled and assertive attorneys, OPR concludes that the
+subjects were not motivated to resolve the federal investigation to Epstein's benefit by improper
+factors.
+A.
+OPR Found No Evidence of Criminal Corruption, Such as Bribery, Gratuity,
+or Illegal Political or Personal Consideration
+Some public criticism of the USAO's handling of the Epstein matter implied that the
+subjects' decisions or actions may have been motivated by criminal corruption, although no
+specific information substantiating such implications was identified. Throughout its investigation,
+Sloman asserted throughout his OPR interview that he did not participate in substantive discussions about
+the Epstein investigation before the NPA was signed, and his attorney argued in his comments on OPR's draft report
+that OPR should not attribute to Sloman any input in Acosta's decisions about how to resolve the case. However,
+Sloman was included in numerous emails discussing the merits of and issues relating to the investigation, participated
+in meetings with the defense team, and, according to Acosta, was one of the senior managers whom Acosta consulted
+in determining how to resolve the Epstein investigation.
+141
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 169 of 349
+OPR was attentive to any evidence that any of the subjects was motivated by bribes, gratuities, or
+other illegal political or personal considerations, and found no such indication. 209 Witnesses,
+including law enforcement officials, were specifically asked whether they had any information
+indicating such corruption, and all—notwithstanding the harsh criticism by some of those same
+witnesses of the Epstein matter's outcome-stated that they did not. Specifically, the FBI case
+agent told OPR that she did not believe there had been any illegal influence, and that if she had
+perceived any, she "would have gone screaming" to the FBI's public corruption unit. The co-case
+agent and the FBI supervisors up through the Special Agent in Charge likewise told OPR that they
+were unaware of any indication that a prosecutor acted in the matter because of illegal factors such
+as a gratuity or bribe or other corrupt influence, and that any such indication would immediately
+have been referred for criminal investigation by the FBI.
+B.
+Contemporaneous Written Records and Witness and Subject Interviews Did
+Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That the Subjects Were Improperly
+Influenced by Epstein's Status, Wealth, or Associations
+Although Epstein's name is now nationally recognized, in 2006 and 2007, he was not a
+familiar national figure or even particularly well known in Florida. All five subjects told OPR that
+when they first learned of the investigation, they had not heard of Epstein. Similarly, the FBI case
+agent told OPR that when the investigation began, no one in the FBI appeared to have heard of
+Epstein, and other witnesses also told OPR that they were initially unfamiliar with Epstein.
+However, news reports about Epstein's July 2006 arrest on the state indictment, which were
+contemporaneous with the beginning of the federal investigation, identified him as a wealthy Palm
+Beach resident with influential contacts, including William Clinton, Donald Trump, Kevin Spacey,
+and Alan Dershowitz, and other "prominent businessmen, academies and scientists."21° Villafaña,
+Lourie, Sloman, and Acosta learned of this press coverage early in the investigation, and thus
+understood that Epstein was wealthy and associated with notable public figures.?'' The FBI case
+agent also told OPR that "we knew who had been on his plane, we knew ... some of his
+connections."
+1.
+The Contemporaneous Records Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing
+That the NPA Resulted from Improper Factors
+OPR found no evidence in the extensive contemporaneous documentary record that the
+terms of the NPA resulted from improper factors, such as Epstein's wealth or influential
+connections. Epstein's legal team overtly raised Epstein's financial status in arguing for a sentence
+that did not include a term of imprisonment on the ground that Epstein would be extorted in prison,
+but the USAO insisted that Epstein serve a term of incarceration. Defense counsel mentioned
+former President Clinton in one pre-NA letter, but that reference was made in the context of a
+209
+OPR's jurisdiction does not extend to the investigation of allegations of criminal activity. IfOR had found
+indication of criminal activity, it would have referred the matter to the appropriate Department investigative agencies.
+210
+Larry
+"Billionaire solicited prostitutes three times, indictment says," Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006;
+Nicole Janok, 'Consultant to the rich indicted, jailed," Palm Beach Post, July 24, 2006.
+211
+Lourie later made Menchel aware of Epstein's prominence in the course of forwarding to Menchel the initial
+prosecution memorandum.
+142
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 170 of 349
+narrative of Epstein's philanthropic activities, rather than presented as a suggestion that Epstein's
+association to the former President warranted leniency and, in any case, the USAO rejected the
+defense argument that the matter should be left entirely to the state's discretion.212 The defense
+submission to the Deputy Attorney General contained a direct reference to Epstein's connection
+to former President Clinton, but that submission was made well after the NPA was negotiated and
+signed, and in it, counsel contended that the USAO had treated Epstein too harshly because of his
+association with the former President. 213
+2.
+The Subjects Asserted That They Were Motivated by Reasonable
+Strategic and Policy Considerations, Not Improper Influences
+In addition to reviewing the documentary evidence, OPR questioned the five subject
+attorneys, all of whom denied being personally influenced by Epstein's wealth or status in making
+decisions regarding the investigation, in the decision to resolve the case through an NPA, or in
+negotiating the NPA. Villafaña, in particular, was concerned from the outset of the federal
+investigation that Epstein might try to employ against the USAO the same pressure that she
+understood had been used with the State Attorney's Office, and she proactively took steps to
+counter Epstein's possible influence by meeting with Acosta and Sloman to sensitize them to
+Epstein's tactics. Both Acosta and Sloman told OPR that the USAO had handled cases involving
+wealthy, high-profile defendants before, including the Abramoff case. Acosta told OPR, "[W]e
+tried to treat [the case] fairly, not looking at ... how wealthy is he, but also not saying we need to
+do this because he is so wealthy." Menchel expressed a similar view, telling OPR that he did not
+believe "it's appropriate to go after somebody because of their status one way or the other." Lourie
+told OPR that Epstein's status may have generated more "front office" involvement in the case,
+but it did not affect the outcome, and Sloman "emphatically disagree[d]" with the suggestion that
+the USAO's handling of the case had been affected by Epstein's wealth or influential connections.
+Other witnesses corroborated the subjects testimony on this point, including the FBI case agents,
+who told OPR that no one ever communicated to them that they should treat Epstein differently
+because of his wealth. The CEOS Chief told OPR that he did not recall anyone at the USAO
+expressing either qualms or enthusiasm about proceeding against Epstein because of his wealth
+and influence.
+OPR takes note of but does not consider dispositive the absence of any affirmative
+evidence that the subjects were acting from improper motivations or their denial of such
+motivations. Of more significance, and as discussed more fully below, was the fact that
+contemporaneous records support the subjects' assertions that the decision to pursue a pre-charge
+resolution was based on various case-specific legal and factual considerations.214 OPR also
+212
+In the pre-NA letter to the USAO, counsel recited a litany of Epstein's purported good deeds and charitable
+works, including a trip Epstein took to Africa with former President Clinton to raise awareness of AIDS, and counsel
+also noted that the former President had been quoted by New York Magazine describing Epstein as "a committed
+philanthropist.*
+In the letter to the Deputy Attorney General, counsel suggested that the prosecution may have been
+"politically motivated" due to Epstein's "close personal association with former President Bill Clinton."
+OPR also considered that all five subjects provided generally consistent explanations regarding the factors
+that influenced Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA. Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, and
+Villafaña all had long careers with the Department, and OPR considers it unlikely that they would all have joined with
+143
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 171 of 349
+considered that the USAO's most pivotal decisions—to resolve the case through an NPA requiring
+Epstein to serve time in jail, register as a sexual offender, and provide monetary damages to
+victims-had been made by July 31, 2007, when the USAO presented its "term sheet" to the
+defense. This was before Acosta had ever met with defense counsel and when he had not indicated
+any plans to do so. It also was well before Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with
+defense counsel Lefkowitz, which received strong public and media criticism. OPR also
+considered significant the fact that although the USAO made numerous concessions in the course
+of negotiating the final NPA, the USAO did not accede to the defense request that the USAO end
+federal involvement altogether and return the matter to the state authorities to handle as they saw
+fit, and the USAO refused to eliminate its requirement that Epstein register as a sexual offender,
+despite a strong push by the defense that it do so.
+3.
+Subject and Witness Interviews and Contemporaneous Records
+Identified Case-Specific Considerations Relating to Evidence, Legal
+Theories, Litigation Risk, and a Trial's Potential Impact on Vietims
+Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie told OPR that they did not recall the specific content
+of discussions about the challenges presented by a potential federal prosecution or reasons for
+Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation through the NPA, but they and Villafaña
+identified for OPR several case-specific factors, unrelated to Epstein's wealth or associations, that
+either did or likely would have been included in those discussions and that OPR concludes likely
+influenced Acosta's decision-making.
+These considerations included assessment of the
+evidentiary risks and the potential impact of a trial on the victims. For the most part, however,
+these factors appear more aptly to pertain to the decision to resolve the case through a pre-charge
+disposition, but do not directly explain why Acosta chose to resolve the federal investigation
+through a guilty plea in state court. That decision appears to have stemmed from Acosta's concerns
+about intruding into an area he believed was traditionally handled by state law enforcement
+authorities.
+In a declaration submitted to the district court in 2017 in connection with the CVRA
+litigation, Villafaña explained the USAO's rationale for terminating the federal investigation
+through the NPA:
+Prior to the Office making its decision to direct me to engage in
+egotiations with Epstein's counsel, I discussed the strengths an
+reaknesses of the case with members of the Office's managemen
+and informed them that most of the victims had expressed
+significant concerns about having their identities disclosed... It is
+my understanding from these and other discussions that these
+factors, that is, the various strengths and weaknesses of the case and
+the various competing interests of the many different victims
+(including the privacy concerns expressed by many), together with
+the Office's desire to obtain a guaranteed sentence of incarceratior
+for Epstein, the equivalent of uncontested restitution for the victims,
+Acosta to improperly benefit Epstein or would have remained silent if they suspected that Acosta, or any of their
+colleagues, was motivated by improper influences.
+144
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 172 of 349
+and guaranteed sexual offender registration by Epstein ... were
+among the factors [that led to the NPA].215
+During her OPR interview, Villafaña similarly described the victims' general reluctance to
+go forward with a trial:
+[W]hen we would meet with victims, we would ask them how they
+wanted the case to be resolved. And most of them wanted the case
+to be resolved via a plea.
+Some of them wanted him not to be
+prosecuted at all. Most of them did not want to have to come to
+court and testify. They were very worried about their privacy
+rights. 216
+In his written response to OPR, Lourie stated that although he did not specifically recall
+the issues Villafaña set forth in her declaration, he believed they would have been important to the
+USAO in 2007. Lourie also told OPR that he generally recalled concerns within the USAO about
+the charges and a potential trial:
+[M]y vague recollection is that I and others had concerns that there
+was a substantial chance we would not prevail at both trial and on
+appeal after a conviction, resulting in no jail time, no criminal
+Doe v. United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Declaration of A.
+Villafaña in Support of
+Government's Response and Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for
+Summary Judgment at 8-9 (June 2, 2017).
+216
+These concerns are also reflected in a 2017 declaration filed by the FBI case agent in the CVRA litigation,
+in which she stated, "During interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that
+Epstein be prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims:
+Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's] victims...
+A majority of the victims expressed concern about the possible disclosure of their
+identities to the public. A number of the victims raised concerns about having to
+testify and/or their parents finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein.
+Additionally, for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible
+exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall, many of the
+victims were troubled about the existence of the investigation. They displayed
+feelings of embarrassment and humiliation and were reluctant to talk to
+investigators. Some victims who were identified through the investigation refused
+even to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims' well-being and getting to
+the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of the investigation.
+In addition, during the CVRA litigation, an attorney representing several victims filed a pleading to protect
+the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to
+Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States' Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in
+2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for interviews or responses to written questions
+regarding contacts with the USAO, OPR was informed that most of the victims were still deeply concerned about
+remaining anonymous. One victim described to OPR how she became distraught when, during the USAO's
+investigation, the FBI left a business card at her parents' home and, as a result, her parents learned that she was a
+victim of Epstein. At the time, the victim was a teenager; was "nervous, scared, and ashamed"; and did not want her
+parents to know about the case.
+145
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 173 of 349
+record, no restitution, no sex offender status, publication at a trial of
+the names of certain victims that didn't want their names revealed
+and the general difficulties of a trial for the victims and their
+families.
+Although his emails showed that, at the time, he advocated for prosecution of Epstein,
+Lourie told OPR it was also his general recollection that "everybody at the USAO working on the
+matter had expressed concerns at various times about the long-term viability of a federal
+prosecution of Epstein due to certain factual and legal hurdles, as well as issues with the
+cooperation and desires of the victims."
+Similarly, Menchel—who had experience prosecuting sexual assault crimes-recalled
+understanding that many of the victims were unwilling to go forward and would have experienced
+additional trauma as a result of a trial, and some had made statements exonerating Epstein.
+Menchel told OPR he believed that if the USAO had filed the proposed charges against Epstein,
+Epstein would have elected to go to trial. In Menchel's view, the USAO therefore had to weigh
+he risk of losing at trial, and thereby re-traumatizing the victims, against the benefits gaine
+hrough a negotiated result, which ensured that Epstein served time in jail, registered as a sexua
+offender, and made restitution to his victims.
+Sloman also recalled witness challenges and concerns about the viability of the
+government's legal theories. He told OPR:
+[It seemed to me you had a tranche of witnesses who were not going
+to be reliable. You had a tranche [of] witnesses who were going to
+be severely impeached. People who loved Jeffrey Epstein who
+thought he was a Svengali ... who were going to say I told him I
+was 18 years old.
+You had witnesses who were scared to death of the public light
+being shown on them because their parents didn't even know -- had
+very vulnerable victims. You had all of these concerns.
+Acosta told OPR that he recalled discussions with his senior managers about the victims'
+general credibility and reluctance to testify and the evidentiary strength of the case, all of which
+factored into the resolution. He acknowledged that his understanding of the facts was not
+"granular" and did not encompass a detailed understanding of each victim's expected testimony,
+but he trusted that his "team" had already "done the diligence necessary" to make
+recommendations about the evidentiary strength of the case. Acosta recalled discussing the facts
+with Sloman and Menchel, and possibly Lourie, none of whom had as detailed an understanding
+of the facts as Villafaña. Nevertheless, OPR credits Acosta's statement that he reasonably
+believed, based on his conversations with others who expressed this view, that a trial would pose
+significant evidentiary challenges.
+Other witnesses corroborated the subjects' testimony regarding witness challenges,
+including the FBI co-case agent, who recalled during his OPR interview that some of the victims
+had expressed concern for their safety and "a lot of them d[id]n't want to take the stand, and
+146
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 174 of 349
+d[id]n't want to have to relive what happened to them."2!7 The co-case agent told OPR that one
+of the "strategies" for dealing with the victims' fear was "to keep them off the stand," and he
+generally remembered discussions about resolving the Epstein case in a way that protected the
+victims' identities. In addition, the CEOS Trial Attorney who briefly worked with Villataña on
+the case after the NPA was signed told OPR that in her meetings with some of the victims, she
+formed the impression that they were not interested in the prosecution going forward. The CEOS
+Trial Attorney told OPR that "[the victims] would have testified," but would have required an
+extensive amount of "victim management" because they were "deeply embarrassed" about
+potentially being labeled as prostitutes. The CEOS Trial Attorney also told OPR that "there were
+obvious weaknesses in the case," from an evidentiary perspective.?18
+The contemporaneous records also reflect discussions of, or references to, various legal
+and factual issues or other concerns about the case. For example, in an early email to Menchel,
+Lourie noted that two key issues raised by Villafaña's proposed charges were whether the USAO
+could prove that Epstein traveled for the purpose of engaging in sex acts, and the fact that some
+minor victims had told Epstein they were 18. He later opined to Acosta and Menchel that "there
+is some risk on some of the statutes [proposed in Villafaña's prosecution memorandum] as this is
+uncharted territory to some degree." In his July 5, 2007 email to Villafaña, Menchel cited Acosta's
+and Sloman's "concerns about taking this case because of [the Pletit policy and a number of legal
+issues" and Acosta's concerns about "hurting Project Safe Childhood." Defense counsel raised
+myriad legal and factual challenges in their voluminous letters to the USAO. Defense submissions
+attacked the legal theories for a federal prosecution and detailed factors that could have
+undermined victims' credibility, including victim statements favorable to Epstein and evidence of
+victim drug and alcohol use, as well as the fact that some victims recruited other victims and
+purportedly lied to Epstein about their ages.
+Acosta also recalled that although his "team" had expressed concern about the "trial
+issues," his own focus had been on "the legal side of things." Notably, during his prior tenure as
+the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department's Civil Rights Division, Acosta had
+been involved in efforts to address sex trafficking. He told OPR that one of the "background
+issues" that the Civil Rights Division addressed under his leadership, and which influenced his
+view of the Epstein case, was the distinction between sex trafficking and solicitation of
+prostitution. Specifically, he was concerned about avoiding the creation of potentially un favorable
+federal precedent on the point of delineation between prostitution, which was traditionally a matter
+of state concern, and sex trafficking, which remained a developing area of federal interest in
+2007.219
+In an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, the co-case agent noted that in early 2007, when he located a
+victim living outside of the United States, she claimed only to "know Jeffrey Epstein," and stated that she "moved
+away to distance herself from this situation," and "asked that [the agent] not bother her with this again."
+In April 2007, a victim who was represented by an attorney paid by Epstein participated in a video-recorded
+interview with the FBI, with her attorney and his investigator present. This victim denied being involved in, or being
+a victim of, criminal activity. Later, the victim obtained new counsel and joined the CVRA litigation as "Jane Doe #2."
+219
+In his March 20, 2011 letter, addressed "To whom it may concern," and published online in The Daily Beast,
+Acosta described "a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors" by "an army of legal superstars." Most
+of the allegations made against the prosecutors occurred after the NPA was signed and certainly after Acosta approved
+147
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 175 of 349
+The USAO might have been able to surmount the evidentiary, legal, and policy issues
+presented by a federal prosecution of Epstein. Villafaña, in particular, believed she could have
+prevailed had she taken the case to trial, and even after the NPA was negotiated, she repeatedly
+recommended declaring Epstein in breach and proceeding with an indictment, because she
+continued to have confidence in the case. Oosterbaan and others also believed that the
+government would succeed at trial. Furthermore, the victims were not a uniform group. Some of
+them were afraid of testifying or having their identities made public; others wanted Epstein
+prosecuted, but even among those, it is not clear how many expressed a willingness to testify at a
+trial; and still others provided information favorable to Epstein. In the end, Acosta assumed
+responsibility for deciding how to resolve the Epstein investigation and weighing the risks and
+benefits of a trial versus those of a pre-charge disposition. His determination that a pre-charge
+disposition was appropriate was not unreasonable under the circumstances.
+Although evidentiary and witness issues explain the subject supervisors' concerns about
+winning a potential trial and why the USAO would have sought some sort of pre-charge
+disposition, they do not fully explain why Acosta decided to pursue a state-based resolution as
+opposed to a traditional federal plea agreement. OPR did not find in the contemporaneous records
+a memorandum or other memorialization of the reasoning underlying Acosta's decision to offer a
+state-based resolution or the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007.
+According to Acosta, "In 2006, it would have been extremely unusual for any United States
+Attorney's Office to become involved in a state solicitation case, even one involving underage
+teens," because solicitation was "the province of state prosecutors." Acosta told OPR that he
+developed "a preference for deferring to the state" to "make it clear that [the USAO was] not
+stepping on something that is a purely local matter, because we [didn't] want bad precedent for
+the sake of the larger human trafficking issue." Acosta also told OPR that it was his understanding
+that the PBPD would not have brought the case to federal investigators if the State Attorney's
+Office had pursued a sanction against Epstein that included jail time and sexual offender
+registration. Acosta viewed the USAO's role in the case as limited to preventing the "manifest
+injustice" that, in Acosta's view, would have resulted from the state's original plea proposal.
+Acosta acknowledged that if the investigation had begun in the federal system, he would not have
+viewed the terms set out in the NPA as a satisfactory result, but it was adequate to serve as a
+"backstop" to the state's prosecution, which he described as "a polite way of saying[,
+"]encouraging the state to do a little bit more.['T" In sum, Acosta told OPR that the Epstein case
+lay in "uncharted territory," there was no certainty that the USAO would prevail if it went to trial,
+and a potentially unfavorable outcome had to be "weighed against a certain plea with registration
+that would make sure that the public knew that this person was a sex offender."
+Acosta told OPR that he discussed the case primarily with Sloman and Menchel, and both
+told OPR that while they did not share Acosta's federalism concerns, they recalled that Acosta had
+the terms offered to the defense on July 31, 2007. Therefore, any allegations against the prosecutors could not have
+played a significant role in Acosta's decisions as reflected in the term sheet.
+220
+Sloman told OPR that Villafaña "always believed in the case."
+148
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 176 of 349
+been concerned about policy and federalism issues.?! Sloman told OPR that although he did not
+remember specific conversations, he generally recalled that Acosta had been "sensitive to" Petite
+policy and federalism concerns, which Sloman described as whether the USAO was "overstepping
+our bounds by taking what is a traditional state case that was in the State Attorney's Office that
+was resolved by the State Attorney's Office at some level." During his OPR interview, Menchel
+remembered that Acosta approached the case from "a broader policy perspective" and was worried
+about "the impact that taking the case in federally may have on ... other programs," although
+Menchel did not recall specifically what those programs were.
+C. Other Significant Factors Are Inconsistent with a Conclusion That the
+Subjects' Actions Were Motivated by Improper Influences
+OPR considered additional aspects of the Epstein case that were inconsistent with a
+suggestion that Acosta's decision to offer the July 31, 2007 terms was driven by corruption, a
+desire to provide an improper benefit to Epstein, or other improper influences.
+First, OPR considered highly significant the fact that if Acosta's primary motivation was
+to benefit Epstein, he had an option even more favorable to Epstein available to him. The NPA
+required Epstein to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender, and provided a mechanism
+for the victims to seek monetary damages—-outcomes unlikely if the matter had been abandoned
+and sent back to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed appropriate. Epstein's
+attorneys had vehemently argued to the USAO that there was no federal interest in the investigation
+and that his conduct was exclusively a matter of state concern. If the USAO had declined to
+intervene in the case, as Epstein's counsel repeatedly and strongly argued it should, the state would
+have meted out the sole punishment for his behavior. Under the state's original plan, Epstein likely
+would have received a sentence of probation. Menchel described such a result as a mere "slap on
+the wrist," with "no jail time, no felony sex offense, no sexual offender registration, [and] no
+restitution for the victims." Instead of acceding to Epstein's proposal, however, the USAO devised
+a resolution of the federal investigation that, although widely criticized as inadequate to address
+the seriousness of Epstein's conduct, nevertheless penalized Epstein more than a guilty plea to the
+state's original charge, standing alone, would have done.
+Acosta's affirmative decision to
+intervene and to compel a more stringent and just resolution than the state had proposed, rather
+than exercising his discretion to quietly decline prosecution, is strong circumstantial evidence that
+he was not acting for the purpose of benefiting Epstein.'2
+Similarly, despite defense counsel's
+repeated requests to eliminate the sexual offender registration requirement, Acosta refused to
+Sloman stated that although Acosta "was sensitive to [P]etite policy concerns, federalism concerns, ... I was
+not." Menchel commented. "I don't think it would have been a concern of mine."
+222
+Menchel also pointed out during his OPR interview that Acosta was Republican and "had nothing to gain"
+by showing favoritism to Epstein, who had been portrayed in the media as "this big Democratic donor." Villafaña
+recounted for OPR an exchange between the USAO team and a defense attorney who argued in one meeting that—
+we were prosecuting [Epstein] because he was Jewish. We then pointed out that
+a number of members of [the USAO] chain of command were Jewish. Then he
+said, well we're prosecuting him because he was a Democrat. And again, we
+pointed out that a number of us were Democrats. So then it went to, we were
+prosecuting him because he was wealthy.... That one didn't work so well.
+149
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 177 of 349
+reconsider the provision. Acosta could certainly have modified or eliminated the provision entirely
+if his motivation was to benefit Epstein or Epstein's attorneys.
+Second, Epstein himself was not satisfied with the NPA. Immediately after signing the
+agreement, he sought to have the Department nullify it by declaring federal involvement in the
+investigation inappropriate. In addition to repeatedly attacking the NPA in his submissions to the
+Department, Epstein added to his evidentiary challenges and federalism claims allegations of
+misconduct and improper bias on the part of specific USAO personnel. Epstein's dissatisfaction
+with the NPA, and his personal attacks on individual prosecutors involved in negotiating the
+agreement, appear inconsistent with a conclusion that the subjects designed the NPA for Epstein's
+benefit.
+D.
+OPR Does Not Find That the Subjects' Preexisting Relationships with Defense
+Counsel, Decisions to Meet with Defense Counsel, and Other Factors
+Established That the Subjects Acted from Improper Influences or Provided
+Improper Benefits to Epstein
+In evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered various other factors featured in media
+accounts to show that the subjects provided improper benefits to Epstein or which purportedly
+suggested that the subjects acted from improper influences. OPR examined these factors but did
+not find that they supported a finding that the subjects were influenced by favoritism, bias, or other
+improper motivation.
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects Extended Any
+Improper Benefit to Epstein because of Their Preexisting Relationships
+with His Attorneys
+Epstein's wealth enabled him to hire multiple attorneys who had preexisting personal
+connections to some of the government attorneys involved in his case, in the State Attorney's
+Office, in the USAO, and elsewhere in the Department. Based on the attorneys Epstein selected
+to represent him, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Epstein believed that hiring attorneys
+with relationships to the prosecutors would be beneficial to him. One of the first attorneys who
+contacted the USAO on Epstein's behalf' was Guy
+1. a former AUSA in and U.S. Attorney
+for the Southern District of Florida. Villafaña and Lourie had worked for
+1 and Lourie was
+close friends with one of
+law partners. Epstein also retained Lilly Ann
+1. a former
+AUSA who had been Menchel's deputy and with whom he had socialized. Later, when Epstein
+was seeking Acosta's personal involvement in the case, Epstein hired Kenneth Starr and Jay
+Lefkowitz, prominent attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis with whom Acosta was acquainted from
+his previous employment with that firm.
+Villafaña told OPR that she believed Acosta "was influenced by the stature of Epstein's
+attorneys." Critically, however, other than the information regarding Menchel that is discussed in
+the following subsection, neither Villafaña nor any of the other individuals OPR interviewed
+identified any specific evidence suggesting that Acosta, or any of the other subjects, extended an
+improper favor or benefit to Epstein because of a personal relationship with defense counsel (or
+for any other improper reason). Villafaña explained how, in her view, the "legal prowess" of
+Epstein's attorneys had an impact on the case:
+150
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 178 of 349
+[O]ne of the issues in the case was the ... defense's ability to
+describe the case or characterize the case as being legally complex.
+It was not as legally complex as they made it out to be. But because
+they were able to convince members of our office that it was
+somehow extremely novel and legally complex, the issue became
+who was likely to succeed in arguing these legal issues. And
+because of that, the legal prowess, if you will, of the attorneys [ ]
+[became] something to consider.
+I think that the ability of Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr and Jay
+Lefkowitz to convince Alex Acosta that I didn't know what I was
+talking [about] also, all came into play. So I think there were a
+number of factors and it all came together.
+Although Villafaña was critical of Acosta's consideration of the defense arguments, she
+conceded that the defense team's tactics demonstrated effective advocacy. Certainly, throughout
+the case, Epstein's attorneys prepared lengthy memoranda analyzing the evidence and arguing
+nuanced legal points concerning federalism, the elements of numerous federal criminal statutes,
+and the evidence relevant to those statutes, but it is not unusual or unreasonable for prosecutors to
+carefully consider well-crafted legal arguments from defense counsel.
+There is little question that Epstein's extensive team of attorneys was able to obtain
+negotiated benefits for Epstein—although the USAO never wavered from its three core
+requirements, it did agree to a reduction in prison time from its original offer, and it granted Epstein
+certain other concessions during the negotiations. Epstein's wealth provided him with skilled,
+experienced negotiators who continually sought various incremental concessions, and with
+attorneys who knew how to obtain Department review of a USAO matter, thereby delaying
+undesired outcomes for as long as possible.?23 Despite Epstein's evident intentions, however, OPR
+did not find evidence warranting a conclusion that the NPA or its terms resulted from the subjects'
+relationships with the attorneys he had selected to represent him.
+The Subjects Asserted That Their Relationships with Defense Counsel
+Did Not Influence Their Actions
+Acosta, Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie each asserted that Epstein's choice of counsel did
+not affect his handling of the case. Menchel told OPR that once in private practice, former
+colleagues often became adversaries. In Menchel's view, such preexisting relationships were
+useful because they afforded a defense attorney initial credibility and an insight into the issues a
+prosecutor would likely view as areas of concern, which enabled the defense attorney to "tailor"
+arguments in a way that would maximize their persuasive impact on the USAO. Menchel told
+OPR, however, that these advantages did not "move the needle in any major way," and he
+"rejected] the notion" that anyone in the USAO had been "swayed" because of preexisting
+223
+As Chief Reiter later observed in his deposition testimony, "[T]he Epstein case was an instance of a many
+million dollars defense and what it can accomplish."
+151
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 179 of 349
+friendships or associations with any of Epstein's attorneys. In fact, Menchel told OPR that he and
+his USAO colleagues viewed Epstein's attempt to exert influence through his choice of counsel as
+"ham-fisted" and "clumsy."
+Sloman told OPR that although he became aware that Lourie was friends with Guy
+and
+law partner, he was unaware of personal relationships between any of his other
+colleagues and any of Epstein's attorneys, but that in any event his attitude regarding cases
+involving former colleagues "was that we would give them process, but we didn't pull any punches
+with them." In Sloman's view, preexisting relationships with defense counsel did not "change the
+equation" because as AUSAs, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they perceived to be
+best for the case.
+Lourie told OPR that his preexisting associations with Epstein's attorneys "didn't influence
+anything." Notably, at the outset of the Epstein case, Lourie sought guidance from the USAO's
+Professional Responsibility Officer about the propriety of his role as a supervisor in the
+investigation, because of his acquaintance with
+and long-time friendship with
+law
+partner. OPR considered Lourie's caution in seeking and obtaining the Professional Responsibility
+Officer's advice as an indication that he was alert to his ethical responsibilities regarding
+relationships with defense counsel, including avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest.
+Acosta said during his OPR interview that he "developed" the three criteria reflected on
+the term sheet-
+-a sentence of incarceration, sexual offender registration, and monetary damages
+for the victims-before he engaged directly with any of Epstein's attorneys and before Epstein
+added Starr and Lefkowitz, the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys, to his team. Acosta pointed out that
+the USAO continued to insist on a resolution that satisfied all three of those criteria even after
+Kirkland & Ellis became involved in the case.
+Acosta took other actions that appear inconsistent with an intent to benefit Starr and
+Lefkowitz. On several occasions, when directly appealed to by Lefkowitz or Starr, he directed
+them to address their communications to Villafaña, Sloman, and other subordinates. After his
+October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, Acosta immediately communicated with
+Sloman about their conversation. In late 2008, when Acosta anticipated leaving the USAO and
+was considering pursuing employment with Kirkland & Ellis, he recognized the conflict of interest
+and instructed Sloman to stop copying him on emails relating to the Epstein matter. On Acosta's
+behalf, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer sought and obtained formal Department
+approval of Acosta's recusal from the case based on the fact that he had "begun to discuss possible
+employment" with Kirkland & Ellis. These actions support Acosta's assertion that he was
+cognizant of his ethical responsibilities concerning relationships with defense counsel. 224
+In addition, in May 2008, the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer consulted with the Department's
+Professional Responsibility Officer about whether Acosta should recuse from the Epstein matter because he was
+considering seeking a visiting professorship at Harvard Law School in 2009, and Dershowitz—a Harvard Law School
+professor—was representing Epstein as a private, paying client, and not as any part of a Harvard Law School clinic
+or law school teaching program" and "should have no role in deciding whether Mr. Acosta is offered any position as
+a visiting professor." The Department advised that these facts provided no basis for recusal.
+152
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 180 of 349
+In its review of the documentary record, OPR examined an email written by Villafaña in
+2018, more than a decade after the NPA was negotiated, in which she suggested that the two-year
+sentence requirement in the initial "term sheet" provided to the defense was developed by Menchel
+as a favor to defense attorney I
+1. OPR examined the facts surrounding this allegation and
+determined that there was no merit to it. Specifically, in December 2018, after the Miami Herald
+investigative report renewed public attention to the case, Villafaña recounted in an email to a
+supervisory AUSA, a conversation she recalled having had with Sloman about the case. 225 In the
+email, Villafaña stated that she had not been a participant in discussions that led to Acosta's
+decision to offer a two-year plea deal, but she added the following: "Months (or possibly years)
+later, I asked former First Assistant Jeff Sloman where the two-year figure came from. He said
+that Lily [sic] Ann
+| (attorney for Epstein) asked Mr. Menchel to 'do her a solid' and
+convince Mr. Acosta to offer two years."
+OPR questioned both Villafaña and Sloman about the purported "do her a solid" remark.
+Villafaña told OPR that she had been aware that Menchel and
+were friends. During her
+OPR interview, Villafaña explained:
+[A] lot later, I asked Jeff. I said, you know, "Jeff, where did this two
+years come from?" And he said, "Well, I always figured that ...
+Lilly asked Matt to do her a solid," which I thought was such a
+strange term, ... "and to get her a good deal so that she would be in
+Epstein's good graces" and that that's where the two years came
+from. Although strangely enough, then several years after that, Jeff
+Sloman asked me where the two years came from, and I had to
+remind him of that conversation. So Jeff doesn't know where the
+two years came from.
+Because the email had been expressed in more definitive terms, OPR asked Villafaña
+whether Sloman had affirmatively asserted that the two-year deal was a favor from Menchel to
+defense counsel, or whether he had stated that he merely "figured" that was the case, but Villafaña
+could not recall precisely what Sloman had said. At a follow-up interview, Villafaña again said
+that she was unable to recall whether Sloman's specific statement was "Lilly asked Matt to do her
+a solid, and he did it," or "I always figured Matt just wanted ... to do her a solid." Villafaña stated
+that she was unaware of any information that "expressly [indicated] that there was any sort of
+exchange of ... a favor in either direction."
+During his OPR interview, Sloman did not recall making such a remark, although he could
+not rule out the possibility that Villafaña, for whom he repeatedly expressed great respect, "heard
+that in some fashion." He told OPR that if he did say something to Villafaña about Menchel having
+done "a solid" for Epstein's counsel, he could not have meant it seriously, and he explained, "I]t's
+not something that I would have believed. Him doing her a solid. I mean that's the furthest thing
+from my recollection or impression even after years later."
+Villafaña's email stemmed from a congressional inquiry received by the Department concerning the Epstein
+investigation and the NPA, to which the USAO had been asked to assist in responding. In her email, Villafaña
+addressed several issues that she perceived to be the "three main questions" raised by the press coverage.
+153
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 181 of 349
+Menchel told OPR that when he and
+were in the USAO, they had a social
+relationship, which included, in 2003, "a handful of dates over a period of two to three weeks. We
+decided that ... this was probably best not to pursue, and we mutually agreed to not do that."226
+Apart from that, he stated they were "close" and "hung out," and he asserted that this was known
+in the office at the time. Menchel said that his relationship with
+"changed dramatically"
+when she left the office for private practice, and that by the time he became involved in the Epstein
+investigation, he had dated and married his wife, and his contact with
+would "most likely"
+have been at office events and when she attended his wedding. Menchel added, "[T]hat was
+three and a half years [prior] for a very brief period of time, and I don't think I gave it a moment's
+thought."
+When asked by OPR about the basis for the decision to make an offer of a two-year term
+of incarceration, Menchel said that he did not recall discussions about the two-year offer and did
+not recall how the office arrived at that figure. In response to OPR's question, Menchel stated that
+his relationship with
+did "Enjot at all" affect his handling of the Epstein case. Moreover,
+Menchel asserted that the contemporaneous documentary record supports a conclusion that it was
+Acosta, not Menchel, who made the decision to resolve the case with the two-year term.
+OPR carefully considered the documentary record on this point, as well as the statements
+to OPR from Menchel, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta, and concludes that there is no evidence
+supporting the suggestion that the plea was instigated by Menchel as a favor to defense counsel.
+The USAO's first plea overture to defense counsel, which took place sometime before June 26,
+2007, occurred when Menchel spoke with |
+about the possibility of resolving the federal
+case with a state plea that required jail time and sexual offender registration. According to the
+email, "[ilt was a non-starter" for the defense. In the lengthy email exchange with Villafaña in
+carly July 2007, Menchel told her that his discussion with
+about a state-based resolution
+was made with Acosta's "full knowledge." Acosta corroborated this statement, telling OPR that
+although he did not remember a specific conversation with Menchel concerning a state-based
+resolution, he was certain Menchel would not have discussed this potential resolution with defense
+counsel "without having discussed it with me."22 Moreover, the defense did not immediately
+226
+Acosta, Sloman, and Lourie each told OPR that in 2007, he was not aware that Menchel had previously dated
+OPR questioned the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer regarding whether Menchel had an
+obligation to inform his supervisors of his dating relationship. The Professional Responsibility Officer said that it
+would depend on "how long the relationship was and how compromised the individual felt he might appear to be,"
+but he would have expected Menchel to raise the issue with Acosta. The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR
+that if he had been approached for advice at the time, he would have asked for more facts, but "[g]iven the sensitivity
+of the [Epstein] matter, [my advice] would probably have been to tell him to step back and let somebody else take it
+over." Menchel told OPR that if his relationship with
+had turned into something more than a handful of
+dates, he would have advised his supervisors. Although OPR does not conclude Menchel's prior relationship with
+influenced the Epstein investigation, OPR assesses that it would have been prudent for Menchel to have
+informed his supervisors so they could make an independent assessment as to whether his continued involvement in
+the Epstein investigation might create the appearance of'a loss of impartiality.
+227
+228
+Menchel's Outlook records also indicate he scheduled lunch with ||
+on at least one occasion, in early
+2006, after she left the USAO.
+In addition, Villafaña recalled Menchel stating at the July 26, 2007 meeting that "Alex has decided to offer
+a two year state deal."
+154
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 182 of 349
+accept the two-year proposal when it was made, but instead continued to press for a sentence of
+home confinement, suggesting that the defense had not requested the two-year term as a favor and
+did not view it as such. The defense had previously rejected the state's offer of a sentence of
+probation, and there is no indication in the contemporaneous records that Epstein viewed any jail
+sentence favorably and certainly that did not appear to be the view of the defense team in the early
+stages of the negotiations.
+As discussed below, after extensive questioning of the subjects about the basis for the twoyear offer, and a thorough review of the documentary record, OPR was unable to determine the
+reasoning underlying the decision to offer two years as the term of incarceration, as opposed to
+any other term of years. Nonetheless, OPR concludes from the evidence that Acosta was aware of
+and approved the initial offer to the defense, which included the two-year term of incarceration.
+The only evidence suggesting that the offer of two years stemmed from an improper motivation of
+Menchel's was a single second-hand statement in an email drafted many years later. Sloman, the
+purported declarant, told OPR that he could not recall whether he made the statement, but he firmly
+disputed that the email accurately reflected either the reason for the two-year proposal or his
+understanding of that reason.
+Villafaña herself could remember little about the critical
+conversation with Sloman, including whether she had recorded accurately what Sloman had said.
+Given the lack of any corroborating evidence, and the evidence showing Epstein's vigorous
+resistance to the proposal, OPR concludes that there is no evidence to support the statement in
+Villafaña's 2018 email that Menchel had extended a two-year plea deal as a favor to one of
+Epstein's attorneys.
+E.
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That the Subjects' Meetings with Defense
+Counsel Were Improper Benefits to Epstein
+OPR considered whether decisions by Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie to meet with
+defense counsel while possible charges were under consideration or during the period after the
+NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his state guilty pleas evidenced improper favoritism
+toward or the provision of an improper benefit to the Epstein defense team.
+The Evidence Shows That the Subjects' Decisions to Meet with
+Epstein's Legal Team Were Warranted by Strategic Considerations
+Although pre-indictment negotiations are typical in
+-collar criminal cases involving
+financial crimes, witnesses told OPR that pre-charge meetings with defense counsel are infrequent
+in sex offense cases. As the lead prosecutor, Villafaña vehemently opposed meeting with Epstein's
+attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors, but was overruled by them. In Villafaña's
+view, the significance of the early meetings granted to the defense team was that, but for those
+meetings, the USAO would not have offered the disposition set forth in the July 31, 2007 "term
+sheet" and, moreover, "that term sheet would never have been offered to anyone else."
+OPR's investigation established that while the defense attorneys persistently contacted the
+subjects through emails, correspondence, and phone calls, relatively few in-person meetings
+actually occurred with the USAO personnel involved in the matter. As shown in the chart on the
+following page, while the case was under federal investigation and before the NPA was signed,
+the subject supervisors and defense counsel had five substantive meetings about the case
+155
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 183 of 349
+including one called by the USAO to offer the NPA term sheet resolution—-and a sixth meeting
+together with the State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor to discuss the state plea. Acosta
+attended only one pre-NA meeting. After the NPA was signed and before Epstein entered his
+state guilty pleas, the subject supervisors and the defense team had one substantive meeting, one
+unscheduled meeting on a procedural matter, and a meeting with one defense attorney in
+preparation for a conference call; in addition, Acosta had the breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz.229
+Date
+Pre-NPA
+Feb. 1, 2007
+Feb. 20, 2007
+June 26, 2007
+July 31, 2007
+Sept. 7, 2007
+Sept. 12, 2007
+USAO Participants
+| Lourie / Villafaña
+Defense
+Participants
+Lefcourt /
+Торіс/Purpose
+Lourie / Villafaña
+Sloman / Menchel /
+Lourie / Villafaña
+Sloman / Menchel /
+Lourie / Villafaña
+Acosta / Oosterbaan /
+Sloman / Villafaña /
+Villafaña's co-counsel
+Lourie / Lourie
+successor / Villafaña
+Lefcourt /
+Dershowitz / Black
+/ Lefcourt /
+Black / Lefcourt /
+Starr / Lefkowitz /
+Defense presents investigation
+improprieties and federal
+jurisdiction issues
+Defense presents witness issues
+Defense presents legal issues,
+investigation improprieties, and
+federal jurisdiction issues
+USAO presents NPA term sheet
+Defense presents counteroffer
+Lefkowitz/ Lefcourt | Joint meeting with Krischer /
+/ Goldberger
+Belohlavek re state plea
+provision of NPA
+Post-NPA
+Oct. 12, 2007
+Nov. 21, 2007
+(unscheduled)
+Dec. 14, 2007
+Jan. 7, 2008
+Acosta
+Sloman (possibly
+Acosta)
+Acosta / Sloman /
+Villafana / another
+senior AUSA
+(1) Acosta / Sloman
+(2) Acosta / Sloman
+(conference call)
+Lefkowitz
+Defense discussion of NPA
+terms and likely appeal to
+Department
+Lefkowitz (possibly | Defense discussion of victims'
+Dershowitz)
+attorney representative
+procedure
+Starr / Weinberg /
+Dershowitz/
+Lefcourt
+(1)
+(2) Star /
+Lefkowitz
+Defense presents federal
+jurisdiction issues, legal issues,
+and request for de novo review
+Defense presents USAO
+improprieties and "watereddown" resolution
+In addition, all of the subjects took phone calls from various defense attorneys, and although numerous
+documentary records refer to such calls, there may have been others for which OPR located no record.
+156
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 184 of 349
+OPR explored the subject supervisors' reasoning for accommodating the defense requests
+for in-person meetings and whether such accommodation was unusual. OPR questioned each of
+the four supervisory subject attorneys about his rationale for engaging in multiple meetings with
+the defense.
+Lourie could not recall his reasoning for meeting with Epstein's defense counsel, but he
+told OPR that his general practice was to meet with defense counsel when asked to do so. Lourie
+recognized that some prosecutors—like Villafaña—viewed meeting with the defense as a sign of'
+"weakness," but in Lourie's view, "information is power," and as long as the USAO did not share
+information with the defense but rather listened to their arguments, meetings were "all power to
+us." Lourie explained that by meeting with the defense, "[Jou're getting the information that
+they think is important; that they're going to focus on. The witnesses that they think are liars....
+And so you can form all of that into your strategy." Lourie also told OPR that giving defense
+counsel the opportunity to argue the defense position is an important "part of the process" that
+helped ensure procedural fairness, allowing them to "believe that they are getting heard." When
+asked whether he afforded the same access to all defendants, Lourie responded, "I don't recall ever
+getting ... so many requests for meetings ... and so many appeals and so many audiences that
+[Epstein's attorneys] got. But this was I think the first time that that's really happened."
+Menchel, too, told OPR that his general view was that "ethically it's appropriate" to give a
+defense attorney "an audience," and there was no real "downside" to doing so. Menchel added,
+"[W]hat happens a lot of times is the government will carve around those points that are being
+raised by the defense, and it's good to know" what the defense will be.
+During his OPR interview, Acosta rejected the notion that his meeting with defense counsel
+was unusual or outside the norm. He told OPR that his initial meeting with the defense team,
+before the NPA was signed, was "not the first and only time that I granted a meeting ... to defense
+attorneys" who requested one. Acosta did not believe it was "atypical" for a U.S. Attorney to meet
+with opposing counsel, particularly as a case was coming to resolution. Sloman corroborated
+Acosta on this point, telling OPR that Acosta typically met with defense attorneys, and that the
+USAO handled requests for meetings from Epstein's counsel "in the normal course." Furthermore,
+Acosta said that notwithstanding that meeting and all the other "process" granted to the defense
+by the USAO and the Department, "we successfully held firm in our positions" on the key elements
+of the resolution that is, the requirements that Epstein be incarcerated, register as a sexual
+offender, and provide monetary damages to the victims.
+OPR examined the circumstances surrounding each subject's decisions to have the
+individual meetings with defense counsel to determine if those meetings had a neutral, strategic
+purpose. The first meeting, on February 1, 2007, followed a phone call between Lourie and one
+of Epstein's attorneys, in which the attorney asked for a chance to "make a pitch" about the
+victims' lack of credibility and suggested that Epstein might agree to an interview following that
+pitch. Villafaña objected to meeting with the defense, but she recalled that Lourie told her she was
+not being a "strategic thinker," and that he believed the meeting could lead to a debriefing of
+Epstein. The meeting did not result in a debriefing of Epstein, but in advance of the follow-up
+meeting on February 20, 2007, defense counsel gave the USAO audio recordings of the state's
+witness interviews. Contemporaneous documents indicate that Lourie was unpersuaded by the
+defense arguments. After Villafaña circulated the prosecution memorandum, Lourie suggested
+157
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 185 of 349
+preparing a "short" charging document "with only 'clean' victims that they have not dirtied up
+already."230 The fact that Lourie apparently used information gleaned from the defense about the
+victims' credibility to formulate his charging recommendation supported his statements to OPR
+that such meetings were, in his experience, a useful source of information that could be factored
+into the government's charging strategy.
+The two February 2007 Villafaña/Lourie-level meetings focused on witness issues and
+claims of misconduct by state investigators, but in late May 2007, defense attorneys requested
+another meeting this time with higher-level supervisors Menchel and Sloman to make a
+presentation concerning legal deficiencies in a potential federal prosecution. The request was
+granted after Lourie recommended to Menchel and Sloman that "[i]t would probably be helpful to
+us ... to hear their legal arguments in case we have missed something." The requested meeting
+took place on June 26, 2007. Before the meeting, at Menchel's direction, Villafaña provided to
+the defense a list of statutes the USAO was considering as the basis for federal charges. Defense
+counsel used that information to prepare a 19-page letter, submitted to the USAO the day before
+the June 26 meeting, as "an overview" of the defense position. In an email to his colleagues,
+Lourie evaluated the defense submission, noting its weaker and stronger arguments.
+A
+contemporaneous email indicates that Menchel, Lourie, and Villafaña viewed the meeting itself as
+primarily a "listening session."23' After the meeting, Epstein's team submitted a second lengthy
+letter to the USAO detailing Epstein's "federalism" arguments that the USAO should let the state
+handle the matter.
+Menchel apparently scheduled the next meeting with defense counsel, on July 31, 2007, to
+facilitate the USAO's presentation to the defense team of the "term sheet" describing the proposed
+terms of a non-prosecution agreement.
+By early August, after the Kirkland & Ellis attorneys Starr and Lefkowitzjoined the
+defense team, Acosta believed they would likely "go to DC on the case, on the grounds ... that I
+have not met with them." A meeting with the defense team was eventually scheduled for
+September 7, 2007, when Acosta, Sloman, Villafaña, and Oosterbaan met with Starr, Lefkowitz,
+and
+In an email to Sloman, Acosta explained that he intended to meet with the defense,
+with Oosterbaan participating, "to discuss general legal policy only." In another email to Sloman
+and Lourie, Acosta explained, "This will end up [in the Department] anyhow, if we don't meet
+with them. I'd rather keep it here. Bringing [the CEOS Chief] in visibly does so. If our deadline
+has to slip a bit to do that, it's worth it." Acosta told OPR that the meeting "was not a negotiation,"
+but a chance for the defense to present their federalism arguments. Acosta said that he had already
+decided how he wanted to resolve the case, and "[t]he September meeting did not alter or shift our
+position."
+230
+Lourie also recommended that the initial charging document "should contain only the victims they have
+nothing on at all."
+231
+During her OPR interview, the FBI case agent recalled that defense counsel asked questions about th
+government's case, including the number of victims and the type of sexual contact involved, and that during a breal
+in the meeting, she engaged in a "discussion" with Menchel about providing this information to the defense. She did
+not recall specifies of the discussion, however.
+158
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 186 of 349
+The meeting of USAO representatives and Epstein's defense attorneys, together with the
+State Attorney and the lead state prosecutor on September 12, 2007, was a necessary part of the
+NPA negotiation process.
+Even after the NPA was signed, the defense continued to request meetings and reviews of
+the case, both within the USAO and by the Department's Criminal Division and the Deputy
+Attorney General. Although limited reviews were granted, during this period there was only one
+substantive meeting with Acosta, on December 14, 2007.232 This meeting occurred in lieu of the
+meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense
+submissions to the Department's Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with
+the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance. 233
+Acosta told OPR that he did not ask for the Department review, but he also did not want to appear
+as if he "fear[ed]" that review. Acosta's nuanced position, however, was not clear to the
+Department attorneys who responded to Epstein's appeals and who perceived Acosta to be in favor
+of a Department review, rather than merely tolerant of it. Notably, though, none of those meetings
+or reviews resulted in the USAO abandoning the NPA, and Epstein gained no substantial
+advantage from his continued entreaties.
+In sum, in evaluating the subjects' conduct, OPR considered the number of meetings, their
+purpose, the content of the discussions, and decisions made afterwards. OPR cannot say that the
+number of meetings, particularly those occurring before the NPA was signed, was so far outside
+the norm—for a high profile case with skilled defense attorneys that the quantity of meetings
+alone shows that the subjects were motivated by improper favoritism. In evaluating the subjects'
+conduct, OPR considered that the meetings were held with different levels of USAO managers and
+that the explanations for the decisions to participate in the meetings reflected reasonable strategic
+goals. Although OPR cannot rule out the possibility that because Acosta, Menchel, Lourie, or
+Sloman knew or knew of the defense attorneys, they may have been willing to meet with them, it
+is also true that prosecutors routinely meet with defense attorneys, including those who are known
+to them and those who are not. Furthermore, meetings are more likely to occur in high profile
+cases involving defendants with the financial resources to hire skilled defense counsel who request
+meetings at the highest levels of the USAO and the Department. Most significantly, OPR did not
+find evidence supporting a conclusion that the meetings themselves resulted in any substantial
+benefit to the defense. At each meeting, defense counsel strongly pressed the USAO-on factual,
+legal, and policy grounds—to forgo its federal investigation and to return the matter to the state to
+proceed as it saw fit. The USAO never yielded on that point. Accordingly, OPR did not find
+evidence supporting a conclusion that Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña met with
+defense counsel for the purpose of benefiting Epstein or that the meetings themselves caused
+Acosta or the other subjects to provide improper benefits to Epstein.
+232
+Acosta's October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz is discussed separately in the following section.
+Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level, with Deputy Assistant
+Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March 2008. Although Starr requested a meeting with
+Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip, those requests were not granted
+159
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 187 of 349
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta Negotiated a Deal
+Favorable to Epstein over Breakfast with Defense Counsel
+OPR separately considered the circumstances of one specific meeting that has been the
+subject of media attention and public criticism. The Miami Herald's November 2018 reporting on
+the Epstein investigation opened with an account of the October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting that
+defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz arranged to have with Acosta at the West Palm Beach Marriott
+hotel. According to the Miami Herald article, "a deal was struck" at the meeting to allow Epstein
+to serve "just 13 months" in the county jail in exchange for the shuttering of the federal
+investigation, and Acosta also agreed to "conceal" the full extent of Epstein's crimes from the
+victims and the public. 24 Although public criticism of the meeting has focused on the fact that
+the meeting occurred in a hotel far from Acosta's Miami office, the evidence shows that Acosta
+traveled to West Palm Beach on October 11 for a press event and stayed overnight at the hotel,
+near the USAO's West Palm Beach office, because at midday on October 12 he was to speak at
+the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference. After carefully considering the evidence
+surrounding the break fast meeting, including contemporaneous email communications and witness
+accounts, OPR concludes that Acosta did not negotiate the NPA, or make any significant
+concessions relating to it, during or as a result of the October breakfast meeting.
+Epstein and his attorneys signed the NPA on September 24, 2007—more than two weeks
+before the October 12 breakfast meeting. The signed NPA contained all of the key provisions
+resulting from the preceding weeks of negotiations between the parties, and despite a later
+addendum and ongoing disputes about interpreting the damages provision of the agreement, those
+key provisions remained in place thereafter. Acosta told OPR that throughout the negotiations
+with the defense, he sought three goals: (1) Epstein's guilty plea in state court to an offense
+requiring registration as a sexual offender; (2) a sentence of imprisonment; and 3) a mechanism
+through which victims could obtain monetary damages from Epstein. As noted previously, the
+USAO's original plea offer in Menchel's August 3, 2007 letter expressed a "non-negotiable"
+demand that Epstein agree to a two-year term of imprisonment, and the final NPA required only
+an 18-month sentence, but the decision to reduce the required term of imprisonment from 24 to 18
+months was made well before Acosta's breakfast meeting with counsel. The NPA signed on
+September 24, 2007, required 18 months' incarceration, sexual offender registration, and a
+mechanism for the victims to obtain monetary damages from Epstein, and OPR found that these
+terms were not abandoned or materially altered after the breakfast meeting.
+At the time of Acosta's October breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, two issues involving
+the nerd were pric or her of . fis, es maintely fis red is a suhat material,
+the mechanism for appointing an attorney representative for the victims. This USAO-initiated
+request had prompted discussions about an "addendum" to the NPA. Sloman sent the text of a
+proposed NPA addendum to Lefkowitz on October 11, 2007.235 Although OPR found no decisive
+234
+Julie K.
+"Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex abuser the
+deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.
+235
+In his December 19, 2007, letter to defense attorney |
+, Acosta represented that he had proposed the
+addendum at the breakfast meeting, but it is clear the addendum was being developed before then.
+160
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 188 of 349
+proof that this led to the breakfast meeting, email exchanges between Lefkowitz and Acosta show
+that it was under discussion at the time they were scheduling the meeting. Shortly after the
+breakfast meeting, Sloman, in Miami, sent an email to Lefkowitz (copying Acosta and Villafaña),
+noting that he "just got off the phone with Alex" and offering a slightly revised portion of the
+addendum relating to the mechanism for selection of the attorney representative. Sloman later
+clarified for Villafaña that "Jay's suggested revision has been rejected."
+A second area of continuing negotiation arose from the defense claim that Epstein's
+obligation under the NPA to pay the attorney representative's fees did not obligate him to pay the
+fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Although this was at odds with the USAO's
+interpretation of the provision, the USAO and defense counsel reached agreement and clarified the
+provision in the NPA addendum that was finalized several weeks after the October breakfast
+meeting. Although the revised provision was to Epstein's advantage, the revision concerned
+attorney's fees and did not materially impede the victims' ability to seek damages from Epstein
+under § 2255. The fact that the negotiations continued after the breakfast meeting indicates that
+Acosta did not make promises at the meeting that resolved the issue.
+OPR found limited contemporaneous evidence concerning the discussion between Acosta
+and Lefkowitz. In a letter sent to Acosta on October 23, 2007, two weeks after the breakfast
+meeting, Lefkowitz represented that Acosta made three significant concessions during the meeting.
+Specifically, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta had agreed (1) not to intervene with the State
+Attorney's Office's handling of the case, (2) not to contact any of the victim-witnesses or their
+counsel, and (3) not to intervene regarding the sentence Epstein received. Acosta told OPR that
+he did not remember the breakfast meeting and did not recall making the commitments defense
+counsel attributed to him. Acosta also told OPR that Lefkowitz was not a reliable narrator of
+events, and on several occasions in written communications had inaccurately and misleadingly
+characterized conversations he had with Acosta.
+Of more significance for OPR's evaluation was a contemporaneous document—an
+October 25, 2007 draft response to Lefkowitz's letter, which Sloman drafted, and Acosta reviewed
+and edited for signature by Sloman that disputed Lefkowitz's claims. The draft letter stated:
+I specifically want to clarify one of the items that I believe was
+inaccurate in that October 23rd letter. Your letter claimed that this
+Office
+intervene regarding the sentence Mr. Epstein
+receives pursuant to a plea with the State, so long as
+As we discussed and, hopefully, clarified, and as the United States
+Attorney previously explained in an earlier conference call, such a
+161
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 189 of 349
+promise equates to the imposition of a gag order. Our Office cannot
+and will not agree to this.
+It is the intent of this Office to treat this matter like any other case.
+Acosta told OPR that this was a polite way of chastising Lefkowitz for mischaracterizing
+what Acosta said during the breakfast meeting. Although OPR could not find evidence that the
+letter was sent to Lefkowitz, OPR nonetheless considers it persuasive evidence that Acosta, shortly
+after the breakfast meeting, disagreed with Lefkowitz's description of their discussions and had
+discussed those disagreements with Sloman.
+Nevertheless, OPR examined the three specific concessions that Lefkowitz described in
+the October 23 letter, to determine whether evidence reflected that Acosta had made them during
+the breakfast meeting. First, Lefkowitz claimed that Acosta agreed during the breakfast meeting
+that he did not intend to interfere with the state's handling of the case. Contemporaneous
+documents show that well before the breakfast meeting, Acosta had expressed the view that he did
+not want to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney or the state court. For example, during the NPA
+negotiations, Acosta asked Villafaña to "soften" certain language that appeared to require the State
+Attorney's Office or the state court to take specific actions, such as requiring that Epstein enter his
+guilty plea or report to begin serving his sentence by a certain date. Although Acosta may have
+made a statement during the breakfast meeting expressing his disinclination to interfere with the
+state's proceedings, such a statement would have been a reiteration of his prior position on the
+subject, rather than any new concession.
+Lefkowitz also claimed in his October 23, 2007 letter that Acosta agreed not to contact any
+of the victims or potential witnesses or their counsel. For the reasons discussed more fully in
+Chapter Three, OPR concludes that the decision not to notify the victims about the NPA did not
+stem from the breakfast meeting, but rather reflected an assessment of multiple issues and
+considerations discussed internally by the subjects who participated in that decision: Acosta,
+Sloman, and Villafaña.
+Finally, Lefkowitz's October 23 letter suggested that Acosta had agreed not to intervene
+regarding the sentence Epstein received from the state court, and it asserted that Epstein was
+"entitled to any type of sentence available to him, including but not limited to gain time and work
+release." Later communications between the USAO and defense counsel, however, show clearly
+that Acosta did not abandon the NPA's explicit sentencing provision. The NPA required Epstein
+to make a joint recommendation with the State Attorney's Office for an 18-month jail sentence,
+although the parties understood that he would receive the same "gain time" benefits available to
+all state inmates. After the October breakfast meeting, Sloman and Villafaña, on behalf of the
+USAO, repeatedly made clear that it would hold Epstein to that requirement, and the USAO also
+subsequently insisted that Epstein was ineligible for work release. For example, in a November 5,
+2007 letter, Sloman requested confirmation from defense counsel that "Epstein intends to abide by
+his agreement to plead guilty to the specified charges and to make a binding recommendation that
+the Court impose a sentence of 18 months of continuous confinement in the county jail." Shortly
+before Epstein entered his plea in June 2008, Villafaña wrote to the State Attorney to remind him
+that the NPA required Epstein to plead in state court to an offense that required an 18-month
+162
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 190 of 349
+sentence of incarceration, and the USAO would consider a plea that differed from that requirement
+a breach of the NPA and would "proceed accordingly."
+The guilty plea Epstein entered in state court in June 2008 was consistent with the dictates
+of the NPA, and pursuant to that plea, the court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration.
+Epstein, however, applied for and was accepted into the work release program, and was able to
+serve a substantial portion of his sentence outside of the jail. The NPA did not reference work
+release nor authorize Epstein to receive such benefits during his tenure at the Palm Beach County
+Stockade. Moreover, Villafaña received assurances from defense counsel that Epstein would serve
+his entire sentence of confinement 'in custody." Responsibility for the decision to afford Epstein
+work release privileges during his incarceration rested with state officials, who had the sole
+After considering the substantial record documenting the decisions made after Acosta's
+October 12, 2007 breakfast meeting with Lefkowitz, OPR found nothing in the record to suggest
+that the meeting resulted in a material change to the NPA, affected the sentence Epstein served
+pursuant to the NPA, or contributed to state officials' decision to permit him to participate in work
+release.
+F. Villafaña's Emails with Defense Attorney Lefkowitz during the NPA
+Negotiations Do Not Establish That Villafaña, or Other Subjects, Intended to
+Give Epstein Preferential Treatment or Were Motivated by Favoritism or
+Other Improper Influences
+During the CVRA litigation, the petitioners obtained from Epstein's attorney, and filed
+under seal, a redacted series of email exchanges between Epstein attorney Lefkowitz and Villafaña
+(and others with Acosta and Sloman) during September 2007 when the NPA was being finalized,
+and thereafter. These emails had been redacted to delete most of Lefkowitz's side of the
+communications, and consequently they did not reflect the full context of Villafaña's
+communications to Lefkowitz. The redacted emails were later unsealed and made public over
+he reacted mail
+Epstein's objections.
+236 Media coverage pointed to the content and tone of Villafaña's emails as
+proof that Villafaña and the USAO worked in concert with Epstein's attorneys to keep the
+"sweetheart" deal a secret from the victims and the public. Statements in several emails in
+particular were cited as evidence of the USAO's improper favoritism towards Epstein. In one
+example, Villafaña told Lefkowitz that she was willing to include in the NPA a provision agreeing
+not to prosecute others, but would "prefer not to highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and
+all of the other persons that we could charge." She also offered to meet with him ""off campus'"
+to finalize negotiations. She also proposed, "lo]n an 'avoid the press' note," that filing federal
+charges against Epstein in Miami rather than West Palm Beach would substantially reduce press
+coverage.
+236
+The USAO did not object to the unsealing but requested additional redactions of portions that would reveal
+protected information. United States' Response to Petitioners' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of
+the [CVRA] and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (Apr. 7, 2011). The court declined to order the
+additional redactions.
+163
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 191 of 349
+OPR asked Villafaña about these emails and about the tenor of her interactions with
+Lefkowitz during the NPA negotiations and with other defense attorneys generally. Villafaña
+acknowledged that their tone was collegial and collaborative, and explained that generally, the
+tone of these emails reflected her personality and her commitment to complete the task her
+supervisors had assigned to her:
+[f you were to pull all my e-mails on every case, you would find
+that that is how I communicate with people. I'm a Minnesota girl,
+and I prefer not to be confrontational until I have to be. And I can
+be when I need to be. But my instructions from my supervisors were
+to engage in these negotiations and to complete them. So I felt that
+given that task, the best way to complete them was to reach the
+agreement and, keeping in mind the terms that ... our office had
+agreed to, and do that in a way that is civil. So... although my
+language in the kind of introductory or prefatory communications
+with Mr. Lefkowitz was casual and was friendly, when you look at
+the terms and when he would come back to me asking for changes,
+my response was always, "No, I will not make that change."
+Villafaña denied any intention to keep the victims uninformed about the NPA or to provide
+an improper benefit for Epstein, and she explained the context of the emails in question. The email
+in which Villafaña expressed reluctance to "highlight for the judge all of the other crimes and all
+of the other persons that we could charge" was written in response to a defense proposal to include
+in the federal plea agreement the parties were then considering a promise by the government not
+to prosecute Epstein's assistants and other employees. Lefkowitz had proposed that the plea
+agreement state, "Epstein's fulfilling the terms and conditions of the Agreement also precludes the
+initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against
+[four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein-owned corporate entity] for
+any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." Villafaña told OPR that
+the USAO was not intending to charge Epstein's assistants and was not aware of anyone else who
+could be charged, and thus did not oppose the request not to prosecute third parties. However,
+Villafaña was concerned that an overly detailed federal plea agreement would prompt the court to
+require the government to provide further information about the uncharged conduct, which might
+lead Epstein to claim the government breached the agreement by providing information to the
+court not directly connected to the charges to which he was pleading guilty. Villafaña was not the
+only one to express concern about how deeply a federal court might probe the facts, and whether
+such probing would interfere with the viability of a plea agreement. In an earlier email, Lourie
+had suggested charging Epstein by complaint to allow the USAO more flexibility in plea
+negotiations and avoid the problem that a court might not accept a plea to a conspiracy charge that
+required dismissal of numerous substantive counts.
+As to Villafaña's offer to meet with Lefkowitz "off campus" to resolve outstanding issues
+in the NPA negotiation, she explained to OPR that she believed a face-to-face meeting at a
+"neutral" location —with "all the necessary decision makers present or 'on call""— might facilitate
+completion of the negotiations, which had dragged on for some time.
+164
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 192 of 349
+With regard to her comment about "avoid[ing] the press," Villafaña told OPR that her goal
+was to protect the anonymity of the victims. She said that the case was far more likely to be
+covered by the Palm Beach press, which had already written articles about Epstein, than in Miami,
+and "if [the victims] wanted to attend [the plea hearing], I wanted them to be able to go into the
+courthouse without their faces being splashed all over the newspaper."
+In evaluating the emails, OPR reviewed all the email exchanges between Villafaña, as well
+as Sloman and Acosta, and Lefkowitz and other defense counsel, including the portions redacted
+from the publicly released emails (except for a few to or from Acosta, copies of which OPR did
+not locate in the USAO records). OPR also considered the emails in the broader context of
+Villafaña's overall conduct during the federal investigation of Epstein. The documentary record,
+as well as witness and subject interviews, establishes that Villafaña consistently advocated in favor
+of prosecuting Epstein and worked for months toward that goal. She repeatedly pressed her
+supervisors for permission to indict Epstein and made numerous efforts to expand the scope of the
+case. She opposed meetings with the defense team, and nearly withdrew from the case because
+her supervisors agreed to those meetings. Villafaña objected to the decision to resolve the case
+through a guilty plea in state court, and she engaged in a lengthy and heated email exchange with
+Menchel about that subject. When she was assigned the task of creating an agreement to effect
+that resolution, Villafaña fought hard during the ensuing negotiations to hold the USAO's position
+despite defense counsel's aggressive tactics.
+OPR also considered statements of her supervisors regarding her interactions with defense
+counsel. Sloman, in particular, told OPR that reports that Villafaña "was soft on Epstein ...
+couldn't have been further from the truth." Sloman added that Villafaña "did her best to implement
+the decisions that were made and to hold Epstein accountable." Lourie similarly told OPR that
+when he read the district court's February 2019 opinion in the CVRA litigation and the emails
+from Villafaña cited in that opinion, he was "surprised to see how nice she was to them. And she
+winds up taking it on the chin for being so nice to them. When I know the whole time she was the
+one who wanted to go after him the most." The AUSA who assisted Villafaña on the investigation
+told OPR "everything that [Villafaña] did ... was, as far as I could tell, [ ] completely pro
+prosecution."
+Because the emails in question were publicly disclosed without context and without other
+information showing Villafaña's consistent efforts to prosecute Epstein and to assist victims, a
+public narrative developed that Villafaña colluded with defense counsel to benefit Epstein at the
+expense of the victims. After thoroughly reviewing all of the available evidence, OPR finds that
+narrative to be inaccurate. The USAO's and Villafaña's interactions with the victims can be
+criticized, as OPR does in several respects in this Report, but the evidence is clear that any missteps
+Villafaña may have made in her interactions with victims or their attorneys were not made for the
+purpose of silencing victims. Rather, the evidence shows that Villafaña, in particular, cared deeply
+about Epstein's victims. Before the NPA was signed, she raised to her supervisors the issue of
+consulting with victims, and after the NPA was signed, she drafted letters to notify victims
+identified in the federal investigation of the pending state plea proceeding and inviting them to
+appear. The draft letters led defense counsel to argue to Department management that Villataña
+and Sloman committed professional misconduct by "threaten[ing] to send a highly improper and
+unusual 'victim notification letter' to all" of the listed victims. Given the full context of Villafaña's
+conduct throughout her tenure on the case, OPR concludes that her explanations for her emails are
+165
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 193 of 349
+entitled to significant weight, and OPR credits them. OPR finds, therefore, that the emails in
+question do not themselves establish that Villafaña (or any other subject) acted to improperly
+benefit Epstein, was motivated by favoritism or other improper influences, or sought to silence
+victims.
+G.
+The Evidence Does Not Establish That Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña Agreed to
+the NPA's Provision Promising Not to Prosecute "Potential Co-conspirators"
+in Order to Protect Any of Epstein's Political, Celebrity, or Other Influential
+Associates
+OPR examined the decision by the subjects who negotiated the NPA—Villafaña, Lourie,
+and Acosta to include in the agreement a provision in which the USAO agreed not to prosecute
+"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein," in addition to four named individuals, to determine
+whether that provision resulted from the subjects' improper favoritism towards Epstein or an
+improper effort to shield from prosecution any of Epstein's known associates. Other than various
+drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous
+records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it
+or even gave it much consideration. Drafts of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show
+that the final broad language promising not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein"
+evolved from a more narrow provision sought by the defense. The provision expanded as Villafaña
+and defense counsel exchanged drafts of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the
+NPA, with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within the USAO about the
+provision. 237
+As the NPA drafting process concluded, Villafaña circulated to Lourie and another
+supervisor a draft that contained the non-prosecution provision, telling Lourie it was "some of
+[defense counsel's] requested language regarding promises not to prosecute other people," and
+commenting only, "I don't think it hurts us." In a reply email, Lourie responded to another issue
+237
+As set forth in OPR's factual discussion, early in the negotiations over a federal plea agreement, the defense
+sought a non-prosecution provision applicable to only four female named assistants of Epstein and to unnamed
+employees of one of his companies. Villafaña initially countered with "standard language" referring to unnamed
+"co-conspirators" so as to avoid "highlighting] for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that
+we could charge." Nonetheless, drafts of the NPA sent by Lefkowitz after Villafaña's email continued to include
+language referring to the four named assistants and unnamed employees. Villafaña, however, internally circulated
+drafts of a federal plea agreement that included language stating, "This agreement resolves the federal criminal liability
+of the defendant and any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by
+those persons known to the [USAO] as of the date of this plea agreement." The federal plea agreement draft revised
+by Lourie and Acosta on September 20, 2007, included that language. When the defense team reverted to negotiation
+of state charges, Villataña advised them, "In the context of a non-prosecution agreement, the [USAO] may be more
+willing to be specific about not pursuing charges against others." The next day, Lefkowitz sent a revised draft NPA
+referring to the four named assistants, "any employee" of the named company, and "any unnamed co-conspirators for
+any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." The language was finally revised by Villafaña
+10 promisi prosecution of "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to (the four named
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafaña's counsel and Lourie both noted that the non-prosecution
+provision could bind only the USAO, and Lourie further opined that it was limited to certain specified federal charges
+and a time-limited scope of conduct. Although the non-prosecution provision in the NPA did not explicitly contain
+such limitations, those limitations were included in other parts of the agreement.
+166
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 194 of 349
+Villafaña had raised (defense counsel's attempt to insert an immigration waiver into the
+agreement), but Lourie did not comment on the provision promising not to prosecute coconspirators or ask Villafaña to explain why she believed the provision did not harm the
+government's interests. In a subsequent email about the draft NPA, Villafana asked Lourie for
+"[a]ny other thoughts," but there is no indication that he provided further input. OPR found no
+document that suggested Villafaña and Lourie discussed the provision further, or that the other
+individuals who were copied on Villafaña's email referencing the provision her immediate
+supervisor, the supervisor designated to succeed Lourie as manager of the West Palm Beach office,
+and Villafaña's co-counsel—commented on or had substantive discussions about it. Villafaña told
+OPR that because none of the three supervisors responded to her observation that the nonprosecution provision "doesn't hurt us," Villafaña assumed that they agreed with her assessment.
+Villafaña told OPR that she could not recall a conversation specifically about the provision
+agreeing not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators," but she remembered generally that
+defense counsel told her Epstein wanted "to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame
+for what happened." Villafaña told OPR that she and her colleagues believed Epstein's conduct
+was his own "dirty little secret." Villafaña said that press coverage at the time of Epstein's 2006
+arrest did not allege that any of his famous contacts participated in Epstein's illicit activity and that
+none of the victims interviewed by the case agents before the NPA was signed told the investigators
+about sexual activity with any of Epstein's well-known contacts about whom allegations arose
+many years later. 38 Villafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein's longtime
+relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite, but, according to
+Villafaña, in 2007, they "didn't have any specific evidence against her."239 Accordingly, Villafaña
+believed that the only "co-conspirators" of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the
+four female assistants identified by name. 240 Villafaña also told OPR that the focus of the USAO's
+investigation was Epstein, and the office was not inclined to prosecute his four assistants if he
+entered a plea. 41 Because Villafaña was unaware of anyone else who could or would be charged,
+she perceived no reason to object to a provision promising not to prosecute other, unspecified
+"co-conspirators." Villafaña told OPR that given her understanding of the facts at that time, it did
+not occur to her that the reference to other "potential co-conspirators" might be used to protect any
+of Epstein's influential associates.
+Lourie, who was transitioning to his detail at the Department's Criminal Division at the
+time Villafaña forwarded to him the draft NPA containing the non-prosecution provision, told OPR
+that he did not know how the provision developed and did not recall any discussions about it.
+Villafaña told OPR that "none of ... the victims that we spoke with ever talked about any other men being
+involved in abusing them. It was only Jeffrey Epstein."
+The FBI had interviewed one victim who implicated the female friend in Epstein's conduct, but the conduct
+involving the then minor did not occur in Florida.
+The FBI had learned that one of Epstein's female assistants had engaged in sexual activity with at least one
+girl in Epstein's presence; this assistant was one of the named individuals for whom the defense sought the
+government's agreement not to prosecute from the outset. Villafaña explained to OPR that this individual was herself
+believed to also have been at one time a victim.
+241/
+Villafaña told OPR that the USAO had decided that girls who recruited other girls would not be prosecuted.
+167
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 195 of 349
+Lourie described the promise not to prosecute "potential co-conspirators" as "unusual," and told
+OPR that he did not know why it was included in the agreement, but added that it would be "unlike
+me if I read that language to just leave it in there unless I thought it was somehow helpful." Lourie
+posited that victims who recruited other underage girls to provide massages for Epstein
+"theoretically" could have been charged as co-conspirators. He told OPR that when he saw the
+provision, he may have understood the reference to unnamed "co-conspirators" as "a message to
+any victims that had recruited other victims that there was no intent to charge them."
+Acosta did not recall any discussions about the non-prosecution provision. But he told
+OPR that Epstein was always "the focus" of the federal investigation, and he would have viewed
+the federal interests as vindicated as long as Epstein was required to face "meaningful
+consequences" for his actions. Acosta told OPR that when he reviewed the draft NPA, "ItJo the
+extent I reviewed this co-conspirator provision, I can speculate that my thinking would have been
+the focus is on Epstein[ ] ... going to jail. Whether some of his employees go to jail, or other,
+lesser involved [individuals], is not the focus of this." Acosta also told OPR that he assumed
+Villafaña and Lourie had considered the provision and decided that it was appropriate. Finally,
+Sloman, who was not involved in negotiating the NPA, told OPR that in retrospect, he understood
+the non-prosecution provision was designed to protect Epstein's four assistants, and it "never
+dawned" on him that it was intended to shield anyone else.
+This broad provision promising not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" is
+troubling and, as discussed more fully later in this Report, OPR did not find evidence showing that
+the subjects gave careful consideration to the potential scope of the provision or whether it was
+warranted given that the investigation had been curtailed and the USAO lacked complete
+information regarding possible co-conspirators. Villafaña precipitously revised a more narrow
+provision sought by the defense. Given its evolution from a provision sought by the defense, it
+appears unlikely to have been designed to protect the victims, and there is no indication that at the
+time, the subjects believed that was the purpose. However, the USAO had not indicated interest
+in prosecuting anyone other than the four named female assistants, and OPR found no record
+indicating that Epstein had expressed concern about the prosecutive fate of anyone other than the
+four assistants and unnamed employees of a specific Epstein company. Accordingly, OPR
+concludes that the evidence does not show that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña agreed to the nonprosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity, or other influential
+associates. 242
+H.
+OPR's Investigation Did Not Reveal Evidence Establishing That Epstein
+Cooperated in Other Federal Investigations or Received Special Treatment on
+That Basis
+One final issue OPR explored stemmed from media reports suggesting that Epstein may
+have received special treatment from the USAO in return for his cooperation in another federal
+As previously stated, Sloman was on vacation when Villafaña included the provision in draft plea agreements
+nd did not monitor the case or comment on the various iterations of the NPA that were circulated during his absenc
+lenchel left the USAO on August 3. 2007. before the parties drafted the NP.
+168
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 196 of 349
+investigation. 43 Media reports in mid-2009 suggested Epstein was released from his state
+incarceration "early" because he was assisting in a financial crimes investigation in the Eastern
+District of New York involving Epstein's former employer, Bear Stearns. At the time, Villafaña
+was notified by the AUSAs handling the matter that they "had never heard of" Epstein and he was
+providing "absolutely no cooperation" to the government. In 2011, Villafaña reported to senior
+colleagues that "this is urban myth. The FBI and I looked into this and do not believe that any of
+it is true." Villafaña told OPR that the rumor that Epstein had cooperated with the case in New
+York was "completely false." Acosta told OPR that he did not have any information about Epstein
+cooperating in a financial investigation or relating to media reports that Epstein had been an
+"intelligence asset."244
+In addition to the contemporaneous record attesting that Epstein was not a cooperating
+witness in a federal matter, OPR found no evidence suggesting that Epstein was such a cooperating
+witness or "intelligence asset," or that anyone including any of the subjects of OPR's
+investigation believed that to be the case, or that Epstein was afforded any benefit on such a
+basis. OPR did not find any reference to Epstein's purported cooperation, or even a suggestion
+that he had assisted in a different matter, in any of the numerous communications sent by defense
+counsel to the USAO and the Department. It is highly unlikely that defense counsel would have
+omitted any reason warranting leniency for Epstein if it had existed.
+Accordingly, OPR concludes that none of the subjects of OPR's investigation provided
+Epstein with any benefits on the basis that he was a cooperating witness in an unrelated federal
+investigation, and OPR found no evidence establishing that Epstein had received benefits for
+cooperation in any matter.
+V. ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY RESOLVING THE FEDERAL
+INVESTIGATION THROUGH THE NPA
+Although OPR finds that none of the subjects committed professional misconduct in this
+matter, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he agreed to end the federal
+investigation through the NPA. Acosta's flawed application of Petite policy principles to this case
+and his concerns with overstepping the boundaries of federalism led to a decision to resolve the
+federal investigation through an NPA that was too difficult to administer, leaving Epstein free to
+manipulate the conditions of his sentence to his own advantage. The NPA relied on state
+authorities to implement its key terms, leading to an absence of control by federal authorities over
+the process. Although the prosecutors considered certain events that they addressed in the NPA,
+such as gain time and community control, many other key issues were not, such as work release
+and mechanisms for implementing the § 2255 provision. Important provisions, such as promising
+not to prosecute all "potential co-conspirators," were added with little discussion or consideration
+by the prosecutors. In addition, although there were evidentiary and legal challenges to a
+243
+See, e.g., Julie K.
+"Perversion of Justice: How a future Trump Cabinet member gave a serial sex
+abuser the deal of a lifetime," Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.
+When OPR asked Acosta about his apparent equivocation during his 2019 press conference, in answering a
+media question about whether he had knowledge of Epstein being an "intelligence asset," Acosta stated to OPR that
+"the answer is no." Acosta was made aware that OPR could use a classified setting to discuss intelligence information.
+169
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 197 of 349
+successful federal prosecution, Acosta prematurely decided to resolve the case without adequately
+addressing ways in which a federal case potentially could have been strengthened, such as by
+obtaining Epstein's missing computer equipment. Finally, a lack of coordination within the USAO
+compounded Acosta's flawed reasoning and resulted in insufficient oversight over the process of
+drafting the NPA, a unique document that required more detailed attention and review than it
+received. These problems were, moreover, entirely avoidable because federal prosecution, and
+potentially a federal plea agreement, existed as viable alternatives to the NPA resolution.
+In evaluating Acosta's conduct, OPR has considered and taken into account the fact that
+some of Epstein's conduct known today was not known in 2007 and that other circumstances have
+changed in the interim, including some victims' willingness to testify. OPR has also evaluated
+Acosta's decisions in a framework that recognizes and allows for decisions that are made in good
+faith, even if the decision in question may not have led to the "best" result that potentially could
+have been obtained. Nonetheless, after considering all of the available evidence and the totality
+of the then-existing circumstances, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he
+chose an action or course of action that was in marked contrast to that which the Department would
+reasonably expect of an attorney exercising good judgment.
+A. Acosta's Decision to Resolve the Federal Investigation through a State Plea
+under Terms Incorporated into the NPA Was Based on a Flawed Application
+of the Petite Policy and Federalism Concerns, and Failed to Consider the
+Significant Disadvantages of a State-Based Resolution
+The Department formulated the Petite policy in response to a series of Supreme Court
+opinions holding that the Constitution does not deny state and federal governments the power to
+prosecute for the same act. Responding to the Court's concerns about the "potential for abuse in
+a rule permitting duplicate prosecutions," the Department voluntarily adopted a policy of declining
+to bring a federal prosecution following a completed state prosecution for the same conduct, except
+when necessary to advance a compelling federal interest. See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S.
+at 28. On its face, the Petite policy applies to federal prosecutions that follow completed state
+prosecutions. USAM § 9-2.031 ("This policy applies whenever there has been a prior state ....
+prosecution resulting in an acquittal, a conviction, including one resulting from a plea agreement,
+or a dismissal or other termination of the case on the merits after jeopardy has attached."). When
+a state investigation or prosecution is still pending, the policy does not apply. Indeed, even when
+a state prosecution has resulted in a decision on the merits, the policy permits a subsequent federal
+prosecution when three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: a "substantial federal interest"
+exists, "the result in the prior state prosecution was manifestly inadequate in light of the federal
+interest involved," and there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction
+on federal charges. The policy also does not apply when "the prior prosecution involved only a
+minor part of the contemplated federal charges."
+No one with whom OPR spoke disputed that the federal government had a substantial
+interest in prosecuting Epstein. In her prosecution memorandum, Villafaña identified five federal
+statutes that Epstein had potentially violated. The CEOS Chief described Villafaña's assessment
+of these statutes as "exhaustive," and he concurred with her analysis of their applicability to the
+facts of the case. Epstein's crimes involved the sexual exploitation of children, interstate travel,
+and the use of a facility of interstate commerce, all of which were areas of federal concern.
+170
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 198 of 349
+Notably, in the early 2000s, the Department had begun pursuing specific initiatives to combat child
+sex trafficking, including Project Safe Childhood, and Congress had then recently passed the
+PROTECT Act. Acosta himself told OPR that the exploitation of minors was "an important federal
+interest," which in Epstein's case was compounded by the "sordidness" of the acts involved and
+the number of victims.
+It is also clear that because the state case against Epstein was still pending and had not
+reached a conviction, acquittal, or other decision on the merits, the Petite policy did not apply and
+certainly did not preclude a federal prosecution of Epstein. He had been charged with one state
+charge of solicitation to prostitution on three occasions, involving one or more other persons
+without regard to age—a charge that would have addressed only a scant portion of the conduct
+under federal investigation. Acosta acknowledged to OPR that the Petite policy "on its face" did
+not apply. Moreover, the State Attorney did not challenge the federal government's assumption
+of prosecutorial responsibility, and despite having obtained an indictment, held back on proceeding
+with the state prosecution in deference to the federal government's involvement. In these
+circumstances, the USAO was free to proceed with a prosecution sufficient to ensure vindication
+of the federal interest in prosecuting a man who traveled interstate repeatedly to prey upon minors.
+The federal government was uniquely positioned to fully investigate the conduct of an individual
+who engaged in repeated criminal conduct in Florida but who also traveled extensively and had
+residences outside of Florida. Even if the Petite policy had applied, OPR has little doubt that the
+USAO could have obtained authorization from the Department to proceed with a prosecution under
+the circumstances of this case. 245
+Despite the undeniable federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, the fact that the Petite policy
+did not apply, and the State Attorney's willingness to hold the state prosecution in abeyance
+pending the federal government's assumption of the case, Acosta viewed the federal government's
+role in prosecuting Epstein as limited by principles of federalism. 246 In essence, Acosta believed
+that a federal prosecution would have interfered improperly with the state's authority. He
+explained his reasoning to OPR:
+245
+In 2008, the Office of Enforcement Operations, the office charged with reviewing Petite policy waiver
+requests, opined that even if the Petite policy applied with respect to the victims of the indicted state charges, it would
+not apply to federal prosecution of charges relating to any other victim. The office also noted that if other factors
+existed, such as use of the internet to contact victims, those factors might warrant a waiver of the policy, if it did apply.
+246
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel argued that OPR inappropriately bifurcated Acosta's
+concerns from those of the other subjects. However, OPR's investigation made clear that, although Acosta shared his
+subordinates" concerns about the strength of the case, victim-witness credibility, and the novelty of some legal
+theories, he alone focused on federalism issues. Acosta's counsel also asserted that OPR "misunderstands and
+devalues Secretary Acosta's very real and legitimate interest in the development of human trafficking laws," and
+counsel further noted Acosta's concerns that "bringing a case with serious evidentiary challenges pressing novel legal
+issues could result in an outcome that set back the development of trafficking laws and resulted in an aggregate greater
+harm to trafficking victims." Although OPR carefully considered counsel's arguments and agrees that it was
+appropriate to consider any implications the proposed prosecution of Epstein might have for the Department's antitrafficking efforts, OPR does not believe that those concerns warranted resolving the matter through the NPA, which,
+for the reasons discussed in this Section, failed to satisfy the federal interest and allowed Epstein to manipulate the
+state system to his benefit.
+171
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 199 of 349
+[The prosecution] was going forward on the part of the state, and so
+here is the big bad federal government stepping on a sovereign ...
+state, saying you're not doing enough, [when] to my mind ... the
+whole idea of the [P]etite policy is to recognize that the []state ...
+is an independent entity, and that we should presume that what
+they're doing is correct, even if we don't like the outcome, except
+in the most unusual of circumstances.
+Acosta told OPR that "absent USAO intervention," the state's prosecution of Epstein
+would have become final, and accordingly, it was "prudent" to employ Petite policy analysis. In
+Acosta's view, "the federal responsibility" in this unique situation was merely to serve as a "backstop [to] state authorities to ensure that there [was] no miscarriage of justice."247 Acosta told OPR
+that he understood the PBPD would not have brought Epstein to the FBI's attention if the State
+Attorney had pursued charges that required Epstein's incarceration. Acosta therefore decided that
+the USAO could avert a "manifest injustice" by forcing the state to do more and require Epstein
+to serve time in jail and register as a sexual offender.
+Acosta's reasoning was flawed and unduly constricted. Acosta's repeated references to a
+"miscarriage of justice" or "manifest injustice" echoes the "manifestly inadequate" language used
+in the Petite policy to define the circumstances in which the federal government may proceed with
+a criminal case after a completed state prosecution. Nothing in the Petite policy, however, requires
+similar restraint when the federal government pursues a case in the absence of a completed state
+prosecution, even if the state is already investigating the same offense. The goal of the Petite
+policy is to prevent multiple prosecutions for the same offense, not to compel the federal
+government to defer to a parallel state interest in a case, particularly one in which state officials
+involved in the state prosecution expressed significant concerns about it, and there were questions
+regarding the state prosecutor's commitment to the case. Acosta told OPR that "there are any
+number of instances where the federal government or the state government can proceed, and state
+charges are substantially less and different, and ... the federal government ... stands aside and
+lets the state proceed." The fact that the federal government can allow the state to proceed with a
+prosecution, however, does not mean the federal government is compelled to do so, particularly in
+a matter in which a distinct and important federal interest exists. Indeed, the State Attorney told
+OPR that the federal government regularly takes over cases initiated by state investigators,
+typically because federal charges result in "the best sentence."
+Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines. 248
+Despite the Ashcroft Memo's directive that federal prosecutors pursue "the most serious readily
+provable offense," Acosta's decision to push "the state to do a little bit more" does not approach
+that standard. In fact, Acosta conceded during his OPR interview that the NPA did not represent
+an "appropriate punishment" in the federal system, nor even "the best outcome in the state system,"
+and that if the investigation of Epstein had originated with the FBI, rather than as a referral from
+the PBPD, the outcome might have been different. As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to
+247
+Daily Beast.
+248
+Letter from R. Alexander Acosta "To whom it may concern" at 1 (Mar. 20, 2011), published online in The
+Villafaña estimated that the applicable sentencing guidelines range was 168 to 210 months' imprisonment.
+172
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 200 of 349
+depart from the Ashcroft Memo. He told OPR, however, that he did not recall discussing the
+Ashcroft Memo with his colleagues and nothing in the contemporaneous documentary record
+suggests that he made a conscious decision to depart from it when he decided to resolve the federal
+investigation through the NPA. Instead, it appears that Acosta simply failed to consider the tension
+between federal charging policy and the strong federal interest in this case, on the one hand, and
+his broad reading of the Petite policy and his general concerns about "federalism," on the other
+hand. OPR concludes that Acosta viewed the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein
+too narrowly and through the wrong prism.
+Furthermore, Acosta's federalism concerns about intruding on the state's autonomy
+resulted in an outcome-the NPA-that intruded far more on the state's autonomy than a decision
+to pursue a federal prosecution would have.249 By means of the NPA, the federal government
+dictated to the state the charges, the sentence, the timing, and certain conditions that the state had
+to obtain during the state's own prosecution. Acosta acknowledged during his OPR interview that
+his "attempt to backstop the state here[] rebounded, because in the process, it ... ended up being
+arguably more intrusive."
+Acosta's concern about invading the state's authority led to additional negative
+consequences. Acosta revised the draft NPA in several respects to "soften" its tone, by substituting
+provisions requiring Epstein to make his "best efforts" for language that appeared to dictate certain
+actions to the state. In so doing, however, Acosta undermined the enforceability of the agreement,
+making it difficult later to declare Epstein in breach when he failed to comply.
+OPR found no indication that when deciding to resolve the federal prosecution through a
+mechanism that relied completely on state action, Acosta considered the numerous disadvantages
+of having Epstein plead guilty in the state court system, a system in which none of the subjects had
+practiced and with which they were unfamiliar. Villafaña recognized that there were "a lot of ways
+to manipulate state sentences," and she told OPR that she was concerned from the outset of
+negotiations about entering into the NPA, because by sending the case back to the state the USAO
+was "giving up all control over what was going on." Villafaña also told OPR that defense counsel
+"had a lot of experience with the state system. We did not." Epstein's ability to obtain work
+release, a provision directly contrary to the USAO's intent with respect to Epstein's sentence, is a
+clear example of the problem faced by the prosecutors when trying to craft a plea that depended
+on a judicial system with which they were unfamiliar and over which they had no control.
+Although the issue of gain time was considered and addressed in the NPA, none of the subject
+attorneys negotiating the NPA realized until after the NPA was signed that Epstein might be
+eligible for work release. Acosta, in particular, told OPR that "if it was typical to provide that kind
+of work release in these cases, that would have been news to me." Because work release was not
+anticipated, the NPA did not specifically address it, and the USAO was unable to foreclose Epstein
+from applying for admission to the program.
+249
+The Petite policy only applies to the Department of Justice and federal prosecutions. It does not prevent state
+federal prosecution results in a conviction.
+173
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 201 of 349
+The sexual offender registration provision is yet another example of how Acosta's decision
+to create an unorthodox mechanism that relied on state procedures to resolve the federal
+investigation led to unanticipated consequences benefitting Epstein. Acosta told OPR that one of
+the core aspects of the NPA was the requirement that Epstein plead guilty to a state charge
+requiring registration as a sexual offender. He cited it as a provision that he insisted on from the
+beginning and from which he never wavered. However, the USAO failed to anticipate certain
+factors that affected the sexual offender registration requirement in other states where Epstein had
+a residence. In selecting the conduct for the factual basis for the crime requiring sexual offender
+registration, the state chose conduct involving a victim who was at least 16 at the time of her
+interactions with Epstein, even though Epstein also had sexual contact with a 14-year old victim.
+The victim's age made a difference, as the age of consent in New Mexico, where Epstein had a
+residence, was 16; therefore, Epstein was not required to register in that state. As a 2006 letter
+from defense counsel Lefcourt to the State Attorney's Office made clear, the defense team had
+thoroughly researched the details and ramifications of Florida's sexual offender registration
+requirement; OPR did not find evidence indicating similar research and consideration by the
+USAO.
+Finally, Acosta was well aware that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI's attention
+because of a concern that the State Attorney's Office had succumbed to "pressure" from defense
+counsel. Villafaña told OPR that she informed both Acosta and Sloman of this when she met with
+them at the start of the federal investigation. Although Acosta did not remember the meeting with
+Villafaña, he repeatedly told OPR during his interview that he was aware that the PBPD was
+dissatisfied with the State Attorney's Office's handling of the case. Shortly before the NPA was
+signed, moreover, additional information came to light that suggested the State Attorney's Office
+was predisposed to manipulating the process in Epstein's favor. Specifically, during the
+September 12, 2007 meeting, at the state prosecutor's suggestion, the USAO team agreed, with
+Acosta's subsequent approval, to permit Epstein to plead guilty to one state charge of solicitation
+of minors to engage in prostitution, rather than the three charges the USAO had originally
+specified. The state prosecutor assured Lourie that the selected charge would require Epstein to
+register as a sexual offender. Shortly thereafter, the USAO was told by defense counsel that despite
+the assurances made to Lourie, the state prosecutor had advised Epstein—incorrectly, it turned
+out that a plea to that particular offense would not require him to register as a sexual offender.
+Yet, despite this evidence, which at least suggested that the state authorities should not have been
+considered to be a reliable partner in enforcing the NPA, Acosta did not alter his decision about
+proceeding with a process that depended completely on state authorities for its successful
+execution.
+OPR finds that Acosta was reasonably aware of the facts and circumstances presented by
+this case. He stated that he engaged in discussions about various aspects of the case with Sloman
+and Menchel, and relied upon them for their evaluation of the legal and evidentiary issues and for
+their assessment of trial issues. Acosta was copied on many substantive emails, reviewed and
+revised drafts of the NPA, and approved the final agreement. Yet, rather than focusing on whether
+the state's prosecution was sufficient to satisfy the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein, Acosta
+focused on achieving the minimum outcome necessary to satisfy the state's interest, as defined in
+part by the state's indictment, by using the threat of a federal prosecution to dictate the terms of
+174
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 202 of 349
+Epstein's state guilty plea.250 As U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the authority to resolve the case in
+this manner, but OPR concludes that in light of all the surrounding circumstances, his decision to
+do so reflected poor judgment. Acosta's application of Petite policy principles was too expansive,
+his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too narrow, and his understanding of
+the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use the NPA. 251
+B.
+The Assessment of the Merits of a Potential Federal Prosecution Was
+Undermined by the Failure to Obtain Evidence or Take Other Investigative
+Steps That Could Have Changed the Complexion of the Case
+The leniency resulting from Acosta's decision to resolve the case through the NPA is also
+troubling because the USAO reached agreement on the terms of the NPA without fully pursuing
+evidence that could have changed the complexion of the case or afforded the USAO significant
+leverage in negotiating with Epstein. Acosta told OPR that his decision to resolve the federal
+investigation through the NPA was, in part, due to concerns about the merits of the case and
+concerns about whether the government could win at trial. Yet, Acosta made the decision to
+resolve the case through a state-based resolution and extended that proposal to Epstein's defense
+attorneys before the investigation was completed. As the investigation progressed, the FBI
+continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time
+of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the USAO did not know the
+full scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences,
+his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional vietims might
+implicate other offenders. In addition, Villafaña planned to approach the female assistants to
+attempt to obtain cooperation, but that step had not been taken.252 Most importantly, Acosta ended
+the investigation without the USAO having obtained an important category of potentially
+significant evidence: the computers removed from Epstein's home prior to the PBPD's execution
+of a search warrant.
+The PBPD knew that Epstein had surveillance cameras stationed in and around his home,
+which potentially captured video evidence of people visiting his residence, and that before the state
+250
+Acosta told OPR that he understood that if Epstein had pled to the original charges contemplated by the state,
+he would have received a two-year sentence, and in that circumstance, the PBPD would not have brought the case to
+the FBI. OPR was unable to verify that charges originally contemplated by the state would have resulted in a twoyear sentence. OPR's investigation confirmed, however, that the PBPD brought the case to the FBI because the PBPD
+Chief was dissatisfied with the state's handling of the matter.
+25l
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney stated that Acosta "accepted] OPR's conclusion
+that deferring prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein to the State Attorney rather than proceeding with a federal indictment or
+a federal plea was, in hindsight, poor judgment." Acosta also acknowledged that the USAO's handling of the matter
+"would have benefited from more consistent staffing and attention. No one foresaw the additional challenges that the
+chosen resolution would cause. And the [NPA] relied too much on state authorities, who gave Epstein and his counsel
+too much wiggle-room." Acosta's counsel also noted that Acosta welcomed the public release of the Report, "did not
+challenge OPR's authority, welcomed the review, and cooperated fully."
+252
+Although the FBI interviewed numerous employees of Epstein and Villafana identified three of his female
+assistants as potential co-conspirators, at the time that the USAO extended the terms of its offer, there had been no
+significant effort to obtain these individuals' cooperation against Epstein. The FBI attempted unsuccessfully to make
+contact with two female assistants on August 27, 2007, as Epstein's private plane was departing for the Virgin Islands,
+but agents were unable to locate them on board the plane.
+175
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 203 of 349
+search warrant was executed on that property, the computer equipment associated with those
+cameras had been removed. Villafaña knew who had possession of the computer equipment.
+Surveillance images might have shown the victims' visits, and photographic evidence of their
+appearance at the time of their encounters with Epstein could have countered the anticipated
+argument that Epstein was unaware these girls were minors. The surveillance video might have
+shown additional victims the investigators had not yet identified. Such images could have been
+powerful visual evidence of the large number of girls Epstein victimized and the frequency of their
+visits to his home, potentially persuasive proof to a jury that this was not a simple "solicitation"
+case.
+Epstein's personal computers possibly contained even more damning evidence. Villafaña
+told OPR that the FBI had information that Epstein used hidden cameras in his New York residence
+to record his sexual encounters, and one victim told agents that Epstein's assistant photographed
+her in the nude. Based on this evidence, and experience in other sex cases involving minors,
+Villafaña and several other witnesses opined to OPR that the computers might have contained
+child pornography. Moreover, Epstein lived a multi-state lifestyle; it was reasonable to assume
+that he may have transmitted still images or videos taken at his Florida residence over the internet
+to be accessed while at one of his other homes or while traveling. The interstate transmission of
+child pornography was a separate, and serious, federal crime that could have changed the entire
+complexion of the case against Epstein.253 Villafaña told OPR, "I]f the evidence had been what
+we suspected it was ... [i]t would have put this case completely to bed. It also would have
+completely defeated all of these arguments about interstate nexus."
+Because she recognized the potential significance of this evidence, Villafaña attempted to
+obtain the missing computers. After Villafaña learned that an individual associated with one of
+Epstein's attorneys had possession of the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's
+home, she consulted with Department subject matter experts to determine how best to obtain the
+evidence. Following the advice she received and after notifying her supervisors, Villafaña took
+legal steps to obtain the computer equipment.
+Epstein's team sought to postpone compliance with the USAO's demand for the
+equipment. In late June 2007, defense attorney
+requested an extension of time to comply;
+in informing Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie of the request, Villafaña stressed that "we want to get
+the computer equipment that was removed from Epstein's home prior to the state search warrant
+veek until Julv 17
+equipment. That litigation was still pending at the end of July, when Acosta decided to resolve
+253
+18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) provides, in pertinent part:
+BEBE
+176
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 204 of 349
+the federal investigation in exchange for a plea in state court to a charge that carried a two-year
+sentence. The FBI co-case agent told OPR that, in a meeting to discuss the resolution, at which
+the FBI was present, the co-case agent specifically suggested that the USAO wait to pursue a
+resolution until after the litigation was resolved, but this suggestion was "pushed under the rug"
+without comment. Although the co-case agent could not recall who was present, the case agent
+recalled that Menchel led the meeting, which occurred while the litigation was still pending.
+Even after the NPA two-year state plea resolution was presented to the defense, Villafaña
+continued to press ahead to have the court resolve the issue concerning the defense production of
+the computer equipment. On August 10, 2007, she asked Lourie for authorization to oppose
+Epstein's efforts to stay the litigation until after an anticipated meeting between the USAO and the
+defense, informing Lourie that a victim interviewed that week claimed she started seeing Epstein
+at age 14 and had been photographed in the nude. A few days later, Villafaña told defense counsel
+that she had "conferred with the appropriate people, and we are not willing to agree to a stay."
+Defense counsel then contacted Loure, who agreed to postpone the hearing until after the
+upcoming meeting with Acosta. After the meeting, and when the court sought to reschedule the
+hearing, Villafaña emailed Sloman to ask if she should "put it off"; he replied, "Yes," and the
+hearing was re-set for September 18, 2007. As negotiations towards the NPA progressed,
+however, the hearing was postponed indefinitely. Ultimately the NPA itself put the issue to rest
+by specifying that all legal process would be held in abeyance unless and until Epstein breached
+the agreement.
+Villafaña told OPR that she had learned through law enforcement channels that the defense
+team had reviewed the contents of Epstein's computers. She told OPR that, in her view, "the fact
+that the defense was trying desperately to put off the hearing ... was further evidence of the
+importance of the evidence."
+OPR questioned Acosta about the decisions to initiate, and continue with, the NPA
+negotiations while the litigation concerning the computers was still pending, and to agree to
+postpone the litigation rather than exhausting all efforts to obtain and review the computer
+evidence. Acosta told OPR that he had no recollection of Villafaña's efforts to obtain the missing
+computers, but he believed that "there was a desire to move quickly as opposed to slowly"
+regarding the plea.
+Menchel, Sloman, and Lourie also all told OPR that they did not remember Villafaña's
+efforts to obtain the computers or recalled the issue only "vaguely." Menchel expressed surprise
+to OPR that a prosecutor could obtain "an entire computer" through the method utilized by
+Villafaña, telling OPR, "I had not heard of that." However, the contemporaneous records show
+that Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie had each been aware in 2007 of Villafaña's efforts to obtain
+Epstein's missing computer equipment.
+Villafaña kept Menchel, in particular, well informed of her efforts to obtain the computer
+equipment. She sent to Menchel, or copied him on, several emails about her plan to obtain the
+computer equipment; specifically, her emails on May 18, 2007, July 3, 2007, and July 16, 2007,
+all discussed her proposed steps. Villafaña told OPR that Lourie was involved in early discussions
+about her proposal to obtain the evidence. Lourie also received Villafaña's July 16, 2007 email
+discussing the computer equipment and the plan to obtain it, and on one occasion he spoke directly
+177
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 205 of 349
+with one of Epstein's defense attorneys about it. Sloman told OPR during his interview that he
+"vaguely" remembered the computer issue. The documentary evidence confirms that he had at
+least some contemporaneous knowledge of the issue—when asked by Villafaña whether to put off
+a September 12, 2007 hearing on the litigation, he told her to do so. Finally, as noted previously,
+the FBI co-case agent proposed at a meeting with USAO personnel that the USAO wait until the
+litigation was resolved before pursuing plea negotiations.
+Contemporaneous records show that Acosta was likely aware before the NPA was signed
+of the USAO's efforts to obtain custody of Epstein's computers and that after the NPA was signed,
+he was informed about the use of legal process for obtaining the computer equipment. The NPA
+itself provides that "the federal ... investigation will be suspended, and all pending [legal process]
+will be held in abeyance," that Epstein will withdraw his "motion to intervene and to quash certain
+[legal process]," and, further, that the parties would "maintain ... evidence subject to [legal
+process] that have been issued, and including certain computer equipment, inviolate" until the
+NPA's terms had been fully satisfied, at which point the legal process would be "deemed
+withdrawn." (Emphasis added.) Acosta's numerous edits on the NPA's final draft suggest that he
+gave it a close read, and OPR expects that Acosta would not have approved the agreement without
+understanding what legal process his office was agreeing to withdraw, or why the only type of
+evidence specified was "certain computer equipment."
+In addition, Acosta told OPR that he
+worked closely with Sloman and Menchel, consulted with them, and relied on their counsel about
+the case. Among other things, Acosta said he discussed with them concerns about the law and the
+evidentiary issues presented by a federal criminal trial. Therefore, although it is possible that
+Sloman made the decision to postpone the hearing concerning the USAO's efforts to obtain the
+computer equipment without consulting Acosta, once Acosta reviewed the draft NPA, Acosta was
+on notice of the existence of and the ongoing litigation concerning Epstein's missing computer
+equipment.
+Villafaña knew where the computers were; litigation over the demand for the equipment
+was already underway; there was good reason to believe the computers contained relevant-and
+potentially critical-information; and it was clear Epstein did not want the contents of his
+computers disclosed. Nothing in the available record reveals that the USAO benefitted from
+abandoning pursuit of this evidence when they did, or that there was any significant consideration
+of the costs and benefits of forgoing the litigation to obtain production of the computers.254
+Instead, the USAO agreed to postpone and ultimately to abandon its efforts to obtain evidence that
+could have significantly changed Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation with a state
+guilty plea or led to additional significant federal charges. By agreeing to postpone the litigation,
+the USAO gave away leverage that might have caused the defense to come to an agreement much
+earlier and on terms more favorable to the government. The USAO ultimately agreed to a term in
+the NPA that permanently ended the government's ability to obtain possible evidence of significant
+crimes and did so with apparently little serious consideration of the potential cost.
+254
+If the USAO had significant concerns about its likelihood of prevailing, postponing the litigation to use it as
+leverage in the negotiations might have been strategically reasonable. Lourie suggested in his response to his interview
+transcript that the court might have precluded production of the computers. However, OPR saw no evidence indicating
+that Villafaña or her supervisors were concerned that the court would do so, and Villafaña had consulted with the
+Department's subject matter experts before initiating her action to obtain the equipment.
+178
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 206 of 349
+To be clear, OPR is not suggesting that prosecutors must obtain all available evidence
+before reaching plea agreements or that prosecutors cannot reasonably determine that reaching a
+resolution is more beneficial than continuing to litigate evidentiary issues. Every case is different
+and must be judged on its own facts. In this case, however, given the unorthodox nature of the
+state-based resolution, the fact that Acosta's decision to pursue it set the case on a wholly different
+track than what had been originally contemplated by his experienced staff, the nature and scope of
+Epstein's criminal conduct, the circumstances surrounding the removal of the computers from
+Epstein's residence, and the potential for obtaining evidence revealing serious additional criminal
+conduct, Acosta had a responsibility to ensure that he was fully informed about the consequences
+of pursing the course of action that he proposed and particularly about the consequences flowing
+from the express terms of the NPA. In deciding to resolve the case pre-charge, Acosta lost sight
+of the bigger picture that the investigation was not completed and viable leads remained to be
+pursued. The decision to forgo the government's efforts to obtain the computer evidence and to
+pursue significant investigative steps should have been made only after careful consideration of
+all the costs and benefits of the proposed action. OPR did not find evidence that Acosta fully
+considered the costs of ending the investigation prematurely.?35
+C.
+OPR Was Unable to Determine the Basis for the Two-Year Term of
+Incarceration, That It Was Tied to Traditional Sentencing Goals, or That It
+Satisfied the Federal Interest in the Prosecution
+The heart of the controversy surrounding the Epstein case is the apparent undue leniency
+afforded him concerning his sentence. After offering a deal that required a "non-negotiable"
+24-month term of incarceration, Acosta agreed to resolve it for an 18-month term of incarceration,
+knowing that gain time would reduce it further, and indeed, Epstein served only 13 months.
+Epstein ultimately did not serve even that minimal sentence incarcerated on a full-time basis
+because the state allowed Epstein into its work release program within the first four months of his
+sentence. As Lourie told OPR, "[E]verything else that happened to [Epstein] is exactly what
+should have happened to him.... He had to pay a lot of money. He had to register as a sex
+offender," but "in the perfect world, [Epstein] would have served more time in jail."
+Due to the passage of time and the subjects' inability to recall many details of the relevant
+events, OPR was unable to develop a clear understanding of how the original two-year sentence
+requirement was developed or by whom. Two possibilities were articulated during OPR's subject
+interviews: (1) the two years represented the sentence Epstein would have received had he pled
+guilty to an unspecified charge originally contemplated by the state; or (2) the two years
+represented the sentence the USAO determined Epstein would be willing to accept, thus avoiding
+the need for a trial. As to the former possibility, Acosta told OPR that his "best understanding" of
+the two-year proposal was that it correlated to "one of the original state charges." He elaborated,
+255
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney objected to OPR's conclusion that Acosta knew or
+to pursuing the computers before the NPA was signed. Acosta's attorney asserted that Acosta was not involved in
+it was appropriate for him to rely on his staff to raise any issues of concern to him. For the reasons stated above, OPR
+nonetheless concludes that having developed a unique resolution to a federal investigation, Acosta had a greater
+obligation to understand and consider what the USAO was giving up and the appropriateness of doing so.
+179
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 207 of 349
+"I'm reconstructing memories of ... 12 years ago. I can speculate that at some point, the matter
+came up, and I or someone else said ... what would the original charges have likely brought? And
+someone said this amount." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall who initially proposed this
+not asked for her views on a two-year sentence, and she had no input into the decision before it
+was made. Villafaña told OPR that she examined the state statutes and could not validate that a
+state charge would have resulted in a 24-month sentence. OPR also examined applicable state
+statutes and the Florida sentencing guidelines, but could not confirm that Epstein was, in fact,
+facing a potential two-year sentence under charges contemplated by the PBPD.
+On the other hand, during his OPR interview, Lourie "guess[ed]" that "somehow the
+defense conveyed ... we're going to trial if it's more than two years." Menchel similarly told
+OPR that he did not know how the two year sentence was derived, but "obviously it was a number
+that the office felt was palatable enough that [Epstein] would take" it. Sloman told OPR that he
+had no idea how the two-year sentence proposal was reached.
+The contemporaneous documentary record, however, provides no indication that Epstein's
+team proposed a two-year sentence of incarceration or initially suggested, before the USAO made
+its offer, that Epstein would accept a two-year term of incarceration. As late as July 25, 2007-
+only days before the USAO provided the term sheet to defense counsel Epstein's counsel
+submitted a letter to the USAO arguing that the federal government should not prosecute Epstein
+at all. Furthermore, after the initial "term sheet" was presented and negotiations for the NPA
+progressed, Epstein's team continued to strongly press for less or no time in jail.
+The USAO had other charging and sentencing options available to it. The most obvious
+alternative to the two-year sentence proposal was to offer Epstein a plea to a federal offense that
+carried a harsher sentence. If federally charged, Epstein was facing a substantial sentence under
+the federal sentencing guidelines, 168 to 210 months' imprisonment. However, it is unlikely that
+he would have agreed to a plea that required a guidelines sentence, even one at the lower end of
+the guidelines. Menchel told OPR that he and his colleagues had been concerned that Epstein
+would opt to go to trial if charged and presented with the option of pleading to a guidelines
+sentence, and as previously discussed, there were both evidentiary and legal risks attendant upon
+a trial in this case. If federally charged, Epstein's sentencing exposure could have been managed
+by offering him a plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c) for a stipulated sentence,
+which requires judicial approval. Acosta rejected this idea, however, apparently because of a
+perception that the federal district courts in the Southern District of Florida did not view Rule 11(c)
+pleas favorably and might refuse to accept such a plea and thus limit the USAO's options.
+Another alternative was to offer Epstein a plea to conspiracy, a federal charge that carried
+a maximum five-year sentence. Shortly after Villafaña circulated the prosecution memorandum
+to her supervisors, Lourie recommended to Acosta charging Epstein by criminal complaint and
+offering a plea to conspiracy "to make a plea attractive." Similarly, before learning that Menchel
+had already discussed a state-based resolution with Epstein's counsel, Villafaña had considered
+offering Epstein a plea to one count of conspiracy and a substantive charge, to be served
+concurrently with any sentence he might receive separately as a result of the state's outstanding
+180
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 208 of 349
+indietment. Given Epstein's continued insistence that federal charges were not appropriate and
+defense counsel's efforts to minimize the amount of time Epstein would spend in jail, it is
+questionable whether Epstein would have accepted such a plea offer, but the USAO did not even
+extend the offer to determine what his response to it would be.
+Weighed against possible loss at trial were some clear advantages to a negotiated resolution
+that ensured a conviction, including sexual offender registration and the opportunity to establish a
+mechanism for the victims to recover damages. These advantages, added to Acosta's concern
+about intruding on the state's authority, led him to the conclusion that a two-year state plea would
+be sufficient to prevent manifest injustice. Menchel told OPR, "I don't believe anybody at the
+time that this resolution was entered into was looking at the two years as a fair result in terms of
+the conduct. I think that was not the issue. The issue was whether or not if we took this case to
+trial, would we risk losing everything?"
+During the course of negotiations over a potential federal plea, the USAO agreed to accept
+a plea for an 18-month sentence, a reduction of six months from the original "non-negotiable" twoyear term. The subjects did not have a clear memory of why this reduction was made. Villafaña
+attributed it to a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, but Acosta attributed it to a decision
+made during the negotiating process by Villafaña and Lourie, telling OPR that he understood his
+attorneys needed flexibility to reach a final deal with Epstein.
+OPR found no contemporaneous documents showing the basis for the two-year term.
+Despite extensive subject interviews and review of thousands of contemporaneous records, OPR
+was unable to determine who initially proposed the two-year term of incarceration or why that
+term, as opposed to other possible and lengthier terms, was settled on for the initial offer. The
+term was not tied to statutory or guidelines sentences for potential federal charges or, as far as
+OPR could determine, possible state charges. Furthermore, while the USAO initially informed the
+defense that the two-year term was "non-negotiable," Acosta failed to enforce that position and
+rather than a "floor" for negotiations, it became a "ceiling" that was further reduced during the
+negotiations. OPR was unable to find any evidence indicating that the term of incarceration was
+tied either to the federal interest in seeking a just sentence for a serial sexual offender, or to other
+traditional sentencing factors such as deterrence, either of Epstein or other offenders of similar
+crimes.
+Instead, as previously noted, it appears that Acosta primarily considered only a
+punishment that was somewhat more than that to which the state had agreed. As a result, the
+disproportionate to the seriousness of Epstein's conduct.
+In sum, it is evident that Acosta's desire to resolve the federal case against Epstein led him
+to arrive at a target term of incarceration that met his own goal of serving as a "backstop" to the
+state, but that otherwise was untethered to any articulable, reasonable basis. In assessing the case
+only through the lens of providing a "backstop" to the state, Acosta failed to consider the need for
+a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of Epstein's conduct and the federal interest in
+addressing it.
+181
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 209 of 349
+D. Acosta's Decisions Led to Difficulties Enforcing the NPA
+After the agreement was reached, the collateral attacks and continued appeals raised the
+specter that the defense had negotiated in bad faith. At various points, individual members of the
+USAO team became frustrated by defense tactics, and in some instances, consideration was given
+to whether the USAO should declare a unilateral breach. Indeed, on November 24, 2008, the
+USAO gave notice that it deemed Epstein's participation in work release to be a breach of the
+agreement but ultimately took no further action. Acosta told OPR: "I was personally very
+frustrated with the failure to report on October 20, and had I envisioned that entire collateral attack,
+I think I would have looked at this very differently."
+Once the NPA was signed, Acosta could have ignored Epstein's requests for further review
+by the Department and, if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under the NPA to enter his state
+guilty plea, declared Epstein to be in breach and proceeded to charge him federally. When
+questioned about this issue, Acosta explained that he believed the Department had the "right" to
+address Epstein's concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of
+Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be "unseemly" to object. During his
+OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta's
+prior Department experience. Sloman, however, believed the USAO gave Epstein "[tJoo much
+process," a result of the USAO's desire to "do the right thing" and to the defense team's ability to
+keep pressing for more process without triggering a breach of the NPA. Furthermore, Epstein's
+defense counsel repeatedly and carefully made clear they were not repudiating the agreement.
+Acosta told OPR that the USAO would have had to declare Epstein in breach of the NPA in order
+to proceed to file federal charges, and Epstein would undoubtedly have litigated whether his effort
+to obtain Departmental review constituted a breach. Acosta recalled that he was concerned, as was
+Sloman, that a unilateral decision to rescind the non-prosecution agreement would result in
+collateral litigation that would further delay matters and make what was likely a difficult trial even
+harder.
+Acosta's and Sloman's concerns about declaring a breach were not unreasonable. A court
+would have been unlikely to have determined that defense counsel's appeal of the NPA to the
+Department and unwillingness to set a state plea date while that appeal was ongoing was sufficient
+to negate the agreement. However, some of the difficulty the USAO faced in declaring a breach
+was caused by decisions Acosta made before and shortly after the NPA was signed. For example,
+and significantly, it was Acosta who changed the language, "Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and
+be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007" to "Epstein shall use [his] best efforts to enter his
+guilty plea and be sentenced not later than October 26, 2007." (Emphasis added.) Acosta also
+agreed not to enforce the NPA's October 26, 2007 deadline for entry of Epstein's plea, and he told
+defense counsel that he had no objection if they decided to pursue an appeal to the Department.
+Following these decisions, the USAO would have had significant difficulty trying to prove that
+Epstein was not using his "best efforts" to comply with the NPA and was intentionally failing to
+comply, as opposed to pursuing a course to which the U.S. Attorney had at least implicitly agreed.
+E. S
+Acosta Did Not Exercise Sufficient Supervisory Review over the Process
+The question at the center of much of the public controversy concerning the USAO's
+handling of its criminal investigation of Epstein is why the USAO agreed to resolve a case in which
+182
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 210 of 349
+the defendant faced decades in prison for sexual crimes against minors with such an insignificant
+term of incarceration, and made numerous other concessions to the defense. As OPR has set forth
+in substantial detail in this Report, OPR did not find evidence to support allegations that the
+prosecutors sought to benefit Epstein at the expense of the victims. Instead, the result can more
+appropriately be tied to Acosta's misplaced concerns about interfering with a traditionally state
+crime and intruding on state authority. Acosta was also unwilling to abandon the path that he had
+set, even when Villafaña and Lourie advocated to end the negotiations and even though Acosta
+himself had learned that the state authorities may not have been a reliable partner.
+Many of the problems that developed might have been avoided had Acosta engaged in
+greater consultation with his staff before making key decisions. The contemporaneous records
+revealed problems with communication and coordination among the five key participants. Acosta
+was involved to a greater extent and made more decisions than he did in a typical case. Lourie
+told OPR that it was "unusual to have a U.S. Attorney get involved with this level of detail."
+Menchel told OPR, "I know we would have spoken about this case a lot, okay? And I'm sure with
+Jeff as well, and there were conversations -- a meeting that I had with
+and Andy as well."
+Lourie similarly told OPR:
+Well, ... he would have been talking to Jeff and Matt, talking to me
+to the extent that he did, he would have been looking at the Pros
+Memo and ... the guidance from CEOS, he would have been
+reading the defense attorney's letters, maybe talking to the State
+Attorney, I don't know, just ... all these different sources of
+information he was -- I'm comfortable that he knew the case, you
+know, that he was, he was reading everything. Apparently, he, you
+know, read the Pros Memo, he read all the stuff....
+At the same time, Acosta was significantly removed, both in physical distance and in levels
+in the supervisory chain, from the individuals with the most knowledge of the facts of the case
+Villafaña and, to a lesser extent, Lourie. Lourie normally would have signed off on the prosecution
+memorandum on his own, but as he told OPR, he recognized that the case was going to go through
+the front office "[bJecause there was front office involvement from the get go." Yet, although
+Acosta became involved at certain points in order to make decisions, he did not view himself as
+overseeing the investigation or the details of implementing his decisions. OPR observed that as a
+consequence, management of the case suffered from both an absence of ownership of the
+investigation and failures in communication that affected critical decisions.
+On occasion, Villafaña included Acosta directly in emails, but often, information upon
+which Acosta relied for his decisions and information about the decisions Acosta had made
+traveled through multiple layers between Acosta and Villafaña. Villafaña did draft a detailed,
+analytical prosecution memorandum, but it is not clear that Acosta read it and instead may have
+relied on conversations primarily with Menchel and later with Sloman after Menchel's departure.
+Despite these discussions, though, it is not clear that Acosta was aware of certain information, such
+as Oosterbaan's strong opinion from the outset in favor of the prosecution or of Villafaña's
+concerns and objections to a state-based resolution or the final NPA. Acosta interpreted the state
+indictment on only one charge as a sign that the case was weak evidentially, but it is not clear that
+when making his decision to resolve the matter though a state-based plea, he knew the extent to
+183
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 211 of 349
+which Villafaña and Lourie believed that the state had intentionally failed to aggressively pursue
+a broader state indictment.
+One example illustrates this communication gap. In a September 20, 2007 email to Lourie
+asking him to read the latest version of the proposed "hybrid" federal plea agreement (calling for
+Epstein to plead to both state and federal charges), Acosta noted, "I don't typically sign plea
+agreements. We should only go forward if the trial team supports and signs this agreement. I
+didn't even sign the public corruption or [C] cartel agreements, so this should not be the first."
+(Emphasis added.) In his email to Villafaña, Lourie attached Acosta's email and instructed
+Villafaña to "change the signature block to your name and send as final to Jay [Lefkowitz]."
+(Emphasis added.) Villafaña raised no objection to signing the agreement. Acosta told OPR that
+he wanted to give the "trial team" a chance to "speak up and let him know" if they did not feel
+comfortable with the agreement. Villafaña, however, told OPR that she did not understand that
+she was being given an opportunity to object to the agreement; rather, she believed Acosta wanted
+her to sign it because he was taking an "arm's length" approach and signaling this "was not his
+deal." The fact that the top decision maker believed he was giving the line AUSA an opportunity
+to reflect and stop the process if she believed the deal was inappropriate, but the line AUSA
+believed she was being ordered to sign the agreement because her boss wanted to distance himself
+from the decision, reflects a serious communication gap.
+As another example, at one point, Villafaña, frustrated and concerned about the decisions
+being made concerning a possible resolution, requested a meeting with Acosta; in a sternly worded
+rebuke, Menchel rejected the request. Although Menchel told OPR that he was not prohibiting
+Villafaña from speaking to Acosta, Villafaña interpreted Menchel's email to mean that she could
+not seek a meeting with Acosta. As a consequence, Acosta made his decision about a state
+resolution and the term of incarceration without any direct input from Villafaña. Acosta told OPR
+that he was unaware that Villafaña had sought a meeting with him and he would have met with
+her if she had asked him directly. OPR did not find any written evidence of a meeting involving
+both Acosta the final decision maker—and Villafaña the person most knowledgeable about the
+facts and the law—before Acosta made his decision to resolve the case through state charges or to
+offer the two-year term, and Villafaña said she did not have any input into the decision. Although
+a U.S. Attorney is certainly not required to have such direct input, and it may be that Menchel
+presented what he believed to be Villafaña's views, OPR found no evidence that Acosta was aware
+of Villafaña's strong views about, and objections to, the proposed resolution. 256
+Two logistical problems hindered effective communication. First, the senior managers
+involved in the case—Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel had offices located in Miami, while the
+offices of the individuals most familiar with facts of the caseVillafaña and, to a lesser extent,
+Lourie-—were located in West Palm Beach. Consequently, Villafaña's discussions with her senior
+256
+In her 2017 Declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that, given the challenges of obtaining
+victims" cooperation with a federal prosecution, "I believed and still believe that a negotiated resolution of the matter
+was in the best interests of the [USAO] and the victims as a whole. The [USAO] had also reached that same
+conclusion." Several subjects pointed to this statement as indicating that Villafaña in fact supported the NPA. In her
+OPR interview, however, Villafaña drew a distinction between resolving the investigation through negotiations that
+led to what in her view was a reasonable outcome, which she would have supported, and "this negotiated resolution"-
+that is, the NPA—which she did not support.
+184
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 212 of 349
+managers required more effort than in other offices, where a line AUSA can more easily just stop
+by a supervisor's office to discuss a case.257
+Second, key personnel were absent at varying times. Menchel's last day in the office was
+August 3, 2007, the day he sent to the defense his letter making the initial offer, and presumably
+in the immediate period before his departure date, Menchel would have been trying to wrap up his
+outstanding work. Yet, this was also the time when Acosta was deciding how to resolve the matter.
+Similarly, in the critical month of September, the NPA and plea negotiations intensified and the
+NPA evolved significantly, with the USAO having to consider multiple different options as key
+provisions were continuously added or modified while Villafaña pressed to meet her late-
+September deadline. Although Lourie was involved with the negotiations during this period, he
+was at the same time transitioning not only to a new job but to one in Washington, D.C., and was
+traveling between the two locations. Sloman was on vacation in the week preceding the signing,
+when many significant changes were made to the agreement, and he did not participate in drafting
+or reviewing the NPA before it was signed. Accordingly, during the key negotiation period for a
+significant case involving a unique resolution, no one involved had both a thorough understanding
+of the case and full ownership of the decisions that were being made. Villafaña certainly felt that
+during the negotiations, she was only implementing decisions made by Acosta. Acosta, however,
+told OPR that when reviewing the NPA, "I would have reviewed this for the policy concerns. Did
+it do the ... bullet points, and my assumption, rightly or wrongly, would have been that Andy and
+would have looked at this, and that this was... appropriate."
+The consequences flowing from the lack of ownership and effective communication can
+be seen in the NPA itself.
+As demonstrated by the contemporaneous communications, the
+negotiations were at times confusing as the parties considered multiple options and even revisited
+proposals previously rejected. Meanwhile, Villafaña sought to keep to a deadline that would allow
+her to charge Epstein when she had planned to, if the parties did not reach agreement. In the end,
+Acosta accepted several terms with little apparent discussion or consideration of the ramifications.
+The USAO's agreement not to prosecute "any potential co-conspirators" is a notable
+example. As previously noted, the only written discussion about the term that OPR found was
+Villafaña's email to Lourie and the incoming West Palm Beach manager, with copies to her
+co-counsel and direct supervisor, stating that she did not believe the provision "hurts us," and
+neither Acosta, Lourie, nor Villafaña recalled any further discussion about the provision. Although
+OPR did not find evidence showing that Acosta, Lourie, or Villafaña intended the scope of the
+provision to protect anyone other than Epstein's four assistants, the plain language of the provision
+precluded the USAO from prosecuting anyone who engaged with Epstein in his criminal conduct,
+within the limitations set by the overall agreement. This broad prosecution declination would
+likely be unwise in most cases but in this case in particular, the USAO did not have a sufficient
+investigative basis from which it could conclude with any reasonable certitude that there were no
+other individuals who should be held accountable along with Epstein or that evidence might not
+be developed implicating others. Prosecutors rarely promise not to prosecute unidentified third
+257
+In his OPR interview, Acosta commented that although Menchel's office was on the same floor as Acosta's,
+he was in a different suite, which "affects interaction."
+185
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 213 of 349
+parties.258 The rush to reach a resolution should not have led the USAO to agree to such a
+significant provision without a full consideration of the potential consequences and justification
+for the provision. It is highly doubtful that the USAO's refusal to agree to that term would have
+immigration consequences did not affect Epstein's willingness to sign the agreement. The
+possibility that individuals other than Epstein's four female assistants could have criminal
+culpability for their involvement in his scheme could have been anticipated and should have caused
+more careful consideration of the provision.
+Similarly, the confidentiality provision was also accepted with little apparent consideration
+of the implications of the provision for the victims, and it eventually became clear that the defense
+interpreted the provision as precluding the USAO from informing the victims about the status of
+the investigation. Agreeing to a provision that restricted the USAO's ability to disclose or release
+information as it deemed appropriate mired the USAO in disputes about whether it was or would
+be violating the terms of the NPA by disclosing information to victims or the special
+Decisions about disclosure of information should have remained within the authority and province
+of the USAO to decide as it saw fit.
+There is nothing improper about a U.S. Attorney not having a meeting with the line AUSA
+or other involved members of the prosecution team before he or she makes a decision in a given
+case; indeed, U.S. Attorneys often make decisions without having direct input from line AUSAs.
+And Acosta did have discussions with Menchel, and possibly Sloman, before making the critical
+decision to resolve the matter through a state plea, although the specifics of those discussions could
+not be recalled by the participants due to the passage of time. This case, however, was different
+from the norm, and Acosta was considering a resolution that was significantly different from the
+usual plea agreement. Contemporaneous records show that Acosta believed the case should be
+handled like any other, but Acosta's decision to fashion an unorthodox resolution made the case
+unlike any other, and it therefore required appropriate and commensurate oversight. Acosta may
+well have decided to proceed in the same fashion even if he had sought and received a full briefing
+258
+CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR this provision was "very unusual." Principal Associate Deputy Attorney
+General John Roth commented, "I don't know how it is that you give immunity to somebody who's not identified. I
+just don't know how that works." Villafaña's co-counsel told OPR:
+[It's effectively transactional immunity which I didn't think we were supposed
+to do at the Department of Justice.... I've never heard of anything of the sort....
+[W]e go to great lengths in most plea agreements to go and not give immunity for
+example, for crimes of violence, ... for anything beyond the specific offense
+which was being investigated during the specific time periods and for you and
+nobody else. I mean on rare occasion I've seen cases where say someone was
+dealing drugs and their wife was involved.... And they've got kids.... [and] it's
+understood that the wife probably could be prosecuted and sent to jail too, but you
+know the husband's willing to go and take the weight .... This is not one of
+those.
+Deputy Attorney General Filip called the provision "pretty weird." Menchel's successor as Criminal Chief told OPR
+that he had never heard of such a thing in his 33 years of experience as a prosecutor. A senior AUSA with substantial
+experience prosecuting sex crimes against children commented that it was "horrendous" to provide immunity for
+186
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 214 of 349
+from Villafaña and others, but given the highly unusual procedure being considered, his decision
+should have been made only after a full consideration of all of the possible ramifications and
+consequences of pushing the matter into the state court system, with which neither Villataña nor
+the other subjects had experience, along with consideration of the legal and evidentiary issues and
+possible means of overcoming those issues. OPR did not find evidence indicating that such a
+meeting or discussion with the full team was held before the decision was made to pursue the
+state-based resolution, before the decision was made to offer a two-year term of incarceration, or
+before the NPA, with its unusual terms, was signed. As Acosta later recognized and told OPR,
+"And a question that I think is a valid one in my mind is, did the focus on, let's just get this done
+and get a jail term, mean that we didn't take a step back and say, let's evaluate how this train is
+moving?"
+Many features of the NPA were given inadequate consideration, including core provisions
+like the term of incarceration and sexual offender registration, with the result that Epstein was able
+to manipulate the process to his benefit. Members of his senior staff held differing opinions about
+some of the issues that Acosta felt were important and that factored into his decision-making.
+There does not seem to be a point, however, at which those differing opinions were considered
+when forming a strategy; rather, Acosta seems to have made a decision that everyone beneath him
+followed and attempted to implement but without a considered strategy beyond attaining the three
+core elements. As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had authority to proceed in this manner, but many of
+the problems that developed with the NPA might have been avoided with a more thoughtful
+approach. As Acosta belatedly recognized, "I]f 1 was advising a fellow U.S. Attorney today, I
+would say, think it through. "259
+No one of the individual problems discussed above necessarily demonstrates poor
+judgment by itself. However, in combination, the evidence shows that the state-based resolution
+was ill conceived from the start and that the NPA resulted from a flawed decision-making process.
+From the time the USAO opened its investigation, Acosta recognized the federal interest in
+prosecuting Epstein, yet after that investigation had run for more than a year, he set the
+investigation on a path not originally contemplated. Having done so, he had responsibility for
+ensuring that he received and considered all of the necessary information before putting an end to
+a federal investigation into serious criminal conduct. Acosta's failure to adequately consider the
+full ramifications of the NPA contributed to a process and ultimately a result that left not only the
+line AUSA and the FBI case agents dissatisfied but also caused victims and the public to question
+the motives of the prosecutors and whether any reasonable measure of justice was achieved.
+Accordingly, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment in that he chose a course of
+action that was in marked contrast to the action that the Department would reasonably expect an
+attorney exercising good judgment to take.
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Acosta's attorney acknowledged that "[t]he matter would have
+benefited from more consistent staffing and attention."
+187
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 215 of 349
+188
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 216 of 349
+CHAPTER THREE
+ISSUES RELATING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERACTIONS
+AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH VICTIMS
+PART ONE: FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+OVERVIEW
+Chapter Three describes the events pertaining to the federal government's interactions and
+factual background set forth in Chapter Two,
+thorities and Department policies and practices regarding victim notification and consultatior
+is well as OPR's analysis and conclusions. OPR discusses key events relating to the USAO's an
+the FBI's interactions with victims before and after the signing of the NPA, beginning with the
+FBI's initial contact with victims through letters informing them that the FBI had initiated an
+investigation. A timeline of key events is provided on the following page.
+II. THE CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771
+A. History
+In December 1982, the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime issued a final report
+outlining recommendations for the three branches of government to improve the treatment of crime
+victims. The Task Force concluded that victims have been "overlooked, their pleas for justice
+have gone unheeded, and their woundspersonal, emotional and financial have gone
+unattended."260 Thereafter, the government enacted various laws addressing victims' roles in the
+criminal justice system: the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, the Victims of Crime Act
+of 1984, the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), the Violent Crime Control and
+Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the
+Victim Rights Clarification Act of 1997, and the Justice for All Act of 2004.261
+The CVRA, enacted on October 30, 2004, as part of the Justice for All Act, was designed
+to protect crime victims and to make them "full participants in the criminal justice system."262 The
+CVRA resulted from a multi-year bipartisan effort to approve a proposal for a constitutional
+amendment guaranteeing victims' rights, some of which had previously been codified as a victims'
+260
+President's Task Force on Victims of Crime Final Report at ii (Dec. 1982).
+261
+See Pub. L. No. 97-291 (Victim and Witness Protection Act) (1982); Pub. L. No. 98-473 (Victims of Crime
+Act) (1984); Pub. L. No. 101-647 (Victims' Rights and Restitution Act) (1990); Pub. L. No. 103-322 (Violent Crime
+Control and Law Enforcement Act) (1994); Pub. L. No. 104-132 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act)
+(1996); Pub. L. No. 105-6 (Victim Rights Clarification Act) (1997); and Pub. L. No. 108-405 (Justice for All Act)
+(2004).
+Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220,
+234 (4th Cir. 2007); and Justice for All Act.
+189
+
+
+Document
+N
+--
+Aug
+
+Aug 10 - FBI
+begins interviewing
+Victims
+Aug 24 - Villafaña e-mail
+to supervisors indicating
+that she sent victim
+notification letters to "all
+of the girls"
+Aug 28 - FBI begins
+sending VNS letters
+to victims
+Sep - Dee
+2006
+Jan - Jun
+Timeline of Key Events for Crime Victims' Rights Act Analysis
+Dec 7 - Sloman tells
+Villafata to hold the
+letter" re notification to
+victims about state court
+plea bearing
+Mar 19 - Villafaila
+secures pro-bono
+attorneys for victims
+Dee 19 - Acosta sends
+letter to Epstein's counsel
+advising USAO will defer
+notification of state plea
+to state oflicials
+Mar-May - FBI
+interviews victims
+Jan 10 - FBI
+sends VNS letter
+to some victims
+Jal
+Ang
+Sep
+Oct
+Nov
+Dee
+Jan
+Feb
+Mar
+Apr
+May
+Jun
+Jul
+2007
+2008
+Sept 6 - Villafaila e-mail to
+Sloman raising victim
+consultation issue, which
+Sloman forwards to Acosta
+Jan 31-Feb 1 - FBI,
+Villafaña, and CEOS
+atforney interview victims
+Sept 24 - NPA
+is signed
+Feb 19 - Villafaña
+completes third update to
+prosecution memorandum
+June 27 - Villafaña
+drafts new version of
+indictment
+Oct - FBI agents meet with 3
+victims to inform them of the
+NPA, but then raise
+impeachment concerns
+Feb 28 - USAO notifies DOJ
+Civil Rights Division that
+Epstein investigation is ongoing
+June 27-28 — Villafaña
+contacts Reiter and Edwards
+regarding Epstein's plea
+June 30 - Epstein pleads
+guilty in state court
+Oct - Nov - FBI agents
+interview additional
+victims for the first time
+July 7- Jane Doc files an
+emergency petition against
+the United States asserting
+violations of the CVRA
+July 9 - USAO begins
+sending letters to victims
+concerning resolution of
+federal investigation
+Additional Key Dates
+Dec 17, 2010 - DOJ
+Office of Legal
+Counsel issues opinion
+regarding CVRA
+Oct 2011 - DOJ revises
+AG Guidelines
+May 29, 2015 - CVRA
+amended to include two
+new rights
+Feb 21, 2019 - Dist. Ct.
+issues opinion finding
+U.S. violated the
+CVRA
+Jul 6, 2019 - Epstein
+arrested on SDNY
+charges
+Aug 10, 2019 - Epstein
+dies in custody
+Sep 16, 2019 - Dist. Ct.
+closes CVRA case and
+denies petitioners"
+request for remedies
+Apr 14, 2020 - 11th
+Circuit Court of
+Appeals denies
+Mandamus petition
+Aug 7, 2020 -
+Petitioners' petition for
+rehearing en banc
+granted
+190
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 218 of 349
+Bill of Rights in the VRRA.23 Following multiple Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee
+hearings and various revisions of the proposed amendment, the Senators determined that such an
+amendment was unlikely to be approved and, instead, they presented the CVRA as a compromise
+measure. 264
+B. Enumerated Rights
+The CVRA defines the term "crime victim"
+as a result of the commission of an ederal offense or an prisone in the District or Columbia, nec
+Initially, and at the time relevant to the federal Epstein investigation, the CVRA afforded crime
+victims the following eight rights:
+(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
+(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public cour
+roceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing
+evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be
+materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that
+proceeding.
+(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the
+district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole
+proceeding.
+(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the
+Government in the case.
+See 150 Cong. Rec. S4260-01 at 1, 5 (2004). The VRRA identified victims' rights to (1) be treated with
+fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy; (2) be reasonably protected from the accused offender;
+(3) be notified of court proceedings; (4) be present at all public court proceedings that relate to the offense, unless the
+court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial;
+(5) confer with an attorney for the Government in the case; (6) restitution; and (7) information about the conviction,
+sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender. 42 U.S.C. § 10606(b) (1990). The relevant text of the VRRA
+is set forth in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section 1.B of this Report.
+150 Cong. Rec. S4260-01 at 1, 5 (2004). Although nine congressional hearings were held between 1996 and
+2003 concerning amending the Constitution to address victims' rights, neither chamber of Congress voted on
+legislation proposing an amendment. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), GAO-09-54, Report
+to Congressional Committees: Crime Victims" Rights Act - Increasing Awareness, Modifying the Complaint Process
+and Enhancing Compliance Monitoring Will Improve Implementation of the Act at 16 (Dec. 2008) (GAO CVRA
+Awareness Report).
+265
+The relevant text of the CVRA is set forth in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section I.A of this Report.
+191
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 219 of 349
+(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
+(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
+(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the
+victim's dignity and privacy.
+Although many of the rights included in the CVRA already existed in federal law as part
+of the VRRA, the CVRA afforded crime victims standing to assert their rights in federal court or
+by administrative complaint to the Department, and obligated the court to ensure that such rights
+were afforded. The passage of the CVRA repealed the rights portion of the VRRA (42 U.S.C.
+§ 10606), but kept intact the portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to
+provide certain victim services, such as counseling and medical care referrals (42 U.S.C.
+§ 10607(c)). Department training emphasizes that the VRRA obligates the Department to provide
+victim services, which attach upon the detection of a crime, while the CVRA contains courtenforceable rights that attach upon the filing of a charging instrument.
+In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA and added the following two rights: 266
+(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain
+or deferred prosecution agreement.
+(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the
+services described in section 503(c) of the Vietims' Rights and
+Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact
+information for the Office of the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the
+Department of Justice.
+III. THE DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CVRA'S DEFINITION OF
+"CRIME VICTIM" AT THE TIME OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION
+A. April 1, 2005 Office of Legal Counsel "Preliminary Review"
+In 2005, Department management requested informal guidance from the Department's
+Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding interpretation of the CVRA's definition of "crime
+victim."267 On April 1, 2005, OLC provided "preliminary and informal" guidance by email,
+concluding that "the status of a 'crime victim' may be reasonably understood to commence upon
+the filing of a complaint, and that the status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or
+prosecute the Federal offense that directly caused the victim's harm."268
+266
+H. Rep. No. 114-7 (Jan. 27, 2015).
+267
+OLC is responsible for providing legal advice to the President, Department components, and other executive
+branch agencies.
+The OIC 2005 Informal Guidance is summarized in a Memorandum Opinion to the Acting Deputy Attorney
+General from Deputy Assistant Attorney General John E. Bies (Dec. 17, 2010), published as Office of Legal Counsel,
+192
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 220 of 349
+OLC concluded that because the CVRA defines "**crime victim' as a "person directly and
+proximately harmed by the commission of a Federal offense,' ... the definition of victim is thus
+tethered to the identification of a 'Federal offense,' an event that occurs with the filing of a
+complaint." OLC further concluded that because the House Report stated that the CVRA codifies
+the "rights of crime victims in the Federal judicial system'" and a complaint "commences the
+"judicial process' and places an offense within the "judicial system,"" the legislature must have
+intended for CVRA rights to commence upon the filing of a complaint.
+OLC also found that the language of the CVRA rights supported its interpretation. For
+example, the first right grants a victim protection from "the accused," not a suspect. Additionally,
+the second, third, and fourth rights refer to "victim notification, and access to, public proceedings
+involving release, plea, sentencing or parole none of which commence prior to the filing of a
+complaint."
+B. 2005 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance
+In May 2005, the Department updated its Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and
+Witness Assistance (2005 Guidelines) to include the CVRA. 269 The 2005 Guidelines specifically
+cited the CVRA requirement that agencies "engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution
+of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded" their
+CVRA rights, which in 2005 encompassed the initial eight CVRA rights.
+The 2005 Guidelines provided detail regarding implementation of the Department's CVRA
+duties and divided criminal cases into an "investigation stage," a "prosecution stage," and a
+"corrections stage." The individuals responsible for notifying crime victims of their CVRA rights
+varied depending on the stage of the proceedings.
+During the "investigation stage" of cases in which the FBI was the investigating agency,
+the Special Agent in Charge was responsible for identifying the victims "[a]t the earliest
+opportunity after the detection of a crime" and notifying them of their rights under the CVRA and
+services available under the VRRA and other federal statutes.
+[DJuring the investigative stage, [the Department] mandates
+compliance with the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act, 42 U.S.C
+§ 10607, which requires federal officials to, among other things,
+identify victims, protect victims, arrange for victims to receive
+reasonable protection from suspected offenders, and provide
+The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (Dec. 17, 2010) ("OLC
+Availability of Crime Victims' Rights (2010)") and available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ole/
+opinions/2010/12/31/availability-crime-victims-rights.pdf. "That [2005] informal guidance did not foreclose the
+possibility that other definitions would also be reasonable." OLC Availability of Crime Victims" Rights (2010) at 1.
+269
+The 2005 Guidelines are set forth in relevant part in Chapter Three, Part Two, Section II of this Report. The
+Department promulgated the guidelines in response to a congressional directive in a predecessor statute to the CVRA,
+which instructed the Attorney General to develop and implement such guidelines. Victim and Witness Protection Act,
+Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 6, 96 Stat. 1248 (1982). The 2005 Guidelines were superseded in October 2011, as explained
+below.
+193
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 221 of 349
+information about available services for victims. Therefore, even
+though [the Department] may not afford CVRA rights to victims if
+charges have not been filed in their cases, the [D]epartment may
+provide certain services to victims that may serve the same function
+as some CVRA rights. 270
+The 2005 Guidelines stated that the "prosecution stage" of the case began when "charges
+are filed and continue[d] through postsentencing legal proceedings." The "U.S. Attorney in whose
+district the prosecution is pending" was responsible for making "best efforts to see that crime
+victims are notified" of their rights under the CVRA.
+During the prosecution stage, the 2005 Guidelines required the U.S. Attorney, or a
+designee, to notify crime victims of case events, such as the filing of charges; the release of an
+offender; the schedule of court proceedings; the acceptance of a guilty plea or nolo contendere or
+rendering of a verdict; and any sentence imposed. The 2005 Guidelines required the responsible
+official to "provide the victim with reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court
+proceeding ... that involves the crime against the victim."
+The 2005 Guidelines specifically required federal prosecutors to "be available to consult
+with victims about [their] major case decisions," such as dismissals, release of the accused, plea
+negotiations, and pretrial diversion. In particular, the 2005 Guidelines required the responsible
+official to make reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views
+about, prospective plea negotiations. Nevertheless, the 2005 Guidelines cautioned prosecutors to
+"consider factors relevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving notice and considering [the
+victim's] views" in light of various factors such as "[w]hether the proposed plea involves
+confidential information or conditions" and "[w]hether the victim is a possible witness in the case
+and the effect that relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial."
+Lastly, the 2005 Guidelines stated that "[a] strong presumption exists in favor of providing rather
+than withholding assistance and services to victims and witnesses of crime."
+The "corrections stage" involved both pretrial detention of the defendant and incarceration
+following a conviction. Depending on the agency having custody of the defendant, the U.S.
+Attorney or other agencies were responsible for victim notifications during this stage.
+IV.
+USAO AND FBI VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PRACTICE AT THE TIME
+OF THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION
+A. USAO Training
+As U.S. Attorney, Acosta disseminated the May 2005 updated Guidelines to USAO
+personnel with a transmittal memorandum dated February 27, 2006, stating that he expected each
+ecipient "to read and become familiar with the [2005] Guidelines." Acosta noted in th
+lemorandum that the USAO had recently held an "all office training" addressing the 200
+Guidelines and that new USAO attorneys who missed the training were required to view
+videotaped version of the training "immediately." Acosta further noted that the USAO's
+270
+GAO CVRA Awareness Report at 66.
+194
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 222 of 349
+victim/witness staff were "ready to assist you with the details of victim notification, and other
+areas for which United States Attorney[']s Offices are now explicitly responsible under the act."
+The USAO's Victim Witness Program Coordinator told OPR that the USAO provided annual
+mandatory office-wide training on victim/witness issues and training for new employees.
+B. The Automated Victim Notification System
+Both the FBI and the USAO manage contacts with crime victims through the Victim
+Notification System (VNS), an automated system maintained by the Executive Office for United
+States Attorneys. The 2005 Guidelines mandated that "victim contact information and notice to
+victims of events ... shall, absent exceptional circumstances (such as cases involving juvenile or
+foreign victims), be conducted and maintained using VNS." The VNS is separate from agency
+case management systems maintained by the FBI and the USAO. Both the FBI and the USAO
+use the VNS to generate form letters to victims at various points in the investigation and the
+prosecution of a criminal case. Although each form letter can be augmented to add some limited
+individual matter-specific content, the letters contain specific language concerning the purpose of
+the contact that cannot be removed (such as the arrest of the defendant or the scheduling of a
+sentencing hearing).271
+In the usual course of a criminal case, the FBI collects victim contact information during
+the investigation stage, which it stores in its case management system. The FBI's Victim Specialist
+exports the victim information data from the FBI's case management system into the VNS
+database. Victim information stored in the VNS is linked to the investigation's VNS case number.
+At the time of the Epstein investigation, the FBI's Victim Specialist could use the VNS to generate
+seven different form notification letters: (1) initial notification; (2) case is under investigation;
+(3) arrest of the defendant; (4) declination of prosecution; (5) other; (6) advice of victim rights;
+and (7) investigation closed.
+After a charging document has been filed and the "prosecution stage" begins, the USAO's
+Victim Witness Specialist assumes responsibility for victim notification.272 The USAO imports
+data from its case management system into the VNS and links to the previously loaded FBI VNS
+data. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist uses the VNS to generate form letters providing
+notice of case events, such as charges filed; an arraignment; a proposed plea agreement; change of
+plea hearings; sentencing hearings; and the result of sentencing hearings.
+271
+U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of the Inspector General Audit Division Audit Report 08-04, The Department of
+Justice's Victim Notification System at 29 (Jan. 2008), available at https://oig.justice.gov/reports/EOUSA/a0804
+inal.pdf. The 2008 audit identified concerns with the VNS templates, including that "VNS users ... cannot alter th
+format to ensure that it fits with the specific case for which it is being sent," and many users had noted that "information
+in notifications became confusing and sometimes contradictory when various types of notifications were combined in
+the same letter."
+272
+The FBI and the USAO have different titles for the individual who maintains victim contact: the FBI title is
+"Victim Specialist," and the USAO title is "Victim Witness Specialist."
+195
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 223 of 349
+C. FBI Victim Notification Pamphlets
+The 2005 Guidelines recommended that "victims be given a printed brochure or card that
+briefly describes their rights and available services ... and [contact information for] the victimwitness coordinator or specialist..." At the time of the Epstein investigation, FBI agents
+nationwide routinely followed a practice of providing victims with pamphlets entitled, "Help for
+Victims of Crime" and "The Department of Justice Victim Notification System." The "Help for
+Victims of Crime" pamphlet contained a listing of the eight CVRA rights. The pamphlet stated:
+"Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the indictment of an individual for the crime,
+and it will be the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you
+are afforded those rights." The case agent in the Epstein investigation told OPR that she provided
+victims with the FBI pamphlet upon the conclusion of an interview. The pamphlet entitled "The
+Department of Justice Victim Notification System" provided an overview of the VNS and
+instructions on how to access the system.
+V. THE INTRODUCTORY USAO AND FBI LETTERS TO VICTIMS
+A. August 2006: The FBI Victim Notification Letters
+On August 8, 2006, shortly after the FBI opened its investigation into Epstein, the Victim
+Specialist for the West Palm Beach FBI office, under the case agent's direction, prepared a "Victim
+Notification Form" naming 30 victims in the Epstein investigation and stating that "additional
+pertinent information" about them was available in the VNS. 273 Thereafter, the Victim Specialist
+entered individual victim contact information she received from the case agent into the VNS
+whenever the case agent directed the Victim Specialist to generate an initial letter to a particular
+victim. The FBI case agent told OPR that formal victim notification was "always handled by the
+[FBI's Victim Specialist]. "274
+According to the VNS records, beginning on August 28, 2006, the FBI Victim Specialist
+used the VNS to generate FBI letters to be sent to the victims, over her signature, identifying the
+eight CVRA rights and inviting victims to provide updated contact information in order to receive
+current status information about the matter. The FBI letters described the case as "currently under
+investigation" and noted that "It]his can be a lengthy process and we request your continued
+patience while we conduct a thorough investigation." The letters also stated that some of the
+CVRA rights did not take effect until after an arrest or indictment: "We will make our best efforts
+to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring
+fter the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the responsibilit
+of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights."
+sample letter follows.
+These 30 were drawn from the PBPD investigative file and included individuals that the PBPD had not
+designated as victims and individuals the PBPD had identified but not interviewed.
+274
+The case agent told OPR, "[O]nce we identify a victim, then we bring [the FBI Victim Specialist] in, and as
+far as anything pertaining to victim rights... and any resources, federal resources these victims may need comes from
+[her], the Victim Specialist."
+196
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 224 of 349
+Federal Burcau of Investigation
+FBI - West Palm Beach
+Suite 500
+505 South Flagler Drive
+West Palm Beech, FL 33401
+Phone: (561) 833-7517
+Fax: (561) 833-7970
+August 28, 2006
+Re: Case Numbe
+Dear
+Your name was referred to the FBI's Victim Assistance Program as being a possible victim of a federal
+crime. We appreciate your assistance and cooperation while we are investigating this case. We would like to
+make you aware of the victim services that may be available to you and to answer any questions you may have
+regarding the criminal justice process throughout the investigation. Our program is part of the FBl's effort to
+ensure the victims are treated with respect and are provided information about their rights under federal law.
+These rights include notification of the status of the case. The enclosed brochures provide information about the
+FBI's Victim Assistance Program, resources and instructions for accessing the Victim Notification System
+(VNS). VNS is designed to previde you with information regarding the status of your case.
+This case is currently under investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we request your continued
+patlence while we conduct a thorough investigation.
+As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (I) The right to be
+reasonably protested from the acoused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public
+court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the aocused; (3)
+The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and
+convincing evidenco, determines that testimony by the victim would be materielly altered if the victim heard
+other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any publie proceeding in the district
+court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the
+attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The
+right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay: (8) The right to be trested with frimess and with respect for
+the victim's dignity and privacy.
+We will make our best efforts to ensure you are acconded the rigits described. Most of these rights
+pertain to events occurring after the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become the
+responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensurs you are accorded those rights. You
+may also sock the advice of a private attorney with respoct to these rights
+The Victim Notification System (VNS) is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the
+case as it proccods through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this matter on
+the Internet ar WWW. Notify USDOIGOV or from the VNS Call Center at
+In addition, you may use the Call Center or
+Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification
+program. If you update your information to include a current email address, VNS will send information to that
+address. You will need the following Victim Identification Number (VIN) |
+and Personal Identification
+Number (PIN) L
+anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log on to VS on the Internet. In
+addition, the frst time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or
+business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is l
+197
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 225 of 349
+If you have additional questiens which involve this matier, please contact the office listed above. When
+you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Flease remember, your participation in
+the notificatien part of this program is voluntary. In order to costinue to receive notifications, it is your
+responsibility to keep your contact information current.
+Sincerely,
+Victim Specialist
+VNS data logs, correspondence maintained in the FBI's case management system, and FBI
+interview reports for the Epstein investigation reflect that, during the Epstein investigation, the
+FBI generally issued its victim notification letters after the victim had been interviewed by FBI
+case agents, but its practice was not uniform. 275
+B.
+August 2006: The USAO's Letters to Victims
+During the time that the FBI Victim Specialist was preparing and sending FBI victim
+notification letters, Villafaña was also preparing her own introductory letter in anticipation of
+meeting with each victim receiving the letter. Villafaña told OPR that she was "generally aware
+that the FBI sends letters" but believed the FBI's "process didn't ... have anything to do with my
+process." Villafaña told OPR the "FBI had their own victim notification system and their own
+guidelines for when information had to be provided and what information had to be provided."
+Moreover, Villafaña "didn't know when [FBI] letters went out" or "what they said."276
+Nevertheless, Villafaña told OPR that she did not intend for the letters she drafted to interfere with
+the FBI's notification responsibilities.
+In August 2006, Villafaña drafted her letters to victims who had been initially identified
+by the FBI based on the PBPD investigative file. Villafaña told OPR that she "made the decision
+to make contact with victims early," and she composed the introductory letter and determined to
+whom they would be sent. Although these letters contained CVRA rights information, Villafaña
+mainly intended to use them as a vehicle to "introduce herself and let the victims know the federal
+investigation "would be a different process" from the State Attorney's Office investigation in
+which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated." Villafaña told OPR that in a
+case in which she "needed to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate
+275
+OPR found no uniformity in the time lapse between the FBI's interview of a victim and the issuance of an
+FBI letter to that particular victim, as the span of time between the two events varied from a few days to months.
+Furthermore, not every victim interviewed by the FBI received an FBI letter subsequent to her interview, and some
+FBI letters were sent to victims who had not been interviewed by the case agents. Finally, OPR's review of FBI VNS
+data revealed some letters that appeared to have been generated in the VNS and not included in the FBI case file. OPR
+could not confirm whether such letters were mailed or delivered.
+Villafaña, who did not have supervisory authority over the FBI's Victim Specialist, told OPR that she did
+not review the FBI notification letters and did not see them until she gathered them for production in the CVRA
+litigation, which was initiated after Epstein pled guilty on June 30, 2008.
+198
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 226 of 349
+questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafaña directed
+the FBI case agents to hand deliver the letters "as they were conducting interviews." Villafaña
+told OPR that the USAO had "no standardized way to do any victim notifications prior to" the
+filing of federal charges, and therefore Villafaña did not use a template or VNS-generated letter
+for content, but instead used a letter she "had created and crafted [herself] for another case."*277
+The letters contained contact information for Villafaña, the FBI case agent, and the
+Department's Office for Victims of Crime in Washington, D.C., and itemized the CVRA rights.
+The USAO letters described the case as "under investigation" and stated that the victim would be
+notified "[i]f anyone is charged in connection with the investigation." The letters stated that, in
+addition to their rights under the CVRA, victims were entitled to counseling, medical services, and
+potential restitution from the perpetrator, and that, upon request, the government would provide a
+list of counseling and medical services.2 Lastly, the letters advised that investigators for the
+defense might contact the victims and those who felt threatened or harassed should contact
+Villafaña or the FBI case agent.
+Although the USAO letters did not contain any language limiting CVRA rights to the postarrest or indictment stage, Villatana told OPR that she did not intend for the letters to activate the
+USAO's CVRA obligations, which she believed attached only after the filing of a criminal charge.
+Villafaña told OPR that she did not think that victims potentially receiving both an FBI letter and
+a USAO letter would be confused about their CVRA rights because the USAO letter "was coming
+with an introduction from the agents [who were hand delivering them]." Later, in the course of
+the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that she and the investigative team "adopted an approach of
+providing more notice and assistance to potential victims than the CVRA may have required, even
+before the circumstances of those individuals had been fully investigated and before any charging
+decisions had been made."279
+Villafaña informed Lourie and Sloman about the letters, but the letters were not reviewed
+by any of Villafaña's supervisors, who considered such correspondence to be a non-management
+task. Acosta told OPR, "T've had no other case where I'm even aware of victims being notified,
+because I assume it all operates without it rising to management level." Similarly, Menchel told
+OPR,
+277
+Villafaña told OPR that she thought that "at one point," she showed the letter to the USAO's Victim Witness
+Specialist who "said it was fine." The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist told OPR that because the USAO did not
+file a charging document in the Epstein matter, the USAO did not obtain VNS information from the FBI and did not
+assume responsibility for victim contact. The USAO's Victim Witness Specialist had no contact with Epstein's
+victims, and OPR's examination of VNS data revealed no USAO case number linked to the FBl's VNS data
+concerning the Epstein investigation. OPR did locate some victim contact information in the VNS relating to the
+USAO's case number associated with the Epstein-related CVRA litigation filed in July 2008.
+Through its administration of the Crime Victims Fund, the Department's Office for Victims of Crime
+supports programs and services to help victims of crime.
+279
+Villafaña informed OPR that, as the USAO Project Safe Childhood Coordinator [focusing on prosecutions
+of individuals who exploit children through the internet], she "treated the [Guidelines] as a floor and tried to provide
+a higher standard of contact."
+199
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 227 of 349
+[A]s Chief of the Criminal Division of the USAO, I did not consider
+it to be within my purview to ensure that appropriate victim
+notifications occurred in every matter investigated or brought by the
+Office. I also recall that the USAO employed one or more victimwitness coordinators to work with line prosecutors to ensure that
+appropriate victim notifications occurred in every matter
+investigated or brought by the Office.
+C. USAO and FBI Letters Are Hand Delivered
+The FBI case agent told OPR that the FBI made its notifications "at the time that we met
+[with] the girls." The case agent recalled that she hand delivered the USAO letters and FBI letters
+to some victims following in-person interviews, and in the instances when she did not provide a
+victim with a letter, she provided an FBI pamphlet containing CVRA rights information similar to
+that set forth in the FBI letters. 280 The co-case agent also recalled that he may have delivered "a
+few" letters to victims. The FBI Victim Specialist told OPR that she mailed some FBI letters to
+victims and she provided some FBI letters to the case agent for hand delivery.
+Nevertheless, the case agent told OPR that she "did not sit there and go through every
+right" with the victims. She stated, however, "[I]n the beginning whether it was through [the FBI
+Victim Specialist] giving the letter, me giving a letter, the pamphlet, I believed that the girls knew
+that they were victims and had rights, and they had a resource, [the FBI Victim Specialist], that
+they could call for that." The FBI case agent further explained that once the case agents connected
+the FBI Victim Specialist with each victim, the Victim Specialist handled the victims* "rights and
+resources."
+VI. AUGUST 2006 - SEPTEMBER 2007: FBI AND USAO CONTACTS WITH
+VICTIMS BEFORE THE NPA IS SIGNED
+Early in the investigation, Villafaña informed her supervisors that, up to that point,
+"everyone whom the agents have spoken with so far has been willing to tell her story. Getting
+them to tell their stories in front of a jury at trial may be much harder." Between August 2006 and
+September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, the FBI case agents interviewed 22 victims. On
+a few occasions, Villatana met with victims together with the FBI. Villatana's May 1, 2007 draft
+dictment included substantive crimes against multiple victims, and Villafaña described ti
+rcumstances of each of their encounters with Epstein in her prosecution memorandu
+There is some evidence indicating that during interviews, some of the victims expressed to
+the FBI case agents and Villafaña concerns about participating in a federal trial of Epstein, and
+those discussions touched upon, in broad terms, the victims' views regarding the desired outcome
+of the investigation. Before the USAO entered into the NPA, however, no one from the
+The case agent told OPR,
+"I remember giving letters to the girls when we would talk to them at ... the
+conclusion, or ... if I didn't have the file on me[,] I had pamphlets in my car, or I made sure [the victims had contact
+information for the FBI's Victim Specialist]."
+200
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 228 of 349
+government informed any victim about the potential for resolving the federal investigation through
+a state plea.
+A.
+The Case Agents and Villafaña Solicit Some Victims' Opinions about
+Resolving the Federal Investigation
+Villafaña told OPR that when she and the case agents met with victims, "we would ask
+them how they wanted the case to be resolved. "281
+And most of them wanted the case to be resolved via a plea. Some
+of them wanted him not to be prosecuted at all. Most of them did
+not want to have to come to court and testify. They were very
+worried about their privacy rights. Some of them wanted him to go
+to jail. But ... [sJome of them talked about bad experiences with
+the State Attorney's Office. And so, I felt like sending them back to
+the State Attorney's Office was not something that they would have
+supported.
+Villafaña told OPR that she also recalled that some victims "expressed ... concern about
+their safety," and were worried that Epstein would find out about their participation in the
+investigation. In her 2017 declaration submitted in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that the
+two CVRA petitioners "never communicated [their] desires to me or the FBI case agents and my
+role was to evaluate the entire situation, consider the input received from all of the victims, and
+allow the Office to exercise its prosecutorial discretion accordingly."2%2 She also noted that some
+victims "fear[ed] having their involvement with Epstein revealed and the negative impact it would
+have on their relationships with family members, boyfriends, and others."
+In the FBI case agent's 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, she stated, "During
+interviews conducted from 2006 to 2008, no victims expressed a strong opinion that Epstein be
+prosecuted." She further described the concerns of some of the victims:
+Throughout the investigation, we interviewed many [of Epstein's]
+victims .... A majority of the victims expressed concern about the
+possible disclosure of their identities to the public. A number of the
+victims raised concerns about having to testify and/or their parents
+finding out about their involvement with Mr. Epstein. Additionally,
+281
+Villafaña created for OPR a chart listing victims identified in the state and federal investigations, with
+notations indicating several with whom Villafaña recalled discussing their opinions about resolving the case. The
+chart, however, does not indicate what the victims said, and Villafaña told OPR that the information contained in the
+chart was based on her memory of her interactions with each victim. OPR was unable to determine the details or
+resolution of the federal investigation with anyone from the government.
+282
+prosecuted."
+In the declaration, Villafaña stated, "Jane Doe 2 specifically told me that she did not want Epstein
+201
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 229 of 349
+for some victims, learning of the Epstein investigation and possible
+exposure of their identities caused them emotional distress. Overall,
+many of the victims were troubled about the existence of the
+investigation. They displayed feelings of embarrassment and
+humiliation and were reluctant to talk to investigators. Some
+victims who were identified through the investigation refused even
+to speak to us. Our concerns about the victims" well-being and
+getting to the truth were always at the forefront of our handling of
+the investigation.
+The case agent told OPR that although she encountered victims who were "strong" and
+"believable," she did not encounter any who vigorously advocated for the prosecution of Epstein.
+Rather, "they were embarrassed," "didn't want their parents to know," and "wanted to forget."283
+As of September 24, 2007, the date the NPA was signed, Villafaña informed Epstein
+acknowledged during the CVRA litigation that "individual victims were not consulted regarding
+the agreement."
+B.
+Before the NPA Is Signed, Villafaña Expresses Concern That Victims Have
+Not Been Consulted
+Before the NPA was signed, Villafaña articulated to her supervisors concerns about the
+government's failure to consult with victims.
+1.
+July 2007: Villafaña's Email Exchanges with Menchel
+a possible state resolution to the federal investigation of Epstein. Villafaña was upset by this
+information, and sent a strongly worded email to Menchel voicing her concerns. (A full account
+of their email exchange is set forth at Chapter Two, Part One, Section IV.A.2.) In that email, she
+told him that it was "inappropriate [for you] to make a plea offer that you know is completely
+unacceptable to the FBI, ICE, the victims, and me. These plea negotiations violate ... all of the
+283
+The case agent also noted that the victim who became CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 had expressed in her
+April 2007 video-recorded FBI interview her opinion that "nothing should happen to Epstein."
+284
+The "victims" list" for purposes of the NPA was intended to include the names of all individuals whom the
+government was prepared to name in a charging document "as victims of an offense enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255."
+Although the charges Villafaña proposed on May 1, 2007, were based on crimes against 13 victims, thereafter, as
+explained in Chapter Two of this Report, she continued to revise the proposed charges, adding and removing victims
+as the federal investigation developed further evidence. At the time the NPA was signed, the proposed charges were
+based on crimes against 19 victims, but others had been identified for potential inclusion.
+202
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 230 of 349
+various iterations of the victims' rights legislation."285 Villafaña explained to OPR her reference
+to the victims:
+[M]y concern was that [Menchel] was violating the CVRA which
+requires the attorneys for the government, which[] includes me[,] to
+confer with the victims, and the [VRRA], which requires the agents
+to keep the victims apprised of what's happening with the case. So
+in essence, I felt like he was exposing both myself and the agents to
+allegations of not abiding by our obligations by engaging in these
+olea negotiations without letting us know about it. 28€
+In his reply to Villafaña's email, and after noting that he found her email "totally
+inappropriate," Menchel denied that he had violated any Departmental policy, and he noted that
+"[a]s Chief of the Criminal Division, I am the person designated by the U.S. Attorney to exercise
+appropriate discretion in deciding whether certain pleas are appropriate and consistent with"
+Departmental policy. Perceiving Menchel's rebuke as a criticism of her judgment, Villafaña
+responded, "[R]aising concerns about the forgotten voices of victims in this case should not be
+classified as a lapse in judgment" and that her "first and only concern in this case ... is the victims."
+Menchel told OPR that he did not view his conversation with
+as a plea offer,
+asserted that he was not obligated to consult with victims during preliminary settlement
+negotiations, and noted that he left the USAO before the NPA was fully negotiated or signed.
+Menchel told OPR that "you have discussions ... with [the] defense all the time, and the notion
+that even just having a general discussion is something that must be vetted with victims ... is not
+even ... in the same universe as to how I think about this." Menchel also observed that on the
+very day that Villafaña criticized him for engaging in settlement negotiations without consulting
+her, the FBI, or the victims, Villafaña had herself sent an email to L
+offering "to discuss the
+possibility of a federal resolution of Mr. Epstein's case that could run concurrently with any state
+resolution," without having spoken to the victims about her proposal.287
+285
+Villafaña told OPR that "some victims, I felt strongly, would have objected to [a state-only disposition]."
+Villafaña stated to OPR that at the time Menchel engaged in such negotiations, he would only have been aware of the
+victim information contained in her prosecution memorandum, which included information about the "effects on the
+victims" but did not likely contain information as to "how they would like the case resolved." Villafaña asserted that
+Menchel "never reached out to any of the victims to find out what their position would be." Menchel told OPR that
+the allegations in Villafaña's email that he violated the Ashcroft Memo, USAM, and the CVRA were "way out of line
+in terms of what the law is and the policies are."
+286
+As discussed, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not apply before charges were
+filed against a defendant.
+287
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Villafaña's counsel asserted that her email to
+was intended
+only to determine whether Epstein was interested in opening plea negotiations.
+203
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 231 of 349
+2.
+Villafaña Asserts That Her Supervisors Gave Instructions Not to
+Consult Vietims about the Plea Discussions, but Her Supervisors Do
+Not Currently Recall Such Instructions
+Villafaña told OPR that during an "early" meeting with Acosta, Sloman, and Menchel,
+which took place when "we were probably just entering into plea negotiations," she raised the
+government's obligation to confer with victims. Initially, Villafaña told OPR she was
+instructed, "Don't talk to [the victims]. Don't tell them what's happening," but she was not told
+why she should not speak to the victims, and she could not recall who gave her this instruction. In
+a subsequent OPR interview, Villafaña recalled that when she raised the issue of notification
+during the meeting, she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential. You can't disclose them."289
+Villafana remained uncertain who gave her this instruction, but believed it may have been Acosta.
+Neither Acosta, Sloman, nor Menchel recalled a meeting at which Villafaña was directed
+not to notify the victims. Acosta told OPR that the decision whether to solicit the victims' view
+"is something [that] I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I was focused
+on at least at this time," and he did not "recall discussions about victim notification until after the
+NPA was signed." Sloman also told OPR that he did not recall a meeting at which victim
+notification was discussed. Menchel wrote in his response to OPR, "I have no recollection of any
+discussions or decisions regarding whether the USAO should notify victims of its intention to enter
+into a pre-charge disposition of the Epstein matter." Furthermore, Menchel told OPR he could not
+think of a reason why the issue of victim notification would have arisen before he left the USAO,
+because "we were way off from finalizing or having anything even close to a deal," and it would
+have been "premature" to consider notification. 290
+September 6, 2007: Villafaña Informs Sloman, Who Informs Acosta,
+of Oosterbaan's Opinion That Consultation with Victims Was
+Required
+On September 6, 2007, in a lengthy email to Sloman responding to his question about the
+government's then-pending offer to the defense, Villafaña raised the victim consultation issue,
+advising that, "the agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their approval, which as
+[CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law" and that "the [PBPD]
+288
+Villafaña could not recall the specific date of the meeting, but Menchel left the USAO on August 3, 2007.
+Villafaña also recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations could cause
+victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein."
+290
+In commenting on OPR's draft report, Menchel's counsel reiterated his contention that Villafaña's claim
+about a meeting involving Menchel in which she was instructed not to consult with victims was inaccurate and
+inconsistent with other evidence. OPR carefully considered the comments but did not conclude that the evidence to
+which Menchel's attorney pointed necessarily refuted Villafaña's assertion that she had received an instruction from
+a supervisor not to inform victims about the plea negotiations. However, it is also true that OPR did not find any
+reference in the emails and other documents dated before the NPA was signed to a meeting at which victim
+consultation was discussed or to a specific instruction not to consult with the victims. This is one of several events
+about which Menchel and Villataña disagreed, but given OPR's conclusion that the Department did not require
+prosecutors to consult with victims before charges were brought, OPR does not reach a conclusion regarding the
+alleged meeting and instruction.
+204
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 232 of 349
+Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal.*291 Sloman forwarded this
+email to Acosta. Villafaña recalled that Sloman responded to her email by telephone, possibly
+after he had spoken to Acosta, and stated, "[YJou can't do that now." Villafaña did not recall
+Sloman explaining at the time the reason for that instruction.
+Villafaña told OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[We've
+been advised that ... pre-charge resolutions do not require victim notification." Sloman did not
+recall any discussions, before the NPA was signed, about contacting the victims or conferring with
+them regarding the potential resolution of the case. Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that
+we had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA," and "we did not have to seek
+approval from victims to resolve a case. We did have an obligation to notify them of the resolution
+in .. filed cases." Sloman said that no one other than Villafaña raised the notification issue, and
+because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution of the matter, Sloman "did not think that we
+had to consult with victims prior to entering into the NPA." Lourie told OPR that he had no
+memory of Villafaña being directed not to speak to the victims about the NPA. 292 Similarly, the
+attorney who assumed Lourie's supervisory duties after Lourie transitioned to his detail in the
+Department told OPR that he did not recall any discussions regarding victim notification and he
+"assumed that was being handled."293
+Acosta did not recall the September 6, 2007 email, but told OPR that "there is no
+requirement to notify [the victims], because it's not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state
+prosecution." Acosta told OPR that he could not recall any "pre-NPA discussions" regarding
+victim notification or any particular concern that factored into the decision not to consult with the
+victims before entering into the NPA.?4 Ultimately, Acosta acknowledged to OPR, "[C]learly,
+given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had [consulted with the victims]."
+CEOS Chief Oosterbaan told OPR that he disagreed with the USAO's stance that the
+CVRA did not require pre-charge victim consultation, but in his view the USAO "posture" was
+not "an abuse of discretion" or "an ethical issue," but rather reflected a "serious and legitimate
+291
+Villafaña told OPR that she referred to Oosterbaan in the email because "he was the head of CEOS and
+because I think they were tired of hearing me nag them [to notify the victims]." As previously noted, Villafaña's
+statement that victim approval had to be obtained was incorrect. Even when applicable, the CVRA only requires
+consultation with victims, not their approval of a plea agreement. Moreover, Villafaña's comments concerning the
+pre-charge application of the USAO's CVRA obligation to consult with the victims appear at odds with her statement
+to OPR that the CVRA applied to the USAO only after a defendant was charged and that she did not intend to activate
+the USAO's CVRA obligations when she sent letters to victims in August 2006.
+Lourie noted that during this period, he had left Florida and was no longer the supervising AUSA in the
+office, but was "help[ing] [] out" from offsite because he had "historical knowledge" of the case.
+293
+The AUSA who for a time served as Villafaña's co-counsel on the Epstein investigation similarly did not
+"know anything about" discussions in the USAO regarding the need to inform victims of the likely disposition of the
+case. The AUSA stated that he stopped working on the case "months earlier" and that he "didn't have anything to do
+with the [NPA] negotiations."
+294|
+Villafaña told OPR that she was not aware of any *improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order
+to ... instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victim[s].*
+205
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 233 of 349
+disagreement" regarding the CVRA's requirements.?95 Oosterbaan's disagreement was based on
+policy considerations, and he told OPR that "from a policy perspective," CEOS would not "take a
+position that you wouldn't consult with [the victims]." Oosterbaan also told OPR that whether or
+not the law required it, the victims should have been given an opportunity "to weigh in directly,"
+but he did not fault the USAO's motivations for failing to provide that opportunity:
+The people I know, Andy [Lourie], Jeff [Sloman], ... were trying
+to do the right thing. ... [T]hey weren't acting unethically. I just
+disagree with the outcome ... but the point is they weren't trying
+... to do anything improper ... it was more of this question of ...
+you can let the victims weigh in on this, you can get their input on
+this and maybe it doesn't sway you. You still do what you're going
+to do but ... it's hard to say it was a complete, completely clean
+exercise of ... prosecutorial discretion when [the USAO] didn't
+really know what [the victims] would say.
+Sloman told OPR, "I don't think we had a concern about entering into the NPA at that point
+in terms of notifying victims. ... I was under the perception that once the NPA was entered into
+and [Epstein] was going to enter a guilty plea in state court that we were going to notify the
+victims."
+VII. SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 - JUNE 30, 2008: AFTER THE NPA IS SIGNED, THE
+USAO MAKES VARIOUS VICTIM NOTIFICATION DECISIONS
+The contemporaneous emails make clear that once the NPA was signed, Villafaña and the
+case agents planned to inform the victims about the resolution of the federal investigation.
+However, the emails also show that the USAO was unclear about how much information could be
+given to the victims in light of the NPA's nondisclosure provision and consulted with Epstein's
+defense counsel regarding victim notifications.296 As a result, although the expectation in the
+USAO was that the victims would be informed about the NPA, the monetary damages provision,
+and the state plea, the USAO became entangled in more negotiations with the defense attorneys,
+who strongly objected to the government's notification plan. In addition, Villafaña and the case
+agents grew concerned that notifying the victims about the NPA monetary damages provision
+would damage the victims' credibility if Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to trial. In
+the end, Acosta decided to defer to the State Attorney's discretion whether to notify the victims
+about the state plea, and information about the NPA and the monetary damages provision was not
+provided to vietims until after Epstein pled guilty in June 2008.
+295
+Oosterbaan stated that, in retrospect, "maybe I should have been more aggressive with how ... I dealt with
+[the USAO]."
+The NPA nondisclosure provision stated: "The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part
+fany public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory proce
+ommanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure
+206
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 234 of 349
+A. September - October 2007: The Case Agents Notify Some Victims about the
+NPA, but Stop When the Case Agent Becomes Concerned about Potential
+Impeachment
+In transmitting the signed NPA to Villafana on September 24, 2007, defense attorney
+Lefkowitz asked Villafaña to "do whatever you can to prevent [the NPA] from becoming
+public."297 Villafaña forwarded this email to Acosta, Lourie, and the new West Palm Beach
+manager noting that, "I don't intend to do anything with it except put it in the case file." Acosta
+responded that he "thought the [NPA] already binds us not to make [it) public except as required
+by law or [FOIA]" and noted that because the USAO would not proactively inform the media
+about the NPA, "this is the State Attorney|']s show."298 Acosta added, 'In other words, what more
+does he want?" Villafaña responded, "My guess is that if we tell anyone else (like the police chief
+or FBI or the girls), that we ask them not to disclose." Lourie agreed, noting that "there really is
+no reason to tell anyone all the details of the non pros or provide a copy. The [PBPD] Chief was
+only concerned that he not get surprised by all this."299 Acosta responded that he would set up a
+call on September 26, 2007, to talk "about who we can tell and how much.*300
+Also on September 24, 2007, Villafaña emailed the new West Palm Beach manager to
+inform him that once the attorney representative was appointed for the victims, she planned to
+"meet with the girls myself to explain how the system [for obtaining relief under 18 U.S.C. § 2255]
+will work." Villafaña also emailed Lefkowitz stating that she planned to discuss with him "what
+I can tell [the attorney representative] and the girls about the agreement," and she assured
+Lefkowitz that her office "is telling Chief Reiter not to disclose the outcome to anyone." Villafaña
+also provided Lefkowitz with a list of potential candidates for the attorney representative position
+and advocated for an attorney representative who would minimize press coverage of the matter.
+On September 26, 2007, Villafaña emailed Lefkowitz to request guidance on informing the
+victims about the NPA: "Can you give me a call ... I am meeting with the agents and want to
+give them their marching orders regarding what they can tell the girls." Villafaña told OPR that
+because the government and the defense had not agreed on the attorney representative for the
+victims, she reached out to the defense at the direction of either Acosta or Sloman in order to
+coordinate how to inform the victims about the resolution of the case and the fact that there would
+be an attorney to assist them in recovering monetary damages from Epstein. Villafaña told OPR
+that the defense responded to her email by complaining to her supervisors that she should not be
+297
+Villafaña had assured Lefkowitz that the NPA "would not be made public or filed with the Court, but it would
+remain part of our case file. It probably would be subject to a FOIA request, but it is not something that we would
+distribute without compulsory process."
+298
+Acosta told OPR that he believed that the NPA "would see the light of day" because the victims would have
+to "hear about [their $ 2255 rights] from somewhere" and "given the press interest, eventually this would be FOIA'd.'
+299
+Lourie told OPR that the § 2255 provisions of the NPA "that benefitted the victims were there for the victims
+to take advantage of... and they did. How.... they were going to receive that information and when they were going
+to receive it is a different question, but there's no ... issue with the fact that they were going to get that information."
+300
+OPR was unable to determine whether the call took place.
+207
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 235 of 349
+involved in such notifications. According to Villafaña, Sloman then directed her to have the case
+agents make the victim notifications.
+Accordingly, Villafaña directed the case agents to "meet with the victims to provide them
+with information regarding the terms of the [NPA] and the conclusion of the federal investigation."
+The case agent told OPR, "[T]here was a discussion that
+and had as
+to ... how we would tell them, and what we would tell them, and what that was I don't recall, but
+it was the terms of the agreement." Villafaña believed that if "victims were properly notified of
+the terms [of the NPA] that applied to them, regarding their right to seek damages from [Epstein],
+and he paid those damages, that the rest of the [NPA] doesn't need to be disclosed." Villafaña
+"anticipated that [the case agents] would be able to inform the victims of the date of the state court
+change of plea [hearing], but that date had not yet been set by state authorities at the time the first
+victims were notified [by the FBI]." Villafaña told OPR that it was her belief that because the
+USAO had agreed to a confidentiality clause, the government could not disclose the NPA to the
+general public, but victims could be informed "because by its terms they needed to be told what
+the agreement was about." Villafaña told OPR that no one in her supervisory chain expressed a
+concern that if victims learned of the NPA, they would try to prevent Epstein from entering a plea.
+Within a week after the NPA was signed, news media began reporting that the parties had
+reached a deal to resolve the Epstein case. For example, on October 1, 2007, the
+New York Post reported that Epstein "has agreed to plead guilty to soliciting underage prostitutes
+at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18 months," and noted that
+Epstein would plead guilty in state court and that "the feds have agreed to drop their probe into
+possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to the new state charge. *301
+The case agent recalled informing some victims that "there was an agreement reached" and
+"we would not be pursuing this federally." In October 2007, for example, the case agents met with
+victim
+"to advise her of the main terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement."
+According to the case agent, during that meeting, the case agents told
+"that an agreement had
+been reached, Mr. Epstein was going to plead guilty to two state charges, and there would not be
+a federal prosecution."3u2 However, in a declaration filed in 2015 in the CVRA litigation,
+described the conversation differently:
+[T]he agents explained that Epstein was also being charged in State
+court and may plea [sic] to state charges related to some of his other
+victims. I knew that State charges had nothing to do with me.
+301
+Dan Mangan, "Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal—Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages," New York
+Post, Oct. 1, 2007. See also "Model Shop Denies Epstein Tie," New York Post, Oct. 6, 2007; "Andrew Pal Faces Sex
+List Shame," Mail on Sunday, Oct. 14, 2007; "Epstein Eyes Sex-Rap Relief," New York Post, Oct. 9, 2007; "Sex Case
+"Victims' Lining Up," New York Post "Page Six," Oct. 15, 2007; Dareh Gregorian and Mathew Nestel, "I Was Teen
+Prey of Pervert Tycoon," New York Post, Oct. 18, 2007. The following month, the Palm Beach Post reported the end
+of the federal investigation as well. See "Epstein Has One Less Worry These Days," Palm Beach Post, Nov. 9, 2007;
+"How Will System Judge Palm Beach Predator?," Palm Beach Post "Opinion," Nov. 16, 2007.
+302
+The co-case agent recalled meeting with the victims about the resolution of the case, but could not recall the
+specifics of the discussions.
+208
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 236 of 349
+During this meeting, the Agents did not explain that an agreement
+had already been signed that precluded any prosecution of Epstei
+or federal charges against me. I did not get the opportunity to mee
+or confer with the prosecuting attorneys about any potential federal
+deal that related to me or the crimes committed against me.
+My understanding of the agents' explanation was that the federal
+investigation would continue. I also understood that my own case
+would move forward towards prosecution of Epstein.
+In addition, the case agent spoke to two other victims and relayed their reactions to
+Villafaña in an email:
+Jane Doe #14 asked me why [Epstein] was receiving such a lite [sic]
+jail sentence and Jane Doe #13 has asked for our Victim Witness
+coordinator to get in touch with her so she can receive some much
+needed [p]rofessional counseling. Other than that, their response
+was filled with emotion and grateful to the Federal authorities for
+pursuing justice and not giving up. 303
+The case agent told OPR that when she informed one of these victims, that individual cried and
+expressed "a sense of relief." Counsel for "Jane Doe #13" told OPR that while his client recalled
+meeting with the FBI on a number of occasions, she did not recall receiving any information about
+Epstein's guilty plea. In a letter to OPR, "Jane Doe #14's" attorney stated that although her client
+recalled speaking with an FBI agent, she was not told about the NPA or informed that Epstein
+would not face federal charges in exchange for his state court plea.
+After meeting with these three victims, the FBI case agent became concerned that, if
+Epstein breached the NPA and the case went to federal trial, the defense could use the victims'
+knowledge of the NPA's monetary damages provision as a basis to impeach the victims.304 The
+case agent explained to OPR that she became "uncomfortable" talking to the victims about the
+damages provision, and that as the lead investigator, "if we did end up going to trial ... [if]
+Mr. Epstein breached this that I would be on the stand" testifying that "I told every one of these
+girls that they could sue Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think
+it was right."
+Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "[T]hat's why we went back to
+[Villafaña]
+and said we're not comfortable now putting this out there ... because ... it's likely that [the case
+agent] and I are going to have to take the stand if it went to trial, and this could be a problem."
+Villafaña told OPR that the case agents were concerned they would be accused of "offering a bribe
+303
+The case agent did not record any of the victim notifications in interview reports, because "it wasn't an
+interview of them, it was a notification. ... [I]f there was something ... relevant [that] came up pertaining to the
+investigation, or something that I thought was noteworthy ... I might have [recorded it in an interview report]."
+Within limitations set by the Federal Rules of Evidence, a defendant may attack the credibility of a witness
+through evidence of bias, which may include the witness having received money, or expecting to receive money, from
+the government, the defendant, or other sources as a result of the witness's allegations or testimony.
+209
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 237 of 349
+for [victims] to enhance their stories" and that the defense would try to have Villafaña or the case
+agents removed from the case.
+Both the lead case agent and Villafaña told OPR that after the FBI raised with Villafaña
+the concern that notifying the victims would create potential impeachment material in the event of
+a breach and subsequent trial, they contacted the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer for
+Villafaña recalled that during a brief telephone consultation, the Professional
+notifying victims about the NPA.
+October 2007: Defense Attorneys Object to Government Victim Notifications
+While the case agents and Villafaña considered the impact that notifying the victims about
+the resolution of the case might have on a potential trial, defense counsel also raised concerns
+about what the victims could be told about the NPA. As discussed in Chapter Two, after the NPA
+was signed on September 24, 2007, the USAO proposed using a special
+to select the
+attorney representative for the victims, which led to further discussions about the § 2255 provision.
+On October 5, 2007, when defense attorney Lefkowitz sent Villafaña a letter responding to the
+USAO's proposal to use a special
+1, he cautioned that "neither federal agents nor anyone
+from your Office should contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the
+case" because such communications would "violate the confidentiality of the agreement" and
+would prevent Epstein from having control over "what is communicated to the identified
+individuals at this most critical stage." Lefkowitz followed this communication with an October
+10, 2007 letter to Acosta, arguing that "[neither federal agents nor anyone from your Office should
+contact the identified individuals to inform them of the resolution of the case. 306 Rather,
+Lefkowitz wanted to "participate in crafting a mutually acceptable communication to the identified
+individuals."
+On October 23, 2007, Villafaña raised the issue of victim notification with Sloman, stating:
+We also have to contact the victims to tell [them] about the outcome
+of the case and to advise them that an attorney will be contacting
+them regarding possible claims against Mr. Epstein. If we don't do
+that, it may be a violation of the Florida Bar Rules for the selected
+attorney to 'cold call' the girls.
+As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Two, on October 23, 2007, Lefkowitz sent Acosta
+a letter stating that Epstein expected to enter a guilty plea in state court on November 20, 2007,
+305
+The Professional Responsibility Officer told OPR that he did not recall the case agent contacting him about
+victim notification, nor did he recall being involved in the Epstein matter before the CVRA litigation was instituted
+in July 2008 and he was assigned to handle the litigation. Villafaña told OPR that they consulted the Professional
+Responsibility Officer over the telephone, the call took no more than "five minutes," and the Professional
+Responsibility Officer had no other exposure to the case and thus "wouldn't have [any] context for it."
+306
+Lefkowitz also argued that direct contact with the victims could violate grand jury secrecy rules.
+210
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 238 of 349
+and thanking Acosta for agreeing on October 12, 2007, not to "contact any of the identified
+matter als, potential witnesses, or potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this
+Shortly thereafter, Sloman drafted a response to Lefkowitz's letter, which Acosta
+revised to clarify the "inaccurate" representations made by Lefkowitz, in particular noting that
+Acosta did not agree to a "gag order" with regard to victim contact. The draft response, as revised
+by Acosta, stated:
+You should understand, however, that there are some
+communications that are typical in these matters. As an example,
+our Office has an obligation to contact the victims to inform them
+that either [the Special
+I, or his designee, will be contact[ing]
+them. Rest assured that we will continue to treat this matter as we
+would any similarly situated case. 308
+In a November 5, 2007 letter, Sloman complained to Lefkowitz that private investigators
+working for Epstein had been contacting victims and asking whether government agents had
+discussed financial settlement with them. Sloman noted that the private investigators "actions are
+troublesome because the FBI agents legally are required to advise the victims of the resolution of
+the matter, which includes informing them that, as part of the resolution, Mr. Epstein has agreed
+to pay damages in some circumstances." The same day, Villafaña emailed Sloman expressing her
+concern that "if we [file charges] now, cross-examination will consist of- and the government told
+you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are entitled to a large amount of damages, right? '309
+C. October - November 2007: The FBI and the USAO Continue to Investigate,
+and the FBI Sends a Notice Letter to One Vietim Stating That the Case is
+"Under Investigation"
+Although Villafaña and the FBI case agents decided to stop informing victims about the
+NPA, the FBI continued its investigation of the case, which included locating and interviewing
+potential victims. In October and November 2007, the FBI interviewed 12 potential new victims,
+8 of whom had been identified in a "preliminary" victim list in use at the time Epstein signed the
+307
+Villafaña later emailed Sloman stating that she planned to meet with the case agents to have a "general
+discussion about staying out of the civil litigation."
+308
+Sloman's draft also stated that Acosta had informed the defense in a previous conference call that the USAO
+would not accept a "gag order." OPR recovered only a draft version of the communication and was unable to find
+any evidence that the draft letter was finalized or sent to defense counsel.
+309
+Subsequent records also referred to the prosecutors" concerns about creating impeachment evidence and that
+such concerns played a role in their decision not to notify victims of the NPA until after Epstein pled guilty. In August
+2008, the AUSA handling the CVRA litigation emailed Villafaña, Acosta, and Sloman expressing his understanding
+that the "victims were not consulted [concerning the NPA] ... because [the USAO] did not believe the [CVRA]
+applied." Acosta responded: "As I recall, we also believed that contacting the victims would compromise them as
+potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they were doing this for the money and we did not want to
+discuss liability with them, which was [a] key part of [the] agree[ment]."
+211
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 239 of 349
+NPA.° The FBI reports of the victim interviews do not mention the NPA or indicate that the
+victims were asked for their input regarding the resolution of the case. Villafaña acknowledged
+that she and the case agents did not tell any of the "new" post-NPA-signing victims about the
+agreement because "at that point we believed that the NPA was never going to be performed and
+that we were in fact going to be [charging] Mr. Epstein."
+On October 12, 2007, the FBI Victim Specialist sent a VNS form notice letter to a victim
+the case agents had interviewed two days earlier. This letter was identical to the VNS form notice
+letter the FBI Victim Specialist sent to other victims before the NPA was signed, describing the
+case as "under investigation" and requesting the victim's "patience." The letter listed the eight
+CVRA rights, but made no mention of the NPA or the § 2255 provision. Villafaña told OPR she
+was unaware the FBI sent the letter, but she knew "there were efforts to make sure that we had
+identified all victims of the crimes under investigation." In response to OPR's questions about the
+accuracy of the FBI letter's characterization of the case as "under investigation," Villafaña told
+OPR that the NPA required Epstein to enter a plea by October 26, 2008, and "at this point we
+weren't actively looking for additional charges," but "the investigation wasn't technically
+suspended until he completed all the terms of the NPA."
+D. The USAO Informs the Defense That It Intends to Notify Victims by Letter
+about Epstein's State Plea Hearing and the Resolution of the Federal
+Investigation, but the Defense Strongly Objects to the Notification Plan
+In anticipation of Epstein's state court plea, Villafaña reported on November 16, 2007, to
+Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that she had learned, from FBI agents who met with
+Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek, that the State Attorney's Office wanted the USAO to notify
+victims of the state plea hearing.
+[Belohlavek] would still like us to do the victim notifications. The
+State does not have a procedure (like we do federally) where the
+Court has to provide a separate room for victims who want to attend
+judicial proceedings, so I do not know how many victims will
+actually want to be present.3"'
+Belohlavek told OPR that she did not recall the conversation referenced by the FBI nor any
+coordination between her office and federal officials to contact or notify victims about Epstein's
+state plea hearing.
+On November 19, 2007, Villatana decided that to avoid any misconduct accusations from
+the defense about the information given to victims, she "would put the victim notification in
+writing." She provided Sloman with a draft victim notification letter, in which among other things,
+310
+Not all the individuals interviewed qualified for inclusion on the victim list. For example, one would not
+cooperate with investigators; a second claimed to have simply massaged Epstein with no sexual activity; and a third
+claimed she had no contact with Epstein.
+311
+Villafaña told OPR that she understood the state took the position that because "there was either only one or
+two victims involved in their case," they "could not do victim notifications to all of the victims."
+212
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 240 of 349
+she would inform victims of the terms of the resolution of the federal case, including Epstein's
+agreement to plead guilty to state charges and serve 18 months in county jail, and the victims'
+ability to seek monetary damages against Epstein. The letter also would invite victims to appear
+at the state court hearing and make a statement under oath or provide a written statement to be
+filed by the State Attorney's Office. Sloman and Villafaña exchanged edits on the draft victim
+notification letter, and Villafaña also informed Sloman that "[there are a few girls who didn't
+receive the original letters, so I will need to modify the introductory portion of the letter for
+those. "312
+Sloman informed Lefkowitz of the government's need to meet its "statutory obligation
+(Justice for All Act of 2004) to notify the victims of the anticipated upcoming events and their
+rights associated with the agreement" and his intent to "notify the victims by letter after COB
+Thursday, November 29." Lefkowitz objected to the proposal to notify the victims, asserting that
+it was "incendiary and inappropriate" and not warranted under the Justice for All Act of 2004. He
+argued that the defense "should have a right to review and make objections to that submission
+prior to it being sent to any alleged victims." He also insisted that if any notification letters were
+sent to "victims, who still have not been identified to us, it should happen only after Mr. Epstein
+has entered his plea" and that the letter should come from the attorney representative rather than
+the government. On November 28, 2007, at Sloman's instruction, Villafaña provided Lefkowitz
+with the draft victim notification letter, which would advise victims that the state court plea was
+to occur on December 14, 2007.33
+In a November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz strongly objected to the proposed draft
+notification letter, arguing that the government was not obligated to send any letter to victims until
+after Epstein's plea and sentencing. Lefkowitz also contended that the victims had no right to
+appear at Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing or to provide a written statement for such a
+proceeding. In a November 30, 2007 reply letter to Lefkowitz, Acosta did not address the
+substance of Lefkowitz's arguments, but accused the defense team of "in essence presenting
+collateral challenges" delaying effectuation of the NPA, and asserted that if Epstein was
+dissatisfied with the NPA, "we stand ready to unwind the Agreement" and proceed to trial. Shortly
+thereafter, Acosta informed defense counsel Starr by letter that he had directed prosecutors "not to
+issue victim notification letters until this Friday [December 7] at 5 p.m., to provide you with time
+to review these options with your client." In the letter, Acosta also refuted defense allegations that
+Villafaña had acted improperly by informing the victims of the potential for receiving monetary
+damages, stating that "the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during
+the investigation phase of this matter."
+On December 5, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman
+and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, "reaffirm[ing]" the NPA, but taking "serious issue" with
+312
+On November 28, 2007, two months after the NPA was signed, the lead case agent informed Villafaña that
+nly 15 of the then-known victims had received victim notification letters from either the FBI or the USAO. O
+ecember 6, 2007, the lead case agent reported to Villafaña that she was "still holding many of the original V/
+letters addressed to victims from the USAO."
+313
+Villafaña understood the state prosecutors had set the December 14, 2007 date, and emailed them for
+confirmation, stating, "[I]f the matter is set for the 14th, please let me know so I can include that in my victim
+notifications."
+213
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 241 of 349
+the USAO's interpretation of the agreement and "the use of Section 2255." The Starr and
+Lefkowitz letter asserted it was "wholly inappropriate" for the USAO to send the proposed vietim
+notification letter "under any circumstances," and "strongly urg[ed]" Acosta to withhold the
+notification letter until after the defense was able "to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney
+General Fisher."
+The following day, Sloman sent a letter to Lefkowitz, with copies to Acosta and Villafaña,
+asserting that the VRRA obligated the government to notify victims of the 18 U.S.C. § 2255
+proceedings as "other relief" to which they were entitled. Sloman also stated that the VRRA
+obligated the government to provide the victims with information concerning restitution to which
+they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice of the status of the investigation, the filing
+of charges, and the acceptance of a plea.314 (Emphasis in original). Sloman added:
+Just as in 18 U.S.C. § 3771 [the CVRA], these sections are not
+limited to proceedings in a federal district court. Our Non-
+Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal investigation by
+allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense. The victims
+identified through the federal investigation should be appropriately
+informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does not require the
+U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal obligations.315
+Sloman also addressed the defense objection to advising the victims to contact Villafaña or the
+FBI case agent with questions or concerns: "Again, federal law requires that victims have the
+"reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in this case."' Sloman advised
+the defense: "The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed
+to Mr. Epstein's punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to
+law enforcement."
+Along with this letter, Sloman forwarded to Lefkowitz for comment a revised draft victim
+notification letter that was substantially similar to the prior draft provided to the defense. The
+letter stated that "the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein has been completed," Epstein would
+plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of imprisonment at sentencing,
+and Epstein would compensate victims for damage claims brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The
+letter provided specific information concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing:
+As I mentioned above, as part of the resolution of the federal
+investigation, Mr. Epstein has agreed to plead guilty to state charges.
+Mr. Epstein's change of plea and sentencing will occur on
+December 14, 2007, at
+_ a.m., before Judge Sandra K. McSorley,
+314
+See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c)(1)(B) and (c)(3).
+Emphasis in original. Sloman also stated that the USAO did not seek to "federalize" a state plea, but "is
+simply informing the victims of their rights." Villafaña informed OPR that Sloman approved and signed the letter,
+but she was the primary author of the document. OPR notes that Villafaña was the principal author of most
+correspondence in the Epstein case, and that following the signing of the NPA, regardless of whether the letter went
+out with her, Sloman's, or Acosta's signature, the three attorneys reviewed and edited drafts of most correspondence
+before a final version was sent to the defense.
+214
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 242 of 349
+in Courtroom 11F at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 North
+Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida. Pursuant to Florida
+Statutes Sections 960.001(1)(k) and 921.143(1), you are entitled to
+be present and to make a statement under oath. If you choose, you
+can submit a written statement under oath, which may be filed by
+the State Attorney's Office on your behalf. If you elect to prepare a
+written statement, it should address the following:
+the facts of the case and the extent of any harm, including
+social, psychological, or physical harm, financial losses, loss
+of earnings directly or indirectly resulting from the crime for
+which the defendant is being sentenced, and any matter
+relevant to an appropriate disposition and sentence. FI[a].
+Stat. [S] 921.143(2).
+Sloman told OPR that he was "proceeding under the belief that we were going to notify [the
+victims], even though it wasn't a federal case. Whether we were required or not." Sloman also
+told OPR that while "we didn't think that we had an obligation to send them victim notification
+letters ... I think ..
+and ... the agents ... were keeping the victims apprised at some
+level."
+On December 7, 2007, Villafaña prepared letters containing the above information to be
+sent to multiple victims and emailed Acosta and Sloman, requesting permission to send them.316
+Sloman, however, had that day received a letter from
+, advising that Epstein's plea hearing
+was scheduled for January 4, 2008, and requesting that the USAO "hold off" sending the victim
+notification letters until "we can further discuss the contents." Also that day, Starr and Lefkowitz
+submitted to Acosta the two lengthy "independent ethies opinions" supporting the defense
+arguments against the federal investigation and the NPA's use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Sloman
+responded to Villafaña's request with an email instructing her to "Hold the letter.*31? Sloman told
+OPR that he "wanted to push the [victim notification] letter out," but his instruction to Villafaña
+was "the product of me speaking to somebody," although he could not be definitive as to whom.
+Sloman further told OPR that once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO
+"had concerns that if we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter ... and the deal fell apart, then
+the victims would be instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary
+compensation.
+On December 10, 2007, Villafaña contacted the attorney who at the time represented the
+victim who later became CVRA petitioner "Jane Doe #2" to inform him that she "was preparing
+victim notification letters." In her 2017 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña noted
+that she reached out to Jane Doe #2's counsel, despite the fact that the USAO no longer considered
+316
+The FBI case agent had emailed Villafaña the day before stating, "The letter that is currently being revised
+needs to take into account that several victims have never been notified by your office or mine." The case agent also
+stated, "I do not feel that [the defense] should have anything to do with the drafting or issuing of this letter. My
+primary concern is that we meet our federal obligations to the victims in accordance with federal law."
+317
+Villafaña told OPR that she did not recall asking Sloman for an explanation for not sending the letters; rather,
+she "just remember[ed] putting them all in the Redweld and putting them in a drawer and being disgusted."
+215
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 243 of 349
+her a victim for purposes of the federal charges, and continued to treat her as a victim because she
+wanted "to go above and beyond in terms of caring for the victims. "318
+E.
+December 19, 2007: Acosta Advises the Defense That the USAO Will Defer to
+the State Attorney the Decision Whether to Notify Victims of the State Plea
+Hearing, but the USAO Would Notify Them of the Federal Resolution, "as
+Required by Law"
+On December 11, 2007, Starr transmitted to Acosta two lengthy submissions authored by
+Lefkowitz presenting substantive challenges to the NPA and to "the background and conduct of
+the investigation" into Epstein. Regarding issues relevant to victim notification, in his transmittal
+letter, Starr asserted that the "latest episodes involving [§] 2255 notification to the alleged victims
+put illustratively in bold relief our concerns that the ends of justice, time and time again, are not
+being served." By way of example, Starr complained the government had recently inappropriately
+rovided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though i
+vas clear from the girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as
+victim."
+In his submissions, Lefkowitz argued that the government was not required to notify
+victims of the § 2255 provision:
+Villafaña's decision to utilize a civil remedy statute in the place of
+a restitution fund for the alleged victims eliminates the notification
+requirement under the Justice for All Act of 2004, a federal law that
+requires federal authorities to notify victims as to any available
+restitution, not of any potential civil remedies. Despite this fact,
+[she] proposed a Victims Notification letter to be sent to the alleged
+federal victims.
+Lefkowitz also argued that a victim trust fund would provide a more appropriate
+nechanism for compensating the victims than the government's proposed use of 18 U.S.C. § 2255
+and a trust fund would not violate Epstein's due process rights. Lefkowitz took issue with thi
+government's "assertion" that the USAO was obligated to send a victim notification letter to the
+alleged victims, or even that it was appropriate for the USAO to do so. Lefkowitz further argued
+that the government misinterpreted both the CVRA and the VRRA, because neither applied to a
+public, state court proceeding involving the entry of a plea on state charges.
+In a letter from Villafaña to Lefkowitz, responding to his allegations that she had
+committed misconduct, she specifically addressed the "false" allegations that the government had
+As noted previously, in April 2007, this victim gave a video-recorded interview to the FBI that was favorable
+furnished to the defense. The attorney who was representing this victim at the time of her FBI interview was paid by
+Epstein, and she subsequently obtained different counsel.
+216
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 244 of 349
+informed victims "of their right to collect damages prior to a thorough investigation of their
+allegations against Mr. Epstein":
+None of the victims were informed of the right to sue under
+Section 2255 prior to the investigation of the claims. Three victims
+were notified shortly after the signing of the [NPA] of the general
+terms of that Agreement. You raised objections to any victim
+notification, and no further notifications were done. Throughout
+this process you have seen that I have prepared this case as though
+it would proceed to trial. Notifying the witnesses of the possibility
+of damages claims prior to concluding the matter by plea or trial
+would only undermine my case. If my reassurances are insufficient
+the fact that not a single victim has threatened to sue Mr. Epstein
+should assure you of the integrity of the investigation.
+On December 14, 2007, Villafaña forwarded to Acosta the draft victim notification letter
+previously sent to the defense, along with two draft letters addressed to State Attorney Krischer;
+Villafaña's transmittal email to Acosta had the subject line, "The letters you requested." One of
+the draft letters to Krischer, to be signed by Villafaña, was to advise that the USAO had sent an
+enclosed victim notification letter to specified identified victims and referred to an enclosed "list
+of the identified victims and their contact information, in case you are required to provide them
+with any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law.*319 The second draft letter
+to Krischer, for Acosta's signature, requested that Krischer respond to defense counsel's
+allegations that the State Attorney's Office was not comfortable with the proposed plea and
+sentence because it believed that the case should be resolved with probation and no sexual offender
+registration. OPR found no evidence that these letters were sent to Krischer. 320
+A few days later, in an apparent effort to move forward with victim notifications, Villafaña
+emailed Sloman, stating, "[Is there] anything that I or the agents should be doing?" Villafaña told
+Sloman that "[the FBI case agent] is all worked up because another agent and [a named AUSA]
+are the subject of an OPR investigation for failing to properly confer with and notify victims [in
+an unrelated matter]. We seem to be in a Catch 22."32' OPR did not find a response to Villafaña's
+email.
+In their December 14, 2007 meeting with Acosta and other USAO personnel and in their
+lengthy follow-up letter to Acosta on December 17, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz continued to press
+their objections to the USAO's involvement in the Epstein matter. They requested that Acosta
+319
+The draft victim notification letter was identical to the draft victim notification letter sent to the defense on
+December 6, 2007, except that it contained a new plea date of January 4, 2008.
+320|
+Moreover, the letters were not included in the publicly released State Attorney's file, which included other
+correspondence from the USAO. See Palm Beach State Attorney's Office Public Records/Jeffrey Epstein, available
+at http://sa15.org/stateattorney/NewsRoom/indexPR.htm.
+321
+OPR was unable to locate any records indicating that such allegations had ever been referred to OPR
+Villafaña told OPR that "Catch 22" was a reference to instructions from supervisors "[t]hat we can't go forward on"
+filing federal charges and "I was told not to do victim notifications and confer at the time."
+217
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 245 of 349
+review the appropriateness of the potential federal charges and the government's "unprecedentedly
+expansive interpretation" of 18 U.S.C. § 2255.
+In a December 19, 2007 response to the defense team, Acosta offered to revise two
+paragraphs in the NPA to resolve "disagreements" with the defense and to clarify that the parties
+intended Epstein's § 2255 liability to "place these identified victims in the same position as they
+would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial. No more; no less." Acosta also advised
+that although the USAO intended to notify the victims of the resolution of the federal investigation,
+the USAO would leave to the State Attorney the decision whether to notify victims about the state
+proceedings:
+I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given
+notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court sentencing
+hearing. I have reviewed the proposed victim notification letter and
+the statute. I would note that the United States provided the draft
+letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition, First Assistant United
+States Attorney Sloman already incorporated in the letter several
+edits that had been requested by defense counsel. I agree that [the
+CVRA] applies to notice of proceedings and results of investigations
+of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We intend to provide
+victims with notice of the federal resolution, as required by law. We
+will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding whether
+he wishes to provide victims with notice of the state proceedings,
+although we will provide him with the information necessary to do
+so if he wishes.
+Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this letter without running it by [Sloman], if
+not other individuals in the office," and records show he sent a draft to Sloman and Villafaña.
+Acosta explained to OPR that he was not concerned about deferring to Krischer on the issue of
+whether to notify the victims of the state proceedings because he did not view it as his role, or the
+role of the USAO, "to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to the state
+outcome."322 Acosta further explained to OPR that despite the USAO's initial concerns about the
+State Attorney's Office's handling of the Epstein case, he did not believe it was appropriate to
+question that office's ability to "fulfill whatever obligation they have," and he added, "Let's not
+assume ... that the State Attorney's Office is full of bad actors." Acosta told OPR that it was his
+understanding "that the victims would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have
+an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing." Acosta also told OPR that the state would
+322
+Sloman's handwritten notes from a December 21, 2007 telephone conference indicate that Acosta asked the
+defense, "Are there concerns re: 3771 lang[uage]." to which Lefkowitz replied, "The state should have their own
+mechanism." At the time of the Epstein matter, under the Florida Constitution, upon request, victims were afforded
+the "right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of, and to be present at" a defendant's plea and sentencing. Fla.
+Const. art. I, § 16(b)(6). Similarly, pursuant to state statute, "Law enforcement personnel shall ensure" that victims
+are given information about "[t]he stages in the criminal or juvenile justice process which are of significance to the
+victim[.J" Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(a) (2007). Victims were also entitled to submit an oral or written impact statement.
+Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(k) (2007). Moreover, "in a case in which the victim is a minor child," the guardian or family
+of the victim must be consulted by the state attorney "in order to obtain the views of the victim or family about the
+disposition of any criminal or juvenile case" including plea agreements. Fla. Stat. § 960.001(1)(g) (2007).
+218
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 246 of 349
+have "notified [the victims] that that was an all-encompassing plea, that that state court sentence
+would also mean that the federal government was not proceeding."
+Sloman told OPR that he thought Acosta and Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney
+General Sigal Mandelker had agreed that the decision whether to notify the victims of the state
+court proceedings should be "left to the state."323 Mandelker, however, had no memory of advising
+Acosta to defer the decision to make notifications to the State Attorney, and she noted that the
+"correspondence [OPR] provided to me from that time period" discussing such a decision
+"demonstrates that all of the referenced language came from Mr. Acosta and/or his team, and that
+I did not provide, suggest, or edit the language." Sloman told OPR that he initially believed that
+"the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially because they had restitution rights
+under § 2255"; but, his expectations changed after "there was an agreement made that we were
+going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to decide how the victims were going
+to be notified."
+Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that she did not at any time receive a victim
+list from the USAO. She further said she did not receive any request from the USAO with regard
+to contacting the victims.
+In response to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz asserted that the FBI should
+not communicate with the victims, and that the state, not the USAO, should determine who can be
+heard at the sentencing hearing:
+[Y]our letter also suggests that our objection to your Office's
+proposed victims notification letter was that the women identified
+as victims of federal crimes should not be notified of the state
+proceedings. That is not true, as our previous letter clearly states.
+Putting aside our threshold contention that many of those to whom
+[CVRA] notification letters are intended are in fact not victims as
+defined in the Attorney General's 2000 Victim Witness
+Guidelines a status requiring physical, emotional or pecuniary
+injury of the [victim]it was and remains our position that these
+women may be notified of such proceedings but since they are
+neither witnesses nor victims to the state prosecution of this matter,
+they should not be informed of fictitious "rights" or invited to make
+sworn written or in-court testimonial statements against Mr. Epstein
+at
+had the right to do. Additionally, it was and remains our position
+that any notification should be by mail and that all proactive efforts
+by the FBI to have communications with the witnesses after the
+previously drafted federal notification letter and agree that the
+In his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip, Sloman wrote, "Acosta again consulted
+with i Glandek or he dice him to make the flowing repopu poded noirection to the sect Atormey's
+219
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 247 of 349
+decision as to who can be heard at a state sentencing is, amongst
+many other issues, properly within the aegis of state decision
+making.324
+Following a conversation between Acosta and Lefkowitz, in which Acosta asked that the
+defense clarify its positions on the USAO proposals regarding, among other things, notifications
+to the victims, Lefkowitz responded with a December 26, 2007 letter to Acosta, objecting again to
+notification of the victims. Lefkowitz argued that CVRA notification was not appropriate because
+the Attorney General Guidelines defined "crime victim" as a person harmed as a result of an
+offense charged in federal district court, and Epstein had not been charged in federal court.
+Nevertheless, Lefkowitz added that, despite their objection to CVRA notification, "[W]e do not
+object (as we made clear in our letter last week) that some form of notice be given to the alleged
+victims." Lefkowitz requested both that the defense be given an opportunity to review any notice
+sent by the USAO, and that "any and all notices with respect to the alleged victims of state offenses
+should be sent by the State Attorney rather than [the USAO]," and he agreed that the USAO
+"should defer to the discretion of the State Attorney regarding all matters with regard to those
+victims and the state proceedings."
+Months later, in April 2008, Epstein's attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that
+Sloman and Villafaña committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a "highly
+improper and unusual 'victim notification letter' to all" victims.
+F.
+January - June 2008: While the Defense Presses Its Appeal to the Department
+in an Effort to Undo the NPA, the FBI and the USAO Continue Investigating
+Epstein
+As described in Chapter Two of this Report, from the time the NPA was signed through
+the end of June 2008, the defense employed various measures to delay, or avoid entirely,
+implementation of the NPA. Ultimately, defense counsel's advocacy resulted in the USAO's
+decision to have the federal case reviewed afresh. A review of the evidence was undertaken first
+by USAO Criminal Chief Robert Senior and then, briefly, by an experienced CEOS trial
+attorney. A review of the case in light of the defense challenges was then conducted by CEOS
+Chief Oosterbaan, in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal
+Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, and then by the Office of the Deputy
+Attorney General. Each review took weeks and delayed Epstein's entry of his state guilty plea.
+As set forth below, during that time, Villafaña and the FBI continued investigating and
+working toward potential federal charges.
+1.
+Villafaña Prepares to Contact Victims in Anticipation That Epstein
+Will Breach the NPA
+On January 3, 2008, the local newspaper reported that Epstein's plea conference in state
+court, at that point set for early January, had been rescheduled to March 2008, at which time he
+would plead guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution, and that "in exchange" for the guilty plea,
+The 2000 Guidelines were superseded by the 2005 Guidelines.
+220
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 248 of 349
+"federal authorities are expected to drop their probe into whether Epstein broke any federal
+laws. *325
+Nevertheless, as Epstein's team continued to argue to higher levels of the Department that
+there was no appropriate federal interest in prosecuting Epstein and thus no basis for the NPA, and
+with his attorneys asserting that "the facts had gotten better for Epstein," Villafaña came to believe
+that Epstein would likely breach the NPA. 326 In January 2008, Villafaña informed her supervisors
+that the FBI "had very tight contact with the victims several months ago when we were prepared
+to [file charges], but all the shenanigans over the past few months have resulted in no contact with
+the vast majority of the victims." Villafaña then proposed that the FBI "re-establish contact with
+all the victims so that we know we can rely on them at trial."327 Villafaña told OPR that at this
+point, "[w]hile the case was being investigat[ed] and prepared for indictment, I did not prepare or
+send any victim notification letters there simply was nothing to update. I did not receive any
+victim calls during this time."
+2.
+The FBI Uses VNS Form Letters to Re-Establish Contact with Victims
+On January 10, 2008, the FBI Victim Specialist mailed VNS generated victim notification
+letters to 14 victims articulating the eight CVRA rights and inviting recipients to update their
+contact information with the FBI in order to obtain current information about the matter.328 The
+case agent informed Villafaña in an email that the Victim Specialist sent a "standard form [FBI]
+letter to all the remaining identified victims." These 2008 letters were identical to the FBI form
+letters the Victim Specialist had sent to victims between August 28, 2006, and October 12, 2007.
+Like those previous letters, most of which were sent before the NPA was signed on September 24,
+2007, the 2008 letters described the case as "currently under investigation" and noted that "[t]his
+can be a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough
+investigation." The letters also stated:
+Michele Dargan, "Jeffrey Epstein Plea Hearing Moved to March," Palm Beach Daily News "The Shiny
+Sheet," Jan. 3, 2008.
+326
+Epstein's attorneys used discovery proceedings in the state case to depose federal victims, and as they learned
+unflattering details or potential impeachment information concerning likely federal victims, they argued for the
+exclusion of those victims from the federal case. For example, defense attorneys questioned one victim as to whether
+the federal prosecutors or FBI agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. See Exhibit 9 to
+Villafaña June 2, 2017 Declaration: Deposition of [REDACTED], State v. Epstein, Case No. 2006-CF-9454, at 44,
+50, 51 (Feb. 20, 2008). One victim's attorney told OPR that the defense attorneys tried to "smear" victims by asking
+highly personal sexual questions about "terminations of pregnancies ... sexual encounters ... masturbation."
+Epstein's attorney used similar tactics in questioning victims who filed civil cases against their client. For example,
+the Miami Herald reported that, "One girl was asked about her abortions, and her parents, who were Catholic and
+knew nothing about the abortions, were also deposed and questioned." See Julie
+1 "Perversion of Justice: Cops
+Worked to Put a Serial Sex Abuser in Prison. Prosecutors Worked to Cut Him a Break," Miami Herald, Nov. 28,
+2018.
+327
+Villafaña also told her supervisors that she wanted the FBI to interview two specific victims.
+328
+The Victim Specialist later generated an additional letter dated May 30, 2008. After Epstein's June 30, 2008
+state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United
+States.
+221
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 249 of 349
+We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights
+described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after the
+arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it will become
+the responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office
+to ensure you are accorded those rights. You may also seek the
+advice of' a private attorney with respect to these rights.
+The FBI case agent informed Villafaña that the Victim Specialist sent the letters and would follow
+up with a phone call "to offer assistance and ensure that [the victims] have received their letter."
+A sample letter is shown on the following pages.
+Villafaña told OPR that she did not recall discussing the content of the letters at the time
+they were sent to the victims, or reviewing the letters until they were collected for the CVRA
+litigation, sometime after July 2008. Rather, according to Villafaña, "The decision to issue the
+letter and the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions." Nevertheless, Villafaña
+asserted to OPR that from her perspective, the language regarding the ongoing investigation "was
+absolutely true and, despite being fully advised of our ongoing investigative activities, no one in
+my supervisory chain ever told me that the case was not under investigation." Villafaña identified
+various investigative activities in which she engaged from "September 2007 until the end of June
+2008," such as collecting and reviewing evidence; interviewing new victims; re-interviewing
+victims; identifying new charges; developing new charging strategies; drafting supplemental
+prosecution memoranda; revising the charging package; and preparing to file charges. Similarly,
+the FBI case agent told OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and
+the investigation was continuing." The co-case agent stated that the "the case was open ... it's
+never been shut down."
+Victim
+received one of the January 10, 2008 FBI letters; much later, in the
+course of the CVRA litigation, she stated that her "understanding of this letter was that [her] case
+was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving forward on the Federal
+prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against [her]. "329
+CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2 also received a January 10, 2008 FBI letter that was sent to her counsel.
+222
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 250 of 349
+Federal Bureau of Investigation
+FBI - West Palm Beach
+Suite 500
+506 South Flagler Drive
+Woot Palm Beach, FL 33401
+Phone: (561) 833-7517
+Fax: (561) 833-7970
+January 10, 2008
+Re: Case Number:
+Dear
+This case Is currently under Investigation. This can be a lengthy process and we requast your
+continued patience while we conduct a thorough invesligation.
+As a crime victim, you have the following rights under 18 United States Code § 3771: (1) The right to
+be reasonably protected from the accused: (2) The right to reesonablo, accurate, and limely notice of any
+public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any relaase or escape of the
+accused: (3) The right not to be excluded from any such publia court proceeding, unless the court, after
+receiving cleer and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if
+the victin heard other lesthmony at that proceedg; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public
+proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding: (5) Tha
+reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to ful and timely
+restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings froo from unraasonable delay; (8) The right to be
+treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
+We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights
+pertain to events occurring affer the arrest or indictment of an individual for the crime, and it wil become the
+responsibility of the prosecuting United States Attorney's Office to ensure you are accorded those rights. You
+may also seek the advice of a private attorney with respoct to these righte.
+The Victim Notification System (VNS) Is designed to provide you with direct information regarding the
+case as it procode through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this malter
+on the laternet at WWW.Nollfy USDOJ.GOV or from the VNS Call Center at
+In addition, you may use the Call
+Center or Internet to update your contact Information and/or change your decision about participation in the
+notifipation program. If you update your information to include a current email address, VNS will send
+Informalion to that address. You will need the following Vidtim Identification Number (VIN)
+and
+Personal Identificatien Number (PIN) L
+anytime you conlact the Call Center and the first time you log on to
+VNS on the Infernet. In addition, the first time you access the VNS Internet site, you will be prompted to enter
+your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The hame you should enter is
+223
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 251 of 349
+If you havo additional questions which involva this matter, please contact the office Ested above. Whan
+you call, please provide the file number located at the top of this letter. Please remember, your participation
+in the notification part of this program is voluntary. In order to continue to recelve notifications, it is your
+responsibility lo keep your contact information current.
+Sincerety,
+Victim Specialist
+3.
+Villafaña, the FBI, and the CEOS Trial Attorney Interview Victims
+As Villafaña resumed organizing the case for charging and trial, the FBI case agent
+provided Villafaña with a list of "the 19 identified victims we are planning on using in" the federal
+charges and noted that she and her co-case agent wanted to further evaluate some additional
+victims. 330 In Washington, D.C., CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to the Epstein case in order to
+bring expertise and "a national perspective" to the matter.331
+On January 18, 2008, one attorney representing a victim and her family contacted Sloman
+by telephone, stating that he planned to file civil litigation against Epstein on behalf of his clients,
+who were "frustrated with the lack of progress in the state's investigation" of Epstein. The attorney
+asked Sloman if the USAO "could file criminal charges even though the state was looking into the
+matter," but Sloman declined to answer his questions concerning the investigation.332 In late
+January, the New York Post reported that the attorney's clients had filed a $50 million civil suit
+against Epstein in Florida and that "Epstein is expected to be sentenced to 18 months in prison
+when he pleads guilty in March to a single charge of soliciting an underage prostitute."*333
+Between January 31, 2008, and May 28, 2008, the FBI, with the prosecutors, interviewed
+additional victims and reinterviewed several who had been interviewed before the NPA was
+signed. 334 In late January 2008, as Villafaña and the CEOS Trial Attorney prepared to participate
+330
+The case agent also informed Villafaña that she expected to ask for legal process soon in order to obtain
+additional information.
+The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she was under the impression that she was brought in to help prepare
+for the trial because the "plea had fallen through."
+332
+Because Sloman and the attorney were former legal practice partners, Sloman reported the interaction to
+Acosta, and the USAO reported the incident to OPR shortly thereafter. OPR reviewed the matter as an inquiry and
+determined that no further action was warranted.
+333
+Dareh Gregorian, Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - $50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New York
+Post, Jan. 25, 2008.
+334
+An FBI interview report from May 28, 2008, indicates that one victim "believes Epstein should be prosecuted
+for his actions."
+224
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 252 of 349
+in FBI interviews of
+and other victims, Villafaña informed CEOS Chief Oosterbaan that she
+anticipated the victims "would be concerned about the status of the case."
+On January 31. 2008, Villafaña, the CEOS Trial Attorney, and the FBI interviewed three
+victims, including
+Prior to the interview,
+had received the FBI's January 10.2008
+letter stating that the case was under investigation; however, according to the case agent,
+and
+two other victims had also been told by the FBI, in October 2007, that the case had been resolved
+In her 2015 CVRA-case declaration, [
+stated that after receiving the FBI letter, she believed
+that the FBI was investigating the case, and she was not told "about any [NPA] or any potential
+resolution of the federal criminal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of a[n
+NPA], I would have objected." In Villafaña's 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña
+recalled interviewing L
+on January 31, 2008, along with FBI agents, and Villafana told OPR
+she "asked [
+] whether she would be willing to testify if there were a trial." Villafaña recalled
+responding that she "hoped Epstein would be prosecuted and that she was willing to
+testify. *335
+After the first three victim interviews on January 31, 2008, Villafaña described for Acosta
+and Sloman the toll that the case had taken on two of the victims:
+One girl broke down sobbing so that we had to stop the interview
+twice... she said she was having nightmares about Epstein coming
+after her and she started to break down again so we stopped the
+interview.
+The second girl ... was very upset about the 18 month deal she had
+read about in the paper. 336 She said that 18 months was nothing and
+that she had heard that the girls could get restitution, but she would
+rather not get any money and have Epstein spend a significant time
+in jail. 337
+Villafaña closed the email by requesting that Acosta and Sloman attend the interviews with victims
+scheduled for the following day, but neither did so.
+, 338 Acosta told OPR that it "wasn't typical"
+335
+The FBI report of the interview did not reflect a discussion of
+intentions.
+336
+See Dareh Gregorian, "Tycoon Perved Me at 14 - S50M Suit Hits NY Creep Over Mansion Massage," New
+York Post, Jan. 25, 2008. As early as October 2007, the New York Post reported the 18-month sentence and that
+"It]he feds have agreed to drop their probe into possible federal criminal violations in exchange for the guilty plea to
+the new state charge." Dan Mangan, ''Unhappy Ending' Plea Deal - Moneyman to Get Jail For Teen Sex Massages,"
+New York Post, Oct. 1, 2007.
+337
+Acosta told OPR, 'The United States can't unwind an agreement just because ... some victim indicates that
+they don't like it." The CEOS Trial Attorney recalled that she did not "think that any one of these girls was interested
+in this prosecution going forward." Furthermore, as previously noted, the CEOS Trial Attorney also opined that " the
+victims] would have testified for us," but the case would have required an extensive amount of "victim management,"
+as the girls were "deeply embarrassed" that they "were going to be called prostitutes."
+338
+OPR located FBI interview reports relating to only one February 1, 2008 victim interview. Although
+Villafaña's emails indicated that two additional victims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, OPR
+located no corresponding reports for those victim interviews. OPR located undated handwritten notes Villafana
+225
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 253 of 349
+for him, as U.S. Attorney, to attend witness interviews, and further, that no one in the USAO "was
+questioning the pain or the suffering of the victims." Sloman told OPR that he himself had "never
+gone to a line assistant's victim or witness interview."
+Villafaña told OPR that although three of the victims interviewed during this period had
+been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the resolution of the case, at this point Villafaña
+did not specifically tell these victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had
+these terms." Villafaña also told OPR she "didn't talk about money" because she "didn't want
+there to be an allegation at the time of trial ... that [the victims] were either exaggerating their
+claims or completely making up claims in order to increase their damages amount." Rather,
+according to Villafaña, she told the three victims that "an agreement had been reached where
+[Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look like he intends to actually
+perform ... [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged, and may have to go to trial."
+Villafaña recalled "explaining that the case was under investigation," that they "were preparing
+the case [for charging] again," and "expressing our hope that charges would be brought." Villafaña
+recalled one victim "making a comment about the amount of [imprisonment] time and why was it
+so low" and Villafaña answered, "that was the agreement that the office had reached."'39
+With regard to the victims Villafaña interviewed who had not received an FBI notification
+in October 2007, Villafaña recalled discussing one victim's safety concerns but not whether they
+discussed the agreement. She recalled telling another victim that "we thought we had reached an
+agreement with [Epstein] and then we didn't," but was "pretty sure" that she did not mention the
+agreement during the interview of the third victim. Villafaña explained that she likely did not
+discuss the agreement because
+at that point I just felt ... like it was nonexistent. [The victim] didn't
+know anything about it beforehand, and as far as I could tell it was
+going to end up being thrown on the heap, and I didn't want to -....
+if you tell people,. look, he's already admitted that he's guilty,
+like, I didn't want that to color her statement. I just wanted to get
+the facts of the case.
+The CEOS Trial Attorney told OPR that she did not recall any discussion with the victims
+about the NPA or the status of the case. She did remember explaining the significance of the
+prosecution to one victim who "did not think anything should happen" to Epstein. The FBI case
+agent told OPR that she did not recall the January 2008 interviews. OPR located notes to an FBI
+interview report, stating that one of the victims wanted another victim to be prosecuted. Attorneys
+for the two victims other than
+who had been notified by the FBI in October 2007 about the
+resolution of the case informed OPR that as of 2020, their clients had no memory of meeting with
+authored concerning one of the two victims that contained no information regarding a discussion of the status of the
+investigation or the resolution of the case. Through her attorney, this victim told OPR that she did not recall having
+contact with anyone from the USAO.
+339
+Villafaña did not recall any other specific questions from victims.
+340
+The CEOS Trial Attorney noted that CEOS did not issue victim notifications; rather, such notifications were
+generally handled by a Vietim Witness Specialist in the assigned USAO.
+226
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 254 of 349
+prosecutors and did not recall learning any information about Epstein's guilty plea until after the
+plea was entered on June 30, 2008.
+When asked whether she was concerned that her statements would mislead the victims,
+Villafaña told OPR:
+From my perspective we were conducting an investigation and it
+was an investigation that was going to lead to an indictment. You
+interviewing
+witnesses, I was issuing [legal
+process], ... I was doing all [these] things to take the case to a
+federal indictment and a federal trial. So to me, saying to a victim
+the case is now back under investigation is perfectly accurate.
+February - March 2008: Villafaña Takes Additional Steps to Prepare
+for a Prosecution of Epstein, Arranges for Pro Bono Attorneys for
+Victims, and Cautions about Continued Delay
+In February 2008, Villafaña revised the prosecution memorandum and supplemental
+memorandum. Villafaña removed some victims known to Epstein from the PBPD investigation
+and others subject to impeachment as a result of civil suits they filed against Epstein, added newly
+discovered victims, and made changes to the proposed indictment.
+While the defense appealed the USAO's decision to prosecute Epstein to higher levels of
+the Department, Villafaña sought help for victims whom defense investigators were harassing and
+attempting to subpoena for depositions as part of Epstein's defense in civil lawsuits that some
+victims had brought against him, as well as purportedly in connection with the state criminal case.
+Villafaña reported to her supervisors that she was able to locate a "national crime victims service
+organization" to provide attorneys for the victims, and the FBI Victim Specialist contacted some
+victims to provide contact information for the attorneys.34! During this period, an attorney from
+the victims service organization was able to help
+avoid an improper deposition.
+Villafaña also informed her supervisors, including Sloman, that "one of the victims tried to commit
+suicide last week," and advocated aggressively for a resolution to the case: "I just can't stress
+enough how important it is for these girls to have a resolution in this case. The "please be patient'
+answer is really wearing thin, especially when Epstein's group is still on the attack while we are
+forced to wait on the sidelines."
+March - April 2008: Villafaña Continues to Prepare for Filing Federal
+Charges
+Villafaña continued to revise the proposed charges by adding new victims and by removing
+others who had filed civil suits against Epstein. Villafaña also prepared search warrants for digital
+The FBI Victim Specialist informed Villafaña that she spoke "directly to seven victims" and informed them
+arche pro bonirunsel and explained that eer job asa victim Specialist is to ensure that victims/] of a Federal crime
+227
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 255 of 349
+camera memory cards seized by the PBPD in order to have them forensically examined for deleted
+images that could contain child pornography.342
+By early April 2008, as the defense pursued its appeal to the Department's Criminal
+Division, Acosta predicted in an email to Villafana and Sloman that federal charges against Epstein
+were "more and more likely." Villafaña asked Oosterbaan for help to "move this [Criminal
+Division review] process along," noting that the defense continued to undermine the government's
+case by deposing the victims "under the guise of "trial prep' for the state case" and that the "agents
+and the victims" were "losing their patience."
+On April 24, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman and USAO Criminal Division Chief Senior
+asking whether she had the
+| light" to file charges and raising the same concerns she had
+expressed to Oosterbaan. Villafaña further cautioned that, although she was planning to file
+charges on May 6, if that was not going to happen, "then we all need to meet with the victims, the
+agents, and the police officers to decide how the case will be resolved and to provide them with an
+explanation for the delay." Because the Department's Criminal Division did not conclude its
+them with are
+review of Epstein's appeal by May 6, however, Villafaña did not file charges that day.
+VIII. USAO SUPERVISORS CONSIDER CVRA OBLIGATIONS IN AN UNRELATED
+MATTER AND IN LIGHT OF A NEW FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION
+During the period after the NPA was signed, and before Epstein complied with the NPA
+by entering his state guilty pleas, the USAO supervisors were explicitly made aware of a conflict
+between the Department's position that CVRA's victims' rights attached upon the filing of a
+criminal charge and a new federal appellate ruling to the contrary. The contemporaneous
+communications confirm that in 2008, Acosta and Sloman were aware of the Department's policy
+regarding the issue.
+Unrelated to the Epstein investigation, on April 18, 2008, Acosta and Sloman received a
+citizen complaint from an attorney who requested to meet with them regarding his belief that the
+Florida Bar had violated his First Amendment rights. The attorney asserted that the CVRA
+guaranteed him "an absolute right to meet" with USAO officials because he believed that he was
+the victim of a federal crime. Acosta forwarded the message to the USAO Appellate Division
+Chief, who informed Acosta and Sloman that, according to the 2005 Guidelines, "our obligations
+under [the CVRA] are not triggered until charges are filed." On April 24, 2008, the Appellate
+Division Chief emailed Acosta and Sloman, stating that she had "confirmed with DOJ that [her]
+reading of [the 2005 Guidelines] is correct and that our obligations under [the CVRA] are not
+triggered until a case is filed."343
+On May 7, 2008, the Appellate Division Chief sent Acosta and Sloman a copy of a U.S.
+Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion issued that day, In re
+holding that a victim's
+342
+The forensic examination did not locate useful evidence on the memory cards.
+The Appellate Division Chief advised Acosta that Acosta could inform the complainant that, prior to the
+nitiation of charges, the investigating agency was responsible for carrying out the Department's statutory obligation:
+to the victim.
+228
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 256 of 349
+CVRA rights attach prior to the filing of criminal charges.344 The Appellate Division Chief noted
+that, although the holding conflicted with the 2005 Guidelines, the "court's opinion makes sense."
+involved a federal prosecution arising from a 2005 explosion at an oil refinery
+operated by BP Products North America, Inc. (BP) that killed 15 people and injured more than
+170. Before bringing criminal charges, the government negotiated a guilty plea with BP without
+notifying the victims. The government filed a sealed motion, alerting the district court to the
+potential plea and claiming that consultation with all the victims was impractical and that such
+notification could result in media coverage that would undermine the plea negotiations. The court
+then entered an order prohibiting the government from notifying the victims of the pending plea
+agreement until after it had been signed by the parties. Thereafter, the government filed a criminal
+information, the government and BP signed the plea agreement, and the government mailed notices
+of the plea hearing to the victims informing them of their right to be heard. One month later, 12
+victims asked the court to reject the plea because it was entered into in violation of their rights
+under the CVRA. The district court denied their motion, but concluded that the CVRA rights to
+confer with the prosecutor in the case and to be treated with fairness and respect for the vietim's
+dignity and privacy vested prior to the initiation of charges.345 The district court noted that the
+legislative history reflected a view that "the right to confer was intended to be broad," as well as
+being a "mechanism[]" to ensure that victims were treated with fairness.
+In denying the victims relief, the Fifth Circuit nevertheless concluded that the district court
+"failed to accord the victims the rights conferred by the CVRA."346 In particular, the Fifth Circuit
+cited the district court's acknowledgement that "[t]here are clearly rights under the CVRA that
+apply before any prosecution is underway." The Fifth Circuit also noted that such consultation
+was not "an infringement" on the government's independent prosecutorial discretion, but "it is
+only a requirement that the government confer in some reasonable way with the victims before
+ultimately exercising its broad discretion." In the wake of the
+opinion, two Department
+components wrote separate memoranda to the Solicitor General with opposing views concerning
+whether the CVRA right to confer with the prosecution vests prior to the initiation of a prosecution.
+IX.
+JUNE 2008: VILLAFAÑA'S PRE-PLEA CONTACTS WITH THE ATTORNEY
+REPRESENTING THE VICTIMS WHO LATER BECAME THE CVRA
+PETITIONERS
+According to an affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation by her attorney,
+retained
+in June 2008 to represent her "because she was unable to get anyone from
+the [USAO] to tell her what was actually going on with the federal criminal case against Jeffrey
+Epstein."347 Villafaña told OPR that
+did not contact her directly and she was not aware of
+344
+In rel
+1. 527 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2008). The Fifth Circuit opinion was not binding precedent in Florida,
+which is within the Eleventh Circuit.
+United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321, at *11 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Vietims who
+wished to be heard were permitted to speak at the plea hearing.
+346
+1. 527 F.3d at 394.
+347
+Before Epstein's state court plea hearing.
+also began representing the vietim who became Jane Doe
+#2. Although OPR focuses on Villafaña's communications with
+in this section, OPR notes that Villafaña
+229
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 257 of 349
+an instance in which
+the FBI case agents.
+"asked a question that wasn't answered" of anyone in the USAO or of
+contacted Villafaña by email and telephone in mid-June, stating that he had
+"information and concerns that [he] would like to share."348 In his affidavit,
+alleged that
+during multiple telephone calls with Villafaña, he "asked very specific questions about what stage
+the investigation was in," and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because
+the matter "was an on-going active investigation[.]"
+_attested that Villafaña gave him "the
+impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing,
+both in the number of identified victims and [in] complexity."349
+In her written response to OPR, Villafaña said that she "listened more than [she] spoke"
+during these interactions with
+which occurred before the state court plea:
+Given the uncertainty of the situation - Epstein was still challenging
+our ability to prosecute him federally, pressing allegations of
+prosecutorial misconduct, and trying to negotiate better plea terms,
+while the agents, my supervisors, and I were all moving towards
+[filing charges] - I did not feel comfortable sharing any information
+about the case. It is also my practice not to talk about status before
+the grand jury.
+In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña explained that during these
+exchanges, Villafaña did not inform
+of the existence of the NPA because she "did not
+know whether the NPA remained viable at that time or whether Epstein would enter the state court
+guilty plea that would trigger the NPA."350 Villafaña told OPR that she did not inform
+also had interactions with other victims' attorneys. For example, another attorney informed OPR that he spoke to
+Villafaña two to five times concerning the status of the case and each time was told that the case was under
+investigation. The attorney noted, "[W]e never got any information out of [Villafaña]. We were never told what was
+happening or going on to any extent." Villafaña's counsel told OPR that Villafaña did not have any interaction with
+the attorney or his law partner until after Epstein's state court plea hearing, and that in her written communications
+responding to the attorney's inquiries, she provided information to the extent possible. OPR found no documentation
+that Villafaña's communications with the attorney occurred prior to June 30, 2008. Villafaña also had more ministerial
+interactions with other victims" counsel, as well as contact regarding their ongoing civil cases. For example, in March
+2008, one victim's attorney informed Villafaña of his representation of a victim and requested that the government
+provide him with photographs of the victim and information concerning the tail registration number for Epstein's
+airplane. Villafaña responded that she was unable to provide the requested information, but asked that counsel keep
+her updated about the civil litigation.
+348
+Villafaña later stated in a July 9, 2008 declaration filed in the CVRA litigation that, although she invited
+to provide her with information, "[nJothing was provided."
+349
+did not respond to OPR's request to interview him, although he did assist OPR in locating other
+attorneys who were representing victims.
+350
+The government later admitted in court filings that Villafaña and
+"discussed the possibility of
+federal charges being filed in the future and that the NPA was not mentioned." Doe, Government's Response to
+Petitioners' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Petitioners* Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
+at 14, 9101 (June 6, 2017).
+230
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 258 of 349
+about the NPA because it was "confidential" and because the case was under "investigation and
+leading towards" the filing of charges. Villafaña recalled mentioning the conversation to her
+supervisors and the case agents because she "thought he was somebody who could be of assistance
+to us and ... could perhaps persuade Alex Acosta that this was a case that was meritorious and
+should be prosecuted."
+Nevertheless, when OPR asked Villafaña why she did not inform
+information that the FBI and she had provided to
+Villafaña explained that she felt "prohibited":
+of the same
+in October 2007 and January 2008,
+At the time that I spoke with him, you know, there had been all of
+this... letter writing or all of these concerns and instructions that I
+had been given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose
+things further and not to have any involvement in victim
+notification, and so I felt like that prohibited me from telling him
+about the existence of the NPA.
+X. JUNE 2008: EFFORTS TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT THE JUNE 30, 2008 PLEA
+HEARING
+The Epstein team's appeals through the Department ended on June 23, 2008, when the
+Deputy Attorney General determined that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate" and
+Epstein's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to a level that would undermine such
+a decision. Immediately thereafter, at Sloman's instruction, Villafaña notified Lefkowitz that
+Epstein had until "the close of business on Monday, June 30, 2008, to comply with the terms and
+conditions of the agreement ... including entry of a guilty plea, sentencing, and surrendering to
+begin his sentence of imprisonment." That same day, Villafaña made plans to file charges on July
+1, 2008, if Epstein did not enter his guilty plea by the June 30 deadline.
+In Friday, June 27, 2008, Villataña received a copy of the proposed state plea agreemen
+and learned that the plea hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Monday, June 30, 2008. Also or
+that Friday, Villafaña submitted to Sloman and Criminal Division Chief Senior a "final final"
+proposed federal indictment of Epstein.
+Villafaña and the FBI finalized the government's victim list that they intended to disclose,
+for § 2255 purposes, to Epstein after the plea and, at Sloman's instruction, Villafaña contacted
+Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea."352
+351
+Villafaña further stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the
+upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator,
+and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist."
+352
+Sloman replied, "Good."
+231
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 259 of 349
+Villafaña told OPR that before the state plea hearing, she sent Reiter a list of the victims,
+including their telephone numbers, to notify and asked him to destroy the list. Villafaña recalled
+that Reiter told her that he would "try to contact as many as he could" and that he would destroy
+the list afterwards. Villafaña did not recall being "asked [to] provide a list of all our victims to the
+State Attorney's Office."
+In his 2009 deposition, Reiter stated that Villafaña sent him a letter "around the time of
+sentencing," listing the victims in the federal investigation, and that she asked him to destroy the
+letter after he reviewed it. Reiter recalled that he requested the list because he was aware that the
+state grand jury's indictment of Epstein did not include all of the victims that the PBPD had
+identified and he "wanted to make sure that some prosecution body had considered all of our
+victims. *353
+In her 2017 declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafana stated that she and the PBPD
+"attempted to notify the victims about [the June 30] hearing in the short time available to us."34
+In her 2008 declaration, however, Villafaña conceded that "all known victims were not notified."
+Villafaña told OPR that
+was the only victim attorney she was authorized to
+contact she thought probably by Sloman-
+- about the June 30, 2008 plea hearing because
+"had expressed a specific interest in the outcome." Villafaña recalled, "I was told that I could
+inform [
+Il of [the plea date], but I still couldn't inform him of the NPA."355 In her 2008
+declaration in the CVRA litigation, Villafaña stated that she called
+and informed him of
+the plea hearing scheduled for Monday; Villafana stated that
+told her that he could not
+attend the hearing but "someone" would be present. In a later filing in the CVRA litigation,
+however,
+asserted that Villafaña told him only that "Epstein was pleading guilty to state
+solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims-not Mr.
+clients nor any of
+the federally-identified victims. "356
+further claimed that because Villafaña failed to
+inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court would bring an end to the possibility of federal
+prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement," his clients did not attend the hearing. Villafaña told
+OPR that her expectation was that the state plea proceeding would allow
+and his clients
+the ability to comment on the resolution:
+353
+Reiter showed the letter to the lead Detective so he could "confirm that all of the victims that we had for the
+state case were included on that." The Detective "looked at it and he said they're all there and then [Reiter] destroyed
+it." The Detective recalled viewing the list in Reiter's office, but he could not recall when Reiter showed it to him.
+354
+The FBI co-case agent told OPR that "I don't think the [FBI] reached out to anyone."
+355
+Villafaña told OPR that she thought that it was Sloman who gave her the instructions, but she could not
+"remember the specifics of the conversation."
+356
+Villafaña stated that she "never told Attorney
+that the state charges involved 'other victims,' and
+neither the state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution charge to a
+specific victim." Although
+I criticized Villafaña's conduct in his CVRA filings, in his recently published
+book.
+described Villafaña as a "kindhearted prosecutor who tried to do right," noting that she "believ[ed] in
+the victims and tried] ... to bring down Jeffrey Epstein."
+with Brittany
+_. Relentless
+Pursuit at 380 (Gallery Books 2020).
+232
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 260 of 349
+[M]y expectation of what was going [to] happen at the plea was that
+it would be like a federal plea where there would be a factual proffer
+that was read, and where the judge would ask if there were any
+victims present who wanted to be heard, and that at that point if Brad
+wanted to address the court or if his clients wanted to
+address the court, they would be given the opportunity to do so.357
+Sloman told OPR that he did not recall directing Villafaña to contact anyone about the plea
+hearing or directing her specifically not to contact anyone about it. Acosta told OPR that he
+believed the state would notify the victims of the "all-encompassing plea" resolving the federal
+case "and [the victims would] have an opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing."
+Nevertheless, Acosta did not know whether the state victims overlapped with the federal victims
+or whether the USAO "shared that list with them." Villafaña told OPR that she and Acosta
+"understood that the state would notify the state victims" but that neither of them were aware "that
+the state only believed they had one victim."38 Villafaña told OPR that there was "very little"
+communication between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, and although she discussed a
+tactual proffer with the State Attorney's Office and "the fact that... the federal investigation had
+identified additional victims," she did not recall discussing "who the specific people were that they
+considered victims in the state case. *359
+Sloman told OPR that the "public perception ... that we tried to hide the fact of the results
+of this resolution from the victims" was incorrect. He explained:
+[E]ven though we didn't have a legal obligation, I felt that the
+victims were going to be notified and the state was going ... t
+fulfill that obligation, and even as another failsafe, [the victims
+would be notified of ... the restitution mechanism that we had set
+up on their behalf.
+Sloman acknowledged that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO
+from exercising its discretion to notify the victims,
+it was [of] concern that this was going to break down and ... result
+in us prosecuting Epstein and that the victims were going to be
+witnesses and if we provided a victim notification indicating, hey,
+you're going to get $150,000, that's . . • going to be instant
+impeachment for the defense.
+357
+Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek told OPR that federal victims who were not a party to the state case
+would not have been able to simply appear at the state plea hearing and participate in the proceedings. Rather, such a
+presentation would have required coordination between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office and additional
+investigation of the victims' allegations and proposed statements by the State Attorney's Office.
+In an email a few months earlier, Villafaña noted, "The state indictment [for solicitation of adult prostitution]
+is related to two girls. One of those girls is included in the federal [charging document], the other is not."
+359
+As noted in Chapter Two, Villafaña had stopped communicating with the State Attorney's Office regarding
+the state case following Epstein's defense team's objections to those communications.
+233
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 261 of 349
+When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing,
+Sloman responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense
+that the victims were overly interested in showing up ... at the change of plea."
+Also, in late June, Villafaña drafted a victim notification letter concerning the June 30,
+2008 plea.360 Villafaña told OPR that, because "Mr. Acosta had agreed in December 2007 that we
+would not provide written notice of the state change of plea, the written victim notifications were
+prepared to be sent immediately following Epstein's guilty plea."361 As she did with prior draft
+victim notification letters, Villafaña provided the draft to the defense for comments. 362
+Although Epstein's plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafaña took steps to facilitate
+the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty in state court.
+OPR reviewed voluminous Epstein-related files that the State Attorney's Office made
+available online, but OPR was unable to locate any document establishing that before the hearing
+date, the state informed victims of the June 30, 2008 plea. On March 12, 2008, the State Attorney's
+Office issued trial subpoenas to three victims and one non-law enforcement witness commanding
+the individuals to "remain on call" during the week of July 8, 2008. However, the Palm Beach
+County Sheriff was unable to serve one of the victims in person because the victim was "away [at]
+college."
+XI. JUNE 30, 2008: EPSTEIN ENTERS HIS GUILTY PLEAS IN A STATE COURT
+HEARING AT WHICH NO VICTIMS ARE PRESENT
+On June 30, 2008, Epstein appeared in state court in West Palm Beach, with his attorney
+Jack Goldberger, and pled guilty to an information charging him with procuring a person under 18
+for prostitution, as well as the indictment charging him with felony solicitation of prostitution. The
+information charged that between August 1, 2004, and October 9, 2005, Epstein "did knowingly
+and unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted, [REDACTED], a person under
+the age of 18 years," and referred to no other victims. The indictment did not identify any victims
+and alleged only that Epstein engaged in the charged conduct on three occasions between August
+1, 2004, and October 31, 2005. Although the charges did not indicate whether they applied to
+multiple victims, during the hearing, Assistant State Attorney Belohlavek informed the court that
+"[t]here's several" victims. When the court asked Belohlavek whether "the victims in both these
+cases [were] in agreement with the terms of this plea," Belohlavek replied, 'I have spoken to
+several myself and I have spoken to counsel, through counsel as to the other victim, and I believe,
+360
+361
+Sloman forwarded the draft victim notification letter to Acosta, who responded with his own edited version
+stating, "What do you think?" Villafaña edited it further.
+The letter began with the statement, "On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein ... entered a plea of guilty." A weel
+after Epstein's state guilty plea, Villafaña notified Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors that "[Epstein's loca
+attorney] Jack Goldberger is back in town today, so 1 am hoping that we will finalize the last piece of our agreementhe victim list and Notification. If I face resistance on that front, I will let you know."
+362
+According to Villafaña, either Acosta or Sloman made the decision to send the notifications following the
+state plea and to share the draft notification letters with the defense.
+234
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 262 of 349
+yes." The court also asked Belohlavek if the juvenile victim's parents or guardian agreed with the
+plea, and Belohlavek stated that because the victim was no longer under age 18, Belohlavek spoke
+with the victim's counsel, who agreed with the plea agreement.363
+Both Villafaña and the FBI case agent were present in the courtroom gallery to observe the
+plea hearing. Later that day, Villafaña met with Goldberger and gave him the list of 31 individuals
+the government was prepared to name as victims and to whom the § 2255 provision applied.
+In her 2015 CVRA case declaration, [
+stated that, "I did not have any reason to attend
+that hearing because no one had told me that this guilty plea was related to the FBI's investigation
+of Epstein's abuse of me." She stated that she "would have attended and tried to object to the
+judge and prevent that plea from going forward," had she known that the state plea "had some
+connection to blocking the prosecution of my case." Similarly, CVRA petitioner Jane Doe #2
+stated that "no one notified me that [Epstein's] plea had anything to do with my case against him."
+An attorney who represented several victims, including one whom the state had
+subpoenaed for the potential July trial, told OPR that he was present in court on June 30, 2008, in
+order to serve a complaint upon Epstein in connection with a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of
+one of his clients. The USAO had not informed him about the plea hearing. 364 Moreover, the
+attorney informed OPR that, although one of the victims he represented had been interviewed in
+the PBPD's investigation and had been deposed by Epstein's attorneys in the state case (with the
+Assistant State Attorney present), he did not recall receiving any notice of the June 30, 2008 plea
+hearing from the State Attorney's Office. 365
+Similarly, another of the victims the state had
+subpoenaed for the July trial told OPR through her attorney that she received subpoenas from the
+State Attorney's Office, but she was not invited to or aware of the state plea hearing. Belohlavek
+told OPR that she did not recall whether she contacted any of the girls to appear at the hearing,
+and she noted that given the charge of solicitation of prostitution, they may not have "technically"
+been victims for purposes of notice under Florida law but, rather, witnesses. On July 24, 2008, the
+State Attorney's Office sent letters to two victims stating that the case was closed on June 26, 2008
+(although the plea occurred on June 30, 2008) and listed Epstein's sentence. The letters did not
+mention the NPA or the federal investigation.
+XII. SIGNIFICANT POST-PLEA DEVELOPMENTS
+A. Immediately After Epstein's State Guilty Pleas, Villafaña Notifies Some
+Victims' Attorneys
+Villafaña's contemporaneous notes show that immediately after Epstein's June 30, 2008
+guilty pleas, she attempted to reach by telephone five attorneys representing various victims in
+363
+Villafaña, who was present in court and heard Belohlavek's representation, told OPR that she had no
+information as to whether or how the state had notified the vietims about the plea hearing.
+364
+Villafaña did contact this attorney's law partner later that day.
+When interviewed by OPR in 2020, this same attorney indicated that he was surprised to learn that despite
+the fact that his client was a minor at the time Epstein victimized her, she was not the minor victim that the state
+identified in the information charging Epstein.
+235
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 263 of 349
+civil suits that were pending against Epstein.366 Villafaña also emailed one of the pro bono
+attorneys she had engaged to help victims avoid defense harassment, informing him that the federal
+investigation had been resolved through a state plea and that Epstein had an "agreement" with the
+USAO "requir[ing] him to make certain concessions regarding possible civil suits brought by the
+victims." Villafaña advised Goldberger: "The FBI has received several calls regarding the [NPA].
+I do not know whether the title of the document was disclosed when the [NPA] was filed under
+seal, but the FBI and our Office are declining comment if asked."
+B.
+July 7, 2008: The CVRA Litigation Is Initiated
+On July 3, 2008, victims' attorney
+spoke to Villafaña by telephone about the
+resolution of the state case against Epstein "and the next stage of the federal prosecution."367 In
+his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation,
+asserted that during this conversation,
+Villafaña did not inform him of the NPA, but that during the call, he sensed that the USAO "was
+beginning to negotiate with Epstein concerning the federally identified crimes." However, in an
+email Villafaña sent after the call, she informed Sloman that during the call,
+"his clients can name many more victims and wanted to know if we can get out of the deal."
+Villafaña told Sloman that after she told
+that the government was bound by the
+agreement, assuming Epstein completed it,
+asked that "if there is the slightest bit of
+hesitation on Epstein's part of completing his performance, that he and his [three] clients be
+allowed to consult with [the USAO] before making a decision."368
+That same day,
+wrote a letter to Villafaña, complaining that Epstein's state court
+sentence was "grossly inadequate for a predator of this magnitude" and urged Villafaña to "move
+forward with the traditional indictments and criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes
+Mr. Epstein has committed."
+On July 7, 2008, |
+filed his emergency petition in the U.S. District Court for the
+Southern District of Florida on behalf of
+1. who was then identified only as "Jane
+Doe " and WanDoe ned by a second pid ha, and they wene read vively ed fired entas ans
+claimed that the government had violated his clients' rights
+under the CVRA by negotiating to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein without consulting
+with the victims. The petition requested that the court order the United States to comply with the
+CVRA. The USAO opposed the petition, arguing that the CVRA did not apply because there were
+366
+attorneys.
+According to Villafaña's handwritten notes from June 30, 2008, Villafaña left a message for two of the
+367
+In his 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA case,
+June 30, 2008, but noted that it could possibly have occurred on July 3, 2008.
+recalled that his telephone conversation occurred on
+368
+Sloman responded, "Thanks."
+Later attempts by two additional victims to join the ongoing CVRA litigation were denied by the court.
+236
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 264 of 349
+no federal charges filed against Epstein as a result of the government's agreement in mid-2007 to
+defer prosecution to the state.
+C. July 2008: Villafaña Prepares and Sends a Victim Notification Letter to Listed
+Victims
+On July 8, 2008, Villafaña provided Goldberger with an updated victim list for 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2255 purposes, noting that she had inadvertently left off one individual in her June 30, 2008
+letter. Villafaña also informed the defense that, beginning the following day, she would distribute
+notifications to each of the 32 victims and their counsel informing them that Epstein's attorney
+of to 32 edit and he
+would be the contact for any civil litigation, if the victim decided to pursue damages. Finally, the
+letter informed the defense that the government would consider a denial by Epstein that any "one
+of these victims is entitled to proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 2255" to be considered a breach of the
+terms of the NPA.
+After exchanging emails and letters with the defense concerning the content of the notice
+letter, Villafaña drafted a letter she sent, on July 9 and 10, to nine victims who had previously
+retained counsel. The letter informed the victims and their counsel that, "li]n light of" Epstein's
+June 30, 2008 state court plea to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors to
+engage in prostitution, and his sentence of a total of 18 months' imprisonment followed by 12
+months' community control, "the United States has agreed to defer federal prosecution in favor of
+this state plea and sentence, subject to certain conditions." The letter included a reference to the
+18 U.S.C. § 2255 provision of the NPA, and although the defense had never agreed to it, used
+language from Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein defense attorney
+clarifying
+the damages provision. The paragraph below was described as "[o]ne such condition to which
+Epstein has agreed":
+Any person, who while a minor, was a victim of a violation of an
+offense enumerated in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2255,
+will have the same rights to proceed under Section 2255 as she
+would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and
+convicted of an enumerated offense. For purposes of implementing
+this paragraph, the United States shall provide Mr. Epstein's
+attorneys with a list of individuals whom it was prepared to
+On July 10, 2008, Villafaña sent Goldberger a "Final Notification of Identified Victims,"
+highlighting the defendant's obligations under the NPA concerning victim lawsuits pursuant to
+370
+As described in Section XII.G of this Part, the matter continued in litigation for years and resulted in the
+district court's February 21, 2019 opinion concluding that the government violated the victims' rights under the CVRA
+by failing to consult with them before signing the NPA.
+237
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 265 of 349
+18 U.S.C. § 2255 and again listing the 32 "individuals whom the United States was prepared to
+name as victims of an enumerated offense." 371 The same day, Villafaña sent Goldberger a second
+letter, noting that the defense would receive copies of all victim notifications on a rolling basis.
+Villafaña informed her managers that the FBI case agents would reach out by telephone to
+the listed victims who were unrepresented, to inform them that the case was resolved and to
+confirm their addresses for notification by mail. With regard to the content of the telephone calls,
+Villafaña proposed the following language to the case agents:
+We are calling to inform you about the resolution of the Epstein
+investigation and to thank you for your help.
+Mr. Epstein pled guilty to one child sex offense that will require him
+to register as a sex offender for life and received a sentence of 18
+months imprisonment followed by one year of home confinement.
+Mr. Epstein also made a concession regarding the payment of
+restitution.
+All of these terms are set out in a letter that AUSA Villafaña is going
+legal advice but the lawyers at the following victim rights
+organizations are able to help you at no cost to you. (Provide names
+and phone numbers)
+Also ask about counseling and let them know that counseling is still
+available even though the investigation is closed.
+On July 21, 2008, Villafaña sent the letter to the 11 unrepresented victims whose addresses
+the FBI had by that time confirmed. Villafaña provided Epstein's defense counsel with a copy of
+the letter sent to each victim, directly or though counsel (with the mailing addresses redacted).
+D.
+July - August 2008: The FBI Sends the Victim Notification Letter to Victims
+Residing Outside of the United States
+While attempting to locate and contact the unrepresented victims, the FBI obtained contact
+information for two victims residing outside of the United States. On July 23 and August 8, 2008,
+respectively, the FBI Victim Specialist transmitted an automated VNS form notification letter to
+each victim through the FBI representative at the U.S diplomatic mission for each country. This
+A month later, in an August 18, 2008 letter to the USAO, the defense sought to limit the government's victim
+list to those victims who were identified before the September 24, 2007 execution of the NPA. Villafaña also raised
+with Acosta, Sloman, and other supervisors the question whether the USAO had developed sufficient evidence to
+include new victims it had identified since creation of the July 2008 list and whether Jane Doe #2, who had previously
+given a statement in support of Epstein, should be added back to the list. Ultimately, Villafaña sent the defense a
+letter confirming that the government's July 10, 2008 victim list was "the final list."
+238
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 266 of 349
+letter was substantially identical to the previous FBI victim notification letter the FBI had sent to
+victims (in 2006, 2007, and 2008) in that it identified each recipient as "a possible victim of a
+federal crime" and listed her eight CVRA rights.
+The letter did not indicate that Epstein had pled guilty in state court on June 30, 2008, or
+that the USAO had resolved its investigation by deferring federal prosecution in favor of the state
+plea. Rather, like the previous FBI VNS-generated letter, the letter requested the victims'
+"assistance and cooperation while we are investigating the case."
+For each of the two victims residing outside of the United States, Villafaña also drafted a
+notification letter concerning the June 30, 2008 plea and the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 process, which were
+to be hand delivered along with the FBI's letters. However, FBI records do not reflect whether
+the USAO's letter was delivered to the two victims.
+E. August - September 2008: The Federal Court Orders the USAO to Disclose
+the NPA to Victims, and the USAO Sends a Revised Victim Notification Letter
+On August 1, 2008, the petitioners in the CVRA litigation filed a motion seeking access to
+the NPA. The USAO opposed the motion by relying on the confidentiality portion of the NPA.372
+On August 21, 2008, the court ordered the government to provide the petitioners with a copy of
+the NPA subject to a protective order. In addition, the court ordered the government to produce
+the NPA to other identified victims upon request:
+(d) If any individuals who have been identified by the USAO as
+victims of Epstein and/or any attorney(s) for those individuals
+request the opportunity to review the [NPA], then the USAO shall
+produce the [NPA] to those individuals, so long as those individuals
+also agree that they shall not disclose the [NPA] or its terms to any
+third party absent further court order, tollowing notice to and ar
+opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard[.]37:
+In September 2008, the USAO sent a revised notification letter to victims, and attorneys
+for represented victims, concerning Epstein's state court guilty plea and his agreement to not
+contest liability in victim civil suits brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255.374 The September letter
+appeared to address concerns raised by Epstein attorney Lefkowitz that the government's earlier
+notification letter referenced language concerning 18 U.S.C. § 2255 that the government had
+proposed in Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter to Epstein attorney |
+had not accepted. 375
+As a result of the defense objection, Villafaña determined that she was
+372
+Pursuant to paragraph 13 of the NPA, Villafaña made Epstein's attorneys aware of the petitioners' request
+for the NPA.
+373
+Doe, Order to Compel Production and Protective Order at 1-2 (Aug. 21, 2008).
+374
+The USAO also sent a notification letter to additional victims who had not received a notification letter in
+July.
+375
+This issue is discussed more fully in Chapter Two.
+239
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 267 of 349
+obligated to amend her prior letter to victims to correct the reference to the December letter. 376
+Accordingly, the September letter contained no information about the parties" intent in
+implementing 18 U.S.C. § 2255, but merely referred to the NPA language concerning Epstein's
+waiver of his right to contest liability under the provision. In addition, the September letter
+described the appointment of a special
+the special |
+selection of an attorney to
+represent the victims in their 18 U.S.C. § 2255 litigation against Epstein, and Epstein's agreement
+to pay the attorney representative's fees arising out of such litigation. The letter also clarified that
+Epstein's agreement to pay for attorneys' fees did not extend to contested litigation against him.
+The government also intended for the letter to comply with the court's order concerning
+providing victims with copies of the NPA. The initial draft included a paragraph advising the
+victims that they could receive a copy of the NPA:
+In addition, a judge has ordered that the United States make
+available to any designated victim (and/or her attorney) a copy of
+the actual agreement between Mr. Epstein and the United States, so
+long as the victim (and/or her attorney) reviews, signs, and agrees to
+be bound by a Protective Order entered by the Court. If [the victim]
+would like to review the Agreement, please let me know, and I will
+forward a copy of the Protective Order for her signature.
+The government shared draft versions of the September letter with Epstein's counsel and
+responded to criticism of the content of the proposed letter. For example, in response to the above
+language regarding the August 21, 2008 court order in the CVRA litigation, the defense argued
+that there was "no court order requiring the government to provide the alleged 'victims' with notice
+that the [NPA] is available to them upon request and doing so is in conflict with the confidentiality
+provisions of the [NPA]." In response, and in consultation with USAO management, Villafaña
+revised the paragraph as follows:
+In addition, there has been litigation between the United States and
+two other victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement
+between the United States and Mr. Epstein. [The attorney selected
+by the special
+I can provide further guidance on this issue, or
+if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can
+review the Court's order in the [CVRA litigation].
+On September 18, 2009, a state court judge unsealed the copy of the NPA that had been
+filed in the state case.377
+376
+n the letter, Villafaña expressed frustration with defense counsels" claim relative to the December 19, 2001
+etter that was included in the July 2008 notification letter, noting that the July 2008 letter had been approved b
+defense counsel before being sent.
+377
+See Susan Spencer-Wendel, "Epstein's Secret Pact With Fed Reveals 'Highly Unusual" Terms," Palm Beach
+Post, Sept. 19, 2009.
+240
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 268 of 349
+2010 - 2011:
+Interpretation of the CVRA
+Department and Congressional Actions Regarding
+In connection with the Department's 2010 effort to update its 2005 Guidelines, the Office
+of the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Group that asked OLC to
+revisit its 2005 preliminary review concerning the definition of "crime victim" under the CVRA
+and solicited input concerning the issue from Department components and federal law enforcement
+agencies. In response, OLC issued a December 17, 2010 opinion entitled, The Availability of
+Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004. Based on the CVRA's
+language, relevant case law, and memoranda opinions from Department components, OLC
+reaffirmed its 2005 conclusion that CVRA rights do not vest until a criminal charge has been filed
+(by complaint, information, or indictment) and the rights cease to be available if "all charges are
+dismissed either voluntarily or on the merits (or if the [glovernment declines to bring formal
+charges after the filing of a complaint).*378
+After OLC issued its opinion, the Department revised the 2005 Guidelines in October 2011
+but did not change its fundamental position that the CVRA rights did not vest until after criminal
+charges were filed. The 2011 revision did, however, add language concerning victim consultation
+before a defendant is charged: "In circumstances where plea negotiations occur before a case has
+been brought, Department policy is that this should include reasonable consultation prior to the
+filing of a charging instrument with the court."379 The use of the word "should" in the 2011
+Guidelines indicates that "personnel are expected to take the action ... unless there is an
+appropriate, articulable reason not to do so."380 Nevertheless, the required consultation "may be
+general in nature" and "does not have to be specific to a particular plea offer."381 The revisions
+also specified that AUSAs were to ensure that victims had a right to be reasonably heard at plea
+proceedings.382
+On November 2, 2011, U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, a co-sponsor of the CVRA, sent a letter to
+Attorney General Eric Holder, arguing that the 2011 Guidelines revisions "conflicted] quite
+clearly with the CVRA's plain language" because the 2011 Guidelines did "not extend any rights
+to victims until charges have been filed." The Department's response emphasized that the
+378
+OLC "express[ed] no opinion" as to whether it is a matter of "good practice" to inform victims of their CVRA
+rights prior to the filing of a complaint or after the dismissal of charges.
+379
+ag_guidelines2012. pdf. In its 2011 online training video regarding the Guidelines, the Department encouraged such
+consultation when reasonable, but it also continued to maintain that there was no CVRA right to confer for preindictment plea negotiations.
+380
+See 2011 Guidelines, Art. 1, 9 B.2.
+381
+See 2011 Guidelines, Art. V. 1 G.2.
+382
+The 2005 Guidelines contained no specific provision requiring AUSAs to ensure that victims were able to
+exercise their right to be reasonably heard at plea proceedings, only at sentencing. See 2005 Guidelines, Art. IV,
+• C.3.b.(2). However, the 2005 Guidelines generally require AUSAs to use their best efforts to comply with the
+CVRA, and the CVRA specifically affords victims the right to be heard at plea proceedings. The 2011 revision
+remedied this omission.
+241
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 269 of 349
+Department had made its "best efforts in thousands of federal and District of Columbia cases to
+assert, support, and defend crime victims' rights." The response also referenced OL.C's December
+2010 opinion concluding that CVRA rights apply when criminal proceedings are initiated, noting
+that "the new AG Guidelines go further and provide that Department prosecutors should make
+reasonable efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about, prospective
+plea negotiations, even prior to the filing of a charging instrument with the court."383
+In 2015, Congress amended the CVRA, and added the following two rights:
+(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain
+or deferred prosecution agreement.
+(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this section and the
+services described in section 503(c) of the Victims' Rights and
+Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 10607(c)) and provided contact
+information for the Office of the Vietims' Rights Ombudsman of the
+Department of Justice.
+G. The CVRA Litigation Proceedings and Current Status
+While the CVRA litigation was pending in the Southern District of Florida, numerous
+federal civil suits against Epstein, brought in the same district, were transferred to the same judge
+as "related cases," as a matter of judicial economy pursuant to the Local Rules. As the parties
+agreed on settlements in those civil cases, they were dismissed 384 Several of the victims who had
+settled their civil cases filed a pleading in the CVRA litigation asking the court to "maintain their
+anonymity" and not "further disseminate|]" their identities to the CVRA petitioners. 385
+In the CVRA case, the petitioners claimed that the government violated their CVRA rights
+to confer by (1) negotiating and signing the NPA without victim input; (2) sending letters to the
+victims claiming that the matter was "under investigation" after the NPA was already signed; and
+(3) not properly informing the vietims that the state plea would also resolve the federal
+investigation. In addition, the petitioners alleged that the government violated their CVRA right
+to be treated with fairness by concealing the NPA negotiation and also violated their CVRA right
+to reasonable notice by concealing that the state court proceeding impacted the enforcement of the
+NPA and resolved the federal investigation.
+During the litigation, the USAO argued that (1) the victims had no right to notice or
+conferral about the NPA because the CVRA rights did not apply pre-charge; (2) the government's
+383
+157 Cong. Rec. S7359-02 (2011) (Kyl letter and Department response).
+Epstein also resolved some county court civil cases during this time period as well. In addition, numerous
+other cases were resolved outside of formal litigation. For example, one attorney told OPR that he resolved 16 victim
+cases, but did not file all cases with the court. Court data indicate that the attorney filed only 3 of the 16 cases he said
+he resolved.
+385
+Doe, Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States' Notice of Partial Compliance at 1 (July 24,
+2015).
+242
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 270 of 349
+letters to victims sent after the NPA was signed were not misleading in stating that the matter was
+"under investigation" because the government continued to investigate given its uncertainty that
+Epstein would plead guilty; and (3) Villafaña contacted the petitioners' attorney prior to Epstein's
+state plea to advise him of the hearing. Nonetheless, Villafaña told OPR that, while there were
+valid reasons for the government's position that CVRA rights do not apply pre-charge, "[T]his is
+a case where I felt we should have done more than what was legally required. I was obviously
+prepared to spend as much time, energy and effort necessary to meet with each and every [victim]."
+Over the course of the litigation, the district court made various rulings interpreting the
+provisions of the CVRA, including the court's key conclusion that victim CVRA rights "attach
+before the Government brings formal charges against a defendant." The court also held that
+(1) "the CVRA authorizes the rescission or "reopening' of a prosecutorial agreement, including a
+non-prosecution agreement, reached in violation of a prosecutor's conferral obligations under the
+statute"; (2) the CVRA authorizes the setting aside of pre-charge prosecutorial agreements";
+(3) the CVRA's "reasonable right to confer" "extends to the pre-charge state of criminal
+investigations and proceedings"; (4) the alleged federal sex crimes committed by Epstein render
+the Doe petitioners "victims" under the CVRA; and (5) "questions pertaining to [the] equitable
+defense[s] are properly left for resolution after development of a full evidentiary record."
+On February 21, 2019, the district court granted the petitioners' Motion for Partial
+Summary Judgment, ruling that "once the Government failed to advise the victims about its
+intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." The government did not
+dispute the fact that it did not confer with the petitioners prior to signing the NPA, and the court
+concluded that "[a]t a bare minimum, the CVRA required the Government to inform Petitioners
+that it intended to enter into an agreement not to prosecute Epstein." The court found that the post-
+NPA letters the government sent to victims describing the investigation as ongoing "misled the
+victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that "i]t was a material
+omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an
+investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute. "386
+The court relied on
+and BP Products to support its holding and noted that the
+government's action with respect to the NPA was especially troubling because, unlike a plea
+agreement for which the victims could voice objection at a sentencing hearing, "[o]nce an NPA is
+entered into without notice, the matter is closed and the victims have no opportunity to be heard
+regarding any aspect of the case." The court also highlighted the inequity of the USAO's failure
+to communicate with the victims while it simultaneously engaged in "lengthy negotiations" with
+Epstein's counsel and assured the defense that the NPA would not be "made public or filed with
+the Court."
+Although the USAO defended its actions by citing the 2005 Guidelines for the
+Department's position that CVRA rights do not attach until after a defendant is charged, the court
+was "not persuaded that the [G]uidelines were the basis for the Government's decision to withhold
+information about the NPA from the victims." The court found that the government's reliance on
+386
+The court did not resolve the factual question as to whether the victims were given adequate notice of
+Epstein's state court plea hearing.
+243
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 271 of 349
+the 2005 Guidelines was inconsistent with positions the USAO had taken in correspondence with
+Epstein's attorneys, in which the government acknowledged that "it had obligations to notify the
+victims." The court ordered the parties to submit additional briefs regarding the appropriate
+remedies. Accordingly, the petitioners requested multiple specific remedies, including rescission
+of the NPA; a written apology to all victims from the government; a meeting with Acosta,
+Villafaña, and her supervisors; access to government records, including grand jury materials;
+training for USAO employees; and monetary sanctions and attorneys' fees. 387
+Following Epstein's indictment on federal charges in New York and subsequent death
+while in custody, on September 16, 2019, the district judge presiding over the CVRA case denied
+the petitioners' motion for remedies and closed the case, stating that Epstein's death "rendered the
+most significant issue that was pending before the Court, namely, whether the Government's
+violation of Petitioners' rights under the CVRA invalidated the NPA, moot."388 The court did not
+order the government to take corrective measures, but stated that it fully expects the Government
+will honor its representation that it will provide training to its employees about the CVRA and the
+proper treatment of crime victims. "389 The court also denied the petitioners' request for attorneys'
+fees, finding that the government did not act in bad faith, because, "[a]lthough unsuccessful on the
+merits of the issue of whether there was a violation of the CVRA, the Government asserted
+legitimate and legally supportable positions throughout this litigation."
+On September 30, 2019,
+appealed the district court's rejection of the requested
+remedies, through a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
+Eleventh Circuit.390 In its responsive brief, the government expressed sympathy for
+and
+"regret] [for] the manner in which it communicated with her in the past."391 Nevertheless, the
+government argued that, "as a matter of law, the legal obligations under the CVRA do not attach
+prior to the government charging a case" and thus, "the CVRA was not triggered in SDFL because
+no criminal charges were brought."392 The government conceded, however, that with regard to
+the New York prosecution in which Epstein had been indicted, "[p]etitioner and other Epstein
+387
+Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Submission on Proposed Remedies (May 23, 2019).
+Doe, Opinion and Order (Sept. 16, 2019). Among other things, the court rejected the petitioners' contention
+that it did not address whether the government had violated the victims" CVRA right to be treated with fairness and
+to receive fair notice of the proceedings, noting that "It]hese rights all flow from the right to confer and were
+encompassed in the Court's ruling finding a violation of the CVRA."
+389
+The Department's Office of Legal Programs provided a training entitled Crime Victims' Rights in the Federal
+System to the USAO on January 10, 2020.
+390
+See In re
+No. 19-13843, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act,
+18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) (Sept. 30, 2019).
+391
+, Brief of the United States of America in Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Under the Crime
+Victims Rights Act at 14 (Oct. 31, 2019). As previously noted, at this point, the litigation was being handled by the
+U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia.
+392
+The government also noted that although the CVRA was amended in 2015 to include a victim's right to be
+notified in a timely manner of plea bargains and deferred prosecution agreements, "the amendment did not extend to
+non-prosecution agreements" which, unlike plea agreements and deferred prosecution agreements, do not require cour
+involvement.
+244
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 272 of 349
+victims deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and to be conferred with on the criminal
+case, not just because the CVRA requires it, but because it's the right thing to do." During oral
+argument on January 16, 2020, the government apologized for the USAO's treatment of
+The issue is whether or not the office was fully transparent with
+about what it is that was going on with respect to the NPA,
+and they made a mistake in causing her to believe that the case was
+ongoing when in fact the NPA had been signed. The government
+should have communicated in a straightforward and transparent way
+with
+I, and for that, we are genuinely sorry.393
+On April 14, 2020, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied
+petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that "the CVRA does not apply before the
+commencement of criminal proceedings—and thus, on the facts of this case, does not provide the
+petitioner here with any judicially enforceable rights."394 The court conducted a thorough analysis
+of the language of the statute, the legislative history, and previous court decisions. The court
+as "dictum" consisting of a "three-sentence discussion ... devoid of any
+analysis of the CVRA's text, history, or structural underpinnings." The court noted that its
+interpretation of the CVRA was consistent with the Department's 2010 OLC opinion concerning
+victim standing under the CVRA and the Department's efforts in "implementing regulations."
+Finally, the court raised separation of powers concerns with
+(and the dissenting judge's)
+interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA, noting that such an interpretation would
+interfere with prosecutorial discretion.
+Nevertheless, the court was highly critical of the government's conduct in the underlying
+case, stating that the government "[s]eemingly . . . defer[red] to Epstein's lawyers" regarding
+information it provided victims about the NPA and that its "efforts seem to have graduated from
+passive nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation." The court concluded that
+although it "seems obvious" that the government "should have consulted with petitioner (and other
+victims) before negotiating and executing Epstein's NPA," the court could not conclude that the
+government was obligated to do so. In addition, the dissenting judge filed a lengthy and strongly
+worded opinion asserting that the majority's statutory interpretation was "contorted" because the
+"plain and unambiguous text of the CVRA does not include [a] post-indictment temporal
+restriction."
+On May 5, 2020,
+filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On August 7, 2020, the court
+prapord thereing see it has be ban and a tea is or ease reace or this.
+393
+394
+Audio recording of Oral Argument, No. 19-13843 (Jan. 16, 2020).
+In re
+955 F.3d 1196, 1220 (11th Cir. 2020).
+245
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 273 of 349
+246
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 274 of 349
+CHAPTER THREE
+PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS
+STATUTORY PROVISIONS
+Pertinent sections of the CVRA and the VRRA, applicable during the relevant time period,
+are set forth below.
+A. The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771
+(a) Rights of Crime Victims.
+-A crime victim has the following rights:
+(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
+(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any
+parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
+(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after
+receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be
+materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
+(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving
+release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
+(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
+(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
+(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
+(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
+(c) Best Efforts To Accord Rights.—
+(1) Government.-Officers and employees of the Department of Justice ... shall make their
+best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in
+subsection (a).
+••••
+(e) Definitions.
+..••
+(2) Crime victim.—
+(A) In general. —The term "crime vietim" means a person directly and proximately
+harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of
+Columbia.
+247
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 275 of 349
+B. The Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (VRRA), 34 U.S.C. § 20141,
+Services to Victims (formerly cited as 42 USCA § 10607)
+(b) Identification of victims
+At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at which it may be done without
+interfering with an investigation, a responsible official shall-
+(1) identify the victim or victims of a crime;
+(2) inform the victims of their right to receive, on request, the services described in subsection
+(c); and
+(3) inform each victim of the name, title, and business address and telephone number of the
+responsible official to whom the victim should address a request for each of the services
+described in subsection (e).
+(c) Description of services
+(1) A responsible official shall—
+(A) inform a victim of the place where the victim may receive emergency medical and
+social services;
+(B) inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled
+under this or any other law and manner in which such relief may be obtained;
+(C) inform a victim of public and private programs that are available to provide counseling,
+treatment, and other support to the victim; and
+(D) assist a victim in contacting the persons who are responsible for providing the services
+and relief described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C).
+(2) A responsible official shall arrange for a victim to receive reasonable protection from a
+suspected offender and persons acting in concert with or at the behest of the suspected offender.
+(3) During the investigation and prosecution of a crime, a responsible official shall provide a
+victim the earliest possible notice of
+(A) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the
+victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation;
+(B) the arrest of a suspected offender;
+(C) the filing of charges against a suspected offender;
+(D) the scheduling of each court proceeding that the witness is either required to attend or,
+under section 10606(b)(4) of Title 42, is entitled to attend;
+(E) the release or detention status of an offender or suspected offender;
+(F) the acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of a verdict after
+(G) the sentence imposed on an offender, including the date on which the offender will be
+eligible for parole.
+248
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 276 of 349
+(4) During court proceedings, a responsible official shall ensure that a victim is provided a
+waiting area removed from and out of the sight and hearing of the defendant and defense
+witnesses.
+(e) Definitions
+....
+(2) the term "victim" means a person that has suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary
+harm as a result of the commission of a crime ....
+II.
+DEPARTMENT POLICY: THE 2005 ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR
+VICTIM AND WITNESS ASSISTANCE (2005 GUIDELINES)
+In 2005, the Department revised its guidelines for victim and witness assistance in order to
+incorporate the provisions of the CVRA. The purpose of the 2005 Guidelines was "to establish
+uidelines to be followed by officers and employees of Department of Justice investigative
+rosecutorial. and correctional components in the treatment of victims of and witnesses to crime.
+The relevant portions of the 2005 Guidelines are as follows:
+Article IV: Services to Victims and Witnesses
+A. Investigation Stage
+The investigative agency's responsibilities begin with the report of the crime and extend
+through the prosecution of the case. In some instances, when explicitly stated, the
+investigative agency's responsibility for a certain task is transferred to the prosecuting
+agency when charges are filed.
+• = = =
+2. Identification of Victims. At the earliest opportunity after the detection of a crime at
+which it may be done without interfering with an investigation, the responsible official of
+the investigative agency shall identify the victims of the crime.
+3. Description of Services.
+a. Information, Notice, and Referral
+that briefly describes their rights and the available services, identifies the local
+249
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 277 of 349
+service providers, and lists the names and telephone numbers of the victim-witness
+coordinator or specialist and other key officials. A victim must be informed of—
+(a) His or her rights as enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
+(b) His or her right entitlement, on request, to the services listed in 42 U.S.C.
+§ 10607(c).
+(c) The name, title, business address, and telephone number of the responsible
+official to whom such a request for services should be addressed.
+(d) The place where the victim may receive emergency medical or social
+services.
+(e) The availability of any restitution or other relief (including crime victim
+compensation programs) to which the victim may be entitled under this or any
+other applicable law and the manner in which such relief may be obtained.
+(f) Public and private programs that are available to provide counseling,
+treatment, and other support to the victim.
+(i) The availability of services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault,
+or stalking
+(i) The option of being included in VNS.
+(k) Available protections from intimidation and harassment.
+... =
+3) Notice during the investigation. During the investigation of a crime, i
+esponsible official shall provide the victim with the earliest possible notic
+concerning
+(a)
+The status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent that it is
+appropriate and will not interfere with the investigation.
+(b) The arrest of a suspected offender.
+B. Prosecution Stage
+The prosecution stage begins when charges are filed and continues through postsentencing
+legal proceedings, including appeals and collateral attacks.
+250
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 278 of 349
+1. Responsible Officials. For cases in which charges have been instituted, the responsible
+official is the U.S. Attorney in whose district the prosecution is pending.
+2. Services to Crime Victims
+•• •
+b. Information, Notice, and Referrals
+(1) Notice of Rights. Officers and employees of the Department of Justice shall
+make their best eforts to see that crime victims are notified of the rights enumerated
+in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
+(2) Notice of Right To Seek Counsel. The prosecutor shall advise the crime victım
+that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights
+described in 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
+(3) Notice of Right To Attend Trial. The responsible official should inform the
+crime victim about the victim's right to attend the trial regardless of whether the
+vietim intends to make a statement or present any information about the effect of
+the crime on the victim during sentencing.
+(4) Notice of Case Events. During the prosecution of a crime, a responsible official
+shall provide the vietim, using VNS (where appropriate), with reasonable notice
+of-
+(a) The filing of charges against a suspected offender.
+(b) The release or escape of an offender or suspected offender.
+(c) The schedule of court proceedings.
+telephone or expedited means. This notification requirement relates to
+postsentencing proceedings as well.
+(ii)
+The responsible official shall also give reasonable notice of the
+scheduling or rescheduling of any other court proceeding that the vietim or
+witness is required or entitled to attend.
+(d) The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or the rendering of'
+a verdict after trial.
+251
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 279 of 349
+(e) If the offender is convicted, the sentence and conditions of supervised
+release, if any, that are imposed.
+- ••
+(6) Referrals. Once charges are filed, the responsible official shall assist the victim
+in contacting the persons or offices responsible for providing the services and relief
+[previously identified].
+c. Consultation With a Government Attorney
+(1) In General. A victim has the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the
+Government in the case. The victim's right to confer, however, shall not be
+construed to impair prosecutorial discretion. Federal prosecutors should be
+available to consult with victims about major case decisions, such as dismissals,
+release of the accused pending judicial proceedings (when such release is for
+noninvestigative purposes), plea negotiations, and pretrial diversion. Because
+victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government, and may disclose
+whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations
+may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only
+nonsensitive data and public information. Consultations should comply with the
+prosecutor's obligations under applicable rules of professional conduct.
+Representatives of the Department should take care to inform victims that neither
+the Department's advocacy for victims nor any other effort that the Department
+may make on their behalf constitutes or creates an attorney-client relationship
+between such victims and the lawyers for the Government.
+Department personnel should not provide legal advice to victims.
+(2) Prosecutor Availability. Prosecutors should be reasonably available to consult
+with victims regarding significant adversities they may suffer as a result of delays
+in the prosecution of the case and should, at the appropriate time, inform the court
+of the reasonable concerns that have been conveyed to the prosecutor.
+(3) Proposed Plea Agreements. Responsible officials should make reasonable
+efforts to notify identified victims of, and consider victims' views about,
+pricel should consider factor elevant to the wisdom and practicality of giving
+notice and considering views in the context of the particular case, including, but not
+limited to, the following factors:
+(a) The impact on public safety and risks to personal safety.
+(b) The number of victims.
+(c) Whether time is of the essence in negotiating or entering a proposed plea.
+252
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 280 of 349
+(d) Whether the proposed plea involves confidential information or conditions.
+(e) Whether there is another need for confidentiality.
+(f) Whether the victim is a possible witness in the case and the effect that
+relaying any information may have on the defendant's right to a fair trial.
+III. FLORIDA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
+A. FRPC 4-4.1 - Candor in Dealing with Others
+FRPC 4-4.1 prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact
+or law to a third person during the course of representation of a client. A comment to this rule
+explains that "[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or
+omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements," and "[w]hether a particular
+statement should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances."
+B. FRPC 4-8.4 - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
+FRPC 4-8.4(c) states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
+deceit, or misrepresentation.
+FRPC 4-8.4(d) prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice
+of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
+As previously noted, courts have determined that FRPC 4-8.4(d) is not limited to conduct
+that occurs in a judicial proceeding, but can be applied to "conduct in connection with the practice
+of law." Frederick, 756 So. 2d at 87; see also Shankman, 41 So. 3d at 172.
+253
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 281 of 349
+[Page Left Intentionally Blank]
+254
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 282 of 349
+CHAPTER THREE
+PART THREE: ANALYSIS
+I.
+OVERVIEW
+In addition to criticism of Acosta's decision to end the federal investigation by means of
+the NPA, public and media attention also focused on the government's treatment of victims. In
+the CVRA litigation and in more recent media reports, victims complained that they were not
+informed about the government's intention to end its investigation of Epstein because the
+government did not consult with victims before the NPA was signed; did not inform them of
+Epstein's state plea hearing and sentencing, thereby denying them the opportunity to attend; and
+actively misled them through statements that the federal investigation was ongoing. The district
+court overseeing the CVRA litigation concluded that the government violated the Crime Victims'
+Rights Act and "misl[ed] the victims to believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and
+that "[i]t was a material omission for the Government to suggest to the victims that they have
+patience relative to an investigation about which it had already bound itself not to prosecute. *395
+The government's conduct, which involved both FBI and USAO actions, led to allegations that
+the prosecutors had purposefully failed to inform victims of the NPA to prevent victims from
+complaining publicly or in state court.
+OPR examined the government's course of conduct when interacting with the victims,
+including the lack of consultation with the victims before the NPA was signed; Acosta's decision
+to defer to state authorities the decision to notify victims of Epstein's state plea; and the decision
+to delay informing victims about the NPA until after Epstein entered his plea on June 30, 2008.
+OPR considered whether letters sent to victims by the FBI after the NPA was signed contained
+false or misleading statements. OPR also evaluated representations Villafaña made to victims in
+January and February 2008, and to an attorney for a victim in June 2008.
+THE SUBJECTS DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
+STANDARD BY ENTERING INTO THE NPA WITHOUT CONSULTING THE
+VICTIMS
+During the CVRA litigation, the government acknowledged that the USAO did not consult
+with victims about the government's intention to enter into the NPA. In its February 21, 2019
+opinion, the district court concluded that "once the Government failed to advise the victims about
+its intention to enter into the NPA, a violation of the CVRA occurred." OPR considered this
+finding as part of its investigation into the USAO's handling of the Epstein case, and examined
+whether, before the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, federal prosecutors were obligated
+to consult with victims under the CVRA, and if so, whether any of the subject attorneys Acosta,
+Sloman, Menchel, Lourie, or Villafaña-intentionally violated or recklessly disregarded that
+obligation.
+Doe v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1219, 1221 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2019).
+255
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 283 of 349
+As discussed below, OPR concludes that none of the subject attorneys violated a clear and
+unambiguous duty under the CVRA because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation without
+a federal criminal charge. In September 2007, when the NPA was signed, the Department did not
+interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the federal
+courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before criminal
+charges were brought. Pursuant to OPR's established analytical framework, OPR does not find
+professional misconduct unless a subject attorney intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and
+unambiguous standard. Accordingly, OPR finds that the subject attorneys' conduct did not rise to
+the level of professional misconduct. OPR nevertheless concludes that the lack of consultation
+was part of a series of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court
+condemnation of the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as
+a whole, and is contradictory to the Department's mission to "minimize the frustration and
+confusion that victims of a crime endure in its wake."396
+A. At the Time, No Clear and Unambiguous Standard Required the USAO to
+Notify Vietims Regarding Case-Related Events until after the Filing of
+Criminal Charges
+Although the rights enumerated in the CVRA are clear on their face, the threshold issue of
+whether an individual qualifies as a victim to whom CVRA rights attach was neither clear nor
+unambiguous at the time the USAO entered into the NPA with Epstein in September 2007. At that
+time, the Department interpreted the CVRA in a way that differed markedly from the district
+court's later interpretation in the CVRA litigation.
+The CVRA defines a "crime victim" as "a person directly and proximately harmed as a
+result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia." On April
+1, 2005, soon after the CVRA was enacted, OLC concluded that "the status of a crime victim'
+may be reasonably understood to commence upon the filing of a criminal complaint, and that the
+status ends if there is a subsequent decision not to indict or prosecute the Federal offense that
+directly caused the victim's harm." Beginning with the 2005 OLC guidance, the Department has
+consistently taken the position that CVRA rights do not apply until the initiation of criminal
+charges against a defendant, whether by complaint, indictment, or information. OLC applied its
+definition to all eight CVRA rights in effect in 2005, but noted that the obligation created by the
+eighth CVRA right to "treat] victims with fairness and respect"— is "always expected of Federal
+fficials, and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 [(VRRA)] indicates that this righ
+pplies 'throughout the criminal justice process."*397 Consistent with the OLC interpretation, i
+May 2005, the Department issued the 2005 Guidelines to implement the CVRA.
+The 2005 Guidelines assigned CVRA-related obligations to prosecutors only after the
+396
+2005 Guidelines, Foreword.
+397
+Nevertheless, the portion of the VRRA referenced in the OLC 2005 Informal Guidance, 42 U.S.C. § 10606,
+had been repealed upon passage of the CVRA.
+256
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 284 of 349
+and consider victims' views about, prospective plea negotiations. 398 The "prosecution stage"
+began when charges were filed and continued through all post-sentencing legal proceedings.399
+At the time the parties signed the NPA in September 2007, few courts had addressed victim
+standing under the CVRA. Notably, district courts in New York and South Carolina had ruled that
+standing attached only upon the filing of federal charges. 400 Two cases relied upon by the court
+in its February 2019 opinionand its underlying district court opinion, BP Products-were
+decided after the NPA was signed.
+The CVRA litigation and proposed federal legislation both pending as of the date of this
+Report show that the interpretation of victim standing under the CVRA continues to be a matter
+of debate.* In a November 21, 2019 letter to Attorney General William Barr, a Congressional
+Representative stated that she had recently introduced legislation specifically to "[c]larify that
+victims of federal crimes have the right to confer with the Government and be informed about key
+pre-charging developments in a case, such as ... non-prosecution agreements."402 The CVRA
+litigation arising from the Epstein case shows the lack of clarity regarding when CVRA rights
+apply: the district court concluded that CVRA rights applied pre-charge, but a sharply divided
+panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion, a decision that has
+now been vacated while the entire court hears the case en banc.
+Because the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue of when CVRA rights apply, the
+lower courts had reached divergent conclusions, and the Department had concluded that CVRA
+rights did not apply pre-charge, OPR concludes that the subjects' failure to consult with victims
+before signing the NPA did not constitute professional misconduct because at that time, the CVRA
+did not clearly and unambiguously require prosecutors to consult with victims before the filing of
+tederal criminal charges. 403
+398
+2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, 4 B.2.c.(3). Under the 2005 Guidelines, the term "should" means that "the
+employee is expected to take the action or provide the service described unless there is an appropriate, articulable
+reason not to do so." Id., Art. II, 4 C
+399
+ld., Art. IV, 1 B.1.
+400
+401
+See
+Cong. (2019).
+402
+Searcy v. Paletz, 2007 WL 1875802, at *5 (D.S.C. June 27, 2007) (an inmate is not considered a crime victim
+for purposes of the CVRA until the government has filed criminal charges); United States v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d
+319, 326-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (victims are not entitled to CVRA rights until the government has filed charges, but
+courts have discretion to take a more inclusive approach); and United States v. Guevara-Toloso, 2005 WL 1210982,
+at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (order sua sponte) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony
+conviction, the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA).
+, 955 F.3d at 1220; |
+Crime Victims' Rights Reform Act of 2019, H.R. 4729, 116th
+165 Cong. Rec. E1495-01 (2019).
+403
+Violations of an unambiguous obligation concerning victims' rights could result in a violation of the rules of
+professional responsibility. For example, in Attorney Griev. Comm'n of Md. v.
+1. 109 A.3d 1184 (Md. 2015), the
+Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that a prosecutor's failure to provide any notice to the minor victim's |
+family about the resolution of a sex abuse case during the ten months the prosecutor was responsible for the matter
+was a "consistent failure" amounting to "gross negligence in the discharge of the prosecutorial function" that deprived
+the victim of his rights under the Maryland Constitution. The court found violations of Maryland Rules of Professional
+257
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 285 of 349
+In
+the Eleventh Circuit panel compared the language of the CVRA to the language
+of the VRRA, noting that the VRRA "clearly extends victim-notice rights into the pre-charge
+phase" and opining that the government "may well have violated" the VRRA with regards to its
+investigation of Epstein. As a predecessor to the CVRA, the VRRA afforded victims various rights
+and services; however, it provided no mechanism for a victim to assert such rights in federal court
+or by administrative complaint. Like the CVRA, the rights portion of the VRRA established the
+victims' right to be treated with fairness and respect and the right to confer with an attorney for
+the government. However, the rights portion of the VRRA was repealed upon passage of the
+CVRA and was not in effect at the time of the Epstein investigation.
+The portion of the VRRA directing federal law enforcement agencies to provide certain
+victim services such as counseling and medical care referrals remained in effect following passage
+of the CVRA. Furthermore, two of the VRRA requirements-one requiring a responsible official
+to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and
+another requiring that a responsible official "shall provide a victim the earliest possible notice of
+the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform the victim and
+to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation"-may have applied to the Epstein
+investigation. However, the VRRA did not create a clear and unambiguous obligation on the part
+of the subject attorneys, as the 2005 Guidelines assigned the duty of enforcing the two
+requirements to the investigative agency rather than to prosecutors. Moreover, the VRRA did not
+require notice to victims before the NPA was signed because, at that point, the case remained
+"under investigation," and the victims did not become entitled to pursue monetary damages under
+the NPA until Epstein entered his guilty pleas in June 2008. Once Epstein did so, and the victims
+identified by the USAO became entitled to pursue the § 2255 remedy, the USAO furnished the
+victims with appropriate notification.
+B. OPR Did Not Find Evidence Establishing That the Lack of Consultation Was
+Intended to Silence Victims
+During her OPR interviews, Villafaña recalled more than one discussion in which she
+raised with her supervisors the issue of consulting with the victims before the NPA was signed on
+September 24, 2007. Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie, however, had no recollection of
+discussions about consulting victims before the NPA was signed, and Menchel disputed
+Villafaña's assertions. OPR found only one written reference before that date, explicitly raising
+the issue of consultation. Given the absence of contemporaneous records, OPR was unable to
+conclusively determine whether the lack of consultation stemmed from an affirmative decision
+made by one or more of the subjects or whether the subjects discussed consulting the victims about
+the NPA before it was signed. Villafaña's recollection suggests that Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman
+may have been concerned with maintaining the confidentiality of plea negotiations and did not
+believe that the government was obligated to consult with victims about such negotiations. OPR
+Conduct 1.3, lack of diligence, and 8.4(d), conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The holding in _
+was based on Article 47 of the Maryland Constitution and various specific statutes affording victims the right, among
+others, to receive various notices and an opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or
+information filed in a circuit court." However, both the underlying statutory provisions and, significantly, the facts
+are substantially different from the Epstein investigation. In |
+, the criminal defendant had been arrested and
+charged before entering a plea.
+258
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 286 of 349
+did not find evidence showing that the subjects intended to silence victims or to prevent them from
+having input into the USAO's intent to resolve the federal investigation.
+Although the contemporaneous records provide some information about victim notification
+decisions made after the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, the records contain little about
+the subjects' views regarding consultation with victims before the NPA was signed. In a
+September 6, 2007 email primarily addressing other topics, as the plea negotiations were beginning
+in earnest and almost three weeks before the NPA was signed, Villafaña raised the topic of victim
+consultation with Sloman: "The agents and I have not reached out to the victims to get their
+approval, which as [CEOS Chief Oosterbaan] politely reminded me, is required under the law....
+[A]nd the [PBPD] Chief wanted to know if the victims had been consulted about the deal."404
+Sloman forwarded the email to Acosta with a note stating, "fyi." Villafaña recalled that after she
+sent the email, Sloman told her by telephone, "[Y]ou can't do that now."405 Villafaña also told
+OPR that shortly before the NPA was signed, Sloman told her, "[W]e've been advised that ... precharge resolutions do not require victim notification." Villafaña also recalled a discussion with
+Acosta, Menchel, and Sloman, during which she stated that she would need to get victims' input
+on the terms being proposed to the defense, and she was told, "Plea negotiations are confidential.
+You can't disclose them."406
+None of the other subjects recalled a specific discussion before the NPA was signed about
+the USAO's CVRA obligations. Menchel told OPR he believed the USAO was not required to
+consult with victims during the preliminary "general discussion" phase of settlement negotiations;
+moreover, he left the USAO before the terms of the NPA were fully developed.
+Sloman told OPR that he "did not think that we had to consult with victims prior to entering
+into the NPA" and "we did not have to seck approval from victims to resolve a case." Sloman
+believed the USAO was obligated only to notify victims about resolution of "the cases that we
+handled, filed cases." Sloman recalled that because the USAO envisioned a state court resolution
+of the matter, he did not "think that that was a concern of ours at the time to consult with [the
+victims] prior to entering into ….. the NPA."
+Lourie told OPR that he did not recall any discussions about informing the victims about
+the terms of the NPA or any instructions to Villafaña that she not discuss the NPA with the victims.
+He stated that everything the USAO did was "to try and get the best result as possible for the
+victims.... [O]nce you step back and look at the whole forest..., you will see that.... If you
+look at each tree and say, well, you didn't do this right for the victim, you didn't tell the victim
+this and that, you're missing the big picture."
+404|
+405
+As noted, the Department's position at the time was that the CVRA did not require consultation with victims
+because no criminal charges had been filed. In addition, Villafaña's reference to victim "approval was inaccurate
+because the CVRA, even when applicable, requires only "consultation" with victims about prosecutorial decisions.
+Villafaña did not recall Sloman explaining the reason for the decision.
+406
+Villafaña also told OPR that she recalled Menchel raising a concern that "telling them about the negotiations
+could cause victims to exaggerate their stories because of their desire to obtain damages from Epstein." Villafaña was
+uncertain of the date of the conversation, but Menchel's presence requires it to have occurred before August 3, 2007.
+259
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 287 of 349
+Acosta told OPR that there was no requirement to notify the victims because the NPA was
+"not a plea, it's deferring in favor of a state prosecution." Acosta said, "[W]hether or not victims'
+views were elicited is something I think was the focus of the trial team and not something that I
+was focused on at least at this time." Acosta could not recall any particular concern that factored
+into the decision not to consult with the victims before entering into the NPA, but he acknowledged
+to OPR, "[C]learly, given the way it's played out, it may have been much better if we had
+[consulted with the victims]. "407
+As indicated, the contemporaneous records reflect little about decisions made regarding
+victim consultation prior to when the NPA was signed. Villafaña raised the issue in writing to her
+supervisors in early September, but there is no evidence showing whether her supervisors
+affirmatively rejected Villafaña's contention that the USAO was obligated to consult with victims,
+ignored the suggestion, or failed to address it for other reasons, possibly because of the extended
+uncertainty as to whether Epstein would ever agree to the government's plea proposal. OPR notes
+that its subject interviews were conducted more than a decade after the NPA was signed, and the
+passage of time affected the recall of each individual OPR interviewed. Although Villafaña
+recalled discussions with her supervisors about notifying victims, her supervisors did not, and
+Menchel contended that Villafaña's recollection is inaccurate. Assuming the discussions occurred,
+the timing is unclear. Sloman was on vacation before the NPA was signed, so a call with Villafaña
+about victim notification at that point in time appears unlikely. Any discussion involving Menchel
+necessarily occurred before August 3, 2007, when it was unclear whether the defense would agree
+to the government's offer. Supervisors could well have decided that at such an early stage, there
+was little to discuss with victims.
+To the extent that Villafaña's supervisors affirmatively made a decision not to consult
+victims, Villafaña's recollection suggests that the decision arose from supervisors' concerns about
+the confidentiality of plea negotiations and a belief that the government was not obligated to
+consult with victims about a pre-charge disposition. That belief accurately reflected the
+Department's position at the time about application of the CVRA. Importantly, OPR did not find
+evidence establishing that the lack of consultation was for the purpose of silencing victims, and
+Villafaña told OPR that she did not hear any supervisor express concerns about victims objecting
+to the agreement if they learned of it. Because the subjects did not violate any clear and
+unambiguous standard in the CVRA by failing to consult with the victims about the NPA, OPR
+concludes that they did not engage in professional misconduct.
+However, OPR includes the lack of consultation in its criticism of a series of government
+interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of the government's
+treatment of the victims. Although the government was not obligated to consult with victims, a
+more straightforward and open approach would have been consistent with the government's goal
+to treat victims of crime with fairness and respect. This was particularly important in a case in
+which victims felt excluded and mistreated by the state process. Furthermore, in this case,
+consulting with the victims about a potential plea would have given the USAO greater insight into
+the victims' willingness to support a prosecution of Epstein. The consultation provision does not
+407
+Villafaña told OPR that she was not aware of any "improper pressure or promise made to [Acosta] in order
+to ... instruct [her] not to make disclosures to the victims]."
+260
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 288 of 349
+require victim approval of the prosecutors' plans, but it allows victims the opportunity to express
+their views and to be heard before a final decision is made. The lack of consultation in this case
+denied the victims that opportunity. 408
+III. LETTERS SENT TO VICTIMS BY THE FBI WERE NOT FALSE STATEMENTS
+BUT RISKED MISLEADING VICTIMS ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE
+FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
+After the NPA was signed on September 24, 2007, Villafaña and the FBI separately
+communicated with numerous victims and victims' attorneys, both in person and through letters.
+Apart from three victims who likely were informed in October or November 2007 about a
+resolution ending the federal investigation, victims were not informed about the NPA or even more
+generally that the USAO had agreed to end its federal criminal investigation of Epstein if he pled
+guilty to state charges until after Epstein entered his guilty plea in June 2008. Despite the
+government's agreement on September 24, 2007, to end its federal investigation upon Epstein's
+compliance with the terms of the NPA, the FBI sent to victims in October 2007, January 2008, and
+May 2008, letters stating that the case was "currently under investigation." In its February 21,
+2019 opinion in the CVRA case, the district court found those letters "mis|[ed] the victims to
+believe that federal prosecution was still a possibility" and that "[i]t was a material omission for
+the Government to suggest to the victims that they have patience relative to an investigation about
+which it had already bound itself not to prosecute."409
+In the discussions throughout this section, OR examines the government's course of
+conduct with victims after the NPA was signed. As set forth in the previous subsection, OPR did
+not find evidence supporting a finding that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña acted with the intent to
+silence victims. Nonetheless, after examining the full scope and context of the government's
+interactions with victims, OPR concludes that the government's inconsistent messages concerning
+the federal investigation led to victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government.
+In this section, OPR examines and discusses letters sent to victims by the FBI that were the
+subject of the district court's findings. OPR found no evidence that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña
+was aware of the content of the letters until the USAO received them from the FBI for production
+for the CVRA litigation. OPR determined that the January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008 letters that
+the district court determined to be misleading, as well as the October 12, 2007 letter OPR located
+during its investigation, were "standard form letter[s]" sent by the FBI's Victim Specialist. As
+noted previously in this Report, after the NPA was signed, Villafaña and the FBI agents continued
+to conduct their investigation in anticipation that Epstein would breach the NPA; absent such a
+Villafaña told OPR that she recalled speaking to several victims along with FBI agents before the NPA was
+signed and "ask[ing] them how they wanted the case to be resolved." FBI interview reports indicate that Villafaña
+was present with FBI agents for some of the interviews occurring well in advance of the NPA negotiations. See 2005
+Guidelines, Art. IV, 1 B.2.c (1) (consultations may be limited to gathering information from vietims and conveying
+only nonsensitive data and public information). However, Villafaña did not meet with all of the victims identified in
+the federal investigation, including the CVRA litigation petitioners, and the government conceded during the CVRA
+litigation that it entered into the NPA without conferring with the petitioners. Doe, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1218.
+409
+Doe, 359 F. Supp. 3d at 1219, 1221.
+261
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 289 of 349
+breach, however, Epstein would enter his state guilty plea and the federal investigation would end.
+Thus, the statement that the case was "currently under investigation" was literally true, but the
+omission of important contextual information about the existence of the NPA deprived the victims
+of important information about the exact status of the investigation.
+A.
+The USAO Was Not Responsible for Victim Notification Letters Sent by the
+FBI in October 2007, January 2008, and May 2008 Describing the Status of
+the Case as "Under Investigation"
+The 2005 Guidelines charged the FBI with informing the victims of CVRA rights and
+available services during the "investigative stage" of a case. During the Epstein investigation, the
+FBI case agents complied with the agency's notification obligation by hand delivering pamphlets
+to victims following their interviews and through computer-generated letters sent to the victims by
+the FBI's Victim Specialist. The FBI's notification process is independent of the USAO's. The
+USAO has its own Victim Witness Specialist who assumes the responsibility for victim
+notification after an indictment or complaint moved the case into the "prosecution stage."
+The FBI's Victim Specialist used the VNS to prepare the October 2007, January 2008, and
+May 2008 letters, a system the FBI regularly employs to comply with its obligations under the
+2005 Guidelines to inform the victims of their rights and other services during the investigative
+stage." The
+language of that letter, however, was generic and failed to communicate the
+unique case-specific status of the Epstein investigation at that time. The FBI Victim Specialist
+who sent the letters acted at the case agent's direction and was not aware of the existence of the
+NPA at the time she created the letters. 410 Neither FBI case agent reviewed any of the letters sent
+by the FBI's Victim Specialist.*'' According to Villafaña, "The decision to issue the letters and
+the wording of those letters were exclusively FBI decisions." Although the FBI case agents
+informed Villafaña after the fact that the FBI's Victim Specialist sent her "standard form letter,"
+Villafaña had never reviewed an FBI-generated victim notification letter and was not aware of its
+contents.412 Villafaña told OPR she was unaware of the content of the FBI letters until they were
+collected for the CVRA litigation, sometime after July 2008.
+410
+The case agent told OPR that she did not recall specifically directing the Victim Specialist to send a letter,
+but acknowledged that "she would come to us before she would approach a victim."
+411
+The case agent told OPR that she had no role in drafting the letters and believed them to be "standard form
+letters." Similarly, the co-case agent told OPR, "I can't think that I've ever reviewed any of them ... they just go
+from the victim coordinator."
+412฿
+Villafaña's lack of familiarity with the language in the FBI letters led to some inconsistency in the
+information provided to vietims concerning their CVRA rights. Beginning in 2006, the FBI provided to victims
+standard letters advising victims of their CVRA rights but which also noted that only some of the rights applied
+pre-charge. During this period, Villafaña also crafted her own introductory letters to the victims to let them know of
+their CVRA rights and that the federal investigation "would be a different process" from the prior state investigation
+in which "the victims felt they had not been particularly well-treated by the State Attorney's Office." Villafaña told
+OPR that in a case in which she "needed] to be talking to young girls frequently and asking them really intimate
+questions," she wanted to "make sure that they ... feel like they can trust me." Villafaña's letter itemized the CVRA
+rights, but it did not explain that those rights attached only after a formal charge had been made. The letter was hand
+262
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 290 of 349
+B. Because the Federal Investigation Continued after the NPA Was Signed, the
+FBI Letters Were Accurate but Risked Misleading Victims regarding the
+Status of the Federal Investigation
+As described previously, given Epstein's appeal to the Department and continued delay
+entering his guilty plea, Villafaña and other subjects came to believe that Epstein did not intend to
+comply with the NPA and that the USAO would ultimately file charges against Epstein. By April
+2008, Acosta predicted in an email that charging Epstein was "more and more likely." As a result,
+Villafaña and the case agents continued their efforts to prepare for a likely trial with additional
+investigative steps. Among other actions, Villafaña, her supervisors, CEOS, and the case agents
+engaged in the following investigative activities:
+• The FBI interviewed victims in October and November 2007 and between January and
+May 2008, and discovered at least six new victims.
+• In January 2008, CEOS assigned a Trial Attorney to bring expertise and "a national
+perspective" to the matter.
+• In January and February 2008, Villafaña and the CEOS Trial Attorney participated in
+victim interviews.
+• Villafaña revised the prosecution memorandum to focus "on victims who are unknown to
+Epstein's counsel."
+• The USAO informed the Department's Civil Rights Division "pursuant to USAM
+[8] 8-3.120," of the USAO's "ongoing investigation of a child exploitation matter"
+involving Epstein and others.
+• Villafaña secured pro bono legal representation for victims whose depositions were being
+sought by Epstein's attorneys in connection with the Florida criminal case. "3
+• Villafaña prepared a revised draft indictment.
+• Villafaña sought and obtained approval to provide immunity to a potential government
+witness in exchange for that witness's testimony.
+• Even after Epstein's state plea hearing was set for June 30, 2008, Villafaña took steps to
+facilitate the filing of federal charges on July 1, 2008, in the event he did not plead guilty.
+Villafaña told OPR that from her perspective, the assertion in the FBI victim letter that the
+case was "currently under investigation" was "absolutely true." Similarly, the FBI case agent told
+OPR that at the time the letters were sent the "case was never closed and the investigation was
+delivered, along with the FBI's own victim's rights pamphlet and notification letter, to victims following their FBI
+interviews.
+According to the 2017 affidavit filed by
+CVRA-case attorney, L
+Villafaña secured assisted in "avoiding the improper deposition."
+, the pro bono counsel that
+263
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 291 of 349
+continuing." The co-case agent also told OPR that, as of the time of his OPR interview in 2019,
+the "the case was open ... it's never been shut down."
+OPR found no evidence that the FBI's victim letters were drafted with the intent to mislead
+the victims about the status of the federal investigation. The "ongoing investigation" language
+generated by the VNS was generic template language in use nationwide at the time and identical
+to that contained in standard form notification letters the FBI generated and distributed from
+August 2006 through the 2007 signing of the NPA.414 Nevertheless, the FBI's letters omitted
+important information about the status of the case because they failed to notify the victims that a
+federal prosecution would go forward only if Epstein failed to fulfill his obligations under an
+agreement he had reached with the USAO. Victims receiving the FBI's letter would logically
+conclude that the federal government was continuing to gather evidence to support a federal
+prosecution. CVRA petitioner
+I stated during the CVRA litigation that her "understanding of
+this letter was that [her] case was still being investigated and the FBI and prosecutors were moving
+forward on the Federal prosecution of Epstein for his crimes against" her. Furthermore, when the
+fact that the USAO had agreed to end its federal investigation in September 2007 eventually came
+to light, the statement in the subsequent letters contributed to victims' and the public's conclusions
+that the government had purposefully kept victims in the dark.
+In sum, OPR concludes that the statement in the FBI victim letters that the matter was
+"currently under investigation" was not false because the USAO and the FBI did continue to
+investigate and prepare for a prosecution of Epstein. The letters, however, risked misleading the
+victims, and contributed to victim frustration and confusion, because the letters did not provide
+important information that would have advised victims of the actual status of the investigation.
+Nonetheless, OPR found no evidence that Villafaña or her supervisors participated in drafting
+those letters or were aware of the content of the FBI's letters until the Department gathered them
+for production in the CVRA litigation.
+The use of FBI form letters that gave incomplete
+information about the status of the investigation demonstrated a lack of coordination between the
+federal agencies responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of
+attention to and oversight regarding communication with victims. Despite the fact that the case
+was no longer on the typical path for resolving federal investigations, form letters continued to be
+sent without any review by prosecutors or the case agents to determine whether the information
+provided to the victims was appropriate under the circumstances. 415
+414
+The Department of Justice Inspector General's Audit Report of the Department's Victim Notification System
+indicates that letters the FBI system generated in 2006 contained |
+language for the notification events of "Initial
+(Investigative Agency)" and "Under Investigation" and letters generated in 2008 contained |
+language for the
+notification events of "Advice of Victims Rights (Investigative" and "Under Investigation."
+After Epstein entered his guilty pleas, the FBI sent a similar form letter requesting "assistance and
+cooperation while we are investigating the case" to the two victims living outside the United States.
+264
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 292 of 349
+IV. ACOSTA'S DECISION TO DEFER TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S
+DISCRETION WHETHER TO NOTIFY VICTIMS ABOUT EPSTEIN'S STATE
+COURT PLEA HEARING DID NOT VIOLATE A CLEAR OR UNAMBIGUOUS
+STANDARD; HOWEVER, ACOSTA EXERCISED POOR JUDGMENT BY
+FAILING TO ENSURE THAT VICTIMS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL
+INVESTIGATION WERE ADVISED OF THE STATE PLEA HEARING
+As set forth in the factual discussion, within a few weeks of the NPA's signing, it became
+clear that the defense team disagreed with, and strongly objected to, the government's plan to
+inform victims of their ability to recover monetary damages from Epstein, under the 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2255 provision of the NPA, and about Epstein's state court plea hearing. The USAO initially
+took the position that it was obligated to, and intended to, inform victims of both the NPA,
+including the § 2255 provision, and Epstein's change of plea hearing and sentencing, so that
+victims who wanted to attend could do so.
+In November and December 2007, Epstein's attorneys challenged the USAO's position
+regarding victim notification. Ultimately, Acosta made two distinct decisions concerning victim
+notifications. Consistent with Acosta's concerns about intruding into state actions, Acosta elected
+to defer to state authorities the decision whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing
+pursuant to the state's own victim's rights requirements. Acosta also determined that the USAO
+would notify victims about their eligibility to obtain monetary damages from Epstein under § 2255,
+a decision that was implemented by letters sent to victims after Epstein entered his state pleas.
+This decision, which postponed notification of the NPA until after Epstein entered his guilty pleas,
+was based, at least in part, on Villafaña's and the case agents' strategic concerns relating to
+preserving the victims' credibility and is discussed further in Section V, below.
+In this section, OPR analyzes Acosta's decision to defer to the state the responsibility for
+notifying victims of Epstein's plea hearing and sentencing. OPR concludes that neither the CVRA
+nor the VRRA required the government to notify victims of the state proceeding and therefore
+Acosta did not violate any statutes or Department policy by deferring to the discretion of the State
+Attorney whether to notify victims of Epstein's state guilty pleas and sentencing. However, OPR
+also concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment because by failing to ensure that the state
+intended to and would notify victims of the federal investigation, he failed to treat victims
+forthrightly and with the sensitivity expected by the Department. Through counsel, Acosta
+"strongly disagree[d]" with OPR's conclusion and argued that OPR unfairly applied a standard
+"never before expected of any U.S. Attorney." OPR addresses Acosta's criticisms in the
+discussion below.
+A. Acosta's Decision to Defer to the State Attorney's Discretion Whether to
+Notify Victims about Epstein's State Court Plea Hearing Did Not Violate Any
+Clear or Unambiguous Standard
+In November 2007, Villafaña sought to avoid defense accusations of misconduct
+concerning her interactions with the victims by preparing a written notice to victims informing
+them of the resolution of the federal case and of their eligibility for monetary damages, and inviting
+them to appear at the state plea hearing. Villafaña and Sloman exchanged edits of the draft letter
+and, at Sloman's instruction, she provided the draft to defense attorney Lefkowitz, who, in turn,
+265
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 293 of 349
+strongly objected to the government's plan to notify victims of the state proceedings, which he
+described as "highly inappropriate" and an "intrusion into state affairs, when the identified
+individuals are not even victims of the crime for which Mr. Epstein is being sentenced."
+Thereafter—at a time when the USAO believed Epstein's plea to be imminent—Villafaña
+drafted, and Sloman signed, the December 6, 2007 letter to Lefkowitz rejecting the defense
+arguments regarding notification and reiterating the USAO's position that the victims identified in
+the federal investigation be invited to appear at the state plea hearing. The letter took an expansive
+view of the applicable statutes by contending that both the CVRA and the VRRA required the
+USAO to notify the victims of the state proceedings:
+[T]hese sections are not limited to proceedings in a federal district
+court. Our Non-Prosecution Agreement resolves the federal
+investigation by allowing Mr. Epstein to plead to a state offense.
+The victims identified through the federal investigation should be
+appropriately informed, and our Non-Prosecution Agreement does
+not require the U.S. Attorney's Office to forego [sic] its legal
+obligations. *6
+The letter also asserted that the VRRA obligated the USAO to provide the victims with
+information concerning restitution to which they may be entitled and "the earliest possible" notice
+of the status of the investigation, the filing of charges, and the acceptance of a plea. Along with
+the letter, Sloman forwarded a revised draft victim notification letter to Lefkowitz for his
+comments. This draft victim notification letter stated that the federal investigation had been
+completed, Epstein would plead guilty in state court, the parties would recommend 18 months of
+imprisonment at sentencing, and Epstein would compensate victims for monetary damages claims
+brought under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. The draft victim notification letter provided specific information
+concerning the upcoming change of plea hearing and invited the victims to attend or provide a
+written statement to the State Attorney's Office. When Lefkowitz asked Sloman to delay sending
+victim notifications until after a discussion of their contents, Sloman instructed Villafaña, who was
+preparing letters for transmittal to 30 victims, to "Hold the letter." During his OPR interview,
+Sloman recalled that he had "wanted to push the letter out," but he "must have had a conversation
+with somebody" about whether the CVRA applied, and based on that conversation he directed
+Villafaña to hold the letter.
+In his response letter to Acosta, Lefkowitz contended that the government had
+isinterpreted both the CVRA and VRRA because neither applied to the "public proceeding i
+is matter [which] will be in state court for the purpose of the entry of a plea on state charges.
+416
+Sloman told Lefkowitz the USAO did not seek to "federalize" a state plea, but "is simply informing the
+266
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 294 of 349
+Thereafter, in his December 19, 2007 letter to defense counsel mainly addressing other
+matters, Acosta informed the defense that the USAO would defer to the State Attorney's discretion
+the responsibility for notifying victims about Epstein's state plea hearing:
+I understand that the defense objects to the victims being given
+notice of [the] time and place of Mr. Epstein's state court [plea and]
+sentencing hearing.
+I have reviewed the proposed victim
+notification letter and the statute. I would note that the United States
+provided the draft letter to the defense as a courtesy. In addition,
+First Assistant United States Attorney Sloman already incorporated
+in the letter several edits that had been requested by defense counsel.
+I agree that Section 3771 applies to notice of proceedings and results
+of investigations of federal crimes as opposed to the state crime. We
+intend to provide victims with notice of the federal resolution, as
+required by law. We will defer to the discretion of the State Attorney
+regarding whether he wishes to provide victims with notice of the
+state proceedings, although we will provide him with the
+information necessary to do so if he wishes.
+(Emphasis added.)
+Acosta told OPR that he "would not have sent this [letter] without running it by [Sloman],
+if not other individuals in the office." Acosta explained that it was "not for me to direct the State
+Attorney, or for our office to direct the State Attorney's Office on its obligations with respect to
+the state outcome." Acosta acknowledged that the USAO initially had concerns about the state's
+handling of the case, but he told OPR, "that doesn't mean that they will not fulfill whatever
+obligation they have. Let's not assume... that the State Attorney's office is full of bad actors."
+Sloman initially believed that "the victims were going to be notified at some level, especially
+because they had restitution rights under [$] 2255"; but his expectations changed after "there was
+an agreement made that we were going to allow the state, since it was going to be a state case, to
+decide how the victims were going to be notified."4|? Sloman told OPR he had been "proceeding
+under the belief that we were going to notify the victims," even though "this was not a federal
+case," but once the NPA "looked like it was going to fall apart," the USAO "had concerns that if
+we g[a]ve them the victim notification letter ... and the deal fell apart, then the victims would be
+instantly impeached by the provision that you're entitled to monetary compensation."
+OPR could not determine whether the State Attorney's Office notified any victims in
+advance of the June 30, 2008 state plea hearing. Krischer told OPR that the State Attorney's Office
+had a robust and effective victim notification process and staff, but he was not aware of whether
+or how it was used in the Epstein case. Belohlavek told OPR that she could not recall whether
+victims were notified of the hearing nor whether the state law required notification for the
+Sloman stated in his June 3, 2008 letter to Deputy Attorney General Filip that Acosta made the decision
+together with the Department's Criminal Division Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker. Acosta did consult
+with Mandelker about the § 2255 civil damages recovery process, but neither Acosta nor Mandelker recalled
+discussing the issue of victim notification, and OPR found no other documentation indicating that Mandelker played
+a role in the deferral decision.
+267
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 295 of 349
+particular charges and victims at issue. Once the hearing was scheduled, Sloman told Villafaña to
+contact PBPD Chief Reiter about notifying the victims, and on June 28, 2008, she reported back
+to Sloman that Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea."418 Villafaña recalled that she
+sent Reiter a list of the girls identified as victims during the federal investigation, and Reiter said
+he would "contact as many as he could." The contemporaneous records do not show how many
+or which victims, if any, Reiter contacted, and no victims were present in the courtroom. No victim
+who provided information to OPR, either in person or through her attorney, recalled receiving
+notice of the plea hearing from federal or state officials. At the time Epstein pled guilty in state
+court, no one in the USAO knew exactly who, if anyone, Reiter or the State Attorney's Office had
+notified about the proceeding. Accordingly, Villafaña, who was present in the courtroom for the
+hearing, had no knowledge to whom Belohlavek referred when she told the court that the victims
+were "in agreement with the terms of this plea."419
+OPR considered whether Acosta's decision to defer to the State Attorney's Office the
+decision to notify victims of the scheduled date for Epstein's plea hearing constituted professional
+misconduct. OPR could not conclude that the CVRA or VRRA provisions in question, requiring
+notice of any public proceeding involving the crime against the victim or that the victim is entitled
+to attend, unambiguously required federal prosecutors to notify victims of state court proceedings.
+Furthermore, as discussed previously, OLC had issued guidance stating that the CVRA did not
+apply to cases in which no federal charges had been filed. 420 Moreover, the section of the VRRA
+requiring notice of court proceedings that the victim is "entitled to attend" referred specifically to
+proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 10606(b)(4), which, at the time of the Epstein case, had become
+part of the CVRA (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2). 421
+Because Acosta had no clear or unambiguous duty to inform victims identified in the
+federal investigation of the state plea hearing, OPR concludes that his decision to defer to the State
+Attorney the decision to notify victims of the state's plea hearing and the responsibility for doing
+so did not constitute professional misconduct.*22
+418
+Sloman replied, "Good." In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated, "I requested permission to make
+oral notifications to the victims regarding the upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification
+could only come from a state investigator, and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist."
+419
+Plea Hearing Transcript at 42.
+420
+OLC 2005 CVRA Informal Guidance; see also United States v. Guevara-Toloso, No. 04-1455, 2005 WL
+1210982, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 23, 2005) (in case involving a federal charge of illegal entry after a felony conviction,
+the court determined that victims of the predicate state conviction were not victims under the CVRA).
+421฿
+In
+, the Eleventh Circuit panel noted that the petitioner argued "only in passing" that the government
+violated her CVRA right "to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding ... involving the
+crime"; however, the court concluded this provision "clearly applies] only after the initiation of criminal
+proceedings."
+1. 955 F.3d at 1205 n.7, 1208.
+The government's letter to victims, following Epstein's guilty pleas, informing them of the resolution of the
+case by state plea and the availability of § 2255 relief, also appear to satisfy the potentially applicable VRRA
+requirements to "inform a victim of any restitution or other relief to which the victim may be entitled," and to "provide
+a victim the carliest possible notice of the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to
+268
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 296 of 349
+B. Acosta Exercised Poor Judgment When He Failed to Ensure That Victims
+Identified in the Federal Investigation Were Informed of the State Plea
+Hearing
+Although Acosta (or the USAO) was not required by law or policy to notify victims of the
+state's plea hearing, he also was not prohibited by law or policy from notifying the victims that
+the federal investigation had been resolved through an agreement that included pleas to state
+charges. As the contemporary records indicate, Acosta consistently expressed hesitancy to
+interfere in the state's processes or to "dictate" actions to the State Attorney. His decision that the
+USAO refrain from notifying victims about the state plea hearing and defer to the State Attorney's
+judgment regarding whether and whom to notify was consistent with this view. However, OPR
+found no evidence that Acosta's decision to defer victim notification "*to the discretion of the State
+Attorney" was ever actually communicated to any state authorities or that Acosta recognized that
+the state, absent significant coordination with federal authorities, was unlikely to contact all of the
+victims identified in the state and federal investigations or that the state would inform the victims
+that it did notify that the state plea hearing was part of an agreement that resolved the federal
+investigation into their own cases.
+Even taking into account Acosta's views on principles of federalism and his reluctance to
+interfere in state processes, Acosta should have recognized the problems that would likely stem
+from passing the task of notifying victims to the State Attorney's Office and made appropriate
+efforts to ensure that those problems were minimized. Appropriate notification would have
+included advising victims identified in the federal investigation that the USAO had declined to
+bring charges and that the matter was being handled by the State Attorney, and, at a minimum,
+provided the victims with Belohlavek's contact information. Acosta could have interacted with
+the State Attorney, or instructed Villafaña or others to do so, to ensure the state intended to make
+notifications in a way that reached the most possible victims and that it had the information
+necessary to accomplish the task. Instead, Acosta deferred the responsibility for victim notification
+entirely to the State Attorney's discretion without providing that office with the names of
+individuals the USAO believed were victims and, apparently, without even informing the state
+prosecutors that he was deferring to them to make the notifications, if they chose to do so.
+Epstein was required by the NPA to plead to only two state charges, and even assuming
+that each charge was premised on a crime against a different victim, and the solicitation charge
+involved three separate victims, there were thus only at most four victims of the charged state
+offenses. Without at least inquiring into the state's intentions, Acosta had no way of determining
+whether the state intended to notify more than those few vietims. Moreover, the federal
+investigation had resulted in the identification of several victims who had not been identified by
+inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere with the investigation." See 42 U.S.C. §§ 10607(c)(1)(B)
+and (c)(3)(A).
+Through counsel, Acosta argued that OPR's criticism of him for "electing to 'defer' the notification
+obligation to the state" was inappropriate and "a non sequitur" because "where no federal notification obligation
+exists, it cannot be deferred." OPR's criticism, as explained further below, is not with the decision itself, but rather
+with the fact that although Acosta intended for the federal victims to be notified of the state plea hearing, and believed
+that they should receive such notification, he nonetheless left responsibility for such notification to the state without
+ensuring that it had the information needed to do so and without determining the state's intended course of action.
+269
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 297 of 349
+the PBPD during its investigation into Epstein's conduct. Absent information from the USAO,
+the state would not have been in a position to notify those additional victims of the state plea
+proceeding, even if the State Attorney had decided to include other victims identified during the
+state investigation. Furthermore, at the time he made his decision, Acosta had already been advised
+by Villafaña that Belohlavek, in November 2007, had requested that the USAO notify victims,
+presumably those identified during the federal investigation, about the state plea hearing.
+Acosta told OPR that it had been his understanding at the time of Epstein's plea that the
+victims would be made aware of the proceeding and would have an opportunity to speak. Acosta
+also told OPR that he expected the state would have "notified [the victims] that that was an all-
+a the seeing a rained
+encompassing plea, that the state court sentence would also mean that the federal government was
+not proceeding." There is no evidence, however, that he verified this understanding with Sloman
+or Villafaña, let alone the State Attorney. OPR found no indication that Acosta ever
+communicated, or directed Sloman or Villafaña to communicate, his decision to the State Attorney
+or to provide the State Attorney's Office with a complete list of victims identified during the
+federal investigation. OPR located a draft letter to the State Attorney's Office that Villafaña
+prepared and forwarded to Acosta in December 2007, which did provide such information, but
+OPR found no evidence that the letter was ever sent, and it was not among materials publicly
+released from the State Attorney's Office. 424 OPR also found evidence that both Sloman and
+Villafaña interacted with the State Attorney's Office in the months leading up to the June 30, 2008
+plea hearing, but there is no indication that they discussed victim notification issues with that
+office, and Villafaña's last minute request to PBPD Chief Reiter to notify victims indicates that
+the USAO had not coordinated with the State Attorney's Office. Belohlavek told OPR that no one
+from the USAO provided her with a list of victims or coordinated any notification of victims to
+appear at the hearing.
+Krischer and Belohlavek were thus evidently unaware that Acosta had decided to leave it
+to them to decide whether to notify victims about the state proceeding. In the absence of some
+discussion of which or how many victims the state intended to notify, what the state intended to
+tell them about Epstein's plea, and whether the state intended to let the victims speak at the plea
+hearing, Acosta had no way to ensure that his assumption about victim notification was accurate.
+In other words, Acosta failed to plan for how all of the identified victims of Epstein's crimes, both
+federal and state, "would be aware of what was happening in the state court and have an
+opportunity to speak up at the state court hearing."
+OPR did not find evidence that Acosta acted for the purpose of excluding victims from the
+plea hearing, and Acosta's assumption that the state would handle victim notification appropriately
+was not unsupported. State prosecutors are subject to victim notification requirements under the
+Florida Constitution, and the state prosecution offices have victim witness personnel, resources,
+and processes to help accomplish notification. However, Acosta was aware through the
+prosecution memoranda, the draft indictment, and email communications from Villafaña-that the
+USAO's investigation had expanded beyond those victims identified in the original PBPD
+The text of the letter indicated that Epstein's attorneys asked the USAO not to inform victims of any rights
+they may have as victims of the charges filed by the State Attorney's Office" and that the USAO was providing the
+State Attorney's Office with a list of the 33 identified federal victims "in case you are required to provide them with
+any further notification regarding their rights under Florida law."
+270
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 298 of 349
+investigation. Because the state indictment and information appeared to pertain to far fewer than
+the total victims identified in either the state or the federal investigation, and no one at the USAO
+was certain which victims were covered by the state charges, it should have been apparent to
+Acosta that without advance planning between the USAO and the State Attorney's Office, there
+was a substantial risk that most of the victims identified in the federal investigation would not
+receive notice of the hearing. *25 Notification to the broadest possible number of identified victims
+could only have been successful if there was appropriate communication between the USAO and
+the state prosecutors, communication that had previously been lacking regarding other significant
+issues relating to Epstein. Villafaña and Sloman's hastily arranged effort to enlist in the
+notification process PBPD Chief Reiter, who likely played little role in complying with the state's
+victim notification obligations in a typical case, was not an adequate substitute for careful planning
+and coordination with the State Attorney's Office.*2
+Even if the State Attorney's Office had notified all of the identified victims of the upcoming
+plea hearing, there was no guarantee that such notification would have included information that
+the state plea was resolving not just the state's investigation of Epstein, but the federal investigation
+as well. The State Attorney was not obligated by state statutes to inform the victims of the status
+of the federal investigation, and there was little reason to assume Krischer, or one of his staff,
+would voluntarily do so, thereby putting the State Attorney's Office in the position of fielding
+victim questions and concerns about the outcome. Furthermore, as both the USAO and the defense
+had differing views as to who could lawfully participate in the state plea hearing, there is no
+indication that Acosta, Sloman, or Villafaña took steps to confirm that, if victims appeared, they
+could actually participate in the state court proceeding when they were not victims of the charged
+crimes. 427
+Through counsel, Acosta asserted to OPR that because Villafaña and Sloman both told
+OPR that they believed that state officials would notify the victims, "OPR identified no reason
+why Secretary Acosta should have distrusted his team on these points." Acosta's counsel further
+425
+Krischer told OPR that the state's notification obligation extended to all victims identified in the state
+investigation. Nonetheless, which victims were encompassed in the state's investigation was unclear. The PBPD's
+probable cause affidavit included crimes against only 5 victims, not the 19 identified in the state
+investigation. According to state records made public, the state subpoenaed to the grand jury only 3 victims. After
+Epstein's guilty plea, the state sent notification letters to only 2 victims. Belohlavek told OPR that because of the
+nature of the charges, she did not know whether "technically under the law" the girls were "victims" she was required
+to notify of the plea hearing.
+The State Attorney's Office had its own procedures and employees who handled victim notification, and
+Belohlavek told OPR that the Chief of the Police Department would not regularly play a role in the state victim
+notification process.
+427
+Although Villafaña's notes indicate that she researched Florida Statutes §$ 960.001 and 921.143 when she
+drafted unsent letters to victims in November and December 2007 inviting them to participate in the state plea hearing
+pursuant to those statues, the caselaw was not clear that all federal victims would have been allowed to participate in
+the state plea hearing. In Lefkowitz's November 29, 2007 letter to Acosta, he argued that the statutes afforded a right
+to speak at a defendant's sentencing or to submit a statement only to the victims of the crime for which the defendant
+was being sentenced. In April 2008, a Florida District Court of Appeal ruled against a defendant who argued that
+Florida Statute § 921.143(1) did not allow the testimony of the victim's relatives at the sentencing hearing. The court
+ruled that § 921.143(I) "should not be read as limiting the testimony Rule 3.720(b) allows trial courts to consider at
+sentencing hearings."
+v. State, 982 So. 2d 69, 72 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008).
+271
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 299 of 349
+argued that Acosta should have been able to rely on his staff to accomplish the vietim notification
+task, and thus had no responsibility to personally confirm that Chief Reiter would notify the
+victims of the hearing. 428 Acosta is correct that under usual circumstances, USAO management
+played no role in the victim notification process; however, in this case, the issue of victim
+officials that would have opened a dialogue concerning the notification of all the victims identified
+in the federal investigation. OPR found no evidence, however, that Acosta sent the letter or any
+similar communication to the State Attorney's Office or that he provided Villafaña and Sloman
+with instructions concerning victim notification other than those contained in his December 19,
+2007 letter. Having inserted himself into the notification process, Acosta had a responsibility to
+ensure that his expectation that the victims would be notified could be accomplished through the
+state process.
+Many victims only learned of Epstein's state court pleas when they later received a letter
+from the USAO informing them that those pleas had resolved the federal investigation, and some
+victims only learned of the state court pleas and sentencing from the news media. In the end,
+although Villafaña and Sloman hastily attempted to ensure victim notification through Chief
+Reiter, their effort was too little and too late to ensure that victims had the opportunity to attend
+the plea hearing or were given sufficient information about its significance to their own cases. 429
+Although Acosta may have conferred with others about the decision to defer the responsibility for
+notifying victims to the State Attorney, Acosta was responsible for choosing this course of action.
+OPR concludes that under these unique circumstances, its criticisms are warranted because Acosta
+personally decided to change the process initiated by his staff, and although he expected that the
+federal victims would be notified, he did not take the necessary steps to ensure that they would be.
+Acosta could have authorized disclosure of the plea hearing to victims, even if he did not believe
+the CVRA required it, to ensure that the victims identified in the federal investigation were aware
+of the state court proceeding. Because the state pleas ended the federal investigation into Epstein's
+conduct, ensuring that the victims were notified of the state plea hearing would have been
+consistent with the Department's overarching commitment to treat victims with fairness, dignity,
+and sensitivity. Acosta's failure to prioritize notification and coordinate communication about the
+428
+As noted, in his comments on OPR's draft report, Acosta's counsel strongly objected to OPR's finding of
+poor judgment with respect to victim notification, arguing that OPR "unwarrantedly applies a standard never before
+expected of any US Attorney," and inappropriately criticizes Acosta for "not personally confirming that the State
+Attorney had the information needed" to notify the victims and for "not personally confirming" that Chief Reiter had
+actually notified the victims. For the reasons discussed, the issue is not whether Acosta "personally" took certain
+specific steps but that he stopped his staff from implementing a notification plan they had devised, and instead, shifted
+responsibility for notification to another entity while failing to consider how or even whether that entity would be able
+to accomplish the notification that Acosta expected to happen.
+429
+OPR notes that Villafaña contacted Reiter soon after the state plea hearing was scheduled, and the resulting
+window of time for Reiter to make any notifications was short. Had the USAO coordinated with the State Attorney
+at some point in time closer to Acosta's December 19, 2007 letter and decision, the USAO could have ensured that
+the State Attorney had an appropriate notification process in place to act quickly when the hearing was scheduled and
+that issues concerning the victims" appearance at the hearing were appropriately considered by state authorities.
+Similarly, if the USAO believed that Reiter should make the notifications, it could have coordinated with Reiter in the
+months that the matter was under review by the Department.
+272
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 300 of 349
+resolution of the case to ensure Epstein's victims were given an opportunity to attend the plea
+hearing, and to possibly speak about the impact of Epstein's crimes, presented a glaring contrast
+with Acosta's responsiveness to the demands of Epstein's attorneys, which included the unusual
+courtesy of allowing them to preview and respond to the USAO's draft victim notifications. This
+contrast added to the victims' perception that they had been treated unfairly, a view shared by the
+public.
+Nothing in the documentary record suggests that Acosta thought through the issue of
+determining which victims would be notified by the state, or that he took any steps to ensure that
+all of the known federal victims received information about the state plea hearing. Instead, as with
+his decision to resolve the federal investigation through a state-based resolution, Acosta exercised
+poor judgment when he made critical decisions affecting the federal investigation and the victims,
+but also failed to consider the full consequences of those decisions or what was needed to
+implement them. Acosta's failure to consider these issues before simply leaving the responsibility
+for making notifications entirely to the State Attorney's discretion reflected poorly on the USAO
+and the Department as a whole. It left victims in the dark about an important proceeding that
+resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had communicated with
+victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the Department intentionally
+sought to silence the victims by keeping them uninformed about the NPA and the resulting state
+proceeding. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were afforded an opportunity to attend a hearing
+that was related to their own cases and thus failed to ensure that victims were treated with
+forthrightness and dignity.
+V. VILLAFANA DID NOT COMMIT PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT IN HER
+ORAL COMMUNICATIONS TO VICTIMS AND VICTIMS' ATTORNEYS, IN
+WHICH SHE DESCRIBED THE CASE AS "UNDER INVESTIGATION" BUT DID
+NOT DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE NPA TO SOME VICTIMS
+From September 24, 2007, when the NPA was signed, until after Epstein's June 30, 2008
+state court plea, the case agents, acting under Villafaña's direction, directly informed only three
+victims that the government had signed an NPA and that, if Epstein complied with its terms, the
+federal investigation would be closed. During this time period, Villafaña and the case agents
+interacted with several victims and their attorneys, and Villafaña contacted victims' attorney
+to encourage him to attend the state court plea hearing, but she did not inform
+victims or
+of the NPA or the resolution of the federal investigation.
+As described in Part One of this chapter, after the NPA was signed, the FBI case agent and
+co-case agent began notifying victims about the NPA. 430 After speaking to three victims, however,
+the FBI case agent became concerned that informing the victims about the NPA and the monetary
+damages provision would create potential impeachment material for the victims and the agent
+should Epstein breach the NPA and the case proceed to indictment and trial. As the case agent
+told OPR, "I would ... have to testify that I told every one of these girls that they could sue
+Mr. Epstein for money, and I was not comfortable with that, I didn't think it was right." The case
+430
+Although
+disputed that she was informed of the resolution of the federal case, the case agent's email to
+Villafaña from this time period reflects that at least one victim understood that the federal case was resolved and that
+she was unhappy with the resolution.
+273
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 301 of 349
+agent and Villafaña consulted with the USAO's Professional Responsibility Officer about the
+matter, and thereafter stopped notifying the victims about the NPA and their ability to pursue
+monetary damages according to its terms.
+Villafaña advised Sloman by email of her concerns regarding the potential impeachment
+evidence, telling him, "One thing I am concerned about is that, if we [file charges] now, crossexamination will consist of- 'and the government told you that if Mr. Epstein is convicted, you are
+entitled to a large amount of damages right?"" Explaining the decision in her later CVRA
+declaration, Villafaña said that after Epstein's attorneys "complained that the victims were
+receiving an incentive to overstate their involvement with Mr. Epstein in order to increase their
+damages claims," she "concluded that informing additional victims could compromise the
+witnesses' credibility at trial if Epstein reneged on the agreement." Acosta was aware of these
+concerns as he referred to them in an August 2008 email, "[W]e also believed that contacting the
+victims would compromise them as potential witnesses. Epstein argued very forcefully that they
+were doing this for the money, and we did not want to discuss liability with them, which was [a]
+key part of [the] agree[ment]."
+The case agents interviewed victims in October and November 2007, but did not inform
+them about the NPA.431 On January 31, 2008, the FBI agents, Villafaña, and the CEOS Trial
+Attorney interviewed three victims, including
+,. and they interviewed at least one
+more victim the next day.432
+and two others had been contacted by the FBI in the fall of
+2007 and may have been informed about the resolution of the federal investigation.
+Villafaña told OPR that during the January 31, 2008 interviews, she did not specifically
+tell the victims that "there was a signed non-prosecution agreement that had these terms." She
+stated that she would not use "terminology" such as "NPA" because "most people don't understand
+what that means." Instead, with respect to the three victims who, according to Villafaña, had been
+informed by the FBI about the resolution, she stated that "an agreement had been reached where
+[Epstein] was going to be entering a guilty plea, but it doesn't look [like] he intends to actually
+perform ... [and] now it looks like this may have to be charged .... and may have to go to trial."
+Villafaña recalled telling some victims that Epstein "was supposed to enter a plea in state court"
+that would end the investigation, but she did not recall distinguishing between the "federal
+investigation versus a state investigation." Villafaña told OPR she explained "the case was under
+investigation," she and the agents "were preparing ... again" to file charges, and they hoped "that
+charges would be brought.
+charges that she bad such iscusions ih at last on victim in erised on this dime perio
+however, did not recall telling all of the victims interviewed at this time of the state plea; rather,
+she likely only told those who knew about the resolution from the FBI. In her own 2015 CVRA-
+case declaration, l
+stated that she "was not told about any [NPA] or any potential resolution of
+431
+FBI agents also interviewed victims in March and May of 2008, without prosecutors, and did not inform the
+victims of the NPA.
+432
+Two additional vietims were scheduled to be interviewed on February 1, 2008, but the evidence is unclear as
+to whether the interviews occurred.
+274
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 302 of 349
+he federal investigation I was cooperating in. If I had been told of an NPA], I would hav
+bjected "
+further stated in her declaration that, "Based on what the FBI had been telling me,
+I thought they were still investigating my case."
+Neither the CEOS Trial Attorney nor the FBI case agent recalled the specifics of the victim
+interviews. The FBI reports memorializing each interview primarily addressed the facts elicited
+from the victim regarding Epstein's abuse and did not describe any discussion about the status of
+the case or the victim's view about the prosecution of Epstein. 433
+When asked whether she was concerned that failing to tell victims about the NPA when
+she was interviewing them would mislead victims, as previously noted, Villafaña told OPR that
+she believed she and the agents were conducting an investigation because they continued
+"interviewing witnesses" and "doing all these things" to file charges and prepare for a federal trial.
+As Villafaña stated, "So to me, saying to a victim the case is now back under investigation is
+perfectly accurate."
+Villafaña was also aware that some victims were represented by counsel in connection with
+civil lawsuits against Epstein, but did not proactively inform the victims' attorneys about the NPA.
+In a 2017 affidavit filed in the CVRA litigation, victims' attorney
+alleged that
+during telephone calls with Villafaña, he "asked very specific questions about what stage the
+investigation was in," and Villafaña replied that she could not answer his questions because the
+matter "was an on-going active investigation."
+stated that Villafaña gave him "the
+impression that the Federal investigation was on-going, very expansive, and continuously growing,
+both in the number of identified victims and complexity."
+also stated, "A fair
+characterization of each call was that I provided information and asked questions and Villafaña
+listened and expressed that she was unable to say much or answer the questions I was asking."
+In her written response to OPR, Villafaña stated that she "listened more than [she] spoke"
+during her interactions with
+and that due to the "uncertainty of the situation" and the
+possibility of a trial, she "did not feel comfortable sharing any information about the case."
+Villafaña also told OPR that because of "all of these concerns and instructions that I had been
+given by Alex [Acosta] and Jeff [Sloman] not to disclose things further and not to have any
+involvement in victim notification," she felt "prohibited" from providing additional information
+to
+Sloman told OPR that although neither the NPA terms nor the CVRA prevented the USAO
+from exercising its discretion to notify the victims, "[I]t was [of] concern that this was going to
+433
+be prosecuted.
+As noted above, the FBI agent's notes for one victim's interview reported that she wanted another victim to
+434
+When asked why the USAO did not simply notify the victims of the change of plea hearing, Sloman
+responded that he "was more focused on the restitution provisions. I didn't get the sense that the victims were overly
+interested in showing up ... at the change of plea."
+275
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 303 of 349
+not plead guilty in October 2007 as the USAO expected, it was a "very open question" whether
+the case would go to trial, and Acosta thought that "where there is no legal requirement[.] [t]here
+has to be discretion to judge how much you can tell the victims and when."
+Epstein's attorneys' conduct during the period between the signing of the NPA and
+Epstein's entry of his state guilty pleas illustrated the risk that Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña all
+identified. As Epstein's counsel deposed victims related to the state court criminal charges and
+civil cases against Epstein, counsel suggested that the victims were motivated to testify against
+Epstein by the government's promises of financial gain. For example, during a February 20, 2008
+state deposition of a victim, defense counsel asked her whether the federal prosecutors or FBI
+agents told her that she was entitled to receive money from Epstein. 435 In her 2017 declaration in
+the CVRA litigation, Villafaña identified that line of questioning as a motivating factor in the
+government's decision to stop notifying the victims about the potential for 18 U.S.C. § 2255
+recovery.
+On June 27, 2008, the Friday before Epstein's Monday, June 30, 2008 state court guilty
+plea hearing, Villafaña contacted
+| to inform him about that upcoming hearing. Villafaña
+told OPR she "was not given authorization to contact" any victim's attorney other than
+about the scheduled state plea hearing. 436 In his 2017 affidavit prepared for the CVRA litigation,
+stated that Villafaña "gave the impression that she was caught off-guard herself that
+Epstein was pleading guilty or that this event was happening at all."
+said in a 2016 court filing that Villafaña told him only that "Epstein was pleading
+guilty to state solicitation of prostitution charges involving other victims-not Mr. Edward's
+clients nor any of the federally-identified victims." Villafaña stated in her 2017 declaration that
+she "never told Attorney
+that the state charges involved other victims,' and neither the
+state court charging instrument nor the factual proffer limited the procurement of prostitution
+charge to a specific victim." Villafaña told OPR she "strongly encouraged [
+] and his
+clients to attend" the plea hearing but "could not be more explicit" because she was not "authorized
+by the Office to disclose the terms of the NPA." In his 2017 affidavit,
+acknowledged
+that "Villafaña did express that this hearing was important, but never told me why she felt that
+way."
+claimed that Villafaña's failure to inform him that the "guilty pleas in state court
+would bring an end to the possibility of federal prosecution pursuant to the plea agreement"
+resulted in his clients not attending the hearing.
+himself was out of town and not able to
+435
+As previously noted, the defense used Florida criminal procedure to depose potential federal victims to learn
+information concerning the federal investigation even though those individuals were not involved in the state
+prosecution. For example, in a March 2008 email, Villafaña informed her managers that she spoke to a victim who
+had received a subpoena "issued in connection with the state criminal case, which, as you know, doesn't involve most
+of the vietims in our case (including the girl who was subpoenaed)." Villafaña further observed that because Epstein
+is "going to plead to the solicitation of adults for prostitution charge [in state court], [the act of subpoenaing the victim]
+seems to be a clear effort to find out about our case through the state case."
+436
+Villafaña's June 30, 2008 handwritten notes reflect that, at the time of Epstein's state court guilty plea,
+Villafaña was aware of the identities of a least five other attorneys representing Epstein's victims. In her written
+response to OPR, Villafaña stated, "I requested permission to make oral notifications to the victims regarding the
+upcoming change of plea, but the Office decided that victim notification could only come from a state investigator,
+and Jeff Sloman asked PBPD Chief Reiter to assist." On Saturday, June 28, 2008, Villafaña emailed Sloman to inform
+him that PBPD Chief Reiter "is going to notify victims about the plea." Sloman replied, "Good."
+276
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 304 of 349
+attend the hearing. In his affidavit,
+asserted, "IT]here was no possible way I could have
+believed that this state plea could affect the federal investigation or the rights of my clients in that
+federal investigation."
+In
+the Eleventh Circuit panel stated that the government "seemingly" deferred to
+Epstein's attorneys' requests not to notify the victims about the NPA, and that in sending the
+January and May 2008 FBI letters, the government's efforts "seem to have graduated from passive
+nondisclosure to (or at least close to) active misrepresentation."437 Although both the appellate
+court and district court focused on the FBI's letters for which OPR concludes that neither Villafaña,
+Sloman, nor Acosta was responsible, OPR considered the courts' analyses in evaluating whether
+similar representations Villafaña made to the victims whom she interviewed on January 31 and
+February 1, 2008, and to L
+. were misleading. Therefore, OPR considered whether
+Villafaña's statements that the matter was "under investigation" and her failure to inform all of the
+victims whom she interviewed or
+about the NPA violated FRPC 4-4.1(a), 4-8.4(c), or
+4-8.4(d).
+FRPC 4-4.1(a) prohibits an attorney from "knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of
+material fact or law to a third person" during the representation of a client. The FRPC defines
+"knowingly" as "denot[ing] actual knowledge of the fact in question" and states that such
+knowledge may be "inferred from circumstances."438 The comment to FRPC 4-4.1 states that
+"[m]isrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that
+are the equivalent of affirmative false statements." The comment references FRPC 4-8.4 "[fJor
+dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement." Like FRPC 4-4.1(a), Rule 4-8.4(c)
+requires evidence that the attorney knew the statement in question was false. Under FRPC
+4-8.4(c), the intent requirement can be satisfied "merely by showing that the conduct was
+deliberate or knowing" and the "motive underlying the lawyer's conduct is not determinative;
+instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted."439 In Feinberg, the court concluded that
+the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful
+statements to a defense attorney, despite evidence that the prosecutor intended to help the
+defendant by making the statements. ** In this case, Villafaña was fully aware of the signed NPA
+when she interviewed the victims on January 31 and February 1, 2008, and when she spoke to
+on the telephone, but she did not inform them specifically of the signed NPA. The
+question is whether this omission amounted to a knowing false statement or misrepresentation.
+One difficulty is determining what Villafaña actually said during conversations that
+participants were asked to recall many years later. With respect to three of the victims whom she
+interviewed in January and February 2008, Villafaña contended that she discussed the agreement
+with them, even if she did not specifically refer to it as the NPA or discuss all of its terms, and as
+437
+955 F.3d at 1199-1200.
+438
+See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities, "Terminology."
+439
+Florida Bar v.
+284 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 2019) (citing Florida Bar v. Berthiaume, 78 So. 3d 503,
+510 n. 2 (Fla. 2011); Florida Bar v. Riggs, 944 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2006); Florida Bar v.
+866 So. 2d 41, 46
+(Fla. 2004)).
+440
+Florida Bar v. Feinberg, 760 So. 2d 933, 937-38 (Fla. 2000).
+277
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 305 of 349
+previously noted, there is some contemporaneous evidence supporting her assertion. Villafaña's
+mention of the agreement, even if not described in specific terms, would have been sufficient to
+apprise those victims of the status of the federal investigation.
+Nevertheless, Villafaña did not recall discussing the NPA specifically or in general terms
+with other vietims interviewed at that time, nor did she do so with
+or any other victim's
+attorney. OPR therefore considered whether the omission of information about the existence of
+the NPA during these interactions _
+I to the level of professional misconduct in violation of FRPC
+4-4.1 or 4-8.4.441
+OPR evaluated Villafaña's conduct in light of the comment to FRPC 4-4.1:
+A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a
+client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an
+opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if
+the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that
+the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by
+partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the
+equivalent of affirmative false statements.
+The victims and their attorneys were certainly not "opposing parties]" to the USAO, but the
+comment indicates that the rule recognizes that omissions made during discussions with third
+parties, even of relevant facts, are not always treated as false statements.
+Here, the evidence does not show that Villafaña knowingly made an affirmative false
+statement to the victims or
+or that her omissions were "the equivalent of affirmative false
+statements" about material facts. First, Villafaña told OPR that she believed the investigation was
+ongoing and her statement to that effect truthful, and as discussed earlier in this Chapter, the
+evidence shows that Villafaña and the agents did continue to investigate the case until Epstein
+entered his guilty plea in state court in June 2008. Villafaña's email correspondence with her
+supervisors reflects her strong advocacy during that timeframe to declare Epstein in breach and to
+charge him. The evidence similarly does not show that Villafaña knowingly made any affirmative
+false statement to
+when she informed him of the state court plea, although she declined
+to provide additional information in response to his questions. 42
+Second, in reaching its conclusion, OPR considered the full context in which Villafaña
+interacted with the victims and
+• Prosecutors routinely make decisions about what
+information will be disclosed to witnesses, including victims, for a variety of strategic reasons. In
+many cases, prosecutors must make difficult decisions about providing information to witnesses,
+441
+In Florida Bar v. Joy, the court affirmed a referee's conclusion that Joy violated FRPCs 4-4.1(a) and 4-8.4(c)
+"for making false statements by omission of material facts in his representations [to counsel]." Florida Bar v. Joy,
+679 So. 2d 1165, 1166-68 (Fla. 1996). See also Florida Bar re Webster, 647 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1994) (petition for
+reinstatement denied due to "misrepresentation by omission").
+In Feinberg, 760 So. 2d at 938, the court found that an Assistant State Attorney lacked candor and violated
+ethics rules when, after meeting with a defendant outside his attorney's presence, the prosecutor falsely stated to the
+defense attorney that he (the prosecutor) had not met with the defendant.
+278
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 306 of 349
+and they often cannot fully reveal either the facts or the status of an investigation, even with
+victims. The 2005 Guidelines advise that in consulting with a victim, prosecutors may be limited
+in their disclosures: "Because victims are not clients, may become adverse to the Government,
+and may disclose whatever they have learned from consulting with prosecutors, such consultations
+may be limited to gathering information from victims and conveying only nonsensitive data and
+public information."443
+Villafaña's concern about generating potential impeachment evidence by informing
+victims of their potential to recover monetary damages from Epstein was not unreasonable.
+Indeed, the case agents initially raised the impeachment issue, and after considering the problem,
+Villafaña agreed with the agents' concerns. Villafaña raised those concerns with the USAO's
+Professional Responsibility Officer in October 2007 after the agents brought the issue to her
+attention, and she ultimately raised the issue with Sloman and Acosta as well, neither of whom
+advised her that those concerns were improper or unsound. OPR also considered that although
+Villafaña had sought to notify the victims in writing of the NPA soon after it was signed, her
+supervisor, the U.S. Attorney, had decided otherwise. When authorized to inform
+of the
+scheduled change of plea hearing, she did so. Although she did not inform
+that the plea
+was part of a global resolution that would end the federal investigation, the evidence does not show
+that Villafaña acted for the purpose of deceiving
+or preventing him from attending the
+hearing. Had she sought to exclude him from the state proceedings, she could have elected not to
+inform
+at all, or she could have discouraged him from attending the state proceedings.
+Rather, as
+confirmed, Villafaña told him the hearing was "important." Villafaña sought
+to strike a difficult balance of securing
+(and his clients") attendance at the state court
+plea, while obeying her management's directive that informing victims of the resolution of the
+federal investigation should not be done until completion of the state plea.
+Therefore, after carefully considering all of the circumstances, OPR concludes that the
+evidence does not establish that Villafaña violated her obligations under FRPC 4-4.1 or 4-8.4(c)
+or (d). * Nonetheless, as discussed below, Villafaña's interactions with victims and victims'
+attorneys without informing them of the NPA and the potential conclusion of the federal
+investigation contributed to the likelihood that the victims would feel that the government was
+443
+2005 Guidelines, Art. IV, 1 B.2.c(1). As noted, some victims continued to express favorable views of Epstein
+during interviews with the government and they, or their attorneys, could have provided information to Epstein about
+the government's communications. For example, within a day of Villafaña contacting a victim's attorney about a
+potential victim notification letter, Starr complained to Acosta that the government had recently inappropriately
+provided "oral notification of the victim notification letter" to one girl's attorney, even though it was clear from the
+girl's recorded FBI interview that she "did not in any manner view herself as a victim."
+The case most directly on point is
+1. 109 A.3d 1184, in which the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed
+a violation of Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) based on a prosecutor's failure to notify the victim of the
+resolution of a sex abuse case. However, as noted previously, in
+the criminal defendant had been arrested and
+charged before entering a plea, and various specific statutes afforded victims the right to receive notices and an
+opportunity to be heard concerning "a case originating by indictment or information in a circuit court." In this case,
+for the reasons previously discussed, Villafaña did not have a clear and unambiguous obligation to inform the victims
+Lof the NPA.
+279
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 307 of 349
+intentionally concealing information from them and was part of a series of interactions with
+victims that led to condemnation of the government's treatment of victims. 445
+VI. THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO TREAT VICTIMS FORTHRIGHTLY AND
+WITH SENSITIVITY WHEN IT FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE VICTIMS
+WITH IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESOLUTION OF THE
+FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
+Although OPR does not conclude that any of the subjects committed professional
+misconduct, either by failing to consult with the victims before the NPA was signed or in
+interactions afterwards, OPR's findings are not an endorsement of the government's course of
+action. The government's interactions with victims confused and frustrated many of the victims,
+particularly the two CVRA petitioners and the two victims who had unsuccessfully attempted to
+join in the CVRA litigation. As a result, the victims" and the public's perception of the matter is
+that the prosecutors worked with Epstein's attorneys to disenfranchise and silence the victims. It
+is unfortunate, and appears fundamentally unfair to the victims, that Acosta and Sloman (after
+Menchel and Lourie departed) took the unusual step of deciding to vet the USAO victim
+notification letters with the defense after the NPA was signed, but failed to go beyond the
+requirements of the CVRA or the 2005 Guidelines to consult with the victims before the NPA was
+signed. This result is contrary to the Department's intent, as set forth in the 2005 Guidelines, that
+Department employees work to "minimize the frustration and confusion that victims of crime
+endure in its wake." When considering the entirety of the government's interactions with victims,
+OPR concludes that victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by
+the Department.
+criticisms of the government's conduct were based on interactions that are similar
+to and generally representative of the government's interactions with other Epstein victims and
+that demonstrate an overall lack of sensitivity to the victims by the government.
+experienced
+a series of confusing and inconsistent communications in her interactions with Villafaña and the
+case agents.
+received Villafaña's letter in June 2007 stating inaccurately that she was a
+federal victim entitled to CVRA rights. She was interviewed by the FBI in August 2007 but was
+not told that a potential outcome was a state plea. Shortly after the September 24, 2007 signing of
+the NPA, the FBI contacted her to inform her of the resolution of the federal case. Nonetheless,
+on January 10, 2008, the FBI sent her a victims' rights letter indicating that the case was under
+investigation and that some of her CVRA rights may not apply until after the defendant was
+charged. On January 31, 2008, Villafaña re-interviewed |
+, along with a CEOS attorney and
+the FBI agents, and told
+that the case was under investigation, but did not specifically mention
+the NPA, although she may have mentioned a possible resolution. In mid-June 2008, when
+contacted Villafaña on
+behalf, Villafaña informed him that the case was under
+investigation but did not mention the NPA. Just before Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court plea,
+445
+OPR notes that, similar to Villafaña, Sloman interacted with a victim's attorney during the time period
+between the signing of the NPA and Epstein's state guilty plea. In January 2008, Sloman received a telephone call
+from his former law partner, who represented one of the victims and who asked Sloman whether the federal
+government could bring charges against Epstein.
+Sloman, concerned about the potential for conflict of interest
+allegations due to his prior business relations with the attorney, refused to answer any questions regarding Epstein.
+Because Sloman refused to provide any information, OPR found no basis for finding that Sloman misled the attorney.
+280
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 308 of 349
+Villafaña informed
+about the state plea, but did not mention the NPA or the fact that the
+state pleas would resolve the federal investigation.
+then filed the CVRA petition and
+learned about the NPA signed months earlier and that the federal investigation of Epstein had
+concluded with Epstein's state guilty pleas.
+only received access to the NPA when a judge
+permitted it in August 2008 pursuant to a protective order. After considering this series of
+interactions, it is not surprising that
+came away from the experience feeling confused and
+believing she had been misled.
+OPR did not find evidence supporting a conclusion that Villafaña, Acosta, Sloman,
+Menchel, or Lourie opted not to consult with the victims in order to protect Epstein or shield the
+NPA from public scrutiny. Although neither Sloman nor Acosta could recall a specific discussion
+of CVRA obligations before the NPA was signed, both recalled knowing that victim consultation
+was not required, and Menchel also told OPR that consultation was not required, at least not up to
+the point when he left the USAO. The evidence is clear that Villafaña sought at various points to
+consult with and to notify victims about the details of the NPA but was constrained before the
+NPA was signed by managers who either made a decision to not consult victims or did not address
+the issue after it was raised, and after the signing by her own concern about creating possible
+impeachment evidence that would damage the victims' credibility at a possible trial.
+Nonetheless, a more open and straightforward approach with the victims, both before and
+after the signing of the NPA, would have been the better practice. Before the NPA was signed,
+victims could have been asked for their views about the general terms the USAO was
+contemplating offering, including that a plea to state charges was one of the options being
+considered; asked for their views in general about a guilty plea; or, at a minimum, asked to share
+their views of how the case should be resolved. Even if the USAO ultimately determined to
+proceed with the NPA, the government would have had the benefit of the victims' thoughts and
+concerns, particularly on the issue of punishment, and victims would have felt included in the
+process. OPR found no evidence that the benefits of victim consultation were discussed or
+considered before the NPA was signed.
+After the NPA was signed, no one from the government explained the agreement to the
+majority of the victims until months later and only after the entry of Epstein's guilty plea.
+Although the evidence supports Villafaña's assertion that she acted from a good faith belief that
+Epstein might breach the NPA and a potential trial would be harmed if information about the NPA
+was divulged to the victims and their counsel, she, Sloman, and Acosta failed to consider how the
+desire to shield the victims from that potential impeachment might impact the victims' sense of
+the openness and fairness of the process. As
+stated during the CVRA litigation, she believed
+she had been "mistreated in the process." When deciding not to inform the victims of the NPA to
+avoid creating impeachment evidence, Villafaña, Sloman, and Acosta do not appear to have
+carefully considered possible alternatives to, or all of the ramifications of, that decision, nor did
+they revisit the decision before Villafaña met the victims in person to discuss a potential trial or
+spoke to l
+Lor other attorneys representing victims. 4º Furthermore, more attention needed
+446
+It is not at all clear whether a court would have permitted impeachment of the victims concerning one
+provision in a plea agreement that otherwise could not be used as evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) ("The
+admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of
+Evidence 410."). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining
+monetary damages through either a civil suit or through 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (if Epstein were convicted after a trial),
+281
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 309 of 349
+to be paid to the FBI's communications to ensure that the victims were receiving accurate and
+timely information that was consistent with the status of the case and with the USAO's
+communications with victims. 447
+The decision not to inform victims and their attorneys about the existence of the NPA gave
+victims and the public the misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel
+to keep the agreement secret from the victims. Moreover, the lack of openness about the NPA
+gave the impression that the USAO lacked sensitivity for the victims in resolving the matter and
+undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting plea agreement. The overall result of
+the subjects' anomalous handling of this case left at least some of the victims feeling ignored and
+frustrated, failed to promote their healing process, and resulted in extensive public criticism.
+Although OPR credits Villatana's statements that she wanted to go beyond her obligations in
+dealing with victims, the end result nonetheless was that communications with victims were not
+prioritized by the USAO. In part this was due to the fact that interactions with victims are generally
+handled by staff in the USAO and the FBI who are trained and have expertise in dealing with
+victims and other witnesses. However, decisions made by Acosta, Sloman, and Villafaña also
+contributed to the problems. The government, as it ultimately acknowledged in the CVRA
+litigation, could have, and should have, engaged with the victims in a more transparent and unified
+fashion.
+OPR recognizes that the Epstein investigation occurred soon after the passage of the
+CVRA. In the years since, the Department's prosecutors and personnel have become more familiar
+with its provisions. OPR encourages the Department as a whole to take the issues discussed above
+into account when providing training and direction to its employees regarding victims' rights to
+ensure that in the future, Department attorneys' actions promote victim inclusion whenever
+possible. For example, although the division of responsibility between the FBI and the USAO
+for communicating with victims works efficiently and appropriately in the average case, the USAO
+failed to consider that in a case involving a pre-charge disposition, the victims were receiving
+inconsistent and confusing communications from the separate entities. In certain cases, such as the
+Epstein case, prosecutors may need to provide more oversight when multiple Department
+components are communicating with victims to avoid providing confusing and contradictory
+messages.
+independent of the NPA provision. OPR also notes that impeachment regarding the NPA provision may have
+permitted the government to rehabilitate the victims through their prior statements to law enforcement. In other words,
+while the USAO's view concerning potential impeachment was not unreasonable, more extensive consideration of the
+case agent's concerns might have led the prosecutors to conclude that the risk of the information being used to
+significantly damage the credibility of the victims was low.
+447
+In addition to the FBI letters previously discussed, another example of the inconsistent communication can
+be seen in letters that were to be sent after Epstein entered his guilty plea to two victims residing in foreign countries.
+Although OPR was unable to confirm that the two victims actually received the letters, it appears from the records
+OPR reviewed that the government intended to provide them with a standard FBI letter stating that the case was under
+investigation while also providing them with a USAO letter stating that the case had been resolved through Epstein's
+state guilty plea.
+448
+OPR understands that the Department is in the process of revising the 2011 Guidelines.
+282
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 310 of 349
+CONCLUSION
+In November 2018, the Miami Herald published an extensive investigative report about
+state and federal criminal investigations initiated more than 12 years earlier into allegations that
+Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy financier with residences in Florida, New York, and other United States
+and foreign locations, had coerced girls into engaging in sexual activity with him at his Palm
+Beach, Florida estate. The Miami Herald reported that in 2007, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
+District of Florida, R. Alexander Acosta, entered into an "extraordinary" deal with Epstein that
+permitted Epstein to avoid federal prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence by
+pleading guilty in state court to "two prostitution charges," immunized from prosecution Epstein's
+co-conspirators, and concealed from Epstein's victims the terms of the NPA.
+Following the Miami Herald's report, and after receiving a Congressional request to
+investigate, OPR initiated an investigation into the allegations that prosecutors in the USAO
+improperly resolved the federal investigation into the criminal conduct of Jeffrey Epstein by
+negotiating and executing the NPA. OPR subsequently included in its investigation allegations
+stemming from judicial criticism of the government's conduct relating to federal prosecutors' and
+law enforcement agents' interactions with Epstein's victims. In July 2008, a victim, later joined
+by a second victim, filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida an emergency petition
+for enforcement of her rights under the CVRA. In February 2019, the district court found that the
+government violated the CVRA by failing to advise victims about its intention to enter into the
+NPA. The court also found that letters the government sent to victims after the NPA was signed,
+describing the investigation as ongoing, were misleading.
+During the course of its investigation, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of thousands
+of records from the USAO, the FBI, and other Department of Justice components. The records
+included emails, letters, memoranda, and investigative materials. OPR also collected and reviewed
+materials relating to the state investigation and prosecution of Epstein, including sealed pleadings,
+grand jury transcripts, and grand jury audio recordings; examined extensive publicly available
+information, including depositions, pleadings, orders, and other court records; and reviewed media
+reports and interviews, articles, podcasts, and books relating to the Epstein case. OPR conducted
+more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their supervisors, and FBI
+administrative personnel; current and former USAO staff and attorneys; current and former
+Department attorneys and senior managers; and the former State Attorney and Assistant State
+Attorney in charge of the state investigation of Epstein. OPR also interviewed or received written
+information from several victims and attorneys representing victims concerning victim contacts
+with the USAO and federal law enforcement.
+OPR identified the following five former USAO attorneys as subjects of its investigation
+based on information indicating that each of them was involved in the decision to resolve the case
+through the NPA or in the negotiations leading to the agreement: former U.S. Attorney
+R. Alexander Acosta, and former AUSAs Jeffrey H. Sloman, Matthew I. Menchel, Andrew C.
+Lourie, and Ann
+| C. Villafaña. Each subject submitted written responses detailing their
+involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and
+decisions relating to victim notification and consultation. OPR conducted extensive interviews of
+all five subjects. The subjects also submitted comments on OPR's draft report.
+283
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 311 of 349
+OPR evaluated the conduct of cach subject based on his or her individual role in various
+decisions and events and assessed that conduct pursuant to OPR's analytical framework. OPR
+found that Acosta made the pivotal decision to resolve the federal investigation of Epstein through
+a state-based plea and either developed or approved the terms of the initial offer to the defense that
+Therefore, OPR considers Acosta to be responsible for the NPA and for the actions of the other
+subjects who implemented his decisions.
+Based on its extensive investigation, OPR concludes that the subjects did not commit
+professional misconduet with respect to the development, negotiation, and approval of the NPA.
+Under OPR's framework, professional misconduct requires a finding that a subject attorney
+intentionally or recklessly violated a clear and unambiguous standard governing the conduct at
+issue. OPR found no clear and unambiguous standard that required Acosta to indict Epstein on
+federal charges or that prohibited his decision to defer prosecution to the state. Furthermore, none
+of the individual terms of the NPA violated Department or other applicable standards.
+As the U.S. Attorney, Acosta had the "plenary authority" under established federal law and
+Department policy to resolve the case as he deemed necessary and appropriate, as long as his
+decision was not motivated or influenced by improper factors. Acosta's decision to decline to
+initiate a federal prosecution of Epstein was within the scope of his authority, and OPR did not
+find evidence that his decision was based on corruption or other impermissible considerations,
+such as Epstein's wealth, status, or associations. Evidence shows that Acosta resisted defense
+efforts to have the matter returned to the state for whatever result state authorities deemed
+appropriate, and he refused to eliminate the incarceration and sexual offender registration
+requirements. OPR did not find evidence establishing that Acosta's "breakfast meeting" with one
+of Epstein's defense counsel in October 2007 led to the NPA, which had been signed weeks earlier,
+or to any other significant decision that benefited Epstein. The contemporaneous records show
+that USAO managers' concerns about legal issues, witness credibility, and the impact of a trial on
+the victims led them to prefer a pre-charge resolution and that Acosta's concerns about the proper
+role of the federal government in prosecuting solicitation crimes resulted in his preference for a
+state-based resolution. Accordingly, OPR does not find that Acosta engaged in professional
+misconduct by resolving the federal investigation of Epstein in the way he did or that the other
+subjects committed professional misconduct through their implementation of Acosta's decisions.
+Nevertheless, OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to resolve the federal investigation
+through the NPA constitutes poor judgment. Although this decision was within the scope of
+Acosta's broad discretion and OPR does not find that it resulted from improper factors, the NPA
+was a flawed mechanism for satisfying the federal interest that caused the government to open its
+investigation of Epstein. In Acosta's view, the federal government's role in prosecuting Epstein
+was limited by principles of federalism, under which the independent authority of the state should
+be recognized, and the federal responsibility in this situation was to serve as a "backstop" to state
+authorities by encouraging them to do more. However, Acosta failed to consider the difficulties
+inherent in a resolution that relied heavily on action by numerous state officials over whom he had
+no authority; he resolved the federal investigation before significant investigative steps were
+completed; and he agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA without the
+consideration required under the circumstances. In sum, Acosta's application of federalism
+284
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 312 of 349
+principles was too expansive, his view of the federal interest in prosecuting Epstein was too
+narrow, and his understanding of the state system was too imperfect to justify the decision to use
+the NPA. Furthermore, because Acosta assumed a significant role in reviewing and drafting the
+NPA and the other three subjects who were supervisors left the USAO, were transitioning to other
+jobs, or were absent at critical junctures, Acosta should have ensured more effective coordination
+and communication during the negotiations and before approving the final NPA. The NPA was a
+unique resolution, and one that required greater oversight and supervision than Acosta provided.
+OPR further concludes that none of the subject attorneys committed professional
+misconduct with respect to the government's interactions with victims. The subjects did not
+intentionally or recklessly violate a clear and unambiguous duty under the CVRA by entering into
+the NPA without consulting with victims, because the USAO resolved the Epstein investigation
+or reconsly vivil emand cause
+without a federal criminal charge. Significantly, at the time the NPA was signed, the Department
+did not interpret CVRA rights to attach unless and until federal charges had been filed, and the
+federal courts had not established a clear and unambiguous standard applying the CVRA before
+criminal charges were brought. In addition, OPR did not find evidence that the lack of consultation
+was for the purpose of silencing victims. Nonetheless, the lack of consultation was part of a series
+of government interactions with victims that ultimately led to public and court condemnation of
+the government's treatment of the victims, reflected poorly on the Department as a whole, and is
+contradictory to the Department's mission to minimize the frustration and confusion that victims
+of a crime endure.
+OPR determined that none of the subjects was responsible for communications sent to
+certain vietims after the NPA was signed that described the case as "under investigation" and that
+failed to inform them of the NPA. The letters were sent by an FBI administrative employee who
+was not directly involved in the investigation, incorporated standard form language used by the
+FBI when communicating with victims, and
+were not drafted or reviewed by the subjects.
+Moreover, the statement that the matter was "under investigation" was not false because the
+government in fact continued to investigate the case in anticipation that Epstein would not fulfill
+the terms of the NPA. However, the letters risked misleading the victims and contributed to victim
+frustration and confusion by failing to provide important information about the status of the
+investigation. The letters also demonstrated a lack of coordination between the federal agencies
+responsible for communicating with Epstein's victims and showed a lack of attention to and
+oversight regarding communication with victims.
+After the NPA was signed, Acosta elected to defer to the State Attorney the decision
+whether to notify victims about the state's plea hearing pursuant to the state's own victim's rights
+requirements. Although Acosta's decision was within his authority and did not constitute
+professional misconduct, OPR concludes that Acosta exercised poor judgment when he failed to
+make certain that the state intended to and would notify victims identified through the federal
+investigation about the state plea hearing. His decision left victims uninformed about an important
+proceeding that resolved the federal investigation, an investigation about which the USAO had
+communicated with victims for months. It also ultimately created the misimpression that the
+Department intentionally sought to silence the victims. Acosta failed to ensure that victims were
+made aware of a court proceeding that was related to their own cases, and thus he failed to ensure
+that victims were treated with forthrightness and dignity.
+285
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 313 of 349
+OPR concludes that the decision to postpone notifying victims about the terms of the NPA
+after it was signed and the omission of information about the NPA during victim interviews and
+conversations with victims' attorneys in 2008 do not constitute professional misconduct.
+Contemporaneous records show that these actions were based on strategic concerns about creating
+impeachment evidence that Epstein's victims had financial motives to make claims against him,
+evidence that could be used against victims at a trial, and were not for the purpose of silencing
+victims. Nonetheless, the failure to reevaluate the strategy prior to interviews of victims and
+discussions with victims" attorneys occurring in 2008 led to interactions that contributed to
+victims' feelings that the government was intentionally concealing information from them.
+After examining the full scope and context of the government's interactions with victims,
+OPR concludes that the government's lack of transparency and its inconsistent messages led to
+victims feeling confused and ill-treated by the government; gave victims and the public the
+misimpression that the government had colluded with Epstein's counsel to keep the NPA secret
+from the victims; and undercut public confidence in the legitimacy of the resulting agreement. The
+overall result of the subjects' anomalous handling of this case understandably left many victims
+feeling ignored and frustrated and resulted in extensive public criticism. In sum, OPR concludes
+that the victims were not treated with the forthrightness and sensitivity expected by the
+Department.
+286
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 314 of 349
+METHODOLOGY
+Document Review
+As referenced in the Executive Summary, OPR obtained and reviewed hundreds of
+thousands of pages of documents from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
+Florida (USAO), other U.S. Attorney's offices, the FBI, and other Department components,
+including the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Division, and the Executive
+Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA). The categories of documents reviewed by OPR, and their
+sources, are set forth below.
+USAO Records
+The USAO provided OPR with access to all of its records from its handling of the Epstein
+investigation and the CVRA litigation. The records included, but were not limited to, boxes of
+material that Villafaña updated and maintained through the course of both actions, which contained
+pleadings from the Epstein investigation, the CVRA litigation, and other related cases; extensive
+compilations of internal and external correspondence, including letters and emails; evidence such
+as telephone records, FBI reports, material received from the state investigation, and other
+confidential investigative records; court transcripts; investigative transcripts; prosecution team
+handwritten notes; research material; and draft and final case documents such as the NPA,
+prosecution memoranda, and federal indictments.
+The USAO also provided OPR with access to filings, productions, and privileged material
+in the CVRA litigation; Outlook data collected to respond to production requests in that case; a set
+of Epstein case documents maintained by Acosta and Sloman; computer files regarding the Epstein
+case collected by Sloman; Villafaña's Outlook data; Acosta's hard drive; and the permanently
+retained official U.S. Attorney records of Acosta held by the Federal Records Center.
+2.
+EOUSA Records
+EOUSA provided OPR with Outlook data from all five subjects and six additional
+witnesses. This information, dating back to 2005, included all inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and
+saved emails, and calendar entries that it maintained. EOUSA provided OPR with over 850,000
+Outlook records in total (not including email attachments or excluding duplicate records). OPR
+identified key time periods and fully reviewed those records. OPR applied search terms to the
+remainder of the records and reviewed any responsive documents.
+After reviewing the emails, OPR identified a data gap in Acosta's email records: his inbox
+contained no emails from May 26, 2007, through November 2, 2008. This gap, however, was not
+present with respect to Acosta's sent email. OPR requested that EOUSA investigate. During its
+investigation, EOUSA discovered a data association error that incorrectly associated Acosta's data
+with an unrelated employee who had a similar name. Once the data was properly associated,
+EOUSA found and produced 11,248 Acosta emails from April 3, 2008, through the end of his
+tenure at the USAO. However, with respect to the remaining emails, EOUSA concluded that the
+emails were not transferred from the USAO when, in 2008 and 2009, Outlook data for all U.S.
+287
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 315 of 349
+Attorney's Offices was migrated to EOUSA's centralized system to be maintained. The USAO's
+data was migrated between March and June 2008.
+EOUSA and OPR separately confirmed with the USAO that it was unable to locate any
+additional emails. OPR questioned Acosta, as well as numerous administrative staff, about the
+email gap. Acosta and the witnesses denied having any knowledge of the problem, or that they or,
+to their knowledge, anyone else made any efforts to intentionally delete the emails. In addition, at
+OPR's request, EOUSA conducted an analysis of records migrated from four other U.S. Attorney's
+Offices and found that each office provided data that also contained significant gaps in their U.S.
+Attorney email records, although the time periods varied for each office. OPR found no evidence
+indicating that the gap in Acosta's emails was caused by any intentional act or for the purpose of
+concealing evidence relating to the Epstein investigation and concludes that it was most likely the
+result of a technological error.
+Although a gap in Acosta's email inbox from May 26, 2007, through April 2, 2008,
+remained, OPR was nonetheless able to examine a significant number of Acosta's emails from this
+time due to the extensive case files kept by the USAO; the availability of Acosta's sent email
+which did not contain a similar gap; and the availability of emails of other USAO subjects and
+witnesses who were included on emails with Acosta.
+3.
+Federal Bureau of Investigation Records
+OPR worked with the FBI's Palm Beach Office, including with two case agents and the
+Victim Witness Specialist who worked on the Epstein matter, to obtain relevant FBI documents.
+In addition, the FBI searched its Automated Case Support system and also provided documentation
+concerning its victim notification system.
+4. Criminal Division Records
+The Office of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division provided OPR with
+Outlook data for the four individuals from that Office who examined issues connected to the
+USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted,
+and saved emails, and calendar entries.
+CEOS also provided OPR with Outlook data for the four individuals from that office who
+worked on, or examined issues connected to, the USAO's Epstein investigation. The data included
+the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted, and saved emails. CEOS also conducted a check of
+its shared hard drive and provided documents that were potentially relevant to OPR's investigation.
+5.
+Office of the Deputy Attorney General Records
+OPR obtained Outlook data for the three individuals from the Office of the Deputy
+Attorney who examined issues connected to the USAO's Epstein investigation, including the
+former Deputy Attorney General. The data included the individuals' inbox, outbox, sent, deleted,
+and saved emails, and calendar entries.
+288
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 316 of 349
+6.
+U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida Records
+The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida provided OPR with records
+related to its review of evidence against Epstein, after he concluded his Florida state sentence,
+when the Department recused the USAO in August 2011 from "all matters, to include the
+investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with
+minor females," and assigned the matter to the Middle District of Florida U.S. Attorney's Office
+for further consideration. The records included a declination of the matter due to the NPA.
+7.
+U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia Records
+The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia provided OPR with records
+related to its work on the CVRA litigation after the recusal of the USAO.
+8.
+Public Records
+OPR obtained and reviewed a variety of public records, including publicly released records
+of the Palm Beach Police Department, the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit,
+and the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office; documents pertaining to the CVRA litigation and other court
+proceedings involving Epstein and related individuals; and books and media reports.
+B.
+Information from Subjects, Witnesses, and Victims
+Subjects
+OPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement
+in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions
+relating to victim notification and consultation. In addition, OPR conducted extensive interviews
+of each subject under oath and before a court reporter. Each subject was represented by counsel
+and had access to relevant contemporaneous documents before the subject's OPR interview. The
+subjects reviewed and provided comments on their interview transcripts and on OPR's draft report.
+Witnesses
+OPR conducted more than 60 interviews of witnesses, including the FBI case agents, their
+supervisors, and FBI administrative personnel. OPR interviewed current and former USAO staff
+and attorneys and current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including former
+Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
+Division Alice Fisher. OPR also interviewed former State Attorney Barry Krischer and former
+Assistant State Attorney Lanna Behlolovick.
+Communications with Vietims and Vietims' Attorneys
+OPR contacted attorneys known to represent 26 victims among the 30 surviving individuals
+who were identified in the USAO's July 2008 listing of 32 victims the USAO was prepared to
+include in federal charges against Epstein and who accordingly were entitled to the benefits of the
+18 U.S.C. § 2255 monetary damages provision of the NPA. OPR contacted the attorneys to invite
+289
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 317 of 349
+the victims to provide OPR with information regarding their contacts with, and notification
+received from, the FBI and USAO, during the period before the NPA was signed or before
+Epstein's state plea hearing, about the status of the federal investigation, about Epstein's state plea,
+or about the NPA. OPR received information from or pertaining to 13 victims.
+290
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 318 of 349
+
+State Indictment
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 319 of 349
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21
+
+INDICTMENT
+ATRUEBILL 06-9454CF
+ArZ
+IN THE NAME OF AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA →
+IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
+CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
+For Palm Beach County, at the Spring Term thereof, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Six, to-wit:
+The Grand Jurors of the State of Florida, inquiring in and for the body of said County of Palm Beach, upon their
+oaths do present that JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN in the County of Palm Beach aforesaid, in the Circuit and State
+aforesaid,
+COUNT ONE
+FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION
+on or about or between the 1st day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 31,
+2005, did solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution lewdness, or assignation, contrary to
+Florida Statute 796.07(1) on three or more occasions between August 01, 2004 and October 31, 2005,
+contrary to Florida Statute 796.07(2)(f) and (4)(c). (3 DEG FEL)(LEVEL 1)
+against the form of the statute, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace and dignity of the State
+of Florida.
+I hereby certify that 1 hake Plyied the exal duny Yeturning this indictment as authorized and required by law.
+hereby certify that the
+' Pregoing is a true copy
+*g/the record in ty oftice.
+.. 20-
+• DEPUTY CLERK
+Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of the State
+eL Florida, prosecuting for the said
+State
+GRAND JURY FOREPERSON
+ful
+DATE
+19,2006
+Jeffrey E. Epstein, Race:
+Sex: Male, DOB:
+SS#:
+Issue Warrant
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 321 of 349
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 322 of 349
+
+September 6, 2007
+Draft Non-Prosecution
+Agreement
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 323 of 349
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 324 of 349
+IN RE:
+INVESTIGATION OF
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+/
+NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+IT APPEARING that Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein") is reported to have
+committed offenses against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around
+October 2005, including:
+(1) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to commit
+an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means of interstate
+or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor females to
+engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
+2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371;
+(2) knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in
+interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as
+defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18,
+United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States
+Code, Section 2423(e);
+(3)
+using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly
+persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in violation of
+Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2;
+(4) traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual
+conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(t), with minor females; in violation of
+Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and
+(5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing,
+and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained
+the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as
+defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
+Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and
+IT APPEARING that Epstein has accepted responsibility for his behavior by his
+Паує 1 оф 4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 325 of 349
+signature on this Agreement; and
+IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background, that
+the interest of the United States and Epstein's own interest and the interest of justice will be
+served by the following procedure;
+THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in
+favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following
+conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set out below.
+Should Epstein violate any of the conditions of this Agreement, the United States
+Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the
+United States Attorney will furnish Epstein with notice specifying the conditions of the
+Agreement which he has violated.
+After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for
+the offenses set out on page 1 of this Agreement will be instituted in this District, and the
+charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.
+Neither this Agreement nor any other document filed with the United States Attorney as
+part of this Agreement will be used against Epstein, except for impeachment purposes, in
+connection with any prosecution for the above-described offenses.
+Terms of the Agreement:
+Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to an Information filed by
+the State Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
+Beach County (hereinafter, the "State Attorney's Office") charging
+violations of the following Florida Statutes:
+(a) lewd and lascivious battery on a child, in violation of Fl. Stat.
+800.04(4);
+(b)
+solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Fl.
+Stat. 796.03; and
+(c) engaging in sexual activity with minors at least sixteen years of
+age, in violation of FI. Stat. 794.05.
+2.
+Epstein and the State Attorney's Office shall make a joint, binding
+recommendation that Epstein serve at least two years in prison, without
+any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing; and without
+probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment.
+Паує 2 оф 4
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 326 of 349
+3.
+Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State
+Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and
+sentence.
+Epstein agrees that, if any of the victims identified in the federal
+investigation file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not
+contest the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
+of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein will not
+contest that the identified victims are persons who, while minors, were
+victims of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections(s) 2422
+and/or 2423.
+5.
+The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of the
+identified victims, which will not exceed forty, after Epstein has signed
+this agreement and entered his guilty plea. The United States shall make
+a motion with the United States District Court for the Southern District of
+Florida for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the identified
+victims and Epstein's counsel may contact the identified victims through
+that counsel.
+6.
+Epstein shall enter his guilty plea and be sentenced not later than
+September 28, 2007, and shall begin service of his sentence not later than
+October 15, 2007.
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is
+material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach of
+any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement and to
+investigate and prosecute Epstein for any and all federal offenses.
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that
+the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal
+prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further is
+aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may
+dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to
+the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein hereby
+requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such
+prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to the
+date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be deemed
+to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such prosecution
+on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules
+of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to a
+speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute of limitations for a
+period of months equal to the period between the signing of this agreement and the breach of this
+Поує 3 оф 4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 327 of 349
+agreement. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the Fifth Amendment
+and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that all felonies must be charged
+in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees and consents that, if a
+prosecution against him is instituted, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed by the
+United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury.
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
+explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this
+non-Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+Dated:
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Dated:
+Roy Black, Esq.
+Counsel to Jeffrey Epstein
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+By:
+A.
+Villafaña
+Assistant United States Attorney
+Паує 4 оф 4
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 328 of 349
+
+September 24, 2007
+Non-Prosecution
+Agreement
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 329 of 349
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 330 of 349
+IN RE:
+INVESTIGATION OF
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State
+ttorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafte
+he "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffre
+IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment
+with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07;
+IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of
+Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any
+offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or
+around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including:
+(1)
+(2)
+knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to
+commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means
+of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice
+minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States
+Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
+371;
+knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel
+in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as
+defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18,
+United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States
+Code, Section 2423(e);
+(3)
+using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly
+persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in
+violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2;
+(4) radia, is defend on .. 428, is or enemates in victio
+
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 331 of 349
+of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and
+(5)
+knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting,
+enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had
+not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a
+commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title
+18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and
+IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal
+liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits
+provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain
+actions with the State Attorney's Office;
+IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by
+both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State
+Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the
+Defendant will be served by the following procedure;
+THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for
+the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be
+deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the
+following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
+If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that,
+during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this
+Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the
+expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely
+notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its
+prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any
+notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the
+United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of
+the Agreement.
+After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution
+for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have
+been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
+United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury
+investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be
+dismissed.
+
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 332 of 349
+Terms of the Agreement:
+5.
+Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as
+currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for
+Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging
+one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. §
+796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed
+by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that
+requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of
+minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section
+796.03;
+Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a
+thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows:
+(a)
+Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12)
+months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without
+any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and
+without probation or community control in lieu of
+(b)
+Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of
+community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail
+as described in Term 2(a), supra.
+This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit
+Accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the stat
+epstein, the details of which are set forth in thi
+agreement.
+The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose
+Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend
+any additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/or
+incarceration.
+Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State
+Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and
+sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph
+(2), supra.
+Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all
+
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 333 of 349
+proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering
+into those agreements.
+The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of
+individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced.
+Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation
+with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall
+select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for
+by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals
+through that representative.
+If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to
+tile suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the
+jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District
+of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives
+his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages
+up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and
+Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed
+exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other
+claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law.
+Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names
+appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on
+this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such
+damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any
+criminal or civil liability.
+Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an
+admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional
+or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the
+list provided by the United States.
+10.
+Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under
+18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), supra, neither Epstein's
+signature on this agreement, nor its terms, nor any resulting waivers or
+settlements by Epstein are to be construed as admissions or evidence of
+civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional or other
+defense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the list
+provided by the United States.
+11.
+Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be
+
+
+
+Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 334 of 349
+sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no
+objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not
+later than January 4, 2008.
+12.
+Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to
+gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other
+inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit
+based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of
+Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an
+accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of
+incarceration.
+13.
+The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any
+public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information
+Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of
+the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that
+disclosure.
+Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the
+State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that
+it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his
+best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary
+to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use
+his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding
+recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to
+do so will be a breach of the agreement.
+In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation
+in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions
+of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges
+against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to
+• Further, upon execution of this
+agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury
+investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held
+in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The
+lefendant likewise agrees to withdraw his pending motion to intervene and to quash certair
+grand jury subpoenas. Both parties agree to maintain their evidence, specifically evidence
+requested by or directly related to the grand jury subpoenas that have been issued, and
+including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have
+been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all
+outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn.
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293-1 Filed 05/25/21 Page 335 of 349
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is
+material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach
+of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement
+and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all
+federal offenses.
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that
+the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal
+prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further
+is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court
+may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting
+a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein
+hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such
+prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to
+the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be
+deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such
+prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of
+the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
+United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute
+of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this
+agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the
+grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the
+Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all
+felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees
+and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the
+subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed
+by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as
+to any such offense.
+///
+11/
+///
+
+
+
+
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
+Prosccution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+By:
+A.
+VILLAFANA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+mans aloz
+JEFFREY EPS PEIN
+Dated:
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
+
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 337 of 349
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+Data: 9/27/07
+By:
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Plaudallafana
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+Dared: 9/24/07
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Lead frount
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+LILLY ANN
+ESQ
+
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 338 of 349
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+By:
+A. l
+I VILLAFAÑA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTE
+Dated: 9-24-07
+LLY ANN SAI
+MEZ, ESQ.
+
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 339 of 349
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 340 of 349
+
+Addendum to the
+Non-Prosecution Agreement
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 341 of 349
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 342 of 349
+IN RE:
+INVESTIGATION OF
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+IT APPEARING that the parties seek to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph 7
+of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7"'), that agreement is modified as
+7A. The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility
+for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, selecting
+the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the
+United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the
+United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney
+representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of
+the attorney representative.
+7B.
+The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party
+regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to
+pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing
+such victims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra.
+7C.
+Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney
+representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not
+obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus,
+if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a
+contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested
+remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney
+representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable
+attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney
+representative, shall cease.
+
+
+
+By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
+explained to him. Epstein hereby, states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+Dated: 10/30/07
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+By:
+Jeffin! Homan FAUSA
+TAÀ.
+VILLAPANA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dat 1121/7
+Dated:
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+LILLY ANN
+ESQ.
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 344 of 349
+By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
+explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated: 10/30/07
+By:
+ILLAFAN
+ANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+Do 0/9/07
+JEPFREY EPSTEIN
+COUNSEL TO JEFFRÉY EPSTEIN
+Dated:_
+ILLY ANN
+LESQ.
+TTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEN
+
+
+
+By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
+explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+Dated: 10/30/07
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+By:
+74p + Horan FAUSA
+faA.
+VILLAFANA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated: 10-29-07
+LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, EST
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 346 of 349
+
+State Information
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 347 of 349
+
+
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+VS.
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 348 of 349
+IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAT
+L CIRCUIT
+IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
+CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" (LB)
+08 CF 9381
+ARISES FROM BOOKING NO.:
+
+JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, W/M,
+INFORMATION FOR:
+PROCURING PERSON UNDER 18 FOR PROSTITUION
+03 JU126 PM
+In the Name and by Authority of the State of Florida:
+BARRY E. KRISCHER, State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach Cabinty, Florida, by and
+through his undersigned Assistant State Attorney, charges that JEFFREY E EPSTEIN on or about or between
+the 1" day of August in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Four and October 9, 2005, did knowingly and
+unlawfully procure for prostitution, or caused to be prostituted,
+1. a person under the age of 18 years,
+contrary to Florida Statute 796.03. (2 DEG FEL)
+FL. BAR NO. 0776726
+Assistant State Attorney
+STATE OF FLORIDA
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
+Appeared before me, LANNA BELOHLAVEK Assistant State Attorney for Palm Beach County,
+Florida, personally known to me, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the
+foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute
+the offense therein charged, that this prosecution is instituted in good faith, and certifies that testimony under
+Каким
+Sworn to and subscribed to before me this le
+day of June, 2008.
+anares
+Дела
+MCCARE DOMA DOROT DORES
+NOTARY PUBLIC, St
+ate of Flonda
+LB/dp
+ECIC REFERENCE NUMBERS:
+1) FELONY SOLICITATION OF PROSTITUTION 3699
+STATE OF FLORIDA • PALM BEACH COUNTY
+I hereby certify that the
+foregoing is a true copy
+the record in my office
+THIS DA22000
+SHARON R. BOCK
+• 20-
+2 COMPTROLL
+CAR
+IN 96
+
+
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 349 of 349
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5997894dd0d9683d15ac08de0787177bb8a22ec5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -7987,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "deca7e1eb7ec5171cf5bce9736e0eb662083a516f4f6e49f945fbc3d197da4ff",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 410,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "2638acf56ec1e6d92d9b75491544abc6ef23d64d088236e6ae3e14ae95a15edc",
+  "output_sha256": "61804824fe6b7a889a52cb0630ded0cf725c82bb3ca5d4e597821225fc70537f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29c7b181a49125d3f7d67acadf95ff39f63ddee0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7bb4d1d40637e8fe7ada66263098b4011042663a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "decb563680e41a798b6a1cb6d7843c4c769c565cebca3f78cfb7a457d353c2c5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "34c142cbfc4cf0d9b8113cd3389855abfcc9ef775a2af5fb8005886bc9ce660e",
+  "output_sha256": "51efcca9df41e8d07f382ec368542ad90296b59727e98de2176242db038df4fe",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..718089e87bd8d43c5fbba41035909c553df1a478
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4c1dd1d248b0857f1e57936655e0bd6b6938558
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ded8442e7113f123a22a99583bba2a18a30ce5a150cc4c9c47fc049c35a6e55c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3d473cb3fa43032b108c56c2cc2dad72c407998609027519c0eca3658a78fe72",
+  "output_sha256": "2dab3abe4dfcbf9bd14becc4c58e3392185219f0c55326441014e4f69a3b4a26",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dcdc2466b0facde60794bdac46db334d84099366
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 247-2 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0bdcd3634dcb1498a81433fde0cabc2e181dbf5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df01a0dafa73461a604a3db33700f637484023ff38586251c15b476b397154ed",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a0a2ed9f4286c4ce45d4de3f12bbc190ee827f208918e3744dc552146ed24894",
+  "output_sha256": "24f710ab99539299520972e8d131daddeb3cc4d503255e65617f75aea8c0638c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..284dcb8be7ca5f65efcd96bb1ad6878a16ce282f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.md
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Casse 1996079625AMBEr Bocument 39 Fillarh 27045139 pagede di2f 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VE,
+Plaintifi,
+Case No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+V.
+DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN
+AS JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
+THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE
+EAST 71st STREET, CORPORATION,
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC., NES,
+LLC,
+Defendants.
+DEC n 5 2019
+ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S ANONYMITY
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order, including the parties to
+this action and their respective counsel of record, shall adhere to the following terms:
+1. Within three (3) days of entry of this Order, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff shall disclose
+Plaintiff's identity to Counsel of Record for Defendants, in writing.
+2. Counsel of Record for Defendants may disclose Plaintiff's identity only to Defendants and
+any attorneys, paralegals, and clerical or other assistants working with or for Defendants
+on matters related to this action; and the recipients of such information shall not disclose it
+to any other persons.
+3. If Defendants wish to disclose Plaintiff's identity to any person not otherwise permitted to
+receive such information under this Order, Defendants are limited to doing so in connection
+with detending this action, and must require such person to first execute a non-disclosure
+agreement, in a form agreed to by the parties, that prevents such person from disclosing
+Plaintiff's identity to any other persons. Defendants must maintain a list of all such persons
+to whom Plaintiff's identity is disclosed and copies of the executed non-disclosure
+agreements, all of which are subject to in camera inspection.
+4. All portions of pleadings, motions or other papers filed with the Court that disclose
+Plaintiff's identity shall be filed under seal with the Clerk of the Court and kept under seal
+until further order of the Court. The parties shall use their best efforts to minimize such
+sealing. Any party filing a motion or any other papers with the Court under seal shall also
+
+
+caase 1.9540-79625-AУNP6EF Bocument 39 mila 27045139 pagage 8taf 3
+publicly file a redacted copy of the same, via the Court's Electronic Case Filing system,
+that redacts the Plaintiff's identity and text that would reveal Plaintiff's identity.
+5. The parties may seek to modify or amend this Order at any time upon motion to the Court
+or by stipulation.
+SO ORDERED.
+Date:
+Ver J.dol
+lew York, New Yor
+United States District Judge
+2
+
+
+Ease 1:19:8V-87625 AN BEF 002mmen 391 Filed 12/85/19 påg893P13
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VE,
+Plaintiff,
+Case No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD D. KAHN AS
+JOINT PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
+ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, NINE EAST 71st
+STREET, CORPORATION, FINANCIAL TRUST
+COMPANY, INC., NES, LLC,
+Defendants.
+NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
+I,
+_, acknowledge that I understand that the identity of the
+Plaintiff in this action is confidential. I agree that: (1) I will hold in confidence Plaintiff's identity;
+(2) I will use Plaintiff's identity only in connection with this litigation; and (3) I will take all due
+precautions to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of Plaintiff's identity.
+By acknowledging these obligations under this Non-Disclosure Agreement, I understand
+hat I am submitting myself to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Souther
+District of New York for the purpose of any issue or dispute arising hereunder, and that my willfu
+coolation of coy term of the Non-Disclosure Agrement could subject me to punishment for
+Dated:
+[Signature]
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8f1606ae8693ff3a506547aff5bed8d8acde940
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df0a4ca3046cfd0a7f30ff914eab141cfb160347bce0f89f7472da961d0ea166",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8a0e1b06d001e2a9f84c0a74b2719cc0da608bf8004c7be67e895326ae860a4d",
+  "output_sha256": "b71e628ddb124ee8f7c8f701a6214c09b8ba52894b7dd2f1ab37e5646c4228fa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..509a45961d3f5cb3cd7edbd1d9038c6b8a6732b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 603-1 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc4ce0c71aed0bbe9c875c5a22904d5a5fb74c1b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df27b2099c7ab5dec153d2641bb0deeae5ce8e4341cb1644a41689466cbd964e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3983b8dd4943b1559e3e41e0bb2825c2f44aee7fddc6e14fec95b1c01d034245",
+  "output_sha256": "4817430d17b7428c9d20000fd58c086c556417dd00cf6e50a76e8e1efd6305b7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f50875cdf7a2be10c0c91c14933a336522ffa836
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 306
+Filed 06/30/21 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+June 30, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+By:
+S/
+Maurene Comey / Alison Moe /
+Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense counsel (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a2947969865151c890e4b5f7306a6473d4342cf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -18,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df3ca49d6583af6ff4db3b9c60fd34e00223faaba85f5faaf4881cb13ed6b758",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d109a56ed15015aa4b3f27356e9a89332413273f59df790446a2e80903802735",
+  "output_sha256": "3783fe748cba943edea2545afa66ba2cd5e801ce53d896c8c526a251cc175c52",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..65d3564f23d73681c2296d8c8882b595ac8d99e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 420
+Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+November 8, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated
+November 2, 2021, attaching the Court's draft preliminary remarks to be recorded and played
+before each voir dire session and directing the parties to suggest any proposed edits or additions
+by letter. (Dkt. No. 404). The Government has no objections or suggestions to the Court's
+proposed remarks.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN I
+United States Attorney
+By:
+s/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..76c8c94c91ed3f7ae4f7b49e4b1dd448f5dbd12b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df3de82b9fbd22214de8131d9aff832cc119f8bc3eec9729cd7851391be69cdc",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b03ff9b5908f6549ec6576747cc4211ff7436fb7c57f04c340f9eef3f2c27457",
+  "output_sha256": "f3cf1f4273cd834dc81ee35b9f72c83f2771d94aad5092204b75861827672d51",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb290992296184fe40cfa4b136d4f1cd2a72da63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 390-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e4993f064167509918c8b43e39449d07fbca827
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df4a6478a72487151086336b0091d1e7a8b8b3b1b162f0363291e31c52c2fb31",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "096882ba860cd4e2d60f662b3315ad0bce2685261a6fca9c19a799e958804ae9",
+  "output_sha256": "af58465165f43f627947eb3ada20ce2507f34bf1df9ee69185e0b82112ed1699",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..131dcaceead6c761b1b045f81ed3033920c3f574
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+CG
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 591 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 1
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+ceverdell@)cohengresser.com
+February 1, 2022
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We write on behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, to respectfully request a one-week
+extension of time until Friday, February 11, 2022 to file our post-trial motions. The motions are
+currently due on Friday, February 4, 2022. We have conferred with the government, which has
+consented to the requested extension.
+The requested extension is necessary because we need to meet with Ms. Maxwell in person
+to review work product related to the motions. In-person visits at the MDC only recently became
+available again this week. Due to other commitments, we are unable to meet with Ms. Maxwell
+until the end of this week. This is the defense's first request for an extension. We would consent
+to a similar one-week extension for the government to file its response.
+Sincerely,
+Is/ Christian Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+cc:
+2087993.1
+All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b2733715f3d4c8aad30039b9cec26e96280d94d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df4c34b29e5fb7cce0705ee81773500878a4c1f97edee09f612da1414a0c68b0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0b627451f5462dce524f957b917ef829f1b486f0e1c1ce51c76dfec9d8686588",
+  "output_sha256": "235feebc56a74bea8133415aa72aac68bf323d149e969e0be71f1b808bb074aa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fdb2a16409e26a0463b70612c27464fb0906eb5b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.md
@@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 10
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+APPLICATION FOR LETTER ROGATORY
+Plaintiff,
+pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)(2) and 28
+U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2,) by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby submits this application
+that the Court issue a Letter Rogatory pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f(2)(b) to
+the appropriate Judicial Authority of the United Kingdom to permit the production of documents
+from and the taking of the deposition of
+Gow, a witness located outside the United States, ,
+and states as follows:
+INTRODUCTION
+As was explained in
+Motion for Extension of time to Serve Process Upon
+and Depose
+| Gow (DE 306), even though Mr. Gow is Defendant's press agent - and is
+represented by one of Defendant's attorneys -- Defendant has refused to assist in making him
+available for a deposition. And, Mr. Gow has been attempting to thwart service of process in
+England, now necessitating the intervention of an English court.
+has been advised
+that it is likely that an English court will order Mr. Gow to sit for his deposition; however, in
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 10
+order to petition an English court, it is necessary for this Court to issue a Letter Rogatory.
+Accordingly,
+respectfully requests that this Court issue a Letter Rogatory, a draft of
+which is attached to this exhibit, and will be emailed to
+as a Microsoft Word document
+for the Court's convenience.
+II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+The Court will recall that Mr.
+Gow is an important witness in this defamation case,
+because he was Defendant's "image consultant" and public relations agent who facilitated the
+publication of some of the Defendant's most significant defamatory statements. Given Mr.
+Gow's significant role in the case,
+has been attempting to depose him.
+has requested the assistance of Defendant in scheduling his deposition, and sought Mr. Gow's
+cooperation directly, but those efforts have failed. Additionally,
+has tried to work
+through Ms. Gow's legal counsel to schedule a deposition, but Mr. Gow's counsel has refused to
+accept service. It turns out that Defendant's attorney, Philip Barden, now also represents
+Gow. The Court will recall that Mr. Barden is Defendant's attorney who participated in relevant
+communications that this Court ordered Defendant to produce to
+after in camera
+review. Mr. Barden has recently informed the undersigned that he now represents Mr. Gow as
+his attorney. It appears that Mr. Barden's joint representation of both Defendant and Mr. Gow
+arose in response to
+efforts to obtain Mr. Gow's deposition testimony.
+This Court has previously granted
+motion to take Mr. Gow's deposition. See
+June 20, 2016, Redacted Omnibus Order, filed in redacted version at D.E. 264-1. Upon
+information and belief, Mr. Gow is a British national who resides in England, and therefore
+attempted to work with both Defendant and Mr. Gow to secure Mr. Gow's voluntary
+appearance. Counsel for
+sent Mr. Gow two requests to take his deposition in relation
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 3 of 10
+to this matter. See
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 1, June 12, 2016, Email to |
+Gow and
+June 14, 2016 Email to
+Gow. Neither of these communications received any response.
+After such efforts came to nothing, [
+attempted to serve Mr. Gow through the
+Hague Convention, to which both the U.S. and the U.K. are parties. On June 17, 2016,
+counsel commenced service via The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence
+Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters. Pursuant to the Convention,
+followed the
+specific instructions detailed by the United States Department of State and other resources to
+effectuate service. See Declaration of Meredith
+Decl.") at Exhibit 2, Request
+for Service Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents sent to The Senior
+, For the
+Attention of the Foreign Process Section, Room E16, |
+Courts of Justice Strand, London,
+WCZA 2LL, United Kingdom.
+Upon information and belief, that June 17, 2016, subpoena was served to Mr. Gow's business
+address via the Hague Convention by the Foreign Process Section (or related United Kingdom
+agency) in receipt of the subpoena from
+Decl. at Exhibit 3, July 1,
+2016, London, Senior Courts of England and Wales Foreign Process Section, Transmitting
+Agency Reference: Acknowledgment of Receipt, Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No
+1348/2000. Indeed, on July 12, 2016, Defendant's attorney, Mr. Barden alerted counsel for
+that the June 17, 2016, subpoena was served to Mr. Gow's office address, and Mr.
+Barden communicated that he represented Mr. Gow. See |
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4,
+July 12, 2016 emails to/from Philip Barden.
+The June 17, 2016, subpoena had a deposition date of June 29, 2016. This was set so that
+the deposition could be taken before the discovery cutoff date of July 1, 2016. This Court has
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 10
+since granted
+one-month extension of time to take depositions. See June 20, 2016,
+Redacted Omnibus Order, the redacted Order filed at D.E. 264-1.
+again utilized The Hague Convention Processes to serve an updated subpoena
+for a date at the end of July, 2016. Specifically, on July 1, 2016,
+counsel
+commenced separate service of process through The Hague Convention on the Taking of
+Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, noticing this deposition for July 20, 2016.
+does not know whether or not that subpoena has yet been served through The Hague
+Convention.
+In order to speed service of process for the deposition to be completed within this Court's
+new deadline,
+retained a private process serving firm in London to attempt to
+effectuate personal service on Mr. Gow. The firm has since attempted service of process at Mr.
+Gow's business and residential addresses, with fees in excess of £1,349.50 GBP ($1,768.99
+USD). See
+Decl. at Exhibit 5, Affidavit of Cesar Agusto.
+Thereafter, when Defendant's attorney, Mr. Barden, informed the undersigned that he also
+represented Mr. Gow,
+counsel asked Mr. Barden whether he was authorized to
+accept service on Mr. Gow's behalf, and sent Mr. Barden the updated subpoena for the July 20,
+2016, deposition date. See
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, July 13, 2016 email
+communication to Mr. Barden stating, "Please advise at your earliest convenience whether you
+accept service of process of the subpoena on behalf of Mr. Gow." Instead of answering that
+question, Mr. Barden twice replied that service was (in his view) improper because the subpoena
+lacked an order from an English Court. See
+Decl. at Composite Exhibit 4, July 13, 2016,
+emails from Mr. Barden.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 5 of 10
+On July 14, 2016, the undersigned sent a letter to Mr. Barden that stated: "To the extent that
+you consider service has been defective, please confirm whether you waive service of process
+and accept service of the subpoena on Mr. Gow's behalf," and, again, informing Mr. Barden that
+counsel would be happy to arrange a date and time convenient for Mr. Gow. See
+Decl. at
+Exhibit 6, July 14, 2016, letter to Mr. Barden. As of the date of this filing, Mr. Barden has not
+accepted service of process.
+has secured English counsel to seek an English court order pursuant to the
+English Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, a process Mr. Barden claims is
+necessary to effectuate proper service upon Mr. Gow. The undersigned has been informed that
+such an application to an English High Court will likely be successful; however; it is an
+expensive and potentially lengthy process, and requires the issuance of a letter rogatory from this
+Court.
+Ill. ARGUMENT
+This Court has the authority to issue letters rogatory pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) and 28
+U.S.C. § 1781(b). See Elliot Assoc., L.P. v. Republic of Peru, 1997 WL 436493, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
+Aug. 1, 1997) (Sweet, J.); Leasco Data Processing Equip. Corp. v. Maxwell, M.C.M.P., 63
+F.R.D. 94, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) provides that letters rogatory "shall be
+issued on application and notice and on terms that are just and appropriate." Courts routinely
+grant motions for letters rogatory where, as here, the movant has made a reasonable showing that
+the evidence sought may be material or may lead to the discovery of material evidence. Netherby
+Lid. v. l
+Apparel Group, Inc., 2005 WL 1214345, *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2005); see also
+Elliot Assoc., 1997 WL 436493 at *2 (granting motion for letters rogatory despite opposing
+party's claims that the testimony sought would be duplicative); Philan Ins. LTD v.
+B. |
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 6 of 10
+& Co., 1992 WL 183553, *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 1992) (granting motion for letters rogatory
+because the records sought might lead to relevant evidence and might assist in proving damages).
+Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §1781(b) expressly contemplates and permits a United States Court
+to issue a Letter Rogatory to a foreign judicial authority. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4' and
+28 U.S.C. §1781(b) therefore provide statutory authority for this Court to act as is being
+requested in this motion. "Letters rogatory are the medium, in effect, whereby one country,
+speaking through one of its courts, requests another country, acting through its own courts and
+by methods of court procedure peculiar thereto and entirely within the latter's control, to assist
+the administration of justice in the former country." United States v. Al Fawwaz, No. S7 98
+CRIM. 1023 LAK, 2014 WL 627083, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2014) (internal quotation marks
+omitted). District courts have both statutory and inherent authority to issue letters rogatory and
+whether to do so rests within a district court's discretion. Id.; 2 8 U.S.C. § 1781. "The standard
+for issuance of a letter rogatory is the same as if the evidence were located in the United States,
+United States v. Korogodsky, 4 F.Supp.2d 262, 265 (S.D.N. Y.1998)" U.S. v. Hoskins, 2015 WL
+4874921, at *5 (D. Conn. 2015).
+' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) provides as follows:
+(f) Service Upon Individuals in a Foreign Country. Unless otherwise provided by federal law,
+service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than
+an infant or incompetent person, may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of
+the United States:
+(2) If there is no internationally agreed means of service or the applicable international
+agreement allows other means of service, provided that service is reasonably calculated to
+give notice:
+(B) as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request;
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f).
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 7 of 10
+It is the undersigned's understanding that letters rogatory are the proper method to utilize
+where the foreign country involved is not a signature to any international treaty governing
+service of process. See
+and
+_. Federal Practice and Procedure, 3rd Edition $1134.
+Both the United States and the United Kingdom are signatories to the Hague Convention, which
+has a mechanism for service of process to which
+believes she has complied.
+However, it appears that this Court may lack jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas properly
+served upon Mr. Gow through the Hague convention. Therefore, based on Mr. Gow's utter
+unwillingness to accept service of process that was made through the Hague Convention and to
+his attorney,
+seeks issuance of a letter rogatory, which would enable an English
+Court to require Mr. Gow sit for his deposition. Documents and testimony from Mr. Gow are
+material to
+action, because he was Defendant's press agent who released one of the
+defamatory statements that is at the heart of this action. Therefore, the Court should issue the
+requested letter rogatory.
+Further, authorization of the service of a letter rogatory is appropriate in this case because
+the discovery sought has already been approved by this Court. Specifically,
+has
+petitioned this Court to be able to depose Gow (DE 170), and this Court granted that
+request in its June 20, 2016, Order. (Redacted version at DE 264-1). The type of evidence sought
+by the subpoena - Mr. Gow's testimony and documents relating to this case - is appropriate in the
+context of this litigation and already sanctioned by this court. Accordingly, this court should
+grant
+request. See Bisnews AFE (Thailand) Lid. v. Aspen Research Group Ltd.,
+2012 WL 4784632, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 8 of 10
+The undersigned has prepared a Letter Rogatory for Your Honor's consideration and will
+submit the same to the Court as a Word document under separate cover. A copy of
+proposed Letter Rogatory is also attached to this motion. See
+Decl. at Exhibit 7.
+Should the Court grant this motion and sign the proposed Letter Rogatory, the
+undersigned will forward it to English counsel for presentment to the appropriate judicial
+authority in England. The undersigned will also present a copy to Mr. Barden, Defendant and
+Mr. Gow's attorney.
+IV. CONCLUSION
+Discovery from Mr. Gow in the requested letter rogatory is material to
+claim.
+Accordingly, the Court should grant
+motion and issue the requested letter rogatory.
+Dated: August 3, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+Pro Hac Vice
+oies Schiller & Flexner LLI
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+-JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 9 of 10
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 330 Filed 08/03/16 Page 10 of 10
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+THEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3"d day of August 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ee714892e5e51a2812ccd29bca90f6d00be7674
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -120,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df64e99a32745b4e245d1a2b88a86602c08db786bf59df2be0a606a18cb69535",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "377f6ddebde8c9d0d52669ffcd378f67dbba06402b320cde2f8ddb85bdea4a37",
+  "output_sha256": "b843c1005bc9855e93087547e1084331b87cbc5eed009c0d2f79b070442bb08e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df7ffcb0f471a631c3cffb8d29d529f37a6b49a2c3bd29a44617b48d44a8a255.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df7ffcb0f471a631c3cffb8d29d529f37a6b49a2c3bd29a44617b48d44a8a255.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c89e530533748bda420284e676842b5b6d886d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df7ffcb0f471a631c3cffb8d29d529f37a6b49a2c3bd29a44617b48d44a8a255.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 575-2 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df7ffcb0f471a631c3cffb8d29d529f37a6b49a2c3bd29a44617b48d44a8a255.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df7ffcb0f471a631c3cffb8d29d529f37a6b49a2c3bd29a44617b48d44a8a255.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..84c293579a904b2dd5d9375a08581ffd0a8b6337
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df7ffcb0f471a631c3cffb8d29d529f37a6b49a2c3bd29a44617b48d44a8a255.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df7ffcb0f471a631c3cffb8d29d529f37a6b49a2c3bd29a44617b48d44a8a255",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7d01098d30f7ea589dac02035c10b87f1d458305884e6f2cda08139022eb0568",
+  "output_sha256": "08f3a9cff605947f8fefa6ce51940e36beedeec0bd95edf49dc099d2bda1352b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df8232435751d7e00442176c2fd3011dbcca07c7faee79bd7c9b3e3b6b7d0fe6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df8232435751d7e00442176c2fd3011dbcca07c7faee79bd7c9b3e3b6b7d0fe6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a87cac56159a701e074d6b813a86587356404c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df8232435751d7e00442176c2fd3011dbcca07c7faee79bd7c9b3e3b6b7d0fe6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 37
+Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+July 25, 2019
+VIA ECE
+The Honorable Richard M. Berman
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB)
+Dear Judge Berman:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter to request that the Court endorse a
+proposed protective order, which is enclosed. For the reasons set forth in the proposed order, and
+with the consent of defense counsel, the Government respectfully requests that the Court endorse
+the enclosed order.
+Respectfully submitted,
+GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+Is/ Alison Moe
+Alison Moe / Alex Rossmiller / Maurene Comey
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Tel: (212) 637-2225 / 2415 / 2324
+Enclosure
+Cc:
+Weinberg, Esq., and Reid Weingarten, Esq., counsel for defendant
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df8232435751d7e00442176c2fd3011dbcca07c7faee79bd7c9b3e3b6b7d0fe6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df8232435751d7e00442176c2fd3011dbcca07c7faee79bd7c9b3e3b6b7d0fe6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..128dd72a0ca275e1eb03c2f26e1d9f42b193d259
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df8232435751d7e00442176c2fd3011dbcca07c7faee79bd7c9b3e3b6b7d0fe6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df8232435751d7e00442176c2fd3011dbcca07c7faee79bd7c9b3e3b6b7d0fe6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5086c8888b628fda1102fc093754cfb622cac8fd9a1f75c32234e22ffd97d066",
+  "output_sha256": "ad37621eba25222cbf68849126755e224cd87589ea616e34e50eb1cdbe6a38cd",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df9de781e934108407325595d624d5d7faf0420230bf0a3ffbb200f0ce71e2eb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df9de781e934108407325595d624d5d7faf0420230bf0a3ffbb200f0ce71e2eb.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..965b635c519e24776f92839a31048762aa8ac30a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df9de781e934108407325595d624d5d7faf0420230bf0a3ffbb200f0ce71e2eb.md
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 495
+Filed 10/31/16
+
+" -Y
+HADDON
+MORGAN
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FLED: 10 31116
+Haddon,
+and
+, P.C
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364 #x 303.832.2628
+R
+OCT 312016
+JUDGE SWEET
+October 28, 2016
+Via Email
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+United States District Judge
+United States District Court
+Daniel
+Moynihan Courthouse
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street, Room 1940
+New York, New York 10007-1312
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+I am writing to request the Court continue the deadline to submit one of the defense
+rebuttal expert opinions by one business day from October 28, 2016 to October 31,
+2016, because the expert is experiencing travel and technical difficulties and unable
+to complete his report in the time allotted. The extension is unopposed.
+The defense is disclosing a total of three rebuttal expert opinions today. One of the
+detense experts, Dr. Phillip Esplin, has been traveling this week out of state for
+purposes of speaking at a conference. Due to his travel schedule, and some
+unforeseen technical difficulties regarding his inability to access email from his
+remote location, he is unable to complete his report by the close of business today,
+October 28. He is endeavoring to finish it over the weekend after he returns to his
+office.
+Defense counsel has agreed not to read any of Plaintiff's rebuttal reports, nor to share
+them with any of our expert witnesses, until we have provided this final rebuttal
+report on Monday, October 31. No prejudice therefore exists as the delay will not
+result in a tactical advantage to either side. Dr. Esplin's deposition is tentatively
+scheduled more than a month from now, the week of November 28, 2016, and
+therefore Plaintiff will have ample time to review the report to prepare for his
+deposition.
+I have conferred with counsel for
+who has agreed to relief requested
+herein.
+cordants
+Sweet Us.
+10.31.16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 495
+Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2
+--.
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+October 28, 2016
+Page 2
+Respectfully Submitted,
+HADDON,
+AND
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+P.C.
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on October 28, 2016, I electronically served this LETTER TO
+THE COURT via ELECTRONIC MAIL on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Jack Goldberger
+Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 N. Australian Avenue, #1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+jgoldberger@agwpa.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/df9de781e934108407325595d624d5d7faf0420230bf0a3ffbb200f0ce71e2eb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df9de781e934108407325595d624d5d7faf0420230bf0a3ffbb200f0ce71e2eb.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3fec65724337abf97df7a4bb058b19f0f94d055a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/df9de781e934108407325595d624d5d7faf0420230bf0a3ffbb200f0ce71e2eb.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "df9de781e934108407325595d624d5d7faf0420230bf0a3ffbb200f0ce71e2eb",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "722f1c6edd024530a91149f297cc0d4e32d6f950a1ba333986c5aaafa7accdf3",
+  "output_sha256": "8b4632e59b2c12afe215f4fe744161476bf47d52dc68749194a3496bd2f90875",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfcf1991882d004ac7f18759619652facf66bb789d4294a81e5f2371f3eaf822.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfcf1991882d004ac7f18759619652facf66bb789d4294a81e5f2371f3eaf822.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..282110a180a8903eb54fa23c803f1e4c090b8507
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfcf1991882d004ac7f18759619652facf66bb789d4294a81e5f2371f3eaf822.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 80 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+December 2, 2020
+BY ECE
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defense requests for
+sealing and for an in camera hearing in connection with the defendant's anticipated renewed
+application for bail. The Government has reviewed the proposed redactions to the defense letters
+dated November 25, 2020 and November 30, 2020. Because those proposed redactions are
+narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of third parties, the Government has no objection
+to the defense's proposed redactions. The Government objects, however, to the defense request
+for a sealed in camera hearing to discuss further sealing requests from the defense. As
+demonstrated by the defense's recent letters, any request for sealing of third party information can
+be made in writing with narrowly tailored redactions. Based on defense counsel's proffers
+egarding the potential harms that may come from publicly identifying proposed cosigners, the
+jovernment has no objection to the redaction and sealed filing of any identifying information fo
+those individuals. Given the availability of redacted filings, the Government sees no reason for an
+entire hearing to be conducted without the opportunity for the public or the victims in this case to
+observe. Indeed, given that crime victims have a statutory right to be present and heard at any
+proceeding regarding the defendant's "release," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4), the Government would
+object to any proceeding addressing aspects of a renewed bail application that was conducted
+entirely in camera.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+Acting United States Attorney
+By: _
+s/
+Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lara Pomerantz
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Tel: (212) 637-2324
+Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfcf1991882d004ac7f18759619652facf66bb789d4294a81e5f2371f3eaf822.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfcf1991882d004ac7f18759619652facf66bb789d4294a81e5f2371f3eaf822.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c790c30618c1d40002b28ae7faa32895d7091bdc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfcf1991882d004ac7f18759619652facf66bb789d4294a81e5f2371f3eaf822.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "dfcf1991882d004ac7f18759619652facf66bb789d4294a81e5f2371f3eaf822",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6369e201c5cf07ccdf85cc11df87a410b2ddaa7083d685855bff37a747751fd4",
+  "output_sha256": "245fe62c4e53481735330e64230f0fa3e4c1bb5a0c7fd9354f8cc0cfe7e269cb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfd55b338547f793527ed6098087a7f42b78cec27e8dc8321de5a451de701897.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfd55b338547f793527ed6098087a7f42b78cec27e8dc8321de5a451de701897.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9120bd29d28a7126b766f93136fd09017e223e79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfd55b338547f793527ed6098087a7f42b78cec27e8dc8321de5a451de701897.md
@@ -0,0 +1,388 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 14
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 8/13/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-cr-330 (AJN)
+OPINION & ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+On April 16, 2021, the Court issued an Opinion & Order granting in part and denying in
+part Ghislaine Maxwell's various pretrial motions seeking to dismiss portions of the
+Government's (S1) superseding indictment and compel discovery. Prior to the issuance of that
+Opinion & Order but after the motions were fully briefed, a grand jury returned a second (S2)
+superseding indictment adding a sex trafficking count and sex trafficking conspiracy count. The
+Court did not address the new charges in the April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. On May 25,
+2021, Maxwell filed another round of pretrial motions seeking to dismiss the S2 indictment in
+whole or in part and to compel discovery. Dkt. No. 292, 293. For appeal preservation purposes
+or otherwise, the arguments largely, though not entirely, rehash the positions rejected by the
+Court in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. To the extent new arguments are made, they are
+addressed below. All pending motions are DENIED. The Court provides a brief summary of its
+conclusions here and its reasoning on the pages that follow:
+•
+Maxwell moves to dismiss counts one, three, five, and six as barred by Jeffrey
+Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. The Court again concludes, as it did in its April
+16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the agreement does not bind the United States Attorney
+for the Southern District of New York.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 14
+• Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six on the grounds that prosecuting her on
+those counts would violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court
+concludes that Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for these offenses and
+therefore her prosecution on these counts does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
+• Maxwell moves to dismiss counts five and six as untimely. The Court again concludes,
+as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the Government brought the
+charges within the applicable statute of limitations.
+• Maxwell moves to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as
+multiplicitous. The Court again determines, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion &
+Order, that this motion is premature and denies it without prejudice for renewal at trial.
+• Maxwell moves to dismiss the S2 indictment for pre-indictment delay. The Court again
+concludes, as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that Maxwell has not
+established that she suffered prejudice and therefore any delay has not violated her
+rights to due process.
+Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars related to counts five and six because they are
+too vague, and in particular do not provide specific dates. The Court again concludes,
+as it did in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, that the charges are sufficiently
+specific.
+•
+Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of "Minor-Victim
+4" in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current
+disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such
+statements and therefore immediate disclosure is not warranted.
+Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar the charges in the S2
+indictment
+In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order on Maxwell's first set of pretrial motions, the
+Court held that the non-prosecution agreement ("NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S.
+Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar the charges against Maxwell in
+the S1 superseding indictment. See United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN), 2021 WL
+1518675, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2021). Maxwell now renews those arguments for the charges
+in the S2 superseding indictment. The Court understands the primary purpose of Maxwell's
+renewed motion to be to preserve these arguments for appellate review, and the Court denies the
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 3 of 14
+renewed motion for substantially the same reasons set forth in its April 16 opinion. The Court
+will proceed to briefly explain why neither the new charges in the S2 superseding indictment nor
+the supplemental authority Maxwell cites change the Court's conclusion that the NPA does not
+bar the charges against her.
+As the Court explained in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Second Circuit held in
+United States v. Annabi that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States
+Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
+agreement contemplates a broader restriction." 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
+The Second Circuit's opinion in Annabi is clear, and that court has followed it steadfastly since.
+See, e.g., United States v.
+93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004); United States v.
+, No. 99-1230(L), 2002 WL 34244994, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002); United States v.
+Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v.
+844 F.2d 916,
+923 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has held that language nearly identical to that in
+Epstein's NPA is not enough to overcome the presumption in favor of single-district plea
+agreements. See Salameh, 152 F.3d at 120. Adhering to this binding authority, this Court thus
+concluded (and continues to conclude that the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for
+the Southern District of New York. It thus provides Maxwell no defense in this case even if it
+would otherwise cover the conduct charged in the new counts in the S2 superseding indictment.
+Maxwell advances two new arguments for why the Court should depart from this
+reasoning
+-the first in her renewed motion and the second in a letter of supplemental authority.
+See Dkt. Nos. 293, 310. In her renewed motion, she contends that Annabi contains an exception
+for out-of-district prosecutions for charges that are "identical to the dismissed charges." And in
+the letter of supplemental authority, she contends that the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 4 of 14
+Court in Commonwealth v. Cosby, No. 39 MAP 2020, 2021 WL 2674380 (Pa. June 30, 2021),
+requires dismissal. Neither argument is persuasive.
+Annabi contains no exception for out-of-district prosecutions for charges that are
+"identical to the dismissed charges." In the language Maxwell cites from Annabi, the Second
+Circuit discussed (and rejected) a claim based on the Double Jeopardy Clause, not a claim based
+on the plea agreement in that case. See Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. In that section of the opinion,
+the Second Circuit held that even if the charges had been identical to the dismissed charges, the
+defendants' double jeopardy claims would fail because they were never in jeopardy on the
+charges that were dismissed under the plea agreement. Nothing in Annabi suggests that the
+presumption in favor of single-district plea agreements does not apply if later charges in another
+district are sufficiently "identical" to the dismissed ones, and no subsequent Second Circuit case
+applying Annabi has so held. Annabi applies squarely to the facts of this case and binds this
+Court.
+The Court also disagrees that Cosby mandates a different result. To begin with, this
+Court must follow the precedential opinions of the Second Circuit on questions of federal law,
+not those of a state court. Thus, nothing in Cosby could change this Court's view that Second
+Circuit precedent in Annabi forecloses Maxwell's arguments related to the NPA. In any event,
+the state court in Cosby did not purport to decide the same federal question at issue here. In
+Cosby, the court held that it was unfair for a district attorney to proceed with charges against Bill
+Cosby after the district attorney's office had, in that court's view of the facts, unequivocally
+promised that it would not charge him. Cosby, 2021 WL 2674380, at *34. That case did not
+involve a question of whether one office's promise bound another, much less whether a plea
+agreement in one federal district should be construed to apply in another district. Instead, the
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 14
+case focused on whether prosecutors were required to honor a promise that the court found to be
+clear in the absence of a formal plea agreement. Even if this Court agreed with the analysis in
+Cosby, that opinion sheds no light on the proper interpretation of the NPA in this case.
+After considering the arguments in Maxwell's renewed motion and letter of supplemental
+authority, the Court's view remains unchanged from its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. Under
+Second Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
+New York. It thus does not bar the charges in the S2 superseding indictment.
+Il.
+This prosecution does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy
+The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that "[n]o person shall be ... subject for the same
+offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. "This protection
+applies both to successive punishments and to successive prosecutions for the same criminal
+offense." United States v.
+509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993). "A defendant may only raise a
+Double Jeopardy claim if he has been put in jeopardy (i.e. jeopardy has 'attached'") sometime
+before the alleged 'second' prosecution." United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 813, 816 (2d Cir.
+1997). A defendant is put in jeopardy when the jury in their case is empaneled or upon the
+defendant's entry of a guilty plea. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978); Morris v.
+264 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 2001). Until then, a defendant has not been put in jeopardy and the
+Government is free to commence a prosecution.
+Maxwell has not previously been put in jeopardy for the offenses charged in this case.
+She concededly has not been punished or prosecuted for any prior offense. She was never
+charged in the Southern District of Florida in connection with the Epstein investigation. She
+agreed to nothing in Epstein's NPA, because she was not a party to it. She suffered no criminal
+consequences as a result of Epstein's guilty plea in Florida state court. To the contrary, there is
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 6 of 14
+no indication that Maxwell was even a subject of the Florida investigation. The Double Jeopardy
+Clause bars only successive prosecution or punishment for the same offense, and Maxwell has
+endured neither. Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the charges against her.
+Despite facing no prior prosecution or punishment herself, Maxwell contends that she is
+immune from prosecution because Epstein was already punished for the same conspiracy. The
+cases she cites, however, deal with successive prosecutions of a particular defendant for the same
+conspiracy, not separate prosecutions of individual co-conspirators. See, e.g., United States v.
+356 F.3d 463, 469 (2d Cir. 2004). The Double Jeopardy Clause does not require all coconspirators be tried together for related offenses. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 539
+(1993); United States v. Hinton, 543 F.2d 1002, 1014 (2d Cir. 1976). Whether the Government
+could have charged Epstein again in this case has nothing to do with Maxwell's rights under the
+Double Jeopardy Clause.
+Maxwell finally points to one case in which the Second Circuit held that a subsequent
+prosecution might not be permissible against a defendant whose charges were dismissed after her
+husband pleaded guilty. Dkt. No. 293 at 19 (citing United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609
+F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1979)). However, the Court agrees with the Government that the result in
+Cambindo Valencia rested on the terms of the husband's plea agreement, not the Double
+Jeopardy Clause. See Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d at 638. No precedent stands for the
+proposition that an uncharged co-conspirator is put in jeopardy when another co-conspirator
+accepts a non-prosecution agreement. This is the first case in which Maxwell will be put in
+jeopardy for these offenses, and so this prosecution does not put her in jeopardy a second time.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 7 of 14
+III. Counts five and six are not time-barred
+For most non-capital offenses, the statute of limitations under federal law is five years.
+18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). Congress has enacted longer limitations periods for certain crimes, in
+particular for "offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnapping" of a minor in 18
+U.S.C. § 3283. Prior to 2003, the limitations period in § 3283 lasted until the victim reached the
+age of 25, and then Congress extended the limitations period to the life of the victim with the
+PROTECT Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat 60. In 2006, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.
+§ 3299, which eliminated the statute of limitations for the sex trafficking of minors in violation
+of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 and for some other sex crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299 ("Notwithstanding
+any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without
+limitation for any offense under ... section 1591.").
+In her previous motion, Maxwell argued that the
+Act charges against her in the
+indictment were time-barred on the grounds that the extended limitations period § 3283 was not
+applicable. The Court denied that motion in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. Maxwell, 2021
+WL 1518675, at *5. Maxwell now argues that the new charges the Government has brought
+against her in the S2 indictment, Sex Trafficking Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and Sex
+Trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591), are time-barred as well because § 3283 does not apply to those
+offenses either.
+She renews her contention from her previous motion that the limitations period
+in § 3283 only applies to offenses which "necessarily entail" the sexual abuse of a minor and
+argues that a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 does not. Thus, according to Maxwell's reasoning,
+the general five-year statute of limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) applies to the sex
+trafficking counts and, because the alleged conduct occurred from 2001 to 2004, the Government
+is now time-barred for prosecuting her for these offenses.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 8 of 14
+The Court denies this motion for substantially similar reasons as those discussed in its
+April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order. As an initial matter, the Court reiterates that Maxwell's
+analysis of § 3283 is incorrect. As the Court explained, § 3283 does not call for a
+"categorical approach" nor an "essential ingredient" test, but instead requires that the defendant's
+conduct in that particular case involved the sexual abuse of a minor. Maxwell, 2021 WL
+1518675 at *5-7. Here, there is no question that Maxwell is alleged to have engaged in activity
+that constitutes the sexual abuse of a minor with respect to the sex trafficking counts.
+But in any event, as the Government pointed out in its brief - and as Maxwell did not
+contest in her reply - § 3283 is not the only statute of limitations that applies to the sex
+trafficking counts. As discussed above, in 2006, Congress enacted § 3299 to eliminate altogether
+the limitations period for the offense of sex trafficking children in violation of § 1591. See 18
+U.S.C. § 3299.
+Moreover, while the alleged sex trafficking in the S2 indictment is alleged to have
+occurred prior to the enactment of § 3299 in 2006, the Court holds that the provision nonetheless
+applies retroactively to cover that conduct. In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court
+analyzed § 3283 under the Landgraf v. USA Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994) framework
+and concluded that the limitations period applied retroactively so long as the previous limitations
+period had not yet expired. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *7-8. Similar to § 3283, which
+states that "[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution" shall apply, the
+language of § 3299 provides that an indictment may be instituted at any time for certain offenses
+"[n]otwithstanding any other law." As discussed in the Court's previous opinion with respect
+to § 3283, this kind of language unambiguously requires that the limitations period apply
+retroactively to prosecutions for offenses committed before the date of enactment so long as the
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 9 of 14
+applicable limitations period has not yet run - offenses that by definition are those for which
+"other law[s]" of limitation would otherwise bar prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299. Moreover,
+as the Court also explained, not only does this kind of language unambiguously require
+retroactivity, it also does not result in any impermissible retroactive effects so long as it does not
+revive time-barred claims. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *7-8. The Court therefore joins
+multiple other district courts in concluding that, like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to
+offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run. See United States v. Nader,
+425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 629 (E.D. Va. 2019); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM),
+2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v.
+No. 13-CR-128-A,
+2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N. Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253
+(WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010).
+The sex trafficking charges are therefore not time-barred. Regardless of whether it was
+the general five-year limitations period in § 3282(a) or the extended limitations period for sexual
+abuse of minors in § 3283 that was applicable to Maxwell's alleged conduct prior to the
+enactment of § 3299 in 2006, neither had expired by that date. Thus, as Maxwell does not
+contest, § 3299 applies retroactively to the sex trafficking offenses in the indictment and the
+Government is permitted to bring those charges without time limitation.
+IV.
+Maxwell's motion to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as
+multiplicitous is premature
+In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that either count one or count three of the S1
+indictment, the
+Act conspiracy charges, must be dismissed because the counts are
+multiplicitous.
+In the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court joined many other
+courts in this Circuit holding that pretrial motions of this sort are premature in light of United
+States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), and the Court dismissed without
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 10 of 14
+prejudice. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *14. In the instant motion, Maxwell similarly argues
+that count five of the S2 indictment, the sex trafficking conspiracy charge, is duplicative of either
+counts one or three. Maxwell's motion is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in the
+Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order.
+V. The Government's delay in bringing the charges did not violate due process
+Maxwell also renews her motion to dismiss the S2 indictment based on alleged improper
+pretrial delay. In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court denied Maxwell's motion,
+concluding that her efforts to show actual and substantial prejudice fell far short of the "stringent
+standard" necessary to prevail on such a claim. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *9. Maxwell's
+motion to dismiss the S2 on these grounds fails for the same reasons. As before, nothing in the
+record indicates that the Government's delay in bringing these charges was designed to thwart
+Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense. However, it is sufficient to conclude that Maxwell does
+not make the strong showing of prejudice required to support this sort of claim. Maxwell
+contends that the Government's delay in bringing charges has prejudiced her interests because
+potential witnesses have died, others have forgotten, and records have been lost or destroyed. It
+is highly speculative that any of these factors would make a substantial difference in her case.
+The Court thus again concludes for the reasons stated in the April 16, 2021 Opinion &
+Order, that Maxwell has failed to establish actual prejudice from the Government's delay in
+bringing charges. She may renew her motion if the factual record at trial shows otherwise. On
+the present record, neither the applicable statute of limitations nor due process bars the charges
+here.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 11 of 14
+VI. No bill of particulars is warranted
+Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars as to counts five and six. Federal Rule of
+Criminal Procedure 7 requires that an indictment contain "a plain, concise, and definite written
+statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[.J" The indictment must be
+specific enough to inform the defendant of the charges and allow the defendant to plead double
+jeopardy in a later prosecution based on the same events. See United States v. Stavroulakis, 952
+F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). "Under this test, an indictment need do little more than to track the
+language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged
+crime." United States. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975).
+"Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to seek a bill
+of particulars in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending
+against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose
+a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense." United
+States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). "The purpose of a bill of particulars is to
+supplement the allegations in the indictment when necessary to (1) enable the defendant to
+prepare his defense, (2) avoid unfair surprise to the defendant at trial, and (3) preclude a second
+prosecution of the same offense." United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 384 (S.D.N.Y.
+2010)). On the other hand, the Court must balance these interests against the harm to the
+Government from restricting its proof at trial. See United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09-cr-1184
+(RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010).
+In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that the
+Act counts in the indictment
+should be dismissed for lack of specificity or that, in the alternative, the Court should compel the
+Government to submit a bill of particulars providing greater detail of the charges. Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 12 of 14
+contended specifically that the indictment is too vague because it refers to open-ended time
+periods for the
+Act counts. The Court disagreed in light of Circuit precedent requiring
+only that an indictment describe the time and place of the charged conduct in "approximate
+terms" and permitting the use of "on or about" language to describe the window of when a
+violation occurred. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *10 (citing Tramunti, 513 F.2d at 1113;
+United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987)). The Court explained that
+approximate time periods are particularly appropriate if the allegations involved ongoing conduct
+and especially if the indictment alleges sexual abuse against minor victims. Id. (citing United
+States v. Young, No. 08-cr-285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008)).
+Maxwell now again moves for a bill of particulars. Maxwell primarily argues that the S2
+indictment does not provide specific dates for the conduct alleged with respect to the sex
+trafficking counts. Instead, the S2 indictment provides a four-year time period from 2001 to
+2004 in which the alleged sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy occurred. Maxwell's
+motion in this respect is denied for the same reasons stated in the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion
+& Order. The indictment alleges ongoing conduct that involve the sexual abuse of minors with
+respect to counts five and six and therefore the approximate time period provided is sufficient.
+Accordingly, the motion for a bill of particulars is denied.'
+VII. The current disclosure schedule for impeachment material is adequate
+Finally, Maxwell moves to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor Victim's
+prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell, including prior statements made to the
+' Additionally, Maxwell includes in her motion for a bill of particulars a request to require the
+government to identity the unnamed co-conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies
+charged in the S2 indictment. Maxwell also made this request in the parties' joint May 21, 2021 letter to
+the Court regarding the disclosure schedule. Dkt. No. 291. In both her motion and the May 21, 2021
+letter, Maxwell requests that this information be disclosed to the defense at the same time that the
+Government discloses Jencks Act material. The Government has not opposed this request. In the absence
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 13 of 14
+FBI. The Court has ordered the Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material by
+October 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. That date is seven weeks in advance of trial. The Court
+sees no reason to depart from the rule in this district that impeachment material of anticipated
+witnesses does not warrant an order compelling immediate disclosure. See United States v.
+Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016).
+Seven weeks in advance of trial is far more time than is standard in this district and no showing
+has been made that it will be insufficient for Maxwell to make effective use of the information in
+preparation of her defense.
+To the extent Maxwell argues that the Government is in possession of prior statements
+that are exculpatory under Brady (for example, if a witness denied Maxwell's involvement),
+rather than useful only for standard impeachment purposes, it is of course the Government's
+obligation to "disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes
+known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the
+preparation of its case." Dkt. 68 at 1. The context of questions and answers surely matters as to
+whether a statement (or omission) is exculpatory, impeaching, or neither. It is for the
+Government to make these assessments ex ante and fully meet its disclosure obligations so that
+the defense may make effective use of any such information in preparation for trial. See United
+States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government has repeatedly
+confirmed that it understands those obligations, and that it has met them and will continue to
+meet them. Accordingly, the motion to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor
+Victim-4's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell is denied.
+of objection, the Court presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the
+same time that as it discloses Jencks Act material.
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 14 of 14
+Conclusion
+For the reasons above and in this Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court
+DENIES Maxwell's motion to obtain relief specified in her supplemental pre-trial motions
+relating to the S2 indictment. This resolves Dkt. No. 292.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: August 13, 2021
+New York, New York
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+14
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfd55b338547f793527ed6098087a7f42b78cec27e8dc8321de5a451de701897.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfd55b338547f793527ed6098087a7f42b78cec27e8dc8321de5a451de701897.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88aad778cb20d785507d13d98d376eda362049b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfd55b338547f793527ed6098087a7f42b78cec27e8dc8321de5a451de701897.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -170,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "dfd55b338547f793527ed6098087a7f42b78cec27e8dc8321de5a451de701897",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c4c6b6476dec9219ebd7856672121a26bcbe0961be0c5808c63c12885f918ee9",
+  "output_sha256": "e899102757346109d162c3de51d0c12400bc416f4fdb9e9c6b256e7ec966c503",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfeae8ec11ab72b45c9c3b5404ee006a365bbfa948f028c30e106034eac289d6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfeae8ec11ab72b45c9c3b5404ee006a365bbfa948f028c30e106034eac289d6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..965a8f5b8a4ca10dce7545ccbe6d6c715a9b5f58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfeae8ec11ab72b45c9c3b5404ee006a365bbfa948f028c30e106034eac289d6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 585-1 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfeae8ec11ab72b45c9c3b5404ee006a365bbfa948f028c30e106034eac289d6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfeae8ec11ab72b45c9c3b5404ee006a365bbfa948f028c30e106034eac289d6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b8743d0f7649a68160d9e290b1c7e57715095a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/dfeae8ec11ab72b45c9c3b5404ee006a365bbfa948f028c30e106034eac289d6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "dfeae8ec11ab72b45c9c3b5404ee006a365bbfa948f028c30e106034eac289d6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a73cec192d83077f5018bd61545ac724082f9178890a530f8415ec54630627f7",
+  "output_sha256": "9b382fd1ee331f0883d94d2d49e06dbf24d6c0077c851a0ec8a04ca752e18aa2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e00b1ee86b85207dfa117497f53aa9152db30bd21a0af7c6ba3fc22f7aeaefe3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e00b1ee86b85207dfa117497f53aa9152db30bd21a0af7c6ba3fc22f7aeaefe3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b7935c3479d46d448ceadaefc181e902856bbfd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e00b1ee86b85207dfa117497f53aa9152db30bd21a0af7c6ba3fc22f7aeaefe3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 727-4 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e00b1ee86b85207dfa117497f53aa9152db30bd21a0af7c6ba3fc22f7aeaefe3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e00b1ee86b85207dfa117497f53aa9152db30bd21a0af7c6ba3fc22f7aeaefe3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ceca59c1d3523d100fdaaaaf0ad674eddeae1bb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e00b1ee86b85207dfa117497f53aa9152db30bd21a0af7c6ba3fc22f7aeaefe3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e00b1ee86b85207dfa117497f53aa9152db30bd21a0af7c6ba3fc22f7aeaefe3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5e381e6550d6471c4a81c2346ec196e9006ebf37e7aea11edd19b726267a079a",
+  "output_sha256": "27be17af29d99f22fe4ea9329e8447f6279e747df15f7e1cbac141ea32208132",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e012ced70f9aaac128b110a19223510b8b9ff15f78cca7f4072d656d9c6af14d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e012ced70f9aaac128b110a19223510b8b9ff15f78cca7f4072d656d9c6af14d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27b77b286e77966cef162d9ed6a1f3be808dba5f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e012ced70f9aaac128b110a19223510b8b9ff15f78cca7f4072d656d9c6af14d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 521-1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e012ced70f9aaac128b110a19223510b8b9ff15f78cca7f4072d656d9c6af14d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e012ced70f9aaac128b110a19223510b8b9ff15f78cca7f4072d656d9c6af14d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2300f029f0718f9916dd47e7bad85762caf9c773
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e012ced70f9aaac128b110a19223510b8b9ff15f78cca7f4072d656d9c6af14d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e012ced70f9aaac128b110a19223510b8b9ff15f78cca7f4072d656d9c6af14d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fa15866611b82d2d595724e0dc1b7f6cbf434a506945aac4f568b519dfd40434",
+  "output_sha256": "91379b7ec69221bc4e5de98b7ef660528b01c8fddc4078c16e3463a23c98909d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e03948388949c93ad19b8021d99315bd069acdc115b205a0981e49f3b9d717e3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e03948388949c93ad19b8021d99315bd069acdc115b205a0981e49f3b9d717e3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e478c8deca8fad73606a0c73623babfaea18962e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e03948388949c93ad19b8021d99315bd069acdc115b205a0981e49f3b9d717e3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 901 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF MEREDITH
+IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFE'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO ENFORCE
+COURT'S MARCH 22, 2017 ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 37 (b)(2)(A)(vii)
+AND FOR OTHER EXPEDITED RELIEF AT DEFENDANT'S THIRD DEPOSITION
+ON MAY 11, 2017
+declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+1, Meredith
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Counsel with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Order
+to Show Cause and to Enforce Court's March 22, 2017 Order Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 37
+(b)(2)(A)(vii) And for Other Expedited Relief at Defendant's Third Deposition On May 11,
+2017.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 901 Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 3
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Meredith
+Meredith
+Esq.
+Dated: May 5, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+] (Pro Hac Vice)
+, JAFFE, WEISSING,
+, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202'
+This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 901 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of May, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+,, Esq.
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e03948388949c93ad19b8021d99315bd069acdc115b205a0981e49f3b9d717e3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e03948388949c93ad19b8021d99315bd069acdc115b205a0981e49f3b9d717e3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..557ddaba439728248e760371d78e67423d808d87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e03948388949c93ad19b8021d99315bd069acdc115b205a0981e49f3b9d717e3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e03948388949c93ad19b8021d99315bd069acdc115b205a0981e49f3b9d717e3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b9af58e12f76208e507bc44c29902076d722baab7adff3fff0d5f1d25489e7d9",
+  "output_sha256": "46d14144c7acb9ec14653ceb2208239c343c274ac20d7fb1364238df02074699",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e04058f8074d8ad9ada19a8e433a0890ccac7901c5a327a3ecca83ca710bc620.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e04058f8074d8ad9ada19a8e433a0890ccac7901c5a327a3ecca83ca710bc620.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd465a8578610dad7d161b42210a01c49a216621
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e04058f8074d8ad9ada19a8e433a0890ccac7901c5a327a3ecca83ca710bc620.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 975
+Filed 07/15/19
+
+RANDAZZA
+LEGAL GROUP
+Jay Marshall Wolmai
+Licensed in CT
+INY, DC
+: 11,2019
+Via CM/ECE
+The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+500 Peari Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+"DOMENT
+v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-Cv-7433
+Request to be Excused from July 25 Conference (Doc. No. 973)
+Dear Judge Preska,
+T have the privilege of representing Intervenor Michael Cernovich d/a Cernovich Media.
+On July 9, 2019
+rena live 0, he for he Cou asuad arom the Us duin of perent to econd Circuit
+Yesterday, Your Honor allowed the letter-motion of Defendant Maxwell to adjourn the
+Conference. Dkt. No. 973. In so doing, Your Honor rescheduled the Conference for July
+25, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.
+I am unavailable on July 25 due to travel and will likely not even have telephone access at
+that time. Rather than further delay the process toward unsealing the remainder of the
+record, 1 request to be excused from participating in the Conference.
+Counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant, and Intervenors Miami Herald,
+do not oppose the request to be excused.
+and Dershowitz
+Thank you.
+Granted
+40 ORDERES
+Sincerely,
+PRESKA
+DALIÃO SIATES DISTRICT JUBOE
+7/15/19
+Counsel for Intervenor Michael Cernovich
+100 Pearl Street, 14'h Floor, Hartford, Connecticut 06103
+jmw@randazza.com | 702.420.2001
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e04058f8074d8ad9ada19a8e433a0890ccac7901c5a327a3ecca83ca710bc620.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e04058f8074d8ad9ada19a8e433a0890ccac7901c5a327a3ecca83ca710bc620.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb3649a334fcb873ee9f7170cf8c921f4b475573
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e04058f8074d8ad9ada19a8e433a0890ccac7901c5a327a3ecca83ca710bc620.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e04058f8074d8ad9ada19a8e433a0890ccac7901c5a327a3ecca83ca710bc620",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fc178bf55f27dcc0167f71937aca212cf026aada2c579789cb8048a936e7d093",
+  "output_sha256": "e6fc57edbe3d65497602fbaee7313927d34941cd63eae1cb121ac33f6bf59c8e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e076737f7309f5c8f56856a78ed7870aa64e31ec352caf13770575a0672cc952.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e076737f7309f5c8f56856a78ed7870aa64e31ec352caf13770575a0672cc952.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac177933724e64b46adc4bb190491fd6c4f260a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e076737f7309f5c8f56856a78ed7870aa64e31ec352caf13770575a0672cc952.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 346-2 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e076737f7309f5c8f56856a78ed7870aa64e31ec352caf13770575a0672cc952.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e076737f7309f5c8f56856a78ed7870aa64e31ec352caf13770575a0672cc952.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f9918515391031be316ad12aef168283c7bdba7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e076737f7309f5c8f56856a78ed7870aa64e31ec352caf13770575a0672cc952.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e076737f7309f5c8f56856a78ed7870aa64e31ec352caf13770575a0672cc952",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a9f47ca1f4aad85831c1d3c08e0d2f03f9f6836031615acaef4de3454f82aa62",
+  "output_sha256": "d3588b47bf850d003ebc6d00543dfe3efc61aa9351eddd31d4a941bbb910df90",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e08577ffc22896153463b1bf4c6d6ba67164fc8f4c13044c005fd927488e4a42.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e08577ffc22896153463b1bf4c6d6ba67164fc8f4c13044c005fd927488e4a42.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a67620f620fb4cd8527ecf21393778d5ffb18376
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e08577ffc22896153463b1bf4c6d6ba67164fc8f4c13044c005fd927488e4a42.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 501-1
+Filed 11/24/21 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---
+- —
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+- V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+[PROPOSED]
+PROTECTIVE ORDER
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+--
+- -
+ALISON J. NATHAN, United States District Judge:
+WHEREAS the Court has ordered production of materials
+from the Epstein Victims' Compensation Fund to the Court
+pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c) (the "Rule 17 Materials")
+(see Dkt. No. 496);
+WHEREAS those materials are likely to contain
+information that would (i) affect the privacy and
+confidentiality of individuals, (ii) would risk prejudicial
+pretrial publicity if publicly disseminated, and (iii) are not
+authorized to be disclosed to the public or disclosed beyond
+that which is necessary for the trial in this action;
+WHEREAS the Court has directed the parties to
+negotiate and submit a proposed protective order;
+IT HEREBY IS ORDERED:
+1. Any and all Rule 17 Materials disclosed to the
+Government, the defendant ("Defendant"), and/or to the
+defendant's criminal defense attorneys ("Defense Counsel," and
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 501-1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 2 of 2
+collectively with the Government, "the Parties") shall be
+treated as "Confidential Information" within the meaning of the
+Protective Order (Dkt. No. 36 I 7) and shall be subject to the
+provisions thereot.
+2.
+At the discretion of the Court, the Court may
+designate certain materials as "Highly Confidential" within the
+meaning of the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 36 I 11) and subject
+to the provisions thereof.
+SO ORDERED:
+Dated:
+New York, New York
+November
+• 2021
+HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e08577ffc22896153463b1bf4c6d6ba67164fc8f4c13044c005fd927488e4a42.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e08577ffc22896153463b1bf4c6d6ba67164fc8f4c13044c005fd927488e4a42.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d90d1e2c503908f72c4692dda2881281d7fefde
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e08577ffc22896153463b1bf4c6d6ba67164fc8f4c13044c005fd927488e4a42.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e08577ffc22896153463b1bf4c6d6ba67164fc8f4c13044c005fd927488e4a42",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d48cfbdd6e5d7baa9aa8f39b1fea74ecdec45fbcf61cb412d9e146ef0b43c35c",
+  "output_sha256": "5cb347baeac3adfa5b39d25a49c229854238966645eefcb083b052b87d576909",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e09b77ef6196ee416c32ee9e3530eb6115f9ef791b02511cdf229b26b9a972e3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e09b77ef6196ee416c32ee9e3530eb6115f9ef791b02511cdf229b26b9a972e3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e0a688a5d55234e9a935306c9bc047ae808aff5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e09b77ef6196ee416c32ee9e3530eb6115f9ef791b02511cdf229b26b9a972e3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,720 @@
+COURTOAHIB2O#Cr-00330-PAE Document 638 (
+DATE:
+3/8/22
+TIME:
+CASE: 20c330, US v. Maxmell
+Posst-verdict hearing
+
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUN
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 3/9/22
+PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS
+Please read the following instructions carefully before completing any portion of this
+questionnaire. Please print your juror number in the space provided at the top of each page.
+Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Please answer each and every question fully.
+Some questions have more than one part.
+YOU ARE SWORN TO GIVE TRUE AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL
+QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. This questionnaire is designed to help simplify
+and shorten the jury selection process. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine
+whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented
+at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge. The questions are not intended
+to inquire unnecessarily into personal matters. Although some of the questions may appear to
+be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough
+information about each juror's background and experiences to select a fair and impartial jury.
+Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer to a
+question then write, "I don't know." There are no "right" or "wrong" answers, only truthful
+answers. If you have strong feelings about this case in general, please do not hesitate to share
+them. Although you may be a perfectly good juror in another case, this may or may not be the
+right case for you to sit on as an impartial juror. Both parties have the right to get honest
+answers and to hear your true opinions. Do not discuss the case or your answers with anyone.
+It is important that the answers be yours alone. Remember, you are sworn to give true and
+complete answers to all questions.
+If you need extra space to answer any question, please use the extra blank sheets of paper
+included at the end of the questionnaire. Be sure to indicate on the blank page the number of
+the question you are answering. Do not write anything on the back of any page.
+DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR THE CASE WITH
+ANYONE, NOW OR UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT. You should
+not discuss the questions or answers with fellow jurors. It is very important that your answers
+be your own individual answers. More broadly, do not discuss the case with anyone, including
+the lawyers (except in the presence of the Court), your tellow jurors, your tamily, your friends,
+or anyone else. Do not communicate about the case in any way, including telephone, e-mail,
+any social media app or website (such as Facebook), any communications app or website (such
+as Twitter). You must also avoid reading or hearing about the case (or anyone participating in
+the case) in newspapers, in magazines, on the radio or television, or on the Internet.
+DO NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE CASE. Do not conduct any research
+into the case (or anyone participating in the case) at any time before your entire jury service
+has been completed. That includes performing Internet searches, asking other people about
+the case, reading news stories, books, or reports about the case, or watching films or television
+programs that relate to the case. Do not read, watch, or listen to any information about this
+case.
+-3-
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 29
+Turor ID: 50
+Your name will not be disclosed or connected to this questionnaire beyond the Judge and the
+parties in this case. However, if you believe that any of your answers contain private
+information that could embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy and
+vish to request that the Court keep them confidential and not distribute them beyond the Judg
+and parties, please indicate the particular question number at the end of the questionnaire
+SUMMARY OF THE CASE
+The Court is selecting a jury for a trial commencing on Monday, November 29, 2021.
+Although it is never possible to predict the length of a trial, currently this trial is expected
+to last approximately six weeks.
+This is a criminal case. The Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been charged in an Indictment
+with various criminal offenses. The Indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the
+charges—referred to as "counts"-that the Government intends to prove to the jury at trial
+beyond a reasonable doubt.
+The charges in the Indictment stem from allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004, the
+Defendant conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to
+engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity,
+and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor.
+The Indictment charges the Defendant in 6 counts: Count One of the Indictment charges the
+Defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage
+in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Two
+charges the Defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a
+person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Three
+charges the Defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to engage
+in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Four
+charges the Defendant with transporting a minor to engage in sexual activity for which a person
+can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Five charges
+the Defendant with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy. Count Six charges the
+Defendant with sex trafficking of a minor, and aiding and abetting the same.
+Ms. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before
+she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each
+element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 638 Filed 03/09/22
+
+SCHEDULE
+Potential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from
+Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability
+during that week will be required.
+The trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last
+about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday,
+from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021
+(Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve).
+If you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and
+evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means
+you will go home every day after court.
+All jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on
+-5-
+
+
+
+1.
+la.
+PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
+ABILITY TO SERVE
+Please note: In the event you are excused from service on this jury, you will likely
+ot be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report
+le Court's Jury Clerk for placement on another panel for another cas
+Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and
+November 19, 2021, which is when jury selection will take place?
+XNo
+If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names
+who you aily members or friends, or other personal information that might identify
+2.
+2a.
+Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and
+approximately January 15, 2022, which is the estimated length for trial?
+No
+If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names
+of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify
+who you are):
+4.
+4a.
+Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021?
+No
+Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail
+serious hardship or extreme inconvenience?
+No
+If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience:
+-6-
+
+
+
+ini
+5a.
+Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get
+to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.?
+(Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the
+Courthouse each day for selected jurors).
+XNO
+If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or
+remain until 5:00 p.m.:
+6.
+Ta.
+Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English?
+ENO
+Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you
+unabinto seye on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or
+* No
+If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve
+as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the
+accommodation.
+8.
+8a.
+Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention
+to all the evidence at this trial?
+-7-
+
+
+
+9.
+Do you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you
+unable to render a verdict in a criminal case?
+9a.
+10.
+BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDIA RESTRICTIONS
+Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Judge to
+determine. You are required to accept the law as the Judge explains it to you even if
+you do not like the law or disagree with it, and you must determine the facts
+according to those instructions. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to
+follow the Judge's instructions if selected to serve on this jury?
+X Yes.
+• No
+10a.
+If no, please explain:
+11.
+The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent at all
+stages of the trial and is not required to put on any defense at all. The Government
+is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge.
+Do you accept these principles, and will you be able to apply them if selected to
+serve on this jury?
+XYes
+• No
+11a.
+If no, please explain:
+-8-
+
+
+
+12.
+The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to
+estify, Do that a jeror can pot cople, and it the be able to apply it if selected
+and will you be able to apply it if selected t
+• No
+12a.
+If no, please explain:
+13.
+A juror is required by law to make his or her decision based solely on the evidence
+Xxes
+• No
+13a.
+If no, please explain:
+14.
+* Yes
+• No
+14a.
+If no, please explain:
+-9-
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 8 of 29
+15.
+You may hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain
+evidence from searches. The Court will instruct you that those searches were legal
+and that the evidence obtained from those searches is admissible in this case. Do
+*No
+15a.
+16.
+You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have you had any
+experiences with experts, or do you have any general feelings about the use of
+experts, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?
+/No
+16a.
+17.
+As instructed above, from now and until your jury service is complete, you are
+instructed to avoid all media coverage and not to go on the Internet with regard to
+s, you are forbidden from consuming any new
+Do you have any reservations or concerns about your ability or willingness to
+follow this instruction?
+ANO
+-10-
+
+
+
+17a.
+18.
+19.
+PRIOR JURY SERVICE
+Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court?
+XNO
+Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in federal,
+state, county, or city court?
+• Yes-
+*NO
+20.
+20a.
+20b.
+EXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, DEFENDANT, OR CRIME VICTIM
+Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal
+court case, whether criminal or civil, as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant?
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+X NO
+If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as
+a fair and impartial juror in this case?
+• No
+If yes to 20a, please explain:
+21.
+27222
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+-11-
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE l
+
+21a.
+216.
+f yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting a
+fair and impartial juror in this case
+• No
+If yes to 2la, please explain:
+22.
+22a.
+22b.
+Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry
+or investigation?
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+ANO
+If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as
+a fair and impartial juror in this case?
+• No
+If yes to 22a, please explain:
+23.
+23a.
+23b.
+Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a
+crime?
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+XNO
+'yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting a
+fair and impartial juror in this cast
+• No
+If yes to 23a, please explain:
+-12-
+
+
+
+24.
+24a.
+24b.
+50
+Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been the subject of any
+investigation or accusation by any grand jury, state or federal, or any other
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+* No
+Eyes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting a
+fair and impartial juror in this case
+• No
+If yes to 24a, please explain:
+25.
+25a.
+25b.
+Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+XNO
+If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as
+a fair and impartial juror in this case?'
+• No
+If yes to 25a, please explain:
+26.
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+-13-
+
+
+
+26a.
+26b.
+f yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting a
+fair and impartial juror in this case'
+• No
+If yes to 26a, please explain:
+27.
+27a.
+27b.
+Tave you, or has any member of your family, ever had a dispute concerning mones
+wed to you by the Government or owed by you to the Government?
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+No
+If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as
+a fair and impartial juror in this case?
+• No
+If yes to 27a, please explain:
+RELATIONSHIP WITH, AND VIEW OF, GOVERNMENT, DEFENSE, AND
+OTHERS
+28.
+X No
+28a.
+-14-
+
+
+
+28b.
+28c.
+If yes to 28, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in
+this case?
+If yes to 28b, please explain:
+• No
+29.
+29a.
+Do you know or have any association—professional, business, or social, direct or
+indirect—with any member of the staff of the United States Attorney's Office for
+he Southern District of New York'
+XNo
+29b.
+29c.
+If yes to 29, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in
+this case?
+If yes to 29b, please explain:
+• No
+30.
+30a.
+Do you know or have any association—-professional, business, or social, direct or
+indirect—with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, commonly known as the FBI?
+XNo
+-15-
+
+
+
+30b.
+30c.
+50
+If yes to 30, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in
+this case?
+If yes to 30b, please explain:
+• No
+31.
+3la.
+Do you know or have any association professional, business, or social, direct or
+indirect—-with the New York City Police Department, commonly known as the
+NYPD?
+XNo
+31b.
+31c.
+If yes to 31, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in
+this case?
+If yes to 31b, please explain:
+• No
+32.
+Now Work the U.S. Atorney Danian i, Orce forter Action..
+,, or the former Acting U.S. Attorney
+Audrey Strauss that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in
+this case?
+XNO
+-16-
+
+
+
+32a.
+33.
+33a.
+33b.
+33c.
+33d.
+PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CASE PARTICIPANTS
+The next subset of questions asks whether you or any member of your family or a
+close friend personally knows or has past or present dealings with individuals
+involved in this case. To "personally know" means to have some direct or personal
+knowledge or connection to the following individuals. If you have only heard the
+names through media or social media, for example, that is not personal knowledge.
+Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or
+have past or present dealings with the Defendant in this case, Ghislaine Maxwell, or
+her family members?
+ANO
+Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or
+have past or present dealings with Jeffrey Epstein?
+- Yes
+No
+Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or
+lave past or present dealings with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District o
+Jew York, Damian I
+the former Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern
+District of New York, Audrey Strauss, or anyone else who works for or used to
+work for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York?
+X No
+Do pat doesny menings or bur or the bian ite State Atomeys who
+are prosecuting this case:
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+ANO
+* No
+X NO
+ANO
+-17-
+
+
+
+33e.
+33f.
+Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or
+have past or present dealings with any of the defense attorneys or law firms who are
+representing the Defendant:
+Christian Everdell of
+& Gresser LLP
+• Yes ¿
+X No
+. Jeffrey Pagliuca of Haddon,
+and
+P.C. o Yes * No
+Laura Menninger of Haddon,
+and
+1P.C. o Yes X No
+Bobbi Sternheim of Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim • Yes XNo
+Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or
+or anyone who works on her stati
+33g.
+If you answered "yes" to any of the above sub-questions (33a, 33b, 33c, 33d, 33e,
+or 33f), please explain whom you know, how you know the individual(s), and
+whether your relationship with that person might make it difficult for you to be a
+fair and impartial juror in this case:
+-18-
+
+
+
+KNOWLEDGE OF CASE AND PEOPLE
+34.
+34a.
+Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about Ms. Maxwell?
+X Yes
+• No
+• Unsure
+If yes or unsure, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom
+you may have heard (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website, social media). If you
+heard about Ms. Maxwell from a media source, please identify the media source b
+name:
+I read on a website
+nat she was
+Jeffrey Epsteins girlfriend - Source was
+CNN. com
+35.
+35a.
+Have you personally formed an opinion about Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence of
+the crimes charged as a result of anything you have heard, read or seen?
+XNo
+o Unsure
+• Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell
+If yes or unsure, please summarize your opinion:
+-19-
+
+
+
+50
+36.
+Зба.
+Based on anything that you have read, seen, or heard about Ms. Maxwell, including
+anything about criminal charges against Ms. Maxwell, have you formed any
+opinions about Ms. Maxwell that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and
+impartial juror in this case?
+XNO
+o Unsure
+• Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell
+f yes or unsure, please explain why it might be difficult for you to be a fair an
+mpartial juror in this case:
+37.
+37a.
+Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about Jeffrey Epstein?
+XYes
+• No
+o Unsure
+If yes or unsure, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom
+you may have heard (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website, social media). If you
+heard about Mir. Epstein from a media source, please identify the media source by
+name:
+CNNis source. Heard about his death
+and that he was in jail awaiting triat
+38.
+38a.
+Have you verbally stated or posted your opinion on social media or online about
+Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein?
+• Yes ANo
+• Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Mr. Epstein/Ms. Maxwell
+If yes, when and where did you state or post your opinion?
+-20-
+
+
+
+39.
+39a.
+ased on anything that you have read, seen, or heard about Jeffrey Epstein, hav
+be a fairand impial ror int is captein that might make it diffcult for you to
+XNO
+• Unsure
+• Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Mr. Epstein
+I pas or usuri please explain why it might be dificut for you to be a fair and
+40.
+40a.
+If you have heard about Jeffrey Epstein, do you think Ms. Maxwell's alleged
+association with Jeffrey Epstein will make it difficult for you to fairly and
+impartially consider the evidence presented at trial and render a verdict based solely
+on the evidence?
+XNO
+• Unsure
+• Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell and/or
+Jeffrey Epstein
+If yes or unsure, please explain:
+41.
+• No
+o Unsure
+• Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell
+-21-
+
+
+
+41a.
+If no or unsure, please explain:
+42.
+NATURE OF CHARGES
+Some the ali dou il his casino alien sex rime eins reage girs.
+explicit conduct. Is there anything about the nature of this case and the accusations
+as summarized at the beginning of this questionnaire that might make it difficult for
+you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
+- Yes
+A No
+42a.
+43.
+43a.
+Do you have any specific views or feelings concerning laws regarding the age at
+which individuals can or cannot consent to sexual activity with other individuals
+that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror?
+XNo
+44.
+Do you have any opinion about the enforcement of the federal sex trafficking laws
+or the federal laws concerning sex crimes against minors that might prevent yo
+rom being fair and impartial in this case?
+X No
+-22-
+
+
+
+44a.
+45.
+45a.
+Have you or a family member ever supported, lobbied, petitioned, protested, or
+vorked in any other manner for or against any laws, regulations, or organization
+elating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexua
+harassment?
+X NO
+If yes, please explain when and what you or your family member did:
+45b.
+45c.
+If your answer to 45 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to
+serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?
+• No
+If yes to 45b, please explain:
+46.
+The witnesses in this case may include law enforcement witnesses. Would you have
+any difficulty assessing the credibility of a law enforcement officer just like you
+XNO
+46a.
+-23-
+
+
+
+47.
+Witnesses in this case may testify claiming sexual abuse or sexual assault. Would
+you have any difficulty assessing the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault
+or abuse just like you would any other witness?
+XNO
+47a.
+48.
+48a.
+Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment,
+sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or
+other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor,
+teacher, or family member.)
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+XNO
+If yes, without listing names, please explain:
+48b.
+48c.
+If your answer to 48 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to
+serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?
+• No
+If yes to 48b, please explain:
+-24-
+
+
+
+49.
+49a.
+Have you or a friend or family member ever been accused of sexual harassment,
+exual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes both formal accusations in a court of
+aw or informal accusations in a social or work setting of actual or attempted sexua
+assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance,
+supervisor, teacher, or family member.).
+• Yes (self)
+• Yes (friend or family member)
+X NO
+If yes, without listing names, please explain:
+49b.
+49c.
+If your answer to 49 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to
+serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?
+• No
+If yes to 49b, please explain:
+50.
+Is there any other experience that you or anyone close to you has had that may
+affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?
+XNo
+50a.
+-25-
+
+
+
+50
+51.
+CLOSING QUESTION
+the Judge, counsel, and the Defendan, because the answer would to norass you d
+otherwise seriously compromise your privacy.
+XNO
+If yes, please list which question number(s):
+-26-
+
+
+
+DECLARATION
+I, Juror Number SU
+declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers set forth in
+this used me tonnais at te an, or recite the bitance my compiledg the guestio have not
+Signed this 4th day of November, 2021
+DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME. PLEASE SIGN USING YOUR JUROR NUMBER.
+-27-
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 638 l
+
+You may use these pages to finish any answers that you could not fit in the spaces
+provided above. If you write anything below, please indicate the number of the relevant
+question.
+-28-
+
+
+
+50
+-29-
+
+
+
+50
+-30-
+
+
+
+-31-
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e09b77ef6196ee416c32ee9e3530eb6115f9ef791b02511cdf229b26b9a972e3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e09b77ef6196ee416c32ee9e3530eb6115f9ef791b02511cdf229b26b9a972e3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..960e1389a80ac5ac5853fd297727225cc434535c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e09b77ef6196ee416c32ee9e3530eb6115f9ef791b02511cdf229b26b9a972e3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -3070,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e09b77ef6196ee416c32ee9e3530eb6115f9ef791b02511cdf229b26b9a972e3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 58,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"builtin.duplicate-list-marker\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "5570e26d1b0fbfd7506f0b00f8e5a087270a9b14a5c7a8e6e1ea4cea68c0b216",
+  "output_sha256": "e87fadf74019e3e6ccc7e5cf22393478b87ad109794b055797ae04df3a2cac76",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e0a92fb4fbf46924c155817535f05b97ba5df0acdf662aff659ea9a8b2482520.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e0a92fb4fbf46924c155817535f05b97ba5df0acdf662aff659ea9a8b2482520.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d492c6b6dfc9c07a3bb158112ff7833bdbfb76a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e0a92fb4fbf46924c155817535f05b97ba5df0acdf662aff659ea9a8b2482520.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 467-1 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 1
+COMPOSITE
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e0a92fb4fbf46924c155817535f05b97ba5df0acdf662aff659ea9a8b2482520.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e0a92fb4fbf46924c155817535f05b97ba5df0acdf662aff659ea9a8b2482520.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b69beaf3a69d1737328c292161d2e602f29bf5b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e0a92fb4fbf46924c155817535f05b97ba5df0acdf662aff659ea9a8b2482520.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e0a92fb4fbf46924c155817535f05b97ba5df0acdf662aff659ea9a8b2482520",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3896e8a5228fe6d128327e74d2d01b25ad1111b95a658a3643b34d0122537a16",
+  "output_sha256": "bbb5e7412711d9e3e1e6f87623c5785cace9b9a5004c7ad5801cbb3f19c23a31",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e12e1530782c444d38884ad0b4652e3b851bf472dfbdf36711c3894c1f1cb80a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e12e1530782c444d38884ad0b4652e3b851bf472dfbdf36711c3894c1f1cb80a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0f25782029d1cd8c3484d46cd24375a7ca6b3ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e12e1530782c444d38884ad0b4652e3b851bf472dfbdf36711c3894c1f1cb80a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 514-1 Filed 12/16/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e12e1530782c444d38884ad0b4652e3b851bf472dfbdf36711c3894c1f1cb80a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e12e1530782c444d38884ad0b4652e3b851bf472dfbdf36711c3894c1f1cb80a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..648f53a41bb16a87bd11b882108f9eda295b28b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e12e1530782c444d38884ad0b4652e3b851bf472dfbdf36711c3894c1f1cb80a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e12e1530782c444d38884ad0b4652e3b851bf472dfbdf36711c3894c1f1cb80a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ac0c51db27b4429e08c6b358834f8ce7cd9ad1e681ef94bfaa8e6fe56810c50d",
+  "output_sha256": "61b5f4d108779a7dc2430a1aae3aa7bccf508b0c6e3129d42764a8d548cda32a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1305f9e07a893c4301af151fee0571bfe0dee11449fdd77f9a8081b2f81e102.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1305f9e07a893c4301af151fee0571bfe0dee11449fdd77f9a8081b2f81e102.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a453d2f05e67492da4f8dce27372e6f22978476
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1305f9e07a893c4301af151fee0571bfe0dee11449fdd77f9a8081b2f81e102.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+AUG-08-2016 EASe OF:PE.PV-04499: FABEMAocument 349 FAk&03939726015 page 1 of 2
+P. 02/03
+HADDON
+MORGAN
+FOREMAN
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+Haddon,
+and
+ELECTRONICALLY FILEDOleys. Pailuca
+DOC#:
+150 cast lom Avenue
+Denver. Colorado 80203
+DATE FILED:
+8/63303.7264 0 00003.2628
+wwwww.hmfiow.com
+lmenninger@hmflaw.com
+August 8, 2016
+Yia Facsimile (212) 805-7925
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+United States District Judge
+United States District Court
+Daniel
+Moynihan Courthouse
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street, Room 1940
+New York, New York 10007-1312
+Re:
+1v. Maxwell, 15-CV-07433-RWS
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+)ECEIVE
+AUG 092016 || L
+JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
+The Protective Order states:
+Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (Doc. # 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. The Response
+and exhibits attached to the Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca contain content
+designated as Confidential by the parties pursuant to the Protective Order.
+Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to file the Response and exhibits under
+seal.
+
+
+AUG-08-2016
+09:P3.PV-044894 FABEMABocument 349 FAll& 03939328015 page 2 of 2
+P. 03/03
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+August 8, 2016
+Page 2
+Sincerely,
+HADDON,
+AND
+I, P.C.
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on August 8, 2016, I electronically served this LETTER MOTION
+via ELECTRONIC MAIL on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+mccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+,, JAFFE, WEISSING,
+South Salem, NY 10590
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+FL. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1305f9e07a893c4301af151fee0571bfe0dee11449fdd77f9a8081b2f81e102.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1305f9e07a893c4301af151fee0571bfe0dee11449fdd77f9a8081b2f81e102.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d66c7f3a2570b9b934362127f0ae33e995c58d2a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1305f9e07a893c4301af151fee0571bfe0dee11449fdd77f9a8081b2f81e102.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e1305f9e07a893c4301af151fee0571bfe0dee11449fdd77f9a8081b2f81e102",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4bc0d6c21bd278c248d37ce44afeeffb88682e27b3cb582dca1ebada98b73ebe",
+  "output_sha256": "bfffda86b0bfd38d5606290225abc71b7245a0c622a743035823fa7df55530c2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e13999f4b206b87d8b8ad1f95598e513dcebf51f70b92c0ffd89abe276c18bc0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e13999f4b206b87d8b8ad1f95598e513dcebf51f70b92c0ffd89abe276c18bc0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9479f66a4aa35b275b5945b152f30a55489a4b3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e13999f4b206b87d8b8ad1f95598e513dcebf51f70b92c0ffd89abe276c18bc0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 417 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 1
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+40| EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE |200 • FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 3330I-22|1 • PH. 954.356.00|| • FAX 954.356.0022
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+September 6, 2016
+Via CM/ECE
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+* v. Maxwell
+Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Dear Judge Sweet,
+This is a letter motion to exceed the page limits with
+Renly in Support of
+her Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Financial Information.
+had previnusly
+understood that submission of the same document (the responses and objections to
+discovery requests) by opposing counsel as an attachment satisfied the Local Rules; however
+opposing counsel is taking the position that the document itself must actually be included in
+¡ briefing papers. Therefore,
+is incorporating the document into her reply
+brief as an addendum and, accordingly, must move to exceed page limits.
+respectfully requests to exceed the page limit by 8 pages.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+SSM:dk
+WWW.BSFLLP.COM
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e13999f4b206b87d8b8ad1f95598e513dcebf51f70b92c0ffd89abe276c18bc0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e13999f4b206b87d8b8ad1f95598e513dcebf51f70b92c0ffd89abe276c18bc0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d6eb04e8333464081b9f9e97a90d3150d19e244
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e13999f4b206b87d8b8ad1f95598e513dcebf51f70b92c0ffd89abe276c18bc0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e13999f4b206b87d8b8ad1f95598e513dcebf51f70b92c0ffd89abe276c18bc0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7a19ad7d5fd63d93137ac2b9c8f92664ce5147d25468625c8bc41700c71798d4",
+  "output_sha256": "da064ffde64ffa29c54b34da304b6a4591653e8848499b4625bf9cb443bf6966",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1422021b5070d91f1ac1032807dab4961cdb07bf283e58d664bd1c3c8d9f144.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1422021b5070d91f1ac1032807dab4961cdb07bf283e58d664bd1c3c8d9f144.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82aac1290f46edbe664dc1270125d45cd5cb0429
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1422021b5070d91f1ac1032807dab4961cdb07bf283e58d664bd1c3c8d9f144.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 680
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's Motion In Limine
+to Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source.
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+, P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of her Motion in Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a
+Suspect Source.
+2.
+Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of I
+3.
+Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 680 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 3
+4.
+Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of •
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Executed on March 3, 2017
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 680 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 3, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In
+Support Of Defendant's Motion In Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from
+a Suspect Source via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Pt. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1422021b5070d91f1ac1032807dab4961cdb07bf283e58d664bd1c3c8d9f144.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1422021b5070d91f1ac1032807dab4961cdb07bf283e58d664bd1c3c8d9f144.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd81b5a8b89c22d52247efe2d54cbd8a5d3f61ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1422021b5070d91f1ac1032807dab4961cdb07bf283e58d664bd1c3c8d9f144.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e1422021b5070d91f1ac1032807dab4961cdb07bf283e58d664bd1c3c8d9f144",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "51ca72f411831527ed7174cbe1612b12e364e8cb3b43bf263a3a45cfb45ebe01",
+  "output_sha256": "645e3611c56e5ae0f1ff94ec3e2680674e564a2e7c01f19e5f2893545644ab3e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1506eb05510be5f859c2887651248f1a7ef16db2a69fd9564a292d2242f52b3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1506eb05510be5f859c2887651248f1a7ef16db2a69fd9564a292d2242f52b3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6272139208784d06e1f39a270748026c5a8940d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1506eb05510be5f859c2887651248f1a7ef16db2a69fd9564a292d2242f52b3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 288
+Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 2
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+May 20, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated
+May 17, 2021, which directed the Government to confer with defense counsel and submit proposed
+redactions to Exhibit C to the defendant's memorandum in support of her supplemental pre-trial
+motions. (Dkt. No. 284).
+The Government seeks redactions that are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests
+of victims and third parties referenced in the document. These proposed redactions are consistent
+with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
+435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Today the Government is submitting to the Court by email its
+proposed redactions to Exhibit C, which the Government respectfully requests be filed under seal.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 288 |
+Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 2
+Page 2
+The Government has conferred with defense counsel in accordance with the Order. The
+defense has indicated that it has no objection to the Government's proposed redactions to Exhibit
+C.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+By:sl
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense counsel (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1506eb05510be5f859c2887651248f1a7ef16db2a69fd9564a292d2242f52b3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1506eb05510be5f859c2887651248f1a7ef16db2a69fd9564a292d2242f52b3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2838eb7e39464c39e2023e0e542d49b963371ee8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1506eb05510be5f859c2887651248f1a7ef16db2a69fd9564a292d2242f52b3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e1506eb05510be5f859c2887651248f1a7ef16db2a69fd9564a292d2242f52b3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a12391658ee80dda4569928069999989fc44c3711d562fa189c7a1e7423e0a59",
+  "output_sha256": "74daafa75d8f75eed82f52b5f2f9c78b1f1454bcc40ec646d9cb3c161d3d3287",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e157ec06d7f68e427b15bf5a59834d00d3a3b50c268e87d77c4c23acb7ddd24b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e157ec06d7f68e427b15bf5a59834d00d3a3b50c268e87d77c4c23acb7ddd24b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d3a70d5c55373a6a5e6f00cfe71af361e46d575
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e157ec06d7f68e427b15bf5a59834d00d3a3b50c268e87d77c4c23acb7ddd24b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 608 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF
+MOTION TO PRESENT TESTIMONY FROM
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE
+Sigrid McCawley
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 608 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 3
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+PAGES 1- 22
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 608 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 10th of February, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+23
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e157ec06d7f68e427b15bf5a59834d00d3a3b50c268e87d77c4c23acb7ddd24b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e157ec06d7f68e427b15bf5a59834d00d3a3b50c268e87d77c4c23acb7ddd24b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..33edd3654b115f984684fd218f8ac16e0db859c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e157ec06d7f68e427b15bf5a59834d00d3a3b50c268e87d77c4c23acb7ddd24b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e157ec06d7f68e427b15bf5a59834d00d3a3b50c268e87d77c4c23acb7ddd24b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fd3cb641edf3db63a5f678424ad79426fbe1fb3d3d389b8360933fed042b6ff4",
+  "output_sha256": "eef1e43fe8549c1a85454963c3cb04b7d13e69f361a2c609aa2dbde0cde7bd72",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1b9f6b0d1b4a4f840d5600cbae1cbc881a2b779ba45d505dfc975e8ab8c29e1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1b9f6b0d1b4a4f840d5600cbae1cbc881a2b779ba45d505dfc975e8ab8c29e1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..636d850195865f2f9b2c7e06baa6562d80c1d25a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1b9f6b0d1b4a4f840d5600cbae1cbc881a2b779ba45d505dfc975e8ab8c29e1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 974
+Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 1
+RANDAZZA
+LEGAL GROUP
+Jay Marshall Wolman
+Licensed in CT.
+NY, DC
+July 11, 2019
+Via CM/ECF
+The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433
+Request to be Excused from July 25 Conference (Doc. No. 973)
+Dear Judge Preska,
+I have the privilege of representing Intervenor Michael Cernovich d/ /a Cernovich Media.
+On July 9, 2019, the Court issued an Order scheduling a Conference for July 11, 2019
+relative to the forthcoming mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
+Yesterday, Your Honor allowed the letter-motion of Defendant Maxwell to adjourn the
+Conference. Dkt. No. 973. In so doing, Your Honor rescheduled the Conference for July
+25, 2019 at 3:00 p.m.
+I am unavailable on July 25 due to travel and will likely not even have telephone access at
+that time. Rather than further delay the process toward unsealing the remainder of the
+record, I request to be excused from participating in the Conference.
+Counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant, and Intervenors Miami Herald, |
+do not oppose the request to be excused.
+, and Dershowitz
+Thank you.
+Sincerely,
+frate
+Counsel for Intervenor Michael Cernovich
+100 Pearl Street, 14m Floor, Hartford, Connecticut 06103
+jmw@randazza.com | 702.420.2001
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1b9f6b0d1b4a4f840d5600cbae1cbc881a2b779ba45d505dfc975e8ab8c29e1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1b9f6b0d1b4a4f840d5600cbae1cbc881a2b779ba45d505dfc975e8ab8c29e1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0f8e29a104b8f6869b86f5d38970a5f45057974
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1b9f6b0d1b4a4f840d5600cbae1cbc881a2b779ba45d505dfc975e8ab8c29e1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e1b9f6b0d1b4a4f840d5600cbae1cbc881a2b779ba45d505dfc975e8ab8c29e1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d1f09b175a0a13a6b48af195f4145a03cd76416fdb2448a88c009dadcb4e33a2",
+  "output_sha256": "f085690381a4a2d56c34907edb2b6eab5f043409230f73c378aae5ac930d0b7b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1ceabdd5a803d28a6bf0a903a2754537e617b8eb6c163adc38ad8be34786916.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1ceabdd5a803d28a6bf0a903a2754537e617b8eb6c163adc38ad8be34786916.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40af7af02bd10bf81a7272a9746cf92ea89e5a81
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1ceabdd5a803d28a6bf0a903a2754537e617b8eb6c163adc38ad8be34786916.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 799 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OMNIBUS MOTION IN
+LIMINE
+I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Reply in Support
+of Plaintiff's Omnibus Motion in Limine.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 799 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 3
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Dated: March 27, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202'
+'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 799 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the27th day of March 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1ceabdd5a803d28a6bf0a903a2754537e617b8eb6c163adc38ad8be34786916.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1ceabdd5a803d28a6bf0a903a2754537e617b8eb6c163adc38ad8be34786916.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5d315caad501c6fbb5cafd62b48e6b1a0651bdb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1ceabdd5a803d28a6bf0a903a2754537e617b8eb6c163adc38ad8be34786916.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e1ceabdd5a803d28a6bf0a903a2754537e617b8eb6c163adc38ad8be34786916",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b73bf4050e013c86f27a91de9f2da37feafe56886a6425e5b9bb08952c953403",
+  "output_sha256": "c8ff4e6a1ddd897bd88baf197708e14a9121249e0726439baedb9788c49e5d7c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1dd513ef0863ca21d84d1759083a9905da382a859be749a58e2869b5288f1fe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1dd513ef0863ca21d84d1759083a9905da382a859be749a58e2869b5288f1fe.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb9230dd561b58a82db4772e1a81e88e2e7d20fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1dd513ef0863ca21d84d1759083a9905da382a859be749a58e2869b5288f1fe.md
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 662 l
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+-----X
+Defendant's Motion For Bifurcated Trial Relating To Punitive Damages and
+Exclusion Of Any Reference To Defendant's Financial Information in the Liability Phase
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+L P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 662 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 4
+PAGES 1-2
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 662 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: March 3, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10' Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 662 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 3, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Motion for
+Bifurcated Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to Defendant's
+Financial Information in the Liability Phase via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+1. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+Sour Salem, NY 10500
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1dd513ef0863ca21d84d1759083a9905da382a859be749a58e2869b5288f1fe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1dd513ef0863ca21d84d1759083a9905da382a859be749a58e2869b5288f1fe.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4135725ab8c3ae95fadeae0c1d8e5022da2922e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e1dd513ef0863ca21d84d1759083a9905da382a859be749a58e2869b5288f1fe.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e1dd513ef0863ca21d84d1759083a9905da382a859be749a58e2869b5288f1fe",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0e315eac4e86c9e91f2f765b7e5a9ad063265e04f06e28e1714a340db50138bc",
+  "output_sha256": "5bd41a7a96210d20701c0d0510ed369277770b165c87b81155fd29088bf0e6b6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e20895c6f541a97b10596027807f7de82d57d0319ddb49c4c623eddb94d4825e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e20895c6f541a97b10596027807f7de82d57d0319ddb49c4c623eddb94d4825e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89fe8cb7685c08477431a5e16a34b6a85d6cf930
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e20895c6f541a97b10596027807f7de82d57d0319ddb49c4c623eddb94d4825e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 161 Filed 02/24/21 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UST SAY
+DOCU
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:_
+DATE FILED: 2/24/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+On February 23, 2021, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a third motion for release on
+bail. Dkt. No. 160. The Government's response is due March 9, 2021, and the Defendant's
+reply is due March 16, 2021.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: February 24, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alie O. Notto
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e20895c6f541a97b10596027807f7de82d57d0319ddb49c4c623eddb94d4825e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e20895c6f541a97b10596027807f7de82d57d0319ddb49c4c623eddb94d4825e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c406e9713dccd81c7431f68df64e187a5bb9044a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e20895c6f541a97b10596027807f7de82d57d0319ddb49c4c623eddb94d4825e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e20895c6f541a97b10596027807f7de82d57d0319ddb49c4c623eddb94d4825e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ea38a98460cfafc7a09d6960604f11d5d8242745442b686e92d9f7f8b861a3fb",
+  "output_sha256": "7eb575404b7f085c3d35d5b3753117a0cb0a15cbd15d3eade0dcd6f8d5e3c272",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e22e900bde099fee1178af5d18b4b003f6f361234b186275661b72aee7c6fd64.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e22e900bde099fee1178af5d18b4b003f6f361234b186275661b72aee7c6fd64.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45b87e35fdf76ae68a4d1eec5f7019f3f2bc5c83
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e22e900bde099fee1178af5d18b4b003f6f361234b186275661b72aee7c6fd64.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-3 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208-3
+Filed 04/16/21
+
+From: <
+Date: 2 January 2015 at 20:38
+Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell
+To: Rossacuity Gow <
+bcc:
+P.Peachey@independent.co.uk.
+nick.sommerlad@mirror.co.uk.
+nick.alway@bbc.co.uk,
+io-anne.pugh@bbc.co.uk
+To Whom It May Concern,
+Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Ms Maxwell.
+No further communication will be provided by her on this matter.
+Thanks for your understanding.
+Best
+Gow
+ACUITY Reputation
+Jane Doe 3 is
+- so not a new individual. The allegations made by Victoria
+against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are not new and have
+been fully responded to and shown to be untrue.
+Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and
+world leaders and now it is alleged by L
+that Alan Derschowitz is involved in having
+sexual relations with her, which he denies.
+claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicised as news, as
+they are defamatory.
+Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same.
+Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavoury nature, which have appeared in the British
+press and elsewhere and reserves her right to seek redress at the repetition of such old
+defamatory claims.
+Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
+PENGAD 800-621-038
+
+Maxwell 10
+4.22-16 uf
+GM_00068
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e22e900bde099fee1178af5d18b4b003f6f361234b186275661b72aee7c6fd64.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e22e900bde099fee1178af5d18b4b003f6f361234b186275661b72aee7c6fd64.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2edd623607f2b0d3452f88f528ce5b3b84124b70
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e22e900bde099fee1178af5d18b4b003f6f361234b186275661b72aee7c6fd64.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -51,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e22e900bde099fee1178af5d18b4b003f6f361234b186275661b72aee7c6fd64",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8c3eb8ee591595000a99d619692175dbc529abe003e30b00d4071d84fea3e119",
+  "output_sha256": "0a9b9e1be95270c77ee7d38c3dbc33f2830a27ff85a603f82b7455b7c4966b2b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e23cde194f14b5c83ed0b6540779aaa002eea9b44157c5e025d2cbd6b2f219b4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e23cde194f14b5c83ed0b6540779aaa002eea9b44157c5e025d2cbd6b2f219b4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c2f5dfebb1871e0eea227866d0c1c3795a62728
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e23cde194f14b5c83ed0b6540779aaa002eea9b44157c5e025d2cbd6b2f219b4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,324 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 11
+
+
+
+Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 11
+United States District Court
+Southern District Of New York
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+DEFENDANT'S SECOND SET OF
+DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFF
+Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 33 and 34, defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
+propounds this Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff |
+Plaintiff shall
+respond in writing to the Interrogatories and Requests for Admission and shall produce
+documents as requested, within thirty (30) days of service at the offices of Haddon,
+&
+1. P.C., 150 E. 10" Avenue, Denver, Colorado.
+DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
+"Any" means any and all.
+2.
+"You," "Your," or "Plaintiff" means Plaintiff
+known at the relevant time as
+and anyone acting on her behalf, as her agent, associate, employee or assignee.
+, whether
+, or some other alias,
+3.
+"Your Attorneys" includes any attorney who You have engaged to represent You,
+whether for remuneration or pro bono, from 1999 until today, including without limitation,
+David Boies, Ellen Brockman, Paul Cassell, Amy Ederi,
+1. Katherine Ezell,
+Brittany
+, Sigrid McCawley, Meredith Shultz, Stan Pottinger, Bob Josefsberg, and
+Stephen Zack.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 11
+4.
+"Document" is intended to be defined as broadly as permitted by Rule 34 and
+includes every writing or record of every type and description that is or has been in Your
+possession, custody or control, or of which You have knowledge, including but not limited to, e-
+mails, text messages, instant messages, videotapes, photographs, notes, letters, memoranda,
+forms, books, magazines, resumes, notebooks, ledgers, journals, diaries, calendars, appointment
+books, papers, agreements, contracts, invoices, analyses, transcripts, plaques, correspondence,
+telegrams, drafts, data processing or computer diskettes and CD disks, tapes of any nature and
+computer interpretations thereof, instructions, announcements, and sound recordings of any
+nature. "Document" also means all copies which are not identical to the original document as
+originally written, typed or otherwise prepared. The term "Document" shall also include all
+documents of any nature that have been archived or placed in permanent or temporary storage
+including electronic storage.
+5.
+"Communication" means any transmission or exchange of information between
+two or more persons, orally or in writing or otherwise, and includes, but is not limited to, any
+correspondence, conversation or discussion, whether face-to-face, or by means of telephone, e-
+mail, text message, electronic message via apps such as Facebook, What's App, Snapchat,
+LinkedIN or similar, or other media or Documents.
+6.
+"Alleged Defamation" means a false statement of fact or mixed statement of fact
+and opinion about You which was published to a third person and caused You damage or harm.
+With respect to "Alleged Defamation" which You contend was committed by Ghislaine Maxwell
+or at her direction or request, it refers to the statements either contained in, referenced by, or
+alluded to in Your Complaint, or any that could be included in any amended complaint in this
+action.
+7.
+"Employment" includes without limitation, the provision of work and/or services,
+whether paid or unpaid, whether as an employee, intern, or independent contractor, whether
+hourly or for a salary, and whether full or part time.
+8.
+"Health Care Provider" means a hospital, treatment center, doctor, nurse,
+psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, therapist, social worker, or other medical or mental health
+care practitioner, and includes any Person or entity referred to as a "Health Care Professional" or
+"Health Care Institution" in Colorado Revised Statute § 13-64-202(3) and (4).
+9.
+"Identify" means to specify as to a "Person," the name, address, telephone
+number and any other identifying information possessed by You or Your Attorneys.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 11
+10.
+"Income" includes, without limitation, any revenue, payments, compensation,
+remuneration, financial benefit or support or any other financial consideration, or provision of
+any other thing of value.
+11.
+"Person" means any natural person, individual, firm, partnership, association,
+joint venture, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, enterprise or combination, corporation or other
+legal, business or government entity.
+12.
+"Relate," "relating," "relates" means concerning, referring to, responding to,
+relating to, pertaining to, connected with, evidencing, commenting on, regarding, discussing,
+showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing or constituting.
+13. Please restate each discovery request immediately before providing Your answer
+or objection thereto.
+14. Regardless of the tense employed, all verbs should be read as applying to the past,
+present and future, as is necessary to make any paragraph more, rather than less, inclusive.
+15. If, in answering these interrogatories, You encounter any ambiguity in construing
+them, explain what is ambiguous and how You construed the interrogatory in Your response. If,
+after exercising due diligence to obtain the information requested, You are unable to answer an
+interrogatory fully, please so state and answer to the extent possible, specifying the reason or
+reasons why You cannot answer fully and providing whatever information You do have about
+the unanswered portion.
+16. If you deny only a portion of a request to admit, specify in full and complete
+detail: (a) the portion of the request that is denied; (b) the reasons for your denial; and (c) those
+positions that are admitted as true.
+17.
+With respect to any Documents withheld on the basis of a privilege, provide a log
+consistent with Local Rule 26.2.
+18.
+Nothing in these interrogatories or requests for production should be construed as
+an admission by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+INTERROGATORIES
+Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any
+author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist,
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 11
+photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any
+media organization or independent consultant to the same, including:
+a. the date of any such Communication;
+b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if written, the
+format of any such Communication;
+c. the identities of all persons involved in such Communication, including the
+identity of the media organization with whom the agent is or was affiliated;
+d. the article title, date of publication, and means of publication of any article,
+report, or re-printing of any such Communication made by You or Your
+Attorneys;
+e. the amount of Income that You and/or Your Attorneys received in exchange for
+any such Communication;
+f. the dates on which You and/or Your Attorneys received any such Income for any
+such Communication.
+6.
+Identify any "false statements" attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell which were
+"published globally, including within the Southern District of New York" as You contend in
+paragraph 9 of Count 1 of Your Complaint, including:
+a.
+the exact false statement;
+b. the date of its publication;
+c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly false
+statement;
+d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and
+e. the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other
+form of media.
+State whether You believe that You have ever been defamed by anyone other than
+Ghislaine Maxwell. If so, as to each alleged act of Defamation, state
+a. the exact false statement;
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 11
+b. the date of its publication;
+c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the purportedly false
+statement;
+d. the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and
+e. the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some other
+form of media.
+8.
+Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed in the U.S. District
+Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States of
+America, 08-cv-80736-KAM, as the "high-profile non-party individuals" to whom Mr. Jeffrey
+Epstein sexually trafficked You, "including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful
+business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,"
+including as to each episode of alleged sexual trafficking:
+a. the date of any such sexual trafficking;
+b. the location of any such sexual trafficking;
+c. any witnesses to any such sexual trafficking;
+d. any Income You received in exchange for such sexual trafficking; and
+e. any Documents You have to support or corroborate Your claim of such sexual
+trafficking.
+11.
+Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered
+as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell "past and future lost wages and past
+and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings - precise amounts yet to be computed, but not
+less than $5,000,000."
+13.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal
+drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+5
+
+
+Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 11
+c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e. the medical expenses to date;
+f. whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity has paid
+for the medical expenses; and
+g. For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental health
+records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+14.
+Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You
+engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,
+including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate
+sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else
+concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the
+outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event.
+REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
+1.
+Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Ghislaine Maxwell.
+2.
+Admit that you were not 15 years old when you first met Jeffrey Epstein.
+3.
+Admit that you were not 15 years old at the time you claim you were sexually
+trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
+4.
+Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not celebrate your 16th birthday with You.
+Admit that Ghislaine Maxwell did not make a joke on your 16" birthday after
+You blew out an array of candles and said You "would be soon getting too old for Jeffrey's
+taste, and soon they'd have to trade me in."
+Admit that you did not work at Mar-a-Lago when you were 15 years old.
+7.
+Admit that you did not work for Jeffrey Epstein for four years.
+Admit that You did not spend four years as an underage sex slave for Jeffrey
+Epstein.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 11
+9.
+Admit that you were no younger than 17 years old when you worked at Mar-a-
+Lago.
+10. Admit that You never observed Ghislaine Maxwell ever have any sexual contact
+with any person under the age of 18.
+11. Admit that You never observed Bill Clinton on the island of Little St. James.
+12. Admit that You never had a conversation with Bill Clinton regarding him flying
+with Ghislaine Maxwell in a helicopter.
+13. Admit that You never observed Al Gore on the island of Little St. James.
+14. Admit that You never had sexual contact with Alan Dershowitz.
+15. Admit that You never had sexual contact with Andrew,
+of York.
+REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
+All Communications and Documents identified in Interrogatories 5-14, above.
+2.
+All Documents reviewed or relied upon in answering Interrogatory Nos. 5-14
+above.
+3.
+Nos. 1-15 above.
+All Documents reviewed or relied upon in answering Requests for Admission
+4. All Documents relating to any Communications between or among You or Your
+attorneys or any agent for You or Your attorneys, and any of the following individuals or with
+their attorneys, agents or representatives:
+a. Any witness disclosed in Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) disclosures;
+b. Any witness disclosed in Defendant's Rule 26(a) disclosures;
+c. Any witness identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No. 14.
+5.
+All photographs or video containing any image of You and the following
+individuals. To the extent You have such photographs and video in their original, native format,
+please produce them in that format (not a paper copy).
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 11
+a. Any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and
+No. 14.
+6.
+All Documents concerning any Communications between you or your attorneys
+and any witness or any potential witness in Guiffre v Maxwell.
+7.
+attorneys and
+All Documents concerning any Communications between You and Your
+or her lawyer, Marshall Dore Louis.
+8.
+attorneys and
+All Documents concerning any Communications between You and Your
+or her lawyer, Marshall Dore Louis.
+9.
+All Documents concerning any Communications between You or Your attorneys
+and any witness in the case captioned Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No.
+08-cv-80736-KAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("CVRA"
+case).
+10.
+and any witness or potential witness in
+All Documents concerning any Communications between you or your attorneys
+and Cassell v Dershowitz ("Dershowitz" case).
+11. Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness or potential
+witness in the CVRA case.
+12.
+Any statement obtained by You or Your attorneys from any witness or potential
+witness in the Dershowitz case.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 355-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 10 of 11
+Dated: May 31, 2016
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+9
+
+
+Filed 08/10/16 Page 11 of 11
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on June 1, 2016, I personally served Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's Second
+Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+10
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e23cde194f14b5c83ed0b6540779aaa002eea9b44157c5e025d2cbd6b2f219b4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e23cde194f14b5c83ed0b6540779aaa002eea9b44157c5e025d2cbd6b2f219b4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af8feaa907f7cdfc622cd068c818d72c839ed986
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e23cde194f14b5c83ed0b6540779aaa002eea9b44157c5e025d2cbd6b2f219b4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -256,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e23cde194f14b5c83ed0b6540779aaa002eea9b44157c5e025d2cbd6b2f219b4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 13,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2beb7aa4419dc4411b0a14344c5b119f08c975abf007b1e46ac8ce0bf1f88ff4",
+  "output_sha256": "afcf1af039bdaf23f44a92688938b448ef592f00a836ce4d5448ad9ccad23db1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e251a8690b99b049cebf04a7409bc6f476f84f4b33cf1718ab7542fec7a7c166.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e251a8690b99b049cebf04a7409bc6f476f84f4b33cf1718ab7542fec7a7c166.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a76821735e640611d98dcb3dea827293235f5bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e251a8690b99b049cebf04a7409bc6f476f84f4b33cf1718ab7542fec7a7c166.md
@@ -0,0 +1,795 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 |
+Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 25
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT NEW YORK
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+Index No. 15 Civ. 7433-RWS
+CECF CASE
+MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY
+SHARON CHURCHER'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
+TREMAINE LLP
+Laura R. Handman
+Eric J. Feder
+1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
+New York, NY 10020-1104
+Telephone: (212) 489-8230
+Facsimile: (212) 489-8340
+laurahandman@dwt.com
+ericfeder@dwt.com
+Attorneys for Non-Party Sharon Churcher
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 25
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+A.
+B.
+Ms. Churcher's News Coverage of the Parties in this Case .
+Defendant's Attempt to Obtain Unpublished Newsgathering Material
+from Churcher...
+Page
+1
+..4
+4
+..5
+6
+ARGUMENT
+I.
+II.
+THE SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED
+FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE NEW YORK SHIELD LAW
+A.
+To the Extent the Subpoena Seeks Information Received Pursuant to
+Promises of Confidentiality, Such Information Is Absolutely
+Privileged Under the Shield Law
+All of the Information Sought by the Subpoena Is, At a Minimum,
+Protected by the Qualified Privilege Under the Shield Law
+The Information Sought by Ms. Maxwell Is Not "Highly
+Material and Relevant" to—Let Alone "Critical or Necessary
+to the Maintenance of"-Any Claim or Defense
+Ms. Maxwell Has Not Exhausted Alternative Sources for the
+Information Sought by the Subpoena
+THE SUBPOENA SHOULD ALSO BE QUASHED UNDER RULE 45 FOR
+FAILURE TO ALLOW A REASONABLE TIME FOR COMPLIANCE
+AND IMPOSING AN UNDUE BURDEN ..
+6
+7
+9
+12
+CONCLUSION..
+. 17
+. 20
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 25
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page(s)
+Cases
+In re ABC,
+189 Misc. 2d 805, 735 N.Y.S.2d 919 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2001)
+In re Application to Quash Subpoena to NBC,
+79 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 1996).
+Baines v. Daily News L.P.,
+401845/2013, 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4884
+(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. July 13, 2015)....
+Baker v.
+Sachs & Co.,
+669 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2012).
+In re Behar,
+779 F. Supp. 273 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)..
+& Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand,
+No. 101678/96, 1996 WL 350827 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Feb. 28, 1996),
+aff'd, 228 A.D.2d 187 (Ist Dep't 1996)..
+v. Hendler,
+No. 09 Civ. 4486(RLE), 2011 WL 321139 (S.D.N. Y. Jan. 31, 2011).
+In re CBS (Vacco),
+232 A.D.2d 291, 684 N.Y.S.2d 443 (Ist Dep't 1996)
+Flynn v. NYP Holdings, Inc.,
+235 A.D.2d 907, 652 N.Y.S.2d 833 (3d Dep't 1997).
+v. Maxwell,
+No. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS), 2016 WL 1756918 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016)
+v. Maxwell,
+No. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS), 2016 WL 831949 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016).
+v. NBC,
+194 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1998).
+In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on NBC,
+178 Misc. 2d 1052, 683 N. Y.S.2d 708 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1998)
+Henry v.
+Hotel Grp., Inc.,
+No. 15-CV-1789 (ER)(JLC), 2016 WL 303114 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016)
+ii
+..7, 14,15
+..passim
+..7
+8, 10, 11, 13
+..13
+.9
+18,19
+.15
+8, 15
+.6
+•6, 13
+2,7,10,17
+.10
+.19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 25
+v. Winter,
+3 N.E.3d 694, 22 N. Y.3d 300 (2013).
+In re McCray,
+Santana, Wise, & Salaam Litig.,
+928 F. Supp. 2d 748 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 991 F. Supp. 2d 464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
+Night Hawk Ltd. V. Briarpatch Lta., L.P.,
+No. 03 Civ. 1382 RWS, 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003).
+O Neill v. Oakgrove Constr.,
+523 N.E.2d 277, 71 N.Y.2d 521 (1988)..
+In re Pan Am Corp.,
+161 B.R. 577 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
+People v.
+No. 1438/92, 1992 WL 474518 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov. 12, 1992)
+People v. lannaccone,
+112 Misc. 2d 1057, 447 N.Y.S.2d 996 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1982)
+Pugh v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc.,
+No. M8-85, 1997 WL 669876 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 1997) .
+Reuters Ltd. V. Dow
+/elerate, Inc.,
+231 A.D.2d 337, 662 N.Y.S.2d 450 (Ist Dep't 1997)
+Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y.,
+No. 10 Civ. 6005(RWS), 2014 WL 1621480 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2014).
+United States v.
+700 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1983)
+United States v. Cuthbertson,
+630 F.2d 139 (3d Cir. 1980).
+Velez v. Hunts Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc.,
+29 A.D.3d 104, 811 N.Y.S.2d 5 (Ist Dep't 2006)
+Constitutional Provisions
+N.Y. Const. art. 1, 88.
+Statutes
+N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-h
+.3,7,8, 17
+..12
+.19
+.. passim
+.16
+12
+.15
+.9,16
+.12
+2,7
+.14
+.10
+.12
+1, 2, 3, 6
+.. passim
+ili
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 5 of 25
+Federal Rules
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 45
+Fed. R. Evid. 501.
+Other Authorities
+1990 McKinney's Session Laws, Memorandum of State Executive Department..
+.19
+- passim
+.6
+.10
+iv
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 6 of 25
+Non-party Sharon Churcher ("Churcher") through her counsel respectfully submits this
+Memorandum of Law in Support of her motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 to quash the subpoena to
+testify at a deposition in a civil action and produce documents (the "Subpoena") in this case.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+Sharon Churcher's involvement in this defamation case stems entirely from the fact that,
+in her capacity as a professional journalist, she wrote several news articles about the Plaintiff,
+(referred to in the Subpoena as
+" and hereinafter as
+"), the Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (who issued the Subpoena), and Jeffrey
+Epstein. These articles (the "Articles") were published over the course of nearly ten years by
+numerous publications, including The Mail on Sunday, the National Enquirer, and Radar Online,
+and were written by Ms. Churcher either as an employee of the publication or as freelance
+reporter. See Declaration of Sharon Churcher ("Churcher Decl.") 9I 4-7 and Exs. 1-8.
+The Subpoena, served just twelve days before the date of compliance, commands
+Churcher to sit for a deposition and produce a broad array of documents, including "[a]ll
+documents containing communications" with the Plaintiff and "[a]ll communications with any
+agent" for the Plaintiff. See Declaration of Laura R. Handman ("Handman Decl."), Ex. A
+(Subpoena), I 1-2. Churcher's communications with
+alone date back more than
+five years to the reporting of articles that appeared in The Mail on Sunday in March 2011. The
+Subpoena does not limit the demand for these documents to any particular time period or topic,
+instead requiring Churcher to sift through a decade's worth of communications, from multiple
+email accounts with multiple employers.
+The Subpoena must be quashed for two separate and independent reasons. First, all of
+the information sought in the Subpoena is protected from compelled disclosure by the New York
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 7 of 25
+Reporters Shield Law, N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-h ("Section 79-h").' That statute, which stems
+from the First Amendment and the press clause of the New York State constitution (art. I, § 8),
+provides reporters with an absolute privilege against disclosure of any information received in
+confidence, including the identity of confidential sources, and a qualified privilege for
+unpublished newsgathering material, even when it is not otherwise confidential. To overcome
+the qualified privilege, the party seeking disclosure bears a heavy burden to clearly show that the
+information sought is so "critical or necessary" to the case that the party's claim or defense
+"virtually rises or falls" based on the information, and that the party has "exhausted] all other
+available sources" for the information. In re Application to Quash Subpoena to NBC ["Graco"],
+79 F.3d 346, 351, 353 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citations omitted). See Section 79-h(c).
+All of the information sought by the Subpoena falls within either the absolute or qualified
+privilege under the Shield Law. A significant portion of the materials encompassed by the
+Subpoena's document requests contain confidential communications and information, and are
+therefore absolutely privileged from disclosure. But confidential or not, all of the information
+described by the document requests comprises unpublished information about—or obtained
+during the course of—the newsgathering process. Ms. Maxwell has not made any showing that
+her defense "rises or falls" based on the information sought in the Subpoena, which, on its face,
+is, at best, tangentially related to the dispute in this case. And there are ample alternative sources
+for the information. (As a starting point, in order to obtain information about payments to, or
+contracts or communications with,
+, the obvious alternative source is
+'As discussed infra, note 3, the New York Shield Law applies to this case. The Second Circuit also recognizes a
+qualified reporter's privilege under the First Amendment for both confidential and nonconfidential newsgathering
+information. See
+when the state Shield Law applies.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 8 of 25
+herself.) Cumulative evidence that, at most, bears on the general credibility of the Plaintiff does
+not satisfy the Shield Law. See id.
+Since the documents requested are all protected under the Shield Law, Churcher should
+not be required to sit for a deposition that will presumably cover the same privileged topics. As
+the New York Court of Appeals explained in its most recent decision on the Shield Law, where
+"the entire focus" of a reporter's testimony would be on privileged topics, "no legitimate purpose
+would be served by requiring the witness to go through the formality of appearing [to testify]
+only to refuse to answer questions concerning the information sought."
+v. Winter, 3
+N.E.3d 694, 706, 22 N.Y.3d 300, 319 (2013) (citing Beach v. Shanley, 465 N.E.2d 304, 307, 62
+N.Y.2d 241, 248 (1984)). Indeed, "[c]ompelling a reporter to appear [at a deposition] to respond
+to a subpoena that seeks information that is clearly cloaked with an absolute privilege can itself
+be viewed as a significant incursion into the press autonomy recognized in article I, § 8 [of the
+state constitution] and the Shield Law." Id.
+Second, even if the information sought in the Subpoena were not covered by the Shield
+Law, the Subpoena must be quashed under Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
+("Rule 45") because it is unduly burdensome and does not provide reasonable time for
+compliance. Twelve days is simply not sufficient to collect, review and produce over five years'
+worth of communications that span multiple places of employment (and therefore multiple email
+servers), and which indisputably include extensive communication with confidential sources that
+would need to be redacted. Moreover, given the limited relevance and cumulative nature of the
+document requests, and the fact that Ms. Churcher is a non-party, the broad, un-cabined scope of
+the document requests renders the Subpoena unduly burdensome.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 9 of 25
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+A. Ms. Churcher's News Coverage of the Parties in this Case
+Ms. Churcher is a professional print journalist who has worked continuously in New
+York since 1983. Churcher Decl. Il 1. She is currently employed by American Media, Inc.,
+which publishes the National Enquirer (the "Enquirer") and RadarOnline.com ("Radar"), where
+she has worked since November 2014. Id. I| 4. From 1992 through October 2013, she was
+employed as the New York-based Chief American Correspondent of The Mail on Sunday, a
+publication owned by Associated Newspapers of London, England. During the interim she
+worked as a freelance reporter for publications including The Mail on Sunday, the U.S. operation
+of its digital arm, the Mail Online, and the Enquirer. Id.
+In her capacity as a journalist, Ms. Churcher has reported on the events that underlie this
+case going back to at least April 2007, when she wrote an article published in The Mail on
+Sunday about the alleged ties between Prince Andrew, the British
+and convicted sex
+offender Jeffrey Epstein. See Id. 9| 5 & Ex. 1. (The defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was mentioned in
+that article.)
+Ms. Churcher first reported about the plaintiff,
+in March 2011, when she
+wrote a series of articles published in The Mail on Sunday (and affiliated newspapers) containing
+extensive interviews with (and photographs of)
+, in which she "agreed to waive her
+anonymity and tell for the first time her deeply disturbing story." Churcher Decl. Ex. 2 at 3; see
+also Churcher Decl. Ex 3. Ms. Churcher traveled to Australia to meet and interview
+in person for those stories. Churcher Decl. I 7.b.
+In January 2015, Ms. Churcher wrote a series of stories that appeared in several
+publications, including The Mail on Sunday, the Enquirer and Radar, containing extensive new
+details from
+about her involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and Prince
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 10 of 25
+Andrew, as well as excerpts from a handwritten "diary" about those experiences, which appeared
+on Radar's website. See Churcher Decl. Exs. 5-8.
+From 2011 through the present day, Ms. Churcher has communicated extensively with
+(or, in certain instances, agents for Ms. Churcher, including her attorneys),
+exclusively in her capacity as a journalist communicating with sources. Churcher Decl. I 10.
+B. Defendant's Attempt to Obtain Unpublished Newsgathering Material from
+Churcher
+On Saturday June 4, 2016, Ms. Churcher was served with the Subpoena by hand at her
+home. Churcher Decl. I| 2. The Subpoena commands Ms. Churcher to appear at a deposition on
+June 16, 2016. The Subpoena also commands Ms. Churcher to bring with her to the deposition
+several broad categories of documents:
+1. All Documents containing communications with
+2. All communications with any agent for
+including without limitation attorneys
+Paul
+Cassell, David Boise [sic], Sigrid McCawley, Meredith
+Stanely [sic] Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Stephen Zach, Brittany
+Bob Josefsberg, Katherine Ezell, Amy Ederi.
+3. All Documents containing communications with Jason Richards.
+4. All Documents containing communications with law
+enforcement agency concerning
+5. All Documents reflecting any payment of any money to
+6. All Documents reflecting any contract concerning |
+Handman Decl. Ex. A at 6.
+On January 9, 2016, counsel for Ms. Churcher spoke by phone to counsel for
+Ms. Maxwell and requested an extension of the time to comply with the Subpoena.
+Ms. Maxwell's counsel stated that she would agree to adjourn the date only if Ms. Churcher was
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 11 of 25
+planning to comply with the Subpoena and not move to quash. Handman Decl. I 3. Since
+Churcher intended to file this motion, the return date was not adjourned. Id. 9 4. When asked
+for more specific details about what information Ms. Maxwell hoped to elicit from
+Ms. Churcher, Maxwell's counsel stated that she could not share any further details in light of
+the protective order entered in this case. Id. I3.
+ARGUMENT
+THE SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED FROM
+DISCLOSURE BY THE NEW YORK SHIELD LAW
+Under Rule 45(d)(3)(a)(iii), a court must quash a subpoena where it "requires disclosure
+of privileged or other protected matter."
+The New York Shield Law, or reporter's privilege, protects reporters from compelled
+disclosure of both confidential information and sources, as well as non-confidential, unpublished
+newsgathering materials and information, which is precisely what Ms. Maxwell seeks in her
+Subpoena.? While now codified in Section 79-h of the Civil Rights Law, the reporter's privilege
+has its origins in the New York Constitution's free press provision (art. I, § 8), which provides
+"the broadest possible protection to the sensitive role of gathering and disseminating news of
+public events."" O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., 523 N.E.2d 277, 281, 71 N.Y.2d 521, 529 (1988)
+(quoting Beach, 62 N. Y.2d at 256 (Wachtler, J., concurring)). Indeed, "New York public policy
+as embodied in the Constitution and our current statutory scheme provides a mantle of protection
+" This Court has already determined that New York substantive law applies to the sole claim in the case
+(defamation). See
+v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS), 2016 WL 831949, at *2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29,
+2016). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 501, 'in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or
+defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision." This Court has further held that, because this case
+concerns a state law claim that is in federal court because of diversity of citizenship, evidentiary and discovery
+privileges are governed by New York law. See
+| v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433(RWS), 2016 WL 1756918, at
+*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016) (citing inter alia Fed. R. Evid. 501). Moreover, Churcher is a New York-based
+journalist. Churcher Decl. 9 1, 4. Accordingly, the New York Reporters Shield Law applies to the Subpoena. See
+also Graco, 79 F.3d at 351(applying New York Shield Law where subpoena in Massachusetts wrongful death suit
+issued out of Southern District of New York to a New York-based broadcaster).
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 12 of 25
+for those who gather and report the news - and their confidential sources - that has been
+recognized as the strongest in the nation." (
+, 22 N. Y.3d at 310 (emphasis added).
+Accordingly, the New York Shield Law provides absolute protection of information
+"obtained or received in confidence" by a reporter, as well as for the identity of a confidential
+source. Section 79-h(b). The statute also provides qualified protection for non-confidential
+newsgathering information, which can be overcome only with a "clear and specific showing" that
+the information is "highly material and relevant," "critical or necessary to the maintenance of a
+party's claim" and "not obtainable from any alternative source." Section 79-h(c). The qualified
+privilege is a stringent one that imposes a "very heavy burden" on any party seeking to overcome
+it. In re ABC, 189 Misc. 2d 805, 808, 735 N. Y.S.2d 919, 922 (Sup. CI. N.Y. Cly. 2001)."
+Here, a portion of the information that Ms. Maxwell seeks in the Subpoena is subject to
+absolute protection as confidential newsgathering information, and the rest receives qualified
+protection as nonconfidential newsgathering information. Because Ms. Maxwell cannot meet the
+"very heavy burden" to overcome the privilege, the Subpoena must be quashed.
+A.
+To the Extent the Subpoena Seeks Information Received Pursuant to
+Promises of Confidentiality, Such Information Is Absolutely Privileged
+Under the Shield Law
+The Shield Law provides an absolute privilege against the compelled disclosure of "news
+obtained or received in confidence or the identity of the source of such news." Section 79-h(b).
+The statute thus bars compelled disclosure of "news or its source obtained in confidence."
+Baines v. Daily News L.P., 401845/2013, 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4884, at *4 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.
+3 The First Amendment/federal common law reporter's privilege recognized by the Second Circuit is slightly less
+stringent. For both confidential and non-confidential information, the privilege is qualified. For confidential
+information, the privilege can be overcome by the same showing as for non-confidential information under the
+1. 194 F.3d at 33. For non-confidential information, the party seeking disclosure must
+show that "(1) 'that the materials at issue are of likely relevance to a significant issue in the case,' and (2) the
+materials at issue are not reasonably obtainable from other available sources." Schoolcraft, 2014 WL 1621480, at
+*2 (quoting |
+, 194 F.3d at 36).
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 13 of 25
+Cty. July 13, 2015);|
+22 N.Y.3d at 308 (explaining that the statutory privilege "prohibits
+a New York court from forcing a reporter to reveal a confidential source"); Flynn v. NYP
+Holdings, Inc., 235 A.D.2d 907, 652 N. Y.S.2d 833 (3d Dep't 1997) (explaining that, where
+documents are deemed confidential, a reporter is "afforded unqualified protection from having to
+divulge such sources or materials").
+At a minimum, the Shield Law would absolutely preclude any inquiry into the identity of
+confidential sources on which Ms. Churcher relied in reporting the Articles (or any information
+that may reveal those sources' identities). On their face, many of the Articles rely on
+confidential sources, including law enforcement sources. See, e.g., Churcher Decl. Ex. 2 at 8 (*a
+source"); id. Ex. 3 at 3 ("a law enforcement source"); id. Ex. 4 at 4 ("[massage] therapist, who
+does not wish to be named"); id. Ex. 8 at 2 ("a legal expert"; "a source familiar with the case").
+And Churcher states in her declaration that, in reporting the Articles, she relied extensively on
+information received in confidence, as well as sources whose identities are confidential.
+Churcher Decl. T9l 8-9. To the extent any communications with those sources fall within the
+categories of the document requests (for example, confidential law enforcement sources (who are
+quoted in the Articles), or if a confidential source could arguably be considered an "agent for
+"), those communications are absolutely privileged from disclosure. Moreover,
+although
+was plainly a non-confidential on-the-record source for several of the
+Articles, to the extent
+provided Churcher with any information on a confidential
+basis, that information would also be absolutely privileged. See Baker v.
+Sachs d Co.,
+669 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2012) ("New York's Shield Law provides journalists an absolute
+privilege from testifying with regard to news obtained under a promise of confidentiality ....").
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 14 of 25
+Without knowing more precisely what specific information Maxwell is attempting to
+elicit with this Subpoena, it is impossible to delineate which information is subject to the
+absolute privilege and which is protected by the qualified privilege, but at least some significant
+portion of the information falling within the scope of the Subpoena's document requests is
+confidential information that is absolutely protected from compelled disclosure.
+B.
+All of the Information Sought by the Subpoena Is, At a Minimum, Protected
+by the Qualified Privilege Under the Shield Law
+Section 79-h(c) of the Shield Law codifies the recognition by courts that the reporter's
+privilege serves "important interests beyond confidentiality," including "the privacy of editorial
+processes, the independence of the press and the need to allow the press to publish freely on
+topics of public interest without harassment and scrutiny by litigants seeking to conduct 'fishing
+expeditions' into [unpublished] materials in the hope that some relevant information may turn
+up." Pugh v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., No. M8-85, 1997 WL 669876, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y.
+Oct. 28, 1997). In O'Neill, the New York Court of Appeals stressed the need for courts to
+exercise "particular vigilance ... in safeguarding the free press against undue interference," and
+"prevent[ing] undue diversion of journalistic effort and disruption of press functions." 71
+N.Y.2d at 528-29. See also
+& Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand, No. 101678/96,
+1996 WL 350827, at *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Feb. 28, 1996) ("Attempts to obtain evidence from
+[reporters] as nonparties would, if unrestrained, subject news organizations to enormous
+depletions of time and resources as well as seriously impede their ability to obtain materials from
+confidential sources."), aff'd, 228 A.D.2d 187 (Ist Dep't 1996).
+Similarly, in recognizing that the First Amendment reporter's privilege also applies to
+non-confidential newsgathering information, the Second Circuit has explained that the reporter's
+privilege reflects "broader concerns" beyond the confidentiality of a reporter's sources, noting
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 15 of 25
+that the privilege is designed to protect against the burdens that would accrue if it were to
+become "standard operating procedure for those litigating against an entity that had been the
+subject of press attention to sift through press files in search of information supporting their
+claims."
+194 F.3d at 35. The court explained further that those harms include
+"burden[ing] the press with heavy costs of subpoena compliance," increased requests for
+anonymity from sources anxious to avoid being "sucked into litigation," and "the symbolic harm
+of making journalists appear to be an investigative arm of the judicial system, the government, or
+private parties." Id. And New York courts have pointed out that the legislature's express
+purpose in passing the Shield Law was "to avoid "problematic incursions into the integrity of the
+editorial process ...
+'" In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on NBC, 178 Misc. 2d 1052, 1054-
+55, 683 N.Y.S.2d 708, 710-11 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 1998) (quoting 1990 McKinney's Session
+Laws, Memorandum of State Executive Department, p. 2331-32)). See also United States v.
+Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 147 (3d Cir. 1980) ("IT]he compelled production of a reporter's
+resource materials can constitute a significant intrusion into the newsgathering and editorial
+processes.").
+These principles were recently reaffirmed by the Second Circuit, applying the New York
+Shield Law, in Baker v.
+Sachs, 669 F.3d 105. There, the plaintiffs sued their financial
+advisor over the alleged failure to accurately value a company—"L&H"-before it merged with
+the plaintiffs' company. The Wall Street Journal had published stories questioning the valuation
+of L&H that same year, and the plaintiffs sought to depose one of the reporters on the stories,
+Jesse Eisinger, in order to support their theory that their financial advisor could (and should)
+have done the same degree of investigation into L&H as the newspaper reporters. See id. at 108.
+Eisinger moved to quash the deposition subpoena, and the district court granted the motion.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 16 of 25
+The plaintiffs had insisted that the primary purpose of the deposition was to have Eisinger
+simply confirm the details contained in the published article. But the district court "found that
+the scope of questions could not be confined to published information, because even the most
+basic questions—such as who made the calls and interviewed the Korean companies [that were
+allegedly L&H customers]—were unpublished details of the newsgathering process." Id. at 109.
+Moreover, in seeking testimony to support their theory of the case, the plaintiffs " inevitably
+would have to ask questions regarding [the reporter's] techniques for conducting his
+investigation, the backgrounds of Eisinger's co-authors and the [Wall Street Journal's] editorial
+staff, and whether he consulted with any experts or other sources in the course of the
+investigation-
+-all inquiries into the newsgathering process protected by the Shield Law." Id.
+(internal quotation marks omitted). Although none of that information was confidential, the
+court did not hesitate to hold that the "unpublished details of the newsgathering process" were
+nevertheless protected by the Shield Law, and because the testimony was not "critical or
+necessary" to maintain the plaintiffs" claims, the district court granted the motion to quash. Id.
+The Second Circuit affirmed, quoting the district court's analysis at length, and
+explaining that it was "virtually self-evident that the Shield Law would protect Eisinger from
+compelled testimony." Id. at 110 (emphasis added). The same principles apply here. All of the
+information sought by the document requests in the Subpoena pertain to either information
+obtained in the course of newsgathering, or "unpublished details of the newsgathering process."
+Id. at 109-10. And because Ms. Maxwell cannot make the clear showing necessary to overcome
+the qualified privilege to access this unpublished (even if non-confidential) newsgathering
+information, the Subpoena must be quashed.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 17 of 25
+The Information Sought by Ms. Maxwell Is Not "Highly Material and
+Relevant" to—Let Alone "Critical or Necessary to the Maintenance
+of"-Any Claim or Defense
+Under Section 79-h(c), the party seeking discovery from a reporter must "make a clear
+and specific showing" that the information she seeks is "highly material or relevant" and that the
+information is "critical or necessary to the maintenance of [the party's] claim, defense or proof of
+an issue material thereto." These two prongs overlap to an extent, but Ms. Maxwell cannot
+establish either one.
+What is "material and relevant" is often interpreted broadly, but a court must "determine
+whether the materials sought are in fact relevant to a legitimate subject of inquiry [and not]
+permit the subpoena power to be used as a tool of harassment or for the proverbial fishing
+expedition' to ascertain the existence of evidence." Reuters Ltd. v. Dow
+Telerate, Inc.,
+231 A.D.2d 337, 342, 662 N.Y.S.2d 450, 453-54 (1st Dep't 1997) (quashing non-party
+subpoena). Subpoenas may not simply seek a vague array of information. To the contrary,
+where, as here, the subpoena is issued in the context of a pending civil action, "lilt is well settled
+that the purpose of a subpoena duces tecum is to compel the production of specific documents
+that are relevant and material to facts at issue in a pending judicial proceeding." Velez v. Hunts
+Point Multi-Serv. Ctr., Inc., 29 A.D.3d 104, 112, 811 N.Y.S.2d 5, 10 (Ist Dep't 2006). "[B]road
+pronouncements" that fail to identify "a 'significant issue' in the case that the subpoenaed
+materials potentially address" are not sufficient to satisfy this prong. In re McCray,
+Santana, Wise, & Salaam Litig., 928 F. Supp. 2d 748, 757-58 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 991 F. Supp. 2d
+464 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).*
+* Some courts impose a higher bar for the "highly material and relevant" prong, requiring in one criminal case that
+the information have the tendency to "prove or disprove who committed the alleged crime." People v.
+_ No.
+1438/92, 1992 WL 474518, at *2 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cly. Nov. 12, 1992) (holding that information sought "fle]Il quite
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 18 of 25
+The "critical or necessary" prong imposes an even higher bar: "I)n order to find
+unpublished news to be critical or necessary within the meaning of § 79-h, there must be a
+finding that the claim for which the information is to be used virtually rises or falls with the
+admission or exclusion of the proffered evidence." Graco, 79 F.3d at 351 (internal quotation
+marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). "The test is not merely that the material be helpful
+or probative, but whether or not the defense of the action may be presented without it." Baker,
+669 F.3d at 108 (quoting In re ABC, 189 Misc. 2d 805, 808, 735 N.Y.S.2d 919, 922 (Sup. Ct.
+N.Y. Cty. 2001) (ellipses omitted and text deleted from quotation restored)); see also O'Neill, 71
+N. Y.2d at 527 (the material sought must be "essential to the maintenance of the litigant's
+claim"). By definition, evidence that is merely cumulative "cannot be "necessary or critical" to
+an action so as to override the First Amendment privilege." In re Behar, 779 F. Supp. 273, 275
+(S.D.N.Y. 1991) (citing United States v.
+700 F.2d 70 (2d Cir. 1983)).
+It is not clear how the information and testimony sought in the Subpoena is "highly
+material and relevant," let alone "critical or necessary" to Ms. Maxwell's defense. This is a
+defamation case that turns on whether
+Maxwell (and
+Mr. Epstein) are true,
+Maxwell's denials of those accusations would be false. See
+1, 2016 WL 831949, at *2-4. Ms. Churcher does not have any direct information that is
+relevant to the truth or falsity of those issues. She reported news stories about the Epstein case
+based, in part, on interviews with
+But there is no suggestion that Ms. Churcher's
+communications with
+or her agents (or with law enforcement) will reflect any
+short of the clear and specific showing' required of the person seeking to compel disclosure of the non-confidential
+unpublished news").
+' In Graco, the Second Circuit noted that the "critical or necessary" prong "must mean something more thar
+'useful," particularly since the first statutory factor requires that the material sought must be shown to be 'highly
+material and relevant" in any event." 79 F.3d at 351.
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 19 of 25
+firsthand knowledge of what did or did not happen between
+Maxwell and
+Mr. Epstein. The Articles contain Ms. Churcher's reporting on the story
+told, but
+the best witness for that story is, of course,
+_herself, who is a party in this case.
+To the extent that
+argue that documents reflecting any payment of
+money to (or contracts with)|
+would tend to affect
+credibility, it is well
+settled that evidence that goes to "general credibility" does not meet the "critical or necessary"
+test. In re ABC, 189 Misc. 2d at 808, 735 N.Y.S.2d at 922. Ms. Maxwell's case will not "rise or
+fall" based on whether she can show that
+received a financial benefit from the
+publication of her story. In any event,
+elicit testimony and obtain evidence on
+that issue directly from
+herself (or from her bank records and other documents).
+Further evidence of payments to
+(or contracts that
+entered into), if any,
+would only be cumulative, which undercuts any argument that the information is "necessary or
+critical." See
+, 700 F.2d at 77-78.°
+To the extent that Maxwell seeks Churcher's communications with and about
+to find evidence that might contradict or otherwise impeach testimony from
+it is well settled that, "[o]rdinarily, impeachment material is not critical or necessary to
+the maintenance or defense of a claim." Graco, 79 F.3d at 352 (holding that, "while it is clear
+that any inconsistent statements by [the plaintiff] would be relevant to Graco's defense for
+impeachment purposes, it is far from clear that they would be necessary within the meaning of
+the Shield Law"). See also In re ABC, 189 Misc. 2d at 808, 735 N.Y.S.2d at 922 ("[W]hen the
+Legislature speaks of unpublished news being critical or necessary to the proof of a claim or
+® In any event, any information about payments or contracts with
+would be confidential proprietary
+business information and therefore independently subject to motion to quash under Rule 45(d)(3)(B).
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 20 of 25
+defense, it does not have in mind general and ordinary impeachment materials or matters which
+might arguably bear on the assessment of credibility of witnesses.").
+The striking lack of specificity apparent on the face of the Subpoena further demonstrates
+Ms. Maxwell's failure to meet the "critical or necessary" requirement. She does not ask for
+communications on specific topics that would tend to impeach particular statements from
+-she simply asks for "[a]ll documents containing communications with
+" in the apparent hope that something useful will come of it. That is precisely the kind
+of ""'fishing expedition' into the work product of a reporter" that the Shield Law is "intended to
+prevent." People v. Iannaccone, 112 Misc. 2d 1057, 1060, 447 N.Y.S.2d 996, 998 (Sup. Ct.
+N.Y. Cty. 1982).
+2.
+Ms. Maxwell Has Not Exhausted Alternative Sources for the
+Information Sought by the Subpoena
+Under the Shield Law, New York courts permit "disclosure of non-confidential material
+only as a last resort." In re ABC, 189 Misc. 2d at 808, 735 N.Y.S.2d 919, 921 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.
+Cty. 2001) (emphasis in original). See also O'Neill, 71 N.Y.2d at 526-27 ("[A]ttempts to obtain
+evidence by subjecting the press to discovery as a nonparty would be widespread if not restricted
+on a routine basis."). Thus, in order to overcome the privilege, even if the "critical or necessary"
+requirement were met, the party seeking disclosure must make a "clear and specific showing"
+that the information is "not obtainable from any alternative source." Section 79-h(c). This
+requires the party to show not only that it "attempted to obtain the information from other
+sources," but that it "exhaust[ed] all other available sources of information." Graco, 79 F.3d at
+353. See also In re CBS (Vacco), 232 A.D.2d 291, 292, 684 N.Y.S.2d 443, 444 (Ist Dep't 1996)
+("Notwithstanding [subpoenaing party's] excuses offered to the contrary, no clear and specific
+showing has been made that the relevant material was unavailable elsewhere."); Flynn, 235
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 21 of 25
+A.D.2d at 909 ("Other than stating that the materials are not otherwise available, plaintiff has not
+detailed any efforts made to obtain the requested documents or the information contained
+therein."). As the court in In re Pan Am Corp., 161 B.R. 577, 585 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), pointed out:
+"At the very least, a party seeking to overcome a constitutional privilege on the basis of necessity
+must show that it has exhausted all other available non-privileged sources for the information.
+Here, Pan Am has not even worked up a sweat, much less exhausted itself."
+Based on a review of the motion practice in the docket in this case, it is apparent that
+Ms. Maxwell has made some effort (and perhaps even "worked up a sweat") to obtain discovery
+in this case, but there is no indication that she has "exhausted" all non-journalist sources for the
+information sought by the Subpoena. As noted above, information about payments, contracts
+and communications involving
+can be sought directly from
+To the
+extent she seeks email communications between
+Churcher, even if
+did not have or produce a complete set of
+Maxwell can
+also seek-
+—and, indeed, apparently has sought—such documents from the relevant internet
+service providers. See ECF Nos. 205-208 (Motions to Quash Subpoenas to Apple, Inc. and
+Microsoft Corporation Seeking Production of All of
+Sent and Received Emails).
+She does not need a journalist to produce them. And before Ms. Maxwell can demand to open
+up a reporter's files about communications with the various "agents" of |
+she names
+in the Subpoena, she, of course, has the option of seeking discovery directly from those
+individuals. See Pugh, 1997 WL 669876, at *4 (quashing subpoena for non-confidential
+outtakes from television news program where subpoenaing party had "not deposed ... all of the
+individuals interviewed by [news program] on the issue of statements made to [news program] or
+any other media source").
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 22 of 25
+As the Court of Appeals explained, "[t]he autonomy of the press would be jeopardized if
+resort to its resource materials, by litigants seeking to utilize the newsgathering efforts of
+journalists for their private purposes, were routinely permitted." O'Neill, 71 N.Y.2d at 526. In
+light of the lack of any showing that alternatives to seeking discovery from a reporter have been
+exhausted, the Subpoena must be quashed.
+***
+Given that all of the documents sought by the Subpoena are protected from disclosure
+under the Shield Law, "no legitimate purpose would be served" by requiring Ms. Churcher to sit
+for a deposition only to object to every substantive question on privilege grounds.
+1,22
+N. Y.3d at 319. Indeed, that would be precisely the "undue diversion of journalistic effort and
+disruption of press functions" that both the Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit have warned
+against. O'Neill, 71 N.Y.2d at 528; see also
+194 F.3d at 35 (expressing concern with
+the potential to "burden the press with heavy costs of subpoena compliance" that could "impair
+[the press's] ability to perform its duties"). Accordingly, the Subpoena should be quashed in its
+entirety under the Shield Law.
+II.
+THE SUBPOENA SHOULD ALSO BE QUASHED UNDER RULE 45 FOR
+FAILURE TO ALLOW A REASONABLE TIME FOR COMPLIANCE AND
+IMPOSING AN UNDUE BURDEN
+Setting aside the substantive reasons why the Subpoena must be quashed under the New
+York Shield Law, the Subpoena must also be quashed under Rule 45 because it does not allow a
+reasonable time for compliance and is unduly burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i),
+(iv).
+Ms. Churcher was served with the Subpoena in person on Saturday June 4, 2016—twelve
+days (nine business days) before the scheduled deposition and production date. The Subpoena
+not only commands Ms. Churcher to appear for a deposition, it also demands a broad range of
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 23 of 25
+documents, including "all documents containing communications" with
+and
+with any agent for
+(See Subpoena, Documents to be Produced I'l 1-2.) The
+Subpoena does not limit these demands to a particular time period or topic, instead simply asking
+for "all communications."
+Ms. Churcher's reporter-source relationship with
+dates back more than five
+years and spans Ms. Churcher's employment with two separate news organizations (and as a
+freelancer), using multiple different email accounts. See Churcher Decl. 9 10.?
+Moreover, as discussed above, much of Ms. Churcher's communications with and about
+involved information that Ms. Churcher received in confidence. Even if those
+communications were not protected as a whole by the Shield Law (which they are), at a
+minimum, all of these communications would need to be carefully reviewed to ensure that
+documents revealing the identities of confidential sources or any information that was received
+based on a promise of confidentiality was redacted or withheld. It is simply not feasible to
+expect more than five years" worth of communications from multiple accounts to be collected,
+reviewed and appropriately redacted in a week and a half.
+Although Rule 45 does not define what is a "reasonable time to comply," courts have
+generally found that at least fourteen days from the date of service (which is the deadline for
+serving objections to document requests) is "presumptively reasonable."
+v. Hendler, No.
+09 Civ. 4486(RLE), 2011 WL 321139, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2011) (citing In re Rule 45
+Subpoena Issued to Cablevision Sys. Corp. Regarding IP Address 69.120.35.31, No. MISC 08-
+347(ARR)(MDG), 2010 WL 2219343, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2010) (collecting cases)).
+"Federal courts have ... found compliance times of eight and seven days not to be reasonable."
+" Ms. Churcher does not even retain full access to her email accounts at her prior employer (The Mail on Sunday).
+Churcher Decl. 9 3.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218 Filed 06/15/16 Page 24 of 25
+Id. (holding that nine days was not reasonable under the circumstances). But even fourteen days
+would be unreasonable here, given the breadth of the documents demanded and the efforts
+necessary to review and produce those documents.
+Finally, the broad scope of the documents requested—with no limitation on time period
+or topic—is unduly burdensome given the, at best, tangential relevance of Ms. Churcher's
+testimony. A non-party—and particularly a non-party journalist—should not be burdened with
+review of years' worth of communications based on little showing of any relevance or
+materiality. See Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P., No. 03 Civ. 1382 RWS, 2003 WL
+23018833, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) (explaining that "*'undue burden' depends upon "such
+factors as relevance, the need of the party for the documents, the breadth of the document, the
+time period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents are described and the
+burden imposed") (citation omitted). And asking for essentially all communications related to
+(among other things) is hardly "proportional to the needs of the case." Fed. R. Civ.
+P. 26(b)(I). See Henry v.
+Hotel Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-1789 (ER)(JLC), 2016 WL
+303114, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2016) (granting motion to quash where subpoenaing party had
+not "satisfied the Court that [the] production of [the records sought] is proportional to the needs
+of the case").
+Thus, the Subpoena should be quashed under Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(i) and (iv).
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 218
+Filed 06/15/16 Page 25 of 25
+CONCLUSION
+For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Churcher respectfully requests that her motion to quash
+Ms. Maxwell's Subpoena be granted.
+Dated: New York, New York
+June 15, 2016
+Respectfully submitted,
+TREMAINE LLP
+By: Is/ Eric J. Feder
+Laura R. Handman
+Eric J. Feder
+1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
+New York, New York 10020
+Tel: (212) 489-8230
+Fax: (212) 489-8340
+laurahandman@dwt.com
+ericfeder@dwt.com
+Attorneys for Non-Party Sharon Churcher
+20
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e251a8690b99b049cebf04a7409bc6f476f84f4b33cf1718ab7542fec7a7c166.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e251a8690b99b049cebf04a7409bc6f476f84f4b33cf1718ab7542fec7a7c166.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25d64187e28db742e23586965a0b87c761737b7a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e251a8690b99b049cebf04a7409bc6f476f84f4b33cf1718ab7542fec7a7c166.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -300,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e251a8690b99b049cebf04a7409bc6f476f84f4b33cf1718ab7542fec7a7c166",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 25,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e35b5dddb4d08240f94a3b75828db94aa0630f61d98a4592f67c6c373daf5040",
+  "output_sha256": "f632aa169d149cbcb4dc68eff3a8c5954f0c7bc5b90664d1d41514bf316140be",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2a693b2b1d72924cef8cd0621a3025655dd9dd3b96497c93beb8c7e82e1f1e2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2a693b2b1d72924cef8cd0621a3025655dd9dd3b96497c93beb8c7e82e1f1e2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6e3c4aa010b2eddc2513d4bd1e8a81e70adec12
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2a693b2b1d72924cef8cd0621a3025655dd9dd3b96497c93beb8c7e82e1f1e2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 381-5 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2a693b2b1d72924cef8cd0621a3025655dd9dd3b96497c93beb8c7e82e1f1e2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2a693b2b1d72924cef8cd0621a3025655dd9dd3b96497c93beb8c7e82e1f1e2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..982c44080fd2642973f33def74ced961e136b375
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2a693b2b1d72924cef8cd0621a3025655dd9dd3b96497c93beb8c7e82e1f1e2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2a693b2b1d72924cef8cd0621a3025655dd9dd3b96497c93beb8c7e82e1f1e2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2d8274b8998b09b49316044f1a0a5a84a7ef129b17b6b81864b3d6820e3be561",
+  "output_sha256": "8e0ffc53391d9eab3d9654ed5e64338e9fc310fae176f02242b384eec57ef138",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b07566756d3fd4020212e13e76d9afdfff14e1984e679fc9cc0120d3cfaeb1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b07566756d3fd4020212e13e76d9afdfff14e1984e679fc9cc0120d3cfaeb1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc45a230955d4e95a247bec8780927a99d544929
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b07566756d3fd4020212e13e76d9afdfff14e1984e679fc9cc0120d3cfaeb1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 852
+Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USA / Plaintiffs)
+Case No. 15 Cv 7433
+Ghislaine Maxwell
+Defendants)
+)
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
+proceeding type
+date proceeding held
+Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a
+_held on
+has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.
+Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting
+the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.
+The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court
+any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also
+be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically
+available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.
+This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security
+numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information
+may proceed by motion.
+I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter.
+/s Ellen
+Court Reporter/Transcriber
+Date
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b07566756d3fd4020212e13e76d9afdfff14e1984e679fc9cc0120d3cfaeb1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b07566756d3fd4020212e13e76d9afdfff14e1984e679fc9cc0120d3cfaeb1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60355591c1de76682dffbca87e27874e3b6d71f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b07566756d3fd4020212e13e76d9afdfff14e1984e679fc9cc0120d3cfaeb1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2b07566756d3fd4020212e13e76d9afdfff14e1984e679fc9cc0120d3cfaeb1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4095fa107fbd5ca3eed76145c269e279b3fdc304b74cdf1667b8919c3f57a7d3",
+  "output_sha256": "0b72744d39f7b35b4c6ed787589640359336fd14deee6edff695e2f98090fd66",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b1a272f94c814b4e76f9ac9b1cf5ebb9249d8ca14d9ac566a934ce06263b86.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b1a272f94c814b4e76f9ac9b1cf5ebb9249d8ca14d9ac566a934ce06263b86.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..462ee280a0897c680eb5831b6c939db8797dcbd0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b1a272f94c814b4e76f9ac9b1cf5ebb9249d8ca14d9ac566a934ce06263b86.md
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 382 |
+Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Index No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+Plaintiff,
+-against-
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+SUPPLEMENTAL
+DECLARATION OF
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
+Defendant.
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ declares under penalty of perjury that the following
+is true and correct:
+I am personally familiar with the facts set forth in this supplemental declaration,
+which I am submitting to clarify certain averments made in my August 11, 2016 declaration in
+support of my pending motion to intervene and to unseal documents.
+2.
+In my previous declaration, I characterized the offenses to which Jeffrey Epstein
+pleaded guilty as "involving sex with minors" (9| 7) and "related to sex with minors" (9 10).
+These statements were imprecise; they were not intended to imply that Mr. Epstein was
+convicted of having sex with minors (he was not). Rather, and for the avoidance of any
+ambiguity, Mr. Epstein pleaded guilty to solicitation of prostitution and to procuring a person
+under the age of 18 for prostitution.
+In paragraph 11 of my previous declaration, I stated: "During the criminal
+investigation of Mr. Epstein, which spanned the years 2006 through 2008,
+was
+interviewed by law enforcement and provided details about Mr. Epstein's alleged criminal acts."
+I further stated: *
+did not allege to law enforcement that I engaged in sexual
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 382
+misconduct of any sort. According to the Assistant United States
+Filed 09/19/16 chalageR of 2
+negotiating Mr. Epstein's plea arrangement, while he was at the U.S. Attorney's Office, Ms.
+Giuffre never mentioned me as having been involved in any sexual misconduct, much less
+suggested that she had been trafficked to me by Mr. Epstein." This language may confuse the
+precise timeline of these events. According to FBI records,
+was contacted in 2007
+about the investigation of Mr. Epstein, although she did not provide a detailed interview at that
+time.
+has asserted elsewhere that she first supplied details concerning her
+allegations against Mr. Epstein in 2011. Regardless, I was told by the Assistant United States
+Attorney that he was aware of no allegations made against me by anyone during his tenure at the
+U.S. Attorney's Office, where he worked until approximately 2010. As further detailed in my
+previous declaration, as far as I am aware,
+never claimed that I had sexual contact
+with her—a claim that is utterly false before her filing in the CVRA Action in late 2014.
+Dated: August 19, 2016
+Chilmark, Massachusetts
+a mane
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b1a272f94c814b4e76f9ac9b1cf5ebb9249d8ca14d9ac566a934ce06263b86.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b1a272f94c814b4e76f9ac9b1cf5ebb9249d8ca14d9ac566a934ce06263b86.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b26939eaf3d8d065d76e2564edb8b242675ef88f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b1a272f94c814b4e76f9ac9b1cf5ebb9249d8ca14d9ac566a934ce06263b86.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2b1a272f94c814b4e76f9ac9b1cf5ebb9249d8ca14d9ac566a934ce06263b86",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "33eb7308db69a2fe3569485b8b9241e755a71c661fa66d4576d74ae120ad2e5e",
+  "output_sha256": "e6505815245274c831c541755910f60ed7f263087e8fa544149e7eba98c5e4cb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b3b5f64c0f4bb752acac03d7af8c926233018019bf610bac91f1e9b08dd8d4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b3b5f64c0f4bb752acac03d7af8c926233018019bf610bac91f1e9b08dd8d4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9f5de400d84e3bcf09629dbe721f9a3d76f5ea4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b3b5f64c0f4bb752acac03d7af8c926233018019bf610bac91f1e9b08dd8d4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 117 Filed 01/25/21 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED: 1/25/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+On January 25, 2021, the Court received by email the attached letter from the Bureau of
+Prisons ("BOP**). In the letter, the BOP requests that the Court vacate its January 15, 2021
+Order, Dkt. No. 116, which directed the BOP to give the Defendant access to her Governmentprovided laptop computer on weekends and holidays during the hours that she is permitted to
+review discovery.
+The Defendant and the Government may respond to the BOP's letter within one week of
+this Order.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: January 25, 2021
+New York, New York
+Ali Go. Notor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 117 Filed 01/25/21 Page 2 of 3
+U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
+Federal Bureau of Prisons
+Metropolitan Detention Center
+80 29h Street
+Brooklyn, New York 1/232
+January 25, 2021
+BY ECE
+'The Honorable Alison 1. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Ghislaine Maxwell, Reg. No. 02879-509
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+This letter is written in response to Order granted on January 15, 2021, concerning Ghislaine
+Maxwell, Reg. 02879-509., an inmate currently confined at the Metropolitan Detention Center ('MDC") in
+Brooklyn, New York. The MDC Brooklyn respectfully requests that Your Honor vacate the Order given
+MDC Brooklyn was not given the opportunity to object to defense counsel's claims, although the objection
+had been reiterated to the U.S. Attorney's Office numerous times.
+Defense counsel expressed various concerns regarding Ms. Maxwell's confinement limiting her
+access to discovery. However, Ms. Maxwell has received a significant amount of time to review her
+discovery. On November 18, 2020, the Government provided the MDC Brooklyn with a laptop for Ms.
+Maxwell to use to review discovery. Ms. Maxwell has been and will continue to be permitted to use that
+laptop to review her discovery for thirteen (13) hours per day, five (5) days per week. In addition to the
+Government laptop, she has access to the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers. Although defense counsel
+has indicated that the MDC Brooklyn discovery computers are not equipped to read all of her electronic
+discovery, the computers are capable of reviewing most of the electronic discovery. Despite defense
+counsel's claim that Ms. Maxwell's lacks sufficient time to fully review her discovery, her consistent use of
+Government laptop and MDC Brooklyn's discovery computers undercuts this claim.
+Moreover, Ms. Maxwell continues to have contact with her legal counsel five (5) days per week, three
+(3) hours per day via video-teleconference and via telephone; this is far more time than any other MDC
+inmate is allotted to communicate with their attorneys.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 117 Filed 01/25/21 Page 3 of 3
+We respectfully request that Your Honor vacate the order of January 15, 2021, and allow the
+institution to resume the prior schedule of laptop access, Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM - 8:00 PM.
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Soplia Papapetru
+Sophia Papapetru
+Staff Attorney
+MDC Brooklyn
+Federal Bureau of Prisons
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b3b5f64c0f4bb752acac03d7af8c926233018019bf610bac91f1e9b08dd8d4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b3b5f64c0f4bb752acac03d7af8c926233018019bf610bac91f1e9b08dd8d4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..325e14ed1751e1d10ebd40b27e331d47d6f0f16b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b3b5f64c0f4bb752acac03d7af8c926233018019bf610bac91f1e9b08dd8d4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -38,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2b3b5f64c0f4bb752acac03d7af8c926233018019bf610bac91f1e9b08dd8d4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f100717ec3e177f0b47feb857e56331c8bf87142f77d6593d0ac9a7d53e8bb42",
+  "output_sha256": "796a3aa4b9850a491d3d90b4248c7072f657124b87b05d372df1edb8231423ed",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b94ebbed2d71fe6cedbc74ea26f06ce15706f91a08df0a855b2fdaf74c7603.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b94ebbed2d71fe6cedbc74ea26f06ce15706f91a08df0a855b2fdaf74c7603.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..342073c82df620a0fafbdc92a5699f41ff2b8df3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b94ebbed2d71fe6cedbc74ea26f06ce15706f91a08df0a855b2fdaf74c7603.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 450 |
+Filed 09/30/16
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-- X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+-- X
+Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of
+Defendant's Motion to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+1.
+I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+|. P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of the Motion to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein.
+2.
+Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the
+4.
+Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of •
+stamped GM_01085-01087.
+Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of •
+stamped GM_01098.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 450 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 3
+5.
+Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an email dated September 24,
+2007 from A.U.S.A Ann
+Villafana.
+6. Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the |
+stamped
+GIUFFRE007597-007605.
+7.
+Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+Dated: September 30, 2016
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 450 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on September 30, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S.
+Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's Motion to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein via ECF on
+the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Pt. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+_ JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Jack Goldberger
+Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 N. Australian Avenue, #1400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+jgoldberger@agwpa.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b94ebbed2d71fe6cedbc74ea26f06ce15706f91a08df0a855b2fdaf74c7603.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b94ebbed2d71fe6cedbc74ea26f06ce15706f91a08df0a855b2fdaf74c7603.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..077ba8acb592fa0921680af67186b052168f7574
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2b94ebbed2d71fe6cedbc74ea26f06ce15706f91a08df0a855b2fdaf74c7603.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2b94ebbed2d71fe6cedbc74ea26f06ce15706f91a08df0a855b2fdaf74c7603",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "24b10e87211425c0d3c3476231c4ce56072955a9f8e0027f6d54677bfa94f2d9",
+  "output_sha256": "0c1ac93ae93c7b84cfdcb3cf7a07982010512af32d755d141f0ea37d9cf1bf49",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2ded4062d0a63d240c6d1e4c132cc642674958d7d48b67fbf40165a38f8630c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2ded4062d0a63d240c6d1e4c132cc642674958d7d48b67fbf40165a38f8630c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a352e510f60ce79fbe87754e7256b73a814bad5f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2ded4062d0a63d240c6d1e4c132cc642674958d7d48b67fbf40165a38f8630c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 186
+Filed 03/26/21
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+
+DOC SONY
+DOCU
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 3/26/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court sees no reason to maintain the redactions on Boies Schiller Flexner LLP's
+March 26, 2021 letter. Dkt. No. 183. Unless the Government indicates an objection to removing
+those redactions by March 29, 2021, BSF shall file the unredacted version on the docket on
+March 30, 2021.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: March 26, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia O. Nattr
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2ded4062d0a63d240c6d1e4c132cc642674958d7d48b67fbf40165a38f8630c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2ded4062d0a63d240c6d1e4c132cc642674958d7d48b67fbf40165a38f8630c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eeffaa993d2f63b9984033a9a3e7859f69188f39
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2ded4062d0a63d240c6d1e4c132cc642674958d7d48b67fbf40165a38f8630c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2ded4062d0a63d240c6d1e4c132cc642674958d7d48b67fbf40165a38f8630c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9fa2439ad5c72827aaf4f38811ad72882a293e98ed52a01c351aba5cf84d43b4",
+  "output_sha256": "8c61c3e639a778b65541b17a902318dd6d4997f0d4cadc840aeea1542e41fece",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2e7b66412776fa74773b4cbe8ac053f761853300d19b439c806177b9c377adf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2e7b66412776fa74773b4cbe8ac053f761853300d19b439c806177b9c377adf.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c01101a3eafdb9a2cac162dbe4a76903aed2c67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2e7b66412776fa74773b4cbe8ac053f761853300d19b439c806177b9c377adf.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 401
+Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DocI
+DATE FILED: 11/1/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions to the parties' motions in
+limine, responses in opposition, replies in support, and related exhibits. As the Court indicated at
+today's conference, some of the parties' proposed redactions are overbroad considering the
+three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
+F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In particular, for the reasons stated at today's conference, the Court
+denies the Government's request to redact section ten of the Government's motion in limine. See
+Dkt. No. 380. The Court will also not permit redactions pertaining to the general description of
+evidence or anticipated testimony as such redactions are unnecessary to protect the privacy
+interests of the individuals implicated. Accordingly, the parties must propose more tailored
+redactions consistent with the Court's discussion at today's conference.
+The parties are ORDERED to submit the proposals to the Court via email by November
+4, 2021. In order to facilitate the Court's review of the requests, the Court requires the parties to
+submit the proposed redactions as a single document and with the proposed redactions
+highlighted. The Defendant's proposed redactions should be highlighted in one color, and the
+Government's a different color.
+The Court will rule on the proposed redactions expeditiously.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 401
+Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 2
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 1, 2021
+New York, New York
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2e7b66412776fa74773b4cbe8ac053f761853300d19b439c806177b9c377adf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2e7b66412776fa74773b4cbe8ac053f761853300d19b439c806177b9c377adf.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03bd76e8c35ed8d077eff9b6dcced8b8a5f4c3cf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2e7b66412776fa74773b4cbe8ac053f761853300d19b439c806177b9c377adf.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2e7b66412776fa74773b4cbe8ac053f761853300d19b439c806177b9c377adf",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "74f7d6de85a4b3cf17d2cb8871b947b87940135ae568c0e1a41324c2074b7d57",
+  "output_sha256": "fe1da2697c5f9b4c130f399f28192eadf1fd403cac0e2f76ea9a866da8d2e5e9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2fb1251ff907d701260127de6cbe3a2b5f90a01f79db455b02a0c684187e1d8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2fb1251ff907d701260127de6cbe3a2b5f90a01f79db455b02a0c684187e1d8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bf5970f7a5f29632b37a425842ce2454c09a738
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2fb1251ff907d701260127de6cbe3a2b5f90a01f79db455b02a0c684187e1d8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,388 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 |
+Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 13
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+May 21, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The parties respectfully submit this joint letter in response to the Court's Order dated May
+11, 2021, which directed the parties to meet and confer for at least 30 minutes by phone regarding
+the overall pretrial disclosure schedule. (Dkt. No. 277). The parties met and conferred for
+approximately 80 minutes by telephone on this topic. Although the parties have agreed upon a
+schedule for some pretrial matters, the parties have not reached complete agreement on a full
+schedule. Accordingly, the parties set forth below the proposed dates on which the parties agree,
+the Government's proposal, and the defendant's proposal.
+The parties agree on the following proposed dates:
+• The parties shall simultaneously file any motions in limine by October 18, 2021, or
+6 weeks in advance of trial. The parties shall simultaneously file any responses to
+motions in limine by November 1, 2021, or 4 weeks in advance of trial. The parties
+will endeavor to have all motions fully briefed 4 weeks before trial in accordance
+with the Court's Order. The parties respectfully note that, as is the case in preparing
+for any trial, to the extent additional issues arise that require briefing, the parties
+will promptly bring such issues to the Court's attention.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 13
+Page 2
+• The parties shall simultaneously file proposed jury questionnaires and proposed
+voir dire 3 weeks in advance of jury selection, or by October 25, 2021.
+• The parties shall simultaneously file requests to charge and proposed verdiet sheets
+by November 8, 2021, or 3 weeks in advance of trial.
+The parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding the remaining pretrial dates.
+Government's Position
+For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set the
+remaining schedule consistent with the Government's proposals. In particular, the Government
+makes the following proposals:
+Identities of the Victims
+The Government will provide the defense with the identities of the victims referenced in
+the S2 Indictment by September 13, 2021, or 11 weeks in advance of trial. The Government
+understands that the defense requests that the Government disclose the identities of the victims
+immediately. The Government notes that the parties previously agreed, and the Court ordered,
+that the Government would provide the defense with the identities of the victims 8 weeks before
+trial, on May 17, 2021, assuming trial were to begin as scheduled on July 12, 2021. (Dkt. No. 229,
+250).
+The Government's proposal would provide the defense with the victims' identities
+substantially in advance of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Kee, No. 98 Cr. 778 (DLC), 2000 WL
+760096, at *1-*2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2000) (requiring Government to disclose identities of
+victims approximately 45 days in advance of trial).
+The Government's Proposed Witness List, Giglio Material, Jencks Act Material, and Rule 404(b)
+Notice
+The Government is prepared—-consistent with the Court's April 26, 2021 Order (Dkt. No.
+250) to produce a proposed witness list, Giglio material, Jencks Act material, and notice pursuant
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 3 of 13
+Page 3
+to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by October 11, 2021, or 7 weeks in advance of trial. These
+materials will include testifying witness statements, which themselves will also include any coconspirator statements about which witnesses may testify at trial. This deadline, which is far in
+advance of when such disclosures are ordinarily made in this District, will provide the defense
+with ample time to review these materials and prepare for trial. The proposed deadline for notice
+under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) will provide the defense with ample time to review the
+disclosure and file any appropriate motions.
+The defense has requested that the Government disclose Giglio and Jencks Act material 9
+weeks in advance of trial, arguing that these materials are necessary for the preparation of motions
+in limine. The Government respectfully notes that this proffered reason does not justify even
+earlier disclosure of the material, particularly in light of the routine practice in this District to brief
+motions in limine well in advance of disclosure of Giglio and Jencks Act material.' Instead, the
+Government is prepared to provide the defense with such material 7 weeks in advance of trial,
+which is significantly earlier than in most cases and consistent with the common practice in this
+District-even for trials held during the pandemic—as well as the Court's April 26, 2021 Order.?
+' See, e.g., United States v. Silver, 15 Cr. 93 (month-long bribery trial; 3500 material and
+Government exhibits produced approximately three weeks before trial (one week after motions in
+limine)); United States v. Levin, 15 Cr. 101 (two defendant, three-plus week fraud trial; 3500
+material produced two weeks before trial (three weeks after motions in limine; reciprocal exhibit
+lists exchanged six weeks before trial); United States v. Skelos, 15 Cr. 317 (two defendant, monthlong bribery trial; 3500 material and Government exhibits produced approximately one month
+before trial (one week prior to motions in limine)); United States v. Ulbricht, 14 Cr. 68 (three week
+cybercrime and narcotics trial; 3500 material produced one week before trial (more than three
+weeks after motions in limine)).
+2 The Government respectfully notes that the law is clear in this Circuit that the Government is
+under no obligation under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 et seq., to produce prior statements of
+its witnesses until after each witness has testified on direct examination. Courts in this Circuit
+have consistently held that the district courts lack the power to mandate early production of Jencks
+material. See, e.g., United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 145 (2d Cir. 2001) (the "Jencks Act
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 4 of 13
+Page 4
+See, e.g., United States v.
+19 Cr. 504 (LAK), Dkt. No. 175 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2021)
+(ordering Government disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material 2 weeks before trial); United
+States v.
+19 Cr. 869 (ER), Dkt. No. 23 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) (ordering disclosure of
+Jencks Act and Giglio material 4 weeks before trial); see also United States v. Dupigny, 18 Cr. 528
+(JMF) (Government turned over Jencks Act material to the defense approximately one week before
+the original trial date in sex trafficking case); United States v. |
+1, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN)
+(Government turned over Jencks Act material approximately one week before trial); United States
+v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN) (Government turned over Jencks Act material approximately 2 weeks
+before scheduled trial date); United States v. Corley, 13 Cr. 48 (RPP) (AJN) (Dkt. Entry, Oct. 10,
+2013) (Government turned over Jencks Act material less than one week before trial of defendant
+charged with sex trafficking of a minor and possession of child pornography).
+The Government is unaware of any case of comparable complexity and scope in which
+such an early deadline has been set for witness-related disclosures, and the defense has cited none.
+Indeed, even in complex
+-collar cases in this District that involve far more complicated fact
+patterns than this case, the Government often provides 3500 material two weeks prior to trial, and,
+if the defendants agree to reasonable stipulations, four weeks before trial. See, e.g., United States
+prohibits a District Court from ordering the pretrial disclosure of witness statements."); In re
+United States, 834 F.2d 283, 287 (2d Cir. 1987). The Government recognizes that Giglio v. United
+States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), requires disclosure of any materials that might be used to impeach
+key witnesses "in sufficient time that the defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to act upon
+the information efficaciously." United States v. Rodriguez, 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007). In
+this District, the time which is considered to allow for effective use of the material is typically
+measured in days or, at most, weeks, before trial. See, e.g., United States v. Underwood, No. 04
+Cr. 424 (RWS), 2005 WL 927012, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2005) (Government ordered to produce
+L, No. 04 CR. 424 (RWS),
+2004 WL 2985361, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2004) (noting "the widely accepted practice in this
+district of producing impeachment material when [the Government] provides prior statements of
+a witness pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500," and ordering production of Giglio material by Friday
+before trial unless materials are voluminous).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 5 of 13
+Page 5
+1, 19 Cr. 869 (ER), Dkt. No. 23 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020) (contemplating 3500 material four
+weeks before trial in complex accounting fraud case); United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM),
+Dkt. No. 66 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2018) (3500 material one month before securities fraud trial). The
+defense's request for yet earlier disclosure is unfounded and reflects a significant-and
+unwarranted-departure from the practices in this District.
+Consistent with the Government's previously stated position (Dkt. No. 204 at 192), it is
+entirely appropriate for defense counsel to receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through
+Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits. This is because the Government only intends to
+introduce co-conspirator statements either through the testimony of witnesses, which will be
+previewed in the Jencks Act material, or in the exhibits, which will be marked before trial. As the
+Government has previously noted, the Second Circuit has rejected the notion that non-exculpatory
+co-conspirator statements are discoverable by Rule 16 or by any other means other than the Jencks
+Act. See In re U.S., 834 F.2d 283, 284-87 (2d Cir. 1987) (issuing a writ of mandamus reversing
+District Court's order directing the Government "to produce all oral statements made by the
+defendants and coconspirators that the Government planned to offer at trial as admissions of a
+defendant" under Fed. R. Evid. 801). The cases cited by the defense all involved orders granting
+bills of particulars requiring the Government to provide a list of all alleged coconspirators. They
+did not involve orders directing separate notice of coconspirator statements that the Government
+may introduce at trial. Indeed, the Government is unaware of any case in which such particularized
+notice distinct from the production of Jencks Act and marked exhibits has been ordered, and the
+defense cites none. This Court has already denied the defendant's motion for a bill of particulars
+for Counts One through Four (see Dkt. No. 207 at 19), and the Government has separately
+submitted its opposition to the defendant's supplemental motion for a bill of particulars.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 6 of 13
+Page 6
+Government's Proposed Exhibit List and Marked Exhibits
+The Government is prepared to provide the defense with its proposed exhibit list and
+marked exhibits by October 25, 2021, or 5 weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will allow the
+defense adequate time to review and raise objections to any Government exhibits.
+Defense Disclosures
+The Government proposes that the defense be required to provide expert witness
+disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(C) by October 4, 2021, or 8
+weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will give the defendant ample time to determine what, if
+any, expert testimony she may seek to offer. The defense— who has had the Government's expert
+notice since April 23, 2021—seeks to provide expert notice 4 weeks in advance of trial, or by
+November 1, 2021, but such a belated disclosure would not allow adequate time in advance of trial
+to brief any motions regarding the admissibility of such testimony, much less by the Court's
+deadline. See, e.g., United States v. Rajaratnam, No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL 723530, at
+*3, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011) (reasoning that "the purpose of reciprocal expert disclosures is to
+minimize surprise that often results from unexpected expert testimony, reduce the need for
+continuances, and to provide the opponent with a fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert's
+testimony through focused cross-examination."; "Specifically, under Rule 16, a defendant's
+obligation to make expert disclosures does not turn on whether the government will call a certain
+witness or prove certain overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy—disclosures mentioned nowhere
+in the Rule-but on whether the government has made its own expert disclosures.") (internal
+quotations and citations omitted); see also United States v. Jasper, No. 00 Cr. 825 (PKL), 2003
+WL 223212, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2003) (disagreeing with the defense's claim that the
+Government's request for reciprocal discovery and summaries of expert testimony was
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 7 of 13
+Page 7
+"premature" because the defense had not yet decided whether to call the expert and explaining that
+"[a]llowing [the] defendant to defer the provision of such discovery until a final determination
+regarding whether or not [to] put an expert witness on the stand would seem to frustrate" the goal
+of allowing the Government a fair opportunity to prepare). The Government further notes that the
+defense's proposed disclosure date would not provide sufficient time for the Government to locate
+a rebuttal expert if appropriate or to provide notice of that rebuttal expert to the defense. Because
+experts are typically not available on a matter of weeks' notice, it cannot be the case that the
+defense will wait to review Jencks Act materials before contacting and retaining experts; there is
+no basis for delaying disclosure of this information to the Government, particularly given the delay
+this will cause to resolving any potential Daubert issues before trial.
+In addition, the Government proposes that the defense provide a proposed witness list and
+witness statements, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2, and disclosures pursuant
+to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(1)(B) by November 1, 2021, or 4
+weeks in advance of trial. This deadline will provide the defense with ample time to determine
+what, if any, defense witnesses may testify at trial. This deadline will also permit the Government
+adequate time to review these materials and raise any appropriate objections or motions in advance
+of trial.
+Defendant's Position
+Ms. Maxwell respectfully proposes the following pretrial disclosure schedule:
+• May 24 - government discloses identities of alleged victims.
+• Sept. 27 (9 weeks before trial) - government discloses Jencks Act/3500
+material, Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence and notice, the government's
+witness list, any co-conspirator statements it intends to introduce at trial, and
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 8 of 13
+Page 8
+the identity of any unindicted co-conspirator.
+• Oct. 11 (7 weeks before trial) - government discloses exhibit list.
+• Oct. 18 (6 weeks before trial) - simultaneous filing of motions in limine.?
+• Oct. 25 (5 weeks before trial; 3 weeks before jury selection) - simultaneous
+filing of proposed jury questionnaire and voir dire.
+• Nov. 1 (4 weeks before trial) -responses to motions in limine.
+• Nov. 1 (4 weeks before trial) - defense expert witness disclosure.
+• Nov. 8 (3 weeks before trial) - simultaneous filing of requests to charge and
+verdict sheet.
+• At the close of the government's case-in-chief - defense discloses Rule
+16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(1)(B) materials, defense witness list and Rule 26.2
+statements.
+Ms. Maxwell hereby states, in accordance with the Court's directive (Dkt. 277), her
+points of disagreement with the government's proposed schedule.
+Identities of Accusers
+The government offers no justification for continuing to withhold defense counsel,
+subject to the protective order, the identities of the alleged victims in this case, so that the
+defense can adequately prepare for trial. The government has never argued that Ms. Maxwell
+presents a safety risk to these witnesses. Any privacy concerns are already diminished in light
+" The defense reserves the right to file additional motions in limine at a later time after a
+horough review of the Jencks Act material and the government's exhibits. The governmen
+previously has indicated to counsel that the Jencks Act materials total in the "low thousands'
+of pages. In addition, the defense anticipates that many evidentiary issues cannot be decided
+prior to the presentation of evidence and will necessarily be raised in the context of a particular
+witness's testimony.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 9 of 13
+Page 9
+of the fact that some accusers have spoken publicly about this case. The government's
+principal justification for withholding their identities until September 13 is that earlier
+disclosure would be inconsistent with the "practice" of the office. This is not a sufficient
+reason to withhold this information where any investigation of these accusers has to take place
+under the onerous conditions of COVID.
+Defendant's Proposal for Disclosure of Jencks Act/3500 and Giglio Material, Rule 404(b)
+Evidence and Notice, and Government Witness and Exhibit Lists
+The defense believes that shifting the deadlines up two weeks for motions in limine to
+be fully briefed four weeks prior to trial (Dkt. 277) necessitates a concomitant two week
+advancement of the dates for the government to produce Jencks Act/3500 and Giglio material,
+Rule 404(b) evidence and notice, and the government's witness and exhibit lists.
+The government's proposal allows only one week for the defense to review thousands
+of pages of 3500 material before filing motions in limine, and the government proposes
+disclosing its exhibit and witness lists one week after the in limine deadline. As discussed at
+the April 23d arraignment, the defense needs sufficient time in advance of the in limine
+deadline to review the materials and draft the appropriate motions.* The government's
+proposed process will frustrate the Court's aim of having in limine issues briefed four weeks
+in advance of trial to the extent possible.
+The cases cited by the government in which disclosures were made closer to trial are
+wholly inapposite. In each of the cited cases, charges were filed nearly contemporaneously
+with the alleged crimes.
+(indictment of 2 year conspiracy charged 4 years later); Dupigny
+" It bears repeating that two of Ms. Maxwell's counsel will be in other trials from September 13
+through October 22, i.e., the entire time between disclosure of the Jencks Act material and the in
+limine filing deadlines, further hampering efforts to efficiently review and develop any legal
+briefing on issues presented by the materials.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 10 of 13
+Page 10
+(2 year conspiracy charged the following year); L
+(1 year conspiracy charged the same
+year); Lebedev (2 year conspiracy charged in the second year); Corley (2 year conspiracy
+charged in January of the following year). None involved, as this one does, allegations of a
+10-year conspiracy charged 25 years later. None involved accusers who were located in at
+least one foreign country, possibly more, for whom investigation will have to occur during
+the midst of pandemic. The cases do not involve the same "length" or complexity of this one.
+Co-Conspirator Identities and Statements
+Regarding co-conspirator identities and statements, the government backtracked on its
+previous representations to counsel and the Court. Ms. Maxwell sought early disclosure of
+both in her pretrial motions (Dkt. 148 at 13-14), and the government promised it would give
+"notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through
+witness statements" sufficiently in advance of trial to permit objections by the defense. (Dkt.
+204 at 192) The Court agreed. (Dkt. 207 at 30-31). During recent conferrals on the schedule,
+however, the government made clear its intent to imbed any co-conspirator statements in the
+bulk of its Jencks/3500 material rather than separately disclose either the identity of any
+purported unindicted co-conspirator or their anticipated testimony. The government also
+stated for the first time its intent to identify any unindicted co-conspirator documentary
+statements (e.g., emails between Epstein and any number of thousands of persons) only when
+it produces its exhibit list, one week after the in limine filing deadline. Neither government
+proposal will allow Ms. Maxwell to raise appropriate objections to the materials sufficiently
+in advance of trial, nor promote briefing during the in limine motions. Indeed, the government
+fails to explain how Ms. Maxwell can object in limine to exhibits containing purported co-
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 11 of 13
+Page 11
+conspirator statements when they are not produced until after the in limine deadline has
+passed.
+District judges in this Circuit routinely order the government to disclose the identities
+of alleged co-conspirators in advance of trial to offset the "risk of surprise to the defendant,"
+especially if "there are a large number of co-conspirators and a long-running conspiracy."
+See, e.g., United States v. Akhavan, S3 20-cr-188 (JSR), 2020 WL 2555333 at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
+May 24, 2020). S In Akhavan, involving only a three-year conspiracy, Judge Rakoff
+determined the "complex series of events over a number of years" warranted a bill of
+particulars disclosing the names of the alleged co-conspirators. See also United States v.
+Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 666 (2d Cir. 1998). Unlike Akhavan, here the government has made
+no showing that disclosure of the names of unindicted co-conspirators would jeopardize its
+ongoing investigation into events that happened a quarter of a century ago.
+The defense anticipates interposing significant objections to introduction of any
+purported co-conspirator statements (whether through witness testimony or documentary
+evidence) at trial and needs to litigate their admissibility before trial. Given that motions in
+limine need to be fully briefed at least four weeks before trial, we request that the government
+identify any co-conspirator's names and statements (whether via witness testimony or
+5 See also United States v. Pinto-Thomaz, 352 F.Supp.3d 287, 301-02 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
+(government made no showing of risk to continued investigation, ordering disclosure of identity
+of any unindicted co-conspirator); United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 225, 241 (S.D.N.Y.
+2000), aff'd sub nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.
+2008) ("conspiracies alleged here were quite long-running (nearly ten years, and allegedly
+ongoing) and involved a large number of co-conspirators (at least 20 individuals).... We are
+sympathetic, therefore, with the magnitude of defense counsel's burden in trying to decipher the
+identities of alleged co-conspirators. A bill of particulars revealing the names of all persons whom
+the Government will claim at trial were unindicted co-conspirators might, therefore, be necessary
+to prevent prejudicial surprise at trial.").
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 12 of 13
+Page 12
+documentary evidence) at the same time as it discloses /3500 material.
+Defense Expert Disclosures
+The government's proposal that Ms. Maxwell disclose any expert testimony eight
+weeks in advance of trial, prior even to the prosecution's disclosure of the 3500/Jencks Act
+materials or government exhibits, puts the proverbial cart before the horse. All proposed
+opinion testimony must be "relevant to the task at hand." Daubert v. Merrell Dow
+Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993). To be reliable, the proposed expert must have,
+inter alia, "applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." United States
+V.
+,506 F.3d 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis supplied, citations omitted). Any
+defense expert that relates to the testimony of the accusers or 404(b) witnesses cannot possibly
+be disclosed before Ms. Maxwell has even been provided access to that testimony.
+To illustrate the point, one need look only at the government's expert disclosure. The
+proposed testimony for the government's expert, although purportedly not based on a review
+of the facts of this case, nevertheless appears to have been crafted by the government with full
+knowledge of the accusers' specific allegations. For example, the government proffers that
+their expert will testify that "minor victims ... may not identify themselves as victims of abuse
+while it is ongoing, and may not recognize the consequences of that abuse until adulthood."
+Clearly, the accusers must have represented facts to support these contentions or else there
+would be no grounds to admit this "blind" expert opinion testimony. Ms. Maxwell cannot be
+expected to hire experts and divine what would be relevant to this case before she is provided
+the statements by these accusers, whose credibility will be the central question for the jury in
+this case.
+The Court originally ordered the defense expert disclosures four weeks before trial and
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 291 Filed 05/21/21 Page 13 of 13
+Page 13
+three weeks after receipt of the witness statements. Ms. Maxwell requests the same deadline.
+Defense Disclosures Pursuant to Rules 16 and 26.2 and Defense Witness List
+Regarding the defense Rule 16 disclosures and witness lists, Ms. Maxwell proposes to
+produce those at the close of the government's case. As she explained in connection with Rule
+26.2 disclosures (Jt. Letter of May 3, 2021), gaining access to Ms. Maxwell's witness list and
+exhibits prior to trial gives an advantage to the government to the detriment of the defense. A
+recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court is instructive. Finding that the state equivalent
+of Rule 16, like its federal counterpart, does not authorize pretrial disclosure of defendant's
+exhibits, the court also concluded that such disclosure "arguably infringes on [the defendant's]
+constitutional rights," by "helping the prosecution meet its burden of proof," "tip[s] his hand
+vis-à-vis his investigation and theory of defense," and "in effect, forces [him] to share with
+the prosecution his trial strategy - i.e., how he plans to defend against the charges against
+him." People v. Kilgore, 455 P.3d 746, 751 (Colo. 2020). "Put differently, the [pretrial]
+disclosure requirement rests on shaky constitutional ground because it improperly risks
+lessening the prosecution's burden of proof." Id. Ms. Maxwell asserts that any order
+compelling pretrial disclosure of her witnesses or exhibits violates the due process clause of
+the U.S. Constitution. When the defense determines that it will put forth a case-in-chief, it
+will provide the name of witnesses and exhibits it intends to introduce.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+By:
+s/
+Maurene Comey / Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2fb1251ff907d701260127de6cbe3a2b5f90a01f79db455b02a0c684187e1d8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2fb1251ff907d701260127de6cbe3a2b5f90a01f79db455b02a0c684187e1d8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c60857eea002487b1559d004bf203bad08b097f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e2fb1251ff907d701260127de6cbe3a2b5f90a01f79db455b02a0c684187e1d8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -160,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e2fb1251ff907d701260127de6cbe3a2b5f90a01f79db455b02a0c684187e1d8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a3e1e9cc486d74b60b954cb36a66ff1d9aeaf875a1648d2552160674f0a78fa9",
+  "output_sha256": "79bbdb4d018e8a0e99b5fa073badb2954d5e42adb05d6c6916a8d46c29d12736",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e31b32f6cac9ac50b06986fd36873e24ab06714399e232cff02aeac8efe97f36.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e31b32f6cac9ac50b06986fd36873e24ab06714399e232cff02aeac8efe97f36.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..80f347e19d60cc1ceb1d483ac79cc6098680d0c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e31b32f6cac9ac50b06986fd36873e24ab06714399e232cff02aeac8efe97f36.md
@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 221 Filed 04/20/21
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC*:_
+DATE FILED: 4/20/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+Last summer, the Court scheduled trial in this matter to commence on July 12, 2021. The
+Government filed an S2 Superseding Indictment on March 29, 2021. Dkt. No. 187. The new
+indictment alleges that the conspiracies charged in Counts 1 and 3 extended to 2004 (the S1
+charged through 1997) and identifies a fourth alleged victim, Minor Victim-4. It also adds two
+new charges: Count 5 of the S2 Indictment charges Maxwell with participating in a sex
+trafficking conspiracy between 2001 and 2004, and Count 6 charges Maxwell with participating
+in the sex trafficking of a minor or aiding and abetting the same. Id.
+Since the filing of the S2 indictment, the parties have argued in letters whether its
+additional charges and extended timeframe necessitates an adjournment of the trial date. Dkt.
+Nos. 192, 199, and 202. Maxwell has also indicated that she either is requesting or will request a
+renewed bail hearing in light of the filing of the S2. In Maxwell's most recent letter, she
+expressly requests an adjournment of the scheduled July 12 trial date, though the scope of the
+request is unclear. Dkt. No. 202. The letter first argues that a 90-day adjournment is necessary.
+But it also states that some of her defense counsel are not available between September and
+December 2021, implying that the request is in fact to adjourn until January 2022. The
+Government opposes the request for adjournment and any request for a renewed bail hearing.
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 5
+After the parties submitted these letters, the Court issued its Opinion & Order denying
+Maxwell's motions to dismiss the S1 indictment on multiple grounds. Dkt. No. 207. The Court
+also granted
+as to the perjury counts. Both the denial of the motions to dismiss and the
+Lof the perjury counts are relevant to the requests for a bail hearing and for an
+adjournment of the trial date. The Court addresses both in this Order.
+First, the request for a renewed bail hearing is denied. The Court held an original bail
+hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive argument and presentation of information, the Court
+found that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's
+appearance as required, determining as a result that Maxwell was a flight risk and that detention
+without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). Dkt. No. 23. The Court based its
+conclusion on the presumption in favor of detention, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), and its weighing of
+the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
+the weight of the evidence, and Maxwell's history and characteristics. Since that time, Maxwell
+has twice sought reconsideration of the Court's original bail determination and offered different
+bail packages and proposed conditions of release. The Court carefully considered those requests
+and denied them in written Orders, concluding that none of the new information had any material
+bearing on the Court's original conclusion and that the Government again met its burden of
+establishing that Maxwell poses a substantial risk of flight and that no conditions or combination
+of conditions could reasonably assure her appearance as required. Dkt. Nos. 106, 169.
+Maxwell now seeks a new bail hearing at which "witnesses [would] testify regarding the
+purported strength of the government's case." Dkt. No. 192 at 3. The request is denied. The S2
+Indictment raises no issues that warrant reconsideration of the Court's prior bail determinations.
+On the contrary, the new charges contained in the S2 indictment as well as the Court's resolution
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 3 of 5
+of the pre-trial motions strengthen, rather than weaken, the Court's prior conclusions regarding
+flight risk. Maxwell is entitled to appeal that detention determination, and she is exercising that
+right. But it does not follow that the new charges call for the Court to revisit its three prior bail
+determinations. Further, the Court will not hold an evidentiary hearing in which the strength of
+the Government's case is tested.
+"It is well established in this circuit that proffers are
+permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts." United States v.
+LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Before making its prior bail determinations, the
+Court scrutinized, among the other relevant factors, the Government's proffer and concluded that
+the proffered case was strong. The ultimate merits of the Government's case will be tested at
+trial in front of a jury. In the meantime, it is the Court's obligation to ensure that the case
+proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and
+all relevant circumstances. The Court is obligated to consider what is in the best interest of the
+public and the defendant in considering whether delay is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C.
+§3161(h)(7)(A). Moreover, the Crime Victims' Rights Act provides a right "to proceedings free
+from unreasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7).
+This leads directly to the question of the specific start date of trial and Maxwell's request
+for an adjournment. As a preliminary matter, the Court provides the following important
+information. Although last summer the Court set trial to commence on July 12, 2021, currently
+the precise start date of any trial in the Southern District of New York is not within the control of
+the presiding judge. SDNY is still operating under special protocols for jury selection during the
+COVID-19 pandemic. Because of a limited number of reconfigured courtrooms and spaces large
+enough to hold jury selection and trial safely, the protocols centralize the scheduling of access to
+juries and reconfigured courtrooms pursuant to an established protocol for trial priority. The
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 4 of 5
+deadline to submit requests for jury selection dates in the third quarter of 2021 is May 15.
+Following the submission of requests, the Clerk's Office will assign jury selection dates
+according to a protocol that has rules of priority. For example, criminal jury trials requesting a
+particular jury selection date are given priority over civil jury trials requesting that same date.
+Criminal trials involving detained defendants are given priority over criminal trials in which
+defendants are not detained pre-trial. Among detained defendants, cases that set trial dates prior
+to March 16, 2020 get priority. For any detained defendants whose trial date was set after March
+16, 2020, priority is based upon who has been detained the longest. Absent a grant of an
+adjournment, by May 15, the Court will request a jury selection date as close to July 12, 2021 as
+possible. Once a jury selection date is assigned by the Clerk's Office, that date is firm. As of
+now, the parties should presume that trial will commence on a date close to July 12 (depending
+on trial demand and the order of priority) and plan accordingly.
+With this information in mind, the Court seeks confirmation and express clarification
+from defense counsel for three reasons. First, Maxwell's request for an adjournment came
+before the Court ruled on the pending motions, including the Court's granting of Maxwell's
+request to sever the perjury counts. Trial on the non-perjury counts will proceed first, which will
+shorten preparations for and the length of trial on the non-perjury counts. Second, Maxwell's
+request was ambiguous as to the length of adjournment being requested. As noted, the letter
+argued a 90-day adjournment was necessary but also suggested that some number of her defense
+counsel would not be available until January 2022. And third, by this Order the Court denies
+Maxwell's request for a renewed bail hearing. All of these factors may influence Maxwell's
+adjournment request.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 221 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 5
+Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS counsel for the Defendant to file written
+answers to the following specific questions by 12:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 22, 2021:
+1. Does defense counsel continue to seek an adjournment of the July 12" start date for
+trial on the non-perjury counts?
+2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, what is the specific request being made as to length
+of adjournment? In particular, is the request for a 90-day adjournment? An
+adjournment until January 2022? Or something else? The Court requires a specific
+request be made and justified or it will not be considered.
+If Maxwell continues to seek an adjournment, the Government may submit any response
+by 5:00 pm on April 22, 2021. The Court will consider the submissions and resolve
+expeditiously. As noted, however, unless and until an adjournment is specifically requested and
+granted, the parties shall assume that the Court will request a jury selection date as close to July
+12' as possible and shall plan accordingly.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: April 20, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alie O. Natter
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e31b32f6cac9ac50b06986fd36873e24ab06714399e232cff02aeac8efe97f36.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e31b32f6cac9ac50b06986fd36873e24ab06714399e232cff02aeac8efe97f36.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bda12083ad6fbfda2cf3ec31d744d9ebf0832b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e31b32f6cac9ac50b06986fd36873e24ab06714399e232cff02aeac8efe97f36.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -71,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e31b32f6cac9ac50b06986fd36873e24ab06714399e232cff02aeac8efe97f36",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "27db77bc72d3e55e19b171f882563286a20aefed1111253a3964d9d0605876b3",
+  "output_sha256": "7726ab5ca7ebe0bb6fd97068ae1dd29ae09235f7cfa73c1384bd146feb0bdce5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3307d2eed00a441f8094da13c7bb1d99db8c09cc3d61fde0983f283b5edc976.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3307d2eed00a441f8094da13c7bb1d99db8c09cc3d61fde0983f283b5edc976.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35b47fe66f98dfff939d5f907b7b99de03b3700a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3307d2eed00a441f8094da13c7bb1d99db8c09cc3d61fde0983f283b5edc976.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 581 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
+MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND
+OPINIONS OF REBUTTAL EXPERT BERNARD J. JANSEN
+Sigrid McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 581 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 3
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+AND
+PAGES 1-9
+FILE UNDER SEAL
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 581 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 31st day of January, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+/s/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3307d2eed00a441f8094da13c7bb1d99db8c09cc3d61fde0983f283b5edc976.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3307d2eed00a441f8094da13c7bb1d99db8c09cc3d61fde0983f283b5edc976.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e4a8a51860567786ffdbdd7845ae808ad47f0ac0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3307d2eed00a441f8094da13c7bb1d99db8c09cc3d61fde0983f283b5edc976.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e3307d2eed00a441f8094da13c7bb1d99db8c09cc3d61fde0983f283b5edc976",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1766434ea160872ede4991d3b90ac5823b945f791e30e741c24f5a55454484e6",
+  "output_sha256": "5ebcfb55ddc7b24e3871cb4a1ac2ec35842679e282bbcaa82990b704d350a001",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3827b0320b3170477d084982fb19de1b3f363bfaf6bc1a2ca183b19e62cec19.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3827b0320b3170477d084982fb19de1b3f363bfaf6bc1a2ca183b19e62cec19.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ecfdafd6a9d1ea624ea1cd688112e588018ef2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3827b0320b3170477d084982fb19de1b3f363bfaf6bc1a2ca183b19e62cec19.md
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+1
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 170 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 3
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 162-2 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+7433
+No. 15 Civ. 07443 (RWS)
+[PROPOSED| ORDER FOR ADMISSION
+PRO HAC VICE
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+The motion of J. Stanley Pottinger, for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the abovecaptioned action is granted.
+Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar(s) and the state(s)
+of New York; and that his contact information is as follows:
+Applicant's Name:
+Address:
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Road
+City/State/Zip:
+Telephone/Fax:
+South Salem, NY 10590-1012
+(914) 763-8333
+Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for
+Plaintiff
+in the above entitled action;
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the
+above-captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
+All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including
+the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.
+Dated:
+5:26:16
+Broat
+United States/District/Magistrate Judge
+
+
+•'."
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 170 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 3
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 162 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 2
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
+v.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and
+Eastern Districts of New York, 1, Stan Pottinger, hereby move this Court for an Order for
+Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for Plaintiff,
+in the
+above-captioned action.
+I am in good standing in the bar(s) of the state(s) of New York and there are no pending
+disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court.
+Dated: May 24, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+Firm Name: N/A
+Address: 49 Twin Lakes Road
+City/State/Zip: South Salem. NY 10590-1012
+Telephone/Fax: (914) 763-8333
+E-Mail: StanPottinger@aol.com
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 170 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 3
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-RWS Document 162 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 2
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 25, 2016, I served the attached document Motion For
+Admission Pro Hac Vice of J. Stanley Pottinger via e-mail to the following counsel of record.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+L P.C.
+L P.C.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3827b0320b3170477d084982fb19de1b3f363bfaf6bc1a2ca183b19e62cec19.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3827b0320b3170477d084982fb19de1b3f363bfaf6bc1a2ca183b19e62cec19.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f547c1141b74b5a899835d04b32cb1983a62140d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e3827b0320b3170477d084982fb19de1b3f363bfaf6bc1a2ca183b19e62cec19.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -38,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e3827b0320b3170477d084982fb19de1b3f363bfaf6bc1a2ca183b19e62cec19",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6ba4830559db1a25183265aab97c88e94365ca5020c5d815fc74fcdd0c268546",
+  "output_sha256": "127128ed35b778069f38de72888f562338ea1a1cac4e1c6515ae2306810a5007",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e391778373ba050a0ca26851ce14122cf22bff7690188264b0d1de1df540875c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e391778373ba050a0ca26851ce14122cf22bff7690188264b0d1de1df540875c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06025ad48c01aa10bc1c9012e51f1ff07506b926
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e391778373ba050a0ca26851ce14122cf22bff7690188264b0d1de1df540875c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Cased 15C07423 LARs D06umanh357<66 Filed 08/24/16 pRade h0f1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e391778373ba050a0ca26851ce14122cf22bff7690188264b0d1de1df540875c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e391778373ba050a0ca26851ce14122cf22bff7690188264b0d1de1df540875c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14e6f1b7fcd9b2e5a7eb6fc7bfe784ae012cdfc4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e391778373ba050a0ca26851ce14122cf22bff7690188264b0d1de1df540875c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e391778373ba050a0ca26851ce14122cf22bff7690188264b0d1de1df540875c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ae5997c0f1053061d490ff9d2729f723962419c1f56bb83052a845ce4387c03d",
+  "output_sha256": "65c0533685dd0debde4a5868a38522c07fb441dcd3f25dbcefbc2dc4b7759f46",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e41eb6af27500ddd0ff5568a12b8931395080ee59393d3976d2b7ec99d00242d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e41eb6af27500ddd0ff5568a12b8931395080ee59393d3976d2b7ec99d00242d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c71b27554df1c5e769ace44bc3c11eacf5e3e8c0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e41eb6af27500ddd0ff5568a12b8931395080ee59393d3976d2b7ec99d00242d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,457 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN|
+Document 146
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 16
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
+IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE
+FROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
+1 & GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New
+York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDO. Meninger
+1&|
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+P.C.
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
+Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 16
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
+ARGUMENT
+All References to Accuser-3 Should Be Stricken as Surplusage.
+A.
+The Indietment Is Insufficient to Allege a Conspiracy as to Accuser-3.
+B.
+The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleged
+Conspiracies.
+C.
+The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Unduly Prejudicial to Ms.
+Maxwell.
+II.
+In the Alternative, the Government Should Be Required to Demonstrate the
+Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
+CONCLUSION
+Page
+1
+..3
+..5
+...5
+6
+... 7
+9
+10
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 16
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page(s)
+Cases
+Grunewald v. United States,
+353 U.S. 391 (1957).
+8
+Stogner v. California,
+539 U.S. 607 (2003)
+. 7
+United States v. Benussi,
+216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d
+608 (2d Cir. 2003).
+United States v. Curley,
+639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011).
+United States v. Greebel,
+No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017)
+United States v. Hsia,
+24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998)
+United States v. Scarpa,
+913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990)
+Statutes
+18 U.S.C. § 2421
+18 U.S.C. § 2422
+18 U.S.C. § 2423.
+18 U.S.C. § 2424
+18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994)
+18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003)
+N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55.
+Rules
+Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d).
+Fed. R. Evid. 404
+7
+. 10
+.. 5
+8,9
+5
+3
+passim
+passim
+.. 3
+6, 7
+...7
+.3
+.. 5
+.. passim
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 16
+Other Authorities
+Sexual Offences Act 2003 § 9 (Eng.), 2003, c. 42
+Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104, Feb. 8, 1996, Title V, § 508, 110 Stat. 56
+Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, PL 103-322, Sept. 13, 1994,
+Title XVI, § 160001(g), 108 Stat. 1796....
+4
+.. 3
+iii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 16
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to
+Strike Surplusage from the Indictment ("Motion").
+Although Ms. Maxwell is charged with conspiring to cause individuals to travel in
+interstate or foreign commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity, the indictment contains no
+allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled.' Moreover, throughout the period alleged in the
+indictment, Accuser-3 was above the legal age of consent in England, where all alleged conduct
+as to her took place. Therefore, the Court should strike all allegations regarding Accuser-3 from
+the indictment, as they are nothing more than a transparent attempt by the government to
+introduce Accuser-3's testimony as evidence of a conspiracy, when it is at most "other acts"
+evidence subject to the balancing test required by Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
+Counts One through Four of the indictment allege that between 1994 and 1997, Ms.
+Maxwell violated and conspired to violate two separate provisions of the
+Act: 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2422 (now § 2422(a)), which prohibits the enticement of individuals to travel in interstate or
+foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity, and 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2423(a), which prohibits the transportation of individuals under age 18 in interstate or foreign
+commerce with the intent that they engage in unlawful sexual activity. The substantive
+Act counts involve Ms. Maxwell's alleged enticement and/or transportation of Accuser-1.
+The indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell engaged in group sexual encounters with
+Jeffrey Epstein and Accuser-1 and that, on at least one occasion, Ms. Maxwell enticed or caused
+Accuser-1 to travel from Florida to New York for the purpose of engaging in such encounters
+with Epstein. But to do so, it must rely on the accusations of a single individual regarding
+' This individual is described in the indictment as Minor Vietim-3. Similarly, we refer to the individuals identified
+in the indictment as Minor Vietim-1 and Minor Victim-2 as Accuser-1 and Accuser-2, respectively.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 16
+conduct that allegedly took place more than two decades ago—accusations so vague that they do
+not even link Ms. Maxwell to the only specific allegation of travel by Accuser-1 in the
+indictment (see Indictment 11l 11b, 17b).
+To try to bolster its case, the government alleges that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in
+Epstein's alleged "sexual abuse" of two other individuals, Accuser-2 and Accuser-3, and has
+included allegations regarding Ms. Maxwell's interactions with these two individuals in the
+indictment. But the allegations as to Accuser-3 cannot possibly support the charges against Ms.
+Maxwell: Although the gravamen of a § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) offense is enticing or causing an
+individual to travel, there is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled—let alone that Ms.
+Maxwell (or Epstein, for that matter) enticed her to do so or transported her. Moreover, although
+both § 2422(a) and § 2423(a) require an intent that the traveling individual engage in unlawful
+sexual activity, the indictment alleges no facts suggesting that Epstein's alleged sexual activity
+with Accuser-3, who was over the legal age of consent in England at all relevant times, was
+unlawful. As a result, these allegations serve only to demonstrate a propensity on the part of Ms.
+Maxwell that will prejudice the jury against her.
+To enable the presentation of evidence regarding Accuser-3, the government claims the
+alleged "sexual abuse" of Accuser-3 is somehow an "overt act" in furtherance of conspiracies to
+cause unspecified individuals to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity.
+The government's inclusion of these allegations, however, is nothing more than an attempted
+end-run around its obligations under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The "overt act" alleged as to
+Accuser-3 has nothing to do with the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the allegations regarding
+Accuser-3 are unduly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the
+allegations regarding Accuser-3 be stricken as surplusage, or in the alternative, that the
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 16
+government be required to treat any evidence supporting such allegations as Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)
+evidence, subject to balancing by this Court of its probative value and prejudicial effects.
+SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS
+Counts One through Four of the indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell violated and
+conspired to violate two separate provisions of the l
+Act, 18 U.S.C. $$ 2421-2424. These
+counts are based on conduct that occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997.
+Counts Two and Four allege that Ms. Maxwell substantively violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422
+(now § 2422(a)) 2
+and § 2423(a), respectively, by enticing and causing Accuser-1 to travel from
+Florida to New York in order to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein that would violate N.Y.
+Penal Law § 130.55. Indictment 99l 13, 19. The indictment does not charge Ms. Maxwell with a
+substantive
+Act violation as to any individual other than Accuser-1, nor does it allege that
+Ms. Maxwell personally enticed or caused any person other than Accuser-1 to travel in interstate
+or foreign commerce for any reason.
+Counts One and Three allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired with Epstein "and others" to
+violate §§ 2422(a) and 2423(a), respectively. Indictment 11 9, 15. Count One alleges that the
+object of the § 2422(a) conspiracy was to "persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more
+individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a
+person can be charged with a criminal offense." Id. 9| 10. Count Three alleges that the object of
+the § 2423(a) conspiracy was to "knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age
+of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity
+for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." Id. 9| 16.
+- Prior to February 8, 1996, this provision constituted the entirety of § 2422; it became § 2422(a) as a result of the
+enactment of additional subsections as of that date. Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104, Feb. 8, 1996,
+Title V, $ 508, 110 Stat. 56. The provision is referred to herein as $ 2422(a).
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 16
+In addition to the allegations regarding Accuser-1, the indictment includes factual
+allegations regarding Ms. Maxwell's interactions with two other individuals, Accuser-2 and
+Accuser-3, some of which are characterized as "overt acts" in furtherance of the two
+conspiracies. Ms. Maxwell is not alleged, however, to have enticed or otherwise caused either
+Accuser-2 or Accuser-3 to travel.
+Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 allegedly took place entirely in London,
+England, where Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have "groomed and befriended" Accuser-3 "between
+approximately 1994 and 1995." Id. 9| 7c. Ms. Maxwell allegedly introduced Accuser-3 to
+Epstein and arranged for "multiple interactions between [Accuser-3] and Epstein," during which
+Ms. Maxwell "encouraged [Accuser-3] to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage
+in sex acts with [Accuser-3] during those massages." Id.
+Although the indietment alleges that Epstein "sexually abused" Accuser-3 during the
+massages (id.), it does not allege that Epstein's interactions with Accuser-3 were nonconsensual
+or in violation of any English law. Notably, Ms. Maxwell is not alleged to have met Accuser-3
+and introduced her to Epstein until 1994 at the earliest, by which time Accuser-3 had reached age
+16'—the legal age of consent in England. Sexual Offences Act 2003 § 9 (Eng.), 2003, c. 42.
+Thus, it appears that the "sexual abuse" of Accuser-3 that the indictment alleges was lawful
+conduct.
+Nor does the indictment allege any travel by Accuser-3, in interstate or foreign commerce
+or otherwise, let alone as a result of any action taken by Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, or anyone else.
+Yet Counts One and Three allege that Ms. Maxwell's encouragement of Accuser-3 to provide
+massages to Epstein in the future was somehow an overt act in furtherance of the alleged
+" The government has disclosed that Accuser-3 was born in
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 16
+§ 2422(a) and § 2423(a) conspiracies to cause individuals to travel in interstate or foreign
+commerce to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Id. 19 11d, 17d.
+ARGUMENT
+All References to Aceuser-3 Should Be Stricken as Surplusage.
+Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), "[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may strike
+surplusage from the indictment or information." "This rule introduces a means of protecting the
+defendant against immaterial or irrelevant allegations in an indictment or information, which
+may, however, be prejudicial." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) Advisory Committee's Note. In the
+Second Circuit, Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d) motions may be granted "where the challenged allegations
+are not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory and prejudicial." United States v.
+Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted); see United States v.
+Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (striking
+language stating that defendant "orchestrated four interrelated fraud schemes" where indictment
+charged him in only two of those schemes).
+The paragraphs of the indictment alleging that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in Epstein's
+"sexual abuse" of Accuser-3 are irrelevant, inflammatory, and unduly prejudicial. The
+indictment is plainly insufficient to allege that Ms. Maxwell conspired to entice Accuser-3 to
+travel, or to transport her in interstate or foreign commerce, let alone with the requisite intent.
+Moreover, the allegations regarding Accuser-3 have nothing to do with whether Ms. Maxwell
+conspired to violate § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) with respect to Accuser-1 or Accuser-2. Thus, the
+only explanation for the inclusion of alleged 20-year-old allegations involving Accuser-3, and
+the characterization of the alleged conduct as "sexual abuse," is the likelihood that evidence
+submitted in support of those allegations will have an unduly prejudicial effect and would not
+survive a balancing analysis under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 16
+A. The Indictment Is Insufficient to Allege a Conspiracy as to Accuser-3.
+To establish a § 2422(a) conspiracy violation, the government must show that Ms.
+Maxwell conspired to "knowingly persuade|], induce[], entice[], or coerce|] any individual to
+travel in interstate or foreign commerce ... to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for
+which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (1996). To
+establish a § 2423(a) conspiracy claim, the government must prove that Ms. Maxwell conspired
+to "knowingly transport[] an individual who ha[d] not attained the age of 18 years in interstate or
+foreign commerce ... with intent that the individual engage in prostitution, or in any sexual
+activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense." 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)
+(1994); 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (1986).4
+The government cannot show that Ms. Maxwell conspired to commit either offense with
+respect to Accuser-3. There is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled in interstate or foreign
+commerce, let alone that Ms. Maxwell, Epstein, or anyone else enticed her or otherwise caused
+her to do so. While the indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell encouraged Accuser-3 to massage
+Epstein in England "knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse [Aceuser-3] during those
+massages" (Indictment Ml 11d, 17d), it alleges no facts connecting those allegations to any
+contemplated interstate or foreign travel by Accuser-3—for any purpose. The indictment thus
+does not come close to alleging facts that would establish a conspiracy to violate either § 2422(a)
+or § 2423(a) as to Accuser-3.
+Moreover, any charge arising out of a conspiracy with respect to Accuser-3 would be
+time-barred. The government contends that the indictment is timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3283,
+which, at the time of the alleged offenses, provided that a prosecution involving an "offense
+i materia as as ahe is novictive in (a). Violen me me ada sland in (bandeen tot 94, PL103.
+322, Sept. 13, 1994, Title XVI, § 160001(g), 108 Stat. 1796.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 16
+involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years" could be brought
+until the victim reached age 25. 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). While Congress amended the statute
+in 2003 to extend the time in which a prosecution could be brought to within the life of the
+victim, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003), Accuser-3 reached the age of 25 in |
+, and thus the
+statute of limitations as to her had expired before the time of the amendment. While Ms.
+Maxwell contends that § 3283 cannot be applied retroactively at all, and is inapplicable in any
+event, it is black-letter law that retroactive application of a criminal statute of limitations to
+revive a time-barred claim would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Stogner v. California, 539
+U.S. 607, 618 (2003). Thus, there can be no prosecution for any conduct alleged as to Accuser-
+B.
+The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Irrelevant to the Alleged
+Conspiracies.
+According to the indictment, the object of the alleged conspiracies was to entice or cause
+one or more individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in order to engage in unlawful
+sexual activity. Because, as shown above, the allegations in the indictment are insufficient to
+allege such a conspiracy as to Accuser-3, the only individuals as to whom the indictment even
+arguably alleges such a conspiracy are Accuser-1 and Accuser-2. The allegations regarding
+Accuser-3, however, have nothing to do with any conspiracy as to Accuser-1 or Accuser-2.
+While the government couches the allegations regarding Minor Vietim-3 as "overt acts"
+in furtherance of the conspiracies alleged in Counts One and Three, they are not. The "scope of
+the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be
+regarded as in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299,
+311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003)
+" See Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Indictment as Time-Barred.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 16
+(quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 397 (1957)). Thus, whether Ms. Maxwell's
+alleged conduct with respect to Minor Victim-3 constituted an overt act in furtherance of the
+alleged conspiracy depends on the scope of the alleged conspiracy.
+In United States v. Hsia, 24 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998), for example, the defendant
+was charged with conspiracy, and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election
+Commission, in connection with an alleged scheme to obtain illegal campaign contributions from
+foreign donors. The defendant moved to strike references in the indictment to acts of
+concealment of the alleged conspiracy. The court expressed concern that "the allegations
+provide little detail about the acts" and that "references to the alleged acts of concealment and
+cover-up suggest the inclusion of offenses that are not part of the conspiracy charged in the
+indictment." Id. at 25. Although the court denied the defendant's motion to strike, it ordered a
+bill of particulars "as to the scope of the alleged conspiratorial agreement and in particular
+whether and how the acts of concealment alleged in the indictment were within the scope of the
+conspiracy charged." Id. at 33. The court added that if the bill of particulars confirmed the
+defendant's assertion that the alleged acts of concealment and cover-up were not within the
+alleged scope of the conspiratorial agreement, her motion to strike would be granted. Id. at 26.
+Here, the object of the alleged conspiracies-necessarily, under the
+Act-was not
+to cause any individual to engage in unlawful sex acts with Epstein, but to cause individuals to
+travel to do so. The allegations regarding Accuser-3, even if proven, could not have furthered
+such alleged conspiracies. There is no basis for any reasonable inference that Epstein and Ms.
+Maxwell's interactions with Accuser-3 in England furthered a conspiracy to cause Accuser-1,
+Accuser-2, or anyone else to travel. There is no allegation that Accuser-3 even knew Accuser-1
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 16
+or Accuser-2, or that there is any causal relationship between the alleged incidents involving
+Accuser-3 in England and those involving Accuser-1 and Accuser-2 in the United States.
+To the extent there is any doubt about the scope of the alleged conspiratorial agreement,
+or how the allegations relating to Accuser-3 are within the scope of that agreement, the Court can
+resolve the issue by ordering a bill of particulars on these points, as the court did in Hsia.
+However, if the government cannot articulate how alleged sexual conduct with a person who
+never traveled falls within the scope of a conspiracy to cause another individual to travel, then
+allegations concerning Accuser-3 should be stricken.
+C.
+The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Unduly Prejudicial to Ms.
+Maxwell.
+There can be no legitimate dispute that the allegations regarding Accuser-3 are
+inflammatory and unduly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. The indictment alleges that Epstein
+"sexually abused" Accuser-3 and that Ms. Maxwell encouraged Accuser-3 to massage Epstein,
+"knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse" Accuser-3. Indictment 11 7c, 11d, 17d. The
+phrase "sexual abuse" connotes criminal activity, even though the alleged conduct may well have
+been lawful: Accuser-3 was at or above the legal age of consent in England at all relevant times,
+and the indictment contains no suggestion that the alleged sexual activity involving Accuser-3
+was nonconsensual. Regardless of whether the conduct was lawful or unlawful in England,
+however, few allegations could be more prejudicial to a defendant than allegations that she
+participated in the "sexual abuse" of a teenager. The allegations as to Accuser-3, though
+irrelevant to the government's conspiracy counts, thus create precisely the prejudicial appearance
+the government seeks.
+Because the allegations as to Accuser-3 are both irrelevant to the charges against Ms.
+Maxwell and unduly prejudicial, they should be stricken as surplusage.
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 16
+Il.
+In the Alternative, the Government Should Be Required to Demonstrate the
+Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Accuser-3 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
+At a minimum, the government should not be permitted to use the allegations regarding
+Accuser-3 to perform an end-run around Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Rather, the government should be
+required to demonstrate the admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) of any evidence regarding
+Accuser-3.
+Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) "governs the admissibility of evidence of prior or subsequent 'bad
+acts'-evidence of 'crimes, wrongs, or acts' other than those charged in the indietment." United
+States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). "The rule
+prohibits the admission of such evidence if it prove[s] the character of a person' to show his
+propensity to commit the charged act, but permits its admission for other purposes." Id. (quoting
+Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)). Permissible purposes include "proving motive, opportunity, intent,
+preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid.
+404(b)(2). In a criminal case, the rule obligates a prosecutor to (i) "provide reasonable notice of
+any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair
+opportunity to meet it"; (ii) "articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the
+prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose"; and (iii)
+"do so in writing before trial" unless excused by the court. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3).
+As shown above, evidence regarding Accuser-3 is irrelevant to the conspiracy counts.
+Thus, to the extent that the government intends to introduce evidence regarding Accuser-3, such
+evidence is "other acts" evidence, and its admissibility should be litigated under Fed. R. Evid.
+404(b).
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 16
+CONCLUSION
+For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court strike all
+references to Accuser-3 from Paragraph 7 of the indictment, and that the Court strike Paragraphs
+7c, 11d, and 17d in their entirety. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the
+Court require the government to provide notice pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3) prior to
+introducing any evidence pertaining to Accuser-3, and that Ms. Maxwell be given an opportunity
+to litigate the admissibility of any such evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
+Dated: January 25, 2021
+New York, New York
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Mark S.
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+|&-
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 16
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
+Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying
+exhibits upon the following:
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Alison.moe@usdoj.gov
+Lara. Pomerantz@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov
+/s/ Christian Everdell
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e41eb6af27500ddd0ff5568a12b8931395080ee59393d3976d2b7ec99d00242d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e41eb6af27500ddd0ff5568a12b8931395080ee59393d3976d2b7ec99d00242d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e50723f3d79d1dab8e0373250f6d660be546e4bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e41eb6af27500ddd0ff5568a12b8931395080ee59393d3976d2b7ec99d00242d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -192,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e41eb6af27500ddd0ff5568a12b8931395080ee59393d3976d2b7ec99d00242d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 16,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "05699b41fde0030e4e8f108fef8965d9917d140385f2c8fc00729e03adbe4c20",
+  "output_sha256": "7ea1ba58227d870537f77f8efe11d31e88af0937ff83b3bc0edafeb7b9a22e4e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e43fb26555d52b45d94be25a4c3372144c5eece8891e457509debef5c4a76a66.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e43fb26555d52b45d94be25a4c3372144c5eece8891e457509debef5c4a76a66.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eaec9a292f0f5b25c1903e599e30e7a795f1622e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e43fb26555d52b45d94be25a4c3372144c5eece8891e457509debef5c4a76a66.md
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 726 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 8
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFE'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
+TO EXCLUDE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF DR. JAMES JANSEN AND VIDEO
+TRIAL EXHIBIT OF DR. GILBERT KLIMAN (DE 664)
+Plaintiff,
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video
+Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman.
+BACKGROUND
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 726 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 8
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 8
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 726
+Filed 03/17/17
+
+4
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 8
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 6 of 8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 726 Filed 03/17/17 Page 7 of 8
+CONCLUSION
+For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Defendant's motion in limine to
+exclude the supplemental report of Dr. Jansen and video trial exhibit of Dr. Kliman.
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, PL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+L, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52022
+2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 726 Filed 03/17/17 Page 8 of 8
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 17th day of March 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e43fb26555d52b45d94be25a4c3372144c5eece8891e457509debef5c4a76a66.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e43fb26555d52b45d94be25a4c3372144c5eece8891e457509debef5c4a76a66.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86721e115d5332e2f7829f4f95edb02fe55fdc85
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e43fb26555d52b45d94be25a4c3372144c5eece8891e457509debef5c4a76a66.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -222,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e43fb26555d52b45d94be25a4c3372144c5eece8891e457509debef5c4a76a66",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "28ce097ba486d23600d7c244941d8887abad3e52faa8b4c86f2b6bf46b00e547",
+  "output_sha256": "7ad69c7cae1245aa5a9b5350a4c42f19d2d20e96eedcc12e60dd9cb235bc01ae",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e450265144e0f852538381f41b71935a5b420ebd822f45c9c57a627c0b19d909.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e450265144e0f852538381f41b71935a5b420ebd822f45c9c57a627c0b19d909.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e49483656a8c97c6f6128eea46d4aa76d4dde2e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e450265144e0f852538381f41b71935a5b420ebd822f45c9c57a627c0b19d909.md
@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-- X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+:
+------
+DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IN
+TOTO CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS DESIGNATED BY PLAINTIFF FOR USE AT TRIAL
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+AND
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 10
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files her Reply in Support of the Motion
+in Limine to Exclude In Toto certain depositions designated by Plaintiff for use at trial and states
+as follows:
+I. PLAINTIFF CANNOT SATSIFY THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF
+CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL
+A.
+Jeffrey Epstein and Ronald Rizzo Are Not Unavailable
+Plaintiff cannot claim that Jeffery Epstein and Ronald Rizzo are "unavailable witnesses"
+whose testimony can be presented by deposition at trial under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of
+Civil Procedure. She admits she simply had not, prior to designating testimony, even attempted
+to serve these witnesses or obtain their attendance at trial. She has now obtained an agreement to
+accept service by Mr. Epstein's counsel, mooting any claim that he is unavailable.' With respect
+to Mr. Rizzo, she concedes he resides within 100 miles of the courthouse, and provides no basis
+to claim that he cannot be served. Based on these confessions, the Motion in Limine to exclude
+the use of the designated portions of these depositions in toto must be granted.
+B.
+As a Retained Expert, Phillip Esplin Cannot Be Deemed Unavailable
+Plaintiff's argument concerning Phillip Esplin fails to acknowledge or even address the
+cases cited that require that prior to being permitted to use prior sworn testimony of an expert
+witness she must carry the affirmative burden on proving: 1) Plaintiff "attempt[ed] to secure the
+voluntary [trial] attendance of a witness who lives beyond the subpoena power of the court" and
+2) that no similar expert is available. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte, 474 F.2d 529, 536 (2d Cir.
+1972). Plaintiff cannot carry this burden, requiring that the Motion in Limine be granted.
+'Issues concerning if Mr. Epstein should be required to appear to invoke this fifth amendment rights will
+be addressed in Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Present Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining
+an Adverse Inference.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10
+Plaintiff's misplaced argument that Ms. Maxwell is somehow required to make Dr.
+Esplin available at trial violates the fundamental rules of trial and the requirements for rebuttal
+witnesses. Of course, at this point, Ms. Maxwell does not know information Plaintiff may
+present in her case-in-chief. Ms. Maxwell has filed well-founded motions in limine to exclude
+the testimony of both Dr. Kliman and Professor Coonan prohibiting from providing their
+credibility and vouching opinions. This is the subject matter of Dr. Esplin's rebuttal report
+which explains that there is no reliable or scientific methodology by which an expert could
+reliably come to such opinions. Of course, if the improper testimony by Dr. Kliman and
+Professor Coonan is excluded, as it should be, there will be nothing for Dr. Esplin to "rebut" and
+he will not be called as a witness in the defense case-in-chief. In light of the well settled rules
+that a rebuttal expert is "intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject
+matter identified" in the expert report of another party, there would be no basis to for Dr. Esplin
+to testify if Kliman and Coonan are excluded. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)(ii). Moreover, because
+Dr. Esplin is a designated rebuttal expert, it is entirely improper to have any portion of his
+opinions or testimony presented in the Plaintiff's case in chief. See Lindner v. Meadow Gold
+Dairies, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 625, 636 (D. Hawaii 2008) (holding that individuals designated only as
+rebuttal experts could present limited testimony, could not testify as part of a party's case-inchief, and would not be allowed to testify "unless and until" the experts they were designated to
+rebut testified at trial);
+v. Grays Harbor Cmty. Hosp., No. C06-5502BHS, 2007 WL
+4510313, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2007) (finding that experts designated as rebuttal witnesses
+would "be permitted only to offer rebuttal testimony at trial"). Plaintiff also fails to explain how
+the designated testimony could be deemed permissible given that the questions posed were all
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10
+outside of the scope of Dr. Esplin's opinion. While Plaintiff may wish to waive this requirement
+of the rules of procedure and evidence, Ms. Maxwell does not.
+Regardless, any decisions Ms. Maxwell and the undersigned counsel decide to make
+concerning their presentation of the defense and which witness to call is ours alone to make.
+There is no requirement that a party call a designated expert to testify if they choose not to do so
+at the time of trial. Such strategic decisions are solely in the province of the parties and their
+counsel. If Dr. Esplin is presented as a rebuttal witness by the defense, he will appear live. If he
+is not, then there is no rebuttal witness, and none to cross examine.
+II.
+WAS NOT PROPERLY "REFRESHED" AND THE READING OF
+THE HEARSAY POLICE REPORT IS INADMISSABLE
+The use of the deposition testimony of
+I, and the reading or summary of
+hearsay statement in the Police Report sought to be admitted through counsel's questions is
+simply improper. As a small sampling of the designated testimony makes clear, there was no
+proper "refreshing" of recollection:
+Q. Do you remember how old you were when you met Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. Sixteen or 17.
+Q. Okay. And have you reviewed -
+A. I may have been 15. I don't recall. I apologize.
+Q. If you told the police officer 16, you were telling the truth?
+A. At the time, they were fresh.
+Q. Okay. After speaking to the police or while speaking to the police, do you remember
+telling them that you're not safe because you're talking about this?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation.
+THE WITNESS: Yes.
+BY MR.
+Q. And that you had heard Jeffrey Epstein making threats to people on the telephone?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10
+THE WITNESS: Yes. He wasn't always friendly
+See Menninger Decl., Ex. F, 10:6-14; 43:15-44:4
+As explained in in |
+Federal Practice and Procedures, the use of a
+document during testimony to refresh recollections is limited:
+The law also places limits on how counsel and the witness may use a writing to refresh
+memory. In the usual case counsel will hand the witness the writing, show counsel for the
+adverse parties a copy, and ask the witness to silently read the writing. Counsel then will
+ask the witness if the writing has refreshed the witness' memory. If the witness responds
+in the affirmative, counsel will retrieve the writing and ask the witness to testify as to the
+matters on which the witness' memory was refreshed. Even where the witness claims a
+refreshed recollection, the court again has discretion to preclude further testimony if the
+circumstances suggest that the writing engendered a false memory. If the witness states
+that his recollection has not been refreshed, he cannot then testify as to the contents of the
+writing unless it is shown that the writing itself is admissible.
+§ 6184Refreshing Memory-Requirements and Procedures, 28 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6184
+(2d ed.)(internal citations omitted); see also Goings v. U.S., 377 F.2d 753, 759-762 (8th Cir.
+1967) (trial court improperly permitted prosecutor to ask leading questions concerning contents
+of witness' written statement under the pretext of refreshing recollection but without laying the
+proper foundation; "[Jf a party can offer a previously given statement to substitute for a
+witness's testimony under the guise of 'refreshing recollection,' the whole adversary system of
+trial must be revised. The evil of this practice hardly merits discussion. The evil is no less when
+an attorney can read the statement in the presence of the jury and thereby substitute his spoken
+word for the written document.") (italics in original). Gaines v. United States, 349 F.2d 190, 192
+(D.C. Cir. 1965)(error to allow prior written statement to be read to the witness in front of the
+jury for the purpose of refreshing recollection because "it was not necessary for counsel to read
+the statements aloud in the jury's presence. This is liable to cause the jury to consider their
+contents as evidence notwithstanding instructions to the contrary.")
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10
+All testimony from
+deposition based on leading questions summarizing her
+hearsay statements in the police report must be excluded.
+With respect to the police report itself, this will obviously be a subject of a Motion in
+Limine. At this time, two points will suffice. Plaintiff's claim that she is not attempting to offer
+the police report for the truth of the matters asserted therein is farcical, which is evident in every
+briefing touching on the subject matter. Second, while the full 803(8) issue will be briefed, for
+present purposes we will simply point out that
+(or any other witnesses statement
+contained in the report) will never be admissible unless there is a separate and independent
+hearsay exemptions for such statement. As the Second Circuit has clearly held:
+"It is well established that entries in a police report which result from the officer's
+own observations and knowledge may be admitted but that statements made by
+third persons under no business duty to report may not." United States v. Pazsint,
+703 F.2d 420, 424 (9 Cir.1983) (emphasis in original).
+Parsons v. Honeywell, Inc., 929 F.2d 901, 907 (2d Cir. 1991)(quoting United States v. Pazsint,
+703 F.2d 420, 424 (9[th] Cir.1983)).
+Plaintiff does not address the objections to
+deposition under Fed. R. Evid. 401,
+402 and 602 based on lack of personal knowledge, or the issues concerning the improper leading
+of this witness. They should thus be deemed confessed and are not re-argued here.
+III. TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS MADE IN OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH
+MS. MAXWELL WAS NOT A PARTY, WAS NOT PRESENT, HAD NO NOTICE,
+AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE CANNOT BE DESIGNATED IN THIS CASE
+Plaintiff does not seriously contest that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R.
+Evid. 804 cannot be met with respect to Mr. Rodriguez's deposition testimony. Indeed, the
+Plaintiff's Motions to Exclude Designation of Depositions Excerpts of Alan Dershowitz and
+Plaintiff argued this precise point. Ms. Maxwell was not a party to any of the litigations in which
+Mr. Rodriguez was deposed; Ms. Maxwell was neither present or given notice of the deposition.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10
+Likewise, under Rule 32(a)(8), the subject matters of those litigations were completely different.
+The cases were personal claims against Mr. Epstein by various individuals. There could be no
+identity of issues between those matters and this case. Those cases were about personal claims
+against Mr. Epstein and had nothing to do with Ms. Maxwell. This case is about a statement by
+Ms. Maxwell's press agent made over 6 years later. There could be no motivations to develop
+similar testimony because the claims in this action by definition did not exist when the
+depositions was taken.
+Mr. Epstein's counsel had no motive to discuss anything concerning Ms. Maxwell. He
+certainly had no motive to cross-examine Mr. Rodriguez regarding any interactions between Ms.
+Maxwell and Plaintiff given that Mr. Rodriguez had never met Plaintiff. The sheer lack of
+discussion of Ms. Maxwell, or follow up on any of the statements made concerning Ms. Maxwell
+makes clear there was simply no similar motive for Mr. Epstein's counsel to cross examine Mr.
+Rodriguez as Ms. Maxwell would have in this case.
+Knowing that any argument for admission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R. Evid. 804
+must fail, Plaintiff throws a Hail Mary and seeks admission of the testimony under the "Residual
+Hearsay" clause, 807. It is apparent that this is the new go-to for Plaintiff because of the serious
+evidentiary issues with the evidence she seeks to admit. Congress was very clear that it
+" intended that the residual hearsay exceptions will be used very rarely, and only in exceptional
+circumstances." Committee on the Judiciary, S.Rep.No.93-1277, Note to Paragraph (24), 28
+U.S.C.A. Fed. R. Evid. p. 583 (1975). For this reason, it set very specific parameters that, none
+of which are satisfactorily met in the circumstances here.
+(1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;
+(2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 10
+(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that
+the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and
+(4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.
+There is nothing trustworthy about Mr. Rodriguez or his statements. Mr. Rodriguez is a
+convicted criminal, and was convicted for obstruction of justice based on the very testimony
+Plaintiff seeks to admit. He either created evidence to use in those proceedings, or he hid
+evidence in them. Either way, his entire testimony is inherently untrustworthy.
+Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge of any fact material to this case. He flatly testifies that
+he had never heard or, met or seen the Plaintiff. He worked for Mr. Epstein over 2 years after
+Plaintiff left the country. Nothing Mr. Rodriguez could have possibly testified to, even if he was
+alive, has any bearing on any material fact.
+Plaintiff's attempt to claim that Mr. Rodriguez's testimony "is more probative on the
+point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through
+reasonable efforts" is at best disingenuous. Plaintiff has designated the testimony of Juan Alessi,
+Mr. Rodriguez's predecessor who held that position during the timeframe in which Plaintiff
+claims to have been held as a "sex slave" by Mr. Epstein. It simply defies logic to claim that Mr.
+Rodriguez' testimony would somehow be more probative than that of the person in his same
+position at the time Plaintiff alleges she was being held captive as a sex slave.
+Finally, nothing about the testimony will best serve the purposes of the rules or evidence
+or justice. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony is nothing more than hearsay and speculation, as pointed
+out in the specific objections. The purpose of the rules is thwarted, not served, by the admission
+of any portion of this wholly irrelevant and improper testimony.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 10
+CONCLUSION
+For the forgoing reasons, and those set forth in the Defendant's Motion In Limine To
+Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff For Use At Trial, Ms. Maxwell
+requests that the relief requested therein be granted
+Dated: February 17, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 10
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on February 17, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Reply In
+Support Of Motion In Limine To Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff
+For Use At Trial via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad @pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e450265144e0f852538381f41b71935a5b420ebd822f45c9c57a627c0b19d909.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e450265144e0f852538381f41b71935a5b420ebd822f45c9c57a627c0b19d909.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5cd473daf381e12122d3472b8d00d393e651f9e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e450265144e0f852538381f41b71935a5b420ebd822f45c9c57a627c0b19d909.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -134,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e450265144e0f852538381f41b71935a5b420ebd822f45c9c57a627c0b19d909",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 12,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "47128e3e383ba116c6a02b825115cd441243b509148b8049af16bb42aa876e86",
+  "output_sha256": "2b661c50bcc5dee93dc5a0ed670a43149f6b9b20c55a39891bb6091779c1904a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e45a4636a61c7be00c868090852af9e2b0e2e02b187056bbe7e107d2b5d37bfc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e45a4636a61c7be00c868090852af9e2b0e2e02b187056bbe7e107d2b5d37bfc.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a5e4a139ea19c0736249e4977730fd3ba2ef2b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e45a4636a61c7be00c868090852af9e2b0e2e02b187056bbe7e107d2b5d37bfc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285-6 Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285-6 Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 3
+From:
+To:
+Subject:
+Date:
+Attachments:
+FYI
+Kramer, Amanda (USANYS)
+Moe. Alison (USANYS); Bossmiller, Alexander (USANYS)
+FW: Contact Info
+(from
+Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:40:33 PM
+20160502_ 193023 resized.jpg
+From: StanPottinger@aol.com <StanPottinger@aol.com>
+Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 12:02 PM
+To: Kramer, Amanda (USANYS) <AKramer@usa.doj.gov>
+Cc: Brad@pathtojustice.com; Smccawley@BSFLLP.com
+Subject: Fwd: Contact Info
+(from
+Amanda:
+Yesterday I spoke of
+, whom
+describes as a "scout" or recruiter of girls
+and/or women for J. Epstein. Attached to this incoming email from
+is the contact information he
+has for
+Best regards,
+Stan
+From:
+To: StanPottinger@aol.com
+Sent: 5/3/2016 11:13:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
+Subj: (no subject)
+Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
+
+SDNY_GM_02742753
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285-6
+Filed 05/20/21 Page 3 of 3
+erry
+A
+3G Tall
+Phone Numbers
+Mobile:
+Other:
+Email Addresses
+Email:
+Notes.
+
+SDNY_GM_02742754
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e45a4636a61c7be00c868090852af9e2b0e2e02b187056bbe7e107d2b5d37bfc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e45a4636a61c7be00c868090852af9e2b0e2e02b187056bbe7e107d2b5d37bfc.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a257cab58aa40f0e97621fc3c5d74c4deb02c43
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e45a4636a61c7be00c868090852af9e2b0e2e02b187056bbe7e107d2b5d37bfc.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -69,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e45a4636a61c7be00c868090852af9e2b0e2e02b187056bbe7e107d2b5d37bfc",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "55a223ec143b6db80a41a4f7c43c2012e4d7a7e98609848196c1840e642c6626",
+  "output_sha256": "209cadf3c84ab1799d652fb499d287d2fae90fb5b72f4206e8bccba00bb4ddef",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4667f4ecff045cb45eadc51dd800d2cde071d2996237bac45ff3892813b7756.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4667f4ecff045cb45eadc51dd800d2cde071d2996237bac45ff3892813b7756.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7205729ff740f7ce4a9f00fa9d2e3c028f29a857
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4667f4ecff045cb45eadc51dd800d2cde071d2996237bac45ff3892813b7756.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 407-15 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4667f4ecff045cb45eadc51dd800d2cde071d2996237bac45ff3892813b7756.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4667f4ecff045cb45eadc51dd800d2cde071d2996237bac45ff3892813b7756.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea7707a497204c39737ca84dbe5e2b42ecab84a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4667f4ecff045cb45eadc51dd800d2cde071d2996237bac45ff3892813b7756.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e4667f4ecff045cb45eadc51dd800d2cde071d2996237bac45ff3892813b7756",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7b6334a4445897dcc467151250fa442b4181d3bf741e347c0e37ba250699c1a8",
+  "output_sha256": "67199bd83b53b9c6f26b7e71f3eef31d515ed2ac6ae1b673a59d9da0878b459b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e472806fe98f4b8c4c6699242888b80328ba2d186b89b011b5adc6376e85c8a7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e472806fe98f4b8c4c6699242888b80328ba2d186b89b011b5adc6376e85c8a7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cabe65c1cf0eba90bf7782a19403d9a9d1023091
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e472806fe98f4b8c4c6699242888b80328ba2d186b89b011b5adc6376e85c8a7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 142 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 1
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+40I EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 3330|- 22|1 • PH. 954.356.00|| • FAX 954.356.0022
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+May 5, 2016
+Via CM/ECF
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+I v. Maxwell,
+Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+This is a letter motion to file
+Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer
+Deposition Questions and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's
+Protective Order (DE 62).
+The Protective Order states:
+Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL
+INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to
+Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the
+Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Defendant has designated
+Defendant's entire deposition testimony as confidential.
+time on whether Defendant's designations are proper. Because of the Protective Order, however,
+believes that she cannot presently produce or reference such documents in public
+court filings. Accordingly, as
+• Reply Brief contains material that Defendant has
+designated as confidential, she seeks leave to file the Non-Redacted Reply Brief and certain
+related exhibits under seal.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+cc:
+Laura Menninger, via CM/ECF
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, via CM/ECF
+WWW.BSFLLP.COM
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e472806fe98f4b8c4c6699242888b80328ba2d186b89b011b5adc6376e85c8a7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e472806fe98f4b8c4c6699242888b80328ba2d186b89b011b5adc6376e85c8a7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..facadb93fe2f4883e9d61cb4876adafb29e04f5c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e472806fe98f4b8c4c6699242888b80328ba2d186b89b011b5adc6376e85c8a7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e472806fe98f4b8c4c6699242888b80328ba2d186b89b011b5adc6376e85c8a7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e55acfd83f0556e69bfc14157b86ef06ac1cf75b7b5107354b69d8bc66295076",
+  "output_sha256": "873510ccf490898146ded11bdb5c82d2be65ef360a2fca73cbd6b01beb5a715f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4873b2ab56ccde50fb8e948f5d382b5ddfec1b82221f1fe3114ad41b1fb2be5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4873b2ab56ccde50fb8e948f5d382b5ddfec1b82221f1fe3114ad41b1fb2be5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ba18515038b4d7f6542876fe5391c1cd930e155
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4873b2ab56ccde50fb8e948f5d382b5ddfec1b82221f1fe3114ad41b1fb2be5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,603 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+------
+DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IN TOTO CERTAIN
+DEPOSITIONS DESIGNATED BY PLAINTIFF FOR USE AT TRIAL
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+AND
+, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 21
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+INTRODUCTION
+.. 1
+PLAINTIFF CANNOT SATSIFY THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF
+CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL
+..1
+A. Jeffrey Epstein and Rinaldo Rizzo Are Not Unavailable.
+..2
+B. As a Retained Expert, Phillip Esplin Cannot Be Deemed Unavailable.
+.. 3
+II. TESTIMONY IN WHICH WITNESS REFUSED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS
+POSED IS IRRELEVANT, MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBITIVE, AND MUST BE
+EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL …
+.. 5
+A. Jeffrey Epstein ...
+... 5
+B.
+12
+C. Phillip Esplin..
+14
+III. TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS MADE IN OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH MS.
+MAXWELL WAS NOT A PARTY, WAS NOT PRESENT, HAD NO NOTICE, AND
+DID NOT PARTICIPATE CANNOT BE DESIGNATED IN THIS CASE
+14
+CONCLUSION
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+18
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 21
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") hereby moves to in limine to exclude in
+toto certain depositions designated by Plaintiff for use at trial, specifically those of Alfredo
+Rodriguez, Jeffrey Epstein,
+• and Dr. Phillip Esplin. She simultaneously files her
+specific objections to portions of these and other depositions designated by Plaintiff. She further
+states as follows:
+INTRODUCTION
+Plaintiff has filed deposition designations for 14 witnesses for use in her case in chief at
+trial. With respect to four of the witness, the use of their deposition testimony must be precluded
+entirely pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) because either (a) the
+witnesses are not unavailable and/or (b) the requirements for use of deposition in lieu of live
+testimony cannot be met. As separately filed in her specific objections, with respect to the
+remaining ten (10) witnesses, the Federal Rules of Evidence require portions or all of the
+designated testimony to be excluded.
+I.
+PLAINTIFF CANNOT SATSIFY THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF
+CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL
+The use of deposition at trial is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 32. Under that rule, Plaintiff
+must establish the following to use all or part of any deposition at trial:
+(a) Using Depositions.
+(1) In General. At a hearing or trial, all or part of a deposition may be used against a
+party on these conditions:
+(A) the party was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had
+reasonable notice of it;
+To affirmatively offer evidence in her case in chief through deposition testimony under Rule
+32(a)(4), the plaintiff must establish that the witness is unavailable. Specifically, the rule
+provides:
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 21
+(4) Unavailable Witness. A party may use for any purpose the deposition of a witness,
+whether or not a party, if the court finds:
+(A) that the witness is dead;
+(B) that the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing or trial or is
+outside the United States, unless it appears that the witness's absence was
+procured by the party offering the deposition;
+(C) that the witness cannot attend or testify because of age, illness, infirmity, or
+imprisonment;
+(D) that the party offering the deposition could not procure the witness's
+attendance by subpoena; or
+(E) on motion and notice, that exceptional circumstances make it desirable—in
+the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of live testimony in
+open court—to permit the deposition to be used.
+Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) echoes this requirement, providing an exception to the hearsay rule for
+use of deposition testimony only when a witness is unavailable.
+A. Jeffrey Epstein and Rinaldo Rizzo Are Not Unavailable
+Plaintiff has made deposition designation based on the alleged "understanding that
+[witnesses] are not able to appear live to provide trial testimony." With respect to Jeffrey
+Epstein and Rinaldo Rizzo, she offered no basis for her claim that these two witnesses are not
+able to appear live to provide testimony. Both witnesses reside within 100 miles of the
+courthouse at which the trial is to be held, and she has neither articulated nor argued any other
+basis for a finding of "unavailability." Indeed, no such argument could be maintained.'
+"[DJeposition testimony is only a substitute, not to be resorted to if the witness can appear in
+person." Banks v. Yokemick, 144 F. Supp. 2d 272, 288 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Plaintiff's own
+investigator has stated in his affidavit regarding attempted service of the deposition subpoena on
+Mr. Epstein that he has three known addresses in New York, including his permanent residence,
+all of which are within 100 miles of the courthouse. See ECF No. 161, Ex. 4. The fact that Mr.
+' The remaining fact witnesses for whom Plaintiff has designated deposition testimony reside outside the
+100-mile radius, and therefore may be unavailable under 32(a)(4). Defendant reserves all rights to object to use of
+any deposition testimony should the availability of such witness change.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 21
+Epstein will invoke the Fifth Amendment, if permitted by this Court, does not constitute
+exceptional circumstances that would permit use of his deposition at trial. Id.
+Likewise, Mr. Rizzo, who lives in North Salem, New York, was served with a deposition
+subpoena in New York, and his deposition was conducted in New York, all within 100 miles of
+the courthouse. See Menninger Decl. Ex. A 2:2-4:18 (Rizzo Dep.) There is no basis to claim
+that either of these witnesses cannot be procured for trial through subpoena, nor is there any
+indication that Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to issue such subpoenas.
+Having failed to establish the essential element of unavailability, Mr. Epstein and Mr.
+Rizzo's depositions cannot be used affirmatively as evidence at trial and all such testimony is
+hearsay - an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter - to which no exception or
+exclusion applies under Federal Rules of Evidence 804(a) and (b)(1).
+B. As a Retained Expert, Phillip Esplin Cannot Be Deemed Unavailable
+Phillip Esplin is a rebuttal expert, retained by the Defendant in rebuttal of the improper
+credibility opinions offered by Plaintiff's experts Dr. Gilbert Kliman and Professor Terry
+Coonan, both of which are subject to pending motions in limine. Plaintiff has attempted to
+designate portions of Dr. Esplin's deposition for use in her case in chief. All of the proposed
+testimony concerns matters which were outside of the scope of Dr. Esplin's opinion, as discussed
+in more detail below. As a preliminary matter, however, the attempt to introduce the deposition
+testimony of Dr. Esplin is improper under Second Circuit law because, as an expert, he is not
+deemed unavailable simply because he resides outside of the 100-mile radius of the courthouse.
+Rather, in the Second Circuit, to use the deposition or other sworn testimony of an expert based
+on alleged unavailability of that expert, the Plaintiff must prove that 1) she attempted to secure
+the voluntary attendance of the witness, and 2) that no similar expert is available.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 21
+The Second Circuit first addressed this issue in Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Otte, 474 F.2d
+529, 536 (2d Cir. 1972). In that case, Judge Friendly observed that "there is something unusual
+about the use of the prior testimony of an expert witness that calls for further scrutiny of his
+unavailability." 474 F.2d at 536 (citations omitted). As a result, this Circuit imposed two
+additional requirements on parties seeking to offer prior expert testimony at trial. First, the
+proponent of the prior expert testimony must "attempt to secure the voluntary [trial] attendance
+of a witness who lives beyond the subpoena power of the court." Id. at 536. The reason for this
+additional requirement is that "unlike the typical witness whose involvement with the case may
+depend on the fortuity of his observing a particular event and whose presence at trial is often
+involuntary, a party ordinarily has the opportunity to choose the expert witness whose testimony
+he desires and invariably arranges for his presence privately, by mutual agreement, and for a
+fee." Id.
+Second, "before former testimony of an expert witness can be used, there should be some
+showing, not only that the witness is unavailable, but that no other expert of similar
+qualifications is available or that the unavailable expert has unique testimony to contribute." Id.
+at 536-37. The reason for this additional requirement is that, unlike an ordinary fact witness, "the
+expert witness generally has no knowledge of the facts of the case... Thus, even if one
+particular expert is unavailable... there will usually be other experts available to give similar
+testimony orally." Id. at 536. In sum, under Carter-Wallace, prior expert testimony is only
+admissible in the place of live expert testimony if the proponent of the testimony tries to secure
+the expert's voluntary attendance and demonstrates that no similar expert is available. These
+judicially-created requirements have been applied in addition to the requirements of Fed. R.
+Evid. 804(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 32. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that either of these
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 21
+requirements have been met, mandating that the designated portions of Dr. Esplin's testimony
+should be ruled inadmissible at trial. Id.; see also Aubrey Rogers Agency, Inc. v. AIG Life Ins.
+Co., 2000 WL 135129 (D. Del. 2000) (finding expert deposition testimony inadmissible where
+there was nothing in the record to indicate that the proponent had made any effort to secure the
+expert's attendance at trial or had even contacted the expert to "offer him his usual expert witness
+fee, and request his attendance at trial").
+TESTIMONY IN WHICH WITNESS REFUSED TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS
+POSED IS IRRELEVANT, MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBITIVE, AND
+MUST BE EXCLUDED FROM TRIAL
+Plaintiff designates the deposition testimony of three witnesses who refused to or could
+not respond to the questions posed to them. The first, Mr. Epstein, invoked his Fifth Amendment
+right against self-incrimination. The second,
+was reluctant to be deposed and
+failed to answer questions based on lack of memory, repeatedly stating that she was unable to
+respond to the questions posed. The third, Dr. Phillip Esplin, explained repeatedly that he could
+not respond to the questions posed because they were outside the scope of his opinion and there
+was insufficient information in the record to permit response. All of this testimony is irrelevant,
+more prejudicial than probative and must be excluded.
+A.
+Jeffrey Epstein
+As the Court is aware, Jeffrey Epstein was compelled to sit for a deposition during which
+he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights as to each and every question posed to him by counsel
+for both Plaintiff and the Defendant. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have motions pending to
+require Mr. Epstein to respond fully to questions. If these motions are granted, the current
+deposition in which no questions were answered is irrelevant. Only actual questions that
+eventually are answered should be presented to the jury, subject to other rules of admissibility,
+including whether Plaintiff can establish that Mr. Epstein is unavailable to testify live at trial.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 21
+Because of his invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, there actually is
+no deposition testimony to designate. Each designation reflects a leading question by Plaintiff's
+counsel (which is improper on direct examination, FRE 611(c)), followed by Mr. Epstein's one
+word response - "Fifth." Of course, Plaintiff's counsel's questions are not testimony. Mr.
+Epstein's responses have no "tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
+without the evidence"; the answer to the questions is a non-answer, and the answer could be yes,
+no or something entirely different.
+Moreover, with respect to many of the unanswered questions, they do not relate to any
+"fact [] of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid 401. By way of one limited
+example, Plaintiff designated the following leading question and non-answer: "Q. In June 2008,
+in open court, you pled guilty to two Florida State felonies, correct? A. Fifth." The investigation
+and ultimate plea deal reached by Mr. Epstein bears absolutely no relevance to this case. As the
+investigating detective,
+Maxwell was not the subject of the
+investigation in 2005 and 2006, was not identified in the probable cause affidavit, and was not a
+subject of the grand jury proceedings against Mr. Epstein. Menninger Decl. Ex. B, 203:4-25;
+210:24-212:6. Moreover, Plaintiff voluntarily departed this country three years prior to the
+investigation, was not identified as a witness in the investigation nor was she interviewed by the
+investigators. Id. 259:17-25. Simply put, the investigation of Mr. Epstein, which resulted in his
+indictment and plea deal, have nothing to do with either the Plaintiff or the Defendant in this
+action, and have no bearing on any fact that is of consequence in this case. This one limited
+example demonstrates the completely irrelevant inquiry put to Mr. Epstein. As such, the
+designated testimony fails the relevance standards of Fed. R. Evid. 401, is not admissible under
+Fed. R. Evid. 402, and certainly is more prejudicial than probative under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 21
+Likewise, the designated invocation testimony of Mr. Epstein violates the requirements
+of Fed. R. Evid. 403, as any probative value of the testimony is outweighed by unfair prejudice,
+confusion of the issues, will tend to mislead the jury, cause undue delay, waste time, and present
+cumulative evidence. To permit this testimony, which in fact reflects only Plaintiff's attorney
+presenting prejudicial and unproven statements in the form of unanswered questions, serves only
+one purpose which is to confuse the jury by claiming that the failure to answer the questions
+must mean the answer is harmful to both Mr. Epstein and to Ms. Maxwell. In truth, and as Ms.
+Maxwell has stated in her pending motion to compel, Mr. Epstein's truthful answers to the
+questions posed by both parties would in fact vindicate Ms. Maxwell, proving that Ms.
+Maxwell's press statement were substantially true. Even allowing the reading of the designated
+testimony will, without question, confuse the jury by leading them to believe that there is some
+evidentiary value to the questions, causing significant and incurable prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.
+It is apparent that Plaintiff intends to request that the Court instruct the jury that it may
+draw an adverse inference against Ms. Maxwell based on Jeffrey Epstein, a non-party witness's,
+invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Such an adverse inference is impermissible in this case.
+Under Fed. R. Evid. 501 and this Court's prior rulings, New York State law governs the
+privilege law in this case. See ECF No. 135. Under New York law, the general rule is that a
+non-party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege cannot be used as to create an adverse
+inference against a party. Access Capital, Inc. v. DeCicco, 302 A.D.2d 48, 52 (2002) ("the
+privilege being personal, the consequences are limited to the witness that invokes it. Thus, where
+the privilege is asserted by a nonparty witness, no adverse inference may be drawn") (citing State
+v. Markowitz, 273 A.D.2d 637, 646 (2000)).
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 21
+In New York, there are two exceptions to this general rule: 1) where the non-party
+witness is an alter ego of a party; and 2) when a party controls the non-party material witness and
+could force them to testify. Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v. Ins. Companies Represented by
+• Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, 26 Misc. 3d 448, 461-62, 888 N.Y.S.2d 372 (Civ. Ct. 2009):
+While it is true that an adverse inference may not generally be drawn against a
+party when a nonparty asserts the privilege (see Access Capital v DeCicco, 302
+AD2d 48, 52 [Ist Dept 2002]; State of New York v Markowitz, 273 AD2d 637,
+646 [3d Dept 2000], Iv denied 95 NY2d 770 [2000]), the courts in this state have
+recognized several exceptions to this rule .... One of these exceptions deals with
+the situation where a corporate employee, who is the alter ego of his or her
+corporate employer, refuses to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds.
+The second of these exceptions deals with the situation when the nonparty who asserts his
+or her Fifth Amendment privilege and refuses to testify is a material witness in a
+particular party's control. In Califano v City of New York (212 AD2d 146 [Ist Dept
+1995]), the Court held that "[t)he inference to be charged in a civil case by a [nonparty]
+witness's invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination is *akin to that arising
+when a party fails or refuses to produce a material witness who is within his control'"
+Id. at 461-462.
+Neither of these two exceptions is applicable in this instance. Ms. Maxwell is not a
+corporation and she has no corporate employees. Mr. Epstein is not, and has never been, an
+employee or even an agent of Ms. Maxwell. In fact, it was Mr. Epstein who employed Ms.
+Maxwell in the late 90's and early 2000's; it was he who had employment control over her, not
+the opposite. In this circumstance, the purpose of the exception is not served because the nontestifying employer does not have the ability to bind his subservient former employee, nor is
+there any basis to believe that an employer would act to protect his employee because he has
+nothing (such as his job) to lose.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 21
+The second exception is equally inapplicable. Ms. Maxwell has no control of Mr.
+Epstein and no ability to command his testimony.? This fact is made obvious by virtue of Mr.
+Epstein's refusal to respond to the questions posed at the deposition by Ms. Maxwell's counsel,
+requiring her to file a motion to compel his testimony. ECF No. 449. Thus, under controlling
+New York law, use of Mr. Epstein's testimony and the concomitant adverse inference based on
+that testimony is prohibited.
+Federal law requires the same result. The Second Circuit first addressed the question of
+whether an adverse inference against a party to a civil action is permitted based on a non-party's
+invocation of the Fifth Amendment in LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 1997).
+In that case, during a bench trial the question arose whether the trial court should have drawn an
+adverse inference against the Plaintiff based on her father's invocation of the Fifth Amendment
+Privilege. The Court held that the 'issue of the admissibility of a non-party's invocation of the
+Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the course of civil litigation and the
+concomitant drawing of adverse inferences appropriately center on the circumstances of the
+case." Id. at 123. The Court then set forth a list of four non-exclusive factors that should guide a
+court in determination of the relevance of any testimony: 1) the nature of the relevant
+relationships; 2) the degree of control of the party over the non-party witness; 3) the
+compatibility of the interests of the party and non-party witness in the outcome of the litigation;
+4) the role of the non-party witness in the litigation. Id. at 123-124. The Court made clear that
+the key consideration is trustworthiness: "[w]hether these or other circumstances unique to a
+2 To the extent Plaintiff claims control based on the existence of a joint defense agreement, courts have
+specifically ruled that such an agreement alone does not establish privity or control for purposes of the exceptions to
+the prohibition on giving an adverse inference instruction based on invocation by a non-party. Omni Food Sales v.
+Boan, No. 06 CIV. 119 (PAC), 2007 WL 2435163, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2007) (discussing collateral estoppel
+stating joint defense agreement alone "however, it would prove only a litigation alliance; it alone would not create
+privity.").
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 21
+particular case are considered by the trial court, the overarching concern is fundamentally
+whether the adverse inference is trustworthy under all of the circumstances and will advance the
+search for the truth." Id. at 124.
+As under New York law, the nature of the relationship (Mr. Epstein employing Ms.
+Maxwell rather than vice versa) and the lack of her control over him weigh against the
+trustworthiness of an adverse inference. Likewise, Mr. Epstein has no stake in the outcome of
+this litigation, financial or otherwise. Nor has he participated in this litigation in anyway.
+Rather, he completely refused to participate, moving to quash his deposition, pleading the fifth
+and refusing to produce documents or provide testimony.
+While the LiButti Court was considering an adverse inference during a bench trial, it was
+cognizant that, after conducting the relevance evaluation, courts would also need to assess the
+issue of undue prejudice under Fed. R. Evid. 403, an issue not presented there because of the
+nature of a bench trial. Id. at 124. As discussed above, there is insurmountable unfair prejudice
+caused by presenting Plaintiff's counsel's "testimony" (in the form of questions) and Mr.
+Epstein's invocation, even if no adverse evidence instruction is given. Plaintiff's entire point is
+to confuse and mislead the jury to believe that the answers to each of the self-serving questions
+would be yes, even though there is no proof on the question. This is in essence simply allowing
+Plaintiff's counsel to testify to their own theories, not actual facts.
+If anything, an adverse inference against Plaintiff and in favor of Ms. Maxwell based on
+Mr. Epstein's invocation of the Fifth Amendment is the only proper adverse inference. Plaintiff
+previously sued Mr. Epstein for the conduct about which he refused to answer in his deposition.
+As a result of that lawsuit Plaintiff received a $500,000 settlement payment from Mr. Epstein, a
+matter about which Mr. Epstein refused to testify. See Menninger Decl. Ex. C 283:5-284:17
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 21
+(Epstein Depo.). The amount of that payment, the reasons for the settlement, the nature of the
+claims, and the release of claims for emotional distress and other damages that mirror the alleged
+damages sought by Plaintiff in this matter are relevant to apportionment of any cause of
+Plaintiff's claimed injuries. See Bikowicz v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 161 A.D.2d 982, 985, 557
+N.Y.S.2d 551 (1990) (an adverse inference in favor of the defendant should have been given
+based on a settling joint-tortfeasors invocation of the Fifth Amendment because it was relevant to
+apportionment of fault and damages). If any adverse inference instruction is proper it should be
+an instruction that the jury should assume that Mr. Epstein's refusal to answer questions
+concerning his conduct toward Plaintiff should be constituted as an admission that Mr. Epstein
+engaged in that conduct on his own, and without the participation or knowledge of Ms. Maxwell.
+Plaintiff previously sued Mr. Epstein for these actions. In that action, Plaintiff claimed damages
+for:
+Past and future phsyical injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, pyscological
+and/or psychiatric trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss
+of educational opportunity, loss of self-esteen, loss of dignity, invasion of privacy,
+separation from her family; medical and psychological expenses; loss of income, loss of
+capacity to earn income, and loss of the capacity to enjoy life.
+The jury should assume that Plaintiff valued her damages at $500,000 for these alleged
+injuries, and has received payment for her injuries from Mr. Epstein.
+The designated testimony of Mr. Epstein is also fatally flawed in that it lacks any
+evidentiary foundation, which is impermissible when testimony of invocation is presented to a
+jury. Courts addressing the issue of permitting an adverse inference against a party based on the
+party's own invocation of their Fifth Amendment rights still permit that inference only if
+"independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to answer." Doe ex rel. Rudy-
+Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000); see also LaSalle Bank Lake View v.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 21
+Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 391 (7th Cir. 1995); L
+v. Lebanon Sch. Dist., 848 F.2d 44, 46 (3d
+Cir. 1988). Thus, silence can only result in any inference when it "is countered by independent
+evidence of the fact being questioned, but that same inference cannot be drawn when, for
+example, silence is the answer to an allegation contained in a complaint." Doe ex rel. Rudy-
+Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1264 (citing Nat'l Acceptance Co. v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924, 930 (7th
+Cir.1983). "In such instances, when there is no corroborating evidence to support the fact under
+inquiry, the proponent of the fact must come forward with evidence to support the allegation,
+otherwise no negative inference will be permitted." Id. (citing LaSalle Bank, 54 F.3d at 391); see
+also OS Recovery, Ine. v. One Groupe Int'l, Inc., No. 02 CIV. 8993LAK, 2005 WL 850830, at *1
+(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2005) ("inference from invocation of the privilege may be appropriate only
+where there is independent evidence corroborating the proposition sought to be inferred"). Here,
+the vast majority of questions posed to Mr. Epstein lack any foundation or corroboration other
+than being allegations and assertions of the Plaintiff in this matter. It is Plaintiff's burden to
+come forward with independent corroborating evidence for each question posed to Mr. Epstein
+before the court can even consider allowing presentation of the questions and invocation to a
+jury. Plaintiff's complete failure to provide such evidence for the designated testimony requires
+that it be excluded from trial.
+B.
+was a witness in the investigation and indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in
+2006. She very clearly testified in her deposition in this matter that she has little or no memory
+of most or all of the events surrounding the time she knew Mr. Epstein, and specifically testified
+that she is in therapy for the purpose of repressing any memories concerning Mr. Epstein. See
+Menninger Decl. Ex. D 8:8-9:7; 57:16-58:25. As such, the vast majority of her testimony is that
+she has no present recollection of' events so that she cannot respond to the questions posed to her.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 21
+Plaintiff's counsel provided [
+with a copy of a statement she gave to the police in
+October 2005 concerning Mr. Epstein. [
+refused to look at the statement and did not
+authenticate it in any way. The statement itself is by definition hearsay - an out of court
+statement made byl
+that Plaintiff would like to offer for the truth of the matter. The only
+possible permissible use of the statement was for purposes of refreshing recollection under Fed.
+R. Evid. 612. However,
+refused to look through the statement and had no independent
+recollection of events, as explained by her attorney. See Menninger Decl. Ex. D 16:5-18-21:23.
+Plaintiff's counsel made clear that he did not intend to attempt to use the police statement to
+refresh
+recollection, and
+counsel made clear that the statement would not
+refresh her recollection. Id. As such, the police report is simply an out of court statement, at
+best consistent with the few items of testimony that
+(could recall. Under Fed. R. Evid.
+612 and 801(d)(1), no portion of the statement, including those portions read into the deposition
+record, are admissible into evidence.
+With respect to
+response of being unable to recall events or testify, none of the
+questions or answers is probative of' any fact at issue in this matter, requiring exclusion under
+Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 602 based on lack of personal knowledge. To permit the designation
+of leading questions with the answer that
+could not recall violates the principles of Fed.
+R. Evid. 403 and 611 as well, in that the suggestive question with a non-answer confuses and
+misleads the jury into a belief that the attorney's question should be taken as testimonial
+evidence. All testimony off
+designated testimony that 1) refers to or references the
+police report or contents of that report; 2) that poses a leading question; or 3) that results in a
+response that the witness does not recall must be excluded. Likewise, the police report itself,
+Exhibit 1 in the deposition, is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 612.
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 21
+C. Phillip Esplin
+As previously explained, Dr. Esplin is a retained rebuttal expert, responding to the
+improper credibility opinions of Dr. Kliman and Professor Coonan. His opinions are quite
+limited in scope, and merely point to the deficiencies in information, studies and the evaluations
+of Plaintiff's two experts. Plaintiff has improperly designated testimony that relates to questions,
+matters and fact outside the scope of Mr. Esplin's opinion, or about which he had no factual
+predicate to provide testimony. For instance, he was asked questions regarding the definitions of
+pedophilia and if it could be cured, a matter nowhere addressed in his rebuttal opinion. If Mr.
+Esplin is proffered as a witness at all, Plaintiff may only cross-examine him on matters within
+the scope of his opinion and his direct examination. Fed. R. Evid. 611(b); Bristol-Myers
+Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 2000 WL 356412, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.2,
+2000) (holding that "direct testimony by any expert witness at trial shall be limited to the
+contents of the Expert Report"). The designated deposition testimony, all outside the scope of
+Dr. Esplin's expert opinion in this matter, must be precluded.
+III. TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS MADE IN OTHER MATTERS TO WHICH
+MS. MAXWELL WAS NOT A PARTY, WAS NOT PRESENT, HAD NO NOTICE,
+AND DID NOT PARTICIPATE CANNOT BE DESIGNATED IN THIS CASE
+Plaintiff has attempted to designate the testimony of Alfredo Rodriguez from a deposition
+conducted of him on July 29, 2009 in connection with a series of cases brought by various "Jane
+Does" (none this Plaintiff) against Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Rodriguez is now deceased, and thus not
+deposed in conjunction with the present litigation. These designations are prohibited by the
+Federal Rules of Evidence and Procedure. Again, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 and Fed. R. Evid. 804 are
+controlling.
+Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32, a prerequisite to use of a deposition at trial is "(A) the party
+was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or had reasonable notice of it; (B) it is
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 21
+used to the extent it would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence if the deponent
+were present and testifying; and (C) the use is allowed by Rule 32(a)(2) through (8)."
+Neither condition A nor C exist in this case. Ms. Maxwell was not a party to any of the
+litigations in which Mr. Rodriguez was deposed; Ms. Maxwell was neither present or given
+notice of the deposition. Likewise, under Rule 32(a)(8), use of a deposition from a prior
+proceeding is only permitted if the prior proceeding was between the same parties (it was not)
+and dealing with the same subject matter (it was not).
+Mr. Rodriguez's prior testimony also fails to meet the hearsay exception requirements of
+Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). Under that rule, an unavailable witness's testimony may be used only if
+it is "testimony that (a) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing or lawful deposition, whether
+given during the current proceeding or a different one; and (b) is now offered against a party who
+had - or in a civil case, whose predecessor in interest had - an opportunity and similar motive to
+develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination." Id. Plaintiff here seeks to enter the
+deposition testimony of Mr. Rodriguez against Ms. Maxwell, a non-party to the prior civil cases.
+Ms. Maxwell has no predecessor in interest in those matters, let alone ones with an opportunity
+or motive to develop testimony relating to a defamation case that did not arise until over 6 years
+later. Mr. Rodriguez's testimony through a 2009 deposition is completely unrelated to this
+action, is pure hearsay and does not fall under any exceptions to the hearsay rules. Fed. R. Evid.
+801, 802 & 804.
+One key issue about which Mr. Rodriguez was not cross-examined was his own criminal
+conduct which occurred after the deposition testimony he gave in those matters. Subsequent to
+the deposition Plaintiff proffers, Mr. Rodriguez contacted the attorneys representing the Jane
+Does in those matters and attempted to sell them a 97-page document. One such attorney was
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 21
+Mr.
+counsel in this case. According to the Criminal Complaint filed against
+Mr. Rodriguez in 2009, Mr. Rodriguez approached one of the lawyers and offered to sell the
+lawyer evidence against Mr. Epstein. United States v. Rodriguez, United States District Court
+for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 9:09-mj-08308-LRJ, EFC No. 3, 1113-7. Mr.
+Rodriguez "explained that he had compiled lists of additional victims in the case and their
+contact information" Id. 16. A sting operation was set up by the FBI during which the 97 pages
+purportedly were provided to an undercover officer in exchange for $50,000. Id. at M 8-11. Mr.
+Rodriguez subsequently was prosecuted and imprisoned for this bribery and obstruction scheme.
+These actions and conviction, which did not occur until after the deposition Plaintiff seeks to
+proffer, are quintessential character impeachment evidence that no one has ever examined Mr.
+Rodriguez about. Given Mr. Rodriguez's death in 2015, it is now impossible cross examine him
+on these issues. Submission of Mr. Rodriguez's testimony without the ability to confront the
+witness or cross-examine on him on his credibility is improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(8),
+Fed. R. Evid. 403, 405, 609, 801, 802 & 804.
+The format and content of the copy of deposition produced also makes its admission
+improper. While nine deposition exhibits were marked for identification, only one of the
+exhibits has been produced. Thus, it is impossible to determine the probative value, if any, of the
+questioning concerning deposition exhibits (including the identification of pictures) because they
+are unavailable. Similarly, throughout the deposition, the persons being discussed are referred to
+only by a first initial or first and last initial. From the content, it is impossible to determine who
+is being discussed or the age of any particular individual. Under 401, 402 and 403, any
+admission of this incomplete deposition would be improper.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 21
+Like l
+Mr. Rodriguez was expansively questioned based on counsel's recitation
+of the alleged content of a recorded statement from Mr. Rodriguez to Detective Recarey and then
+he was asked questions regarding such statement. He was not shown the recorded statement, nor
+was he asked any question of his present memory prior to the reading of these statement which
+resulted in a need to have his recollection refreshed. Plaintiff is attempting to introduce as
+evidence the content of the prior consistent statement through counsel's questions, which is
+improper under Fed. R. Evid. Fed. R. Evid. 612 and 801(d)(1).
+Further, the questions posed to Mr. Rodriguez that have been designated are almost
+exclusively leading questions of a non-party witness who Plaintiff intends to use as a direct
+witness in her case in chief. All of these questions violate Fed. R. Evid. 611(c), making these
+portions of the deposition inadmissible under 32(a)(1)(b).
+The testimony of Mr. Rodriguez is also impermissible under 401, 401, 403 and 602
+because Mr. Rodriguez has absolutely no personal knowledge of any matter at issue in this case.
+He testified that he worked for Mr. Epstein from September 2004 to March 2005, a full two
+years after Plaintiff in this matter had left the country. He stated that he had never heard of or
+met "V.R." (presumably
+Id. Menninger Decl. Ex. E at 441:19-21. Based on
+his dates of employment, he has no personal knowledge of any events concerning Plaintiff, as
+pointed out to counsel in the deposition. Id. 277:15-278:5. Indeed, Mr. Rodriguez was very clear
+in testifying that he had absolutely no personal knowledge about anything that happened between
+Mr. Epstein and any of the women who came to give him massages and that his testimony is
+pure speculation. Id, 466:7-467:2. With no personal knowledge of the veracity of the allegations
+that were called untrue (or any other matter to which he testified) his testimony is completely
+irrelevant to this litigation.
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 21
+CONCLUSION
+For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests an Order of this Court
+excluding the deposition testimony of witnesses Jeffrey Epstein,
+, Dr. Phillip
+Esplin, and Rinaldo Rizzo from being introduced by Plaintiff at trial.
+Dated: January 27, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10"" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-7
+Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 21
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on January 27, 2017, I electronically served this DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN
+LIMINE TO EXCLUDE IN TOTO CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS DESIGNATED BY PLAINTIFF
+FOR USE AT TRIAL via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+CARE, WEISSING D
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole |
+19
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4873b2ab56ccde50fb8e948f5d382b5ddfec1b82221f1fe3114ad41b1fb2be5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4873b2ab56ccde50fb8e948f5d382b5ddfec1b82221f1fe3114ad41b1fb2be5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0577453d602665fec31a8e461dac501d3b3322c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4873b2ab56ccde50fb8e948f5d382b5ddfec1b82221f1fe3114ad41b1fb2be5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -266,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e4873b2ab56ccde50fb8e948f5d382b5ddfec1b82221f1fe3114ad41b1fb2be5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 23,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "225bc4e2dd791fd2410514367a9cdab6f60c0927a9e13138bc902d9690040eef",
+  "output_sha256": "b59911617fe0662a12d41e3b227babbc7af9d68c4920ba179eb601f43d12bb74",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e49d6bbe801b9ceb809eda89e4138d877ee523631cbc30f1eb780a1666fbc282.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e49d6bbe801b9ceb809eda89e4138d877ee523631cbc30f1eb780a1666fbc282.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b514a405797499faeeab287209b87b607b81569d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e49d6bbe801b9ceb809eda89e4138d877ee523631cbc30f1eb780a1666fbc282.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE l
+Document 530
+Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+United States of America
+USA / Plaintiffs)
+Case No.: 20 Cr 330
+Ghislaine Maxwell
+Defendants)
+)
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
+Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a
+conference held on
+has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.
+11/15/21
+Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting
+the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.
+The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court
+any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also
+be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically
+available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.
+This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security
+numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information
+may proceed by motion.
+I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter.
+Rebecca Forman
+Court Reporter/Transcriber
+Date
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e49d6bbe801b9ceb809eda89e4138d877ee523631cbc30f1eb780a1666fbc282.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e49d6bbe801b9ceb809eda89e4138d877ee523631cbc30f1eb780a1666fbc282.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e38a2fe1a168e47d711cbb7406a40cafea686b9c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e49d6bbe801b9ceb809eda89e4138d877ee523631cbc30f1eb780a1666fbc282.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e49d6bbe801b9ceb809eda89e4138d877ee523631cbc30f1eb780a1666fbc282",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "be781c301accea402e65d3de4c237765963b218492bf74a9514663331c950af1",
+  "output_sha256": "3a899f90f53f4cf1b939a6070a812a83a76e5bb73415893a6e612492b1b52a67",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4cb97569abeeeb22c47c515aba1309a23f9fe3f864925763c3904f3651975ad.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4cb97569abeeeb22c47c515aba1309a23f9fe3f864925763c3904f3651975ad.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30e0a1162be45e9cf83ac54edbee6bbc15661bb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4cb97569abeeeb22c47c515aba1309a23f9fe3f864925763c3904f3651975ad.md
@@ -0,0 +1,638 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 223
+Filed 04/20/21
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
+IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
+FOR BREACH OF THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+Christian R. Everdell
+1 & GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New
+York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON, |
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+P.C.
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 195 Sire i C. Steein
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 223
+Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 23
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+I.
+Il.
+III.
+IV.
+The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It.
+The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision is Not Limited to the SDFL.
+The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision Is Not Limited to the 2001-07 Time
+Period or to Violations of Specific Statutes.
+In the Alternative, the Court Should Conduct Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing
+Regarding the Parties' Intent.
+CONCLUSION
+Page
+..2
+...7
+13
+16
+18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 3 of 23
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page(s)
+Cases
+Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v.
+821 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2016).
+Stanley Mortg. Capital, Inc.,
+v. Univ. of Notre Dame Du Lac,
+929 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2019)
+Penncro Assocs., Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.,
+499 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2007)
+United States v. Aleman,
+286 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2002)
+United States v. Annabi,
+771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985)..
+United States v. CFW Const. Co.,
+583 F. Supp. 197 (D.S.C. 1984), aff'd, 749 F.2d 33 (4"* Cir. 1984)
+United States v. El-Sadig
+133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001).....
+United States v.
+939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019).
+United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc.,
+853 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ....
+United States v. Gebbie,
+294 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2002)..
+United States v.
+93 F. App'x 268 (2d Cir. 2004)
+United States v. Harvey,
+791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986)
+United States v. Mariamma Viju (01),
+No. 3:15-CR-0240-B, 2016 WL 107841 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016).
+United States v. Padilla,
+186 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999).
+8,9
+8,9
+8,9
+. 17
+.. passim
+.. 6
+3, 6
+5, 6, 10, 17
+. 3, 4, 6
+. 12
+8
+12
+6
+10
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223
+Filed 04/20/21 Page 4 of 23
+United States v. Sattar,
+272 F. Supp. 2d 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
+United States v. Van Thornout,
+100 F.3d 590 (8th Cir. 1996) ..
+Other Authorities
+.17
+... 12
+Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. "Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine
+Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges." NBC New York. July 3, 2020
+... 15
+iii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 23
+Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to
+Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement ("Motion").
+As though it were wielding an invisible ink pen, the government adds language to its
+Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with Jeffrey Epstein that does not exist in the text, and
+then pretends no one can see the clear, unambiguous language that does appear there. The plain
+language of the NPA states, without limitation, that "the United States... will not institute any
+criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Because the Superseding
+Indictment ("Indictment") contends that Ms. Maxwell was a co-conspirator of Epstein, the NPA,
+on its face, applies here. Thus, the government's only argument, which it makes throughout its
+opposition, is that the NPA means something other than what it says.
+In suggesting that the parties to the NPA intended to immunize only the four individuals
+specifically named in the co-conspirator immunity provision, the government flagrantly ignores
+the express statement that immunity is "not limited to" those individuals. In arguing that the
+provision binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida
+("USAO-SDFL"), the government asks the Court to add the words "in this District" to that
+provision, on the thin suggestion that the parties must have meant to include the same limitation
+on location of prosecution that they included in Epstein's immunity provision, even though they
+failed to do so. And for good measure, the government asks the Court to find that the parties
+must have intended to limit co-conspirator immunity to specific statutory offenses committed
+between 2001 and 2007, even though
+again— no such limitation appears in the text of the coconspirator immunity provision.
+Notwithstanding the bedrock principle that plea agreements are construed strictly against
+the government, the government asks the Court to simply assume that the parties intended the
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 6 of 23
+NPA to be read more narrowly than the language provides, arguing that following the NPA's
+plain language would contradict "common sense." (Opp.' 8, 16.) But a non-prosecution
+agreement is not an ordinary contract. Federal prosecutors know how to draft clear limitations
+on promises made to criminal defendants, and they have a unique obligation to do so. What
+strains "common sense" is the notion that any reasonable prosecutor who intended the NPA to be
+read as the government contends would have omitted the limitations and modifications the
+government now seeks—particularly when dealing with a defendant who sought to "resolve
+globally" his criminal liability. NPA at 2. The Court should therefore decline the government's
+invitation to rewrite the NPA to its liking, should enforce the NPA as written, and should grant
+Ms. Maxwell's Motion.
+In the alternative, the Court should permit discovery and hold an evidentiary hearing to
+determine the parties' intent with respect to the co-conspirator immunity provision. While Ms.
+Maxwell contends that the NPA unambiguously bars her prosecution here, and that neither
+discovery nor a hearing is necessary for the Court to grant this motion, the government's
+arguments regarding the NPA parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the consideration
+of evidence. Because Ms. Maxwell, as a nonparty, has no personal knowledge regarding the
+parties' intent and no access to relevant documents, she should be permitted to take discovery in
+advance of any hearing.
+The NPA Applies to Ms. Maxwell, and She Has Standing to Enforce It.
+The NPA's co-conspirator immunity provision forecloses "any criminal charges against
+any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to" four named individuals.
+NPA at 5 (emphasis added). The phrase "potential co-conspirators of Epstein" obviously
+includes Ms. Maxwell. As the opening statement of the Indictment makes clear: "The charges
+' "Opp." refers herein to the Government's Omnibus Opposition to the Defendant's Pre-Trial Motions.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 7 of 23
+set forth herein stem from the role of [Ms. Maxwell] in the sexual exploitation and abuse of
+multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein." Indictment 9| 1. The Indictment also contains two
+conspiracy counts that charge Ms. Maxwell with conspiring with Epstein. Id. 119, 15.
+According to the government, however, Ms. Maxwell's status as an alleged coconspirator of Epstein is somehow insufficient for an NPA that immunizes "potential coconspirators of Epstein" to apply to her. The government claims that there is "no evidence that
+the parties intended to confer a benefit on her in particular." Opp. 20. In essence, the
+government implausibly argues that even though the parties expressly agreed to immunize "any
+potential co-conspirators of Epstein," only those individuals whom the parties were thinking
+about "in particular" qualify for immunity. The government cites no support for the rule it has
+concocted, and case law is to the contrary.
+For example, in United States v. Florida West Int'l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209
+(S.D. Fla. 2012), where a corporation had entered into a plea agreement that immunized its
+employees, the court held that one of those employees had standing to enforce the agreement as a
+third-party beneficiary by virtue of his employment; the court did not require a showing that the
+parties thought about protecting that employee "in particular" when they agreed to immunize the
+class. Id. at 1228. Similarly, in United States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio
+2001), where a Saudi prince had entered into an agreement with the government that none of the
+individuals involved in purchasing guns for two members of the Saudi
+family would be
+prosecuted, the court did not require the defendant to show that the government and the prince
+intended to immunize him "in particular"; to the contrary, as the court noted, the parties to the
+agreement did not even discuss the defendant. Id. at 604.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 8 of 23
+Ms. Maxwell thus need not show that the parties to the NPA were thinking of her 'in
+particular"; rather, it is sufficient that she falls within the class of individuals the parties to the
+NPA intended to benefit. See, e.g., Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 ("the signatory parties
+unmistakably intended to confer immunity on a discrete class of corporations and individuals ...
+that could include the Defendants"). And that class is clear from the face of the NPA: "any
+potential co-conspirators of Epstein," i.e., anyone else who might be prosecuted in connection
+with Epstein's conduct. NPA at 5.
+Although the NPA expressly provides that that class is "including but not limited to" the
+four individuals named in the co-conspirator immunity provision (NPA at 5), the government
+asks the Court to disregard this plain language and instead credit a passage from the report of the
+Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility ("OPR Report"?) stating that the
+line prosecutor who negotiated the NPA "believed" that only the four individuals expressly
+named in the co-conspirator immunity provision "would benefit." Opp. 20-21 (quoting OPR
+Report at 167). Regardless of the truth of this decade-after-the-fact and self-serving "belief," it
+is immaterial. By agreeing to immunize "potential" co-conspirators "including but not limited
+to" the four named individuals, the government explicitly agreed that the NPA would apply to
+any others who might be charged as co-conspirators in the future—a class that includes Ms.
+Maxwell.
+The OPR Report itself re-affirms the intent to extend immunity beyond those already
+identified as potential co-conspirators. In reviewing the negotiating history of the parties over
+this provision, the OPR Report notes that the government had not specifically contemplated other
+potential co-conspirators, yet it also demonstrates that the Epstein defense lawyers consistently
+" The OPR Report, of which only the executive summary had been released previously, has been submitted as
+Exhibit 3 to the government's opposition.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 9 of 23
+and successfully pushed back against the government's attempts to limit the scope of the
+provision. Epstein's lawyers, in fact, insisted on a proposal that would have immunized the four
+individuals, "any employee" of one of Epstein's companies, and "any unnamed co-conspirators
+for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation." OPR Report at 166
+n. 237. Defense counsel's efforts were in line with their representations to the government that
+Epstein "wanted to make sure that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened."
+Id. at 167 (internal quotations omitted). When the government "finally revised" the language to
+the provision that appears in the signed NPA, it obviously acceded to defense's counsel's desire
+to leave open the possibility that other "potential co-conspirators" might someday have occasion
+to invoke the immunity provision. Id. at 166.
+In addition to being irrelevant, the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell had largely
+escaped its attention at the time of the NPA is demonstrably incorrect. The government's own
+file demonstrates that the FBI had interviewed Accuser-2? in 2006 (Opp. 16 n.9; Dkt. 148, Ex. B
+(sealed)), and thus had obviously learned of Accuser-2's claims regarding Ms. Maxwell now
+included in the Indictment. Indeed, an internal FBI document expressly names Ms. Maxwell as
+one of the individuals that the FBI's Miami office "began investigating" in 2006 as part of the
+investigation that led to the NPA. (See Ex. A). Thus, the government was clearly aware of Ms.
+Maxwell at the time it executed the NPA and agreed to extend the immunity provision to "any
+potential co-conspirators." She is covered by the NPA.
+As a third party immunized by the NPA, Ms. Maxwell has third-party beneficiary status
+to enforce it. While the government cites United States v.
+939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019),
+for the proposition that "plea agreements differ from commercial contracts" (Opp. 18), the
+"differ[ence]" to which the Second Circuit was referring was that in construing a plea agreement,
+" Accuser-2 is identified in the Indictment as Minor Victim-2.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 10 of 23
+courts hold the government to an even higher standard than parties to a commercial contract.
+1. 939 F.3d at 189 (describing "meticulous standards of performance" to which
+prosecutors are held in negotiating plea agreements). As the government acknowledges, at least
+three courts have applied the third-party beneficiary doctrine to confer standing on third parties
+to enforce immunity provisions in plea agreements. Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228; El-
+Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 608-09; United States v. CFW Const. Co., 583 F. Supp. 197, 203
+(D.S.C. 1984), aff'd, 749 F.2d 33 (4" Cir. 1984). The government's attempt to distinguish these
+cases on the ground that they did not "analyze" the applicability of the third-party beneficiary
+doctrine to plea agreements (Opp. 19) is utterly nonsensical. As demonstrated in Ms. Maxwell's
+opening memorandum ("'Mem."), all three courts expressly held that the doctrine applies. Mem.
+16-17.
+The lone case cited by the government to the contrary does not suggest a different result
+here. In United States v. Mariamma Viju (01), the court held that a third party may not enforce
+rights under a plea agreement "[w]here the defendant himself can obtain relief" from a broken
+plea deal." No. 3:15-CR-0240-B, 2016 WL 107841, *4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2016). Here,
+Epstein cannot obtain relief for the government's breach of the NPA; not only is he deceased, but
+he served the sentence stemming from his guilty plea long before his death, paid millions of
+dollars to accusers under the NPA's claims provision, and thus would have had no occasion to
+enforce the NPA by withdrawing his guilty plea. Nor is it clear that Epstein could have
+withdrawn his plea had the NPA been breached while he was serving his sentence, given that the
+NPA—unlike a plea agreement—was not submitted to the state court in which Epstein entered
+his plea.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 11 of 23
+In sum, the Indictment itself establishes Ms. Maxwell as a "potential co-conspirator of
+Epstein," and the clear weight of authority vests her with standing to enforce the co-conspirator
+immunity provision as a third-party beneficiary.
+II. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision is Not Limited to the SDFL.
+Ms. Maxwell demonstrated in her opening brief that the NPA, read as a whole, creates an
+affirmative appearance that the parties intended the co-conspirator immunity provision-unlike
+Epstein's immunity provision——to apply outside the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL"). In
+arguing that the NPA's selective use of language limiting the scope of Epstein's immunity
+applies to the entire NPA, the government inverts fundamental principles of contract law and
+asks the Court to read nonexistent limitations into the NPA. The government then, incredibly,
+proceeds to fault Ms. Maxwell—a nonparty to the NPA—for failing to possess and produce
+evidence regarding the parties' intent in negotiating the agreement. While the text of the NPA,
+read using basic principles of contractual interpretation, unambiguously prohibits the
+government from prosecuting Epstein's potential co-conspirators in any district, to the extent that
+the Court finds it necessary to consider extrinsic evidence, that evidence is in the hands of the
+government and Epstein's attorneys—-and thus Ms. Maxwell should be permitted to obtain it
+through discovery.
+The government argues that application of the co-conspirator immunity provision beyond
+the SDFL is barred by United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam), in
+which the Second Circuit stated that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United
+States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the
+agreement contemplates a broader restriction." Id. at 672." Ms. Maxwell's opening brief
+" Contrary to the government's suggestion, no court has held that an "affirmativel] appearance]" requires an explicit
+"promise to bind other distriets." See Opp. 4. Rather, in interpreting a plea agreement, "It]he court looks to the
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 12 of 23
+demonstrated that the NPA, as a whole, gives rise to such an appearance —and the government
+offers no reasonable alternative interpretation.
+Unlike Annabi and its progeny, the NPA here contains significant evidence of the parties'
+intent to apply the co-conspirator immunity provision outside the SDFL. While the provision
+granting immunity to Epstein himself expressly limits his immunity to prosecutions "in this
+District," NPA at 2, the co-conspirator immunity provision contains no such limitation.
+"[W]here contract provisions use different language, courts must assume the parties intended
+different meanings." Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v.
+Stanley Mortg. Capital,
+Inc., 821 F.3d 297, 309 (2d Cir. 2016); see also
+v. Univ. of Notre Dame Du Lac, 929 F.3d
+830, 841 (7th Cir. 2019) (noting "common, if not automatic presumption" that "when parties to
+the same contract use such different language to address parallel issues, it is reasonable to infer
+that they intend this language to mean different things") (internal punctuation and citation
+omitted); Pennero Assocs., Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 499 F.3d 1151, 1156-57 (10th Cir.
+2007) (same). Thus, the appropriate inference here is that the parties intended to limit Epstein's
+immunity, but not immunity for potential co-conspirators, to prosecutions in the Southern
+District of Florida ("SDFL").
+The government offers no reasonable alternative explanation for the contrasting language
+in the two provisions. Instead, it argues that because the parties limited Epstein's immunity to
+the SDFL, they must have meant to limit co-conspirators' immunity to the SDFL as well, but
+must have forgotten to include the appropriate language. This argument-that the use of
+different language in parallel provisions compels an inference that identical, rather than different
+meanings, are intended turns fundamental contract interpretation on its head. See, e.g., Bank of
+reasonable understanding of the parties as to the terms of the agreement." United States v.
+268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal citations and emphasis omitted).
+8
+93 F. App'x
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 13 of 23
+New York Mellon Trust Co., 821 F.3d at 309;
+929 F.3d at 841; Pennero Assocs., 499
+F.3d at 1156-57. Here, the NPA contains only two immunity provisions: one for Epstein, which
+is expressly limited to the SDFL, and one for co-conspirators, which is not. The government's
+claim that this distinction reflects an intent to apply the limitation universally strains credulity.
+It is simply inconceivable that any reasonable prosecutor who intended to limit the coconspirator immunity provision to the SDFL—and who had thought to include precisely such
+limiting language in Epstein's immunity provision —would have found it unnecessary to include
+identical language in the co-conspirator immunity provision. Indeed, the omission reveals an
+intent not to so limit that provision.
+Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum pointed out a second indication in the text of the
+NPA that the parties intended to apply the co-conspirator immunity provision outside the SDFL:
+where a provision in the NPA is intended to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it does so explicitly.
+See Mem. at 8-9 (citing examples of NPA's explicit references to USAO-SDFL). While the
+government is correct that the use of the term "the United States" in a plea agreement, without
+more, is insufficient under Annabi and its progeny to demonstrate an intent to bind other
+districts, the NPA's references to both the USAO-SDFL and "the United States" require an
+inference that a distinction between the two is intended —and that where "the United States" is
+used, the intent is to refer to the government as a whole. Again, "where contract provisions use
+different language, courts must assume the parties intended different meanings." Bank of New
+York Mellon Trust Co., 821 F.3d at 309. The government does not even attempt to offer an
+" The government incorrectly cites to a brief filed by the USAO-SDFL in 2013 as taking the position that "the NPA
+did not bind other districts." Opp. 13 (quoting Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 10-11
+(S.D. Fla.)). But the cited passage in that brief argued only that the NPA did not bar the prosecution of Epstein in
+other districts, which is not in dispute; it made no such argument with respect to the prosecution of potential coconspirators. In any event, any self-serving attempts by the USAO-SDFL to limit the NPA's applicability years
+after it was executed—after the NPA had been widely criticized and scrutinized —are no more probative of the
+parties" intent in 2007 than the arguments made by the government here.
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 14 of 23
+alternative explanation for this difference in terminology, reasonable or otherwise-presumably
+because it cannot.
+Thus, a drafting prosecutor who intended to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision
+to the SDFL clearly knew how to do so, using either of two methods employed elsewhere in the
+document. The government could have used the same language in the co-conspirator immunity
+provision that it used in the Epstein immunity provision, providing that "the United States...
+will not institute any criminal charges in this District against any potential co-conspirators of
+Epstein." It did not. Alternatively, it could have referred expressly to the USAO-SDFL, as it did
+elsewhere in the NPA, and provided that "the United States Attorney's Office... will not
+institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." Again, it did
+not. It would be absurd to conclude that a reasonable prosecutor who had used both drafting
+tools to limit other provisions of the NPA, yet failed to use either of them in the co-conspirator
+immunity provision, intended to impose the same limitations on the co-conspirator immunity
+provision—
+-let alone that Epstein would reasonably have understood this intent.
+The government's inability to provide a reasonable alternative explanation for its use of
+different language in the different provisions of the NPA removes any potential ambiguity from
+the co-conspirator immunity provision. But to the extent there remains any doubt, plea
+agreements must be construed "strictly against the government,"
+939 F.3d at 189
+(internal citations omitted), and the government is held "responsible for imprecisions or
+ambiguities in the agreement." United States v. Padilla, 186 F.3d 136, 142 (2d Cir. 1999).
+While the government argues that Annabi relieves it of this responsibility where the
+"imprecisions or ambiguities" relate to the geographic applicability of a plea agreement (Opp. 6
+n.2), it cites no authority for this proposition. While Annabi requires an affirmative appearance
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 15 of 23
+that the NPA is binding outside the SDFL, any ambiguity as to whether such an appearance
+exists must still be resolved against the government.°
+Nor does the idea that the government agreed to broader immunity for Epstein's potential
+co-conspirators than for Epstein himself "strain[] common sense," as the government argues.
+See Opp. 8. According to the OPR Report, the line prosecutor stated that her office "considered
+Epstein to be the top of the food chain, and we wouldn't have been interested in prosecuting
+anyone else." OPR Report at 70. She also reportedly said that Epstein "wanted to make sure
+that he's the only one who takes the blame for what happened." Id. at 167 (internal quotations
+omitted). And Epstein and his counsel were clearly aware that the investigation had extended
+beyond the SDFL and involved New York-based witnesses. Under such circumstances, any
+competent defense lawyer would have sought the broadest immunity possible for Epstein's
+potential co-conspirators, in order to limit the potential that he would become embroiled in the
+prosecution of a third party—and in fact, Epstein did not agree to the NPA until the coconspirator immunity provision was included. And it is entirely logical that the government
+agreed to a broader immunity for potential co-conspirators, whom it had no interest in
+prosecuting, than for Epstein himself, who was the sole focus of the government's prosecution
+efforts. This outcome is consistent with the language of the NPA.
+The text of the NPA, read as a whole, thus creates an affirmative appearance that the coconspirator immunity provision is not limited to the SDFL, and it is unnecessary for the Court to
+"Notwithstanding the mountain of authority, in this Circuit and elsewhere, articulating the exacting standards to
+should be held to a lower standard than other provisions of a plea agreement.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 16 of 23
+consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent.? To the extent that the Court finds that
+extrinsic evidence is relevant, however, the government's argument demonstrates precisely why
+the Court should permit discovery in this action. While the government ludicrously faults Ms.
+Maxwell for failing to produce "documentary evidence" of the parties' intent and the scope of
+the SDFL investigation (Opp. 10), Ms. Maxwell, as a nonparty to the NPA, has no access to such
+evidence without discovery. Any evidence of the parties' intent would be in the possession of
+the government and Epstein's counsel, and at this stage, Ms. Maxwell can only scour the few
+clues available to the public—such as a privilege log filed in a related civil lawsuit—for crumbs
+of information about the negotiation and investigation.
+The government's response to those crumbs illustrates why any consideration of extrinsic
+evidence—which, as noted above, is unnecessary given the unambiguous text of the NPA-
+should be preceded by discovery. In her opening memorandum, Ms. Maxwell cited to three
+pages from the above-referenced privilege log in a civil lawsuit filed by one of Epstein's victims,
+all of which contain entries reflecting the USAO-SDFL's consultation with the United States
+Attorney's Office for this District, travel by USAO-SDFL attorneys to New York, or interviews
+and/or subpoenas of New York-based witnesses. Mem. at 11 (citing Privilege Log, Doe v.
+United States, Case No. 9:08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. No. 212-1 (filed July 19, 2013)
+("SDFL Privilege Log"), at 4, 5, 7). In response, the government has focused on only one of
+those three entries and produced the documents referenced in the privilege log. See Opp. 10.
+" The government's argument that a United States Attorney lacks the "authority" to bind other districts (Opp. 13-
+14) and that the government can simply walk away from a plea agreement in which a United States Attorney has
+not received the approvals prescribed by internal Justice Department guidelines —is unavailing. The government
+cites no case in which a court has invalidated a plea agreement on this basis, and its argument is contradicted not
+only by the Third, Fourth, and Eighth circuits in which the default rule is that plea agreements bind other
+districts— but also by the Second Circuit's statement that a United States Attorney may bind other districts in a plea
+agreement if there is an affirmative appearance to that effect. United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 547-49 (3d
+Cir. 2002); United States v. Van Thornout, 100 F.3d 590, 594 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d
+294, 303 (4th Cir. 1986); Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 17 of 23
+The other two documents remain unavailable to Ms. Maxwell—as, presumably, do other
+documents whose existence cannot be discovered in the public record. Nor has Ms. Maxwell
+had the opportunity to question those involved in the investigation and negotiation. It is patently
+unreasonable for the government to blame Ms. Maxwell for failing to produce evidence relating
+to the investigation and negotiation leading up to the NPA, while simultaneously opposing her
+request for discovery and cherry-picking its responses to the limited publicly available
+information she has been able to identify. That limited information has already yielded
+supportive documents and more will no doubt follow with further discovery.
+III.
+The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision Is Not Limited to the 2001-07 Time Period
+or to Violations of Specific Statutes.
+The government's argument that the co-conspirator immunity provision does not apply to
+the time period or the offenses charged in the Indictment consists of (i) asserting that the NPA
+says things it does not, in fact, say and (ii) attacking a strawman position, never asserted by Ms.
+Maxwell, that the NPA gives Ms. Maxwell carte blanche immunity from federal prosecution for
+all past and future criminal conduct of any kind, wherever and whenever committed. The coconspirator immunity provision simply does not contain the limitations the government now
+seeks to attribute to it, and Ms. Maxwell's position that it prohibits the
+Act charges against
+her is entirely reasonable.®
+First, the government's assertion that "the NPA contains detailed provisions that limit the
+scope of the crimes immunized in the agreement" is simply not true. See Opp. 15. The NPA
+contains only vague limitations as to the scope of Epstein's immunity, and no limitations
+whatsoever as to the scope of immunity for potential co-conspirators.
+" To be clear, Ms. Maxwell does not assert that the NPA forecloses the perjury counts of the Indictment, which arise
+out of alleged post-NPA conduct.
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 18 of 23
+As to Epstein, the NPA prescribes immunity for three categories of offenses: (i) "the
+offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement"; (ii) "any other offenses" that were the
+subject of the "joint investigation" by the FBI and the USAO-SDFL; and (iii) "any offenses that
+arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." NPA at 2. The government's assertion that
+the NPA bars prosecution only for "the specific offenses enumerated in the NPA" (Opp. 15-16)
+deliberately ignores the second and third categories listed above. The second category is
+significant because, contrary to the government's argument, the NPA does not purport to "list|]
+each and every statutory offense under investigation" (see Opp. 15); rather, it states only that the
+investigation involved offenses "including" those enumerated. NPA at 1. Moreover, the NPA
+expressly states that the joint investigation included not only offenses committed from
+approximately 2001 to 2007, but also "Epstein's background." Id. The scope of the third
+category-offenses that arose "from the Federal Grand Jury investigation"— is completely
+unknown, as the NPA neither defines the term "Federal Grand Jury investigation" nor describes
+its scope. But the text of the NPA provides no basis for the government's assertion that Epstein
+was immunized only as to the specific offenses enumerated on the first two pages.
+As an example, the USAO-SDFL acknowledges that it interviewed Accuser-2 as part of
+its investigation. Opp. 16 n.9. Thus, the USAO-SDFL obviously was aware of the allegations
+by Accuser-2 against Epstein as set forth in the Indictment, allegations that entail the 1994-97
+time period at issue in this case and the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell is charged. If the
+NPA were strictly limited to the 2001-07 time period and to the specific offenses enumerated, as
+" Contrary to the government's argument, Ms. Maxwell does not contend that the NPA *immunize[d] Epstein for his
+prosecution for those offenses.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 19 of 23
+the government claims, it would not have precluded even the SDFL from bringing charges
+arising out of Accuser-2's allegations of conduct in the 1990s. The government cannot seriously
+make such an argument.
+Even the vague contours of the limitations on Epstein's immunity, however, are absent
+from the co-conspirator immunity provision. And while the government claims it would be
+"exceedingly strange" to interpret the co-conspirator immunity provision more broadly than
+Epstein's immunity provision (Opp. 16), as explained in Part Il above, such an interpretation is
+entirely consistent with the government's focus on Epstein vis-à-vis potential co-conspirators. It
+would be "exceedingly strange," however, for a federal prosecutor who intended to limit coconspirator immunity to specific conduct or specific offenses to omit such limitations from the
+text of an immunity provision in a non-prosecution agreement.
+Unable to explain the absence of such limiting language, the government resorts to the
+reductio ad absurdum argument that unless the Court writes into the NPA the language the
+government now wishes had been included in 2007, Ms. Maxwell can claim that "she is immune
+from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period, anywhere, in the United States."
+Opp. 3 (emphasis in original). Ms. Maxwell makes no such argument, and a faithful
+interpretation of the NPA leads to no
+Maxwell contends only that a
+provision that immunizes "potential co-conspirators of Epstein" precludes their prosecution for
+conduct allegedly done in conspiracy with Epstein-conduct that even the United States
+Attorney for this District has characterized as a "prequel" to offenses by Epstein that the NPA
+undisputedly immunizes. See, e.g., Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S.
+"Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges." NBC New
+York. July 3, 2020 (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ghislaine-
+15
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 20 of 23
+maxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein-aide/2495762/). Such an interpretation, rather than an insertion
+into the co-conspirator immunity provision of arbitrary limitations designed to satisfy the
+government's interests here, is the "common-sense way to read the NPA" that the Court should
+adopt. See Opp. 16.
+IV.
+In the Alternative, the Court Should Conduct Discovery and an Evidentiary
+Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent.
+For the reasons explained above, Counts One through Four have been brought in breach
+of the NPA and should be dismissed. The text of the NPA, read as a whole, unambiguously bars
+Ms. Maxwell's prosecution here, and the government is reduced to arguing that the parties must
+have meant to write various provisions of the NPA differently than they actually did. These
+arguments are manifestly inadequate, and they should be rejected.
+Should the Court have any doubt about the parties' intent, however, discovery and an
+evidentiary hearing regarding the parties' intent are warranted. The government's arguments
+regarding the parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the presentation of evidence. For
+example, to the extent that the scope of offenses for which the NPA immunized Epstein is
+deemed relevant to the co-conspirator immunity provision, that scope cannot be delineated
+without determining precisely which offenses might have arisen out of the investigation by the
+FBI and the USAO-SDFL (including the investigation into "Epstein's background"), as well as
+which offenses arose out of the undefined "Federal Grand Jury investigation." Similarly, the
+government's claims that the parties did not intend to confer the benefit of immunity on Ms.
+Maxwell, and that the parties intended to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the
+SDFL, raise issues regarding the scope of the SDFL investigation, the USAO-SDFL's awareness
+of Ms. Maxwell, and the extent to which the investigation involved this District. These issues
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 21 of 23
+cannot be resolved in the government's favor on this record, and the plain language of the NPA
+cannot be disregarded without discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
+The government argues that Ms. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing
+because she has not submitted affidavits, and that she is not entitled to discovery because she has
+offered only "conjecture." Opp. 22. But unlike the cases the government cites, Ms. Maxwell has
+submitted evidence far more powerful than an affidavit claiming an oral agreement: she has
+submitted the NPA itself, which, on its face, bars her prosecution. See
+939 F.3d at
+184, 190 (hearing based on oral representations made to defendant); United States v. Aleman,
+286 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2002) (granting hearing where defendant submitted attorney affidavits
+alleging oral agreement); United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
+(same). Ms. Maxwell's contention that the plain language of the NPA reflects the parties' intent
+is not "conjecture," and the Court cannot find to the contrary without hearing evidence
+evidence that we anticipate would confirm that the parties intended the NPA to mean exactly
+what it says and that it bars the prosecution of Ms. Maxwell, but is unavailable to Ms. Maxwell
+without discovery. '°
+1° In addition, unlike the defendants in the cases the government cites, Ms. Maxwell was a nonparty to the NPA, and
+her attorneys thus have neither firsthand knowledge of the parties' intent nor access to evidence regarding the
+parties' intent. While the government points out that Ms. Maxwell has not submitted an affidavit from Epstein's
+counsel, defense counsel notes that it has made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain information from Jay
+Lefkowitz, the attorney who was principally involved in negotiating the language of the NPA on Epstein's behalf.
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 22 of 23
+CONCLUSION
+For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that her motion to
+dismiss be granted. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests discovery and
+evidentiary hearing regarding the parties' intent in negotiating the NPA.
+Dated: March 15, 2021
+New York, New York
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Christian R. Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 23 of 23
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I hereby certify that on March 15, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
+Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the within memorandum and any accompanying
+exhibits upon the following:
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Alison.moe@usdoj.gov
+Lara. Pomerantz@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov
+/s/ Christian Everdell
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4cb97569abeeeb22c47c515aba1309a23f9fe3f864925763c3904f3651975ad.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4cb97569abeeeb22c47c515aba1309a23f9fe3f864925763c3904f3651975ad.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b6d1a48bdac335b579e69974a608b5f34ff9153e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4cb97569abeeeb22c47c515aba1309a23f9fe3f864925763c3904f3651975ad.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -306,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e4cb97569abeeeb22c47c515aba1309a23f9fe3f864925763c3904f3651975ad",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 33,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "bb8a53f9bcbce62518f973c9aa1ebbd2398f5c90baabd3fb641d377c2de36545",
+  "output_sha256": "11d34ca21fc15783a96c20bf66484ac51653599d3f7d13082f324d163274a49d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4fe2cd324f4e8d585587fb6e72ed420f721fc14ce4695d72aa20e26f001ca89.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4fe2cd324f4e8d585587fb6e72ed420f721fc14ce4695d72aa20e26f001ca89.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89e84726a13cc6d08118d1fbc0524867948da9d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4fe2cd324f4e8d585587fb6e72ed420f721fc14ce4695d72aa20e26f001ca89.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2704 @@
+Document 310-1
+Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 80
+
+
+
+Document 310-1
+Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 80
+J-100-2020]
+IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
+MIDDLE DISTRICT
+BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ.
+COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
+Appellee
+WILLIAM HENRY COSBY JR.,
+Appellant
+: No. 39 MAP 2020
+: Appeal from the Order of Superior
+Court at No. 3314 EDA 2018 dated
+December 10, 2019 Affirming the
+Judgment of Sentence datec
+September 25, 2018 of the
+Court of Common
+Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP-
+46-CR-3932-2016
+ARGUED: December 1, 2020
+OPINION
+JUSTICE WECHT
+DECIDED: June 30, 2021
+In 2005,
+County District Attorney Bruce Castor learned that Andrea
+Constand had reported that William Cosby had sexually assaulted her in 2004 at his
+Cheltenham residence. Along with his top deputy prosecutor and experienced detectives,
+District Attorney Castor thoroughly investigated Constand's claim. In evaluating the
+likelihood of a successful prosecution of Cosby, the district attorney foresaw difficulties
+with Constand's credibility as a witness based, in part, upon her decision not to file a
+complaint promptly. D.A. Castor further determined that a prosecution would be
+frustrated because there was no corroborating forensic evidence and because testimony
+from other potential claimants against Cosby likely was inadmissible under governing
+laws of evidence. The collective weight of these considerations led D.A. Castor to
+conclude that, unless Cosby confessed, "there was insufficient credible and admissible
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 80
+evidence upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident
+could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt."'
+Seeking "some measure of justice" for Constand, D.A. Castor decided that the
+Commonwealth would decline to prosecute Cosby for the incident involving Constand,
+thereby allowing Cosby to be forced to testify in a subsequent civil action, under penalty
+of perjury, without the benefit of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.?
+Unable to invoke any right not to testify in the civil proceedings, Cosby relied upon the
+district attorney's declination and proceeded to provide four sworn depositions. During
+those depositions, Cosby made several incriminating statements.
+D.A. Castor's successors did not feel bound by his decision, and decided to
+prosecute Cosby notwithstanding that prior undertaking. The fruits of Cosby's reliance
+upon D.A. Castor's decision Cosby's sworn inculpatory testimony were then used by
+D.A. Castor's successors against Cosby at Cosby's criminal trial. We granted allowance
+of appeal to determine whether D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby in
+exchange for his testimony must be enforced against the Commonwealth. 3
+I. Factual and Procedural History
+In the fall of 2002, Constand, a Canadian-born former professional basketball
+player, was employed as the Director of Basketball Operations at Temple University. It
+was in this capacity that Constand first met Cosby, who had close ties to, and was heavily
+1
+Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), Habeas Corpus Hearing, 2/2/2016, at 60.
+2
+Id. at 63.
+3
+As we discuss in more detail below, at Cosby's trial, the trial court permitted the
+Commonwealth to call five witnesses who testified that Cosby had engaged in similar
+sexually abusive patterns with each of them. We granted allowance of appeal here as
+well to consider the admissibility of that prior bad act evidence pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b).
+However, because our decision on the Castor declination issue disposes of this appeal,
+we do not address the Rule 404(b) claim.
+[J-100-2020] - 2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 4 of 80
+involved with, the university. That fall, she, along with a few other Temple administrators,
+showed Cosby around the university's then-recently renovated basketball facilities. Over
+the course of several telephone conversations concerning the renovations, Cosby and
+Constand developed a personal relationship.
+Soon after this relationship began, Cosby invited Constand to his Cheltenham
+residence. When Constand arrived, Cosby greeted her, escorted her to a room, and left
+her alone to eat dinner and drink wine. Cosby later returned, sat next to Constand on a
+, and placed his hand on her thigh. Constand was not bothered by Cosby's
+advance, even though it was the first time that any physical contact had occurred between
+the two. Shortly thereafter, Constand left the residence.
+As the personal nature of the relationship progressed, Cosby eventually met
+Constand's mother and sister, both of whom attended one of Cosby's comedy
+performances. Soon thereafter, Cosby invited Constand to return to his home for dinner.
+Constand arrived at the residence and again ate alone, in the same room in which she
+had eaten during her first visit. When Constand finished eating, Cosby approached and
+sat next to her on the
+At first, the two discussed Constand's desire to work as a
+sports broadcaster, but Cosby soon attempted physical contact. Cosby reached over to
+Constand and attempted to unbutton her pants. When she leaned forward to prevent him
+from doing so, Cosby immediately ceased his efforts. Constand believed that her actions
+had communicated to Cosby clearly that she did not want to engage in a physical
+relationship with him. She expected that no further incidents like this one would occur.
+Toward the end of 2003, Cosby invited Constand to meet at the Foxwoods Casino
+in Connecticut. Constand accepted the invitation and, once at the casino, dined with
+Cosby and a casino employee, Tom Cantone. After dinner, Cantone walked Constand
+to her hotel room. Cosby called Constand and asked her to meet him for dessert in his
+[J-100-2020] - 3
+
+
+Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 5 of 80
+room. Constand agreed. When she arrived, she sat on the edge of Cosby's bed as the
+two discussed their customary topics: Temple athletics and sports broadcasting. Cosby
+then reclined on the bed next to Constand. Eventually, he drifted off to sleep. After
+remaining in Cosby's room for a few minutes, Constand left and returned to her own room.
+Constand interpreted Cosby's actions as another sexual overture. Notwithstanding these
+unwelcome advances, Constand still regarded Cosby as a mentor, remained grateful for
+his career advice and assistance, and did not feel physically threatened or intimidated.4
+Eventually, Constand decided to leave her job at Temple and return to Canada to
+work as a masseuse. In January 2004, Constand went to Cosby's Cheltenham residence
+to discuss that decision. As on her previous visits to Cosby's home, Constand entered
+through the kitchen door. On this occasion, however, Constand noticed that Cosby
+already had placed a
+of water and a
+of wine on the kitchen table. While she
+sat at the table with Cosby and discussed her future, Constand initially chose not to
+sample the wine because she had not yet eaten and did not want to consume alcohol on
+an empty stomach. At Cosby's insistence, however, Constand began to drink.
+At one point, Constand
+to use the restroom. When she returned, Cosby was
+standing next to the kitchen table with three blue pills in his hand. He reached out and
+offered the pills to Constand, telling her that the pills were her "friends," and that they
+would "help take the edge off."" Constand took the pills from Cosby and swallowed them.
+The two then sat back down and resumed their discussion of Constand's planned
+departure from Temple.
+Constand soon began experiencing double vision. Her mouth became dry and
+she slurred her speech. Although Constand could not immediately identify the source of
+5
+N.T., Trial, 4/13/2018, at 53, 55.
+N.T., Trial, 4/13/2018, at 59-60.
+[J-100-2020] -4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 6 of 80
+her sudden difficulties, she knew that something was wrong. Cosby tried to reassure her.
+He told her that she had to relax. When Constand attempted to stand up, she needed
+Cosby's assistance to steady herself. Cosby guided her to a sofa in another room so that
+she could lie down. Constand felt weak and was unable to talk. She started slipping out
+of consciousness.
+Moments later, Constand came to suddenly, finding Cosby sitting behind her on
+the sofa. She remained unable to move or speak. With Constand physically incapable
+of stopping Cosby or of telling him to stop, Cosby began fondling her breasts and
+penetrating her vagina with his fingers. Cosby then took Constand's hand and used it to
+masturbate himself. At some point, Constand lost consciousness.
+When Constand eventually awakened on Cosby's
+in the early morning
+hours, she discovered that her pants were unzipped and that her bra was raised and out
+of place. Constand got up, adjusted her clothing, and prepared to leave the residence.
+She found Cosby standing in a doorway, wearing a robe and slippers. Cosby told
+Constand that there was a muffin and a cup of tea on a table for her. She took a sip of
+the tea, broke off a piece of the muffin, and left.
+After the January 2004 incident, Constand and Cosby continued to talk over the
+telephone about issues involving Temple University athletics. In March of that year,
+Cosby invited Constand to dinner at a Philadelphia restaurant. She accepted the
+invitation in hopes of confronting Cosby about the January episode, but the two did not
+discuss that matter during dinner. Afterward, Cosby invited Constand to his residence.
+She agreed. Once there, Constand attempted to broach the subject by asking Cosby to
+identify the pills that he had provided to her. She then tried to ask him why he took
+advantage of her when she was under the influence of those pills. Cosby was evasive
+and would not respond directly. Realizing that Cosby was not going to answer her
+[J-100-2020] - 5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 7 of 80
+questions, Constand got up and left. She did not report to the authorities what Cosby had
+done to her.
+A few months later, Constand moved back to her native Canada. She spoke with
+Cosby over the telephone, mostly about an upcoming Toronto performance that he had
+scheduled. Cosby invited Constand and her family to the show, which especially excited
+Constand's mother, who had attended two of Cosby's other performances and who
+brought a gift for Cosby to the show.
+Constand kept the January 2004 incident to herself for nearly a year, until one night
+in January 2005, when she bolted awake crying and decided to call her mother for advice.
+Initially, Constand's mother could not talk because she was en route to work, but she
+returned Constand's call immediately upon arrival. During the call, Constand told her
+mother that Cosby had sexually assaulted her approximately one year earlier. Together,
+the two decided that the best course of action was to contact the Durham Regional Police
+Department in Ontario, Canada, and to attempt to retain legal counsel in the United
+States.
+That night, Constand filed a police report with the Durham Regional Police
+Department. Shortly thereafter, Constand called Cosby, but he did not answer his phone.
+When Cosby returned the call the next day, both Constand and her mother were on the
+line. Constand brought up the January 2004 incident and asked Cosby to identify the
+three blue pills that he had given to her that night. Cosby apologized vaguely. As to the
+pills, Cosby feigned ignorance, promising Constand that he would check the label on the
+prescription bottle from which they came and relay that information to her.
+Frustrated, Constand left the call, but her mother remained on the line and
+continued to speak with Cosby. Cosby assured Constand's mother that he did not have
+sexual intercourse with Constand while she was incapacitated. Neither Constand nor her
+[J-100-2020] - 6
+
+
+Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 8 of 80
+mother informed Cosby that Constand had filed a police report accusing him of sexual
+assault.
+Constand later telephoned Cosby again and, unbeknownst to Cosby, recorded the
+conversation with a tape recorder that she had purchased. During this conversation,
+Cosby offered to continue assisting Constand if she still desired to work in sports
+broadcasting.
+He also indicated that he would pay for Constand to continue her
+education. Cosby asked Constand to meet him in person to discuss these matters further,
+and told her that he would have someone contact her to set up the meeting. As with the
+previous call, Cosby again refused to identify the pills that he had provided to Constand
+on the night of the alleged assault.
+Within days of filing the police report, Constand received two telephone messages
+from people associated with Cosby. The first message was from one of Cosby's
+assistants, calling on Cosby's behalf to invite Constand and her mother to Cosby's
+upcoming performance in Miami, Florida. Constand called the representative back and
+recorded the call. The representative asked for certain details about Constand and her
+mother so that he could book flights and hotel rooms for them. Constand declined the
+offer and did not provide the requested information. Constand then received a message
+from one of Cosby's attorneys, who stated that he was calling to discuss the creation of
+a trust that Cosby wanted to set up in order to provide financial assistance for Constand's
+education. Constand never returned the attorney's call.
+In the meantime, the Durham Regional Police Department referred Constand's
+police report to the Philadelphia Police Department, which, in turn, referred it to the
+Cheltenham Police Department in
+County, where Cosby's residence was
+located. The case was assigned to Sergeant Richard Schaeffer, who worked in tandem
+[J-100-2020] - 7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 9 of 80
+with the
+County Detective Bureau and the
+County District
+Attorney's Office to investigate Constand's allegation.
+Sergeant Schaeffer first spoke with Constand by telephone on January 19, 2005.
+According to Sergeant Schaeffer, Constand seemed nervous throughout this brief initial
+interview. Thereafter, Constand traveled from Canada to Cheltenham to meet with the
+investigating team in person. Because this was Constand's first time meeting with law
+enforcement personnel, she felt nervous and uncomfortable while discussing with them
+the intimate nature of her allegations.
+On January 24, 2005, then-
+County District Attorney Bruce Castor
+issued a press release informing the public that Cosby was under investigation for sexual
+assault. Sergeant Schaeffer and other law enforcement officials interviewed Cosby in
+New York City, utilizing a written question and answer format. Cosby was accompanied
+by his attorneys, Walter M.
+1. Esquire, and John P. Schmitt, Esquire. Cosby
+reported that Constand had come to his home at least three times during their social and
+romantic relationship. Cosby claimed that, on the night in question, Constand came to
+his house complaining of an inability to sleep. Cosby stated that he told Constand that,
+when he travels, he takes Benadryl, an antihistamine, which immediately makes him
+drowsy. According to Cosby, he then handed Constand one-and-a-half Benadryl pills,
+but did not tell her what they were.
+Cosby recalled that, once Constand ingested the pills, they kissed and touched
+each other on the
+Cosby admitted that he touched Constand's breasts and vagina,
+but he insisted that she neither resisted nor told him to stop. Additionally, Cosby told the
+investigators that he never removed his clothing and that Constand did not touch any part
+of his body under his clothes. Cosby denied having sexual intercourse with Constand
+and disclaimed any intent to do so that night. In fact, Cosby claimed that the two never
+[J-100-2020] - 8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 10 of 80
+had sexual intercourse on any occasion. Cosby admitted that he told Constand and her
+mother that he would write down the name of the pills and provide them that information,
+but he acknowledged that he never actually did so. After the interview-and without being
+asked to do so-Cosby provided the police with pills, which laboratory testing confirmed
+to be Benadryl.
+In February 2005, then-District Attorney Castor reviewed Constand's interviews
+and Cosby's written answers in order to assess the viability of a prosecution of Cosby.
+The fact that Constand had failed to promptly file a complaint against Cosby troubled the
+district attorney. In D.A. Castor's view, such a delay diminished the reliability of any
+recollections and undermined the investigators' efforts to collect forensic evidence.
+Moreover, D.A. Castor identified a number of inconsistences in Constand's various
+statements to investigators. After Cosby provided his written answers, police officers
+searched his Cheltenham residence and found no evidence that, in their view, could be
+used to confirm or corroborate Constand's allegations. Following the search of Cosby's
+home, Constand was interviewed by police again. D.A. Castor noted that there were
+inconsistences in that interview, which further impaired Constand's credibility in his eyes.
+He also learned that, before she contacted the police in Canada, Constand had contacted
+civil attorneys in Philadelphia, likely for the purpose of pursuing financial compensation in
+a lawsuit against Cosby.
+Additionally, according to D.A. Castor, Constand's behavior in the year since the
+alleged assault complicated any effort to secure a conviction against Cosby. As
+evidenced by the number of telephone calls that she recorded, Constand continued to
+talk with Cosby on the phone, and she also continued to meet with him in person after
+the incident. D.A. Castor found these recurring interactions between a complainant and
+an alleged perpetrator to be atypical. D.A. Castor also reasoned that the recordings likely
+[J-100-2020] -9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 11 of 80
+were illegal and included discussions that could be interpreted as attempts by Constand
+and her mother to get Cosby to pay Constand so that she would not contact the
+authorities. The totality of these circumstances ultimately led D.A. Castor to conclude
+that "there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence upon which any charge
+against I] Cosby related to the Constand incident could be proven beyond a reasonable
+doubt." N.T., 2/2/2016, at 60.
+Having determined that a criminal trial likely could not be won, D.A. Castor
+contemplated an alternative course of action that could place Constand on a path to some
+form of justice. He decided that a civil lawsuit for money damages was her best option.
+To aid Constand in that pursuit, "as the sovereign," the district attorney "decided that [his
+office] would not prosecute [| Cosby," believing that his decision ultimately "would then
+set off the chain of events that he] thought as a Minister of Justice would gain some
+justice for Andrea Constand." Id. at 63-64. By removing the threat of a criminal
+prosecution, D.A. Castor reasoned, Cosby would no longer be able in a civil lawsuit to
+invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for fear that his statements
+could later be used against him by the Commonwealth. Mr. Castor would later testify that
+this was his intent:
+The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that a person
+may not be compelled to give evidence against themselves. So you can't
+subpoena somebody and make them testity that they did something
+illegal or evidence that would lead someone to conclude they did
+something illegal on the threat of if you don't answer, you'll be subject to
+sanctions because you're under subpoena.
+So the way you remove that from a witness is if you want to, and what I
+did in this case is I made the decision as the sovereign that Mr. Cosby
+would not be prosecuted no matter what. As a matter of law, that then made
+it so that he could not take the Fifth Amendment ever as a matter of law.
+So I have heard banter in the courtroom and in the press the term
+"agreement," but everybody has used the wrong word. I told [Cosby's
+attorney at the time, Walter]
+that I had decided that, because of
+[J-100-2020] - 10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 12 of 80
+defects in the case, that the case could not be won and that I was going to
+make a public statement that we were not going to charge Mr. Cosby.
+I told him that I was making it as the sovereign Commonwealth of
+Pennsylvania and, in my legal opinion, that meant that Mr. Cosby would not
+be allowed to take the Fifth Amendment in the subsequent civil suit that
+Andrea Constand's lawyers had told us they wanted to bring.
+[Attorney]
+agreed with me that that is, in fact, the law of
+Pennsylvania and of the United States and agreed that if Cosby was
+subpoenaed, he would be required to testify.
+But those two things were not connected one to the other. Mr. Cosby was
+not getting prosecuted at all ever as far as I was concerned. And my belief
+was that, as the Commonwealth and the representative of the sovereign,
+that I had the power to make such a statement and that, by doing so, as a
+matter of law Mr. Cosby would be unable to assert the Fifth Amendment in
+a civil deposition.
+[Attorney]
+, a lawyer of vastly more experience even than me and
+I had 20 years on the job by that pointagreed with my legal assessment.
+And he said that he would communicate that to the lawyers who were
+representing Mr. Cosby in the pending civil suit.
+Id. at 64-66. Recalling his thought process at the time, the former district attorney further
+emphasized that it was "absolutely" his intent to remove "for all time" the possibility of
+prosecution, because "the ability to take the Fifth Amendment is also for all time removed."
+Id. at 67.
+Consistent with his discussion with Attorney
+, D.A. Castor issued another
+press release, this time informing the public that he had decided not to prosecute Cosby.
+The press release stated, in full:
+County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr. has announced
+that a joint investigation by his office and the Cheltenham Township Police
+Department into allegations against actor and comic Bill Cosby is
+concluded
+Cosby maintains a residence in Cheltenham Township,
+County.
+A 31 year old female, a former employee of the Athletic Department of
+Temple University complained to detectives that Cosby touched her
+inappropriately during a visit to his home in January of 2004. The woman
+reported the allegation to police in her native Canada on January 13, 2005.
+[J-100-2020] - 11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 13 of 80
+Canadian authorities, in turn, referred the complaint to Philadelphia Police.
+Philadelphia forwarded the complaint to Cheltenham Police. The District
+Attorney's Office became involved at the request of the Cheltenham Chief
+of Police John Norris.
+Everyone involved in this matter cooperated with investigators including the
+complainant and Mr. Cosby. The level of cooperation has helped the
+investigation proceed smoothly and efficiently. The District Attorney
+commends all parties for their assistance.
+The District Attorney has reviewed the statements of the parties involved,
+those of all witnesses who might have first hand knowledge of the alleged
+incident including family, friends and co-workers of the complainant, and
+professional acquaintances and employees of Mr. Cosby. Detectives
+searched Mr. Cosby's Cheltenham home for potential evidence.
+Investigators further provided District Attorney Castor with phone records
+and other items that might have evidentiary value. Lastly, the District
+Attorney reviewed statements from other persons claiming that Mr. Cosby
+behaved inappropriately with them on prior occasions. However, the
+detectives could find no instance in Mr. Cosby's past where anyone
+complained to law enforcement of conduct, which would constitute a
+criminal offense.
+After reviewing the above and consulting with County and Cheltenham
+detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible, and admissible
+evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could be
+sustained beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this finding, the District
+Attorney has analyzed the facts in relation to the elements of any applicable
+offenses, including whether Mr. Cosby possessed the requisite criminal
+intent. In addition, District Attorney Castor applied the Rules of Evidence
+governing whether or not evidence is admissible. Evidence may be
+inadmissible if it is too remote in time to be considered legally relevant or if
+it was illegally obtained pursuant to Pennsylvania law. After this analysis,
+the District Attorney concludes that a conviction under the circumstances of
+this case would be unattainable. As such, District Attorney Castor declines
+to authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter.
+Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the
+District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party
+involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint prospective jurors.
+The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of
+his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue
+weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor
+cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should
+the need arise.
+Much exists in this investigation that could be used by
+others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering
+[J-100-2020] - 12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 14 of 80
+light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute
+from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.
+Press Release, 2/17/2005; N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-4.
+D.A. Castor did not communicate to Constand or her counsel his decision to
+permanently forego prosecuting Cosby. In fact, Constand did not learn of the decision
+until a reporter appeared at one of her civil attorney's offices later that evening. With the
+resolution of her allegations removed from the criminal courts, Constand turned to the
+civil realm. On March 8, 2015, less than one month after the district attorney's press
+release, Constand filed a lawsuit against Cosby in the United States District Court for the
+Eastern District of Pennsylvania.®
+During discovery in that lawsuit, Cosby sat for four depositions. Cosby's attorney
+for the civil proceedings, John Schmitt, had learned about the non-prosecution decision
+from Cosby's criminal counsel, Walter
+From the perspective of Cosby's
+attorneys, the district attorney's decision legally deprived Cosby of any right or ability to
+invoke the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, not once during the four depositions did Cosby
+invoke the Fifth Amendment or even mention it. During one deposition, Attorney Schmitt
+advised Cosby not to answer certain questions pertaining to Constand, but he did not
+specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment.? Nor did Cosby claim the protections of the Fifth
+Amendment when asked about other alleged victims of his sexual abuse, presumably
+because he believed that he no longer retained that privilege. In fact, no one involved
+with either side of the civil suit indicated on the record a belief that Cosby could be
+prosecuted in the future. D.A. Castor's decision was not included in any written
+stipulations, nor was it reduced to writing.
+6
+7
+See Constand v. Cosby, Docket No. 2:05-cv-01099-ER.
+Constand's attorneys subsequently filed a motion to compel Cosby to answer.
+[J-100-2020] - 13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 15 of 80
+At deposition, Cosby testified that he developed a romantic interest in Constand
+as soon as he met her, but did not reveal his feelings. He acknowledged that he always
+initiated the in-person meetings and visits to his home. He also stated that he engaged
+in consensual sexual activity with Constand on three occasions, including the January
+2004 incident.
+Throughout the depositions, Cosby identified the pills that he provided to Constand
+in 2004 as Benadryl. Cosby claimed to know the effects of Benadryl well, as he frequently
+took two of the pills to help himself fall asleep. Thus, when Constand arrived at his house
+on the night in question stressed, tense, and having difficulty sleeping, Cosby decided to
+give her three half-pills of Benadryl to help her relax. According to Cosby, Constand took
+the pills without asking what they were, and he did not volunteer that information to her.
+Cosby explained that, after fifteen or twenty minutes, he suggested that they move
+from the kitchen to the living room, where Constand met him after going to the restroom.
+Cosby testified that Constand sat next to him on the |
+and they began kissing and
+touching each other. According to Cosby, they laid together on the
+while he
+touched her breasts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. Afterwards, Cosby told her
+to try to get some sleep, and then he went upstairs to his bedroom. He came back
+downstairs two hours later to find Constand awake. He then escorted her to the kitchen
+where they had a muffin and tea.
+Cosby was questioned about his telephone conversations with Constand's mother.
+Cosby admitted that he told Constand and her mother that he would write down the name
+of the pills that he gave her and then send it to them, but that he failed to do so. He further
+explained that he would not admit what the pills were over the phone with Constand and
+her mother because he did not want Constand's mother to think that he was a perverted
+old man who had drugged her daughter. He also noted that he had suspected that the
+[J-100-2020] - 14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 16 of 80
+phone calls were being recorded. Although he did not believe that Constand was making
+these allegations in an attempt to get money from him, Cosby explained that, after
+Constand and her mother confronted him, he offered to pay for her education and asked
+his attorney to commence discussions regarding setting up a trust for that purpose.
+Cosby admitted that it would be in his best interests if the public believed that Constand
+had consented to the encounter, and that he believed he would suffer financial
+consequences if the public believed that he had drugged and assaulted her.
+Notably, during his depositions, Cosby confessed that, in the past, he had provided
+Quaaludes not Benadryl to other women with whom he wanted to have sexual
+intercourse.
+Eventually, Constand settled her civil suit with Cosby for $3.38 million. Initially,
+the terms of the settlement and the records of the case, including Cosby's depositions,
+were sealed. However, following a media request, the federal judge who presided over
+the civil suit unsealed the records in 2015.
+By that point, then-D.A. Castor had moved on from the district attorney's office and
+was serving as a
+County Commissioner. He was succeeded as district
+attorney by his former first assistant, Risa Vetri Ferman, Esquire.'° Despite her
+predecessor's decision not to prosecute Cosby, upon release of the civil records, District
+Attorney Ferman reopened the criminal investigation of Constand's allegations. Then-
+8
+"Quaalude" is a brand name for methaqualone, a central nervous system
+depressant that was a popular recreational drug from the 1960s through the 1980s, until
+the federal government classified methaqualone as a controlled substance.
+9
+Constand also received $20,000 from American Media, Inc., which was a party to
+the lawsuit as a result of an interview that Cosby gave to the National Enquirer about
+Constand's allegations.
+10
+D.A Ferman, now Judge Ferman, was subsequently elected to a seat on the Court
+of Common Pleas of
+County.
+[J-100-2020] - 15
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 17 of 80
+First Assistant District Attorney Kevin R. Steele' was present during the initial stages of
+the newly-revived investigation and participated in early discussions with Cosby's new
+lawyers, Brian J. McMonagle, Esquire, and
+J. O'Conner, Esquire.
+On September 23, 2015, upon learning that D.A. Ferman had reopened the case,
+former D.A. Castor sent her an email, to which he attached his February 17, 2005 press
+release, stating the following:
+Dear Risa,
+I certainly know better than to believe what I read in the newspaper, and
+have witnessed first hand your legal acumen. So you almost certainly know
+this already. I'm writing to you just in case you might have forgotten what
+we did with Cosby back in 2005. Attached is my opinion from then.
+Once we decided that the chances of prevailing in a criminal case were too
+remote to make an arrest, I concluded that the best way to achieve justice
+was to create an atmosphere where [Constand] would have the best chance
+of prevailing in a civil suit against Cosby. With the agreement of [Attorney]
+and [Constand's] lawyers, I wrote the attached as the ONLY
+comment I would make while the civil case was pending. Again, with the
+agreement of the defense lawyer and [Constand's] lawyers, I intentionally
+and specifically bound the Commonwealth that there would be no state
+prosecution of Cosby in order to remove from him the ability to claim his
+Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, thus forcing him to
+sit for a deposition under oath. [Attorney
+I was speaking for Cosby's
+side at the time, but he was in contact with Cosby's civil lawyers who did
+not deal with me directly that I recall. I only discovered today that [Attorney
+I had died. But those lawyers representing [Constand] civilly, whose
+names I did not remember until I saw them in recent media accounts, were
+part of this agreement because they wanted to make Cosby testify. I
+believed at the time that they thought making him testify would solidify their
+civil case, but the only way to do that was for us (the Commonwealth) to
+promise not to prosecute him. So in effect, that is what I did. I never made
+an important decision without discussing it with you during your tenure as
+First Assistant.
+Knowing the above, I can see no possibility that Cosby's deposition could
+be used in a state criminal case, because I would have to testify as to what
+happened, and the deposition would be subject to suppression. I cannot
+11
+Mr. Steele has since been elected District Attorney of
+County.
+[J-100-2020] - 16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 18 of 80
+believe any state judge would allow that deposition into evidence, nor
+anything derived therefrom. In fact, that was the specific intent of all parties
+involved including the Commonwealth and the plaintiff's lawyers. Knowing
+this, unless you can make out a case without that deposition and without
+anything the deposition led you to, I think Cosby would have an action
+o yoa cos with
+against the County and maybe even against you personally. That is why I
+have publically suggested looking for lies in the deposition as an alternative
+now that we have learned of all these other victims we did not know about
+at the time we had made the go, no-go decision on arresting Cosby. I
+publically suggested that the DA in California might try a common plan
+scheme or design case using [Constand's] case as part of the res gestae in
+their case. Because I knew
+County could not prosecute Cosby
+for a sexual offense, if the deposition was needed to do so. But I thought
+the DA in California might have a shot because I would not have the power
+to bind another state's prosecutor.
+Some of this, of course, is my opinion and using Cosby's deposition in the
+CA case, might be a stretch, but one thing is fact: the Commonwealth,
+defense, and civil plaintiff's lawyers were all in the agreement that the
+attached decision from me stripped Cosby of this Fifth Amendment privilege
+against self-incrimination, forcing him to be deposed. That led to Cosby
+paying [Constand] a lot of money, a large percentage of which went to her
+lawyers on a contingent fee bai. in my opinion, those facts will Candy
+Cosby's deposition inadmissible in any prosecution in
+for the incident that occurred in January 2004 in Cheltenham Township.
+Bruce
+N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-5.
+Replying by letter, D.A. Ferman asserted that, despite the public press release,
+this was the first she had learned about a binding understanding between the
+Commonwealth and Cosby. She requested a copy of any written agreement not to
+prosecute Cosby. D.A. Castor replied with the following email:
+The attached Press Release is the written determination that we would not
+prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers for [Constand] wanted and |
+agreed. The reason I agreed and the plaintiff's lawyers wanted it in writing
+is so that Cosby could not take the 5th Amendment to avoid being deposed
+or testifying. A sound strategy to employ. That meant to all involved,
+, that what Cosby said in
+the civil litigation could not be used against him in a criminal prosecution for
+the event we had him under investigation for in early 2005. I signed the
+press release for precisely this reason, at the request of [Constand's]
+counsel, and with the acquiescence of Cosby's counsel, with full and
+[J-100-2020] - 17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 19 of 80
+complete intent to bind the Commonwealth that anything Cosby said in the
+civil case could not be used against him, thereby forcing him to be deposed
+and perhaps testify in a civil trial without him having the ability to "take the
+5th." I decided to create the best possible environment for [Constand] to
+prevail and be compensated. By signing my name as District Attorney and
+issuing the attached, I was "signing off" on the Commonwealth not being
+able to use anything Cosby said in the civil case against him in a criminal
+prosecution, because I was stating the Commonwealth will not bring a case
+against Cosby for this incident based upon then-available evidence in order
+to help [Constand] prevail in her civil action. Evidently, that strategy worked.
+The attached, which was on letterhead and signed by me as District
+Attorney, the concept approved by [Constand's] lawyers was a "written
+declaration" from the Attorney for the Commonwealth there would be no
+prosecution based on anything Cosby said in the civil action. Naturally, if a
+prosecution could be made out without using what Cosby said, or anything
+derived from what Cosby said, I believed then and continue to believe that
+a prosecution is not precluded.
+Id., Exh. D-7.
+Despite her predecessor's concerns, D.A. Ferman and the investigators pressed
+forward, reopening the criminal case against Cosby. Members of the prosecutorial team
+traveled to Canada and met with Constand, asking her to cooperate with their efforts to
+prosecute Cosby, even though she had specifically agreed not to do so as part of the civil
+settlement. Investigators also began to identify, locate, and interview other women that
+had claimed to have been assaulted by Cosby.
+Nearly a decade after D.A. Castor's public decision not to prosecute Cosby, the
+Commonwealth charged Cosby with three counts of aggravated indecent assault
+stemming from the January 2004 incident with Constand in Cosby's Cheltenham
+residence.
+On January 11, 2016, Cosby filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus13
+12
+13
+By this time, Mr. Steele had replaced Judge Ferman as District Attorney. See 18
+Pa.C.S. § 3125(a)(1), (a)(4), and (a)(5).
+Cosby styled the petition as a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to
+Disqualify the
+County District Attorney's Office." The trial court treated the
+omnibus motion as three separate motions: (1) a motion to dismiss the charges based
+upon the alleged non-prosecution agreement; (2) a motion to dismiss the charges based
+[J-100-2020] - 18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 20 of 80
+seeking, inter alia, dismissal of the charges based upon the former D.A. Castor's
+purported promise-made in his representative capacity on behalf of the
+Commonwealth-that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The Commonwealth filed a
+response to the motion, to which Cosby replied.
+From February 2-3, 2016, the trial court conducted hearings on Cosby's habeas
+petition, which it ultimately denied. Later, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court
+explained that "the only conclusion that was apparent" from the record "was that no
+agreement or promise not to prosecute ever existed, only the exercise of prosecutorial
+discretion." Tr. Ct. Op. ("T.C.O."), 5/14/2019, at 62. In support of this conclusion, the trial
+court provided a lengthy summary of what it found to be the pertinent facts developed at
+the habeas corpus hearing. Because our analysis in this case focuses upon the trial
+court's interpretation of those testimonies, we reproduce that court's synopsis here:
+On January 24, 2005, then District Attorney Bruce L. Castor, Jr., issued a
+signed press release announcing an investigation into Ms. Constand's
+allegations. Mr. Castor testified that as the District Attorney in 2005, he
+oversaw the investigation into Ms. Constand's allegations. Ms. Ferman
+supervised the investigation along with County Detective Richard Peffall
+and Detective Richard Schaffer of Cheltenham. Mr. Castor testified that "I
+assigned who I thought were our best people to the case. And I took an
+active role as District Attorney because I thought I owed it to Canada to
+show that, in America, we will investigate allegations against celebrities."
+Mr. Castor testified that Ms. Constand went to the Canadian police almost
+exactly one year after the alleged assault and that the case was ultimately
+referred to
+County. The lack of a prompt complaint was
+significant to Mr. Castor in terms of Ms. Constand's credibility and in terms
+of law enforcement's ability to collect physical evidence. He also placed
+significance on the fact that Ms. Constand told the Canadian authorities that
+she contacted a lawyer in Philadelphia prior to speaking with them. He also
+reviewed Ms. Constand's statements to police. Mr. Castor telt that there
+were inconsistences in her statements. Mr. Castor did not recall press
+quotes attributed to him calling the case "weak" at a 2005 press conference.
+upon pre-arrest delay; and (3) a motion to disqualify the
+Attorney's Office.
+County District
+[J-100-2020] - 19
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 21 of 80
+Likewise, he did not recall the specific statement, "Ti]n Pennsylvania we
+charged people for criminal conduct. We don't charge people with making
+a mistake or doing something foolish;" however, he indicated that it is a true
+statement.
+As part of the 2005 investigation, [Cosby] gave a full statement to law
+enforcement and his Pennsylvania and New York homes were searched.
+[Cosby] was accompanied by counsel and did not invoke the Fifth
+Amendment at any time during the statement. After [Cosby's] interview,
+Ms. Constand was interviewed a second time. Mr. Castor never personally
+met with Ms. Constand. Following that interview of Ms. Constand, Mr.
+Castor spoke to [Cosby's] attorney Walter M. |
+.. Лг. Мг. |
+told
+Mr. Castor that during the year between the assault and the report, Ms.
+Constand had multiple phone contacts with [Cosby]. Mr.
+was also
+concerned that Ms. Constand had recorded phone calls with [Cosby]. Mr.
+told Mr. Castor that if he obtained the phone records and the
+recorded calls he would conclude that Ms. Constand and her mother were
+attempting was to get money from [Cosby] so they would not go to the
+police. While he did not necessarily agree with the conclusions Mr.
+thought would be drawn from the records, Mr. Castor directed the police to
+obtain the records.
+Mr. Castor's recollection was that there was an
+"inordinate number of [phone] contacts" between [Cosby] and Ms. Constand
+after the assault. He also confirmed the existence of at least two "wire
+interceptions," which he did not believe would be admissible.
+As part of the 2005 investigation, allegations made by other women were
+also investigated. Mr. Castor delegated that investigation to Ms. Ferman.
+He testified that he determined that, in his opinion, these allegations were
+unreliable.
+Following approximately one month of investigation, Mr. Castor concluded
+that "there was insufficient credible and admissible evidenced upon which
+any charge against Mr. Cosby related to the Constand incident could be
+proven beyond a reasonable doubt." He testified that he could either leave
+the case open at that point or definitively close the case to allow a civil case.
+He did not believe there was a chance that the criminal case could get any
+better. He believed Ms. Constand's actions created a credibility issue that
+could not be overcome.
+*
+Mr. Castor further indicated, "Mr. I
+never agreed to anything in
+exchange for Mr. Cosby not being prosecuted." Mr. Castor testified that he
+told Mr.
+of his legal assessment and then told Ms. Ferman of the
+analysis and directed her to contact Constand's attorneys. He testified that
+she was to contact the attorneys to let them know that "Cosby was not going
+to be prosecuted and that the purpose for that was that I wanted to create
+[J-100-2020] - 20
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 22 of 80
+the atmosphere or the legal conditions such that Mr. Cosby would never be
+allowed to assert the Fifth Amendment in the civil case." He testified that
+she did not come back to him with any objection from Ms. Constand's
+attorneys and that any objection from Ms. Constand's attorneys would not
+have mattered anyway. He later testified that he did not have any specific
+recollection of discussing his legal analysis with Ms. Ferman, but would be
+surprised if he did not.
+Mr. Castor testified that he could not recall any other case where he made
+this type of binding legal analysis in
+County. He testified that
+in a half dozen cases during his tenure in the District Attorney's office,
+someone would attempt to assert the Fifth Amendment in a preexisting civil
+case. The judge in that case would then call Mr. Castor to determine if he
+intended to prosecute the person asserting the privilege. He could confirm
+that he did not and the claim of privilege would be denied. Mr. Castor was
+unable to name a case in which this happened.
+After making his decision not to prosecute, Mr. Castor personally issued a
+second, signed press release on February 17, 2005. Mr. Castor testified
+that he signed the press release at the request of Ms. Constand's attorneys
+in order to bind the Commonwealth so it "would be evidence that they could
+show to a civil judge that Cosby is not getting prosecuted." The press
+release stated,
+"After reviewing the above and consulting with County and
+Cheltenham Detectives, the District Attorney finds insufficient, credible and
+admissible evidence exists upon which any charge against Mr. Cosby could
+be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt." Mr. Castor testified that this
+language made it absolute that [Cosby] would never be prosecuted, "Is]o |
+used the present tense, [exists], ... So I'm making it absolute. I said |
+found that there was no evidence there was insufficient credible and
+admissible evidence in existence upon which any charge against [Cosby]
+could be sustained. And the use of 'exists'
+and 'could' I meant to be
+absolute."
+The press release specifically cautioned the parties that the decision could
+be revisited, "District Attorney Castor cautions all parties to this matter that
+he will reconsider this decision should the need arise." He testified that
+inclusion of this sentence, warning that the decision could be revisited, in
+the paragraph about a civil case and the use of the word "this," was intended
+to make clear that it applied to the civil case and not to the prosecution. Mr.
+Castor testified that this sentence was meant to advise the parties that if
+they criticized his decision, he would contact the media and explain that Ms.
+Constand's actions damaged her credibility, which would severely hamper
+her civil case. He testified that once he was certain a prosecution was not
+viable "I operated under the certainty that a civil suit was coming and set up
+the dominoes to fall in such a way that Mr. Cosby would be required to
+testify." He included the language "much exists in this investigation that
+could be used by others to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a
+[J-100-2020] - 21
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 23 of 80
+less than flattering light," as a threat to Ms. Constand and her attorneys
+should they attack his office. In a 2016 Philadelphia Inquirer article, in
+reference to this same sentence, Castor stated, "I put in there that if any
+evidence surfaced that was admissible I would revisit the issue. And
+evidently, that is what the D.A. is doing." He testified that he remembered
+making that statement but that it referred to the possibility of a prosecution
+based on other victims in
+County or perjury.
+He testified that the press release was intended for three audiences, the
+media, the greater legal community, and the litigants. He testified about
+what meaning he hoped that each audience would glean from the press
+release. He did not intend for any of the three groups to understand the
+entirety of what he meant. The media was to understand only that [Cosby]
+would not be arrested. Lawyers would parse every word and understand
+that he was saying there was enough evidence to arrest [Cosby] but that
+Mr. Castor thought the evidence was not credible or admissible. The third
+audience was the litigants, and they were to understand that they did not
+want to damage the civil case. He then stated that the litigants would
+understand the entirety of the press release, the legal community most of it
+and the press little of it.
+Mr. Castor testified that in November of 2014 he was contacted by the
+media as a result of a joke a comedian made about [Cosby]. Again, in the
+summer of 2015 after the civil depositions were released, media
+approached Mr. Castor. He testified that he told every reporter that he
+spoke to in this time frame that the reason he had declined the charges was
+to strip Mr. Cosby of his Fifth Amendment privilege. He testified that he did
+not learn the investigation had been reopened until he read in the paper that
+[Cosby] was arrested in December 2015, but there was media speculation
+in September 2015 that an arrest might be imminent.
+On September 23, 2015, apparently in response to this media speculation,
+unprompted and unsolicited, Mr. Castor sent an email to then District
+Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman. His email indicated, in pertinent part,
+I'm writing you just in case you might have forgotten what we
+did with Cosby back in 2005... Once we decided that the
+chances of prevailing in a criminal case were too remote to
+make an arrest, I concluded that the best way to achieve
+justice was to create an atmosphere where [Constand] would
+have the best chance of prevailing in a civil suit against Cosby.
+With the agreement of [Attorney
+1 and [Constand's]
+lawyer, I wrote the attached [press release] as the ONLY
+Again, with the agreement of the deans a yer and
+[Constand's] lawyers, I intentionally and specifically bound the
+Commonwealth that there would be no state prosecution of
+[J-100-2020] - 22
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 24 of 80
+Cosby in order to remove from him the ability to claim his Fifth
+Amendment protection against self-incrimination, thus forcing
+him to sit for a deposition under oath.... But those lawyers
+representing [Constand] civilly ... were part of this agreement
+because they wanted to make Cosby testify. I believed at the
+time that they thought making him testify would solidify their
+civil case, but the only way to do that was for us (the
+Commonwealth) to promise not to prosecute him. So in effect,
+that is what I did. I never made an important decision without
+discussing it with you during your tenure as First Assistant.
+*
+[B]ut one thing is fact. The Commonwealth, defense and civil
+plaintiff's lawyers were all in agreement that the attached
+decision from me stripped Cosby of his Fifth Amendment
+privilege against self-incrimination forcing him to be deposed.
+He indicated in his email that he learned Mr.
+had died on the date
+of his email. The email also suggested that the deposition might be subject
+to suppression.
+Ms. Ferman responded to Mr. Castor's email by letter of September 25,
+2015, requesting a copy of the "written declaration" indicating that [Cosby]
+would not be prosecuted. In her letter, Ms. Ferman indicated that "It]he first
+I heard of such a binding agreement was your email sent this past
+Wednesday. The first I heard of a written declaration documenting the
+agreement not to prosecute was authored on 9/24/15 and published today
+by Margaret Gibbons of the Intelligencer.... We have been in contact with
+counsel for both Mr. Cosby and Ms. Constand and neither has provided us
+with any information about such an agreement."
+Mr. Castor responded by email. His email indicated,
+The attached Press Release is the written determination that
+we would not prosecute Cosby. That was what the lawyers
+for the plaintiffs wanted and I agreed. The reason I agreed
+and the plaintiff's wanted it in writing was so Cosby could not
+take
+the 5" Amendment to avoid being deposed or
+testifying.... That meant to all involved, including Cosby's
+lawyer at the time, Mr.
+1, that what Cosby said in the
+civil litigation could not be used against him in a criminal
+prosecution for the event we had him under investigation for
+in early 2005. I signed the press release for precisely this
+reason, at the request of Plaintiff's counsel, and with the
+acquiescence of Cosby's counsel, with full and complete
+intent to bind the Commonwealth that anything Cosby said in
+[J-100-2020] - 23
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 25 of 80
+the civil case could not be used against him, thereby forcing
+him to be deposed and perhaps testify in a civil trial without
+the ability to "take the 5"h." I decided to create the best
+possible environment for the Plaintiff to prevail and be
+compensated. By signing my name as District Attorney and
+issuing the attached, I was "signing off" on the Commonwealth
+not being able to use anything Cosby said in the civil case
+against him in a criminal prosecution, because I was stating
+the Commonwealth will not bring a case against Cosby for the
+incident based on the then-available evidence in order to help
+the Plaintiff prevail in her civil action ... Injaturally, it a
+prosecution could be made out without using what Cosby
+said, or anything derived from what Cosby said, I believed
+then and continue to believe that a prosecution is not
+precluded.
+Mr. Castor testified that he intended to confer transactional immunity upon
+[Cosby] and that his power to do so as the sovereign was derived from
+common law not from the statutes of Pennsylvania. In his final email to Ms.
+Ferman, Mr. Castor stated, "I never agreed we would not prosecute Cosby."
+As noted, Ms. Constand's civil attorneys also testified at the hearing.
+Dolores Troiani, Esq. testified that during the 2005 investigation, she had
+no contact with the District Attorney's office and limited contact with the
+Cheltenham Police Department. Bebe Kivitz, Esq. testified that during the
+2005 investigation she had limited contact with then-First Assistant District
+Attorney Ferman. The possibility of a civil suit was never discussed with
+anyone from the Commonwealth or anyone representing [Cosby] during the
+criminal investigation. At no time did anyone from Cheltenham Police, or
+the District Attorney's Office, convey to Ms. Troiani, or Ms. Kivitz, that
+[Cosby] would never be prosecuted. They learned that the criminal case
+was declined from a reporter who came to Ms. Troiani's office in the evening
+of February 17, 2005 seeking comment about what Bruce Castor had done.
+The reporter informed her that Mr. Castor had issued a press release in
+which he declined prosecution. Ms. Troiani had not receive any prior
+notification of the decision not to prosecute.
+Ms. Constand and her attorneys did not request a declaration from Mr.
+Castor that [Cosby] would not be prosecuted. Ms. Troiani testified that if
+[Cosby] attempted
+I to invoke the Fifth Amendment during his civil
+depositions they would have filed a motion and he would have likely been
+precluded since he had given a statement to police. If he was permitted to
+assert a Fifth Amendment privilege, they would have been entitled to an
+adverse inference jury instruction. Additionally, if [Cosby] asserted the Fifth
+Amendment, Ms. Constand's version of the story would have been the only
+version for the jury to consider. Ms. Constand and her counsel had no
+reason to request immunity. At no time during the civil suit did Ms. Troiani
+[J-100-2020] - 24
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 26 of 80
+receive any information in discovery or from [Cosby's] attorneys indicating
+that [Cosby] could never be prosecuted.
+Ms. Troiani testified that she understood the press release to say that Mr.
+Castor was not prosecuting at that time but if additional information arose,
+he would change his mind. She did not take the language, "District Attorney
+Castor cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision
+should the need arise," to be a threat not to speak publicly. She continued
+to speak to the press; Mr. Castor did not retaliate.
+Ms. Troiani was present for [Cosby's] depositions. At no point during the
+depositions was there any mention of an agreement or promise not to
+prosecute. In her experience, such a promise would have been put on the
+record at the civil depositions. She testified that during the four days of
+depositions, [Cosby] was not cooperative and the depositions were
+extremely contentious. Ms. Troiani had to file motions to compel [Cosby's]
+answers. [Cosby's] refusal to answer questions related to Ms. Constand's
+allegations formed the basis of a motion to compel. When Ms. Troiani
+attempted to question [Cosby] about the allegations, [Cosby's] attorneys
+sought to have his statement to police read into the record in lieu of cross
+examination.
+Ms. Troiani testified that one of the initial provisions [Cosby] wanted in the
+civil settlement was a release from criminal liability. [Cosby's civil attorney
+O'Conner's letter to Ms. Ferman does not dispute this fact. [Cosby]
+and his attorneys also requested that Ms. Troiani agree to destroy her file,
+she refused.
+Eventually, the parties agreed on the language that Ms.
+Constand would not initiate any criminal complaint. The first Ms. Troiani
+heard of a promise not to prosecute was in 2015. The first Ms. Kivitz learned
+of the purported promise was in a 2014 newspaper article.
+John P. Schmitt, Esq., testified that he has represented [Cosby] since 1983.
+In the early 1990s, he became [Cosby's] general counsel. In 2005, when
+he became aware of the instant allegations, he retained criminal counsel,
+William
+Esq., on [Cosby's] behalf. Mr.
+dealt directly with
+the prosecutor's office and would then discuss all matters with Mr. Schmitt.
+[Cosby's] January 2005 interview took place at Mr. Schmitt's office. Both
+Mr. Schmitt and Mr.
+_ were present for the interview. Numerous
+questions were asked the answers to which could lead to criminal charges.
+At no time during his statement to police did [Cosby] invoke the Fifth
+Amendment or refuse to answer questions. Mr. Schmitt testified that he had
+interviewed [Cosby] prior to his statement and was not concerned about his
+answers. Within weeks of the interview, the District Attorney declined to
+bring a prosecution. Mr. Schmitt testified that Mr.
+told him that the
+decision was an irrevocable commitment that District Attorney Castor was
+not going to prosecute [Cosby]. He received a copy of the press release.
+[J-100-2020] - 25
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 27 of 80
+On March 8, 2005, Ms. Constand filed her civil suit and Mr. Schmitt retained
+_O'Conner, Esq., as civil counsel. Mr. Schmitt participated in the civil
+case. [Cosby] sat for four days of depositions. Mr. Schmitt testified that
+[Cosby] did not invoke the Fifth Amendment in those depositions and that
+he would not have let him sit for the depositions if he knew the criminal case
+could be reopened.
+He testified that generally he does try to get agreements on [Cosby's] behalf
+in writing. During this time period, Mr. Schmitt was involved in written
+negotiations with the National Enquirer. He testified that he relied on the
+press release, Mr. Castor's word and Mr.
+assurances that what Mr.
+Castor did was sufficient. Mr. Schmitt did not personally speak to Mr. Castor
+or get the assurance in writing. During the depositions, Mr. O'Conner
+objected to numerous questions. At the time of the depositions, Mr. Schmitt,
+through his negotiations with the National Enquirer, learned that there were
+Jane Doe witnesses making allegations against [Cosby]. [Cosby] did not
+assert a Fifth Amendment privilege when asked about these other women.
+Mr. Schmitt testified that he had not formed an opinion as to whether Mr.
+Castor's press release would cover that testimony.
+Mr. Schmitt testified that during negotiations of the settlement agreement
+there were references to a criminal case. The settlement agreement
+indicated that Ms. Constand would not initiate a criminal case against Mr.
+Cosby. Mr. Schmitt did not come forward when he learned the District
+Attorney's office re-opened the case in 2015.
+T.C.O. at 47-61 (cleaned up).
+Notably, when District Attorney Castor decided not to prosecute Cosby, he
+"absolutely" intended to remove "for all time" the possibility of prosecution, because "the
+ability to take the Fifth Amendment is also for all time removed." N.T., 2/2/2016, at 67.
+The trial court sought clarification from Mr. Castor about his statement in his second email
+to D.A. Ferman that he still believed that a prosecution was permissible as long as
+Cosby's depositions were not used in such proceedings. Former D.A. Castor explained
+to the court that he meant that a prosecution may be available only if other victims were
+discovered, with charges related only to those victims, and without the use of Cosby's
+depositions in the Constand matter. Specifically, former D.A. Castor stated that what he
+was "trying to convey to Mrs. Ferman [was that his] binding of the Commonwealth not to
+prosecute Cosby was not for any crime in
+County for all time. It was only
+[J-100-2020] - 26
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 28 of 80
+for the sexual assault crime in the Constand case." N.T., 2/2/2016, at 224-25. He
+continued, "Is]o if they had evidence that some of these other women had been sexually
+assaulted at Cosby's home in Cheltenham, then I thought they could go ahead with the
+prosecution of that other case with some other victim, so long as they realized they could
+not use the Constand deposition and anything derived therefrom." Id.
+As noted, the trial court denied the motion, finding that then-D.A. Castor never, in
+fact, reached an agreement with Cosby, or even promised Cosby that the Commonwealth
+would not prosecute him for assaulting Constand. T.C.O. at 62. Instead, the trial court
+considered the interaction between the former district attorney and Cosby to be an
+incomplete and unauthorized contemplation of transactional immunity. The trial court
+found no authority for the "proposition that a prosecutor may unilaterally confer
+transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign." Id. Rather, the court
+noted, such immunity can be conferred only upon strict compliance with Pennsylvania's
+immunity statute, which is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947.14 Per the terms of the statute,
+14
+The immunity statute provides, in relevant part:
+(a) General rule.--Immunity orders shall be available under this section in
+all proceedings before:
+(1) Courts.
+*
+* *
+(b) Request and issuance.--The Attorney General or a district attorney
+may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated court, and
+that judge shall issue such an order, when in the judgment of the Attorney
+General or district attorney:
+(1) the testimony or other information from a witness may be
+necessary to the public interest; and
+(2) a witness has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide
+other
+information on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination.
+[J-100-2020] - 27
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 29 of 80
+permission from a court is a prerequisite to any offer of transactional immunity. See id.
+§ 5947(b) ("The Attorney General or a district attorney may request an immunity order
+from any judge of a designated court."). Because D.A. Castor did not seek such
+permission, and instead acted of his own volition, the trial court concluded that any
+purported immunity offer was defective, and thus invalid. Consequently, according to the
+trial court, the "press release, signed or not, was legally insufficient to form the basis of
+an enforceable promise not to prosecute." T.C.O. at 62.
+The trial court also found that "Mr. Castor's testimony about what he did and how
+he did it was equivocal at best." Id. at 63. The court deemed the former district attorney's
+characterization of his decision-making and intent to be inconsistent, inasmuch as he
+testified at times that he intended transactional immunity, while asserting at other times
+that he intended use and derivative-use immunity. The trial court specifically credited
+Attorney Troiani's statements that she never requested that Cosby be provided with
+immunity and that she did not specifically agree to any such offer.
+(c) Order to testify.--Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his
+privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in
+a proceeding specified in subsection (a), and the person presiding at such
+proceeding communicates to the witness an immunity order, that witness
+may not refuse to testify based on his privilege against self-incrimination.
+(d) Limitation on use.-No testimony or other information compelled under
+an immunity order, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such
+testimony or other information, may be used against a witness in any
+criminal case, except that such information may be used:
+(1) in a prosecution under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4902 (relating to perjury) or
+under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4903 (relating to false swearing);
+(2) in a contempt proceeding for failure to comply with an immunity
+order; or
+(3) as evidence, where otherwise admissible, in any proceeding
+where the witness is not a criminal defendant.
+42 Pa. C.S. § 5947(a)-(d).
+[J-100-2020] - 28
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 30 of 80
+As further support for the view that no agreement was reached, nor any promise
+extended, the trial court noted that, in his initial statement to police, which was voluntarily
+provided and not under oath, Cosby did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. Instead,
+Cosby presented a narrative of a consensual sexual encounter with Constand, which he
+asserted again later in his depositions. "Thus," the trial court explained, "there was
+nothing to indicate that [Cosby's] cooperation would cease if a civil case were filed." Id.
+at 65. Since Cosby previously had discussed the incident without invoking his right to
+remain silent, the court found no reason to believe that Cosby subsequently would do so
+in a civil case so as to necessitate the remedy that the former district attorney purported
+to provide in anticipation of that litigation.
+The trial court further held that, even if there was a purported grant of immunity,
+Cosby could not insist upon its enforcement based upon the contractual theory of
+promissory estoppel, because "any reliance on a press release as a grant of immunity
+was unreasonable." Id. Specifically, the court noted that Cosby was represented at all
+times by a competent team of attorneys, but none of them "obtained [D.A.] Castor's
+promise in writing or memorialized it in any way." Id. at 65-66. The failure to demand
+written documentation was evidence that no promise not to prosecute was ever extended.
+For these reasons, the trial court found no legal basis to estop the Commonwealth from
+prosecuting Cosby.
+Cosby filed a notice of appeal and a petition for review with the Superior Court. In
+response to the filings, the Superior Court temporarily stayed the proceedings below.
+However, upon a motion by the Commonwealth, the Superior Court quashed the appeal
+and lifted the stay. This Court likewise rejected Cosby's pre-trial efforts to appeal the
+adverse rulings, denying his petition for allowance of appeal, his petition for review, and
+his emergency petition for a stay of the proceedings.
+[J-100-2020] - 29
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 31 of 80
+On May 24, 2016, following a preliminary hearing, all of Cosby's charges were held
+for trial. Thereafter, Cosby filed a number of pretrial motions, including a petition for a
+writ of habeas corpus, a motion to dismiss the charges on due process grounds, and,
+most pertinent here, a "Motion to Suppress the Contents of his Deposition Testimony and
+Any Evidence Derived therefrom on the Basis that the District Attorney's Promise not to
+Prosecute Him Induced Him to Waive his Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-
+Incrimination." After holding a hearing on the suppression motion, at which no new
+testimony was taken, the trial court again concluded that former District Attorney Castor's
+testimony was equivocal, credited the testimony of Constand's attorneys, and found that
+no promise or agreement not to prosecute existed. Having so determined, the court
+discerned "no [c]onstitutional barrier to the use of [Cosby's] civil deposition testimony"
+against him at trial, and it denied the suppression motion.15 Later, the Commonwealth
+would introduce portions of Cosby's deposition testimony against Cosby, including his
+admissions to using Quaaludes during sexual encounters with women in the past.
+On September 6, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a "Motion to Introduce Evidence
+of Other Bad Acts of the Defendant," which Cosby opposed by written response. The
+Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence and testimony from other women who
+alleged that Cosby had sexually assaulted them, instances that could not be prosecuted
+due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations. On February 24, 2017, the trial court
+granted the Commonwealth's motion, but permitted only one of these alleged past victims
+to testify at Cosby's trial.
+On December 30, 2016, Cosby filed a motion seeking a change in venue or venire.
+The trial court kept the case in
+County, but agreed that the jury should be
+15
+T.C.O. at 72 (quoting Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Sur
+Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I), 12/5/2016,
+at 5).
+[J-100-2020] - 30
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 32 of 80
+selected from a different county. Thus, Cosby's jury was selected from residents of
+Allegheny County, and trial commenced. On June 17, 2017, after seven days of
+deliberation, the jury announced that it could not reach a unanimous verdict. The trial
+court dismissed the jury and declared a mistrial.
+Ahead of the second trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion seeking to introduce
+the testimony of a number of additional women who offered to testify about Cosby's prior
+acts of sexual abuse. Generally, the women averred that, in the 1980s, each had an
+encounter with Cosby that involved either alcohol, drugs, or both, that each became
+intoxicated or incapacitated after consuming those substances, and that Cosby engaged
+in some type of unwanted sexual contact with each of them while they were unable to
+resist. The dates of the conduct that formed the basis of these allegations ranged from
+1982 to 1989, approximately fifteen to twenty-two years before the incident involving
+Constand. Again, Cosby opposed the motion. Following oral argument, and despite
+there being no change in circumstances other than the first jury's inability to reach a
+unanimous verdict, the trial court granted the Commonwealth's motion in part, increasing
+the number of prior bad acts witnesses allowed at trial from one to five. The selection of
+the five witnesses from a pool of at least nineteen women was left entirely to the
+Commonwealth.
+The Commonwealth selected, and introduced testimony at Cosby's second trial
+from, the following women:
+Janice Baker-Kinney.
+In 1982, Baker-Kinney worked at a Harrah's Casino in
+Reno, Nevada. During that year, a friend invited her to a party that, unbeknownst to her,
+was being held at a temporary residence used by Cosby in Reno. At the time, Baker-
+Kinney was twenty-four years old; Cosby was forty-five. When Baker-Kinney arrived at
+the residence, she realized that there actually was no party, at least as she understood
+[J-100-2020] - 31
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 33 of 80
+the term. Besides Cosby, Baker-Kinney and her friend were the only people there. Cosby
+gave Baker-Kinney a beer and a pill, which she believed may have been a Quaalude. A
+short time later, Cosby gave her a second pill. She took both voluntarily, after which she
+became dizzy and passed out. When she awakened, she was on a
+in another
+room. Her shirt was unbuttoned and her pants were unzipped. Cosby approached and
+sat next to her. Cosby then leaned her against his chest. He fondled her breasts and her
+vagina. Still intoxicated, Baker-Kinney followed Cosby to an upstairs bedroom. She had
+no memory of what happened after entering the bedroom until the following morning,
+when she woke up naked next to Cosby, who also was naked. Although she could not
+remember for sure, Baker-Kinney believed that they had had sex. She dressed and left.
+Janice Dickinson. Also in 1982, Janice Dickinson met Cosby. She was twentyseven years old. Dickinson was an aspiring model, and Cosby contacted her modeling
+agency to arrange a meeting. Supposedly, Cosby wanted to mentor Dickinson. Along
+with her agent, Dickinson met with Cosby. Sometime later, while she was on a modeling
+job, Cosby called her and offered to fly her to Lake Tahoe. There, Dickinson met with
+Cosby's musical director and practiced her vocal skills. At dinner that night, Cosby arrived
+and met with Dickinson, who was drinking wine. Dickinson mentioned that she was
+suffering from menstrual cramps. Cosby provided her with a pill to help relieve the
+discomfort. The musical director eventually left, and Cosby offered to discuss Dickinson's
+career in his hotel room. She agreed and accompanied him there. When they got to the
+room, Cosby put on a robe and made a phone call. Dickinson felt lightheaded and had
+trouble speaking. Cosby got off the phone, climbed on top of Dickinson, and had sexual
+intercourse with her. Dickinson stated that she was unable to move and that she passed
+out soon after Cosby had finished. When she woke up the next morning, she did not
+[J-100-2020] - 32
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 34 of 80
+recall how she had arrived at Cosby's room. She was naked from the waist down, had
+semen on her legs, and felt pain in her anus.
+Heidi
+was forty-six.
+In 1984, Heidi
+was twenty-seven years old, and Cosby
+wanted to be an actress and a model. Her agent told her that
+Cosby was looking to mentor a promising young talent. Eventually, Cosby invited
+to Reno for some personal acting lessons.
+believed that she would be
+staying at a hotel, but, when she got to Reno, a car took her to a ranch house where
+Cosby was staying. Cosby arranged a room in the house for her. When they were the
+only two people left in the house, Cosby asked
+to audition for him by pretending
+to be an intoxicated person, which she explained to Cosby would be a challenge for her
+because she had never been intoxicated. Cosby asked how she could play such a role
+without ever having had that experience. So, he gave her some wine.
+drank
+only a little of the wine before becoming extremely intoxicated. She faded in and out of
+consciousness. At one point she came to on a bed only to find Cosby forcing his penis
+into her mouth. She passed out and awoke later feeling sick.
+Chelan Lasha. Lasha met Cosby in 1986, while she was working as an actress
+and model. She was only seventeen years old. Cosby was forty-eight. Cosby called her
+at her home, and later visited her there. Lasha then sent him modeling shots and spoke
+with him a number of times on the phone about her career. Cosby invited her to meet
+him in Las Vegas, where, he told her, someone would take better pictures of her. He
+implied that she could get a role on "The Cosby Show." Enticed by the prospect, Lasha
+went to Las Vegas. As promised, once there, someone took pictures of her. Someone
+else gave her a massage. Eventually, Lasha was alone with Cosby. He gave her a blue
+pill, which he said was an antihistamine that would help with a cold from which she was
+suffering. Cosby also provided her with a shot of liquor. Because Lasha trusted Cosby,
+[J-100-2020] - 33
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 35 of 80
+she voluntarily consumed both the alcohol and the pill. Cosby then gave her a second
+shot and led her to a
+Lasha began to feel intoxicated. Lasha was unable to move
+on her own, and Cosby helped her to the bed. Cosby laid next to her, pinched her breasts,
+and rubbed his genitals against her leg until she felt something warm on her leg. Lasha
+woke up the next day wearing only a robe.
+Maud Lise-Lotte Lublin. When Cosby met Lublin in 1989, he was fifty-two years
+old, and she was twenty-three. Lublin also was an aspiring model and actress. Lublin's
+agent informed her that Cosby wanted to meet her. Soon after, Lublin met with Cosby,
+who told her that he would refer her to a modeling agency in New York City. Cosby then
+started to call her regularly. Lublin considered Cosby to be a mentor and a father figure.
+Once, Cosby invited her to his hotel, where they talked about improvisation. Cosby
+poured her a shot of liquor and told her to drink it. Not normally a drinker, Lublin initially
+declined the shot. When Cosby insisted, she drank it. He poured her another shot, and
+again strongly encouraged her to drink it. Because she trusted him, Lublin drank the
+second shot as well. She quickly felt dizzy and unstable, and was unable to stand on her
+own. Cosby asked her to sit between his legs and lean against his chest. He stroked her
+hair and talked, but she could not hear his words. She could not move or get up. She
+awoke two days later at her home, with no idea how she got there.
+The trial court rejected Cosby's arguments that the introduction of testimonies from
+the five prior bad acts witnesses violated his due process rights, and that the incidents
+were too remote in time and too dissimilar to have probative value, let alone probative
+value sufficient to overcome the unduly prejudicial impact of such evidence. The court
+noted that prior bad acts evidence generally cannot be used to establish a criminal
+propensity or to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with the past acts, but that
+such evidence can be used to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
+[J-100-2020] - 34
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 36 of 80
+knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, so long as the probative value of
+the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.16 The court then determined that the
+testimony of the five prior bad act witnesses and the deposition testimony pertaining to
+the prior use of Quaaludes was admissible to demonstrate Cosby's common plan,
+scheme, or design. The trial court reasoned that the similarity and distinctiveness of the
+crimes bore a logical connection to Constand's allegations, and amounted to a "signature
+of the same perpetrator."' Comparing the past and present allegations, the court noted
+that each woman was substantially younger than Cosby and physically fit; that Cosby
+initiated the contact with each woman, primarily though her employment; that each
+woman came to trust Cosby and view him as a friend or mentor; that each woman
+accepted an invitation to a place that Cosby controlled; that each woman consumed a
+16
+T.C.O. 96-97 (citing Pa.R.E. 404(b)). Rule 404 provides, in relevant part:
+(a) Character Evidence.
+(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person's character or character
+trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the
+person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
+*
+*
+*
+(b) Crimes, Wrongs or Other Acts.
+(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not
+admissible to prove a person's character in order to show that on a
+particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the
+character.
+(2) Permitted Uses.
+This evidence may be admissible for another
+purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
+plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In
+a criminal case this evidence is admissible only if the probative value
+of the evidence outweighs its potential for unfair prejudice.
+Pa.R.E. 404(b)(1)-(2).
+17
+Id. at 97 (quoting Commonwealth v. Tyson, 119 A.3d 353, 358-59 (Pa. Super.
+2015) (en banc)).
+[J-100-2020] - 35
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 37 of 80
+drink or a pill, often at Cosby's insistence; that each woman became incapacitated and
+unable to consent to sexual contact; and that Cosby sexually assaulted each woman
+while each was under the influence of the intoxicant. Id. at 103-04. These "chilling
+similarities," the court explained, rendered Cosby's actions "so distinctive as to become
+a signature," and therefore the evidence was admissible to demonstrate a common plan,
+scheme, or design. Id. at 104.
+The court further determined that the prior bad acts evidence was admissible to
+demonstrate that Cosby's actions were not the result of mistake or accident. The court
+relied in large part upon then-Chief Justice Saylor's concurrence in Commonwealth v.
+Hicks, 156 A.3d 1114 (Pa. 2017), which suggested the "doctrine of chances" as another
+"theory of logical relevance that does not depend on an impermissible inference of bad
+character, and which is most greatly suited to disproof of accident or mistake." Id. at 1131
+(Saylor, C.J., concurring). The trial court reasoned that the purpose of the evidence was
+not to demonstrate that Cosby behaved in conformity with a criminal propensity, but rather
+to "establish the objective improbability of so many accidents befalling the defendant or
+the defendant becoming innocently enmeshed in suspicious circumstances so
+frequently." Id. at 1133 (Saylor, C.J., concurring). The court noted that there was no
+dispute that a sexual encounter between Cosby and Constand had occurred; the
+contested issue was Constand's consent. The prior bad acts evidence, therefore, was
+"relevant to show a lack of mistake, namely, that [Cosby] could not have possibly believed
+that [] Constand consented to the digital penetration as well as his intent in administering
+an intoxicant." T.C.O at 108. Similarly, with regard to the "doctrine of chances," the court
+opined that the fact that nineteen women were proffered as Rule 404(b) witnesses "lends
+[sic] to the conclusion that [Cosby] found himself in this situation more frequently than the
+general population." Id. Accordingly, "the fact that numerous other women recounted the
+[J-100-2020] - 36
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 38 of 80
+same or similar story, further supports the admissibility of this evidence under the doctrine
+of chances." Id
+The trial court recognized that the alleged assaults upon the prior bad acts
+witnesses were remote in time, but it explained that remoteness "is but one factor that the
+court should consider." Id. at 97. The court reasoned that the distance in time between
+the prior acts and the incident involving Constand was "inversely proportional to the
+similarity of the other crimes or acts." Id. (citing Tyson, 119 A.3d at 359). Stated more
+simply, the "more similar the crimes, the less significant the length of time that has
+passed." Id.at 98 (citing Commonwealth v. Luktisch, 680 A.2d 877 (Pa. Super. 1996)).
+The court noted that, while there was a significant temporal gap between the prior
+incidents and Constand's case, the alleged assaults involving the prior bad acts witnesses
+occurred relatively close in time to each other. Thus, "[w]hen taken together," the court
+explained, "the sequential nature of the acts coupled with their nearly identical similarities
+renders the lapse of time unimportant." Id. at 109.
+To be unfairly prejudicial, the trial court emphasized, the proffered evidence must
+be "unfair," and must have a "tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis or to
+divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially." Id. at
+100 (quoting Pa.R.E. 403 cmt). Evidence "will not be prohibited merely because it is
+harmful to the defendant," and a court "is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all
+unpleasant facts." Id. at 100-01 (quoting Commonwealth v. Conte, 198 A.3d 1169, 1180-
+81 (Pa. Super. 2018)). For the trial court, the aforementioned similarities between
+Constand's claim and that of the other alleged victims weighed in favor of admissibility,
+particularly because the court believed that the Commonwealth had a "substantial need"
+for the evidence. Id. at 109. "Where the parties agreed that the digital penetration
+occurred, the evidence of other acts was necessary to rebut [Cosby's] characterization of
+[J-100-2020] - 37
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 39 of 80
+the assault as a consensual encounter." Id. "Furthermore," the court opined, "Ms.
+Constand did not report the assault until approximately one year later, further supporting
+the Commonwealth's need for the evidence." Id. at 110. With regard to the prejudicial
+impact of the evidence, the court suggested that it had sufficiently mitigated any potential
+prejudice when it limited the number of witnesses who could testify (at the second trial)
+to just five of the nineteen witnesses that the Commonwealth requested. Id. The court
+noted that it found all nineteen witness' testimony to be relevant and admissible, but
+limited the number to five so as to mitigate the prejudice to Cosby. The court added that
+it gave cautionary instructions on the permissible use of this evidence, designed so as to
+limit its prejudicial impact. Id. at 110-11.
+Finally, the trial court rejected Cosby's challenge to the admissibility of the contents
+of his deposition testimony to the extent that it concerned his use of Quaaludes in decades
+past. The court opined that Cosby's "own words about his use and knowledge of drugs
+with a depressant effect was relevant to show his intent and motive in giving a depressant
+to [] Constand." Id. at 115. Because the evidence demonstrated Cosby's knowledge of
+the effects of drugs such as Quaaludes, the court reasoned, Cosby "either knew
+[Constand] was unconscious, or recklessly disregarded the risk that she could be." Id.
+As with the Rule 404(b) witnesses, the court found that any prejudicial effect of this
+evidence was mitigated by the court's cautionary instructions. Id. Accordingly, the court
+trial opined that all of the Rule 404(b) evidence was admissible.
+At the conclusion of a second jury trial, Cosby was convicted on all three counts of
+aggravated indecent assault. Following the denial of a number of post-trial motions, the
+trial court deemed Cosby to be a "sexually violent predator" pursuant to the thenapplicable version of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), 42
+Pa.C.S. §S 9799.10-9799.41. The trial court then sentenced Cosby to three to ten years
+[J-100-2020] - 38
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 40 of 80
+in prison. Cosby was denied bail pending an appeal. He filed post-sentence motions
+seeking a new trial and a modification of his sentence, which were denied.
+Cosby timely filed a notice of appeal, prompting the trial court to order him to file a
+concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
+Cosby complied. On May 14, 2019, the trial court responded to Cosby's concise
+statement with its opinion, issued pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).
+A unanimous panel of the Superior Court affirmed the judgment of sentence in all
+respects. Commonwealth v. Cosby, 224 A.3d 372 (Pa. Super. 2019). The Superior Court
+began by assessing Cosby's challenge to the admissibility of the prior bad acts evidence
+under Rule 404(b). The panel observed that a reviewing court must evaluate the
+admission of evidence pursuant to the abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 397.
+Addressing the trial court's rationale regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence
+demonstrating a common plan, scheme, or design, the panel noted that the exception
+aims to establish a perpetrator's identity based upon "his or her commission of
+extraordinarily similar criminal acts on other occasions. The exception is demanding in
+it[s] constraints, requiring nearly unique factual circumstances in the commission of a
+crime, so as to effectively eliminate the possibility that it could have been committed by
+anyone other than the accused." Id. at 398 (citing Commonwealth v.
+, 664 A.2d
+1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995)). Although the common plan, scheme, or design rationale typically
+is used to establish the identity of a perpetrator of a particular crime, the Superior Court
+pointed out that courts previously have also used the exception "to counter [an]
+anticipated defense of consent." Id. (quoting Tyson, 119 A.3d at 361).
+In Tyson, Jermeel Omar Tyson brought food to his victim, who was feeling ill.
+Tyson, 119 A.3d at 356. While Tyson remained in the residence, the victim fell asleep.
+When she awoke some time later, Tyson was having vaginal intercourse with her. She
+[J-100-2020] - 39
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 41 of 80
+told Tyson to stop, and he complied. But, when she fell asleep a second time, he resumed
+the uninvited sexual contact. Tyson was arrested and charged with sex-related offenses.
+Id.
+Before trial, the Commonwealth sought to introduce evidence of a rape for which
+Tyson had been convicted in Delaware twelve years earlier. Id. The Delaware offense
+involved a victim of the same race and of a similar age as the victim in Tyson. Id. The
+Delaware victim similarly was casually acquainted with Tyson, invited Tyson into her
+home, was in a compromised state, and awoke to find Tyson engaged in vaginal
+intercourse with her. Id. at 357. The trial court declined to admit the Rule 404(b) evidence
+against Tyson. Id. at 356. On interlocutory appeal, the Superior Court reversed the trial
+court's decision, finding that the proffered evidence was admissible. Id. at 363. The court
+reasoned that the "relevant details and surrounding circumstances of each incident further
+reveal criminal conduct that is sufficiently distinctive to establish [that Tyson] engaged in
+a common plan or scheme." Id. at 360.18 Notably, the Tyson Court found the twelve-year
+gap between Tyson's Delaware conviction and the offense at issue to be "less important"
+when compared to the strength of the similarities between the crimes. Id. at 361.
+With Tyson in mind, the Superior Court turned its attention to the case sub judice.
+Based upon the similarities between Constand's allegations and those of Cosby's other
+accusers identified by the trial court, the Superior Court agreed that the accounts of the
+18
+The en banc majority opinion in Tyson was authored by then-President Judge
+Gantman and joined by then-Judge Mundy, President Judge Emeritus
+Elliott, and
+Judges Panella, Shogan, and Olson. Then-Judge Donohue dissented, joined by
+President Judge Emeritus Bender
+and Judge Ott, opining that the majority
+"overemphasize[d] the few similarities that exist between Tyson's prior rape conviction
+and the present matter while completely dismissing the several important differences
+between the two incidents." Tyson, 119 A.3d at 363 (Donohue, J., dissenting). The
+dissent further disputed the en banc majority's reliance upon the need for the prior bad
+acts evidence "to bolster the credibility of the Commonwealth's only witness where there
+is no indication that the witness is otherwise impeachable." Id. at 364.
+[J-100-2020] - 40
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 42 of 80
+five prior bad acts witnesses established a "predictable pattern" that reflected Cosby's
+"unique sexual assault playbook." Cosby, 224 A.3d at 402. Accordingly, the panel
+concluded that the witnesses' testimony was admissible to show Cosby's common plan,
+scheme, or design.
+The Superior Court further agreed with the trial court that the prior bad acts
+evidence was admissible to demonstrate the absence of mistake on Cosby's part as to
+Constand's consent. The court concluded that Tyson's rationale was applicable to the
+instant case. The court rejected Cosby's efforts to distinguish Constand's allegations
+from those dating to the 1980s. Cosby emphasized the fact that the relationship between
+Cosby and Constand lasted longer than his relationship with any of the prior bad acts
+witnesses, that Constand was a guest at Cosby's home on multiple occasions, that Cosby
+and Constand had exchanged gifts, that Cosby had made prior sexual advances toward
+Constand, that the nature of the sexual contact differed among the alleged victims, and
+that the alleged prior assaults occurred in hotel rooms or at the home of a third party,
+while the incident with Constand occurred in Cosby's home. Id. at 401-02. The Superior
+Court dismissed these apparent dissimilarities as unimportant, opining that "filt is
+impossible for two incidents of sexual assault involving different victims to be identical in
+all respects." Id. at 402. The court added that it would be "simply unreasonable" to require
+two incidents to be absolutely identical in order to be admissible under Rule 404(b), and
+concluded that "'i]t is the pattern itself, and not the mere presence of some inconsistencies
+between the various assaults, that determines admissibility under these exceptions." Id.
+As to the temporal gap between the prior bad acts and the incident involving
+Constand, the Superior Court acknowledged that, even if the evidence were otherwise
+admissible under Rule 404(b), it "will be rendered inadmissible if it is too remote." Id. at
+405 (quoting Commonwealth v. Shively, 424 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. 1981)). The panel
+[J-100-2020] - 41
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 43 of 80
+agreed with the trial court's statement that the significance of the age of a prior bad act is
+"inversely proportional" to the similarity between the prior bad act and the facts underlying
+the charged offense. Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Aikens, 990 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Pa.
+Super. 2010)). Although the panel recognized the significant lag in time between the
+events in question, it relied upon the similarities as found by the trial court to conclude
+that "the at-issue time gap is relatively inconsequential." Id. "Moreover," the panel opined,
+"because [Cosby's] identity in this case was not in dispute (as he claimed he only engaged
+in consensual sexual contact with [Constand]), there was no risk of misidentification"
+through the admission of the prior bad acts evidence, "despite the gap in time." Id.
+Additionally, the Superior Court rejected Cosby's contention that the trial court had
+failed to weigh adequately the prejudicial impact of the prior bad acts evidence. The panel
+highlighted the fact that the trial court provided the jury with cautionary instructions on the
+use of the evidence, as well as that court's decision to limit the number of prior bad acts
+witnesses to five. These steps, in the Superior Court's view, were sufficient to mitigate
+the prejudicial impact of the evidence. Id.
+The Superior Court dealt separately with Cosby's Rule 404(b) challenge to the use
+of his deposition testimony regarding his provision of Quaaludes to women in the past.
+The court rejected Cosby's "attempts to draw a hard distinction between Quaaludes and
+Benadryl," and noted that "the jury was free to disbelieve [Cosby's] assertion that he only
+provided [Constand] with Benadryl." Id. at 420. The court credited the Commonwealth's
+argument that Cosby's familiarity with Quaaludes was suggestive of his mens
+inasmuch as it was "highly probative of 'the circumstances known to him for purposes of
+determining whether he acted with the requisite mens for the offense of aggravated
+indecent assault—recklessness." Id. (quoting Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2)). Moreover, Cosby's
+"knowledge of the use of central nervous system depressants, coupled with his likely past
+[J-100-2020] - 42
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 44 of 80
+use of the same with the [prior bad acts] witnesses, were essential to resolving the
+otherwise he-said-she-said nature of [Constand's] allegations." Id. The Superior Court
+added that the trial court did not err in determining that the probative value of this evidence
+outweighed its potential for unfair prejudice, inasmuch as, "in a vacuum, Cosby's use and
+distribution of a then-legal 'party drug' nearly half a century ago did not appear highly
+prejudicial," and "only becomes significantly prejudicial, and fairly so, when, in the context
+of other evidence, it establishes Cosby's knowledge of and familiarity with central nervous
+system depressants for purposes of demonstrating that he was at least reckless" in giving
+Constand such a drug before having sexual contact with her. Id. at 420-21 (emphasis in
+original) (cleaned up). The court added that any potential for unfair prejudice was
+mitigated substantially by the court's cautionary instructions, and that, accordingly, there
+was no error in the admission of this evidence. Id. at 421.
+Turning to Cosby's claims relating to the enforceability of the non-prosecution or
+immunity decision rendered by then-District Attorney Castor, the Superior Court viewed
+this as a challenge to the denial of a motion to quash a criminal complaint, which would
+be evaluated under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 410. Like the trial court, the
+panel found no "authority suggesting that a district attorney 'may unilaterally confer
+transactional immunity through a declaration as the sovereign."" Id. at 411 (quoting
+T.C.O. at 62). Therefore, the court opined, "it is clear on the face of the record that the
+trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there was no enforceable nonprosecution agreement in this case." Id. The court added: "Even assuming Mr. Castor
+promised not to prosecute [Cosby], only a court order can convey such immunity. Such
+promises exist only as exercises of prosecutorial discretion, and may be revoked at any
+time." Id. The court discussed the immunity statute and observed that it provides that "a
+district attorney may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated
+[J-100-2020] - 43
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 45 of 80
+court...." Id. (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947(b)). Because no such order existed here, the
+Superior Court concluded that it could "ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court's
+determination that [Cosby] was not immune from prosecution, because Mr. Castor failed
+to seek or obtain an immunity order pursuant to Section 5947." Id. at 412. "Only a court
+order conveying such immunity is legally binding in this Commonwealth." Id.
+The Superior Court further rejected Cosby's invocation of promissory estoppel
+asserting reliance upon D.A. Castor's assurances, as demonstrated by Cosby's
+cooperation with Constand's civil suit and his decision not to invoke the Fifth Amendment
+during his deposition testimony. The panel opined that Cosby failed to cite sufficient
+authority to establish that a prosecution may be barred under a promissory estoppel
+theory. The panel further agreed with the trial court that, in any event, "it was not
+reasonable for [Cosby] to rely on Mr. Castor's promise, even if the trial court had found
+credible the testimony provided by Mr. Castor and [Cosby's] civil attorney," Attorney
+Schmitt. Id. The panel stated: "We cannot deem reasonable [Cosby's] reliance on such
+a promise when he was represented by counsel, especially when immunity can only be
+granted by a court order, and where no court order granting him immunity existed." Id. at
+413.
+The Superior Court further opined that there was "virtually no evidence in the
+record that [Cosby] actually declined to assert his Fifth Amendment rights at the civil
+deposition based on Mr. Castor's purported promise not to prosecute." Id. Although the
+court noted that Attorney Schmitt was the only witness who could testify that Cosby
+indeed relied upon Castor's purported promise during his deposition (Attorney Schmitt
+did so testify), it emphasized the Commonwealth's argument that Attorney Schmitt
+allowed Cosby to give a statement to the police during the initial investigation, that Cosby
+did not incriminate himself at that point, that Attorney Schmitt further negotiated with the
+[J-100-2020] - 44
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 46 of 80
+National Enquirer on the details of its published interview with Cosby, and that Attorney
+Schmitt negotiated a term of the settlement agreement with Constand that required her
+assurance that she would not cooperate with any future criminal investigation. Thus, the
+Commonwealth argued, and the Superior Court agreed, that "filt was not necessary for
+the trial court to specifically state that it rejected ... Schmitt's testimony, as it is patently
+obvious that his testimony belies his claim that there was some 'promise' from [Mr.] Castor
+not to prosecute." Id. (quoting Commonwealth's Superior Court Brief at 136-37). The
+Superior Court agreed that "the evidence was entirely inconsistent with [Cosby's] alleged
+reliance on Mr. Castor's promise in choosing not to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege
+in the civil suit." Id. at 413-14.
+For the same reasons, the Superior Court rejected Cosby's claim that the trial court
+erred in tailing to suppress his deposition testimony due to the immunity that he
+purportedly should have enjoyed. The court opined that Cosby's suppression argument
+was "contingent upon his claim that Mr. Castor unilaterally immunized [Cosby] from
+criminal prosecution, which we have already rejected." Id. at 414. The panel
+distinguished all of the precedents upon which Cosby relied, including this Court's
+decision in Commonwealth v. Stipetich, 652 A.2d 1294 (Pa. 1995).
+In Stipetich, Pittsburgh police personnel had promised
+and Heidi Stipetich
+that, if they answered questions about the source of the drugs found in their home, no
+charges would be filed against them. After the Stipetiches fulfilled their part of the
+agreement, prosecutors charged them anyway. Id. at 1294-95. The trial court granted
+the Stipetiches' motion to dismiss the charges on the basis of the police promise. Id. at
+1295. This Court ultimately held that the Pittsburgh police department had no authority
+to bind the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office to a non-prosecution agreement.
+Id. However, this Court opined:
+[J-100-2020] - 45
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 47 of 80
+The decisions below, barring prosecution of the Stipetiches, embodied
+concern that allowing charges to be brought after |
+_ Stipetich had
+performed his part of the agreement by answering questions about sources
+of the contraband discovered in his residence would be fundamentally unfair
+because in answering the questions he may have disclosed information that
+could be used against him. The proper response to this concern is not to
+bar prosecution; rather, it is to suppress, at the appropriate juncture, any
+detrimental evidence procured through the inaccurate representation that
+he would not be prosecuted.
+Id. at 1296. Although the Superior Court dismissed this passage from Stipetich as dicta,
+it found the situation distinguishable in any event inasmuch as former D.A. Castor testified
+that there was no "agreement" or "quid pro quo" with Cosby, and, therefore, any reliance
+that Cosby placed upon the district attorney's promise was unreasonable. Cosby, 224
+A.3d at 416-17.
+The Superior Court concluded that it was bound by the trial court's factual findings
+and by its credibility determinations. The trial court had "determined that Mr. Castor's
+testimony and, by implication, Attorney Schmitt's testimony (which was premised upon
+information he indirectly received from Mr. Castor) were not credible." Id. at 417. The
+panel added that the trial court had "found that the weight of the evidence supported its
+finding that no agreement or grant of immunity was made, and that [Cosby] did not
+reasonably rely on any overtures by Mr. Castor to that effect when he sat for his civil
+deposition." Id. Thus, the Superior Court discerned no error in the trial court's decision
+to allow the use of Cosby's deposition testimony against him at trial. 19
+19
+In addition to the Rule 404(b) and non-prosecutions claims, the Superior Court
+ejected a number of other issues raised by Cosby, including an assertion of imprope
+uror bias, a challenge to an allegedly misleading jury instruction, and a contention tha
+SORNA was unconstitutional. Cosby, 224 A.3d at 396, 421-431. Because those issues
+are not relevant to the matters before us, we need not discuss them herein.
+[J-100-2020] - 46
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 48 of 80
+Il. Issues:
+On June 23, 2020, this Court granted Cosby's petition for allowance of appeal,
+limited to the following two issues:
+(1) Where allegations of uncharged misconduct involving sexual contact
+with five women (and a de facto sixth) and the use of Quaaludes were
+admitted at trial through the women's live testimony and [Cosby's] civil
+deposition testimony despite: (a) being unduly remote in time in that the
+allegations were more than fifteen years old and, in some instances, dated
+back to the 1970s; (b) lacking any striking similarities or close factual nexus
+to the conduct for which [Cosby] was on trial; (c) being unduly prejudicial;
+(d) being not actually probative of the crimes for which [Cosby] was on trial;
+and (e) constituting nothing but improper propensity evidence, did the Panel
+err in affirming the admission of this evidence?
+(2) Where: (a) [District Attorney Castor] agreed that [Cosby] would not be
+prosecuted in order to force [Cosby's] testimony at a deposition in
+[Constand's] civil action; (b) [the district attorney] issued a formal public
+statement reflecting that agreement; and (c) [Cosby] reasonably relied upon
+those oral and written statements by providing deposition testimony in the
+civil action, thus forfeiting his constitutional right against self-incrimination,
+did the Panel err in affirming the trial court's decision to allow not only the
+prosecution of [Cosby] but the admission of [Cosby's] civil deposition
+testimony?
+Commonwealth v. Cosby, 236 A.3d 1045 (Pa. 2020) (per curiam). 20
+III. Analysis
+We begin with Cosby's second listed issue, because, if he is correct that the
+Commonwealth was precluded from prosecuting him, then the question of whether the
+prior bad act testimony satisfied Rule 404(b) will become moot.
+On February 17, 2005, then-District Attorney Castor announced to the public, on
+behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, that he would not prosecute Cosby for any
+offense related to the 2004 sexual abuse that Constand alleged. Constand's potential
+20
+In his petition, Cosby also sought this Court's review of his claim of improper juror
+bias and his challenge to the constitutionality of SORNA. We denied allocatur as to those
+two claims.
+[J-100-2020] - 47
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 49 of 80
+credibility issues, and the absence of direct or corroborative proof by which to substantiate
+her claim, led the district attorney to believe that the case presented "insufficient, credible,
+and admissible evidence upon which any charge could be sustained beyond a reasonable
+doubt." Press Release, 2/17/2005 (cleaned up). Given his "conclu[sion] that a conviction
+under the circumstances of this case would be unattainable," D.A. Castor "decline[d] to
+authorize the filing of criminal charges in connection with this matter." Id. In light of the
+non-prosecution decision, Cosby no longer was exposed to criminal liability relating to the
+Constand allegations and thus could no longer invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege
+against compulsory self-incrimination in that regard. With no legal mechanism available
+to avoid testifying in Constand's civil suit, Cosby sat for depositions and, therein, made a
+number of statements incriminating himself.
+D.A. Castor's declination decision stood fast throughout his tenure in office. When
+he moved on, however, his successor decided to revive the investigation and to prosecute
+Cosby. Ruling upon Cosby's challenge to this belated prosecution, the trial court
+concluded that the former district attorney's promise did not constitute a binding,
+enforceable agreement. To determine whether Cosby permanently was shielded from
+prosecution by D.A. Castor's 2005 declination decision, we first must ascertain the legal
+relationship between D.A. Castor and Cosby. We begin with the trial court's findings.
+It is hornbook law that reviewing courts are not fact-finding bodies. O'Rourke v.
+Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1199 (Pa. 2001). Appellate courts are limited to
+determining "whether there is evidence in the record to justify the trial court's findings."
+Id. at 1199 n.6. "If so, this Court is bound by them." Id. However, while "we accord
+deference to a trial court with regard to factual findings, our review of legal conclusions is
+de novo." Id. at n.7 (citation omitted). Indeed, it is a long-standing appellate principle
+that, "with respect to I] inferences and deductions from facts and [l conclusions of
+[J-100-2020] - 48
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 50 of 80
+law, ... appellate courts have the power to draw their own inferences and make their own
+deductions and conclusions." In re Pruner's Est., 162 A.2d 626, 631 (Pa. 1960) (citations
+omitted).
+Here, the trial court presided over the habeas corpus hearing, viewing and hearing
+the witnesses and their testimonies first-hand. From that vantage point, the trial court
+determined that, as a matter of fact, D.A. Castor had not extended a formal promise to
+Cosby never to prosecute him, let alone consummated a formal non-prosecution
+agreement with Cosby. The factual basis for the court's findings was two-fold. First, the
+court characterized the interaction between the district attorney and Cosby as a failed
+attempt to reach a statutorily prescribed transactional immunity agreement. Second, the
+court concluded that the former district attorney's testimony regarding the legal
+relationship between him and Cosby was inconsistent and "equivocal at best." T.C.O. at
+63. Both findings are supported adequately by the record.
+Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5947, when a prosecutor wishes to formalize an immunity
+agreement, he or she "may request an immunity order from any judge of a designated
+court." Id. § 5947(b). Presented with such a request, the petitioned court "shall issue
+such an order," id., upon which a witness "may not refuse to testify based on his privilege
+against self-incrimination." Id. § 5947(c). At the habeas hearing, former District Attorney
+Castor testified that he intended to provide Cosby with transactional immunity. He
+explained that this conferral was predicated upon the state's common-law authority as a
+sovereign rather than any statutory provisions or protocols. T.C.O. at 57 (citing N.T.,
+2/2/2016, at 232, 234, 236). The record does not contradict his testimony. There is no
+evidence, nor any real contention, that the parties even contemplated a grant of immunity
+under Section 5947. The trial court's finding that the interaction between D.A. Castor and
+[J-100-2020] - 49
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 51 of 80
+Cosby was not a formal attempt to bestow transactional immunity upon Cosby is
+supported by the record.
+The trial court's description of former D.A. Castor's testimony as inconsistent and
+equivocal finds support in the record as well. At times, the former district attorney was
+emphatic that he intended his decision not to prosecute Cosby to bind the Commonwealth
+permanently, provided no substantive changes occurred in the case, such as Cosby
+confessing to the alleged crimes or proof appearing that Cosby had lied to, or attempted
+to deceive, the investigators. In addition to the unconditional nature of the press release,
+former D.A. Castor told then-District Attorney Ferman in his first email to her that he
+"intentionally and specifically bound the Commonwealth that there would be no state
+prosecution." N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-5. In his second email to D.A. Ferman, Mr. Castor
+asserted that, by "signing off" on the press release, he was "stating that the
+Commonwealth will not bring a case against Cosby for this incident based upon thenavailable evidence." Id., Exh. D-7.
+Further indicative of his intent to forever preclude prosecution of Cosby for the
+2004 incident, former D.A. Castor testified that the signed press release was meant to
+serve as proof for a future civil judge that Cosby would not be prosecuted, thus stripping
+Cosby of his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Mr. Castor emphasized that his decision
+was "absolute that [Cosby] never would be prosecuted." T.C.O. at 52. The former district
+attorney stressed that his intent was to "absolutely" remove "for all time" the prospect of
+a prosecution, because, in his view, only a steadfast guarantee would permanently strip
+Cosby of his right to invoke the Fifth Amendment. N.T., 2/2/2016, at 67. Mr. Castor also
+expounded upon the purpose of his emails to D.A. Ferman, which he claimed were an
+attempt to inform her that, while he bound the Commonwealth with regard to the 2004
+incident, she was free to prosecute Cosby for any other crimes that she might uncover.
+[J-100-2020] - 50
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 52 of 80
+Although former D.A. Castor stated that he intended permanently to bar
+prosecution of Cosby, he also testified that he sought to confer some form of transactional
+immunity. In his second email to D.A. Ferman, former district attorney Castor suggested
+that his intent in "signing off" on the press release was to assure Cosby that nothing that
+he said in a civil deposition could or would be used against him in a criminal prosecution.
+N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-7. In the same email, he simultaneously expressed his belief that
+"a prosecution is not precluded." Id. As such, the evidence suggests that D.A. Castor
+was motivated by conflicting aims when he decided not to prosecute Cosby. On one
+hand, the record demonstrates that D.A. Castor endeavored to forever preclude the
+Commonwealth from prosecuting Cosby if Cosby testified in the civil case. On the other
+hand, the record indicates that he sought to foreclose only the use in a subsequent
+criminal case of any testimony that Cosby gave in a civil suit.
+The trial court was left to resolve these seeming inconsistencies. The court
+concluded that Cosby and D.A. Castor did not enter into a formal immunity agreement.
+Because the record supports the trial court's findings in this regard, we are bound by
+those conclusions. Pertinently, we are bound by the trial court's determination that D.A.
+Castor's actions amounted only to a unilateral exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This
+characterization is consistent with the former district attorney's insistence at the habeas
+hearing that what occurred between him and Cosby was not an agreement, a contract,
+or any kind of quid pro quo exchange.
+We are not, however, bound by the lower courts' legal determinations that derive
+from those factual findings. Thus, the question becomes whether, and under what
+circumstances, a prosecutor's exercise of his or her charging discretion binds future
+prosecutors' exercise of the same discretion. This is a question of law.
+[J-100-2020] - 51
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 53 of 80
+For the reasons detailed below, we hold that, when a prosecutor makes an
+unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that
+guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of
+fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system
+demands that the promise be enforced.
+Prosecutors are more than mere participants in our criminal justice system. As we
+explained in Commonwealth v. Clancy, 192 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2018), prosecutors inhabit three
+distinct and equally critical roles: they are officers of the court, advocates for victims, and
+administrators of justice. Id. at 52. As the Commonwealth's representatives, prosecutors
+are duty-bound to pursue "equal and impartial justice," Appeal of Nicely, 18 A. 737, 738
+(Pa. 1889), and "to serve the public interest." Clancy, 192 A.3d 52. Their obligation is
+"not merely to convict," but rather to "seek justice within the bounds of the law."
+Commonwealth v. Starks, 387 A.2d 829, 831 (Pa. 1978).
+As an "administrator of justice," the prosecutor has the power to decide
+whether to initiate formal criminal proceedings, to select those criminal
+charges which will be filed against the accused, to negotiate plea bargains,
+to withdraw charges where appropriate, and, ultimately, to prosecute or
+dismiss charges at trial. See, e.g., 16 P.S. § 1402(a) ("The district attorney
+shall sign all bills of indictment and conduct in court all criminal and other
+prosecutions ....); Pa.R.Crim.P. 507 (establishing the prosecutor's power
+to require that police officers seek approval from the district attorney prior
+to filing criminal complaints); Pa.R.Crim.P. 585 (power to move for nolle
+prosequi); see also ABA Standards §§ 3-4.2, 3-4.4. The extent of the
+powers enjoyed by the prosecutor was discussed most eloquently by United
+States Attorney General (and later Supreme Court Justice) Robert H.
+•In his historic address to the nation's United States Attorneys.
+gathered in 1940 at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C.,
+observed that "[t]he prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and
+reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous."
+Robert H.
+1. The Federal Prosecutor, 31 AM. INST. CRIM. L. &
+CRIMINOLOGY 3, 3 (1940). In fact, the prosecutor is afforded such great
+deference that this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States
+seldom interfere with a prosecutor's charging decision. See, e.g., United
+States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (noting that "the Executive
+Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether
+[J-100-2020] - 52
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 54 of 80
+to prosecute a case"); Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295 (noting that "the ultimate
+discretion to file criminal charges lies in the district attorney").
+Clancy, 192 A.3d at 53 (cleaned up).
+As prosecutors are vested with such "tremendous" discretion and authority, our
+law has long recognized the special weight that must be accorded to their assurances.
+For instance, in the context of statements made during guilty plea negotiations, the
+Supreme Court of the United States has held that, as a matter of constitutional due
+process and as compelled by the principle of fundamental fairness, a defendant generally
+is entitled to the benefit of assurances made by the prosecutor. See Santobello v. New
+York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971).2' Santobello holds that, "when a plea rests in any significant
+degree on a promise or agreement by the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of
+the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." Id. at 262 (emphasis
+added).
+This Court has followed suit with regard to prosecutorial inducements made during
+the guilty plea process, insisting that such inducements comport with the due process
+guarantee of fundamental fairness. In Commonwealth v. Zuber, 353 A.2d 441 (Pa. 1976),
+during plea negotiations in a murder case, the prosecutor agreed to recommend to the
+sentencing court that Rickey Zuber receive a sentence of seven to fourteen years in
+prison if he pleaded guilty. Id. at 442-43. The prosecutor also agreed to consent to a
+request that Zuber's sentence be served concurrently with "back time" that Zuber was
+required to serve for a parole violation. Id. at 443. The prosecutor stated the terms of the
+agreement on the record, and the trial court accepted the terms of Zuber's guilty plea and
+21
+In Santobello, the Supreme Court of the United States did not state explicitly that
+it was premising its holding on due process guarantees. Nevertheless, it is only sensible
+to read Santobello's holding as resting upon due process principles becauseas Justice
+Douglas noted in his concurring opinion-without a constitutional basis the Court would
+have lacked jurisdiction over what was otherwise a state law matter. See Santobello, 404
+U.S., at 266-67 (Douglas, J. concurring).
+[J-100-2020] - 53
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 55 of 80
+sentenced Zuber accordingly. However, because the law requires that "back time"
+sentences and new sentences be served consecutively, Zuber was legally obligated to
+begin serving his sentences one after the other, instead of simultaneously. Id.
+Zuber sought post-conviction relief, arguing that the plea as stated in open court
+had to be enforced, statutory law notwithstanding. On appeal to this Court, Zuber argued
+that he was "induced by the specific promise made by the Commonwealth," which
+ultimately turned out to be a "false and empty one." Id. We noted that plea bargaining is
+looked upon favorably and that "the integrity of our judicial process demands that certain
+safeguards be stringently adhered to so that the resultant plea as entered by a defendant
+and accepted by the trial court will always be one made voluntarily and knowingly, with a
+full understanding of the consequences to follow." Id.
+[T]here is an affirmative duty on the part of the prosecutor to honor any and
+all promises made in exchange for a defendant's plea. Our courts have
+demanded strict compliance with that duty in order to avoid any possible
+perversion of the plea bargaining system, evidencing the concern that a
+defendant might be coerced into a bargain or fraudulently induced to give
+up the very valued constitutional guarantees attendant the right to trial by
+jury.
+Therefore, in Pennsylvania, it is well settled that where a plea bargain has
+been entered into and is violated by the Commonwealth, the defendant is
+entitled, at the least, to the benefit of the bargain.
+Id. at 444 (cleaned up).
+We then turned to the remedy to which Zuber was entitled, which was problematic
+because enforcement of the plea necessarily meant compelling an outcome that was
+prohibited by statute. Nonetheless, because, inter alia, Zuber had "reasonably relied
+upon the advice of his counsel and the expression of that specific promise stated in open
+court by the assistant district attorney," id. at 445, he was entitled to the benefit of the
+bargain. Thus, we modified Zuber's sentence by lowering the minimum range to reflect
+[J-100-2020] - 54
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 56 of 80
+the point at which Zuber would have been eligible for parole had the original bargain been
+enforceable by law. Id. at 446.
+Interactions between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant,
+including
+circumstances where the latter seeks enforcement of some promise or assurance made
+by the former, are not immune from the dictates of due process and fundamental fairness.
+The contours and attendant obligations of such interactions also can involve basic
+precepts of contract law, which inform the due process inquiry. The applicability of
+contract law to aspects of the criminal law has been recognized by the Supreme Court of
+the United States, see Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 137 (2009), by the United
+States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see McKeever v. Warden SCI-Graterford,
+486 F.3d 81, 86 (3d Cir. 2007), and by this Court. See Commonwealth v.
+147
+A.3d 517, 531 (Pa. 2016). In order to succeed on a claim of promissory estoppel, the
+aggrieved party must prove that: (1) the promisor acted in a manner that he or she should
+have reasonably expected to induce the other party into taking (or not taking) certain
+action; (2) the aggrieved party actually took such action; and (3) an injustice would result
+if the assurance that induced the action was not enforced. See Crouse v. Cyclops Indus.,
+745 A.2d 606, 610 (Pa. 2000).
+In
+we reexamined the enforceability of terms of plea agreements made
+by prosecutors pertaining to the applicability of sexual offender registration obligations.
+There, three defendants entered into plea bargains with the Commonwealth, each of
+which was formulated in a way that either limited or eliminated the defendants' obligations
+, 147 A.3d at 521-
+under the then-applicable sexual offender registration statute.
+22. However, after some time, our General Assembly enacted the first version of SORNA,
+which fundamentally altered the registration and reporting obligations of sexual offenders,
+including those of the three offenders in
+Each defendant was notified by the
+[J-100-2020] - 55
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 57 of 80
+Pennsylvania State Police that he or she was subject to the intervening statute and thus
+had to comply with the new obligations under SORNA, even though those obligations
+contradicted the terms of each of their plea deals. Id. at 522-523.
+Each of the three offenders filed an action seeking the enforcement of the terms
+of his guilty plea, notwithstanding the fact that those terms conflicted with the newlyenacted statute. Id. at 523-24. Citing Santobello, Zuber, Commonwealth v. Hainesworth,
+82 A.3d 444 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc), and other decisions, this Court held that the
+offenders were entitled to specific performance of the terms of the plea bargains to which
+the prosecutors had agreed.
+147 A.3d at 531-32. We held that, once a
+bargained term is enveloped within a plea agreement, a defendant "is entitled to the
+benefit of his bargain through specific performance of terms of the plea agreement." Id.
+at 533.
+The applicability of contract law principles to criminal negotiations is not limited to
+the plea bargaining process. See United States v. Carrillo, 709 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1983)
+(holding that fundamental fairness requires a prosecutor to uphold his or her end of a
+non-prosecution agreement). For instance, the United States Court of Appeals for the
+Third Circuit has explained that, like plea agreements, non-prosecution agreements are
+binding contracts that must be interpreted according to general principles of contract law,
+guided by "special due process concerns." United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 229 (3d
+Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). And, in Commonwealth v. Ginn, 587 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super.
+1991), our Superior Court similarly held that non-prosecution agreements are akin to plea
+agreements, necessitating the application of contract law principles to prevent
+prosecutors from violating the Commonwealth's promises or assurances. Id. at 316-17.
+Under some
+circumstances, assurances given by prosecutors during plea
+negotiations, even unconsummated ones, may be enforceable on equitable grounds
+[J-100-2020] - 56
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 58 of 80
+rather than on contract law principles. Government of Virgin Islands v. Scotland, 614
+F.2d 360 (3d Cir. 1980), is instructive. In that case, the parties had reached a tentative,
+preliminary plea agreement. But before the defendant could formally enter the plea, the
+prosecutor attempted to add another term to the deal. Id. at 361-62. The defendant
+rejected the new term and sought specific performance of the original, unconsummated
+agreement. Id. The district court denied his request. The Circuit Court of Appeals
+affirmed, holding that, because the agreement was not formalized and accepted by the
+court, the defendant was not entitled to specific performance under a contract law theory.
+Id. at 362. The appellate court noted that, absent detrimental reliance upon the
+prosecutor's offer, a defendant's due process rights were sufficiently safeguarded by his
+right to a jury trial. Id. at 365. The court cautioned, however, that, by contrast, when a
+"defendant detrimentally relies on the government's promise, the resulting harm from this
+induced reliance implicates due process guarantees." Id."
+Considered together, these authorities obligate courts to hold prosecutors to their
+word, to enforce promises, to ensure that defendants' decisions are made with a full
+understanding of the circumstances, and to prevent fraudulent inducements of waivers of
+one or more constitutional rights. Prosecutors can be bound by their assurances or
+decisions under principles of contract law or by application of the fundamental fairness
+considerations that inform and undergird the due process of law. The law is clear that,
+based upon their unique role in the criminal justice system, prosecutors generally are
+bound by their assurances, particularly when defendants rely to their detriment upon
+those guarantees.
+22
+Ultimately, the court did not grant the defendant relief under a theory of detrimental
+reliance because there was "no claim in this case of such reliance." Scotland, 614 F.2d
+at 365.
+[J-100-2020] -57
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 59 of 80
+There is no doubt that promises made during plea negotiations or as part of fully
+consummated plea agreements differ in kind from the unilateral discretion exercised when
+a prosecutor declines to pursue criminal charges against a defendant. As suggested by
+the trial court in the present case, such an exercise of discretion is not per se enforceable
+in the same way that a bargained-for exchange is under contract law. The prosecutor
+enjoys "tremendous" discretion to wield "the power to decide whether to initiate formal
+criminal proceedings, to select those criminal charges which will be filed against the
+accused, to negotiate plea bargains, to withdraw charges where appropriate, and,
+ultimately, to prosecute or dismiss charges at trial." Clancy, 192 A.3d at 53. Unless
+patently abused, this vast discretion is exercised generally beyond the reach of judicial
+interference. See Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295 (noting that "the ultimate discretion to file
+criminal charges lies in the district attorney").
+While the prosecutor's discretion in charging decisions is undoubtedly vast, it is
+not exempt from basic principles of fundamental fairness, nor can it be wielded in a
+manner that violates a defendant's rights. The foregoing precedents make clear that, at
+a minimum, when a defendant relies to his or her detriment upon the acts of a prosecutor,
+his or her due process rights are implicated. See, e.g., Santobello, Baird, and Scotland,
+supra.
+The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section
+9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution mandate that all interactions between the government
+and the individual are conducted in accordance with the protections of due process. See
+Commonwealth v. Sims, 919 A.2d 931, 941 n.6 (Pa. 2007) (noting that federal and state
+due process principles generally are understood as operating co-extensively). We have
+explained that review of a due process claim "entails an assessment as to whether the
+challenged proceeding or conduct offends some principle of justice so rooted in the
+[J-100-2020] - 58
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 60 of 80
+traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental and that defines
+the community's sense of fair play and decency." Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 764 A.2d
+20, 27 (Pa. 2001) (cleaned up). Due process is a universal concept, permeating all
+aspects of the criminal justice system. Like other state actors, prosecutors must act within
+the boundaries set by our foundational charters. Thus, we discern no cause or reason,
+let alone any compelling one, to waive the prosecution's duty to comply with due process
+simply because the act at issue is an exercise of discretion, e.g., whether or not to charge
+a particular suspect with a crime.
+That is not to say that each and every exercise of prosecutorial discretion with
+regard to charging decisions invites a due process challenge. Charging decisions inhere
+within the vast discretion afforded to prosecutors and are generally subject to review only
+for arbitrary abuses. A prosecutor can choose to prosecute, or not. A prosecutor can
+select the charges to pursue, and omit from a complaint or bill of information those
+charges that he or she does not believe are warranted or viable on the facts of the case.
+A prosecutor can also condition his or her decision not to prosecute a defendant. For
+instance, a prosecutor can decide initially not to prosecute, subject to possible receipt or
+discovery of new inculpatory evidence. Or, a prosecutor can choose not to prosecute the
+defendant at the present time, but may inform the defendant that the decision is not final
+and that the prosecutor may change his or her mind within the period prescribed by the
+applicable statute of limitations. Similarly, there may be barriers to a prosecution, such
+as the unavailability of a witness or evidence, which subsequently may be removed, thus
+enabling a prosecution to proceed. Generally, no due process violation arises from these
+species of discretionary decision-making, and a defendant is without recourse to seek the
+enforcement of any assurances under such circumstances.
+[J-100-2020] - 59
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 61 of 80
+An entirely different situation arises when the decision not to prosecute is
+unconditional, is presented as absolute and final, or is announced in such a way that it
+induces the defendant to act in reliance thereupon. When a non-prosecution decision is
+conveyed in such a way, and when a defendant, having no indication to the contrary,
+detrimentally relies upon that decision, due process may warrant preclusion of the
+prosecution. Numerous state and federal courts have found that a defendant's
+detrimental reliance upon the government's assurances during the plea bargaining phase
+both implicates his due process rights and entitles him to enforcement even of
+unconsummated agreements. The cases are legion. 23
+23
+See, e.g., State v. Francis, 424 P.3d 156, 160 (Utah 2017) (holding that, "[w]hen a
+defendant has reasonably and detrimentally relied on a plea agreement, the State should
+not be able to withdraw a plea agreement just because it has not yet been presented to
+the district court ); State v.
+360 S.W.3d 104, 115 (Ark. 2010) (holding that, "when
+the State has entered into an agreement not to prosecute with a prospective defendant
+and the defendant has performed and acted to his detriment or prejudice in reliance upon
+that agreement, the government must be required to honor such an agreement."); People
+v. Rhoden, 89 Cal. Rptr.2d 819, 824 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1999) (explaining "unexecuted
+plea bargains generally do not involve constitutional rights absent detrimental reliance on
+the bargain"); United States v. Streebing, 987 F.2d 368, 372-73 (6th Cir. 1993) (holding
+that the defendant had to demonstrate, inter alia, that he had relied upon the
+government's promise to his detriment before the promise would be enforceable); United
+States v. Savage, 978 F.2d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that a defendant's
+detrimental reliance is an exception to the general rule that defendants are not entitled to
+enforcement of unconsummated plea agreements); State v. Parkey, 471 N.W.2d 896,
+898 (lowa App. 1991) (finding that, in the absence of a showing that the defendant
+warranted); |
+darnetal relied 1202 an 7.20 524, 522(1 Cr. 1982) (stating at vas na
+promise induces a defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by testifying or
+otherwise cooperating with the government to his detriment, due process requires that
+the prosecutor's promise be fulfilled); People v. Reagan, 235 N.W.2d 581, 587 (Mich.
+1975) (noting that, where the defendant was prejudiced by submitting to a polygraph in
+exchange for an agreement that his prosecution would be dismissed, trial court erred in
+refusing to enforce the agreement).
+[J-100-2020] - 60
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 62 of 80
+That is what happened in this case. There has been considerable debate over the
+legal significance of District Attorney Castor's publicly announced decision not to
+prosecute Cosby in 2005. Before the trial court, the Superior Court, and now this Court,
+the parties have vigorously disputed whether D.A. Castor and Cosby reached a binding
+agreement, whether D.A. Castor extended an enforceable promise, or whether any act of
+legal significance occurred at all. There is testimony in the record that could support any
+of these conclusions. The trial court-the entity charged with sorting through those
+facts-found that D.A. Castor made no agreement or overt promise.
+Much of that debate, and the attendant factual conclusions, were based upon the
+apparent absence of a formal agreement and former D.A. Castor's various efforts to
+defend and explain his actions ten years after the fact. As a reviewing court, we accept
+the trial court's conclusion that the district attorney's decision was merely an exercise of
+his charging discretion.24 As we assess whether that decision, and the surrounding
+24
+The dissent agrees—as do we —with the trial court's conclusion that D.A. Castor's
+decision not to prosecute was, at its core, an exercise of the inherent charging discretion
+vested in district attorneys. See D.O. at 1. But the dissent would simply end the analysis
+there.
+In the dissent's view, once a decision is deemed to fall within a prosecutor's
+discretion, that decision "in no way" can bind the actions of future elected prosecutors.
+Respectfully, this perspective overlooks the verity that not all decisions are the same. As
+to routine discretionary decisions, the dissent may be correct. But as we explain
+throughout this opinion, what occurred here was anything but routine. Here, D.A. Castor's
+exercise of discretion was made deliberately to induce the deprivation of a fundamental
+right. The typical decision to prosecute, or not to prosecute, is not made for the purpose
+of extracting incriminating information
+from a suspect when there exists no other
+mechanism to do so.
+The dissent would amalgamate and confine all "present exercises] of prosecutorial
+discretion" within a single, non-binding, unenforceable, and unreviewable category. Id
+We decline to endorse this blanket approach, as such decisions merit, and indeed require,
+individualized evaluation. To rule otherwise would authorize, if not encourage,
+prosecutors to choose temporarily not to prosecute, obtain incriminating evidence from
+the suspect, and then reverse course with impunity. Due process necessarily requires
+that court officials, particularly prosecutors, be held to a higher standard.
+This is
+particularly so in circumstances where the prosecutor's decision is crafted specifically to
+[J-100-2020] - 61
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 63 of 80
+circumstances, implicated Cosby's due process rights, former D.A. Castor's post-hoc
+attempts to explain or characterize his actions are largely immaterial. The answer to our
+query lies instead in the objectively indisputable evidence of record demonstrating D.A.
+Castor's patent intent to induce Cosby's reliance upon the non-prosecution decision.
+In January and February of 2005, then-D.A. Castor led an investigation into
+Constand's allegations. When that investigation concluded, Mr. Castor decided that the
+case was saddled with deficiencies such that proving Cosby's guilt beyond a reasonable
+doubt was unlikely, if not impossible. For those reasons, D.A. Castor decided not to
+prosecute Cosby. To announce his decision, the district attorney elected to issue a signed
+press release—an uncommon tactic in the typical case, but not necessarily so in cases
+of high public profile or interest.
+In that press statement, D.A. Castor explained the extent and nature of the
+investigation and the legal rules and principles that he considered. He then announced
+that he was declining to prosecute Cosby. The decision was not conditioned in any way,
+shape, or form. D.A. Castor did not say that he would re-evaluate this decision at a future
+date, that the investigation would continue, or that his decision was subject to being
+overturned by any future district attorney.
+There is nothing from a reasonable observer's perspective to suggest that the
+decision was anything but permanent. The trial court found contrary indicia in the latter
+portion of the press release, where Mr. Castor "cautioned all parties to this matter that
+[District Attorney Castor] will reconsider this decision should the need arise," Press
+Release, 2/17/2005; N.T., 2/2/2016, Exh. D-4. The trial court's narrow interpretation of
+induce a defendant to forfeit a constitutional right, and where the defendant has relied
+upon that decision to his detriment. The dissent's approach would turn a blind eye to the
+reality of such inducements. Due process does not.
+[J-100-2020] - 62
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 64 of 80
+"this decision" is possible only when this sentence is read in isolation.25 The court ignored
+what came before and after, omitting all relevant and necessary context. The entire
+passage reads as follows:
+Because a civil action with a much lower standard for proof is possible, the
+District Attorney renders no opinion concerning the credibility of any party
+involved so as to not contribute to the publicity and taint potential jurors.
+The District Attorney does not intend to expound publicly on the details of
+his decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue
+weight by jurors in any contemplated civil action. District Attorney Castor
+cautions all parties to this matter that he will reconsider this decision should
+the need arise. Much exists in this investigation that could be used (by
+others) to portray persons on both sides of the issue in a less than flattering
+light. The District Attorney encourages the parties to resolve their dispute
+from this point forward with a minimum of rhetoric.
+Id. (emphasis added).
+25
+There is no doubt that there are two decisions at issue: the decision not to
+prosecute and the decision not to discuss that choice in public. The dissent would
+endorse the trial court's selective interpretation of D.A. Castor's language in the press
+release, finding at a minimum that D.A. Castor's assertion that he would reconsider the
+"decision" is ambiguous. But a plain reading of the release belies such a construction.
+Like the trial court's interpretation of the relevant paragraph of the press release, the
+dissent's finding of ambiguity can result only when one overlooks the context and
+surrounding statements quite entirely. D.A. Castor stated that he did not intend to discuss
+the details of his decision not to prosecute. In the very next sentence, D.A. Castor stated
+that he would reconsider "this decision" if the need arose. In context,
+"this decision" must
+naturally refer to the decision not to discuss the matter with the public. This is so because
+announcing that particular decision was the very purpose of the immediately preceding
+statement, and the subject sentence naturally modifies that prior statement. D.A. Castor
+already had stated earlier in the press release that he had decided not to prosecute
+Cosby. Thus, when D.A. Castor referred to "this decision" in the particular paragraph
+under examination, he was referring not to a decision addressed much earlier in the press
+release but rather to the decision that he had stated for the first time in the immediately
+preceding sentence. Even more compelling is the fact that the entirety of the paragraph
+relates to D.A. Castor's concern about the potential effect that any public statements that
+he would make might have on jurors empaneled in a civil case. Nothing at all in that
+paragraph pertains to the decision not to prosecute Cosby. As noted, D.A. Castor already
+had addressed the non-prosecution decision. There is no support for the notion that D.A.
+Castor was referring to his decision not to prosecute Cosby in the middle of a paragraph
+directed exclusively to: (1) the potential impact that any public explication by D.A. Castor
+might have upon the fairness of a civil case; and (2) D.A. Castor's derivative decision not
+to discuss the matter publicly in order to avoid that potential impact.
+[J-100-2020] - 63
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 65 of 80
+When we review the statement in its full context, it is clear that, when D.A. Castor
+announced that he "will reconsider this decision should the need arise," the decision to
+which he was referring was his decision not to comment publicly "on the details of his
+[charging] decision for fear that his opinions and analysis might be given undue weight
+by jurors in any contemplated civil action." The entire paragraph addresses the district
+attorney's concern that he might inadvertently taint a potential civil jury pool by making
+public remarks about the credibility of the likely parties in that highly anticipated case.
+Then-D.A. Castor expressly stated that he could change his mind on that decision only.
+Nothing in this paragraph pertains to his decision not to prosecute Cosby. The trial court's
+conclusion is belied by a plain reading of the entire passage.
+Our inquiry does not end there. D.A. Castor's press release, without more, does
+not necessarily create a due process entitlement. Rather, the due process implications
+arise because Cosby detrimentally relied upon the Commonwealth's decision, which was
+the district attorney's ultimate intent in issuing the press release. There was no evidence
+of record indicating that D.A. Castor intended anything other than to induce Cosby's
+reliance. Indeed, the most patent and obvious evidence of Cosby's reliance was his
+counseled decision to testify in four depositions in Constand's civil case without ever
+invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
+The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the
+States via incorporation though the Fourteenth Amendment, commands that "In]o person
+... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." U.S. CONST.
+amend. V. The right to refuse to incriminate oneself is an "essential mainstay" of our
+constitutional system of criminal justice. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 7 (1964). The
+privilege constitutes an essential restraint upon the power of the government, and stands
+as an indispensable rampart between that government and the governed. The Fifth
+[J-100-2020] - 64
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 66 of 80
+Amendment's self-incrimination clause "is not only a protection against conviction and
+prosecution but a safeguard of conscience and human dignity and freedom of expression
+as well." Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 445 (1956) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
+We recently discussed the centrality of the privilege against compulsory selfincrimination in the American concept of ordered liberty in Commonwealth v. Taylor, 230
+A.3d 1050 (Pa. 2020). There, we noted that certain rights, such as those enshrined in
+the Fifth Amendment, are among those privileges "whose exercise a State may not
+condition by the exaction of a price." Id. at 1064 (quoting Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S.
+493, 500 (1967)). To ensure that these fundamental freedoms are "scrupulously
+observed," we emphasized that "it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional
+rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon," id. at 1063-64
+(quoting
+v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1886)), and that "the Fifth Amendment
+is to be "broad[ly] constru[ed] in favor of the right which it was intended to secure." Id. at
+1064 (quoting Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892),
+116 U.S. at
+635, and Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 162 (1955)). We stressed that "[t]he value
+of constitutional privileges is largely destroyed if persons can be penalized for relying on
+them." Id. at 1064 (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 425 (1957) (Black,
+J., concurring) 26
+The right against compulsory self-incrimination accompanies a person wherever
+he goes, no matter the legal proceeding in which he participates, unless and until "the
+potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exists." Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1065. It
+26
+To that end, the application of the privilege against self-incrimination is not limited
+to criminal matters. Its availability "does not turn upon the type of proceeding in which its
+protection is invoked, but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure
+which it invites." Id. (quoting Application of Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 49 (1967)). "The privilege
+may, for example, be claimed in a civil or administrative proceeding, if the statement is or
+may be inculpatory." Gault, 387 U.S. at 49.
+[J-100-2020] - 65
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 67 of 80
+is indisputable that, in Constand's civil case, Cosby was entitled to invoke the Fifth
+Amendment. No court could have forced Cosby to testify in a deposition or at a trial so
+long as the potential for criminal charges remained. Here, however, when called for
+deposition, Cosby no longer faced criminal charges. When compelled to testify, Cosby
+no longer had a right to invoke his right to remain silent.
+Cosby was forced to sit for four depositions. That he did not-and could not—
+choose to remain silent is apparent from the record. When Cosby attempted to decline
+to answer certain questions about Constand, Constand's attorneys obtained a ruling from
+the civil trial judge forcing Cosby to answer. Most significantly, Cosby, having maintained
+his innocence in all matters and having been advised by a number of attorneys, provided
+critical evidence of his recurring history of supplying women with central nervous system
+depressants before engaging in (allegedly unwanted) sexual activity with them—the very
+assertion that undergirded Constand's criminal complaint.
+The trial court questioned whether Cosby believed that he no longer had a Fifth
+Amendment right to invoke during the civil proceedings, or whether he would have
+invoked that right had he still possessed it. The court noted that Cosby voluntarily had
+submitted to a police interview and had provided the police with a consent-based defense.
+Cosby repeated this narrative in his depositions. The court found no reason to believe
+that Cosby would not continue to cooperate as he had, and, thus, discerned no reason
+for him to invoke the Fifth Amendment. In other words, it was not that the trial court
+surmised that Cosby had no privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to invoke, but
+rather that Cosby simply chose not to invoke it.
+The trial court's conjecture was legally erroneous. The trial court surmised that,
+although Cosby repeatedly told an exculpatory, consent-based version of the January
+2004 incident, he naturally would have been willing to offer inculpatory information about
+[J-100-2020] - 66
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 68 of 80
+himself as well. Assuming that a person validly possesses the right to refrain from giving
+evidence against himself, he may invoke that right "at any time." See Miranda v. Arizona,
+384 U.S. 436, 473 (1966); Commonwealth v. Dulaney, 295 A.2d 328, 330 (Pa. 1972).
+The fact that Cosby did not assert any right to remain silent to the police or while sitting
+for the depositions is of no moment. Had his right to remain silent not been removed by
+D.A. Castor's decision, Cosby would have been at liberty to invoke that right at will. That
+Cosby did not do so at other junctures is not proof that he held the right but elected not
+to invoke it, as the trial court evidently reasoned. To assume an implicit waiver of the
+right violates a court's "duty .... to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen,"
+and to construe the existence of such rights broadly. Taylor, 230 A.3d at 1064 (quoting
+, supra).
+These legal commandments compel only one conclusion. Cosby did not invoke
+the Fifth Amendment before he incriminated himself because he was operating under the
+reasonable belief that D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute him meant that "the
+potential exposure to criminal punishment no longer exist(ed]." Id. at 1065. Cosby could
+not invoke that which he no longer possessed, given the Commonwealth's assurances
+that he faced no risk of prosecution. Not only did D.A. Castor's unconditional decision
+not to prosecute Cosby strip Cosby of a fundamental constitutional right, but, because he
+was forced to testify, Cosby provided Constand's civil attorneys with evidence of Cosby's
+past use of drugs to facilitate his sexual exploits. Undoubtedly, this information hindered
+Cosby's ability to defend against the civil action, and led to a settlement for a significant
+amount of money. We are left with no doubt that Cosby relied to his detriment upon the
+district attorney's decision not to prosecute him. The question then becomes whether
+that reliance was reasonable. Unreasonable reliance warrants no legal remedy.
+[J-100-2020] - 67
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 69 of 80
+We already have determined that Cosby in fact relied upon D.A. Castor's decision.
+We now conclude that Cosby's reliance was reasonable, and that it also was reasonable
+for D.A. Castor to expect Cosby to so rely. The record establishes without contradiction
+that depriving Cosby of his Fifth Amendment right was D.A. Castor's intended result.27
+His actions were specifically designed to that end. The former district attorney may have
+equivocated or contradicted himself years later with regard to how he endeavored to
+achieve that result, but there has never been any question as to what he intended to
+achieve. There can be no doubt that, by choosing not to prosecute Cosby and then
+27
+The dissent asserts that we have predicated our decision upon the existence of an
+"unwritten promise," which was rejected by the trial court's credibility findings. D.O. at 3.
+To the contrary. As we explained earlier, we have accepted the trial court's findings in
+this regard, and those findings, which are supported by the record, are binding on this
+Court. See, supra, page 48 (citing O'Rourke, 778 A.2d at 1199 (Pa. 2001)). However,
+our deference is limited to the factual findings only; we may draw our own inferences
+therefrom and reach our own legal conclusions. See In re Pruner's Est., 162 A.2d at 631.
+Thus, the trial court's factual finding that no formal bargained-for-exchange, written or
+unwritten, occurred does not constrain our legal analysis, nor does it in any way serve to
+immunize D.A. Castor's actions from constitutional scrutiny. That there was no formal
+promise does not mean that Cosby no longer had due process rights.
+The trial court's credibility finding regarding the existence vel non of a particular
+promise does not allow us to ignore the remainder of the overwhelming evidence of
+record. The record firmly establishes that D.A. Castor's desired result was to strip Cosby
+of his Fifth Amendment rights. This patent and developed fact stands separate and apart
+from the trial court's finding that D.A. Castor never extended a formal promise.
+The dissent would ignore the undeniable reality that Cosby relied to his detriment
+upon D.A. Castor's decision. The dissent does so by shifting the perspective from D.A.
+Castor's actions to Cosby's, focusing in particular upon the fact that Cosby did not record
+the purported agreement or reduce it to writing. As we note in this opinion, in this context,
+neither a promise, nor an agreement, nor a contract, nor evidence of reliance derives
+legal validity only upon being recorded or upon written materialization. The law knows no
+such prerequisite, and Cosby cannot be punished for failing to comply with a legal
+requirement that does not exist. The proof of Cosby's reliance is plain on the face of the
+record. It is the fact that, upon the advice and assistance of counsel, Cosby sat for four
+depositions and incriminated himself, obviously a decision made after and in direct
+reliance upon D.A. Castor's decision.
+[J-100-2020] - 68
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 70 of 80
+announcing it publicly, D.A. Castor reasonably expected Cosby to act in reliance upon his
+charging decision.
+We cannot deem it unreasonable to rely upon the advice of one's attorneys. The
+constitutional guarantee of the effective assistance of counsel is premised, in part, upon
+the complexities that inhere in our criminal justice system. A criminal defendant confronts
+a number of important decisions that may result in severe consequences to that
+defendant if, and when, they are made without a full understanding of the intricacies and
+nuances of the ever-changing criminal law. As Justice Black explained in |
+V.
+Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938):
+[The right to counsel] embodies a realistic recognition of the obvious truth
+that the average defendant does not have the professional legal skill to
+protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his life or
+liberty, wherein the prosecution is presented by experienced and learned
+counsel. That which is simple, orderly, and necessary to the lawyer to the
+untrained layman may appear intricate, complex, and mysterious.
+Consistently with the wise policy of the Sixth Amendment and other parts of
+our fundamental charter, this Court has pointed to the humane policy of
+modern criminal law, which now provides that a defendant, if he be poor,
+may have counsel furnished [to] him by the state, not infrequently more able
+than the attorney for the state.'
+The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not
+comprehend the right to be heard by counsel.
+Even the intelligent and
+educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If
+charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself
+whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of
+evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a
+proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence
+irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and
+knowledge adequately to prepare his defence, even though he [may] have
+a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the
+proceedings against him.
+Id. at 462-63 (cleaned up). Not only was Cosby's reliance upon the conclusions and
+advice of his attorneys reasonable, it was consistent with a core purpose of the right to
+counsel.
+[J-100-2020] - 69
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 71 of 80
+To hold otherwise would recast our understanding of reasonableness into
+something unrecognizable and unsustainable under our law. If Cosby's reliance was
+unreasonable, as found by the lower courts and as suggested by the Commonwealth,
+then reasonableness would require a defendant in a similar position to disbelieve an
+elected district attorney's public statement and to discount the experience and wisdom of
+his own counsel. This notion of reasonableness would be manifestly unjust in this context.
+Defendants, judges, and the public would be forced to assume fraud or deceit by the
+prosecutor. The attorney-client relationship would be predicated upon mistrust, and the
+defendant would be forced to navigate the criminal justice process on his own, despite
+the substantial deficit in the critical knowledge that is necessary in order to do so, as so
+compellingly explained by Justice Black.
+Such an understanding of reasonableness is untenable. Instead of facilitating the
+right to counsel, it undermines that right. We reject this interpretation. We find nothing
+unreasonable about Cosby's reliance upon his attorneys and upon D.A. Castor's public
+announcement of the Commonwealth's charging decision.
+The trial court alternatively suggested that Cosby's belief that he would never be
+prosecuted, thus stripping him of his Fifth Amendment rights, based upon little more than
+a press release, was unreasonable because neither Cosby nor his attorneys demanded
+that the terms of any offers or assurances by D.A. Castor be reduced to writing. This
+reasoning is unpersuasive. Neither the trial court, nor the Commonwealth for that matter,
+cites any legal principle that requires a prosecutor's assurances to be memorialized in
+writing in order to warrant reasonable reliance. We decline to construe as unreasonable
+the failure to do that which the law does not require.
+It also has been suggested that the level of the defendant's sophistication is a
+relevant factor in assessing whether his reliance upon a prosecutor's decision was
+[J-100-2020] - 70
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 72 of 80
+reasonable. Such a consideration is both impractical and unfair. There is no equitable
+method of assessing a particular defendant's degree of sophistication. Any attempt would
+be an arbitrary line-drawing exercise that unjustifiably would deem some sophisticated
+and some not. Nor are there any objective criteria that could be used to make that
+assessment accurately. Would sophistication for such purposes be established based
+upon one's ability to hire one or more attorneys? By the level of education attained by
+the defendant? Or perhaps by the number of times the defendant has participated in the
+criminal justice system? There is no measure that could justify assessing reasonableness
+based upon the so-called sophistication of the defendant.
+The contours of the right to counsel do not vary based upon the characteristics of
+the individual seeking to invoke it. Our Constitutions safeguard fundamental rights
+equally for all. The right to counsel applies with equal force to the sophisticated and the
+unsophisticated alike. The most experienced defendant, the wealthiest suspect, and
+even the most-seasoned defense attorney are each entitled to rely upon the advice of
+their counsel. Notwithstanding Cosby's wealth, age, number of attorneys, and media
+savvy, he, too, was entitled to rely upon the advice of his counsel. No level of
+sophistication can alter that fundamental constitutional guarantee.
+In accordance with the advice his attorneys, Cosby relied upon D.A. Castor's public
+announcement that he would not be prosecuted. His reliance was reasonable, and it
+resulted in the deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right when he was compelled
+to furnished self-incriminating testimony. Cosby reasonably relied upon the
+Commonwealth's decision for approximately ten years. When he announced his
+declination decision on behalf of the Commonwealth, District Attorney Castor knew that
+Cosby would be forced to testify based upon the Commonwealth's assurances. Knowing
+that he induced Cosby's reliance, and that his decision not to prosecute was designed to
+[J-100-2020] - 71
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 73 of 80
+do just that, D.A. Castor made no attempt in 2005 or in any of the ten years that followed
+to remedy any misperception or to stop Cosby from openly and detrimentally relying upon
+that decision. In light of these circumstances, the subsequent decision by successor
+D.A.s to prosecute Cosby violated Cosby's due process rights. No other conclusion
+comports with the principles of due process and fundamental fairness to which all aspects
+of our criminal justice system must adhere.2
+Having identified a due process violation here, we must ascertain the remedy to
+which Cosby is entitled. We note at the outset that specific performance does not
+automatically apply in these circumstances. As a general rule, specific performance is
+reserved for remedying an injured party to a fully consummated agreement, such as an
+agreed-upon and executed plea bargain. Commonwealth v. Spence, 627 A.2d 1176,
+1184 (Pa. 1993). '''Specific performance' is a traditional contract remedy that is available
+when monetary damages are inadequate."
+. 147 A.3d at 532 (citing BLack's LAw
+DICTIONARY 1425 (8th ed. 2004) (defining "specific performance" as, inter alia, "a courtordered remedy that requires precise fulfillment of a legal or contractual obligation when
+monetary damages are inappropriate or inadequate").
+This does not mean that specific performance is unavailable entirely. It only means
+that the remedy does not naturally flow to someone under these circumstances as an
+automatic consequence of contract law. Specific performance is awarded only when
+equity and fundamental fairness command it. See Scotland, at 614 F.2d at 365 (stating
+that, if "the defendant detrimentally relies on the government's promise, the resulting harm
+from this induced reliance implicates due process guarantees"); see also Commonwealth
+v. Mebane, 58 A.3d 1243 (Pa. Super. 2012) (upholding trial court ruling that fundamental
+28
+See Khan v. State Bd. of Auctioneer Exam'rs, 842 A.2d 936, 946 (Pa. 2004)
+("Substantive due process is the esoteric concept interwoven within our judicial
+framework to guarantee fundamental fairness and substantial justice ....") (cleaned up).
+[J-100-2020] - 72
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 74 of 80
+fairness required enforcement of the prosecution's plea offer that was later withdrawn,
+where the defendant detrimentally relied upon the offer); Commonwealth v. McSorley,
+485 A.2d 15, 20 (Pa. Super. 1984), aff'd, 506 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1986) (per curiam) (enforcing
+an incomplete agreement based upon detrimental reliance). As noted earlier, the
+principle of fundamental fairness, as embodied in our Constitutions, requires courts to
+examine whether the challenged "conduct offends some principle of justice so rooted in
+the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental and that
+defines the community's sense of fair play and decency." Kratsas, 764 A.2d at 27.
+In our view, specific performance of D.A. Castor's decision, in the form of barring
+Cosby's prosecution for the incident involving Constand, is the only remedy that comports
+with society's reasonable expectations of its elected prosecutors and our criminal justice
+system. It bears repeating that D.A. Castor intended his charging decision to induce the
+waiver of Cosby's fundamental constitutional right, which is why the prosecutor rendered
+his decision in a very public manner. Cosby reasonably relied to his detriment upon that
+decade-old decision when he declined to attempt to avail himself of his privilege against
+compulsory self-incrimination and when he provided Constand's civil attorneys with
+inculpatory statements. Under these circumstances, neither our principles of justice, nor
+society's expectations, nor our sense of fair play and decency, can tolerate anything short
+of compelling the
+County District Attorney's Office to stand by the decision
+of its former elected head.
+In Stipetich, we briefly contemplated a remedy for the breach of a defective nonprosecution agreement. In that case, Stipetich agreed with the police that, if he revealed
+his source for obtaining drugs, no charges would be filed against him or his wife.
+Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1294-95. Even though Stipetich fulfilled his end of the bargain,
+charges still were filed against him and his wife. Id. at 1295. The Stipetiches sought
+[J-100-2020] - 73
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 75 of 80
+enforcement of the non-prosecution agreement with the police. This Court found that the
+non-prosecution agreement was invalid, because the police did not have the authority to
+make it. Only a prosecutor holds that power. Id.
+We recognized that what befell the Stipetiches may have been "fundamentally
+unfair," particularly if their discussions with the police produced additional evidence of
+criminality, including possibly self-incriminating statements. Id. at 1296. In dicta, we
+suggested that the remedy might be to suppress the evidence or statements that were
+obtained after the police purported to bind the Commonwealth in a non-prosecution
+agreement. Id.
+This remedy is insufficient here, for a number of reasons. First, as noted, the
+remedy statement was dicta, and is not the law in Pennsylvania. Second, the
+circumstances that led to the suggestion of that remedy are markedly different than those
+that occurred in the present case. In Stipetich, the agreement was formulated with
+arresting officers, who lacked the authority to make the promise not to prosecute. Here,
+conversely, the non-prosecution decision was made by the elected District Attorney of
+County, whose public announcement of that decision was fully within his
+authority, and was objectively worthy of reasonable reliance. Finally, a one-size-fits-all
+remedy does not comport with the individualized due process inquiry that must be
+undertaken. As outlined above, a court must ascertain, contemplating the individual
+circumstances of each case, the remedy that accords with the due process of law. In
+some instances, suppression of evidence may be an adequate remedy; in others, only
+specific enforcement will suffice.
+Here, only full enforcement of the decision not to prosecute can satisfy the
+fundamental demands of due process. See
+676 F.2d at 528 (explaining that, when
+a promise induces a defendant to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by testifying or
+[J-100-2020] - 74
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 76 of 80
+otherwise cooperating with the government to his detriment, due process requires that
+the prosecutor's promise be fulfilled). In light of the extent and duration of Cosby's
+reliance, induced as intended by then-District Attorney Castor, no other remedy will do.
+Anything less under these circumstances would permit the Commonwealth to extract
+incriminating evidence from a defendant who relies upon the elected prosecutor's words,
+actions, and intent, and then use that evidence against that defendant with impunity.
+The circumstances before us here are rare, if not entirely unique. While this
+controversy shares some features of earlier cases that contemplate the constitutional role
+of prosecutors, that import contract principles into the criminal law, and that address the
+binding nature of prosecutorial promises in plea agreements and in other situations-as
+well as breaches of those promises—there are no precedents directly on point that would
+make the remedy question an easy one. As the concurring and dissenting opinion
+("CDO") observes, the circumstances of this case present a "constellation of ... unusual
+conditions."29 It is not at all surprising, then, that a reasonable disagreement arises
+regarding the remedy that must be afforded for what we and the CDO agree was a
+violation of Cosby's due process rights.
+In our respectful judgment, the CDO's proposed remedy, a third criminal trial of
+Cosby-albeit one without his deposition testimony-falls short of the relief necessary to
+remedy the constitutional violation. Specific performance is rarely warranted, and should
+be imposed only when fairness and equity demand it. As the CDO notes, such a remedy
+generally should be afforded only under "drastic circumstances where the defendant
+detrimentally relies on an inducement and cannot be returned to the status quo ante. "30
+29
+30
+See CDO at 4.
+Id. at 9.
+[J-100-2020] - 75
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 77 of 80
+Our disagreement with the CDO arises concerning its view that mere suppression of
+Cosby's deposition testimony will remedy his constitutional harm and "fully" restore him
+to where he stood before he detrimentally relied upon D.A. Castor's inducement.31 This
+perspective understates the gravity of Cosby's harm in this case, and suppression alone
+is insufficient to provide a full remedy of the consequences of the due process violation.
+The CDO would limit our assessment of the harm suffered by Cosby to the
+Commonwealth's use of the deposition testimony at his two trials. But the harm is far
+greater than that, and it began long before even the first trial. It must be remembered
+that D.A. Castor's decision not to prosecute Cosby, and to announce that decision orally
+and in a written press release, was not designed to facilitate the use of testimony against
+Cosby in a future criminal trial. Instead, D.A. Castor induced Cosby's forfeiture of his Fifth
+Amendment rights as a mechanism and a lever to aid Constand's civil action and to
+improve the chances that she would receive at least a monetary benefit for the abuse that
+she suffered, given that D.A. Castor had determined that Constand would not, and could
+not, get relief in a criminal trial. Through his deliberate efforts, D.A. Castor effectively
+forced Cosby to participate against himself in a civil case in a way that Cosby would not
+have been required to do had he retained his constitutional privilege against selfincrimination. To say the least, this development significantly weakened Cosby's legal
+position. Cosby was compelled to give inculpatory evidence that led ultimately to a multimillion dollar settlement. The end result was exactly what D.A. Castor intended: Cosby
+gave up his rights, and Constand received significant financial relief.
+Under these circumstances, where our equitable objective in remedying a due
+process violation is to restore an aggrieved party to the status he held prior to that
+violation, exclusion of the deposition testimony from a third criminal trial, and nothing
+31
+Id. at 5.
+[J-100-2020] - 76
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 78 of 80
+more, falls short of what our law demands. Though this appeal emanates from Cosby's
+criminal convictions, we cannot ignore the true breadth of the due process violation. The
+deprivation includes the fact that D.A. Castor's actions handicapped Cosby in the
+derivative civil suit. Nor can we ignore the fact that weakening Cosby's position in that
+civil case was precisely why D.A. Castor proceeded as he did. Suppression of evidence
+in a third criminal trial can never restore Cosby to the position he held before he forfeited
+his Fifth Amendment rights. The consequences of D.A. Castor's actions include the civil
+matter, and no exclusion of deposition testimony can restore Cosby's injuries in that
+regard.
+It was not only the deposition testimony that harmed Cosby. As a practical matter,
+the moment that Cosby was charged criminally, he was harmed: all that he had forfeited
+earlier, and the consequences of that forfeiture in the civil case, were for naught. This
+was, as the CDO itself characterizes it, an unconstitutional "coercive bait-and-switch."32
+It is the true and full breadth of the consequences of the due process violation that
+separates this case from the cases relied upon by the CDO, including Stipetich.33 Each
+of those prosecutions involved defective or unenforceable promises that resulted in
+suppression remedies. Critically, none of them featured the additional harm inflicted in
+this case. In none of those cases did the effects of the constitutional violation extend to
+matters beyond the criminal trial, as was the circumstance here. Accordingly, none of
+those cases support, much less compel, the limited remedy that the CDO proffers.
+The impact of the due process violation here is vast. The remedy must match that
+impact.
+Starting with D.A. Castor's inducement, Cosby gave up a fundamental
+32
+Id. at 1.
+33
+See CDO at 6-8 (citing Stipetich, Commonwealth v. Peters, 373 A.2d 1055 (Pa.
+1977); Commonwealth v.
+611 A.2d 199 (Pa. 1922); People v. Gallego, 424
+N.W.2d 470 (Mich. 1988); and United States v. Blue, 384 U.S. 251 (1966)).
+[J-100-2020] - 77
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 79 of 80
+constitutional right, was compelled to participate in a civil case after losing that right,
+testified against his own interests, weakened his position there and ultimately settled the
+case for a large sum of money, was tried twice in criminal court, was convicted, and has
+served several years in prison. All of this started with D.A. Castor's compulsion of Cosby's
+reliance upon a public proclamation that Cosby would not be prosecuted. The CDO's
+remedy for all of this would include subjecting Cosby to a third criminal trial. That is no
+remedy at all. Rather, it is an approach that would place Cosby nowhere near where he
+was before the due process violation took root.
+There is only one remedy that can completely restore Cosby to the status quo ante.
+He must be discharged, and any future prosecution on these particular charges must be
+barred. We do not dispute that this remedy is both severe and rare. But it is warranted
+here, indeed compelled. The CDO would shun this remedy because (at least in part) it
+might thwart the "public interest in having the guilty brought to book." It cannot be
+gainsaid that society holds a strong interest in the prosecution of crimes. It is also true
+that no such interest, however important, ever can eclipse society's interest in ensuring
+that the constitutional rights of the people are vindicated. Society's interest in prosecution
+does not displace the remedy due to constitutionally aggrieved persons.
+IV. Conclusion
+We do not question the discretion that is vested in prosecutors "over whether
+charges should be brought in any given case." Stipetich, 652 A.2d at 1295. We will not
+undermine a prosecutor's "general and widely recognized power to conduct criminal
+litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the Commonwealth, and to decide whether and
+when to prosecute, and whether and when to continue or discontinue a case." Id. (quoting
+34
+See CDO (quoting Blue, 384 U.S. at 255).
+[J-100-2020] - 78
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 80 of 80
+Commonwealth v. DiPasquale, 246 A.2d 430, 432 (Pa. 1968)). The decision to charge,
+or not to charge, a defendant can be conditioned, modified, or revoked at the discretion
+of the prosecutor.
+However, the discretion vested in our Commonwealth's prosecutors, however
+vast, does not mean that its exercise is free of the constraints of due process. When an
+unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and
+reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some
+instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision
+is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution
+that was foregone for more than a decade. No mere changing of the guard strips that
+circumstance of its inequity. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 513 S.E.2d 676, 682 n. 1 (W.Va.
+1998) (explaining that "any change in the duly elected prosecutor does not affect the
+standard of responsibility for the office"). A contrary result would be patently untenable.
+It would violate long-cherished principles of fundamental fairness. It would be antithetical
+to, and corrosive of, the integrity and functionality of the criminal justice system that we
+strive to maintain.
+For these reasons, Cosby's convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated,
+and he is discharged. 35
+Justices Todd, Donohue and Mundy join the opinion.
+Justice Dougherty files a concurring and dissenting opinion in which
+Chief Justice Baer joins.
+Justice Saylor files a dissenting opinion.
+Accordingly, we do not address Cosby's other issue.
+[J-100-2020] - 79
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4fe2cd324f4e8d585587fb6e72ed420f721fc14ce4695d72aa20e26f001ca89.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4fe2cd324f4e8d585587fb6e72ed420f721fc14ce4695d72aa20e26f001ca89.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28b19c0236b53d4dfad23882363b4cc5301e4587
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e4fe2cd324f4e8d585587fb6e72ed420f721fc14ce4695d72aa20e26f001ca89.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1084,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e4fe2cd324f4e8d585587fb6e72ed420f721fc14ce4695d72aa20e26f001ca89",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 93,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8e7d3803bd76ca5843763c21dd698162a01c5e5ecaf9d18f9b207358f5163d05",
+  "output_sha256": "285898ed204debfcea081c51a335b33322b15fd8908d49412b5b144005350c54",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5064edad73214a5870be6bcf03a2d3eac8d8d0dedc7fc6e8194d0abc191cba2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5064edad73214a5870be6bcf03a2d3eac8d8d0dedc7fc6e8194d0abc191cba2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0c627db192967f81c4bb6751b777ab179379160
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5064edad73214a5870be6bcf03a2d3eac8d8d0dedc7fc6e8194d0abc191cba2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+TERBUR
+GOLDBERGER & WEISS, PA.
+I R. ATTERBURY
+*JACKA GOLDBERGER
+"JASON S. WEISS
+* Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney
+† Member of New Jersey & Florida Bars
+October 5, 2016
+Via Email: SweetNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+RE:
+- V. Maxwell
+Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Dear Judge Sweet,
+This firm represents witness Jeffrey Epstein in the above referenced matter.
+On September 30, 2016, Defendant Maxwell filed a Motion to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey
+Epstein. Mr. Epstein's response pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6. 1 would be due on October
+7, 2016
+I have discussed this matter with counsel for Defendant Maxwell, Jeff Pagliuca, who has
+no objection to the granting of a ten day extension for filing a response to Defendant's
+Motion to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein requests that the
+time period for filing his response be extended until October 17, 2016.
+Very tru
+ly yours,
+INV
+Jack A. Goldberger
+Admitted Pro hac vice
+JAG/sIm
+co: Jeff Pagliuca, Esq.
+One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+p 561.659.8300 f561.835.8691 www.agwpa.com
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5064edad73214a5870be6bcf03a2d3eac8d8d0dedc7fc6e8194d0abc191cba2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5064edad73214a5870be6bcf03a2d3eac8d8d0dedc7fc6e8194d0abc191cba2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf1e37f584de71a767dbfed4f135724cfca30f84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5064edad73214a5870be6bcf03a2d3eac8d8d0dedc7fc6e8194d0abc191cba2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e5064edad73214a5870be6bcf03a2d3eac8d8d0dedc7fc6e8194d0abc191cba2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "beffd81af568286b9a080188a0c0562d606b7bb8e6fbf5ac268bea6d1f3bb02b",
+  "output_sha256": "f8fb4fdac5d2126d289eb3e075c08d3b11fd2a1b9decb143db37d497fd83a862",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e517cdb18617690a428b5547f2d1de46a8c3a7f2988021461017d575a97e57e1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e517cdb18617690a428b5547f2d1de46a8c3a7f2988021461017d575a97e57e1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12ad05be646f98dedce2030e1f1148bd5e2482e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e517cdb18617690a428b5547f2d1de46a8c3a7f2988021461017d575a97e57e1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 800-1
+Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
+TO BRING PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICE(S)
+OR GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING DEVICE(S)
+INTO THE COURTHOUSES OF THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+FOR USE IN A PROCEEDING OR TRIAL
+The following Order is subject to the definitions, obligations and restrictions imposed
+pursuant to Standing Order M10-468, as Revised. Upon submission of written application to
+this Court, it is hereby
+ORDERED that the following attorney(s) are authorized to bring the Personal Electronic
+Device(s) and/or the General Purpose Computing Device(s) (collectively, "Devices") listed below
+into the Courthouse for use in a proceeding or trial in the action
+captioned
+V. MAXWELL
+_ No. 15-Cv-07433
+The date(s) for which such authorization is provided is (are) MARCH 30, 2017 - JUNE 16, 2017
+Attorney
+Device(s)
+1. DAVID BOIES, ESO.
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+2. SIGRID MCCAWLEY, ESO.
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+MEREDITH
+ESQ.
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+(Attach Extra Sheet If Needed)
+The attorney(s) identified in this Order must present a copy of this Order when entering
+SO ORDERED:
+Dated:
+United States Judge
+Revised: February 26, 2014
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 800-1 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 2
+Standing Order M10-468, as Revised
+PAGE 2
+V. MAXWELL, No: 15-CV-07433-RWS.
+The date(s) for which such authorization is provided (are): MARCH 30, 2017 - JUNE 16, 201Z.
+ATTORNEYS
+DEVICE(S)
+4. SANDRA PERKINS BORGER, PARALEGAL
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+5.
+ESQ.
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+6. BRITTANY
+ESQ.
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+7. PAUL CASSELL, ESQ.
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+8. J. STANLEY POTTINGER, ESQ.
+Laptop, IPAD, Tablet and Cell Phone
+Revised: February 26, 2014
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e517cdb18617690a428b5547f2d1de46a8c3a7f2988021461017d575a97e57e1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e517cdb18617690a428b5547f2d1de46a8c3a7f2988021461017d575a97e57e1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee26f90c0919de0a7490895631c5346710b2aaf2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e517cdb18617690a428b5547f2d1de46a8c3a7f2988021461017d575a97e57e1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e517cdb18617690a428b5547f2d1de46a8c3a7f2988021461017d575a97e57e1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9d5c9dfcbec7a20c6087b0974f9b1ca84da97844e72ef7b7f6a82dd2a038e431",
+  "output_sha256": "acc580e3730062233bac0a54d84726c1dd35cf2e580b0474c1dd65080b5c7d11",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e526b2a47488f2a613ffdac179dee6a83c899f8ad273b5ef9edac9fe6ddfbe9c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e526b2a47488f2a613ffdac179dee6a83c899f8ad273b5ef9edac9fe6ddfbe9c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c8f640e8aed960fd08285ea038eba839cd51a6f8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e526b2a47488f2a613ffdac179dee6a83c899f8ad273b5ef9edac9fe6ddfbe9c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 717 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 'S MOTION IN LIMINE
+TO EXCLUDE THE "BLACK BOOK"
+I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Response in
+Opposition to Motion in Limine to Exclude the "Black Book".
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of |
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley.
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 717 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 3
+Dated: March 15, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+1. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 717 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 15th day of March 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by C/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e526b2a47488f2a613ffdac179dee6a83c899f8ad273b5ef9edac9fe6ddfbe9c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e526b2a47488f2a613ffdac179dee6a83c899f8ad273b5ef9edac9fe6ddfbe9c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b66a94c00ae9608187bcbc1e2091e2813cae0c66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e526b2a47488f2a613ffdac179dee6a83c899f8ad273b5ef9edac9fe6ddfbe9c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e526b2a47488f2a613ffdac179dee6a83c899f8ad273b5ef9edac9fe6ddfbe9c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f886025408ff630a278c8c00b7ff6d8bc1692f8c47cd038f127d8c82241c540b",
+  "output_sha256": "d3384f49fe22cba64bfb5e89c267b5a94d53aac270bef796760351fd72d732df",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54301f73950a2d178d14d2de8ad1fa9ac3cc78668ca521f476a7a8358702d00.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54301f73950a2d178d14d2de8ad1fa9ac3cc78668ca521f476a7a8358702d00.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b94171433803878230e21aecccb626d79bd91a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54301f73950a2d178d14d2de8ad1fa9ac3cc78668ca521f476a7a8358702d00.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 318 Filed 08/01/16
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+•---X
+Sweet, D.J.
+USDO is i
+DOCUR ! !
+ELECTRONICAL: FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE T: 8/1116
+Plaintiff's motions for a finding of civil contempt against
+and
+shall be taken on submission
+returnable August 25, 2016. All papers shall be served in
+accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1 and pursuant to this Court's
+previous orders.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+July 30, 2016
+Suet
+ROBERT
+U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54301f73950a2d178d14d2de8ad1fa9ac3cc78668ca521f476a7a8358702d00.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54301f73950a2d178d14d2de8ad1fa9ac3cc78668ca521f476a7a8358702d00.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa1a1df05641da1d8cfe3418332dd35a12429b72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54301f73950a2d178d14d2de8ad1fa9ac3cc78668ca521f476a7a8358702d00.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e54301f73950a2d178d14d2de8ad1fa9ac3cc78668ca521f476a7a8358702d00",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "185300a4f333c179d9fd276099c3935fd3edb2b0e2de7adc8655cae28abed367",
+  "output_sha256": "c8c56a00da8cb4f05681c1822fa67682ae5fb50ccf8a4add01b5f632eb94224c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54b2e7f84b46694e50e09fa8566c1d1910031ddce28efe5f1d1ced8f73a5d1c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54b2e7f84b46694e50e09fa8566c1d1910031ddce28efe5f1d1ced8f73a5d1c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38b41d40dd7851f82389ed678c2b4e6d7bc8178f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54b2e7f84b46694e50e09fa8566c1d1910031ddce28efe5f1d1ced8f73a5d1c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 743-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54b2e7f84b46694e50e09fa8566c1d1910031ddce28efe5f1d1ced8f73a5d1c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54b2e7f84b46694e50e09fa8566c1d1910031ddce28efe5f1d1ced8f73a5d1c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5dfa508fa4d7ba8ce8e25ad109ec2fd030b9e4f8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54b2e7f84b46694e50e09fa8566c1d1910031ddce28efe5f1d1ced8f73a5d1c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e54b2e7f84b46694e50e09fa8566c1d1910031ddce28efe5f1d1ced8f73a5d1c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "35c64af70a0127c48854ec2a63c544a71f15697fd681bf4849c3d32527690aed",
+  "output_sha256": "bcbaeb33f4491e4868b0d2c1e87e5af0aad2343864388f3899f7a3289c6a3573",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54e46eb4ec9450822f3999bf2d8035e7191c40134ff15a742879eec75c65692.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54e46eb4ec9450822f3999bf2d8035e7191c40134ff15a742879eec75c65692.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fad1b6a57c969fd4249c1097feb3ae535669be02
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54e46eb4ec9450822f3999bf2d8035e7191c40134ff15a742879eec75c65692.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 579 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE
+EXPERT OPINION OF CHRIS
+Sigrid McCawley
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 579 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 3
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+AND
+PAGES 1-19
+FILE UNDER SEAL
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 579 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 31st day of January, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+20
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54e46eb4ec9450822f3999bf2d8035e7191c40134ff15a742879eec75c65692.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54e46eb4ec9450822f3999bf2d8035e7191c40134ff15a742879eec75c65692.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fb946cf012f5315a440d9c5772e56b31e750fc5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e54e46eb4ec9450822f3999bf2d8035e7191c40134ff15a742879eec75c65692.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e54e46eb4ec9450822f3999bf2d8035e7191c40134ff15a742879eec75c65692",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f90024a00db36d8c63449cdadb48d9b1f9d40348b141c6fe5b2a123d12affd44",
+  "output_sha256": "89ee3975699c752974977627b71198c65084bd000ce277ed271a4ada75e76b47",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5797246ddbaccfbe7534a54364a4fe1fb37aa7afeba55ec7d94fb694f087a85.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5797246ddbaccfbe7534a54364a4fe1fb37aa7afeba55ec7d94fb694f087a85.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..633f81844b20b91676a7746f094a33903e6c9a19
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5797246ddbaccfbe7534a54364a4fe1fb37aa7afeba55ec7d94fb694f087a85.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338-9 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5797246ddbaccfbe7534a54364a4fe1fb37aa7afeba55ec7d94fb694f087a85.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5797246ddbaccfbe7534a54364a4fe1fb37aa7afeba55ec7d94fb694f087a85.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93fcab68ebfc38e54cde07842ae4f728b6187921
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5797246ddbaccfbe7534a54364a4fe1fb37aa7afeba55ec7d94fb694f087a85.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e5797246ddbaccfbe7534a54364a4fe1fb37aa7afeba55ec7d94fb694f087a85",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0cc1443e5831f5b326b952008251f86780809fb6808ac240b4b5d51031b034cb",
+  "output_sha256": "17356d2e46c48fbf3a60a8a1c4ac113ceaa71b2c82630d77ad2442562e146389",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5aaf1b3c9b386338a0137ad7d5647ed3ea34f4ff7a07ace211dbb80ea69924e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5aaf1b3c9b386338a0137ad7d5647ed3ea34f4ff7a07ace211dbb80ea69924e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7aab67188bd4b4ba22f1e430aa8cfba9ace9e09f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5aaf1b3c9b386338a0137ad7d5647ed3ea34f4ff7a07ace211dbb80ea69924e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 434
+Filed 09/15/16
+
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICATTY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED:
+915/16
+PAUL G. CASSELL
+Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law
+S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
+383 S. University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+Telephone: 801-585-5202
+)ECEIVE
+SEP 1 12016
+D
+JUDGE SWEET
+September 13, 2016
+Via email: SweetNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Redactions in Sealed Opinion
+Regarding Subpoena to Paul G. Cassel!
+Dear Judge Sweet,
+On August 30, 2016, the Court issues a ruling on Cassell's motion to quash and
+directed the parties to meet and confer within two weeks as to whether any redaction
+were required in the Court's opinion before it was made public. That same day,
+undersigned counsel sent an email to counsel for defendant Maxwell, indicating that it
+was Cassell's position that no further redactions were necessary. Undersigned counsel
+also asked defendant's counsel to either advise the Court that it was both sides' position
+that no redactions were necessary or to contact the undersigned.
+In the two weeks since that email was sent, defense counsel has not responded.
+Accordingly, undersigned counsel sends this letter advising that Cassell believes no
+redactions are required to the Court's opinion.
+Respectfully submitted,
+FICI
+Paul G. Cassell, Esq.- pro se
+Lul
+Q.13:16
+cc: Jeff Pagliuca, Esq. (via email)
+"This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended
+to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5aaf1b3c9b386338a0137ad7d5647ed3ea34f4ff7a07ace211dbb80ea69924e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5aaf1b3c9b386338a0137ad7d5647ed3ea34f4ff7a07ace211dbb80ea69924e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a7725150fc6b8ff96d72ece05a8bba9fd752fd3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5aaf1b3c9b386338a0137ad7d5647ed3ea34f4ff7a07ace211dbb80ea69924e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e5aaf1b3c9b386338a0137ad7d5647ed3ea34f4ff7a07ace211dbb80ea69924e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "058524a619293cf8a82e2c61f42da95d5c07664a32b52d8ce6f34baafb8cb067",
+  "output_sha256": "a90ce4b9de1cbe1f25b9ec85a247b95a80232d55fde41af00951f0729c974af5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5bd8ea6a2fdaa1fc9a91b04139bde946584552932d3e29eabee1422aa7ef223.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5bd8ea6a2fdaa1fc9a91b04139bde946584552932d3e29eabee1422aa7ef223.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9513eb69c59d702d2214ff99cff2612d0c8e472a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5bd8ea6a2fdaa1fc9a91b04139bde946584552932d3e29eabee1422aa7ef223.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 158 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 2
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+February 4, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+Government has had multiple communications with MDC legal counsel regarding the defendant's
+conditions of confinement. This update is based on information provided to the Government by
+MDC legal counsel through those communications.
+The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate
+at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per
+day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant has access to a desktop
+computer provided by the MDC on which to review discovery. Additionally, pursuant to the
+Court's January 15, 2021 Order, the defendant also has access to a laptop computer provided by
+the Government on which to review discovery for the full thirteen hours per day, seven days per
+week. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC desktop computer
+to send and receive emails with her attorneys.
+The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to
+communicate with her attorneys. Due to the elevated number of COVID-19 cases within the MDC,
+in-person visits have been suspended since in or about December 2020. While in-person visits are
+suspended, the defendant has had regular video-teleconference ("VT) calls with her counsel. In
+particular, the defendant has VTC calls with her counsel every weekday for three hours per call.
+If defense counsel requires additional time to speak with the defendant, counsel may request to
+schedule an additional phone call on Saturdays as needed. All of these VTCs and telephone calls
+take place in a room where the defendant is alone and where no MDC staff can hear her
+communications with counsel.
+The defendant's legal mail is processed in the same manner as mail for all other inmates at
+the MDC. All inmate mail is sent to the MDC's mail room, where every piece of mail is processed
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 158 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 2
+Page 2
+before being provided to the inmate recipient. Due to the large number of MDC inmates and the
+volume of mail received at the MDC, this process can take multiple days. As noted above,
+however, the defendant is able to send and receive emails with defense counsel every day and has
+regular communication with counsel via VTC.
+MDC staff conduct two pat-down searches of the defendant per day: once when she is
+moved from her isolation cell to the day room each morning, and once when returns from the day
+room to her isolation cell each night. As part of those searches, the defendant is required to remove
+her mask and open her mouth briefly so that MDC staff, who remain masked during the searches,
+can confirm she has not hidden contraband in her mouth. These pat-down and mouth searches are
+consistent with MDC's policy that all inmates be searched whenever they move to a different
+location within the jail facility. Previously, the defendant attended VTC conferences in a separate
+part of the MDC, requiring that she be searched when taken to and from her VTC calls with
+counsel. Recently, however, the MIDC changed the location of the defendant's VTC calls so that
+the defendant does not need to leave her unit in order to attend VTC calls with her counsel, thereby
+reducing the number of searches. During the suspension of visitation, the defendant has not been
+strip searched. When visitation resumes, the defendant, like all other inmates, will be strip
+searched after any in-person visit.
+In addition, MDC staff search the defendant's cell for contraband once per day. MDC staff
+also conduct a body scan on the defendant once per week to check for any secreted contraband.
+At night, MDC staff are required to confirm that the defendant is not in distress every fifteen
+minutes. To do so, staff point a flashlight to the ceiling of the defendant's cell to illuminate the
+cell sufficiently to confirm that the defendant is breathing every fifteen minutes. The MDC
+continues to assess that these searches are all necessary for the safety of the institution and the
+defendant.
+Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic,
+the Government will promptly provide additional information.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+By:
+Maurene Comey / Alison Moe / Lara Pomerantz
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Tel: (212) 637-2324
+Ce: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5bd8ea6a2fdaa1fc9a91b04139bde946584552932d3e29eabee1422aa7ef223.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5bd8ea6a2fdaa1fc9a91b04139bde946584552932d3e29eabee1422aa7ef223.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0df846d2d787cf9f390a66b453be32ef4672825c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5bd8ea6a2fdaa1fc9a91b04139bde946584552932d3e29eabee1422aa7ef223.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e5bd8ea6a2fdaa1fc9a91b04139bde946584552932d3e29eabee1422aa7ef223",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e7abdd8e7d02032bf7925023aadccce55c003780c739bc21544a708b31e25738",
+  "output_sha256": "92faabe0f0ff886d0ee3c964bd7a763a59935c0d76eaafef7d6634fa0839933e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5cfe9d717aa309febaaf91aa7811b43d6d4a8190cce0001779cf6d0b045fa6f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5cfe9d717aa309febaaf91aa7811b43d6d4a8190cce0001779cf6d0b045fa6f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb56c592d7b864d1fbcfca04b3b72e8bec7bc817
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5cfe9d717aa309febaaf91aa7811b43d6d4a8190cce0001779cf6d0b045fa6f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+JUL-13-29aSeMED 21380 PARADOR FORMANment 296 FileX 9761%05832 Poige 1 of 6
+P. 02/07
+HADDON
+A N
+FOREMAN
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE PILED: 7/19/16
+Laura A
+JUL 132816s)
+wenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+JUDGE SWEET CHANBERS on
+Sure refly
+sordered
+B weet
+7-18-16
+Via Facsimile (212) 805-7925
+United States District Judge
+United States District Court
+Daniel
+Moynihan Courthouse
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street, Room 1940
+New York, New York 10007-1312
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, 15-cy-07433-RWS
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+By this Letter Motion, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell hereby requests the Court strike
+and disregard Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in Response to Defendant's Reply in Support of
+Motion for Sanctions, or in the alternative, permit Ms. Maxwell to file a Sur Sur-
+Reply responding to both the matters raised therein and new documents disclosed
+contemporaneously with the Sur-Reply.
+Defendant's June 20 Motion for Rule 37(b)&(c) Sanctions (Doc. # 231) was fully
+briefed upon Ms. Maxwell's Reply filed on July 8, 2016. On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff
+sent a Letter Motion to this Court requesting leave to file a Sur-Reply and
+contemporaneously therewith and prior to receiving a ruling on her Letter Motion
+Plaintiff filed her Sur-Reply.
+Both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Southern
+District of New York require Icave of Court prior to filing any Sur-Reply. See Colida
+v. Nokia Am. Corp., No. OSCIV.9920(KMW)(HBP), 2006 WL 2597902, at *4
+(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2006) (declining to consider sur-reply and stating "it was
+improper for plaintiff to submit these sur-reply papers without leave of the court");
+see also A. B.C. Home Furnishings, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, 964 F.Supp. 697,
+703 (L.D.N.Y.1997) ("These papers are in the nature of sur reply, and sur sur reply,
+which will not be considered because they were filed without leave of the Court.");
+Nat. Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp. v. TGX Corp., CTV-84-1372, 1992 WL 49996 at *2
+(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 1992) ("This Court will not consider such sur-reply in deciding
+
+
+JUL-13-2 dasHED: 05:37-04840P: OR Rument 296 Find 07. 3038321015
+
+P. 03/07
+Page 2
+the pending motion because [defendant] filed and served it without the leave of
+court.").
+A. No Disclosure of Doctors and Records
+Plaintiff's speciously argues she has "disclosed" treatment providers because their
+names are embedded amongst thousands of belatedly produced documents (some
+produced the same day as her Response). Discovery productions with documents that
+include names of doctors or records does not satisfy her formal Rule 26 "disclosure"
+obligations nor her continuing duty to supplement Interrogatory Responses under
+Rules 26 and 37.
+Rule 26(e)(1)(A) mandates that a party must supplement their initial disclosures as
+well as responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents "in a
+timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or
+response is incorrect and incomplete." "The duty to supplement and correct
+disclosures and responses is a continuing duty and no motion to compel further
+supplementation is required." Lima LS PLC v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No.
+3:12CV1122 WWE, 2014 WI. 2002485, at *2 (D. Conn. May 15, 2014) (citing 6
+Moore's Federal Practice, § 26.131[3] [3d Ed.2012]). This duty is not only triggered
+by a court order but "whenever a party learns that its prior disclosures are in some
+material respect incomplete or incorrect." Jd. (citing Federal Practice, supra at §
+26.13[3]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A) and (B)). Plaintiff still has not listed all of her
+doctor's names nor provided their records and thus has wholly ignored her duty of
+supplementation.
+Plaintiff's duty of supplementation, both of her Rule 26 disclosures and her
+Interrogatory Responses, is not satisfied by producing documents in which one or
+more doctors' names may be embedded, especially in light of the over 7,000
+documents produced by Plaintiff in this case. Pal v. New York Universily, No. 06
+Civ. 5892, 2008 WL 2627614 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2008) (production of documents
+which may contain a witness's name does not meet Rule 26(a)(I) disclosure
+obligations and failure to supplement Rulc 26 disclosures with witnesses name
+resulted in Rule 37 sanctions); In re Savitt/Adler Litig., 176 F.R.D. 44, 49 (N.D.N.Y.
+1997) (parties reference to third party rocords in response to interrogatory was
+improper where i) it failed to respond cach portion of the interrogatory separately and
+fully, ii) the interrogatory did not call for business records, and iii) the records
+referred to were not business records of the party as required to utilize the reference
+to business records permitted by Rule 33(d)).
+
+
+JUL-13-28/sED: D3-7-04RDAPFOR aRument 296 Fied 88. 3038321015)
+
+P. 04/07
+Page 3
+These belatedly produced documents do not include most of the information
+requested in Interrogatories, including the dates and nature of treatment, costs of
+treatment, and name address and phone numbers of providers. The Interrogatory does
+not call for the production of business records - it calls for Plaintiff to identify her
+medical care providers and records concerning their treatment of her. Rule 26 does
+not merely call for production of documents - it requires the identification of
+witnesses with relevant information.
+The Sur-Reply's argument that "
+in her Rule 26 disclosures, stated that
+for computation of medical damages, she would be relying upon medical records
+collected from her nhysicians and expert testimony. After issuing her Rule 26
+disclosures,
+supplemented her discovery on medical providers by
+production of numerous medical records and signing medical releases" simply proves
+that Plaintiff is and remains in willful non-compliance with her discovery obligations
+under Rule 26, Rule 33 and this Court's Order to separately and fully respond to the
+Interrogatory questions regarding her health care providers.
+B. Plaintiff Misrepresents Witness Testimony and Records
+The second issue that would be addressed in a Sur Sur Reply is a correction of
+Plaintiff's misstatements concerning testimony and documents purposefully distorted
+and taken out of context in the Sur-Reply. These include:
+• Corrections concerning the allegations that Dr. Del Mar was Plaintiff's son's
+doctor and that was the reason she did not "remember" to disclose him. The
+treatment records disclose he was seen by her, the purpose of the visit was for
+her depression and to get a mental health plan in place before she was
+deposed in the Dershowitz case, and she never followed up on that treatment
+plan.
+• Corrections concerning the deposition testimony of Dr. Olsen, who testific
+that he could only check potential drug misuse by Plaintiff in Colorado where
+Plaintiff had only lived a few months. Dr. Olsen acknowledged he did not
+check records from - and Plaintiff did not disclose the existence of records
+from -- Florida and Australia where Plaintiff had recently obtained valium.
+When shown documents from Australian ircatment providers, including Dr.
+Harris who terminated Plaintiff's prescription for valium because of his
+concerns, Dr. Olsen Icstified that information would likely have affected his
+valium prescriptions to Plaintifi. Dr. Olsen also acknowledged that Plaintiff
+reacted to being terminated from valium by Dr. Harris by shortly thereafter
+shopping for a new doctor, Dr. Wah Wah Sen, from whom she sought valium
+withoul disclosing Dr. Harris's cessation of valium prescription. This is the
+type of "doctor shopping that Dr. Olsen found concerning and indicated may
+be a sign of addiction.
+
+
+JUL-13-2828 ED. 13-637 CROP FORument 296 Filed 88. 3038321015
+
+P. 05/07
+Page 4
+• Correction to the representation that "nothing in the records or the testimony
+show that
+is an opioid abuser." (Sur-Reply at 2). Dr. Harris
+wrote in 2011, "I told her the contra-indications to continued use of Valium
+and I am not prepared to repeat this script. She really needs to see a
+psychiatrist. Discussed her issues." She then ignored that suggestion and
+went to see Dr. San a few months later, asked for and received from this new
+doctor a prescription for valium 5 mg, without mentioning Dr. Harris. In
+2015, she visited Dr. Olsen without mentioning these events, sought and
+obtained 240 valium tablets. And on April 2016, she visited another new
+doctor, Dr. Donohue, told him her last prescription was for 50 pills which
+lasted 6-12 months (a lie), got a new prescription of 50, and then went back a
+few weeks later asking for more medications. On May 24, Dr. Donohue
+wrote that she "essentially presented wanting another script of endone as her
+neck is still quite painful... will need to watch her for opioid abuse as she
+would be high risk given her stressful life." He then indicated a plan of
+"titrate the opioids down" and "Valium 5 mg Tablet ceased."
+• Correction to Plaintiff's assertion that "it is a misrepresentation to say that
+she has not disclosed any 'pre-2011 Valium provider,' as there was no
+indication that there was one." In fact, Dr. Harris wrote in September 2011
+that Plaintiff was "a very anxious lady, having therapy. Has tried all
+medications to no avail and is only helped by occasional valium." (Harris
+9/9/11 record) (emphasis added). Thus, it is Plaintiff who indicated there was
+a provider who gave her valium prior to 2011.
+• Correction to representations about Ms. Lightfoot. It is Plaintiff who said she
+visited Lightfoot weekly for 2 years and then had weekly phone calls for 7
+months - Ms. Lightfoot has nothing beyond an initial intake form from 2011.
+Ms. Lightfoot is not doing her job "out of charity" - Plaintiff testified she
+paid her $200 every week for 2 years, yet mysteriously no records of such
+payments exist.
+• Correction to the representation about the Emergency Room doctor visits and
+
+
+
+
+P. 08/07
+Page 5
+C. Plaintiff Concedes She Remains Non-Compliant With This Court's
+Order
+Finally, a Sur Sur Reply would address Plaintiff's additional concessions that she
+emains non-compliant with this Court's Order, including the revelation of ye
+nother treating physician in the production on July 11, 2016 (contemporaneousl
+with the Sur-Reply).
+For the forgoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court Strike Plaintiff's Sur-
+Reply or, in the alternative, accept the filing of a Sur Sur-Reply on the issues raised in
+the Sur-Reply.
+Sincerely,
+HADDON,
+AND
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger
+I. P.C..
+
+
+JUL-13-200 askED: 03:08-ФР48000@Agument 296
+File 0/30383
+
+
+P. 07/07
+Page 6
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on July 13, 2016, I electronically served this LETTER MOTION
+TO STRIKE SUR-REPLY IMPROPERLY FILED BY PLAINTIFF via ELECTRONIC
+MAIL on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOlES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsflip.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FI. 33301
+brad@pathtojusticc.com
+. Stanley Pottinger
+19 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5cfe9d717aa309febaaf91aa7811b43d6d4a8190cce0001779cf6d0b045fa6f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5cfe9d717aa309febaaf91aa7811b43d6d4a8190cce0001779cf6d0b045fa6f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e13bd5ad608a61b108cf8e41446130aa9b16bc07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5cfe9d717aa309febaaf91aa7811b43d6d4a8190cce0001779cf6d0b045fa6f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -358,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e5cfe9d717aa309febaaf91aa7811b43d6d4a8190cce0001779cf6d0b045fa6f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 14,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3e880da2e6563c9d0c7c1c45d17ad054b123591b68c8997d534147b3d0ff1684",
+  "output_sha256": "cc560f306e8d90b111365b400e4d4cff8ad9bb8859635d512b90ddccdc1d92e1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5d324bf4a42129678e0ad943fd40972ad5a0280f51c92b6d719fb8027ad5733.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5d324bf4a42129678e0ad943fd40972ad5a0280f51c92b6d719fb8027ad5733.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a52d83ba057f9b76282233d745f0bf167393bf31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5d324bf4a42129678e0ad943fd40972ad5a0280f51c92b6d719fb8027ad5733.md
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 17 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 2
+AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+for the
+Southern District of New York
+VE
+Plaintiffs)
+V.
+Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust
+Company, Inc., NES, LLC, and Darren K. Indyke and
+Richard D. Kahn,
+Defendant(s)
+Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+)
+SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
+To: (Defendant's name and address) Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3
+, US Virgin Islands, 00802
+A lawsuit has been filed against you.
+Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
+ar. 12(2) or a or United at ane ply, or an are or cope ye of complaid or as notici ender Red. 2 Cr
+the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
+whose name and address are:
+J. Stanley Pottinger, Esq.
+Pottinger LLC
+1930 Broadway, Suite 12B
+New York, NY 10023
+917-446-4641 Phone 954-524-2820 (Fax)
+ecf@epllc.com
+If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
+You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
+Date: September 10, 2019
+CLERK OF COURT
+/S/ S. James
+Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
+Sulu 912
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 17
+Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 2
+AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+PROOF OF SERVICE
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
+This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
+was received by me on (date)
+O I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
+on (date)
+; 0r
+] I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
+, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
+on (date)
+, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
+• I served the summons on (name of individual)
+designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
+on (date)
+; or
+, who is
+• I returned the summons unexecuted because
+• Other (specify):
+; or
+My fees are S
+for travel and S
+for services, for a total of S
+0.00
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+Date:
+Server's signature
+Printed name and title
+Server's address
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5d324bf4a42129678e0ad943fd40972ad5a0280f51c92b6d719fb8027ad5733.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5d324bf4a42129678e0ad943fd40972ad5a0280f51c92b6d719fb8027ad5733.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3af909499b2cbcab44a748a2e2ccba0c593d9799
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e5d324bf4a42129678e0ad943fd40972ad5a0280f51c92b6d719fb8027ad5733.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e5d324bf4a42129678e0ad943fd40972ad5a0280f51c92b6d719fb8027ad5733",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "47fb51acb944b5a72734eab8b6b1d2208b029eacc49f18f428853a2fe2b77a33",
+  "output_sha256": "a3459e1bd1b60a6a4c18fd6177d0de5a44c7da4754bf4cf0f99bbb5890feb955",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e604168d4ebc04218993cf1eec5ca7fc4e74e8c470a64727c153f6f9a6c165a0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e604168d4ebc04218993cf1eec5ca7fc4e74e8c470a64727c153f6f9a6c165a0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9f590ebb469211da6726b165f7d38a3c1d51bae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e604168d4ebc04218993cf1eec5ca7fc4e74e8c470a64727c153f6f9a6c165a0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 620 |
+Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+:
+------X
+Reply Brief in Support of Defendant's
+Motion for Summary Judgment
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+AND
+I. P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 620
+Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 4
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+and
+PAGES 1-30
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 620 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 4
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice pending)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Attorneys for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
+31
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 620 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on February 10, 2017, I electronically served this Reply Brief in Support of
+Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bstllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+| Jaffe, Weissing,
+Lehrman, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Fistos &
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+32
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e604168d4ebc04218993cf1eec5ca7fc4e74e8c470a64727c153f6f9a6c165a0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e604168d4ebc04218993cf1eec5ca7fc4e74e8c470a64727c153f6f9a6c165a0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e34adee4c85e7996636e17e3819faf8b454dd01f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e604168d4ebc04218993cf1eec5ca7fc4e74e8c470a64727c153f6f9a6c165a0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e604168d4ebc04218993cf1eec5ca7fc4e74e8c470a64727c153f6f9a6c165a0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b56d733d136891b38976858113e69e7d5a6162d5cdb47cd8fdee11e5cb9f1126",
+  "output_sha256": "20ed027eb926627bfe18f72e15c168284777061662b2146836e6d5dd8a173fdf",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e627fcc3283e76ac4be402d4b98198cac46a7ad35316297736ade7a32ed65914.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e627fcc3283e76ac4be402d4b98198cac46a7ad35316297736ade7a32ed65914.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a179e976d3895b02fe0083a2787dd7c87b40d642
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e627fcc3283e76ac4be402d4b98198cac46a7ad35316297736ade7a32ed65914.md
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 16 Filed 09/10/19 Page 1 of 2
+AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+for the
+Southern District of New York
+VE
+Plaintiffs)
+V.
+Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust
+Company, Inc., NES, LLC, and Darren K. Indyke and
+Richard D. Kahn,
+Defendant(s)
+Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+)
+SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
+To: (Defendant's name and address) Nine East 71st Street, Corporation
+c/o Darren K. Indyke, Esq.
+575 Lexington Avenue, 4th Floor
+New York, New York, 10022
+A lawsuit has been filed against you.
+Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
+are 12 Uni or 52 ora Units sues aie pla, or a fice or coplayte or the rice fares describe in Red. 2 Cir.
+the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney,
+whose name and address are: J. Stanley Pottinger, Esq.
+| Pottinger LLC
+1930 Broadway. Suite 12B
+New York, NY 10023
+917-446-4641 Phone 954-524-2820 (Fax)
+ecf@epllc.com
+If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
+You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
+Date: September 10, 2019
+CLERK OF COURT
+IS/ S. James
+Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
+Suly 915
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 16
+Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 2
+AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+PROOF OF SERVICE
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
+This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
+was received by me on (date)
+O I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
+on (date)
+; 0r
+• I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)
+, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
+on (date)
+, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
+• I served the summons on (name of individual)
+designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
+on (date)
+; or
+, who is
+• I returned the summons unexecuted because
+• Other (specify):
+; or
+My fees are S
+for travel and S
+for services, for a total of S
+0.00
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+Date:
+Server's signature
+Printed name and title
+Server's address
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e627fcc3283e76ac4be402d4b98198cac46a7ad35316297736ade7a32ed65914.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e627fcc3283e76ac4be402d4b98198cac46a7ad35316297736ade7a32ed65914.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07d1f35cb5cb518db1e0ad617270d62ae28b00ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e627fcc3283e76ac4be402d4b98198cac46a7ad35316297736ade7a32ed65914.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e627fcc3283e76ac4be402d4b98198cac46a7ad35316297736ade7a32ed65914",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c9721379697ebc5183807320498570428d2096d9bc0e924ac8d7ce3ad32e370c",
+  "output_sha256": "8085339a6d273fd40ba13f82a0d110a3ff07d053dba5e2b5939c916d628cb40f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64068b6b49588ffd5c5f458430a6209c0c8df2d410a0de6f85ae5e6d040f8ea.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64068b6b49588ffd5c5f458430a6209c0c8df2d410a0de6f85ae5e6d040f8ea.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53e5fcf0ccd9436cf1fffea43df875bc615fe467
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64068b6b49588ffd5c5f458430a6209c0c8df2d410a0de6f85ae5e6d040f8ea.md
@@ -0,0 +1,598 @@
+Cabade2D-17-00BB548EAC DOcome 1859 FifeleØ3342@/21 Pagageol 2020
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+-Y-
+JOSHUA ADAM SCHULTE,
+S3 17 Cr. 548 (PAC)
+OPINION & ORDER
+Defendant.
+-X
+Defendant Joshua Adam Schulte ("Defendant" or "Schulte") is a former employee of the
+Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA) who is charged with stealing national defense information
+from the CIA and transmitting it to Wikileaks. Schulte initially proceeded to trial in February
+2020. The jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts, but failed to reach a unanimous verdict
+on the national security charges. The Defendant moved for a mistrial with respect to those
+counts, which the Court granted.
+Shortly after the first trial ended, New York City emerged as the global epicenter of the
+COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the majority of in-person proceedings throughout the
+Southern District of New York were suspended. Grand juries and jury trials were no exception.
+Nevertheless, on June 8, 2020, the Government obtained a third superseding indictment (the
+"Indictment") in anticipation of a second trial.
+Schulte now moves to dismiss the Indictment on the grounds that the grand jury venire
+that returned the Indictment did not reflect a fair cross-section of the community, in violation of
+the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 ("JSSA"), 28
+U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. For the reasons set forth below, Schulte's motion is DENIED.
+1
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-0038548PAC DOcower 1 859 FifeldB342/21 Pagagel 2020
+BACKGROUND
+Procedural History
+Following an extensive investigation by law enforcement authorities, Schulte was
+arrested in August 2017 on suspicion of leaking national defense information that he had
+obtained while working for the CIA. (Schulte Br. at 2, ECF 435; Gov't Opp. Br. at 1, ECF 444.)
+Schulte has been in custody since his arrest. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 1.)
+On June 18, 2018, an indictment charged Schulte with thirteen counts of espionage and
+other offenses. (See id.) On October 31, 2018, the Government obtained a superseding
+indictment, which incorporated the same offenses as the initial indictment but added two
+additional counts of unlawful disclosure and criminal contempt of court. (See id. at 1-2.)
+On February 2, 2020, Schulte proceeded to trial on the eleven national security related
+charges. (Id. at 2.) On March 9, 2020, the jury returned a guilty verdict on two counts: (1)
+making false statements to law enforcement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and (2) criminal
+contempt of court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). (Id.; Schulte Br. at 2.) The jury, however,
+was unable to reach a unanimous verdict with respect to the remaining eight national security
+charges. (Schulte Br. at 2) Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for a
+mistrial on those counts. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 2.)
+Immediately following the trial, New York City emerged as the global epicenter of the
+COVID-19 pandemic. See
+Hawley LLC v.
+|. No. 20-CV-10932 (PAC), 2021 WL
+465437, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2021) (describing the COVID-19 pandemic's effects on New
+York City. As a result, the vast majority of in-person proceedings throughout the Southern
+District of New York (the "District") were substantially dialed back or suspended altogether.
+See, e.g., Standing Order, M-10-468 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. April 20, 2020). Grand juries and jury
+2
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-00BB548EAC DOcower 1 859 Fifeled 33422/21 Pağageoß 20 20
+trials were not spared. See id. On June 8, 2020, however, the Government sought and obtained a
+third superseding Indictment from a grand jury sitting in the District's |
+Plains courthouse.
+(Schulte Br. at 2; Gov't Opp. Br. at 2.) The Indictment charges Schulte with nine criminal
+counts relating to his alleged transmission of national defense information to WikiLeaks. (ECF
+405.) According to the Government, the
+Plains grand jury that returned the superseding
+Indictment was the sole grand jury empaneled at the time. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 14.)
+II. Motion to Dismiss
+Schulte now moves to dismiss the Indictment on the grounds that it was unlawfully
+obtained in violation of (1) the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause; (2) the Sixth
+Amendment's fair cross-section requirement; and (3) the JSSA. (ECF 435.) He primarily
+contends that the
+| Plains grand jury venire-from which the Indictment was obtained—-did
+not reflect a fair cross-section of the African American and Hispanic American populations in
+the community. And he contends that these effects are symptomatic of the exclusionary
+processes that are inherent in the District's jury selection system. Relatedly, Schulte argues that
+the Government's decision to seek the Indictment from
+Plains was improperly made.
+III. The District's Jury Plan
+To understand Schulte's claims, it is necessary to orient ourselves to some background
+knowledge of the District's jury selection process. Under the JSSA, each federal district court
+must "devise and place in operation a written plan for random selection of grand and petit
+jurors." 28 U.S.C. § 1863(a). The District's jury selection plan ("Jury Plan"), which has been in
+existence since 2009, provides the blueprint for the random selection of grand and petit jurors
+throughout the District. See Amended Plan for the Random Selection of Grand and Petit Jurors
+in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (hereinafter "Jury
+3
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-00385484PAC DOcower 1 859 Fifeled 33422/21 Pagageol 2020
+Plan"), https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/juryplan_feb_2009.pdf.
+The Jury Plan operates as follows. Every four years, following the date of the
+Presidential Election, two jury wheels are constructed: one for Manhattan and one for
+| Plains. See id. These wheels, in turn, are filled with names that are randomly
+drawn from voter registration lists of the various counties that make up the District. Id. The Jury
+Plan provides that "the number of names drawn from each county should be proportionate to the
+number of registered voters in that county." , 2021 WL 431458, *1.
+The two||| wheels draw from a different array of counties. The Manhattan |
+wheel randomly draws names from New York, Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland,
+while the Plains
+wheel draws names from Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange,
+and Dutchess. See
+, 2021 WL 431458, *1. Because Westchester, Putnam, and
+Rockland counties are included in both /
+wheels, the Jury Plan instructs that the names
+from these counties be "apportioned among the two
+1 wheels to reasonably reflect the
+relative number of registered voters of each county.'" See id.
+"Periodically, names are drawn from the
+wheels in an amount sufficient to meet
+the anticipated demands for jurors for the next six months."" Id. (quoting Jury Plan). Those who
+are drawn from the
+wheels are sent jury questionnaires,' which determine whether a
+person is qualified to serve on a jury. Id. Jurors who meet the qualification requirements are
+then placed in the respective qualified wheels for Manhattan and
+Plains. Id. Finally, as
+' The Jury Plan bases its qualification criteria on neutral standards such as the ability to speak
+English, citizenship and age, mental capacity, and criminal record. (See Gov't Opp. Br. at 5.)
+Moreover, certain individuals are exempted from jury service by virtue of their professional
+occupations. (See id.) Finally, the Jury Plan also provides a carve-out for individuals who can
+demonstrate "undue hardship or extreme inconvenience" on a case-by-case basis. (See id.)
+4
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-0038548PAC DOcome 1 859 Fifele033422/21 Pagaged5 20 20
+"jurors are needed in each courthouse, names are drawn from each qualified wheel and
+summonses are sent to those individuals." Id.
+APPLICABLE LAW
+I.
+Sixth Amendment
+A "representative jury array remains the expression of the community's role in securing"
+an impartial trial. Alston v. Manson, 791 F.2d 255, 256 (2d Cir. 1986). In recognition of that
+promise, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to a jury venire drawn from a
+fair cross-section of the community.? Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). To
+establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, a defendant must prove
+cach of the following elements:
+(1) That the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community;
+(2) Thrah reasonable in relation group in mere son prich ich ano selected is and
+(3) That this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the juryselection process.
+Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979).
+Demonstrating a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, however, is
+not enough to prevail under the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 367. Under Supreme Court teachings,
+"States remain free to prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors and to provide reasonable
+exemptions so long as it may be fairly said that the jury lists or panels are representative of the
+community." Id. (quoting Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538). Accordingly, the Government may rebut the
+2 The fair cross-section guarantee has been understood to apply in the context of both grand and
+petit juries. See United States v. Osorio, 801 F. Supp. 966, 973 (D. Conn. 1992).
+5
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-00385484PAC DOcome 1 859 FifeleØ33422/21 Pağageof 20 20
+defendant's prima facie case by showing a "significant state interest" behind the jury selection
+process at issue.
+II.
+Fifth Amendment
+The Equal Protection clause of the Fifth Amendment similarly forbids the exclusion of
+racial minorities from grand and petit juries.? Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 492 (1977).
+To raise a plausible equal protection challenge against a jury selection system, the defendant
+must show (1) a cognizable group; (2) that is substantially underrepresented; and (3) that the
+selection procedure is not racially neutral. Alston, 791 F.2d at 257. Although this three-part test
+resembles the Sixth Amendment framework, there is a critical difference: in contradistinction to
+a fair cross-section challenge brought under the Sixth Amendment, an equal protection claim
+must allege intentional discrimination by the jury selection system at issue. See id. ("The equal
+protection clause ... condemns underrepresentation of minorities only if it is the product of
+intentional discrimination."); see also United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d 648, 659 (2d Cir. 1996).
+III. The JSSA
+Finally, the JSSA sets forth the Nation's policy that: "all litigants in Federal court
+entitled to trial by jury shall have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from a fair
+cross section of the community in the district or division wherein the court convenes." 28 U.S.C.
+§ 1861. The Second Circuit has held that fair cross-section challenges brought under the JSSA
+must also be analyzed using the Sixth Amendment's Duren test. See United States v. LaChance,
+788 F.2d 856, 864 (2d Cir. 1986). Thus, if a fair cross-section challenge fails under the Sixth
+Amendment, it also fails under the JSSA. See id. (*[B]ecause the Duren test governs fair cross
+3 The Supreme Court has incorporated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause into
+the Fifth Amendment. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954)
+6
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-00385484PAC DOcome 1 859 FifeleØ3342/21 Pagageof 2020
+section challenges under both the Act and the sixth amendment, our discussion of the statutory
+challenge also disposes of his constitutional claim.").
+In addition to fair cross-section claims, a defendant may also assert other violations of the
+JSSA if those violations constitute a "substantial failure to comply with its provisions." Id. at
+870 (cleaned up);
+1, 2021 WL 431458, at *4. "Mere technical violations" of the JSSA,
+however, are not actionable. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 864 (cleaned up). "Whether a violation is
+substantial or merely technical depends upon the nature and extent of its effects on the wheels
+and venire from which a defendant's grand jury was derived." Id. (cleaned up).
+ANALYSIS
+I.
+Fair Cross-Section Challenge
+Because Schulte's fair cross-section claim arises under both the Sixth Amendment and
+the JSSA, he must meet the three-part test set forth under Duren. See LaChance, 788 F.2d at
+870.
+The parties do not dispute that the first element under Duren has been satisfied. That
+element asks whether "the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community."
+Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. Here, Schulte alleges that African American and Hispanic American
+jurors were unlawfully excluded from the jury venire. (Schulte Br. at 7.) These groups have
+been recognized as "distinctive" by the Second Circuit. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 654 ("Rioux has
+satisfied the first prong of the Duren test: Blacks and Hispanics are unquestionably "distinctive"
+groups for the purposes of a fair-cross-section analysis."); United States v. Barnes, 520 F.
+Supp.2d 510, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Schulte has therefore satisfied the first element under
+Duren. The Court holds, however, that Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements of
+the Duren test. Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge must be rejected.
+7
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-0038548PAC DDoomere 1859 Fifeled 3342/21 PağageoB 2020
+A.
+Underrepresentation
+The second element under Duren examines whether the groups' representation "in
+venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such
+persons in the community." 439 U.S. at 364. To answer this question, however, the Court must
+first define the relevant variables, namely (a) the jury venire and (b) the community.
+i.
+Relevant Jury Venire
+The parties dispute which jury pool ought to be used to analyze the Defendant's fair
+cross-section challenge. Schulte relies on United States v. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 648, and contends
+that the Plains qualified wheel is the relevant jury venire. (Schulte Br. at 8.) The
+Government argues that the
+Plains
+wheel constitutes the appropriate jury venire.
+(Gov't Opp. Br. at 15.) The Court agrees with the Government.
+"Neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has defined the 'relevant jury pool'
+with any specificity." United States v. Rioux, 930 F. Supp. 1558, 1565 (D. Conn. 1995)
+, 2021 WL 431458 (stating that the "Second Circuit has not
+(examining caselaw); see also
+stated a preference for the use of one wheel over the other"). In Rioux, for example, the Second
+Circuit observed that the "relevant jury pool may be defined by: (1) the
+list; (2) the
+qualified wheel; (3) the venires; or (4) a combination of the three." 97 F.3d at 655-56.
+Although the Rioux court did designate the qualified jury wheel as the relevant venire, see id.,
+that conclusion only followed because the parties agreed "that the qualified wheel may serve as
+the relevant jury pool." Id. That is not the case here, so the Court finds Rioux to be of little
+impact.
+Instead, the Court concludes that the Plains
+wheel is the relevant jury
+venire. As noted by the Government (Gov't Opp. Br. at 16-18) several district courts within this
+8
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-00BB548PAC DOcower 1859 Fifele03342/21 Pagaged$ 20 20
+circuit have defined the relevant jury pool with reference to "the systematic defect identified by
+the defendant." Rioux, F. Supp. at 1565-66; see
+1, 2021 WL 431458, *5 (defining jury pool
+as both "the
+Plains
+wheel and the
+• Plains qualified wheel" because the
+defendants' allegations impacted both venires). Under that approach, the jury venire that bears
+the brunt of the defendant's allegations of systematic exclusion is determined to be the relevant
+jury pool. See
+IM, 2021 WL 431458, *5; Rioux, F. Supp. at 1565-66. Here, Schulte's
+allegations of systematic exclusion center almost entirely on the juror sclection procedures for
+the Plains | || wheel.4 See infra 15-17. Accordingly, the appropriate venire is the
+Plains
+wheel.
+ii.
+Relevant Community
+The most significant point of dispute between the parties is which counties constitute the
+relevant community. According to Schulte, the relevant community must be the counties that
+feed jurors to Manhattan because that is where his trial will be held. (Schulte Br. at 8; Schulte
+Reply at 3-5, ECF 454.) But the Government responds that the northern counties from which
+|| Plains draws jurors represent the relevant community. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 9-14, 18.) The
+Court agrees with the Government.
+As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that the Southern District is not statutorily
+divided into discrete divisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 112. Rather, the statutory law prescribes one
+District that is composed of the following counties: Bronx, Dutchess, New York, Orange,
+Putnam, Rockland,
+, and Westchester. See id. Yet, what the statutory law leaves
+^ For example, if Schulte had alleged that the juror questionnaire form displayed systematic
+exclusion, see supra 4 n. 1, then the qualified wheel would be the appropriate jury venire for
+comparison. Because he does not do that, the
+I wheel must be the relevant venire.
+9
+
+
+Cafase2D-t7-00BB548AEAC DOcament 859 FifleФ3/3DO/21 Pagage DD 20 20
+undivided, the District's Jury Plan can divide territorially in the interests of "an impartial trial, of
+economy and of lessening the burden of attendance." United States v. Gottfried, 165 F.2d 360,
+364 (2d Cir. 1948); see Jury Plan. Accordingly, the rationale justifying this territorial division is
+based on administrative feasibility. Seeil, 2021 WL 431458, at *1.
+With this background in mind, the legal issue at hand becomes straightforward. The
+Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 1995), frames the
+inquiry and supplies its answer. In Bahna, a defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of
+various narcotics crimes in the Eastern District of New York's Brooklyn courthouse. Id. at 20.
+But following his initial trial, the defendant was granted a new trial. Id. Saliently, the
+defendant's second trial occurred before a different judge and in a different venue— the Eastern
+District's Uniondale courthouseS Id.
+Of concern here, the defendant raised a fair cross-section challenge following his second
+conviction. Id. at 23-24. Under the Eastern Distriet's jury plan, the Brooklyn courthouse drew
+jurors from all of the counties within the Eastern District, while the Uniondale courthouse only
+drew from Nassau and Suffolk counties. See id. at 24. Accordingly, the defendant argued that
+the Uniondale courthouse's jury wheel underrepresented African American and Hispanic
+American jurors in comparison to their demographics in the relevant community—which he
+alleged to be all of the counties making up the Eastern District. Id.
+The Second Circuit, however, rejected that reasoning and held that, "Where a jury venire
+is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to see whether there has
+5 The trial court stated that the reason for the transfer "was to accommodate trial congestion in
+the court's calendar during a period of judicial emergency in the Eastern District." Soares v.
+United States, 66 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
+10
+
+
+Cabale20-17-00BB548EAC DOcoement 859 FifeleØ3/312/21 Pagaga bi 2020
+been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities." Id. (emphasis added). And in
+applying this principle, the Bahna court concluded that the correct community was not the entire
+Eastern District, but the two counties-Nassau and Suffolk-comprising the Uniondale
+courthouse. Id. Thus because there was no underrepresentation shown between the Uniondale
+jury wheel (e.g. the jury venire) and the Uniondale counties (e.g. the community), the court
+rejected the defendant's fair cross-section challenge. Id.
+Just as Bahna rejected the proposition that the relevant community was the entire Eastern
+District, this Court also rejects Schulte's contention that the relevant community is the
+Manhattan counties or the entire District. See id. Because Schulte's grand jury venire was
+drawn from
+Plains, Bahna instructs the Court to "look to that division" as the relevant
+community in assessing his fair cross-section challenge. See id. The Court must therefore
+conclude that the
+Plains counties represent the relevant community.
+There is one caveat. The precursor to applying Bahna, of course, is that it must have
+been proper for the Government to have sought the Indictment from
+| Plains. 68 F.3d at 24
+("Where a jury venire is drawn from a properly designated division, we look to that division to
+see whether there has been any unlawful or unconstitutional treatment of minorities.") emphasis
+added). And on this issue, Schulte contends that the Government's decision to seek the
+Indictment from
+1 Plains "deviated from the established, court-tested, and constitutional
+practice of indicting defendants in the division in which the offenses allegedly occurred and in
+which the case will be tried." (Schulte Br. at 2.) This argument must be rejected for two
+reasons.
+First, the Court finds no persuasive or binding authority that supports the premise that the
+Government must indict defendants in the same courthouse as where the trial is scheduled to
+11
+
+
+Cabale20-27-00BB548EAC DOconernt 859 Fife@3/32/21 Pagage be 2020
+occur. Instead, it is well established in this circuit that the "Sixth Amendment does not entitle a
+defendant to be tried in a geographic location any more specific than the District where the
+offense was allegedly committed," United States v. Plaza-Andrades, 507 F. App'x 22, 26 (2d
+Cir. 2013), and that a "jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one division and not the
+whole district," Bahna, 68 F.3d at 25 (citing Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U.S. 480 (1918).
+It should come as no surprise then that a defendant may be indicted in one courthouse and tried
+in another, as long as the prosecution stays within the jurisdiction of the relevant district.® See
+Andrades, 507 F. App'x at 26; see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 18 (stating that "the government must
+prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed"'); cf. United States v.
+Fernandez, 480 F.2d 726, 730 (2d Cir. 1973) ("[S]ince the theft of which Fernandez was
+convicted occurred in Queens, in the Eastern District of New York, trial in Westbury, in Nassau
+County, a county adjacent to Queens and within the District, rather than in Brooklyn, the
+headquarters of the Eastern District, does not offend the terms of these venue requirements.").
+Second, the prevalence of this practice as well as the compelling justification for it in this
+case add further support for its propriety. As the Government points out, 'it is common for cases
+to be indicted by grand juries sitting in the
+Plains courthouse and tried in the Manhattan
+courthouse." (Gov't Opp. Br. at 4 (collecting cases).) And here, that practice was especially
+justified in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had all but brought grand juries and other inperson proceedings to a grinding halt during the summer of 2020. See supra 2-3. Thus, in
+considering this compelling justification, the Court is unpersuaded by Schulte's allegations that
+" Because this case concerns the grand jury phase of criminal proceedings, the principles
+espoused in past precedents endorsing a flexible view of trial venue requirements ought to apply
+a fortiori in the grand jury context.
+
+
+Cafade2D-17-00BB54AEAC DOnoment 859 FifleФ332O/21 Pağage bB 2020
+the Government had engaged in "prosecutorial gamesmanship" and forum shopping by seeking
+the Indictment from
+I Plains. Commonsense compels a contrary conclusion.
+1, 21 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), for
+Finally, Schulte cites United States v.
+the proposition that the relevant community is "widely understood to mean the "district or
+division where the trial will be held."" Id. at 334-35. The differing facts in
+, however,
+make that case distinguishable from the case at bar.
+In
+the defendants moved to dismiss an indictment obtained from |
+Plains
+on the ground that the fair cross-section requirement had been violated. Id. at 333. In assessing
+that claim, the
+court defined the relevant community as
+Plains because that was
+"where the trial [was] to be held." Id. at 335. The key fact there, however, was that the
+defendants' grand and petit juries were both drawn from
+• Plains, see id., which made it
+only logical to conclude that the
+• Plains counties represented the relevant community. See
+id. at 334-35. But the circumstances here are quite different; Schulte's grand and petit juries
+derive from different courthouses in the District. Accordingly, this factual distinction precludes
+application of
+conclusion that the relevant community is "the district or division
+where the trial is to be held."? See 21 F. Supp.2d at 334-35. Schulte's reliance on
+is
+misplaced.
+iii.
+Underrepresentation Analysis
+Having determined the relevant jury venire and community, the underrepresentation
+analysis itself is clear-cut. The "primary approach used in this Circuit" is the absolute disparity
+method. Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 514 (examining case law); see |
+, 2021 WL 431458, at
+' Alternatively, even if I
+• is undistinguishable, the Court is bound to apply Bahna, which
+bears directly on this case and is a holding of the Second Circuit.
+13
+
+
+Cadale2D-17-00-BB548EAC DOnament 859 Fife @3342/21 Pagage D4 20 20
+*8 (The absolute disparity method, on the other hand, appears to be the preferred method for
+analyzing jury underrepresentation under the Sixth Amendment in the Second Circuit."). The
+Court will therefore analyze the underrepresentation inquiry using the absolute disparity method.
+The absolute disparity method measures the difference between the groups?
+representation in the relevant community and their representation in the jury venire. See Rioux,
+97 F.3d at 655-56. For example, if African Americans compose 10% of the community but only
+5% of the jury venire, the absolute disparity is 5%. See id. Under Second Circuit precedents,
+absolute disparities nearly as high as 5% have not been found to satisfy the underrepresentation
+element under Duren. See United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 677-78 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding
+absolute disparities of 3.6% and 4.7% were insufficient to satisfy Duren's second element); see
+also Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658 (1.58% and 2.14% were insufficient); [
+, 2021 WL 431458, *8
+(3.69% and 3.64% were insufficient); Barnes, 520 F. Supp. 2d at 515 (2.8% and 2.3% were
+insufficient).
+The Court holds that the absolute disparities here fall comfortably within the outer limits
+provided by these past decisions. The parties do not dispute that African Americans make up
+11.20% and Hispanic Americans make up 12.97% of the |||| Plains
+wheel. (Gov't
+Opp. Br. at 20.) In the relevant community, African Americans make up 12.45% and Hispanic
+Americans 14.12% of the jury eligible population. (Schulte Reply at 6-7; Gov't Opp. Br. at 18.)
+Accordingly, the absolute disparities are 1.25% for African Americans (12.45% - 11.20%) and
+1.15% for Hispanic Americans (14.12% - 12.97%). Because those figures fall comfortably
+within the tolerated disparities in past precedents, the Court concludes that Schulte has not met
+14
+
+
+Cafase2D-t7-00BB548AEAC DOcanent 859 FifleФ334DO/21 Pagag5 b5 20 20
+the second element under Duren.® 439 U.S. at 364.
+B.
+Systematic Exclusion
+Apart from the second Duren element, Schulte's fair cross-section challenge must also
+fail because he cannot meet the third element: systematic exclusion, which requires a showing
+that the "underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection
+process." Duren, 439 U.S. at 364.
+In Rioux, the Second Circuit explained that there is "systematic exclusion when the
+underrepresentation is due to the system of jury selection itself, rather than external forces." 97
+F.3d at 658. Under the external forces principle, outside causes of underrepresentation (such as
+"demographic changes") do not constitute systematic exclusion. Id.; see, e.g., Schanbarger v.
+Macy, 77 F.3d 1424 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (jury selection process "drawn from voter
+registration lists" did not constitute systematic exclusion); United States v. Little Bear, 583 F.2d
+211, 414-15 (8th Cir. 1978) ("inclement weather" in North Dakota that allegedly led to the
+underrepresentation of rural jurors was not systematic exclusion); United States v.
+, 2006
+WL 278248, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 2006) (Hurricane Katrina's alleged disparate impact on
+potential African-American jurors was not systematic exclusion). The lion's share of Schulte's
+systematic exclusion allegations is foreclosed by this principle.
+First, Schulte contends that the Government systematically excluded African American
+and Hispanic American jurors by seeking the Indictment in
+Plains in lieu of the more
+racially diverse Manhattan community. (Schulte Br. at 2.) But the reason the Government
+8 Even if, as Schulte suggests, the || Plains qualified wheel is used as the relevant jury
+venire, the absolute disparities would be 3.69% and 3.64%. (See Gov't Opp. Br. at 20.) Those
+statistics do not reflect Constitutional infirmities under Second Circuit teachings.
+15
+
+
+Cabale2D-17-00BB548EAC DOnonent 859 Fifele®334/21 Pagage b6 2020
+proceeded this way was because of an external force: the COVID-19 pandemic and its
+substantial curtailment of in-person proceedings throughout the District. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658.
+This allegation therefore does not establish systematic exclusion.
+Second, Schulte argues that the Jury Plan's replenishment of the
+wheels only once
+every four years constitutes systematic exclusion. (Schulte Br. at 14.) According to Schulte, the
+four-year period causes addresses to grow "stale" as people move to new residences, and because
+African Americans and Hispanic Americans are, on average, younger and thus more likely to
+move, he argues that these groups are systematically excluded. (See id. 14-15.) But even
+granting the dubious premises that make up this deductive reasoning, the Court remains
+unpersuaded because, again, the true cause of the exclusion —younger people moving more
+often is an external force, not a systematic defect inherent in the Jury Plan. Rioux, 97 F.3d at
+658 (concluding that a jury system that led to undeliverable questionnaires did not constitute
+systematic exclusion). At bottom, the Court cannot charge the District's Jury Plan with a Sixth
+Amendment violation because of how often people move residences throughout the District.
+Third, Schulte asserts that the Jury Plan's exclusive reliance on voter registration lists
+constitutes systematic exclusion. This claim, however, is foreclosed by the Second Circuit's
+decision in Schanbarger. See 77 F.3d at 1424 ("[A] jury venire drawn from voter registration
+lists violates neither the Sixth Amendment's fair cross-section requirement nor the Fifth
+Amendment's guarantee of Equal protection.").
+Finally, Schulte alleges that the exclusion of "inactive voters" in certain counties within
+/I Plains constitutes systematic exclusion because African Americans and Hispanic
+Americans are more likely to be inactive voters. (Schulte Br. at 15.) But again, the cause of the
+16
+
+
+Cabale20-7-00BB548EAC DOconernt 859 FifeleØ3/312/21 Pagage br 2020
+alleged exclusion here (e.g. people moving) is an external force.? Rioux, 97 F.3d at 658.
+Accordingly, this argument must be rejected under Rioux.'° See id.
+In sum, Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements under Duren.
+Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge under the Sixth Amendment and JSSA must be
+rejected.
+IL.
+Equal Protection Challenge
+Schulte next contends that the underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic
+American jurors violates the Equal Protection clause under the Fifth Amendment. (Schulte Br. at
+16-17.) As noted above, the Equal Protection clause forbids the exclusion of racial minorities
+from grand and petit juries. Castaneda, 430 U.S. at 492. But to establish a prima facie violation
+of equal protection, Schulte must furnish "proof of discriminatory intent." United States v.
+Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 677 (2d Cir. 1990). Because Schulte cannot make such a showing, his
+Equal Protection challenge fails. His only contention on this element is that the
+underrepresentation of African Americans and Hispanic Americans "cannot be the result of
+9 Under New York law, voters are designated "inactive" when a "County Board received
+information indicating that a voter may no longer be living at her address of registration."
+Common Cause/New York v. Brehm, 432 F. Supp.3d 285, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (examining New
+York voting law).
+10 The Court is unpersuaded by Schulte's remaining allegations of systematic exclusion, which
+are that (1) jurors drawn from the overlapping counties were inequitably prorated between the
+two courthouses, and (2) a technical glitch in the l
+Plains
+I wheel excluded jurors who
+had provided an alternative address when registering to vote. As to the former claim, Schulte has
+not shown that this alleged error caused the underrepresentation at issue. See
+L. 2021 WL
+431458, at *11 (finding same error to have had "minimal" effect on venires). And as to the latter
+claim, the parties concede that this glitch actually augmented, not diminished, African American
+and Hispanic American representation in the
+Plains wheel. (Gov't Opp. Br. at 17.)
+Accordingly, these allegations do not satisfy the third prong under Duren.
+17
+
+
+Cabale20-7-00BB548EAC DOconernt 859 FifeleØ3/312/21 Pagaga 18 2020
+chance." (Schulte Br. at 17.) But the Court will not assume or infer that this District has been
+operating under an intentionally discriminatory Jury Plan since 2009. See Rioux, 97 F.3d at 659
+(rejecting Equal Protection challenge due to lack of evidence showing intentional
+discrimination). Therefore, the Defendant's Equal Protection claim must be rejected.
+III. JSSA
+Schulte's remaining claims arise under the JSSA. To succeed on these claims, he must
+demonstrate a "substantial failure to comply" with the JSSA's provisions. LaChance, 788 F.2d
+at 870. "Mere technical violations of the procedures prescribed by the Act do not constitute
+substantial failure to comply with its provisions." Id. (cleaned up). The criteria for
+differentiating between a substantial and technical error turns on the "nature and extent of its
+effects[.J" Id. The Court holds that Schulte cannot demonstrate a substantial failure to comply
+with the JSSA and that his statutory claims must therefore be rejected.'!
+As an initial matter, Schulte repleads his Sixth Amendment fair cross-section challenge
+under the JSSA. (Schulte Br. at 19.) But given that the Duren test governs fair cross-section
+challenges brought under both the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA, this claim must be dismissed
+for the reasons stated above. See supra 7-17.
+Apart from his fair cross-section challenge, Schulte also contends that the following
+defects constitute substantial violations of the JSSA: (1) the Government's decision to seek the
+Indictment from
+Plains and not Manhattan; (2) the exclusion of inactive voters from
+certain counties located in the
+Plains array; (3) the allegedly erroneous proration of jurors
+' To be sure, these arguments were already rejected by the Court under the systematic exclusion
+prong of the Sixth Amendment analysis. See supra 15-17. But because Schulte pleads these
+defects as separate violations of the JSSA, the Court conducts a separate analysis here.
+18
+
+
+Cabale20-17-00BB548EAC DOconent 859 FifeleØ3/312/21 Pagage 1$ 2020
+from the counties that overlap both courthouses; and (4) the clerical error by which voters who
+had registered with an alternate mailing address were excluded from jury selection. (Schulte Br.
+at 19 - 22; Schulte Reply at 11-15.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that these
+allegations do not offend the JSSA.
+The Government's Decision. The Government's appropriate decision to seek the
+Indictment in
+Plains was entirely proper and in accordance with the Constitution, JSSA,
+and customary practice. See supra 11-13. Accordingly, this prosecutorial decision cannot be
+said to contravene the JSSA.
+Exclusion of Inactive Voters. In United States v..
+• 2021 WL 431458, at *10, Judge
+Roman addressed the issue of whether the exclusion of inactive voters from certain counties used
+by|
+Plains violated the JSSA. See id. Judge Roman concluded that the exclusion did not,
+reasoning that it is "entirely logical for a jury selection process to exclude individuals who have
+since moved," see id., and even if it did, that the defect was merely a "technical violation" of the
+JSSA. Id. Because the Court agrees with this reasoning on all counts, it concludes that the
+exclusion of inactive voters here does not violate the JSSA.
+Erroneous Proration & Alternate Mailing Address. Lastly, Schulte argues that
+prospective jurors from the overlapping counties of Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland were
+incorrectly prorated between the two courthouses, and that a technical glitch inadvertently
+excluded jurors who had registered to vote with alternate mailing addresses. (Schulte Br. at 21-
+22; Schulte Reply at 13-14.) The Court is unpersuaded. As to the former contention, Schulte
+does not explain how the alleged proration error constitutes a "substantial" violation of the JSSA,
+especially where its "effect" appears to be "minimal."
+, 2021 WL 431458, at *11 (rejecting
+the same argument on the basis that it was merely a "technical violation of the JSSA"). As to the
+19
+
+
+Cabale20-17-00BB548EAC DOconent 859 FifeleØ3/312/21 Pagant 20 2020
+latter point, it is undisputed that the alternate mailing address defect actually led to an increase of
+representation of the very minority groups that Schulte contends were underrepresented. (Gov't
+Opp. Br. at 17.) Thus empiricism precludes the notion that the violation was "substantial" in
+nature. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 870 (explaining that the inquiry for whether a violation is
+substantial is the "extent of its effect on the wheels"); see also 2021 WL 431458, at *11
+(rejecting same argument on the ground that it was merely a technical violation). In sum, the
+Court concludes that Schulte has not demonstrated a plausible violation of the JSSA.
+CONCLUSION
+For the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
+Dated: New York, New York
+March 24, 2021
+SO ORDERED
+Рия A lot,
+PAUL A. CROTTY
+United States District Judge
+20
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64068b6b49588ffd5c5f458430a6209c0c8df2d410a0de6f85ae5e6d040f8ea.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64068b6b49588ffd5c5f458430a6209c0c8df2d410a0de6f85ae5e6d040f8ea.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1537aaa56a3da86375530aecc55aeb00a0e105d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64068b6b49588ffd5c5f458430a6209c0c8df2d410a0de6f85ae5e6d040f8ea.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -244,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e64068b6b49588ffd5c5f458430a6209c0c8df2d410a0de6f85ae5e6d040f8ea",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 22,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4c45762b690a56b7ca51f43b3f57e2a2df038968457af4d8e9a0d837311afb90",
+  "output_sha256": "03b086d476a195f3b283c81c36bb34879ca4caa9ae580b139a8f7cba45560b93",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64ae485ed2982ebe4cb1459d27c5103423a42be160c8298bae6e0feab49cc4d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64ae485ed2982ebe4cb1459d27c5103423a42be160c8298bae6e0feab49cc4d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aafb547e2fa0a8512ede25a4eeb6c826d6dbac65
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64ae485ed2982ebe4cb1459d27c5103423a42be160c8298bae6e0feab49cc4d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 272-3 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64ae485ed2982ebe4cb1459d27c5103423a42be160c8298bae6e0feab49cc4d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64ae485ed2982ebe4cb1459d27c5103423a42be160c8298bae6e0feab49cc4d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25caa5cd8d10bdf9b9d50c67a077c03a64956a2a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e64ae485ed2982ebe4cb1459d27c5103423a42be160c8298bae6e0feab49cc4d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e64ae485ed2982ebe4cb1459d27c5103423a42be160c8298bae6e0feab49cc4d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f887a91bec3e227c3a071e9947460b7ed18cdb9b76e7fb3e8aeb009db12b8a62",
+  "output_sha256": "d17dec491ac683019f40c8b3fa7d2ba7dbe3919a0ba23e3d6891ed1add7a3425",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e650e835accca354b18e1a8b09869e6c4aecdb87219fdf6c3d4bfac687bcc9c1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e650e835accca354b18e1a8b09869e6c4aecdb87219fdf6c3d4bfac687bcc9c1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b64ceb197939f30060dc85ff28f452ab2d01b0ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e650e835accca354b18e1a8b09869e6c4aecdb87219fdf6c3d4bfac687bcc9c1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 754
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+-----
+Defendant's Surreply in Opposition to "Motion to Compel"
+Work Product and Attorney-Client Communications with Philip Barden
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+,, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 754 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 4
+PAGES 1-6
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 754
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 4
+CONCLUSION
+The Court should deny the motion to compel, and award sanctions.
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Ty Gee
+_aura A. Menninger (LM-1374
+effrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+LAND
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 754 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 17, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Surreply in Opposition
+to "Motion to Compel" Work Product and Attorney-Client Communications with Philip Barden
+via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+TARTE
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e650e835accca354b18e1a8b09869e6c4aecdb87219fdf6c3d4bfac687bcc9c1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e650e835accca354b18e1a8b09869e6c4aecdb87219fdf6c3d4bfac687bcc9c1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a268f4d4a983277623a3f378772c1a420f3ea57c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e650e835accca354b18e1a8b09869e6c4aecdb87219fdf6c3d4bfac687bcc9c1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e650e835accca354b18e1a8b09869e6c4aecdb87219fdf6c3d4bfac687bcc9c1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5849f81f06d3304a1692883c5e921a02ea141099075a4e3b09446d77e501edd6",
+  "output_sha256": "ea3ccc14d6ac74b0a84e7c0003ab06795aae35efbbcfca8d25350662df420faa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e65fd10f3ce8d1460aece0be8f48a7ca9803f9a281ac2928ac408912b5746956.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e65fd10f3ce8d1460aece0be8f48a7ca9803f9a281ac2928ac408912b5746956.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d7d9b1c12e4022cffa4134027fcf8ae6c14eff06
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e65fd10f3ce8d1460aece0be8f48a7ca9803f9a281ac2928ac408912b5746956.md
@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 9
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+MEMORAND MOTION OR CEASE MAXWELL'S
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+Lover, Colorado 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 9
+INTRODUCTION
+Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Third
+Motion for Release on Bail.
+As Ms. Maxwell has stated on numerous occasions and reaffirms here: she has no
+intention or desire to leave this country. She is an American citizen, has lived in United States
+for 30 years, has strong family ties and the support of friends and family residing in this country.
+She wants nothing more than to remain in the United States under whatever conditions the Court
+deems necessary so that she can effectively prepare for trial and vigorously defend against the
+25-year-old charges in the Indictment. Ms. Maxwell has already proposed an expansive and, to
+our knowledge, unprecedented set of bail conditions that would reasonably assure her
+appearance. (See Dkt. 97.) In light of the Court's denial of that application (see Dkt. 106), Ms.
+Maxwell now proposes two additional bail conditions to supplement the extraordinarily
+restrictive bail package she has already offered.
+• First, Ms. Maxwell will renounce her
+_ and British citizenship to eliminate
+any opportunity for her to seek refuge in those countries, if the Court so requires.
+• Second, Ms. Maxwell will have her and her spouse's assets excluding funds
+carmarked for living expenses, for legal fees and other expenses necessary to
+defend her against the criminal charges in this case and related civil lawsuits and
+for taxes placed in a new account that will be monitored by a retired federal
+District Court judge and former United States Attorney who will function as asset
+monitor and will have co-signing authority over the account.
+The former condition goes well beyond the extradition waivers that the Court deemed
+insufficient and should satisfy any concerns the Court
+try to
+seek a safe haven in France or the United Kingdom. (See id. at 11-13). As a non-citizen, Ms.
+Maxwell will not be able to avail herself of any protections against extradition that may apply to
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 3 of 9
+citizens of those countries. The latter condition will restrain Ms. Maxwell's assets so they
+cannot be used for flight or harboring her outside of the jurisdiction of this Court. This should
+satisfy the Court's concern that the proposed bond was not fully secured and left assets
+unrestrained that could be used for such purposes. (See id. at 17-18).
+In addition, since the last bail application, Ms. Maxwell has submitted twelve pretrial
+motions that raise substantial legal and factual issues that may result in the dismissal of some or
+all of the charges against her. Ms. Maxwell referenced some of these motions in her initial bail
+application (see Dkt. 18 at 19) but was not in a position to fully articulate them until she had the
+chance to review the discovery and research the legal issues in advance of the motion deadline of
+January 25. These motions significantly call into question the strength of the government's case
+against Ms. Maxwell and the underlying justification for continued detention.
+Ms. Maxwell has already been denied a fair chance in the court of public opinion. She
+has been maligned by the media, which has perpetuated a false narrative about her that has
+poisoned any open-mindedness and impartiality of a potential jury. She has been relentlessly
+attacked with vicious slurs, persistent lies, and blatant inaccuracies by spokespeople who have
+neither met nor spoken to her. She has been depicted as a cartoon-character villain in an attempt
+to turn her into a substitute replacement for Jeffrey Epstein. Yet, Ms. Maxwell is determined -
+and welcomes the opportunity - to face her accusers at trial and clear her name. The additional
+proposed bail conditions should quell any concerns that she would try to flee. The Court should
+therefore grant bail under the proposed conditions so that Ms. Maxwell can adequately prepare
+for trial.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 4 of 9
+I.
+The Proposed Additional Bail Conditions Will Reasonably Assure Ms. Maxwell's
+Appearance in Court
+As set forth above, Ms. Maxwell now proposes two additional restrictions that eliminate
+any means or opportunity that she may have to leave the country. The Court should therefore
+reconsider its earlier ruling and grant bail under the proposed conditions. See United States v.
+1. No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003) ("[A] release
+order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to
+the movant at the time of the original hearing."); see also United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-
+LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for
+reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision").
+A. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship
+To demonstrate her commitment to abide by her conditions of release and to provide
+further assurance to the Court that she will not attempt to leave the country, Ms. Maxwell is
+willing to formally renounce her foreign citizenships in France and the United Kingdom. Should
+the Court feel this drastic condition is necessary, the required documents will be submitted to the
+appropriate authorities.
+Moreover, as a standard condition of bail, all of Ms. Maxwell's
+passports will be surrendered to the government and no further application will be made.
+If the Court deems it a necessary condition of release, Ms. Maxwell will formally
+commence the procedure to renounce her foreign citizenship. The requisite paperwork is in the
+process of being completed. Renunciation of UK citizenship can be accomplished immediately
+upon granting of bail. The process of renouncing her
+citizenship, while not immediate,
+may be expedited
+Citizenship is a precious and priceless asset. Ms. Maxwell's decision to give up
+citizenship from the county of her birth and the country of her upbringing demonstrates her
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 5 of 9
+earnestness to abide by the conditions of her release and underscores that she has no intention to
+flee and reflects her deep need to communicate freely with counsel to prepare for her defense.
+Her renunciation of foreign citizenship obviates the Court's concerns about the validity of
+waivers of extradition. (See Dkt. 106 at 13). Ms. Maxwell will have no ability to contest
+extradition from France or the United Kingdom on the basis of citizenship, which removes any
+incentive the Court and government believe she may have to seek refuge in those countries.
+B. Restraint and Monitoring of Assets
+In denying bail, the Court noted that the bond was not fully secured, and that Ms.
+Maxwell and her spouse would still have several million dollars in unrestrained assets that could
+be used to facilitate her flight from the country. (See id. at 17-18). To assuage any concerns that
+those assets would be available to finance flight to and shelter in a foreign country, Ms. Maxwell
+has taken steps to create a monitorship that will place meaningful restraints on the assets that are
+not used to secure the bond, while still allowing Ms. Maxwell to pay for her legal defense, for
+her spouse to pay for daily living expenditures and for payment of taxes.
+1.
+New Account
+All assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, with the exception of money currently held in
+escrow for legal fees and related defense expenses and the funds contained in the bank account in
+the name of Ms. Maxwell's spouse ("the Personal Account")', will be deposited in a newly
+created account ("the New Account") to be overseen by an asset monitor appointed pursuant to
+order of the Court. The New Account will contain all of Ms. Maxwell's and her spouse's
+remaining cash and other liquid assets, including any proceeds that result from the pending sale
+1 The Personal Account is identified as Account I on page 9 of the Financial Report annexed to Ms. Maxwell's
+Renewed Bail Application. (See Dkt. 97, Exhibit O.)
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 6 of 9
+of Ms. Maxwell's London house and any other assets, excluding salary, hereinafter acquired.
+The asset manager will approve the financial institution at which the New Account is created and
+must approve and co-sign any expenditure from the New Account, with the exception of
+disbursements for Ms. Maxwell's legal fees in connection with the ongoing criminal and civil
+litigation and for payment of taxes, which will not require authorization. No illiquid assets may
+be sold, conveyed or transferred without approval of the asset monitor.
+2.
+Other Assets
+The only funds that will not be included in the New Account are (1) the money currently
+held in escrow by Ms. Maxwell's attorneys, which will be used exclusively for her defense; and
+(2) the roughly $450,000 in the Personal Account which her spouse will use only for living
+expenses. The asset monitor shall regularly receive information regarding activity of the Personal
+Account, including the account balance, on a weekly basis. The asset monitor must also receive
+five-day advance notice of any check, on-line payment, or transfer of funds in any amount
+exceeding $5,000, and the reason for
+. Maxwell's spouse agrees to be bound
+by these restrictions and reporting requirements.
+The asset monitor shall report to Pretrial Services any possible non-compliance or
+disbursement in violation of the terms and conditions specified above.
+Selected Asset Monitor
+The Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., a retired federal District Court judge and the
+former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, has agreed to undertake the
+position of asset monitor. (Judge Duffey's bio is attached as Exhibit A.) Judge Duffey has
+extensive experience evaluating and monitoring funds held in and disbursed from financial
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 7 of 9
+accounts and will be entrusted with the authority to oversee the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her
+spouse, as described above.
+Restraining Ms. Maxwell's assets that are not used to secure the bond and placing them under
+the supervision of a former federal District Court judge eliminates any concern that such funds
+could be used to violate the terms of release.
+Il.
+Ms. Maxwell's Pretrial Motions Raise Substantial Legal and Factual Issues
+That Could Result in Dismissal of Some or All of the Charges Against Her
+In addition to the new conditions proposed above, the numerous substantive pretrial
+motions now before the Court amply challenge the purported strength of the government's case.
+Ms. Maxwell's pretrial motions raise serious legal issues that could result in dismissal of
+charges, if not the entire indictment. Among the dozen submissions are motions to dismiss the
+superseding indictment for breach of the non-prosecution agreement, for pre-indictment delay,
+and for being based on improperly obtained evidence in violation of Ms. Maxwell's
+constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth the Amendments. Other motions seek dismissal of
+the
+Act charges as being time-barred and the perjury charges as based on non-perjurious
+statements. These motions are substantial with a likelihood of success on the merits. These
+motions cast substantial doubt on the alleged strength of the government's case and warrant
+granting bail on the conditions proposed.
+Ill.
+The Court Should Grant Bail
+Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, a defendant must be released on personal
+recognizance or unsecured personal bond unless the judicial officer determines "that such release
+will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of
+any other person or the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). The enhanced bail package proposed
+by Ms. Maxwell contains financial burdens and a combination of restrictions that reasonably
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 8 of 9
+assure her appearance as required. Before preventive detention may be ordered under § 3142(e),
+the Court is obliged to determine both whether the defendant is likely to flee the jurisdiction if
+released, and whether any conditions of release will be reasonably certain to guard against this
+propensity to flee. The Court expressed concerns and denied bail without indicating what
+conditions would be reasonably certain to assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance. Ms. Maxwell is no
+danger to the community and not alleged to have been involved in ongoing criminal activity. To
+say that there are absolutely no conditions flies in the face of cases where non-United States
+citizens with no ties to the district, let alone the country, were released on lesser conditions for
+alleged criminality ongoing up to or within hours of the time of arrest, in contrast to 26-year-old
+claims alleged against Ms. Maxwell.?
+The additional conditions set forth above, which supplement the exceptional bail package
+previously proposed, are sufficient to address the hypothetical risk of flight and secure Ms.
+Maxwell's presence at trial. The financial magnitude of the proposed bonds, the collateral
+pledged to secure the bonds, the stringent requirements of home detention, the renunciation of
+foreign citizenship and monitoring of assets contained in a special account from which no funds
+can be withdrawn without the approval and signature of a retired federal District Court judge and
+former United States Attorney are conditions that amply satisfy the concerns expressed by the
+government and the Court. These enditions are unique and unprecedented. They profoundly
+2 See Dkt. 97 at 34 (case-comparison chart in the Renewed Motion for Bail); cf. People v. Dominique Strauss-Kahn,
+02526/201 1(S.Ct. N.Y. County). Strauss-Kahn, a
+citizen with no ties to the United States, was arrested on a
+Paris-bound flight at JFK minutes before takeoff and later charged with several counts of sexual assault, including
+felony charges punishable up to 25 years imprisonment, for sexual assault and attempted rape of a Manhattan hotel
+housekeeper on the day of his arrest. The accusations were corroborated by semen containing Strauss-Kahn's DNA
+on the accuser's uniform. The New York State Supreme Court granted bail in the amount of S1 million cash, 24-
+hour home detention electronic monitoring ankle bracelet, and private 24/7 security guards, After surrendering his
+passport and posting an additional $5 million bail bond, Strauss-Kahn was placed under house arrest in a
+residence in Manhattan. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ may/20/dominique-strauss-kahn-new-yorkapartment.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 160 Filed 02/23/21 Page 9 of 9
+affirm Ms. Maxwell's earnestness in seeking bail to properly prepare her defense, not to flee.
+The Court should grant bail to Ghislaine Maxwell.
+CONCLUSION
+The proposed additional conditions of release-renunciation of foreign citizenship and
+restraint and monitoring of assets by a retired District Court judge-enhance the already
+extraordinarily restrictive bail conditions proposed in Ms. Maxwell's Renewed Motion for Bail.
+In combination, these conditions satisfy the Bail Reform Act and reasonably assure Ms.
+Maxwell's appearance at trial. To deny Ms. Maxwell bail when such extraordinary and
+restrictive conditions are available would be a miscarriage of justice.
+Dated: February 23, 2021
+Respectfully submitted,
+Babbi C. Sternheim
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON, L
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+P.C.
+9
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e65fd10f3ce8d1460aece0be8f48a7ca9803f9a281ac2928ac408912b5746956.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e65fd10f3ce8d1460aece0be8f48a7ca9803f9a281ac2928ac408912b5746956.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a0c433b7c5af97d545d19d6826ed711d63ea1b34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e65fd10f3ce8d1460aece0be8f48a7ca9803f9a281ac2928ac408912b5746956.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -110,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e65fd10f3ce8d1460aece0be8f48a7ca9803f9a281ac2928ac408912b5746956",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e753dae4d382bdc2ef63352d52169c749bbe671888221bc443d51733c51f513f",
+  "output_sha256": "d4426d7248a91547646d838a316c57c2e1ef99bd847dfbca32e27d4f43376d08",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69937583cc16248c4e14b8ee26b0f0fe372b4ef7bf11c37dd0bce54c980b6c7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69937583cc16248c4e14b8ee26b0f0fe372b4ef7bf11c37dd0bce54c980b6c7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d364312f1728a5dc8c265a9bfa2032b9a684f3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69937583cc16248c4e14b8ee26b0f0fe372b4ef7bf11c37dd0bce54c980b6c7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+Document 22 Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 9
+LAW OFFICE OF
+MARC FERNICH
+MARCFERNICH maf@femichlaw.com
+ALSO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS
+310 SEVENTH AVENUE, SUITE 620
+NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10015
+212-446-2346
+FAX: 212-459-2299
+www.fernichlaw.com
+BY ECF
+USDJ-SDNY
+500 Pearl St.
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: US v. Epstein, 19 CR 490 (SDNY)
+Dear Judge Berman:
+In response to requests from the Court and certain arguments made
+yesterday by the government, we write to supplement Jeffrey Epstein's
+request for bail.
+First, make no mistake about the crux of the government's
+detention argument and its necessary implications. Stripped to its core,
+the government's position - as urged in its letters and echoed again
+yesterday - distills to this: the nominally rebuttable remand
+presumption (connected with 18 US § 1591 charges) 1 plus Mr.
+1 To be clear, Epstein contends that § 1591 and the concomitant remand presumption
+do not contemplate or cover the core conduct at issue here: performing sexual
+
+
+
+Page 2
+Epstein's wealth creates an irrebuttable presumption whereby no
+condition(s) can reasonably assure personal appearance or protect the
+public. The Court should reject the government's misguided effort to
+effectively create a per se rule.2 Indeed, for the government, there's
+literally nothing a person of Epstein's means could say, do or pledge to
+rebut the operative presumption and make himself eligible for release.
+That cannot be the law. Such a construction turns the statute's
+massages for money. See Fierro v. Taylor, No. 11-CV8573, 2012 WL 13042630, at *3
+(SDNY July 2, 2012) (holding that sex purchasers from minors fall outside § 1591's
+ambit).
+2 E.g., 7/15/19 Tr. 11 ("even if the defense were able at some point to rebut the
+presumption by providing some more information, there simply is no way that they
+can meet the standard here"); 7/12/19 Ltr. 5 ("even assuming the defendant's assets
+are presently in the United States, nothing ... would prevent the defendant from
+transferring liquid assets out of the country quickly and in anticipation of flight or
+relocation. The defendant is an incredibly sophisticated financial actor with decades
+of experience in the industry and significant ties to financial institutions and actors
+around the world. He could easily transfer funds and holdings on a moment's [notice]
+to places where the [glovernment would never find them so as to ensure he could live
+comfortably while a fugitive."); id. (*even were the defendant to sacrifice literally all
+of his current assets, there is every indication that he would immediately be able to
+resume making ... tens of millions of dollars per year outside of the United States....
+[T]here would be little to stop the defendant from fleeing, transferring his unknown
+assets abroad, and then continuing to ... earn his vast wealth from a computer
+terminal beyond the reach of extradition.") (footnote omitted); id. 7 ("the notion that
+any individual co-signer could meaningfully secure a bond for this defendant strains
+credulity").
+
+
+Document 22 Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 9
+Page 3
+plain text - expressly providing that the presumption is "[s]ubject to
+rebuttal," and otherwise mandating bail on the "least restrictive"
+conditions that reasonably assure the defendant's presence and
+community safety - on its head. It defies legislative intent. It thwarts the
+presumption of innocence. And it violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
+amendment rights to due process, counsel, a defense and equal
+protection, not to mention the Eighth Amendment guarantee of bail - all
+based on a suspect if not invidious classification. To be sure, wealthy
+defendants do not deserve preferential treatment. But they certainly
+shouldn't be singled out for worse treatment - in effect, categorically
+disqualified from bail, at least in a presumption case - on the basis of
+their net worth.
+Second, it bears emphasis that the presumption is hardly an
+insurmountable bar to release in a § 1591 prosecution.3 To the contrary,
+courts have determined that there are suitable conditions under which
+3 E.g., US v.
+|, No. 13-CR-04-GKF, 2013 WL 11305792 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8,
+2013); US v. Afyare, No. 3:10-cr-00260, 2011 WL 1397820 (M.D. Tenn. April 13, 2011);
+US v. Gardner, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
+
+
+
+Page 4
+defendants accused of trafficking minors are bailed - notwithstanding
+the remand presumption.
+Third, as apparent from Mr. Epstein's initial financial disclosure,
+Mr. Epstein's finances are fairly complex. It would be impossible for Mr.
+Epstein - given, among other impediments, his detention, inability to
+quickly access pertinent records, and inability to quickly make a precise
+valuation of particular assets - to provide a sufficient financial statement
+by the Court's 5pm deadline. Mr. Epstein certainly recognizes the Court's
+request for further transparency and is committed to providing a
+complete and accurate disclosure. Accordingly, we propose that the Court
+preliminarily accept the initial disclosure proffered last Friday and, if
+intending to grant bail, include a release condition directing Mr. Epstein
+to tender a comprehensive forensic accounting of his finances as
+expeditiously as practicable. Joel Podgor, Partner Emeritus at prominent
+Manhattan accounting firm Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP, has
+agreed to conduct the forensic investigation and prepare a report rapidly.
+As counsel said during the July 15 argument, Epstein will agree to any
+
+
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 5 of 9
+Page 5
+monetary condition - consistent with his Sixth Amendment need to
+retain counsel and pay ordinary expenses, which, at the Court's
+discretion, could be subject to supervision by a Court-appointed trustee -
+that collateralizes his assets as a condition of release.
+Fourth, to the extent the government complains Epstein lacks
+meaningful domestic ties, we clarify and emphasize that his brother
+Mark, a U.S. resident, stands prepared to co-sign and secure a release
+bond in the full amount of his "own net worth," 4 which exceeds $100
+million - tangible proof of his certainty that Epstein will appear as
+necessary.
+Fifth, in response to the Court's inquiry about Epstein's New
+Mexico registration status, the state's Public Safety Department formally
+advised in August 2010 that "you are not required to register with the
+State of New Mexico ... for your 2008 Florida conviction of Procuring
+Person Under 18 for Prostitution." Nonetheless, in an abundance of
+caution and as an extra precaution, Epstein consistently notified the
+1 7/12/19 Ltr. 6 (footnote omitted).
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB |
+Document 22 Filed 07/16/19 Page 6 of 9
+Page 6
+appropriate New Mexico official, Detective Deborah Anaya, when he
+spent any time at his ranch there. (The underlying documents are
+available upon request.)
+Sixth, though some studies may well indicate that sex offender
+recidivism rates "actually gol) up at 15 years," as Your Honor suggested
+from the bench,5 others reach the opposite conclusion. For example, a
+respected study found that the relapse risk drops substantially the longer
+a person remains sex-offense free in the community. 6 Another
+determined that it's mistaken to think of anyone who's been offense-free
+for 15 years as high-risk. 7
+Seventh, to the extent third-party counsel (Mr. Boies) speculated
+that the alleged November 28 and December 3, 2018 payments8 were
+5 7/15/19 Tr. 34.
+6 Hanson et al., "High-Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever," Journal
+Interpersonal
+Violence
+(March
+https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261069441_High-
+2014),
+Risk_Sex_Offenders_May_Not_Be_High_Risk_Forever.
+7 Ira Mark & Tara Ellman, "Frightening and High': The Supreme Court's Crucial
+Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics" (2015). Constitutional Commentary. 419.
+https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/419.
+8 7/12/19 Ltr. 11.
+
+
+Document 22 Filed 07/16/19 Page 7 of 9
+Page 7
+made to "witnesses who were cooperating with us"9 in civil litigation, he
+is wrong. As explained in Court, the recipients were "long-time [Epstein]
+friends and employees" 10 - not putative victims - and they never
+cooperated with Mr. Boies. To the contrary, each invoked the Fifth
+Amendment and refused to testify when civilly deposed, respectively, in
+prior New York federal and Florida state civil proceedings. Subject to the
+protective orders in these proceedings, we would be pleased to provide
+relevant deposition transcripts.
+Eighth, as for the Austrian passport the government trumpets, it
+expired 32 years ago. And the government offers nothing to suggest - and
+certainly no evidence - that Epstein ever used it. In any case, Epstein -
+an affluent member of the Jewish faith - acquired the passport in the
+1980s, when hijackings were prevalent, in connection to Middle East
+travel. The passport was for personal protection in the event of travel to
+dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential kidnapers, hijackers
+9 7/15/19 Tr. 70-71.
+10 Ibid. 69.
+
+
+Document 22 Filed 07/16/19 Page 8 of 9
+Page 8
+or terrorists should violent episodes occur.
+Ninth, the Court is undoubtedly aware of the highly charged
+context surrounding this prosecution. In November 2018, media reports
+suggested that Epstein received a plea deal that amounted to a "slap on
+the wrist." Putting aside the robust negotiations leading to the nonprosecution agreement (NPA) and the prison sentence that Epstein
+completed, there can be no dispute that certain witnesses through their
+attorney representatives,11 the media - e.g., The Miami Herald - and
+the public were all clamoring for his re-prosecution, Epstein traveled
+extensively over these eight months and invariably returned to the
+United States. That inescapable reality emphatically proves he won't flee
+and entitles him to release - on any and all conditions the Court deems
+appropriate.
+11 See, e.g., Doe v. US, CV 807-36 (SD Fla.).
+
+
+
+Page 9
+We thank the Court for its consideration and would be pleased to
+provide any additional information at Thursday's appearance.
+Respectfully,
+/sl
+Mare Fernich
+Weintraub
+Reid Weingarten
+cc: All Counsel (ECF)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69937583cc16248c4e14b8ee26b0f0fe372b4ef7bf11c37dd0bce54c980b6c7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69937583cc16248c4e14b8ee26b0f0fe372b4ef7bf11c37dd0bce54c980b6c7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..874b0359bbd99ef02d2cf5e8043d2276e00f5e7a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69937583cc16248c4e14b8ee26b0f0fe372b4ef7bf11c37dd0bce54c980b6c7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -754,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e69937583cc16248c4e14b8ee26b0f0fe372b4ef7bf11c37dd0bce54c980b6c7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 14,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1c4698e0ed3d7217db8242c4ca6ff151c4666c6cc4b8c016b948588423e2db64",
+  "output_sha256": "50b027ec58bee72ef6fe62ffece7dca64b43e538c063a3251721fc0b15ba1fd6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69ff3ef9be8a2d5bc56c79534718f0b43fea39ea02d99d9a06602d6977156c8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69ff3ef9be8a2d5bc56c79534718f0b43fea39ea02d99d9a06602d6977156c8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94aaa50ca61d236cc695ba01d8bb0f15a71606c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69ff3ef9be8a2d5bc56c79534718f0b43fea39ea02d99d9a06602d6977156c8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 573-1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69ff3ef9be8a2d5bc56c79534718f0b43fea39ea02d99d9a06602d6977156c8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69ff3ef9be8a2d5bc56c79534718f0b43fea39ea02d99d9a06602d6977156c8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44755ae5897d1a395ea38cd4e44738215a5ce118
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e69ff3ef9be8a2d5bc56c79534718f0b43fea39ea02d99d9a06602d6977156c8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e69ff3ef9be8a2d5bc56c79534718f0b43fea39ea02d99d9a06602d6977156c8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "04eadeccd3657c17c3ad8826ec8144621e31987b67a5db65cadd6f8b78ab8f2c",
+  "output_sha256": "5191a95ce7e1ce101f4a6f21012c5ddff74b434e04545e31fba4cf02d14f24b0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6abb0c31e3170b15d256cfa31bcf7b6f2a42315f67d5c982bda02f45e217cf7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6abb0c31e3170b15d256cfa31bcf7b6f2a42315f67d5c982bda02f45e217cf7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23ed72f7611f427f48888bf47331711f8341a026
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6abb0c31e3170b15d256cfa31bcf7b6f2a42315f67d5c982bda02f45e217cf7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 597-3 Filed 02/08/17
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+--X
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
+The motion of Ty Gee for admission to appear and practice pro hac vice in this action is
+GRANTED.
+Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the state of
+Colorado; and that his contact information is as follows:
+Ty Gee, Colorado Atty. Reg. #19772
+HADDON,
+LAND
+P.C.
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax: 303.832.2628
+tgee@hmflaw.com
+Applicant having requested admission pro hac vice to appear for all purposes as counsel
+for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in this action,
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in his
+action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 597-3 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 2
+appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules
+governing discipline of attorneys.
+Date:
+United States District Judge
+Robert W. Sweet
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6abb0c31e3170b15d256cfa31bcf7b6f2a42315f67d5c982bda02f45e217cf7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6abb0c31e3170b15d256cfa31bcf7b6f2a42315f67d5c982bda02f45e217cf7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50a96a112c66252e9957285d5d812671f395a1c0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6abb0c31e3170b15d256cfa31bcf7b6f2a42315f67d5c982bda02f45e217cf7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e6abb0c31e3170b15d256cfa31bcf7b6f2a42315f67d5c982bda02f45e217cf7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "65d6f3860e96c05278c6f669320661032d91177b81591680face73cace14ef4c",
+  "output_sha256": "1a7412a41e8d2c8d1c14a224850a94d31e087deb78a7d0da8ec6d65f89a72f1a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6adefbaf5ffb5832408847caad4583ee9835f7ad14dfb8737fd5391f3d31f6f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6adefbaf5ffb5832408847caad4583ee9835f7ad14dfb8737fd5391f3d31f6f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac2484535d7cd5186d23aa3326a642c760f02217
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6adefbaf5ffb5832408847caad4583ee9835f7ad14dfb8737fd5391f3d31f6f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 537 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AM
+USA / Plaintiffs)
+Case No.: 20-cr-330
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant(s)
+)
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
+INFERENC
+Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a
+held on
+has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.
+11/23/21
+Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting
+the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.
+The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court
+any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also
+be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically
+available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.
+This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security
+numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information
+may proceed by motion.
+I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter.
+Court Reporter/Transcriber
+Date
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6adefbaf5ffb5832408847caad4583ee9835f7ad14dfb8737fd5391f3d31f6f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6adefbaf5ffb5832408847caad4583ee9835f7ad14dfb8737fd5391f3d31f6f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..015a12e88aa8a7e9f0e6799c5ad94e1cdb02a5d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6adefbaf5ffb5832408847caad4583ee9835f7ad14dfb8737fd5391f3d31f6f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e6adefbaf5ffb5832408847caad4583ee9835f7ad14dfb8737fd5391f3d31f6f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "161c352d1a8b7e5a726516fa14f900016ac7511f0d2c96a69890dc0a1d89454c",
+  "output_sha256": "25273984b3fe40d7585c0cf2c6ad9b4cd7a6ace825b50c3b774195a84c81dd57",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6b909462b8342d3b2b619cb60484eac986a4e88d95b8096a72ac38db407f0f1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6b909462b8342d3b2b619cb60484eac986a4e88d95b8096a72ac38db407f0f1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c86c6656e6d2f5396d194f05e81289a8046f3116
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6b909462b8342d3b2b619cb60484eac986a4e88d95b8096a72ac38db407f0f1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-4
+Filed 01/08/24
+
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF MEREDITH
+IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MOTION TO COMPEL ALL WORK PRODUCT AND
+ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH PHILIP BARDEN
+1, Meredith
+declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Counsel with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Reply to Motion to
+Compel Communication All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications with Philip
+Barden.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of January 6, 2017
+Declaration of Philip Barden.
+4.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 2 Defendant's February 9, 2016;
+May 16, 2016; and August 1, 2016 Privilege Log.
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Meredith
+Meredith
+Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-4
+Filed 01/08/24
+
+Dated: March 7, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-4 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th day of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10"" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6b909462b8342d3b2b619cb60484eac986a4e88d95b8096a72ac38db407f0f1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6b909462b8342d3b2b619cb60484eac986a4e88d95b8096a72ac38db407f0f1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cb9011ef7e591938a10ca77c54a3a0e45b346d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6b909462b8342d3b2b619cb60484eac986a4e88d95b8096a72ac38db407f0f1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -58,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e6b909462b8342d3b2b619cb60484eac986a4e88d95b8096a72ac38db407f0f1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2410a628d52a7c4cf2ab3ef566942122a5d6dcd4825d60b13de074a86e43f77c",
+  "output_sha256": "f801060099cec022cc6fd9f4fe984b36d633f3c75cc65d5c700ad4b4bf7ee2ad",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6db3e8164fcd415f769bdc3c9f1d513cff21bddfab597c6f9537abe4116cd4c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6db3e8164fcd415f769bdc3c9f1d513cff21bddfab597c6f9537abe4116cd4c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b3de1522b36d446379bbe9314123f19d236647e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6db3e8164fcd415f769bdc3c9f1d513cff21bddfab597c6f9537abe4116cd4c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 73 Filed 08/05/25 Page 1 of 4
+Florida Office
+425 North Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
+MEMO ENDORSED
+THE -
+CRIME VICTIM
+- LAW FIRM
+Telephone (954)524-2820
+Fax (954)524-2822
+info @cvlf.com
+Brad@cvlf.com
+Brittany@cvlf.com
+New York Office
+By Appointment Only
+August 5, 2025
+Docket and file.
+Southern District of New York
+Daniel
+Moynihan
+United States Courthouse
+500 Pearl Street
+Courtroom 17B
+New York, NY 10007-1312
+Via Email: BermanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov
+Grady_MacPhee@nysd.uscourts.gov
+USANYS.EpsteinMaxwellVictims@usdoj.gov
+SO ORDERED:
+Date:_8/5/25
+Richard A. Berman
+Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J.
+RE: Crime Victims' Rights Act Implications Regarding Unsealing of Grand Jury
+Materials in Epstein Proceedings
+Case: United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein
+Case No.: 19 CR 490 (RMB)
+Dear Judge Berman:
+Kights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, the enduring interests protected by Federal Rule of
+Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Eleventh Circuit precedent.
+I.
+Victims' CVRA Rights Are Directly Implicated and Must Be Considered in Context-
+Not in a Vacuum
+The CVRA guarantees victims:
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 73 Filed 08/05/25 Page 2 of 4
+Page 2
+• The right to be reasonably protected from the accused ($ 3771(a)(1));
+• The right to be heard at any public proceeding involving release, parole, or sentencing (S
+3771 (a)(3));
+• The right to confer with the attorney for the Government (S 3771(a)(5)); and,
+• The right to be treated with fairness and respect for dignity and privacy ($ 3771(a) (8)).
+See also Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2006) (fairness and dignity are
+substantive, enforceable rights); In rel
+1. 527 F.3d 391, 394-95 (5th Cir. 2008) (government must
+confer with victims before making consequential case decisions); In re
+•. 994 F.3d 1244 (11th
+Cir. 2021) (en banc) (confirming that CVRA protections are fully attached post-conviction).
+Given our history fighting for the enforcement of the CVRA on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein's many
+victims, we were quite surprised to learn that the government sought the unsealing of grand jury
+materials before this Court without first conferring with the victims or their counsel, a step required
+by the CVRA and reinforced by Doe v. United States, 08-80736 (S.D. Fla.). That case, litigated pro
+bono by undersigned counsel for more than a decade, arose precisely because the government
+previously violated the rights of many of these very same victims. It is especially troubling that,
+despite the outcome of that litigation, the government has once again proceeded in a manner that
+disregards the victims' rights-suggesting that the hard-learned lessons of the past have not taken
+hold. This omission reinforces the perception that the victims are, at best, an afterthought to the
+current administration.
+Of significant concern, the same government that failed to provide notice to the victims before
+moving this Court to unseal the grand jury materials is now the government representing to this Court
+that it has provided appropriate notice to the victims or their counsel and has conducted a proper
+review and redaction of the materials it seeks to release. Several clients have contacted us expressing
+deep anxiety over whether the redactions were in fact adequate. Consequently, we requested
+yesterday that the government identify which of our clients were referenced to the grand jury. The
+government responded promptly and provided clarification. However, we have strong reason to
+believe that additional individuals-whom we also represent-were likely referenced in those
+materials but were not identified to us by the government.
+It remains unclear whether notice was instead provided to prior counsel, whether their omission was
+a government oversight, whether the government does not consider them to be victims, or whether
+these individuals were, in fact, not mentioned to the grand jury. Regardless of the explanation, this
+ambiguity raises a serious issue that must be resolved before any materials are publicly released.
+Against this backdrop, any disclosure of grand jury material-especially material that could expose
+or help identify victims in any way-directly affects the CVRA's fairness, privacy, conferral, and
+protection guarantees. To ensure those rights are protected, it is essential that the protocol outlined
+in the relief requested below is adopted by this Court.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 73 Filed 08/05/25 Page 3 of 4
+Page 3
+Il.
+Rule 6(e) and Eleventh Circuit Authority Require Heightened Caution and Narrow
+Tailoring.
+Grand jury secrecy is a "long-established policy" safeguarded by Rule 6(e). Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol
+Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211, 219-23 (1979). Even where disclosure may be considered, the movant
+must establish a particularized need that outweighs the countervailing interests in secrecy, and any
+disclosure should be no broader than necessary. Id. at 222-23. The Eleventh Circuit has further
+held that district courts lack inherent authority to order grand jury disclosure outside the exceptions
+in Rule 6(e). Pitch v. United States, 953 F.3d 1226, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc); see also
+Mckeever v. Barr, 920 F.3d 842, 845-46 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
+Here, even if the Court were to find a Rule 6(e) path to limited disclosure, victims' CVRA rights and
+the traditional interests protected by grand jury secrecy converge in favor of extraordinary care:
+rigorous judicial screening, robust redactions, minimization of any risk of re-identification, and
+meaningful victim participation before anything is made public. Related privacy provisions reinforce
+this approach. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. $ 3509(d)(2) (authorizing protective orders to shield child-victims'
+identities and "other information concerning a child"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 49.1 (privacy redactions).
+Many Epstein victims were minors at the time of the abuse; even for those now adults, $ 3771(a)(8)
+and the Court's protective authority warrant safeguards that functionally align with § 3509(d)
+principles.
+III. Requested Relief
+In light of the foregoing, the victims respectfully request that the Court:
+1) Require Conferral and Notice (CVRA S$ 3771(a)(5), (c)(1)): Direct the Government to
+confer with victims' counsel and provide reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard
+before any ruling on unsealing or public release of grand jury materials.
+2) Judicial In Camera Review: Conduct a comprehensive in camera review of the grand jury
+materials to determine whether the proponent has shown a Rule 6(e)-compliant basis for any
+disclosure and, if so, the narrowest scope of disclosure consistent with Douglas Oil.
+3) Victims' Counsel Pre-Release Review (Under Protective Order): Permit designated victims'
+counsel to review the government's proposed redactions and any index of materials under a
+strict protective order, to allow victims' counsel to identify and prevent: (a) direct identifiers,
+(b) combinations of data points that could reasonably lead to re-identification or harassment
+of victims, and (c) to propose all additional redactions necessary.
+4) Dispute Resolution before Unsealing or Release: If the government does not agree with
+additional proposed redactions from victims' counsel, provide victims' counsel the
+opportunity to be heard on any dispute before ruling on unsealing or public release.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 73 Filed 08/05/25 Page 4 of 4
+Page 4
+5) Defer or Deny Without Prejudice if Safeguards Cannot Be Assured: If adequate safeguards
+cannot be implemented consistent with Rule 6(e), Pitch, and the CVRA, deny disclosure
+without prejudice.
+IV. Conclusion
+The survivors support transparency when it can be achieved without sacrificing their safety, privacy,
+or dignity. But transparency cannot come at the expense of the very people whom the justice system
+is sworn to protect-particularly amid contemporaneous events that magnify risk and trauma. Several
+victims have already died by suicide, drug overdose, or under tragic circumstances tied directly to
+the trauma caused by Jeflrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. These survivors have already endured
+profound violations of their rights and dignity, both during the years of Epstein's abuse and in the
+years following. To now compound their trauma by sidelining them from critical decisionsespecially in this climate of heightened concern-is inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of
+the CVRA.
+The CVRA, Rule 6(e), and Eleventh Circuit authority all point toward narrow tailoring, maximal
+privacy protections, and meaningful victim participation before any grand jury material sees daylight.
+We respectfully ask the Court to adopt the safeguards outlined above.
+Respectfully submitted,
+BEe
+Brittany
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+Telephone: (954) 524-2820
+Email: brad@cvlf.com
+brittany@cvlf.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+Utah Appellate Project
+S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
+383 S. University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0300
+Tel: 801-580-6462
+Email: pgcassell.law@gmail.com
+(institutional address for identification purpose only, not to imply institutional endorsement)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6db3e8164fcd415f769bdc3c9f1d513cff21bddfab597c6f9537abe4116cd4c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6db3e8164fcd415f769bdc3c9f1d513cff21bddfab597c6f9537abe4116cd4c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b30748ccdbbfb2bdbd670f2615b227963f6bf8b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e6db3e8164fcd415f769bdc3c9f1d513cff21bddfab597c6f9537abe4116cd4c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -238,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e6db3e8164fcd415f769bdc3c9f1d513cff21bddfab597c6f9537abe4116cd4c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5ac5bb5d3ec7476d76bdef458ce7fd938bb04872b0f9eea2947aadad7b8ee288",
+  "output_sha256": "3c10cbc667706b42c8a5e86b42a76f70b547c5d89c7590fb644471643f0313f3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e73ed5993d143e7dbbf272782817858f50a8c5f25810c95746f59169bc12846c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e73ed5993d143e7dbbf272782817858f50a8c5f25810c95746f59169bc12846c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4da40e53672b0bab7be90141ed030e349fcc8b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e73ed5993d143e7dbbf272782817858f50a8c5f25810c95746f59169bc12846c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,261 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+------
+Defendant's Surreply in Opposition to "Motion to Compel"
+Work Product and Attorney-Client Communications with Philip Barden
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 9
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, submits this Surreply in opposition to
+plaintiff's "Motion to Compel All Work Product and Attorney Client [sic] Communications with
+Philip Barden" (Doc.637).
+INTRODUCTION
+Procedurally, plaintiff's Motion to Compel is a mess. The motion violates every rule
+applicable to motions to compel: her counsel did not confer; the motion fails to identify any
+discovery request it is seeking to "compel" a response to; and it failed to list verbatim any such
+allegedly unanswered discovery request, as required by local rule. Additionally, discovery closed
+nearly eight months ago, and trial is 60 days away.
+Substantively, the Motion to Compel is facially frivolous. It argues Mr. Barden's
+declaration effected a waiver of the attorney-client privilege between him and Ms. Maxwell.
+Plaintiff identified two sentences in the declaration in which Mr. Barden purportedly "reveal[ed]
+attorney client [sic] legal advice given to Defendant." Mot. 3 (emphasis supplied). The sentences
+are found in Paragraph 13 of the declaration, where Mr. Barden discusses his intent and purpose
+in preparing the January 2015 statement. We quote in full the two sentences so that the Court can
+see for itself the remarkably frivolous nature of the argument: "I did not ask Ms. Maxwell to
+respond point by point to
+factual allegations in the CVRA joinder motion. What
+we needed to do was issue an immediate denial and that necessarily had to be short and to the
+point." Doc.542-7, Ex.K 9| 13.
+After we filed our response pointing out the procedural and substantive flaws in the
+motion, plaintiff filed an excess-length reply (five pages longer than her motion) that, in
+violation of the rules, asserted a range of new factual statements and legal arguments. The reply
+identified four additional Barden sentences that purportedly effected a waiver of the attorneyclient privilege. These are more frivolous than the two sentences identified in the motion. Her
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 9
+counsel on March 9, 2017, followed up on this by presenting argument on the Motion to Compel
+that relied almost entirely on the rules-violating reply.
+Because of the unfairness from plaintiff's chaotic approach to motion practice, we
+requested on March 9 leave to file a surreply, and the Court granted the request in open court.
+ARGUMENT
+THE MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE OF
+PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES.
+As discussed in our response (Doc.653) the failure to comply with the rules is an
+independent ground for denial of a motion to compel. Plaintiff tries in her reply to fix the rules
+violations, but there are some procedural defaults that cannot be fixed retroactively. One is the
+requirement of conferral. Compliance with the rule mandating conferral is a precondition for
+relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
+In her reply plaintiff conspicuously fails to show how she conferred in good faith to
+resolve the alleged discovery issues before filing the motion. See PIf's Reply 3. She merely
+repeats what she said in her Rule 37(a)(1) certification— that she "raised" the "issue" of attorneyclient waiver at the "recent oral argument." As we discussed in the response, "raising an issue" in
+court is not a "conferral in good faith." The failure to show conferral in good faith necessarily
+means her counsel's Rule 37(a)(1) certification was signed in violation of Rule 11(b).
+We do not mean to stand on some "technical" objection to the motion. For one,
+Rule 37(a)(1) is not a technical rule; it is a "mandatory prerequisite to the court's consideration
+of a motion to compel," not simply "an empty formality." Madison v. PALA Interstate, LLC, Civ.
+No. 13-765-BAJ-RLB, 2014 WL 7004039, at *2 (M.D. La. Dec. 10, 2014); accord, e.g., Berndt
+V.
+Civ. No. 13-cv-368-SM, 2014 WL 6977848, at *3 (D.N.H. Dec. 9, 2014). For another,
+a principal purpose of the requirement is to avoid the filing of "unnecessary motions," Sprint
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 4 of 9
+Communic'ns Co. v. Comcast Cable Communic'ns, LLC, Nos. 11-2684-, 11-2685- & 11-2686-
+JWL, 2015WL11122119, at 1 (D. Kan. Apr. 21, 2015).
+The Motion to Compel is an example of an unnecessary motion and part of the "chaos"
+this Court described as characterizing this case. It resulted, yet again, from a disregard of the
+rules and practices of this Court intended to effectuate Rule 1 and minimize the parties' use of
+judicial resources. The need to enforce the rules to prevent the plaintiff from treating them as
+merely advisory and to bring some order to the chaos of this case—is a good and sufficient
+ground to deny the Motion to Compel.
+II.
+PLAINTIFF'S ARGUMENT THAT MS. MAXWELL HAS WAIVED HER
+ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS STILL FRIVOLOUS.
+As we demonstrated in our response, it was frivolous to argue that Ms. Maxwell waived
+her attorney-client privilege because her lawyer submitted a declaration saying: (a) he was not
+authorized to and was not waiving her attorney-client privilege; and (b) in preparing the January
+2015 statement he did "not" ask Ms. Maxwell to respond point by point to plaintiff's allegations
+in the CVRA joinder motion." In short, a lawyer cannot waive the attorney-client privilege
+which belongs to the client by saying he did not communicate with his client. To argue
+otherwise is fatuous.
+To try to improve on her argument, plaintiff argues on pages 2-3 of her reply there are
+four additional statements' in the Barden declaration that effected a waiver of the privilege
+because Ms. Maxwell "plac[ed] communications with her attorney at issue" (capitalization
+altered):
+'In the Motion to Compel, she said she was providing one example. In her reply, she says
+these four additional statements also are "example[s]." PIf's Reply 1. We suggest the Court
+should read these statements by the plaintiff the way we do: "This is the best we can do to
+identify instances of alleged waiver."
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 5 of 9
+1. "In liaison with Mr. Gow and my client, on January 2, 2015, I prepared a further
+statement denying the allegations, and I instructed Mr. Gow to transmit it via
+email to members of the British media who had made inquiry about plaintiff's
+allegations about Ms. Maxwell." Doc.638-2 9| 10.
+2. "Second, I intended the January 2015 statement to be "a shot across the bow' of
+the media, which I believed had been unduly eager to publish plaintiff's
+allegations without conducting any inquiry of their own. This was the purpose of
+repeatedly stating that plaintiff's allegations were 'defamatory.' In this sense, the
+statement was very much intended as a cease and desist letter to the mediarecipients, letting the media-recipients understand the seriousness with which
+Ms. Maxwell considered the publication of plaintiff's obviously false allegations
+and the legal indefensibility of their own conduct." Id. 9 17.
+3. "Consistent with those two purposes, Mr. Gow's emails prefaced the statement
+with the following language: 'Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf
+of Ms Maxwell' (italics supplied). The statement was intended to be a single, onetime-only, comprehensive response quoted in full, if it was to be used to
+plaintiff's December 30, 2014, allegations that would give the media
+Ms. Maxwell's response. The purpose of the prefatory statement was to inform
+the media-recipients of this intent." Id. 9 19.
+4. "I directed that the statement indicate Ms. Maxwell *strongly denie[d] the
+allegations of an unsavoury nature,' declare the allegations to be false, give the
+press-recipients notice that the publications of the allegations 'are defamatory,'
+and inform them that Ms. Maxwell was *reserv[ing] her right to seek redress."" Id.
+That is a terrible argument. For starters, this is not Ms. Maxwell's declaration, and
+Mr. Barden explicitly said he had no authority to waive her privilege. Doc.638-2 1 3.
+Additionally, none of these four statements discloses any communication between Mr. Barden
+and Ms. Maxwell. To contend otherwise is the height of frivolousness and warrants sanctions
+under Rule 11(c)(3).
+"In her reply plaintiff only quotes the last sentence of this paragraph. We think that is
+rather misleading; so we quote the entire paragraph.
+'Plaintiff omits the last sentence. We think that is misleading; so we quote the entire
+paragraph.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 6 of 9
+To illustrate how frivolous the argument is, we turn to plaintiff's response to our May
+2016 motion to compel (Doc.164) plaintiff to produce certain categories of her attorney-client
+communications. Our motion was premised on plaintiff's own testimony in which she repeatedly
+disclosed her communications with her attorney. See Doc.164 at 10-11. In opposition to that
+motion, plaintiff cited cases and advanced arguments that directly rebut her Motion to Compel.
+See Doc.184 at 9-14, 18-19, 21-22. Notably, plaintiff argued:
+• "[B]oth federal and New York state law ... require that a client waive attorneyclient privilege." Id. at 18 n.14.
+• "To find that an attorney waived his client's privilege, a clear record must exist
+concerning the attorney's attorney [sic] to waive privilege. See Bus. Integration
+Servs. v. AT&T Corp., No. 06 CIV. 1863 (JGK), 2008 WL 318343, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
+Feb. 4, 2008). Here ... the record is clear that [plaintiff] did not authorize any
+waiver of her attorney-client privilege." Id. at 18. Compare Paragraph 3 of
+Mr. Barden's declaration: "*I am not authorized to and do not waive Ms. Maxwell's
+attorney-client privilege." Doc.638-2 9 3.
+• Even though plaintiff submitted a declaration implicitly disclosing attorney-client
+communications, it did not result in waiver of the privilege because "the routine step
+of submitting an affidavit is not a waiver of attorney-client protections." Doc. 184 at
+19 (emphasis supplied).
+• "A waiver of the attorney-client privilege occurs only if the client voluntarily
+discloses in court the substance of a communication with her attorney. No waiver
+occurs when the client merely discloses facts which were part of the communication
+with the client's attorney.... [T]he privilege attaches to the communication with
+counsel, not to the underlying facts... To hold otherwise would eviscerate the
+attorney-client privilege. Such a ruling would mean that every time an attorney filed
+a declaration by his client that contained the factual basis for the client's claim, the
+opposing party would have the right to examine all privileged communications." Id.
+at 21-22 (citations omitted).
+• It is an "extreme assertion" to say that a client "waived her privilege simply by
+allowing an affidavit to be filed in a court proceeding." Id. (emphasis supplied).
+• "[D]isclosing the absence of communication is not the same as exposing any
+communication. It is a fundamental requirement that a communication be exposed,
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 7 of 9
+not the absence of such a communication." Id. at 25 (italics in original; underscoring
+supplied). Compare plaintiff's argument at page 9 of the reply that Mr. Barden
+waived the attorney-client privilege when he stated in his declaration, "I did not ask
+Ms. Maxwell to respond point by point ..." (emphasis supplied).
+We cannot say this any better. So we incorporate herein by reference the cases and
+arguments at pages 9-14, 18-19 and 21-22 of Doc. 184. Plaintiff's cases and argument are a
+resounding self-refutation of her own Motion to Compel. If no attorney-client communication
+was disclosed, then axiomatically the privileged communication was not used as a sword and the
+communication is not placed in issue. See, e.g., AIU Ins. Co. v. TIG Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5062030,
+at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2008) (holding that "It]he at-issue doctrine is construed narrowly" and
+requires proof of three elements, including that the privilege holder "put the protected
+information at issue by making it relevant to the case") (emphasis supplied).
+Plaintiff also argues in passing that Ms. Maxwell waived the attorney-client privilege by
+"fail[ing] to properly log communications on her privilege log." Plf's Reply 12. This does not
+appear to be a serious argument. There was not even a whisper of this claim in the Motion to
+Compel. Regardless, the argument presupposes that oral communications between an attorney
+and his client must be included in a privilege log. That is not the law. That is why plaintiff
+herself has not logged all her oral communications with her attorneys. Additionally, plaintiff
+forgets we have produced email communications predating January 10, 2015, involving
+Mr. Barden, Mr. Gow and Ms. Maxwell. Indeed, plaintiff attached a number of such
+communications to her Motion to Compel. See Doc.638-4.
+III. PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO MR. BARDEN'S WORK PRODUCT.
+As noted in Argument I, above, the Motion to Compel failed to identify a single
+unsatisfied discovery request. Accordingly, in our response we argued that plaintiff could not
+"compel" production of Mr. Barden's work product when she failed to identify an unsatisfied
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 8 of 9
+discovery request seeking such work product. Resp. 7. In reply, plaintiff makes the non-sequitur
+argument that she requested in discovery documents subject to the attorney-client privilege. See
+Plf's Reply 3-5. This fails to cure the Motion to Compel's procedural default of failing to
+identify any unsatisfied discovery request seeking Mr. Barden's work product. If there is no such
+unsatisfied discovery request, a fortiori plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under Rule 37.
+CONCLUSION
+The Court should deny the motion to compel, and award sanctions.
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Ty Gee
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+leffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice,
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON, (
+AND
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-11 Filed 01/08/24 Page 9 of 9
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 17, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Surreply in Opposition
+to "Motion to Compel" Work Product and Attorney-Client Communications with Philip Barden
+via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+, JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e73ed5993d143e7dbbf272782817858f50a8c5f25810c95746f59169bc12846c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e73ed5993d143e7dbbf272782817858f50a8c5f25810c95746f59169bc12846c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ceda54e0590396229d1422380a2b69d8ecceb3c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e73ed5993d143e7dbbf272782817858f50a8c5f25810c95746f59169bc12846c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -129,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e73ed5993d143e7dbbf272782817858f50a8c5f25810c95746f59169bc12846c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "36031445823cd41c6b964a745cdf84a19e2611f57e3c96d391e53e6ebcd5cf72",
+  "output_sha256": "b5eacb3722b9e7eb534eae05e10b4c558f22cf138ed39f9df03df5b67672c5fb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7453c2af5eeb29e7fa34b09dedb1f185f9e13671900676c876dd59d6fc977b7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7453c2af5eeb29e7fa34b09dedb1f185f9e13671900676c876dd59d6fc977b7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30a7cbe91668d15fd76ad4133c948ee5a1a07c01
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7453c2af5eeb29e7fa34b09dedb1f185f9e13671900676c876dd59d6fc977b7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 332
+Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 1
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 312 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 1
+BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+40I EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
+YECEIVE
+Meredith Schultz
+, Esq.
+fljb.com
+July 29, 2016
+JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
+USDE SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED:
+8/4/14
+356.0022
+Via CM/ECE
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+V. Maxwell
+Case no. 15-cy-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
+Dear Judge Sweet,
+This is a letter motion to file the exhibit accompanying|
+Notice of
+Supplemental Authority under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).
+The Protective Order states:
+Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing
+CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be
+accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case
+Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4.
+Vumerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As the exhibit
+accompanying
+Votice of Supplemental Authority contains material designated as
+confidential, she seeks leave to file it under seal.
+Soodired
+Groutesar
+Respectfully submitted,
+Mith Shalt
+8:3-116
+Meredith
+,, Esq
+co: Laura Menninger and Jeffrey Pagliuca via CM/ECF
+WWW.BSFLLP.coM
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7453c2af5eeb29e7fa34b09dedb1f185f9e13671900676c876dd59d6fc977b7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7453c2af5eeb29e7fa34b09dedb1f185f9e13671900676c876dd59d6fc977b7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..090ce2b0249aeef44d98a9ce9260c0cfd6cf43e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7453c2af5eeb29e7fa34b09dedb1f185f9e13671900676c876dd59d6fc977b7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e7453c2af5eeb29e7fa34b09dedb1f185f9e13671900676c876dd59d6fc977b7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5adb9ce03618e4940b71603b76c3e34e43ac64568bb8d5009f409474b83e2219",
+  "output_sha256": "5702dfe4cb1b062e217904161c9ad75305c902db40c3f51f7b49f3db0b7eebc9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76a8d28c37f322012ea91ee1a182d63e52eed318b97f821230d0493b8b28277.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76a8d28c37f322012ea91ee1a182d63e52eed318b97f821230d0493b8b28277.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e9378bf317735a0a9575f25c7bb4fcfc1203082
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76a8d28c37f322012ea91ee1a182d63e52eed318b97f821230d0493b8b28277.md
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 742
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 5
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+:
+-----
+Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's
+Motion In Limine to Admit the "Black Book"
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenu
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+_ P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 742
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 5
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+INTRODUCTION
+..1
+I. THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE AUTHENTICATED
+..5
+Il. THE DOCUMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS RECORD
+..7
+III. THE DOCUMENT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS AN ADMISSION UNDER ANY
+SECTION OF 801(D)(2)..
+IV. THE DOCUMENT IS NOT A LIST OR A DIRECTORY CONTEMPLATED BY RULE
+803(17) ...
+...9
+.. 10
+V. THE RESIDUAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY
+..11
+VI. THE DOCUMENT IS HEARSAY AND SHOULD BE EXCLUDED
+. 12
+CONCLUSION
+.12
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 742 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 5
+PAGES 1-13
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 742 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 5
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 742 Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 5
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 17, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Response in Opposition
+to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Admit the "Black Book" via ECF on the following
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+14
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76a8d28c37f322012ea91ee1a182d63e52eed318b97f821230d0493b8b28277.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76a8d28c37f322012ea91ee1a182d63e52eed318b97f821230d0493b8b28277.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f661a227cd90427b1879c87e7e3da6e80c57f31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76a8d28c37f322012ea91ee1a182d63e52eed318b97f821230d0493b8b28277.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -60,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e76a8d28c37f322012ea91ee1a182d63e52eed318b97f821230d0493b8b28277",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "bbfb8ffeb5ad4ec2da053f9ab9f2afe089a3a6f714c6409a8fb29d72a430ab14",
+  "output_sha256": "1b2e3e41c17b307e15699d4b81b4150eee8a469723bdbdc3817fec717f8e153a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76e3c88256103b457582b06206ff5c15530562dad4c70b485a95beb3484c060.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76e3c88256103b457582b06206ff5c15530562dad4c70b485a95beb3484c060.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7cd8ad2475124afd3c48d21afbbdee62e6d1d3ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76e3c88256103b457582b06206ff5c15530562dad4c70b485a95beb3484c060.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 597-2
+Filed 02/08/17
+
+SUPREME COURT
+State of Colorado,
+STATE OF COLORADO, ss:
+1,
+Colorado, do hereby certify that
+T. Ryan Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of
+TY CHEUNG GEE
+has been duly licensed and admilled to practice as an
+ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW
+within this State; and that his/ her name appears upon the Roll of Attorneys
+and Counselors at Law in my office of date the
+22/d
+day of
+October
+A.D._
+1920 and that at the date hereof
+the said
+TY CHEUNG GEE
+is in good standing at this Bar.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have bereunto subscribed my name and
+affixed the Seal of said Supreme Court, at Denser, in said State, abis
+day of
+February
+- A. D. 2017
+T. Ryan
+By
+Valin ill
+Clerk
+Depary Clarke
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76e3c88256103b457582b06206ff5c15530562dad4c70b485a95beb3484c060.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76e3c88256103b457582b06206ff5c15530562dad4c70b485a95beb3484c060.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0fdd7984cd603e21b36a65c9c33f333558c9ea1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e76e3c88256103b457582b06206ff5c15530562dad4c70b485a95beb3484c060.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e76e3c88256103b457582b06206ff5c15530562dad4c70b485a95beb3484c060",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "cd2afc0970fe0f6b64e2aa9d4b05c4a5f3d2013f9b1e117c1ac8c3733effa77e",
+  "output_sha256": "2f55f6c91ae09ce0580f3853056f3e641dc4e6255a54a1b3fc9b07b66e649f20",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e78751910bb94e105d532cbf23218b064cadfd1be47357601016432042344d42.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e78751910bb94e105d532cbf23218b064cadfd1be47357601016432042344d42.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b7dccb5f79cb0efd375dbb92d61f5f8d1167f43e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e78751910bb94e105d532cbf23218b064cadfd1be47357601016432042344d42.md
@@ -0,0 +1,752 @@
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 1 of 26
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+CASE NO.:
+VE
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+NINE EAST 71ST STREET, CORPORATION,
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC.,
+NES, LLC,
+Defendant.
+COMPLAINT
+Plaintiff, VE, by and through her undersigned counsel, for her claims against
+Defendants, alleges as follows:
+The controversy in this cause of action exceeds the sum or value of
+$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.
+Therefore, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1332.
+Plaintiff files this Complaint under a pseudonym in order to protect her
+identity because this Complaint makes allegations of a sensitive sexual nature the
+disclosure of which, in association with her name, would cause further harm to her.
+Plaintiff is currently a resident of and domiciled in the state of Florida.
+At all times material to this cause of action, Jeffrey Epstein travelled
+between and stayed regularly in multiple residences, including in New York, New
+York (within the Southern District of New York) and the United States Virgin
+1
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 2 of 26
+Islands. He was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the U.S. Virgin
+Islands.
+5.
+At all times material to this cause of action Jeffrey Epstein was an adult
+male born in 1953, who died on August 10, 2019.
+6.
+At all times material hereto, Defendant Nine East 71st Street,
+Corporation was a domestic business corporation conducting business in New York,
+with its principal place of business located at 575 Lexington Avenue, Fourth Floor,
+New York, NY 10022.
+7.
+At all times material hereto, Defendant Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+was a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in New York.
+At all times material hereto, Defendant NES, LLC, was and is a
+domestic limited liability company registered in and conducting business in New
+York.
+Corporate Defendants NES, LLC; Financial Trust Company, Inc; Nine
+East 71" Street, referred to as "Defendants," each performed substantial business in
+New York.
+10.
+Plaintiff intends to amend this complaint to add or substitute additional
+parties as discovery reveals the identities of other negligent corporate or individual
+actors. In that regard, through information and belief, the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein
+2
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 3 of 26
+has not been properly established although if and when it is, Plaintiff intends to
+amend to add the Estate as a party.
+11.
+Jeffrey Epstein was an officer, director, or employee of many corporate
+entities registered in various states throughout the United States, any one of which
+may also bear legal responsibility for the crimes he committed against young
+females, including minors such as Plaintiff.
+12.
+Additionally, individuals who worked at the residences where he
+committed sexual violations, as well as others who assisted him in committing such
+violations, were employed through, or worked for, numerous other corporate entities
+whose negligence likely caused or contributed to the sexual violations that caused
+harm to Plaintiff.
+13.
+The complete universe of those individuals and companies whose
+negligence contributed to the crimes committed by Epstein are currently unknown.
+14.
+As Plaintiff learns through discovery the identities of additional
+individual or corporate entities and the manner in which those others caused or
+contributed to causing harm to Plaintiff through negligence, Plaintiff intends to
+amend to add those parties as well. Should discovery reveal that any of the currently
+named Defendants are not the proper identity of the Companies identified as current
+Defendants, substitution of parties shall be requested to ensure accuracy and
+correctness of pleading.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 4 of 26
+15.
+A substantial part of the acts, events, and omissions giving rise to this
+cause of action occurred in the Southern District of New York; venue is proper in
+this District. 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)(2).
+16. At all times material to this cause of action, Jeffrey Epstein and
+Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to treat her in a non-negligent manner and not
+to commit or conspire to commit intentional, criminal, fraudulent, or tortious acts
+against her, including any acts that would cause Plaintiff to be harmed through
+conduct committed against her in violation of New York Penal Law section 214-G,
+New York Penal Law section 130.20; or New York Penal Law 130.66; or New York
+Penal Law 130.67; or New York Penal Law 130.52.
+FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
+17.
+At all times material to this cause of action, Jeffrey Epstein was an adult
+male over 45 years old. Epstein was tremendously wealthy, widely recognized as a
+billionaire, who used his wealth, power, resources, and connections to commit illegal
+sexual crimes in violation of federal and state statutes and to employ and conspire
+with other individuals and corporate entities to assist him in committing those crimes
+or torts or to facilitate or enable those acts to occur.
+18.
+Epstein displayed his enormous wealth, power, and influence to his
+employees; to the employees of the corporate or company entities who worked at his
+4
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 5 of 26
+direction; to the victims procured for sexual purposes; and to the public, in order to
+advance and carry out and conceal his crimes and torts.
+19.
+At all relevant times, Epstein had access to numerous mansions, a fleet
+of airplanes, motor vehicles, boats and one or more helicopters. For example, he
+regularly traveled by private jet aboard a Boeing aircraft (of make and model B-727-
+31H with tail number N908JE) or a Gulfstream aircraft (of make and model G-
+1159B with tail number N909JE).
+20.
+Jeffrey Epstein also travelled between and frequently inhabited and
+travelled between numerous properties and homes, including a Manhattan
+townhome located at 9 East 71" Street, New York, NY 10021 valued conservatively
+by Jeffrey Epstein's own admission at $55,931,000.00; a ranch located at 49 Zorro
+Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico 87056 valued conservatively by Jeffrey
+Epstein's own admission at $17,246,208.00; a home located at 358 El Brillo Way,
+Palm Beach, Florida 33480 valued conservatively by Jeffrey Epstein's own
+admission at $12,380,209.00; an apartment located at 22 Avenue Foch, Paris, France
+75116 valued conservatively by Jeffrey Epstein's own admission at $8,672,820.00;
+an Island located at Great St. James Island No. 6A USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, C);
+and an Island Little St. James Island No. 6B USVI 00802 (A, B, C). See Jeffrey
+Epstein "Asset Summary - June 30, 2019" filed in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB on July
+15, 2019 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 6 of 26
+21.
+Jeffrey Epstein was otherwise affiliated with the corporations that
+owned or controlled each of the real property listed in the preceding paragraph.
+22.
+The allegations herein primarily concern Jeffrey Epstein's conduct
+while at his townhouse in New York and concern the various corporate entities
+which provided the opportunity for his illicit conduct to occur and remain concealed
+for years.
+23.
+Epstein had a compulsive sexual preference for young females as young
+as 14 years old.
+24.
+Epstein enjoyed sexual contact with young females, including minor
+children, and took pleasure corrupting vulnerable young females, including minor
+children, into engaging in sexual acts with him.
+25.
+Epstein directed a complex system of individuals, including employees
+and associates of Defendant entities, to work in concert and at his direction, for the
+purpose of harming teenage girls through sexual exploitation.
+26.
+It was widely known among individuals regularly in Epstein's presence
+that he got pleasure out of corrupting vulnerable young females into engaging in
+uncomfortable and unwanted sexual acts for his own gratification.
+27.
+On July 2, 2019, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern
+District of New York filed a Sealed Two Count Indictment inclusive of One Count
+of Sex Trafficking Conspiracy and One Count of Sex Trafficking, in part due to
+6
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 7 of 26
+Epstein's criminal activities against children in the New York Mansion located at 9
+East 71$ Street.
+28.
+On July 8, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was arrested pursuant to the
+aforementioned Indictment, which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
+29.
+The Indictment stated in part, and Plaintiff herein adopts as true, that
+"from at least in or about 2002, up to and including at least in or about 2005, Jeffrey
+Epstein, the defendant, enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited,
+minor girls to visit his mansion in Manhattan, New York (the "New York
+Residence") and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida (the "Palm Beach Residence") to
+engage in sex acts with him, after which the victims were given hundreds of dollars
+in cash." Criminal Indictment at 1.
+30.
+"Moreover, and in order to maintain and increase his supply of victims,
+Epstein also paid certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly
+abused by EPSTEIN. In this way, EPSTEIN created a vast network of underage
+victims for him to sexually exploit in locations including New York and Palm
+Beach." Criminal Indictment at 1-2.
+31.
+"The victims described herein were as young as 14 years old at the time
+they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein, and were, for various reasons, often particularly
+vulnerable to exploitation. Epstein intentionally sought out minors and knew that
+7
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 8 of 26
+many of his victims were in fact under the age of 18, including because, in some
+instances, minor victims expressly told him their age." Criminal Indictment at 2.
+32.
+"In creating and maintaining this network of minor victims in multiple
+states to sexually abuse and exploit, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ... worked and conspired
+with others, including employees and associates who facilitated his conduct by,
+among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with
+EPSTEIN at the New York Residence and at the Palm Beach Residence." Criminal
+Indictment at 2.
+33.
+The indictment further explained, and Plaintiff adopts and alleges, that,
+"[v]ictims were initially recruited to provide "massages' to Epstein, which would be
+performed nude or partially nude, would become increasingly sexual in nature, and
+would typically include one or more sex acts." Criminal Indictment at 3.
+34.
+"Between at least in or about 2002 and in or about 2005, Epstein abused
+numerous minor victims at the New York Residence by causing these victims to be
+recruited to engage in paid sex acts with him." Criminal Indictment at 3.
+35.
+Defendants enabled Jeffrey Epstein to receive near daily massages from
+young females, often minors, who were not experienced in massage. Rather than
+receive regular body massages, Epstein was predictably sexually abusing the young
+females in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 9 of 26
+36.
+Additionally, employees of the various Defendant corporations
+performed actions or inactions that further placed victims, including Plaintiff, in
+danger of being sexually abused by Epstein, and assisted in the concealment of his
+sexually abusive acts.
+37.
+Defendants employed many recruiters of young females. The nature of
+the Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking venture and enterprise enabled victims
+themselves to elevate their status to that of a paid recruiter of other victims, an
+elevation only made possible through the negligence of Defendants.
+38.
+Recruiters were taught by employees of Defendants to inform targeted
+victims that Epstein possessed extraordinary wealth, power, resources, and
+influence; that he was a philanthropist who would help female victims advance their
+careers and lives; and that she only needed to provide Epstein with body massages
+in order to avail receive his assistance and influence.
+39.
+The collaboration from Defendants and the many employees fulfilled
+Epstein's compulsive need for sex with young females by preying on their personal,
+psychological, financial, and related vulnerabilities. Defendants' tactics included
+promising the victims money, shelter, transportation, gifts, employment, admission
+into educational institutions, educational tuition, protection, and other things of
+value in exchange for sex and concealment of Jeffrey Epstein's actions.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 10 of 26
+40.
+Jeffrey Epstein's sexual attraction to young, often underage, females,
+dated back to at least the mid-nineties and the number of victims increased
+substantially with the necessary assistance from Defendants and Defendants'
+employees.
+41.
+Defendants, at the direction of Epstein or in furtherance of his demands,
+and with help from assistants, associates and underlings, and even other victims,
+recruited or procured dozens if not hundreds of young females, including minors,
+for the purpose of Epstein's sexual gratification.
+42.
+Jeffrey Epstein, and consequently Defendants, specifically targeted
+underprivileged, emotionally vulnerable and/or economically disadvantaged young
+females to sexually molest and abuse.
+43.
+Additionally, Defendants through employees, informed young females
+that Jeffrey Epstein was wealthy, well-connected, and could either advance or
+destroy the career or education of any young female brought to provide Jeffrey
+Epstein a massage, depending on her degree of cooperation.
+VE
+44.
+Minor victim VE was subjected to the types of illegal sexual acts
+detailed in the Criminal Indictment filed against Jeffrey Epstein by the Southern
+District of New York.
+
+
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 11 of 26
+45.
+Jeffrey Epstein committed abhorrent acts of sexual abuse against
+Plaintiff in 2001 when she was only sixteen years old.
+46.
+In or about 2001, Plaintiff was recruited by another minor child to go
+to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion in Manhattan, New York to provide him with a
+"massage."
+47.
+The minor child who recruited Plaintiff ("Plaintiff's friend") informed
+Plaintiff that she would be paid $300 to provide a massage to a man in Manhattan.
+48.
+Plaintiff was a minor female with no experience or training in massage.
+49.
+She was recruited under the false pretense that she would be providing
+a legitimate body massage at the mansion owned or controlled by Defendant, Nine
+East.
+50.
+In or about the Fall of 2001, Plaintiff's friend brought Plaintiff to
+Jeffrey Epstein's home to provide him with a massage.
+51.
+Upon arrival to the mansion, the two minor children were escorted
+inside by an employee of Defendant NES, LLC and taken to Jeffrey Epstein's
+massage room.
+52.
+Plaintiff's friend entered the massage room and left Plaintiff outside the
+door.
+53.
+Moments later, Plaintiff's friend exited the room and instructed
+Plaintiff to enter the room alone.
+11
+
+
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 12 of 26
+54.
+Plaintiff walked into the dark room which contained a massage table,
+various massage oils, and numerous photographs of nude girls.
+55.
+Unsure of what to expect, Plaintiff waited for the man to arrive for his
+massage.
+56.
+Jeffrey Epstein entered the room and immediately removed his clothing
+before positioning himself on the massage table.
+57.
+Jeffrey Epstein then provided Plaintiff with instruction on how to
+massage his body.
+58.
+Jeffrey Epstein quickly turned the massage into a sexual encounter with
+the then sixteen-year-old Plaintiff.
+59.
+During the sexual encounter, Plaintiff told Jeffrey Epstein that she did
+not feel comfortable. Jeffrey Epstein ignored her and continued to engage in the
+improper and illegal sexual contact until he was finished.
+60.
+The sexual encounter ended when Jeffrey Epstein masturbated to
+climax.
+61.
+Plaintiff was paid $300 cash before being escorted out of his mansion,
+all with assistance from Defendants; this payment was made to induce Plaintiff to
+conceal the activities of Epstein and to entice her to return.
+62.
+Plaintiff observed the opulence of the mansion owned by Defendant,
+Nine East, and the organization of Defendant, NES, Inc., which collectively
+
+
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 13 of 26
+facilitated her further cooperation with Jeffrey Epstein, culminating in New York
+Penal Law Section 130 crimes being committed against her by Jeffrey Epstein.
+63.
+Within days, Plaintiff returned to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion wherein
+she endured yet another sexual assault, this time more severe.
+64.
+Plaintiff was taken by elevator to the floor where Jeffrey Epstein's
+massage room was located.
+65.
+Similar to the first time, Jeffrey Epstein appeared wearing only a towel
+and laid face down on the massage table. Within minutes, he again turned the
+massage into a sexual encounter against the 16-year-old plaintiff. He instructed her
+to take her clothes off this time.
+66.
+During the second encounter, in addition to harmful, forcible, physical
+touching and sexual exploitation of Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein forcibly used a sex toy
+on Plaintiff, forcibly pressing it onto and in Plaintiff's vagina.
+67.
+Jeffrey Epstein then commanded Plaintiff to straddle him. Knowing
+that she had no way out of the Mansion, she complied with Jeffrey Epstein's orders.
+68.
+Jeffrey Epstein moved plaintiff's panties aside and attempted to insert
+his penis into her vagina, briefly penetrating her, while Plaintiff was resisting.
+69.
+During this encounter, Epstein digitally penetrated Plaintiff. The
+encounter ended with Jeffrey Epstein masturbating to climax.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 14 of 26
+70.
+Throughout the duration of the sexual encounter, Plaintiff found herself
+trapped in Jeffrey Epstein's large mansion under the impression that there was no
+feasible or safe means of escape.
+71.
+All sexual acts were performed by Jeffrey Epstein intentionally and for
+no legitimate purpose and for his own gratification when Plaintiff was a minor child
+less than seventeen years of age.
+72.
+The intentional acts of Jeffrey Epstein against Plaintiff constitute a
+sexual offense as defined in New York Penal Law § 130.
+73.
+Pursuant to New York Penal Law § 130.05, a person is deemed
+incapable of consent when she is less than seventeen years old.
+74.
+Jeffrey Epstein committed sexual misconduct against Plaintiff as
+defined in §130.20 of the New York Penal Law, inasmuch as Jeffrey Epstein
+engaged in sexual intercourse with Plaintiff without Plaintiff's consent.
+75.
+Jeffrey Epstein committed a forcible touching against Plaintiff as
+defined in §130.52 of the New York Penal Law, inasmuch as Jeffrey Epstein,
+intentionally and for no legitimate purpose, engaged the forcible sexual touching of
+Plaintiff for the purpose of degrading or abusing her or for the purpose of gratifying
+his sexual desire.
+76.
+Jeffrey Epstein committed an aggravated sexual abuse in the third
+degree against her as defined in §130.66 of the New York Penal Law, inasmuch as
+14
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 15 of 26
+Jeffrey Epstein inserted a foreign object into the vagina of Plaintiff by forcible
+compulsion.
+77.
+Jeffrey Epstein committed an aggravated sexual abuse in the second
+degree against her as defined in §130.67 of the New York Penal Law, inasmuch as
+Jeffrey Epstein caused physical injury to Plaintiff when he inserted a finger into the
+vagina of Plaintiff by forcible compulsion.
+COUNT!
+NEGLIGENT SECURITY AGAINST
+NINE EAST 71st STREET, CORPORATION
+78.
+79.
+The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 77 above.
+At all times material hereto, Defendant, Nine East 71 Street,
+Corporation (hereinafter "Nine East"), was the lawful owner of the property located
+at 9 East 71% Street, New York, New York, 10021.
+80.
+Defendant, Nine East, acquired title to the property on September 6,
+1989 and retained such title until the property was transferred to Maple, Inc. on
+December 11, 2011.
+81.
+At all such times, Defendant Nine East maintained legal control over
+the subject premises.
+82.
+Jeffrey Epstein was a regular habitant of Defendant Nine East and in
+fact resided at the premises when he was present in New York.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 16 of 26
+83.
+Defendant knew or should have known when Defendant was in the
+home owned by Defendant Nine East when Epstein had young females, including
+minor females such as Plaintiff.
+84.
+When Plaintiff was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein in 2001,
+Defendant, Nine East, as the owner of the property where all of the sexual abuse
+occurred, had a non-delegable duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe
+condition.
+85.
+Defendant's non-delegable duty additionally included the duty to take
+precautions to protect guests, visitors, or invitees from foreseeable harm, including
+foreseeable criminal conduct.
+86.
+Defendant's non-delegable duty further included the duty to take
+reasonable precautionary measures to minimize the risk of criminal acts upon
+visitors.
+87.
+Most important, Defendant had a duty to take protective measures when
+it could be shown that the company possessing, owning, or controlling the property,
+knew or had reason to know from past experience that there was a likelihood of
+conduct that would endanger a visitor.
+88.
+To establish foreseeability, the criminal conduct at issue must be
+reasonably predictable based on the prior occurrence of the same or similar criminal
+activity at a location sufficiently proximate to the subject location.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 17 of 26
+89.
+No conduct becomes more foreseeable or predictable than the criminal
+conduct of Jeffrey Epstein, in which he engaged regularly, if not daily, when he was
+in Defendant's property.
+90.
+Nearly every day that Jeffery Epstein was on or in the property of
+Defendant Nine East, he was engaging in criminal sexual behavior in violation of
+New York Penal Code Section 130.
+91.
+Defendant knew or should have known of Jeffrey Epstein's propensity
+for sexually abusing minor children, including regularly on the premises.
+92.
+Defendant knew of should have known from past experience that there
+was a high likelihood that Jeffrey Epstein would engage in foreseeable criminal
+conduct that was likely to seriously endanger or injure a visitor, including Plaintiff.
+93.
+Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to take even minimal
+safety precautions to protect against the predictable criminal acts of Jeffrey Epstein,
+which were reasonably predictable and foreseeable to occur on the property.
+94.
+Defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the sexual offenses
+committed against Plaintiff in violation of Article 130 of the NY Penal Law.
+95.
+As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach, the Plaintiff has
+in the past suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical injury, pain,
+emotional
+distress,
+psychological trauma,
+mental anguish, humiliation,
+embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and a
+17
+
+
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 18 of 26
+loss of her capacity to enjoy life, as well as other damages. Plaintiff incurred medical
+and psychological expenses and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical
+and psychological expenses. These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff
+will continue to suffer these losses in the future.
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Nine East 71" Street,
+Corporation for compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees, punitive
+damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury.
+COUNT II
+NEGLIGENCE AGAINST
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INCORPORATED
+96.
+97.
+The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 77 above.
+At all times material hereto, Financial Trust Company, Inc. (hereinafter
+"Financial Trust") was a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation conducting business in
+New York.
+98.
+At all times material hereto, Defendant, Financial Trust, employed
+Jeffrey Epstein.
+99.
+Defendant, Financial Trust, had a duty to exercise reasonable care to
+refrain from retaining in its employ a person with known dangerous propensities in
+a position that would present a foreseeable risk of harm to others.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 19 of 26
+100.
+Defendant Financial Trust operated in part to satisfy the personal needs
+of Jeffrey Epstein, which included daily massages which Epstein requires to be
+sexual in nature.
+101. Jeffrey Epstein's requirement that he receive regular massages from
+untrained young females caused Defendant and its employees to knowingly turn a
+blind eye to the dangerous sexual addictive propensities of Jeffrey Epstein, despite
+knowledge that he would cause harm to many young females including Plaintiff, in
+order to retain its most valuable employee-Jeffrey Epstein.
+102.
+Defendant Financial Trust operated in part to further Jeffrey Epstein's
+goal to obtain, recruit, and procure young females for the purposes of providing
+sexually explicit massages to Jeffrey Epstein.
+103.
+During the course and scope of his employment for Defendant, Jeffrey
+Epstein did fulfill the corporate objective of receiving sexual massages procured for
+him by employees of Defendant.
+104.
+Jeffrey Epstein was notorious for converting each massage into a
+sexually exploitive activity in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130, a fact
+which was known or should have been known in the exercise of reasonable care by
+Defendant.
+105.
+Even though Defendant, Financial Trust, knew of Jeffrey Epstein's
+propensity for the sort of behavior that caused Plaintiff's harm and Jeffrey Epstein's
+19
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 20 of 26
+constant engagement in this type of criminal behavior during the course and scope
+of his employment, Defendant retained Jeffrey Epstein and failed to properly
+supervise him.
+106.
+Jeffrey Epstein did not have a set work schedule or office but instead
+conducted business on behalf of the corporation from various locations all over the
+world.
+107.
+While conducting said business, Jeffrey Epstein was frequently using
+corporate finances in furtherance of his sexually explicit behavior.
+108.
+Upon information and belief, at times other employees of the Defendant
+corporation were coordinating these sexually explicit massages for Epstein to engage
+in during business hours, while he was within the course and scope of his
+employment for Defendant.
+109.
+In fact, while Jeffrey Epstein was conducting business telephone calls
+or authorizing company actions on behalf of Defendant, Financial Trust, he would
+frequently be receiving a sexually explicit massage.
+110.
+In certain circumstances, sexually explicit massages provided by young
+women, oftentimes minor children, who were untrained in the art of massage, were
+coordinated by another employee of Defendant who knew or should have known
+that the massage was being conducted by an underage girl for the exclusive purpose
+of committing sexual crimes against her.
+20
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 21 of 26
+111.
+Jeffrey Epstein engaged in this type of sexually abusive behavior on a
+daily basis to the extent that engaging in sexual massages became the most regular
+activity that he engaged in while in the course and scope of his employment.
+112.
+Jeffrey Epstein's habitual routine of recruiting and engaging in sexually
+explicit massages began many years before the formation of Defendant and was not
+a lifestyle unknown to Defendant, Financial Trust.
+113.
+Defendant, Financial Trust, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care
+should have known that Jeffrey Epstein was potentially dangerous, had engaged in
+a pattern of criminal sexual behavior against young females, including minors, for
+years prior to the formation of Defendant Financial Trust, and that he was not going
+to cease committing criminal sexual acts.
+114.
+Jeffrey Epstein was retained with knowledge of the propensity of this
+sort of behavior.
+115.
+Defendant, Financial Trust, retained Jeffrey Epstein with knowledge
+that he would in fact injure others, such as Plaintiff, during the course and scope of
+his employment.
+116.
+Despite such knowledge, Financial Trust knowingly placed Jeffrey
+Epstein in a position to cause foreseeable harm, which could have been prevented
+had Defendant taken reasonable care in making decisions regarding the retention and
+supervision of Jeffrey Epstein.
+21
+
+
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 22 of 26
+117. Defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the sexual offenses
+committed against Plaintiff in violation of Article 130 of the NY Penal Law.
+118.
+As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff
+has in the past suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical injury, pain,
+emotional
+distress,
+psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation,
+embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and a
+loss of her capacity to enjoy life, as well as other damages. Plaintiff incurred medical
+and psychological expenses and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical
+and psychological expenses.
+These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff
+will continue to suffer these losses in the future.
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Financial Trust
+Company, Inc. for compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees, punitive
+damages and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
+Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury.
+COUNT II
+NEGLIGENCE AGAINST NES, LLC
+119.
+The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 77 above.
+120.
+It is believed that each employee of Defendant, NES, operated at the
+direction of Jeffrey Epstein.
+22
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 l
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 23 of 26
+121.
+Upon information and belief, the primary responsibility of each
+employee of Defendant, NES, LLC ("NES"') was to fulfill the needs or requests of
+Jeffrey Epstein; more particularly, his daily massage schedule.
+122.
+Upon information and belief, the employees of Defendant, NES, were
+compensated to primarily, if not exclusively, procure or maintain each young female
+masseuse, or to assist, knowingly or unknowingly, in the concealment of any
+misconduct committed against each masseuse.
+123.
+Upon information and belief, the employment responsibilities of the
+various employees of Defendant, NES, included but were not limited to: 1) recruiting
+young females, including minor children such as Plaintiff, to provide massages, 2)
+creating Jeffrey Epstein's massage schedule, 3) maintaining Jeffrey Epstein's
+massage schedule, 4) escorting various young females into the massage room at the
+New York mansion owned by Defendant Nine East, 5) maintaining contact with the
+various young females who were recruited to the New York mansion for the
+purposes of providing Jeffrey Epstein with a massage, 6) providing compensation to
+each young masseuse upon the completion of her engagement with Jeffrey Epstein,
+7) providing meals and food and other services to the young females in order to
+provide an air of legitimacy to the functions of the corporation, 8) providing
+hospitality services to the young females in order to provide an air of legitimacy to
+the functions of the corporation, 9) providing educational services, 10) providing
+23
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 24 of 26
+medical services, 11) providing transportation services, 12) providing housing
+services, 13) providing various other enticements to ensure the continued
+cooperation of the various young female masseuse with Defendant NES's corporate
+objective, 14) encouraging individuals, including the females who were recruited to
+the house to provide a massage to recruit other young females to engage in the same
+activity for Jeffrey Epstein, and 15) coordinating together and with Jeffrey Epstein
+to convey a powerful and legitimate enterprise system capable of gaining
+cooperation from young females recruited for massage, often minors such as
+Plaintiff.
+124.
+In fulfilling their employment responsibilities, each employee
+voluntarily assumed a duty with respect to each young female recruited to massage
+Jeffrey Epstein, including Plaintiff.
+125.
+To fulfill said duty, each employee was required to perform their
+assumed duty carefully without omitting to do what an ordinarily prudent person
+would do in accomplishing the task.
+126.
+The young females being recruited to engage in massages for Jeffrey
+Epstein were inexperienced in the art of massage, a fact that was known or should
+have been known to Defendant NES and its employees in the exercise of reasonable
+care.
+24
+
+
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 25 of 26
+127. Plaintiff relied on Defendant NES's voluntary assumption of a duty as
+well as the voluntary assumption of each individual employee to act with reasonable
+care towards her.
+128.
+In the exercise of reasonable care, Defendant and its employees further
+knew or should have known of the dangerous propensities of Jeffrey Epstein and the
+proximate harm that would be caused by his likely sexual misconduct and various
+violations of New York Penal Law Section 130.
+129.
+The failure of Defendant NES and each of its respective employees to
+act in the same manner as an ordinarily prudent person, placed Plaintiff in a more
+vulnerable position than if Defendant and its employees had not assumed the
+obligation to treat her with reasonable care.
+130.
+In breaching its Duty, NES launched a force or instrument of harm
+directed toward Plaintiff. In doing so, Defendant, NES, enhanced the risk Plaintiff
+faced and caused her to forego any opportunity she may otherwise have had to avoid
+the risk inherent with being in a room alone with Jeffrey Epstein to perform a
+massage as an untrained minor child.
+131.
+Defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the sexual offenses
+committed against Plaintiff in violation of Article 130 of the NY Penal Law.
+132.
+As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff
+has in the past suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical injury, pain,
+25
+
+
+Filed 08/14/19 Page 26 of 26
+emotional
+distress,
+psychological trauma, mental anguish, humiliation,
+embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her privacy and a
+loss of her capacity to enjoy life, as well as other damages. Plaintiff incurred medical
+and psychological expenses and Plaintiff will in the future suffer additional medical
+and psychological expenses.
+These injuries are permanent in nature and Plaintiff
+will continue to suffer these losses in the future.
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against NES, Inc, for
+compensatory and general damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and such
+other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff hereby demands
+trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury.
+Dated: August 14, 2019.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+POTTINGER, LLC
+By: /s/ J. Stanley Pottinger
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+1930 Broadway, Suite 12 B
+New York, NY 10023
+(917)-446-4641
+Fax: (954)-524-2822
+Email: ecf@epllc.com
+J.
+Brittany N. |
+425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954)-524-2820
+Fax: (954)-524-2822
+Email: brad(@epllc.com
+brittany@epllc.com
+(SEEKING ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE)
+26
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e78751910bb94e105d532cbf23218b064cadfd1be47357601016432042344d42.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e78751910bb94e105d532cbf23218b064cadfd1be47357601016432042344d42.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc180946b7c897ec7a3425090847b799d88f80ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e78751910bb94e105d532cbf23218b064cadfd1be47357601016432042344d42.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -579,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e78751910bb94e105d532cbf23218b064cadfd1be47357601016432042344d42",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 27,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4f4a3d28bf670ccb9fb9b8bc09488238ea7aa7331fc5ec2c494980ce61d636da",
+  "output_sha256": "dc3ffdfb88975a8fa3dbc7f0ac3f9e9db720c84fd90119d66d5ba458746fc2d4",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7b235947535903b596660dca301f9f16682aafb2a7b95bd5c8ffb6b3325be81.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7b235947535903b596660dca301f9f16682aafb2a7b95bd5c8ffb6b3325be81.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ad20de41feba8f297f9cff5cf199f6562bcc36d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7b235947535903b596660dca301f9f16682aafb2a7b95bd5c8ffb6b3325be81.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 976
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 1
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 7-24-19
+Plaintiff,
+-against-
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:
+In light of the fact that a mandate has not yet issued from
+the Court of Appeals, the conference currently scheduled for
+tomorrow is adjourned sine die.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated:
+New York, New York
+July 24, 2019
+Lovetta Q. Presto
+LORETTA A.
+PRESKA
+Senior United States District Judge
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7b235947535903b596660dca301f9f16682aafb2a7b95bd5c8ffb6b3325be81.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7b235947535903b596660dca301f9f16682aafb2a7b95bd5c8ffb6b3325be81.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f70cd7aa4d4cd79574efe3e824ae2411dee9a776
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7b235947535903b596660dca301f9f16682aafb2a7b95bd5c8ffb6b3325be81.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e7b235947535903b596660dca301f9f16682aafb2a7b95bd5c8ffb6b3325be81",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7d9e813e724c2e2c8d19c838370b600695bbc6166b4d5d23fb5e3d3c2ed9c5a1",
+  "output_sha256": "f787c2c16c17287c80cd61415daae55fce622faabaf481490bbf583720aaa76e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7bb4d820e09b803bdc3a052e56f8db221f43624fcbd427b37ef865577318e9f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7bb4d820e09b803bdc3a052e56f8db221f43624fcbd427b37ef865577318e9f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f86f8962f681d644e0bba5677be7bd2d7c4d0701
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7bb4d820e09b803bdc3a052e56f8db221f43624fcbd427b37ef865577318e9f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB|
+Document 64
+Filed 07/25/25
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+-against-
+19 CR. 490 (RMB)
+ORDER
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+The Court has received the attached letter from MSW Media, Inc. The Court denies the
+motion to intervene but will take into consideration the views expressed in MSW Media's letter.
+See United States v. Arif, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) ("The Federal Rules of Criminal
+Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case."); United States v. Saipoy,
+No. 17 Ct. 722, 2023 WI. 4186055, at *1 (S.D.N.X. June 26, 2023).
+Date: July 25, 2025
+New York, New York
+RMB
+RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 64 Filed 07/25/25 Page 2 of 4
+ATTACHMENT 1
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 64
+Filed 07/25/25 Page 3 of 4
+NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS
+1-51 ROCKVILLE PIKE, SUITE 250
+ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
+TELEPHONE: (501) 301-4NSC (4672
+FACSIMILE: (240) 681-2185
+KEL MCCLANAHAN, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (admitted in DC, NY, WA)
+EMAIL: KEL@NATIONALSECURITYLAW.ORG
+/ PI, ESQ., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (admitted in DC, ILL)
+25 July 2025
+Hon. Richard M. Berman
+United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
+Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Epstein, Case No. 19-Cr-490
+Dear Judge Berman:
+On behalf of MSW Media, Inc. ("MSW Media"), I respectfully submit this letter motion
+to intervene in the above-captioned case for the purposes of partially supporting and partially
+opposing the Government's motion to unseal the transcripts of grand jury testimony in this case,
+filed as Docket No. 61.
+MSW Media (https://mswmedia.com/) operates numerous podcasts and blogs about
+federal government operations, including Mueller She Wrote, SpyTalk, Daily Beans, and Jack. It
+clearly qualifies as a representative of the news media.
+MSW Media has standing to intervene in this case for the following reason. On 17 July
+2025, after President Donald Trump publicly instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the
+Court's permission to release "any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, we filed a Freedom of
+Information Act ("FOIA") request with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for transcripts of all
+grand jury testimony from this case and United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-330 (S.D.N.Y.). We
+are concerned with the modifier "pertinent" in President Trump's instruction, and that concern
+seemed vindicated when the Government advised this Court that it intended to "make
+appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personal identifying information
+prior to releasing the transcripts." (Dkt. #61 at 2 (emphasis added).)
+To be clear, we have no interest in victim-related information, and this Motion does not
+pertain to that information. However, we do have concerns that the Government seems to be
+implicitly seeking this Court's permission to withhold other personally identifiable information,
+such as information about the former defendant's partners in crime or clients. Accordingly, while
+we join the Government in requesting that these transcripts be released, we accordingly make
+this narrow independent request to the Court: Please do not weigh in on the appropriateness of'
+withholding personally identifiable information unrelated to victims. We intend to litigate this
+FOIA request if necessary, and the question of whether such information may be properly
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 64 Filed 07/25/25 Page 4 of 4
+withheld is a question best left to the court adjudicating that future case. We are concerned that,
+if this Court explicitly or implicitly blesses the Government's proposed redactions of non-victimrelated personally identifiable information (even in passing), that opinion will be treated as a
+proverbial thumb on the scale in our FOIA case without materially affecting the Court's decision
+in this case.
+In other words, if this Court mentions in its decision that it was swayed at all by the
+Government's promise to redact personally identifiable information, we are concerned that the
+Government will then argue in its FOIA case that "Judge Berman agreed that this information
+should not be publicly disclosed." Therefore, we respectfully request that this Court not take the
+Government's statements regarding non-victim-related personally identifiable information into
+account when reaching its decision regarding the Government's motion, and we further request
+that the Court specify that it is not opining on that question, should it grant the Government's
+The Government takes no position on the intervention of MSW Media. I did not consult
+with a representative for the former defendant.
+Krillah
+Counsel for Proposed Intervenor
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7bb4d820e09b803bdc3a052e56f8db221f43624fcbd427b37ef865577318e9f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7bb4d820e09b803bdc3a052e56f8db221f43624fcbd427b37ef865577318e9f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6cd77914e5992c2fe2716fa03918bcbc2d504c2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7bb4d820e09b803bdc3a052e56f8db221f43624fcbd427b37ef865577318e9f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -61,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e7bb4d820e09b803bdc3a052e56f8db221f43624fcbd427b37ef865577318e9f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "38cf1bb657d14ec1e15ceb3f75caa372d342e938c85b3478ee03d23825c0d7d4",
+  "output_sha256": "9965282c5a6c15fa441dad0dc8e173df1fe368bc8e078881d158a9f3d946ef18",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7c3903ffdbb183f85ca491bf5e725aa1d4f15a8d35edfc7f488efbb13e8e4c3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7c3903ffdbb183f85ca491bf5e725aa1d4f15a8d35edfc7f488efbb13e8e4c3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b364198b3c9f484571501ab1ec5e4094b41838c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7c3903ffdbb183f85ca491bf5e725aa1d4f15a8d35edfc7f488efbb13e8e4c3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 26
+Filed 07/21/20
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Page 1 of t
+USD SNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED:7/21/2020
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court has received a significant number of letters and messages from non-parties that
+purport to be related to this case. These submissions are either procedurally improper or
+irrelevant to the judicial function. Therefore, they will not be considered or docketed. The Court
+will accord the same treatment to any similar correspondence it receives in the future.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: July 21, 2020
+New York, New York
+Alis O. Matter
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7c3903ffdbb183f85ca491bf5e725aa1d4f15a8d35edfc7f488efbb13e8e4c3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7c3903ffdbb183f85ca491bf5e725aa1d4f15a8d35edfc7f488efbb13e8e4c3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df2e27ed66c6f827c228b01c7c4f6b39c54f331d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7c3903ffdbb183f85ca491bf5e725aa1d4f15a8d35edfc7f488efbb13e8e4c3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e7c3903ffdbb183f85ca491bf5e725aa1d4f15a8d35edfc7f488efbb13e8e4c3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9f84a878b64f9a9d8f28ae7ab8c778b2c6dba962d39c7a2e0c67523ba938d559",
+  "output_sha256": "c0a43f0c5604953027785974b44f3adb4aed78bae44986a29f373aee6d4fb6d7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7ca5c2b596efe19045793e87d1d2228418100bc9431a5b799ff69f934ee889f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7ca5c2b596efe19045793e87d1d2228418100bc9431a5b799ff69f934ee889f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d1ad8be9a48d4d943977fc9052db1580953e4fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7ca5c2b596efe19045793e87d1d2228418100bc9431a5b799ff69f934ee889f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 373
+Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC S
+DOCU
+ELECTNONICALLY FILED
+& DOC #:
+DATE FILED:
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+----X
+Sweet, D.J.
+Defendant's motion for a protective order shall be taken on
+submission returnable Thursday, September 8, 2016. All papers
+shall be served pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6.1 and this Court's
+previous orders.
+It is so ordered.
+New York
+NY
+August 15, 2016
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7ca5c2b596efe19045793e87d1d2228418100bc9431a5b799ff69f934ee889f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7ca5c2b596efe19045793e87d1d2228418100bc9431a5b799ff69f934ee889f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed7775d94abebc9b090ac33919ba64d7cef91f99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7ca5c2b596efe19045793e87d1d2228418100bc9431a5b799ff69f934ee889f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e7ca5c2b596efe19045793e87d1d2228418100bc9431a5b799ff69f934ee889f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a2858b6f35da340ea50e7f3e0b720466385aa3e56492c262d59e0d31d5913d19",
+  "output_sha256": "4ff622d045ed1820b244790908afba8128da4d2aba12bc8a46f0b42c0dc7470d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fa53db483a079e7cfa2a124e04c5af133ac2c5d6d1a5deac5df559bd6dc3b8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fa53db483a079e7cfa2a124e04c5af133ac2c5d6d1a5deac5df559bd6dc3b8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8547cd9c8e057f4f8136d1ddebc126fbf9960ffd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fa53db483a079e7cfa2a124e04c5af133ac2c5d6d1a5deac5df559bd6dc3b8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+To:
+From:
+Sent:
+Thur 6/14/2007 5:23:41 PM (UTC)
+Subject: RE: A question regarding a very old case
+COMPLAIN.03.wpd
+EJECT2.BRF.wpd
+DECISION.02.wpd
+DECISION.01.wpd
+Attached is a copy of the complaint, summary judgment brief and court's decisions. Please let me know if you need any
+further info. Good luck!
+Serene
+212-510-0505
+From: Villafana, Ann
+C. (USAFLS) [mailto:Ann.
+Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:40 PM
+To: Nakano, Serene
+Subject: A question regarding a very old case
+Hi Serene - I saw that you were the AUSA who worked on a case several years ago against Jeffrey Epstein involving the
+lease of a former embassy. Do you remember anything about the case that you might be willing to share?
+A.
+Villafaña
+Assistant U.S. Attorney
+500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+Phone 561 209-1047
+Fax 561 820-8777
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fa53db483a079e7cfa2a124e04c5af133ac2c5d6d1a5deac5df559bd6dc3b8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fa53db483a079e7cfa2a124e04c5af133ac2c5d6d1a5deac5df559bd6dc3b8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..098d4b5cc08eebe11161e87a869e53fd2cd80917
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fa53db483a079e7cfa2a124e04c5af133ac2c5d6d1a5deac5df559bd6dc3b8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e7fa53db483a079e7cfa2a124e04c5af133ac2c5d6d1a5deac5df559bd6dc3b8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d29c33c92182eeaa908af5580a86d8e5f8829159f9717719da9f35f2b69ea42a",
+  "output_sha256": "fe9b6b7f643906f7a408fa3d06cc617568717719fc522d5794cb3edb51f165f5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fc9aee2bcfa40cd69c7df251511dfd8d0514ffdbda89f962fcd8d862a6d61c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fc9aee2bcfa40cd69c7df251511dfd8d0514ffdbda89f962fcd8d862a6d61c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a68ac5d46b2eb1a36636e1268d5f1330b79ad8ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fc9aee2bcfa40cd69c7df251511dfd8d0514ffdbda89f962fcd8d862a6d61c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1585 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 30
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+15 Civ. 7433
+(RWS)
+Defendant.
+- - X
+New York, N.Y.
+April 21, 2016
+11:05 a.m.
+Before:
+HON. ROBERT W. SWEET,
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LIP
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+BY: SIGRID |
+MCCAWLEY
+-and-
+I. JAFFE,
+WEISSING,
+BY:
+BRAD
+-and-
+PAUL G. CASSELL
+HADDoN,
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER
+JEFF PAGLUICA
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT
+REPORTERS, P.C.
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 30
+2
+1
+(Case called)
+2
+THE COURT:
+Welcome back.
+I have read the papers.
+3 Who knows.
+I might have missed something, but I think I've got
+4
+it
+fairly
+well under
+control. I would be pleased to hear
+anything anybody wants to tell me in addition to what you've
+6
+already given
+me.
+MS. McCAWLEY:
+Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley. I
+8 would like to start, if it's convenient with the Court, with
+9 the pro hac vice motions that are
+pending because we would like
+10 counsel to be able to anticipate in these proceedings. Would
+11 that be all right if I started with that?
+12
+THE COURT: I don't care.
+13
+MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you. Your Honor, you have before
+14
+you two pro hac vice motions. My client,
+15 would like to have counsel of record in the case be added as
+16 Professor Paul Cassell and Brad
+We have presented
+17 those pro hacs to your Honor. This is the first time in my
+18 years of practice that I've had a contested one, so I've looked
+19
+at the case
+law surrounding that and I think it is very clear
+20
+that a client is entitled to counsel of choice in a case.
+21
+In this matter she has selected these lawyers. They
+22
+have been working with her. They had been working on this
+23
+matter for many months now. We need them as counsel of record
+24
+in the case now because we are going
+to have depositions
+25 throughout the country where, for example, Professor Cassell is
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 30
+3
+G4 LMGIUC
+1
+in Utah.
+He will be able to handle the Colorado depositions
+2
+and things
+of
+that nature.
+We are here because those pro hac
+vice motions are being contested. The core piece of that is
+4
+the
+argument that they
+should not be allowed to seek
+confidential information in this case.
+6
+Your Honor will remember that I was before you a
+7
+couple of weeks ago again trying to get the deposition of the
+8 defendant, which is set for tomorrow, but still hasn't occurred
+9 yet.
+And in order to expedite that
+process I agreed to the
+10 protective order that was put in front of the Court and I
+11
+waived all of my objections to that in order to be able to
+12
+facilitate and move that deposition forward. That protective
+13 order provides that attorneys who are actively working on the
+14
+case can receive confidential material.
+15
+My opposing counsel has interpreted that to mean that
+16 that must be a counsel of record in the case. We disagree with
+17 that interpretation. I wouldn't have agreed to a protective
+18 order knowing that they were already working on the case. If
+19
+that were the situation, as your Honor can understand in this
+20 case, the majority of the material has been marked
+21 confidential, so it would prohibit my cocounsel from working on
+22 behalf of their client.
+23
+Your Honor, I'm here to request on behalf of my
+24
+client,
+that she be entitled to have her
+25 counsel of record of choice in this matter. If your Honor will
+
+
+Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 30
+4
+1
+indulge
+me, I would like Mr. Cassell to address his pro hac
+2
+motion, please.
+3
+MR. CASSELL: Good morning, your Honor, Paul Cassell.
+4
+I'm
+a law professor.
+THE COURT: I don't want to hear it. Sorry. No.
+6
+Thanks very
+much.
+7
+MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor.
+8
+THE COURT: Anything from the defense.
+9
+10 behalf of Ms. Maxwell.
+11
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Jeff Pagliuca on
+Your Honor, I have never opposed a pro hac motion in
+12 my 34 years of practice, so this is a first for me. But it is
+13 clear, your Honor, that these lawyers will be witnesses in this
+14 case.
+15
+THE COURT: This we don't know. I can't make that
+16 determination now. Anything else?
+17
+18
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+THE COURT: You may be totally right, but I don't
+19 know.
+20
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, here is the problem. |
+This
+21
+case is about the plaintiff's false allegations.
+22
+THE COURT: Yes. I think I picked up on that.
+23
+MR. PAGLIUCA: These are the lawyers that wrote the
+24
+25
+false allegations.
+THE COURT: I think I picked up on that, too.
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 30
+5
+1
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+These are the lawyers that admitted
+2
+that these were false allegations.
+3
+THE COURT: I know. I don't have to tell you, you
+4 know, there is going to be all kinds of privilege issues, all
+kinds of issues about whether or not they have to testify. We
+6
+are not at that stage.
+I cannot and I will not decide that
+now.
+8
+What else?
+9
+MR. PAGLIUCA: There is a problem with the sharing of
+10 confidential information with these lawyers. These lawyers
+11 have both personal and professional interests.
+12
+THE COURT: I understand that. I get that point.
+13 Anything else?
+14
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor.
+15
+THE COURT: This is what we will do on the pro hac.
+16 Everybody agrees, nobody, maybe in the world, but nobody in
+17 this courtroom, including me, has dealt with this kind of
+18 problem before. That's perhaps only one of a number of issues
+19
+that are unique about this case. That's neither here nor
+20
+there. Clearly, the plaintiff has the right to consult with
+21
+any lawyer she chooses. However, the materials here are
+22
+sensitive.
+I don't know
+the extent to which they have been
+23
+designated confidential, but I'm quite sure that a substantial
+24
+number of them
+have been, by the very nature of the case, I
+25
+guess.
+Let me put it this way. I want to be sure that we
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 30
+6
+1
+enforce the confidentiality appropriately.
+2
+Now,
+with those
+preliminary thoughts in mind I am
+3
+going to deny
+the motion at this time because I know that there
+4
+statement,
+some kind of a statement from the mediator in
+the Florida action.
+When I get a piece of paper that says the
+6
+Florida action
+is dismissed, a court order or whatever, then
+7
+this motion can be
+renewed.
+8
+Also,
+I want an affidavit from the two lawyers that
+9 there is no
+matter in which they
+are personally involved, that
+10 they are making no claim,
+there is no claims, there is no
+1l litigation in which they are involved. The reason I say that
+12 is that I would not grant the application for a pro hac status
+13 to a party in this or a related litigation. If I get those
+14 affidavits and the
+statement about the closure of the Florida
+15 case in which they are a party, then the application can be
+16 renewed
+and at that point I would be probably inclined, unless
+17
+something else comes up or unless the defense tells me
+18 something that I don't now know, I would grant the application
+19
+that brings us to the order
+itself and the meaning of the
+20
+order. I think active in the litigation is the key phrase.
+21
+The plaintiff has listed the people that she considers would be
+22
+appropriate and it's these two gentleman and I think one other
+23
+person, and that's fine. That is the definition.
+24
+However, I'm also going to ask the parties to agree
+25
+upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 30
+7
+1
+to this extent, to require the plaintiff to indicate to me and
+to the defense if
+there is anyone else who is going to be
+active in the litigation. I'll tell you why I feel this way.
+4
+I want to be
+sure that
+can enforce the confidential aspect
+of that agreement, and I think that could be critical down the
+6
+line.
+That's the reason for those requests.
+NOW,
+we
+also have
+a motion to compel.
+8
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, can I just get
+9 clarification very quickly because I don't want to have to come
+10 back to the court so I want to make sure I'm following
+11
+correctly. Your ruling, because we have a deposition tomorrow
+12 that counsel was going to be assisting me with, particularly on
+13 the Fifth Amendment --
+14
+THE COURT: Can't have access unless I get these
+15 materials by then. If I do, that's something else. If I do,
+16 fine. Otherwise, they can't have access to the confidential
+17 data. They can assist.
+18
+MS. MCCANLEY: Can I just point something out to the
+19
+Court as well.
+20
+THE COURT: The plaintiff can have any lawyer she
+21
+wants. The question is the confidential materials.
+22
+MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just point the Court to one more
+23 issue, because this is their protective order. They now said
+24 to the Court that these two individuals are witnesses or
+25 potential witnesses. The protective order allows in Section G
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 30
+8
+1
+confidential material to
+go to deponents, witnesses or
+2
+potential witnesses.
+3
+THE COURT:
+That's a different issue. I have not
+dealt with
+that.
+Obviously
+anybody who is a witness may have
+access to the confidential material, because they have to buy
+6
+into the confidentiality order in order to do that. But they
+are outside of it at the
+moment.
+8
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your ruling is, they cannot attend the
+9 deposition tomorrow?
+10
+THE COURT: They can. Anybody can attend the
+11 deposition that anybody wants to have, but they can't
+12 participate in it. They can't have access to the confidential
+13
+material until we get this matter straightened out. Ok.
+14
+15
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, we will be designating the
+16
+testimony as confidential.
+17
+THE COURT: You see. There you go. That's life. I
+18 can't believe that this entire testimony is going to be
+19
+confidential. Honestly, you all are too much. Ok. If that's
+20
+what you do, you know that's not going to work because not all
+21 of this stuff at issue is going be to confidential. No, no
+22 way. What is your name? Ok. We will deal with tomorrow's
+23 problem tomorrow.
+24
+25
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Ok, your Honor.
+THE COURT: The compel. Anybody want to add anything
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 30
+9
+on that?
+1
+2
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Yes, your Honor.
+Laura Menninger on
+3 behalf of Ms. Maxwell. I have taken the liberty, your Honor,
+of
+just
+making
+a very
+short little cheat
+sheet of the
+5
+outstanding issues, if I may approach.
+6
+THE COURT: Yes.
+It will be interesting to see if
+7
+yours is the same
+as the
+one we have prepared.
+Yours
+is much
+8
+longer than ours.
+9
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I'm happy to address all
+10 of the ones on mine. I certainly am also happy to take
+11 direction from the Court regarding issues that you believe to
+12
+still be of more interest.
+13
+THE COURT: As I say, I've read your papers. I would
+14 be pleased to hear anything you want to add that you think is
+15 not covered or you want to respond or anything like that.
+16
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, one of the largest and
+17
+most significant pieces to us are the assertions by plaintiff
+18 that her own communications with law enforcement are somehow
+19
+protected by -
+20
+THE COURT: I'm prepared to deal with that.
+21
+MS. MENNINGER: The second one, your Honor, and it
+22
+relates somewhat to the issues already presented on the pro hac
+23 motions, are our requests for the fee agreements with all of
+24
+plaintiff's various 15 or so lawyers who purport to be
+25
+representing her. Your Honor, I can find no case law that
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 30
+10
+G4 LMGIUC
+1
+suggests that the agreements are privileged, as plaintiff
+argues.
+She has refused
+to identify when these individuals
+3 began their representations, the nature of the representations.
+4
+THE COURT:
+There
+is a little confusion here, at least
+in my mind, as to what we are talking about. I certainly
+6
+understand
+the two
+gentlemen whose applications I have just
+7
+dealt with
+and
+the third
+person, who I take it is affiliated
+with the Boies firm.
+9
+Obviously, over time the plaintiff has probably
+10 conferred with other lawyers. But who cares? Let's assume she
+11 has talked to 20 more lawyers. You want all those retainers?
+12 That doesn't make any sense. What is the universe we are
+13 talking about?
+14
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor,
+I certainly understand all
+15 of the members of the Boies firm that currently represent her.
+16 The third individual, if I understand correctly, is a gentleman
+17 by the name of Stan Pottinger.
+He is a lawyer of some renown.
+18 He is also an author of best-selling books. He is listed quite
+19 frequently on plaintiff's privilege log as being part and
+20 parcel of advice being given to her on, quote/unquote, media
+21
+issues.
+22
+THE COURT: That is one.
+23
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there are other persons
+24 listed on their privilege log. Many
+are listed as counsel for
+25 plaintiff, but others are listed.
+Attorney giving advice to
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 30
+11
+1
+victim's --
+2
+THE COURT:
+Is what you want the retainer agreements,
+3 if there are any, whatever the arrangements are, with anybody
+on the privilege log
+that
+is listed
+as rendering advice?
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Yes, your Honor. That, I think, would
+6
+be appropriate because
+some of our biggest issues concern the
+7
+8
+9
+privilege log.
+THE COURT: I understand.
+What else?
+10
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we have asked for, but
+11 been denied by plaintiff, her own deposition testimony in the
+12 Florida action. In that case the Court entered a confidential
+13 order --
+14
+THE COURT: I'm prepared to deal with it.
+15
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the next topic are
+16 plaintiff's medical records.
+17
+THE COURT: I think I understand that. There is one
+18 thing, though. Are there any pre-'99 medical records?
+19
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the case law is quite
+20
+clear that injuries that were preexisting --
+21
+THE COURT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Go ahead.
+22
+MS. MENNINGER: Plaintiff has alleged that the
+23 defamation of this action triggered or caused her to reflect
+24 back upon her alleged sexual abuse.
+She has also alleged, for
+25 example, that many, several, three, I think, at last count, or
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 30
+12
+1
+four individuals had sexually abused her prior to
+ever meeting
+2
+Mr. Epstein.
+3
+If she has evidence that she already was suffering
+4
+from depression
+some type of mental health disorder before
+meeting our client, Ms. Maxwell, or Mr. Epstein, then her
+6
+flashbacks, if
+you will, could be related to other incidents
+7
+that
+she has put out in the press.
+And she, I believe, has
+8
+also told the press that she was in a drug rehabilitation
+9
+facility at the time that she met Mr. Epstein.
+10
+Obviously, to the extent she was under the influence
+11
+12
+of drugs, which is what she has told the press, at the time she
+met him, she persisted in being addicted to drugs during the
+13 time that she knew Mr. Epstein, and it certainly relates to all
+14 of her requests for, I believe she has requested $30 million in
+15 damages, your Honor, not just from the defamation, but also
+16 harkening back to what she claims were her years as a sex abuse
+17
+victim.
+18
+THE COURT: What's the basis of your statement that we
+19
+will call it the flashback?
+20
+21
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe --
+THE COURT: Because, quite frankly, I was unaware of
+22
+that. Is that my error? Are you telling me something that's
+23 not quite right?
+24
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe that is what
+25 plaintiff has alleged in her complaint. If you can give me a
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 30
+13
+1
+moment.
+To the extent she is now alleging she suffers from
+2
+emotional distress
+from
+any preexisting
+--
+3
+THE COURT:
+That's from the defamation.
+4
+MS. MENNINGER:
+She claims it's from the defamation.
+5
+However, your Honor, if she has preexisting conditions that
+6
+were truly the cause of whatever emotional injury she claims
+7
+that
+she now
+possesses
+8
+THE COURT: Correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps
+9 plaintiff will make it clear, my
+understanding is that the
+10 injuries alleged result from the claim of the alleged
+11 defamation, period.
+12
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she has claimed emotional
+13 distress from the defamation, yes. We are requesting evidence
+14 that would show that she has preexisting
+emotional conditions.
+15
+THE COURT: Not from the defamation.
+16
+MS. MENNINGER: Not from the defamation. From the
+17
+many, many other things that have occurred in her life
+18 predating even her meeting Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, as she
+19
+has told the press, not because we
+told the press that.
+20
+Your Honor, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
+21
+address her claimed $30 million emotional distress from a
+22
+defamation statement that was a denial of her allegations
+23
+versus any emotional distress or emotional conditions she
+24
+already had before any such statement was made.
+25
+Similarly, your Honor, we have asked for discovery of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 30
+14
+1
+claimed
+prior sexual abuse.
+She has, again, put in the
+press
+a
+number
+of
+statements regarding that, and I can't
+imagine that it is
+to the extent she claims privacy now, those
+4
+might be
+relevant
+in
+case both on credibility and also
+damage issues.
+6
+Your Honor, we have asked for a lot of other
+7
+interrogatories and documents that go to her damage claims, her
+8
+education records, her work history. She has refused to answer
+9
+any questions before where she has worked. She has refused to
+10 answer any questions about where she went to school. All of
+1l these are appropriate under the local rule for interrogatories.
+12
+Finally, your Honor, we have asked for her contracts
+13 with media. She has refused to disclose those. She has
+14 refused to disclose her tax returns that
+show all of the
+15 payments that she has received from various media sources.
+16
+THE COURT: I take it your view of any funds from the
+17
+media would operate to reduce her damages.
+18
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it also shows her motive
+19
+and bias in bringing this case.
+To the extent she has been
+20 paid for her stories to the media, which she has, she has
+21
+admitted that she has been paid hundreds of thousands of
+22
+dollars for giving these stories to the media.
+23
+But to the extent that she is now bringing this
+24
+defamation claim, if she is still either planning to receive
+25
+more money from the media, she has a motive and bias to make
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 30
+15
+1
+story consistent with her previous stories.
+She has
+2
+claimed
+$5
+million
+in lost wages, your Honor.
+This is a person
+3
+who has worked
+primarily
+as a waitress in the last 15 years,
+4
+until her
+media
+sensational
+story
+was purchased from her by
+5
+some British press.
+6
+THE COURT:
+Anything else?
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Your Honor,
+the other issues are
+8 addressed in our papers. We have highlighted her incomplete
+9 production on several
+fronts
+and her
+refusal to answer any
+10 interrogatories. So I would rest on my papers with respect to
+11 the other arguments. Thank you.
+12
+MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to be
+13 very clear here, your Honor. Discovery production, I've tried
+14 to do that
+in our papers. But listening to opposing counsel
+15 I'm concerned maybe she hasn't reviewed the documents we have
+16 produced.
+We
+have clearly produced all of the media
+17
+communications she has, including records --
+18
+THE COURT: All the media.
+19
+MS. MCCAWLEY: All of the media communications. She
+20
+has issued wildly broad requests in this case which we have
+21
+complied with.
+We ran over 200 search terms. Her request No.
+22
+5 alone
+seeks communications
+with over 100 individuals. And we
+23
+have complied, your Honor.
+This is coming from the defendant
+24
+who until Monday night, when you directed her to produce
+25 privileged information, has only produced two e-mails in this
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 30
+16
+case.
+1
+2
+Your Honor, we have complied with our production.
+We
+3 have produced the materials that she is saying we have not
+4
+produced.
+It's incorrect.
+We have produced her school records
+that we have.
+We have
+produced her tax records that we have.
+6
+We have
+produced all of those items that we have.
+With
+respect to her medical records I am going to
+8 direct you to the case that is cited in our brief as the Evanko
+9 case and it
+was
+similar circumstance to here. It was a Title
+10
+VII case where there were emotional distress damages being
+11
+alleged and the Court found that the other side could not have
+12
+carte blanche ruling over all of her medical records from the
+13 time she was born to the present. We met and conferred on two
+14 hours on their discovery requests, your Honor.
+We agreed to
+15 produce all of her medical records that we had from 1999 to
+16
+2002 and anything else we had that was related to the sexual
+17
+abuse
+she endured at the hands of the defendant and
+18 Mr. Epstein. We have agreed to produce those.
+19
+We have
+already started producing those records from
+20
+the various doctors, from the treating physicians. Those are
+21
+in their production.
+Should they be entitled to things that
+22
+happened prior to that? Absolutely not, your Honor.
+They are
+23
+not entitled to a full-scale production of everything that's
+24
+happened in this young lady's life.
+She was abused by these
+25 individuals. She shouldn't be reabused by having to disclose
+
+
+Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 30
+17
+1
+things that happened
+prior to her time with them.
+Your Honor,
+2
+we do object to the production of that material.
+3
+THE COURT:
+The flashback allegation.
+4
+MS. McCAWLEY:
+I think what
+she may be referring to, I
+have not heard that term used, I think what she may be
+6
+referring
+to was the fact that this is a defamation claim and
+7
+the person who defamed
+my
+client was also an abuser, we allege.
+8
+So when she is defamed by the person who abused her and that
+9
+abuser is calling her
+a liar, that caused her significant
+10 emotional distress. It's different than if some other
+11 individual that she had not had contact with called her a liar.
+12
+When she is talking about a flashback, maybe that's what she is
+13 referring to, but we don't have the word flashback anywhere in
+14
+our complaint.
+15
+THE COURT: No. I made that up.
+16
+There will be no claim by the plaintiff that the
+17
+defamation caused her distress by making her aware or as a
+18/
+result of the prior sexual abuse.
+19
+MS. McCAWLEY: The sexual abuse by the defendants?
+20
+THE COURT: No.
+21
+MS. McCAWLEY: Sexual abuse by others.
+22
+THE COURT: Yes.
+23
+MS. MCCAWLEY: No. Sexual abuse that relates to the
+24
+Epstein period, yes.
+25
+THE COURT: That I understand.
+
+
+Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 30
+18
+1
+MS. McCAWLEY: I think we are on the same page.
+2
+THE COURT:
+I think talking about the earlier period.
+3
+MS. McCAWLEY:
+Prior to Epstein, no, no, she doesn't
+4
+have
+a claim
+with
+respect to that.
+THE COURT:
+Anything else?
+6
+MS. McCANLEY:
+Your Honor, I just want to point out
+7
+again that
+our production
+-- you asked us to complete that.
+We
+8 have gone through and run over 200 search terms. We have
+9 produced all of those communications
+she has had with all of
+10 those individuals. The things that we have not produced are
+1l the criminal investigation records. I know your Honor is going
+12
+to address that. I would like to be very clear there.
+13
+The point there is that she has said in the motion to
+14
+stay papers that
+she filed Tuesday that she needs to have that
+15 information so she can decide whether she is going to be
+16
+asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege. Truthful testimony
+17
+shouldn't have to be crafted, your Honor. She shouldn't need
+18 to know what agency is investigating her in order to decide
+19
+whether or not she
+is going to be asserting her Fifth Amendment
+20 privilege.
+21
+We do have with us, your Honor, for an in camera
+22
+submission, if you would like it. That is the way that courts
+23 have dealt with this issue in the past. When there is a claim
+24 from an agency that the disclosure of that investigation could
+25 harm the investigation, we can submit that to you for in camera
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 19 of 30
+19
+1
+review so you are aware of the ongoing investigation.
+But it
+2
+is my view that that
+needs to be protected.
+3
+As you probably know, the history of these cases with
+4 Mr. Epstein, there
+were
+variety of things that went on in
+that investigation, so there is reason to keep an investigation
+6
+in this situation protected so that they can properly
+7
+investigate and
+move forward
+with that without being inhibited
+8 by other individuals. Your Honor, I would ask that that remain
+9 protected. It's covered by her very, very broad requests,
+10 which is why we had to lodge those objections. I would
+11 appreciate your Honor considering our arguments with respect to
+12 that issue.
+13
+The other things, your Honor, that she has raised is,
+14 for example, she had asked for the Epstein settlement agreement
+15 and that was one of the things that she asked for. We agreed
+16 to produce that if we got the waiver from Mr. Epstein because
+17
+we can't produce it without that waiver.
+18
+I believe that covers it, your Honor. If you have any
+19
+questions, I would be happy to answer them.
+20
+21
+THE COURT: Thanks very much.
+Thank you all for all the clarification that you've
+22
+given me. I much appreciate it.
+23
+With respect to the retainers and the dates of
+24
+representation, that information will be provided for any
+25 attorney that's listed on the privilege log.
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 30
+20
+1
+The plaintiff has told me that they have now supplied
+2
+all the education and
+employment records that they have.
+think if there is any question about that, if the defense is
+4
+skeptical,
+I would
+ask
+the
+counsel for the plaintiffs to make
+5
+that statement on the record, not necessarily here, but by way
+6
+of a statement to the Court
+and principally to the defendant.
+On the question
+of
+residences, that's, in my view, not
+8 a contention interrogatory because of the nature of this case.
+9 I think it's more like listing witnesses. So I would say that
+10 the plaintiff should supply all residences.
+11
+The Dershowitz deposition will be produced under the
+12
+confidentiality provision.
+As I read what I've been given,
+13 it's to be held in confidence and it will remain in confidence,
+14 but it will be produced.
+15
+Yes, the tax returns should be produced. 15 years
+16 seems like -- I see. Ok. 15 years.
+17
+The medical records of the period '99 to 2002 will be
+18 produced and the plaintiff will indicate whether that
+19 production
+is complete or, if it isn't complete, when it will
+20 be complete.
+21
+As for the pre-'99 medical records, based on where we
+22
+are at the moment, I do not believe
+that those are relevant.
+23
+Because the damage issue relates,
+in my view, solely to the
+24
+defamation. If that changes in any way, I will revisit that
+25 issue.
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 21 of 30
+21
+1
+The criminal investigation. Any materials that the
+2
+plaintiff has
+with respect to any criminal investigations will
+3 be turned
+over except for any statements made by the plaintiff
+4
+to law
+enforcement
+authority
+and those statements, if there are
+5
+such, will be submitted in camera, and I will review them.
+6
+I hope that clears up our problems.
+Tell me if I have
+7
+failed in my
+effort to do
+so. Yes,
+•. MENNINGER: Your Honor, two quick things, I think.
+9
+With respect to medical records,
+we
+also certainly believe that
+10 the period from the time the statement was made in January 2015
+11 until the present, because she has claimed emotional distress
+12
+from that defamation --
+13
+THE COURT: Sure, yes.
+14
+MS. MENNINGER: The problem
+is, we have asked through
+15 interrogatory what were the names of the medical providers
+16 because they have not disclosed who her medical providers were.
+17
+So there is no way
+for us
+to tell
+whether the records in fact
+18 have been sought from and produced with respect to each of
+19
+those
+medical providers. I will say that other records in the
+20 possession of plaintiff lists other doctors who they have not
+21
+asked for records from or releases.
+22
+THE COURT: Let's see if
+we can clear that up.
+23
+MS. MCCAWLEY: We have disclosed the names.
+She has
+24
+those names. We have also disclosed records, the more recent
+25 records. We have not contested that.
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 30
+22
+1
+With respect to the interrogatories, your Honor ruled
+2
+on this
+previously,
+but there is a local Rule 33.3, which is
+3
+why we didn't serve interrogatories in this case at this point.
+4
+She
+deposing
+the plaintiff in two weeks, next week, whenever
+5
+it is, and can certainly ask those questions as well. But we
+6
+have disclosed the
+names of the providers.
+7
+MS. MENNINGER:
+They have not, your Honor.
+8
+THE COURT: Look. Wait just a moment. You two are
+9 lawyers. Now, that is not an issue about which you should
+10 differ. Go over in the corner right now, both of you, and
+11 let's make it clear who is telling me the right story. Now.
+12
+I take it that I misunderstood the colloguy and that
+13 this matter has been resolved.
+14
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, I think there was a
+15
+misunderstanding with respect --
+16
+THE COURT: I was sure.
+17
+MS. McCAWLEY: Dr. Olsen has been noticed for
+18 deposition in Colorado already. In my view, we have disclosed
+19
+the doctors. Ms. Menninger says that there is other doctors
+20
+that have been disclosed in documents that we have not yet
+21 listed to her. I think in discovery we are finding
+22
+additional --
+23
+THE COURT: You think you may not have discovered that
+24
+your client has had some doctors --
+25
+MS. MCCAWLEY: In the past. We are talking about
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 30
+23
+1
+years
+and years ago.
+The recent
+doctors
+we have disclosed they
+2
+have
+noticed for deposition.
+3
+THE COURT:
+What else?
+4
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Your Honor, with respect to the
+5
+employment and education records, as you heard plaintiff say,
+6
+she has disclosed, quote/unquote, what she has.
+Under local
+7
+rule 33.3,
+we are allowed to
+ask for the names of witnesses
+8 with knowledge at the outset of the case, and they might be
+9 custodians of records. We asked her who have been your
+10 employers. She won't tell us who her employers have been. She
+11 has just gone through her computer and say if I have an
+12 employment record I'll give it to you, but I am not going to
+13 tell you who her employers were.
+14
+THE COURT: She will.
+15
+MS. MENNINGER: Same thing with the education records.
+16
+We asked her to list where she had gone to school and tell us
+17
+where it is. She won't do it. Those are the things where my
+18
+skepticism arises from.
+19
+Largely, to the extent your Honor has ordered the
+20
+production of whatever materials, criminal investigation
+21
+materials that were not to be submitted in camera, those were
+22
+the ones that involved plaintiff's
+statements, we would like
+23 the other materials that they have brought with them today to
+24
+give to your Honor that do not encompass their client's
+25 statements to law enforcement.
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 30
+24
+1
+THE COURT:
+I don't know whether there are such. Is
+it possible that
+nothing
+in this lawsuit is clear?
+Well, I
+3 tried to make it clear
+what
+should be produced and what
+4
+shouldn't.
+Anything
+that has been submitted to any
+• law
+enforcement officer by the plaintiff I will take in camera.
+6
+Anything other than that with respect to any law enforcement
+should be
+produced.
+8
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+9
+THE COURT: Thank you, all. I think we have the
+10 pleasure of your company -- do we need you next week? We are
+11 up to date, aren't we?
+12
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, we have a motion with
+13 respect to our discovery that's set for next Thursday.
+14
+THE COURT: That's fine.
+15
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Just before we adjourn, because
+16 Mr. Cassell had a question, and I just want to make sure that I
+17 understand, with respect to tomorrow's deposition, they are
+18 entitled to attend but have to leave the room if confidential
+19
+information is disclosed?
+20
+THE COURT: That's where we are at the moment, unless
+21
+it changes.
+22
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, with regard to next
+23 Thursday, both Ms. Menninger and I have other matters that are
+24
+previously scheduled and it would be impossible for us to take
+25
+care of those matters and be here at the same time. I'm
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 30
+25
+1
+wondering what the Court would like to do about that.
+2
+THE COURT:
+First of all, you know how we play this
+3 game. You don't
+ask
+me first.
+You ask your opponent first.
+4
+Have you done that?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I have not, your Honor.
+6
+THE COURT: Will you?
+7
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+I certainly will, your Honor.
+8
+THE COURT: Now.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Absolutely.
+10
+11
+THE COURT: You can go over to the corner, too.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we need a corner bar on this,
+12 your Honor.
+13
+Ms. McCawley, I'm wondering if we can get a mutually
+14
+convenient date to hear that matter as opposed to next
+15 Thursday.
+16
+17
+18
+19
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Of course.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That was simple enough, your Honor.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, one more thing. I didn't
+realize that my counsel can submit that stipulation to you
+20
+because that case has been settled --
+21
+THE COURT: If I get something that closes that case
+22
+and I get the affidavit that there are no other matters in
+23 which they have any claims or defenses relating to any of these
+24
+25
+statements, that will do it.
+MS. MCCANLEY: Your Honor, so I know, if we can submit
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 30
+26
+1
+that by fax this afternoon, will they be able to attend the
+2 deposition tomorrow?
+3
+THE COURT: I would think so, if I think those are
+4
+adequate
+representations
+and
+so on.
+The statement from a
+mediator doesn't mean anything to me. Something that has a
+6
+court sign
+to it.
+That I
+understand. But the mediator saying
+7
+that
+it's
+settled doesn't work for me.
+8
+MR. CASSELL: Your Honor, maybe Mr.
+could
+9 briefly explain Florida procedure.
+The case has been
+10 dismissed, but it does not require a Court's signature.
+11 Mr.
+can elaborate more fully on that.
+12
+MR.
+Sure.
+If I may. There are two ways in
+13 which a case can be dismissed in Florida. One is by way of a
+14 court order. The other is by way of a stipulation. That is
+15 what was done. There was a stipulation of dismissal signed by
+16 both parties, that being the plaintiff and the defendants and
+17
+counsel, that has been done and that was dismissed.
+18
+THE COURT: That's filed in the case.
+19
+MR.
+That's filed in the case and filed in
+20
+the court.
+21
+THE COURT: Do you have a copy of that?
+22
+MR.
+- I can get a copy of it immediately.
+23
+THE COURT: Give it to the defense. If they have any
+24 problems, they will let me know. That sounds all right to me.
+25 What do I know about Florida except that it's flat and hot.
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 27 of 30
+27
+1
+Your representation sounds right.
+2
+MR.
+Additionally, just with respect to the
+3
+affidavit, there needs to be an affirmation that we have no
+4
+other
+claims that
+relate
+to the
+statements in this case.
+Is
+that what we are saying?
+6
+THE COURT: I think it should be broader than that. I
+7
+think it should be -- look.
+I don't think it would be
+8 appropriate if there is any possibility for either of you to
+9 being a party. That's what I'm after. And having any
+10 proceedings against you arising out of the situation with the
+11 plaintiff. I think it would be inappropriate for you to be
+12
+counsel if you have the potentiality of being a party, either
+13 plaintiff or defendant, in any proceedings. If I get an
+14 affidavit saying that you're unaware of any claims against you
+15 or any intention to make a claim arising out of the
+16 circumstances surrounding this lawsuit, that should be broad.
+17 I think that would satisfy me.
+18
+MR.
+: Ok.
+19
+MR. CASSELL: I'll be filing those materials this
+20
+afternoon, your Honor. My plan is to attend --
+21
+THE COURT: The defense has a thought on this.
+22
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I am looking at documents
+23 from Florida. One is a docket sheet captioned: Epstein v.
+24 Brad
+and Paul G. Cassell, Lower Tribune Cases 15 000072
+25 which shows that that matter is still pending. There is
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 28 of 30
+28
+1
+another case, as I
+understand it,
+v. Epstein and
+2
+Rothstein, which
+is
+also
+pending.
+I can confer about this,
+3 your Honor.
+4
+THE COURT:
+Let's do this.
+When do you plan to return
+to the snow l
+MR. PAGLIUCA: There is still snow on the ground, your
+Honor. Well, Friday
+night or Saturday
+morning
+is my current
+6
+7
+8 plan.
+9
+THE COURT: That's great. Whatever the applicants
+10 have on this subject, please turn it over. You all can work
+11 out how you are going to do that. Turn it over to the defense.
+12 And if there is anything you want me to do, I would be prepared
+13 to do it tomorrow. But that way I hope we can get it cleared
+14 up.
+15
+MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, we do have the deposition
+16 of the defendant scheduled for tomorrow.
+17
+THE COURT:
+Then everybody will be having a nice time
+18 together. Maybe you can all go out and have lunch, have a
+19 drink, and exchange these documents
+and go away happy.
+Not
+20
+21
+likely, but perhaps, depending on where you have lunch.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Anything else?
+MS. MENNINGER: Nothing.
+THE COURT: Thank you, all.
+One thing. I would appreciate it if counsel would get
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 29 of 30
+29
+1
+2
+3
+4
+together on my
+request for additional coverage
+in
+the
+confidentiality agreement.
+MS. MCCAWLEY:
+Sure.
+THE COURT:
+Thanks
+a lot.
+00o
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+SOUTHERN
+DISTRICT
+REPORTERS, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-5 Filed 06/20/16 Page 30 of 30
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fc9aee2bcfa40cd69c7df251511dfd8d0514ffdbda89f962fcd8d862a6d61c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fc9aee2bcfa40cd69c7df251511dfd8d0514ffdbda89f962fcd8d862a6d61c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f19389dd8707e5db49fba1011c31aa80603427d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e7fc9aee2bcfa40cd69c7df251511dfd8d0514ffdbda89f962fcd8d862a6d61c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2716,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e7fc9aee2bcfa40cd69c7df251511dfd8d0514ffdbda89f962fcd8d862a6d61c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 31,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c55169ea56607a76ddc13ddff254b046557606309152d2d0ed3a1d6c4955e607",
+  "output_sha256": "3955e6b966a9882afddae0b65f02c77059f21d3421a400f20353b0e2e8f087c9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e822fd598865da3cfa06c97d6029d9e4c03714a09c94fb76b669432ad531b52d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e822fd598865da3cfa06c97d6029d9e4c03714a09c94fb76b669432ad531b52d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..500cb20ffe3a1e59c160ab8867ee9a0c026773cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e822fd598865da3cfa06c97d6029d9e4c03714a09c94fb76b669432ad531b52d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,936 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 1 of 76
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTKONICACLY FILED
+DOC #.
+DONE I LO 427.17
+15 Civ. 7433
+-against-
+OPINION
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Maxwell.
+----X
+APPEARANCES:
+Counsel for
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLE
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Sigrid S. McCawley,
+Meredith L.
+• Esq.
+Counsel for Maxwell
+HADDON,
+.P.C.
+150 East Tenth Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca,
+Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 2 of 76
+Sweet, D.J.
+The defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the
+"Maxwell") has moved pursuant to Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P., for
+summary judgment dismissing the complaint of plaintiff
+or the
+") alleging
+defamation. Upon the facts and conclusions set forth below, the
+motion is denied.
+The contested facts derived from discovery subject to
+the Protective Order of March 17, 2016 have been redacted.
+I. Prior Proceedings
+Since the filing of the complaint on September 21,
+2015, setting forth
+claim of defamation by Maxwell,
+this action has been vigorously litigated, as demonstrated by
+the 704 docket entries as of March 8, 2017. At issue is the
+truth or falsity of a January 2015 statement issued by Maxwell.
+Discovery has proceeded, a joint pretrial order has been filed,
+and the action is set for trial on May 15, 2017. The instant
+motion was heard and marked fully submitted on February 16,
+2017.
+2
+
+
+Case I: 15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 3 of 76
+II. The Facts
+The facts have been set forth in Maxwell's Memorandum
+of Law in Support of Maxwell's Motion for Summary Judgment,
+Southern District of New York, Local Rule 56.1;
+Statement of Contested Facts and
+Undisputed Facts; and
+Maxwell's Reply to
+Statement of Contested Facts and
+Undisputed Facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1.
+They are not in dispute except as noted below.
+
+
+Case 1.15-Cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 4 of 76
+4
+
+
+Case I.15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27717 Page 5 of 76
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 6 of 76
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 7 of 76
+
+
+Case I:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 8 of 76
+
+
+Case I:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 9 of 76
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 10 of 76
+10
+
+
+Filed 04/27/17 Page 11 of 76
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 12 of 76
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 13 of 76
+13
+
+
+Case I:15-Cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 14 of 76
+14
+
+
+Case 1.15-Cv-07433-LAP Document 872
+•Filed 04/27/17 Page 15 of 76
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 16 of 76
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04127717 Page 17 of 76
+-
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 18 of 76
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04127717 Page 19 o1 76
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 20 of 76
+20
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 21 of 76
+21
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27717 Page z2 0г76
+22
+
+
+Case 1:15-cV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 23 of 76
+23
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Fied 04/27/17 Page 24 0г76
+24
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 25 of 76
+25
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 26 of 76
+26
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 27 of 76
+27
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 28 of 76
+28
+
+
+Case I:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 29 of 76
+29
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 30 of 76
+30
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 31 of 76
+31
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAPDocument 872 Filed 04127717 Page 32 or 76
+32
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 33 o 76
+33
+
+
+Filed 04/27/17 Page 34 of 76
+34
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 35 of 76
+35
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 36 of 76
+36
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27717 Page 37 or 76
+37
+
+
+
+38
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27717 Page 39 of 76
+39
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Fied 04127717 Page 40 01 76
+40
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 41 of 76
+41
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 42 of 76
+42
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 43 of 76
+4 3
+
+
+Case 1.15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Fited 04/27/17 Page 44 of 76
+44
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17
+
+45
+
+
+Case 1:15-Cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 46 of 76
+46
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 47 of 76
+47
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872Filed 04/27/17
+
+48
+
+
+
+49
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872-
+Filed 04/27/17 Page 50 of 76
+50
+
+
+
+-
+51
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27717 Page 52 or 76
+1.
+III. The Applicable Standard
+Summary judgment is appropriate only where "there is
+no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving
+party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.
+Civ. P. 56(c). "(T)he substantive law will identify which facts
+are material."
+v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
+248 (1986) .
+A dispute is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a
+reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
+52
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 53 of 76
+Id. The relevant inquiry on application for summary judgment is
+"whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to
+require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
+one party must prevail as a matter of law." Id. at 251-52. A
+court is not charged with weighing the evidence and determining
+its truth, but with determining whether there is a genuine issue
+for trial. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. N.Y. City Transit Auth.,
+735 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (quoting
+, 477
+U.S. at 249). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual
+dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise
+properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement
+is that there be no genuine issue of material fact."
+477 U.S. at 247-48 (emphasis in original).
+While the moving party bears the initial burden of
+showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, Atl. Mut.
+Ins. Co. v. CSX Lines, I.I.C., 432 F.3d 428, 433 (2d Cir. 2005),
+in cases where the non-moving party bears the burden of
+persuasion at trial, "the burden on the moving party may be
+discharged by 'showing'-that is, pointing out to the district
+court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the
+nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. V. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
+325 (1986). "It is ordinarily sufficient for the movant to point
+53
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 54 of 76
+to a lack of evidence . . . on an essential element of the nonmovant's claim .
+• IT]he nonmoving party must [then] come
+forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine
+issue of fact for trial . . . ." Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.,
+536 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted);
+see also Goenaga V. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d
+14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Once the moving party has made a
+properly supported showing sufficient to suggest the absence of
+any genuine issue as to a material fact, the nonmoving party ...
+must come forward with evidence that would be sufficient to
+support a jury verdict in his favor").
+IV. The Motion for Summary Judgment on Republication Grounds is
+Denied
+Maxwell has moved for summary judgment dismissing
+complaint on the grounds that Maxwell is not liable
+for the republication of her Press Release by the media. Because
+as a matter of law the issuer of a press release is responsible
+for its publication, the motion is denied.
+In New York, liability for a republication "must be
+based on real authority to influence the final product."
+54
+
+
+Case I:I5-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 55 of 76
+v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082, 1096 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); see
+also Hoffman v.
+Landers, 146 A.D.2d 744, 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d
+Dep't 1989) ("One who makes a defamatory statement is not
+responsible for its recommunication without his authority or
+request by another over whom he has no control."). Where a
+defendant "had no actual part in composing or publishing," he
+cannot be held liable "without disregarding the settled rule of
+law that no man is bound for the tortious act of another over
+whom he has not
+a
+power of control."
+• 580 F.
+Supp. at 1096 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
+The New York Court of Appeals summarized New York's
+republication liability standard in Geraci v. Probst, 938 N.E.2d
+917 (N.Y. 2010), stating that
+one who . . . prints and publishes a libell] is
+not responsible for its voluntary and
+and who thereby make themselves liable to the
+person injured, and that such repetition cannot
+be considered in law a necessary, natural and
+probable consequence of the original slander or
+libel.
+938
+N.E.2d at 921 (internal quotation marks and citation
+omitted). Thus, "conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority
+[is] sufficiently dispositive that the [court] 'ha[s] no option
+but to dismiss the case
+...'"
+, 580 F. Supp. at 1096
+55
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 56 of 76
+..
+(quoting Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 420 N.E.2d 377, 382
+(N.Y. 1981)) .
+However, New York law assigns liability to individuals
+for the media's publication of press releases. New York
+appellate courts have held that an individual is liable for the
+media publishing that individual's defamatory press release. See
+Levy v.
+132 A.D.3d 961, 962-63 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't
+2015) ("Generally, [olne who makes a defamatory statement is not
+responsible for its recommunication without his authority or
+request by another over whom he has no control . . . . Here,
+however, . . . the appellant intended and authorized the
+republication of the allegedly defamatory content of the press
+releases in the news articles."); see also REsTATEMeNT (SEcOND) OF
+TORTS S 576 (1977) ("The publication of a libel or slander is a
+legal cause of any special harn resulting from its repetition by
+a third person if . .
+• the repetition was authorized or
+intended by the original defamer, or . . . the repetition was
+reasonably to be expected.")
+The facts as set forth above establish that Maxwell
+approved the Press Release. The Press Release was sent to
+between six and 30 media representatives by Gow as an employee
+56
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 57 of 76
+. "
+of Acuity Reputation, the public relations firm hired by
+Maxwell. The initial sentence of the Press Release - "Please
+find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Maxwell" -
+communicates Maxwell's authorization for the media recipients of
+the Press
+Release to publish it. See Nat'1 Puerto Rican Day
+Parade,
+Inc. V. Casa Pubs., Inc., 79 A.D.3d 592, 595 (N.Y. App.
+Div. Ist Dep't 2010) (affirming the refusal to dismiss
+defamation counts against a defendant who "submitted an open
+letter that was published in [a] newspaper, and that [the
+defendant] paid to have the open letter published, " finding that
+the defendant "authorized [the newspaper] to recommunicate his
+statements.").
+Maxwell has cited Geraci v. Probst in support of her
+position, but Geraci is distinguishable from the instant action.
+In Geraci, the defendant sent a letter to the Board of Fire
+Commissioners, and, more than three years later, a newspaper
+published the letter. The court held that the defendant was not
+liable for that belated publication, "made years later without
+his knowledge or participation." 938 N.E.2d at 919. Here, unlike
+in Geraci, the Press Release was not published "without [her]
+authority or request, " but rather with Maxwell's authority and
+57
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 58 of 76
+by her express request. Gow's testimony establishes Maxwell's
+authority and control over the Press Release:
+A.
+A.
+When you sent that email were you acting pursuant to
+Ms. Maxwell's retention of your services?
+Yes, I was
+***
+The subject line does have "EW" which to me indicates
+it's a forward. Do you know where the rest of this
+email chain is?
+My understanding of this is: It was a holiday in the
+UK, but Mr. Barden was not necessarily accessible at
+some point in time, so this had been sent to him
+originally by Ms. Maxwell, and because he was
+unavailable, she forwarded it to me for immediate
+action.
+I therefore respond, "Okay, Ghislaine, I'll go
+with this."
+It is my understanding that this is the agreed
+statement because the subject of the second one is
+"Urgent, this is the statement" so I take that as an
+instruction to send it out, as a positive command:
+"This is the statement."
+Maxwell also cites
+v. Costa-Gavras, involving a
+libel claim against an author who wrote a book about a military
+coup in Chile. 580 F. Supp. at 1085. Years after the author
+published the book, a third-party publishing house republished
+the book in paperback form and a third-party filmmaker released
+a movie based on the book. The book author did not actually
+participate in the republications, though he was aware of the
+58
+
+
+Case 1.15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 59 of 76
+projects. The court held that the author of the book could not
+be held liable for the republications, explaining that a "party
+who is 'innocent of all complicity' in the publication of a
+libel cannot be held accountable." 580 F. Supp. at 1094
+(internal citations omitted). The court further noted that
+"active participation in implementing the republication
+resurrects the liability." Id. Likewise, in Karaduman v.
+Newsday, Inc., 416 N.E.2d 557 (1980), also cited by Maxwell, the
+court held that reporters of a series of articles on narcotics
+trade "cannot be held personally liable for injuries arising
+from [thel subsequent republication in book form absent a
+showing that they approved or participated in some other manner
+in the activities of the third-party republisher." Id. at 559-
+560. However, the court explicitly noted that this result was
+required because "the record [wals barren of any concrete
+evidence of the reporters' involvement in the republication of
+the newspaper series." Id. at 540.
+Here, there is evidence in the record that Maxwell
+"actively participated" in influencing the media to publish the
+Press Release,
+580 E. Supp. at 1094, and "approved" of
+and sought the publication of the press release, Karaduman, 416
+N.E.2d at 560. Maxwell retained a public relations media
+59
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 60 of 76
+specialist. The Press Release was sent by Maxwell's express
+request. Gow's testimony about the process leading up to the
+dissemination of the Press Release indicates that Maxwell did,
+indeed, "authorize or intend" for the media recipients to
+publish the statement. Because there are sufficient facts to
+demonstrate
+Maxwell's authority and control over the publication
+of the Press Release, Maxwell's liability for the Press
+Release's publication survives the motion for summary judgment.
+Maxwell has additionally asserted that subjecting her
+to liability for republication is "particularly unfair" because
+excerpts of the Press Release, rather than the whole statement,
+were published. Def.'s Reply at 9. Maxwell cites to Rand V. New
+York Times Co., 75 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. Ist Dep't 1980),
+in which a newspaper paraphrased the defendant's opinion,
+essentially "excis[ing] the opinion from the context in which it
+was given." Id. at 424. No similar alteration, sanitization,
+hyperbolizing, or paraphrasing of Maxwell's statements has been
+established here. Nor does the record establish that any
+statements of Maxwell's were taken out of context; rather, they
+were directly quoted, accurately and unchanged. The publication
+of Maxwell's statement that
+claims are "obvious lies"
+60
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 61 of 76
+• •
+does not distort or misrepresent the message Maxwell intended to
+convey to the public with the Press Release.
+Because the purpose of the issuance of the Press
+Release was publication, Maxwell is liable for its content and
+the motion for summary judgment on the grounds of non-liability
+for republication is denied.
+V. The Motion for Summary Judgment to Dismiss the Defamation
+Claim on the Ground of Substantial Truth is Denied
+Maxwell has asserted that the Press Release is
+substantially true and that the defamation claim should
+therefore be dismissed. See Def.'s Br. at 39. Whether or not
+lied about Maxwell's involvement in the events that
+has alleged took place is the intensely contested
+factual issue that is the foundation of this action.
+Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate. See Mitre
+Sports Intern. Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d
+240, 255 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (denying summary judgment because it
+would require the Court to decide disputed facts to determine
+whether the statement at issue was substantially true); Da Silva
+v. Time Inc., 908 F. Supp. 184, 187 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (denying
+motion for summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of
+61
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 62 of 76
+:..
+material fact as to whether defamatory photo and caption were
+true) -
+Under New York law, "truth is an absolute, unqualified
+defense to a civil defamation action" and "'substantial truth'
+suffices to defeat a charge of libel." Jewell v. NYP Holdings,
+Inc., 23 F. Supp. 2d 348, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (internal
+quotation marks and citations omitted). A statement is
+substantially true if the statement would not "have a different
+effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded
+truth would have produced." Id. (quoting Fleckenstein v.
+, 193 N.E. 537, 538 (N.Y. 1934)). Thus, "it is not
+necessary to demonstrate complete accuracy to defeat a charge of
+libel. It is only necessary that the gist or substance of the
+challenged statements be true." Printers II, Inc. V.
+Professionals Publishing, Inc., 784 F.2d 141, 146 (2d Cir.
+1986); see also Korkala v. W.W. Norton & Co., 618 F.Supp. 152,
+155 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ("Slight inaccuracies of expression are
+immaterial provided that the defamatory charge is true in
+substance.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ;
+Sharon v. Time, Inc., 609 F.Supp. 1291, 1294 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)
+("Defendant is permitted to prove the substantial truth of this
+statement by establishing any other proposition that has the
+62
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 63 of 76
+• *
+same 'gist' or 'sting' as the original libel, that is, the same
+effect on the mind of the reader.").
+The Honorable Loretta A. Preska has noted that cases
+addressing whether a statement is substantially true "fall along
+a broad spectrum." Jewell, 23 F. Supp. at 367. There are cases
+in which a statement is non-actionable because it is completely
+true. See, e.g., Carter, 233 A.D.2d 473, 474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d
+Dep't 1996) (claim that defendant committed libel by informing
+the authorities that plaintiff was endorsing checks made payable
+to the defendant and depositing them in plaintiff's account held
+non-actionable where plaintiff had in fact endorsed checks made
+payable to the defendant). There are cases where "one struggles
+to identify any area of ambiguity as to truth." Jewell, 23 F.
+Supp. at 368; see, e.g.,
+v. Journal-News, 211 A.D.2d 626,
+627 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1995) (statement that plaintiff was
+"suspended" substantially true where plaintiff was placed on
+"administrative leave"). There are cases where the line between
+the statement and the admitted truth is more tenuous, but the
+overall "gist" cannot be said to be substantially different.
+See, e.g., Guccione v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 800 F.2d 298,
+302-03 (2d Cir. 1986) (holding that statement which implied that.
+plaintiff was then
+• currently an adulterer was substantially true
+63
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 64 of 76
+where plaintiff had ceased being an adulterer but had
+"unabashedly conmitted adultery" for thirteen of seventeen
+years). Finally, there are "those cases in which a defendant
+simply asks too much in asserting that a statement is
+substantially true because the difference between the two is
+plainly substantial." Jewell, 23 F. Supp. at 368. For example,
+the court in Da Silva, 908 F. Supp. at 186-87, held that a
+photograph of plaintiff which identified her as a prostitute was
+not substantially true where the plaintiff had been a prostitute
+for some six years but was not at the time of publication.
+After reviewing this spectrum of cases, the facts upon
+which Maxwell bases her argument are insufficient to allow this
+Court to find substantial truth as a matter of law. A material
+dispute of fact exists as to the "admitted truth" or the
+"reality" in this case.
+The details and
+significance of the facts offered are highly contested, and
+therefore cannot establish the "substantial truth" of the Press
+Release. "[R]easonable jurors could conclude that the statements
+64
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 65 of 76
+... are not substantially true." Boehner v. Heise, 734 F.
+Supp. 2d 389, 399 (S.D..Y. 2010) .
+The motion for summary judgment to dismiss the
+defamation on the ground of substantial truth is denied as not
+having been established by undisputed material facts.
+VI. The Defamation Claim is Not Barred by New York Law
+Maxwell has moved to dismiss the complaint on the
+ground that the Press Release is opinion and protected by the
+pre-litigation privilege under New York law. Because New York
+law does not support Maxwell's position, the motion for summary
+judgment based on the characterization of the Press Release as
+opinion and as protected by a pre-litigation privilege is
+denied.
+1.
+The Press Release is Not Opinion.
+As previously held, Maxwell's statement that
+claims of sexual assault are lies is not an expression of
+opinion:
+65
+
+
+case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 66 of 76
+First, statements that
+claims 'against
+[Maxwell] are untrue,' have been 'shown to be
+untrue,' and are 'obvious lies' have a specific
+and readily understood factual meaning: that
+is not telling the truth about her
+history of sexual abuse and [Maxwell]'s role, and
+that some verifiable investigation has occurred
+and come to a definitive conclusion proving that
+fact. Second, these statements (as they
+themselves allege), are capable of being proven
+true or false, and therefore constitute
+actionable fact and not opinion. Third, in their
+full context, while [Maxwell]'s statements have
+the effect of generally denying
+story,
+they also clearly constitute fact to the reader.
+v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d 147, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) .
+This Court further concluded that
+cannot be making claims shown to be
+untrue that are obvious lies without being a
+liar. Furthermore, to suggest an individual is
+not telling the truth about her history of having
+been sexually assaulted as a minor constitutes
+more than a general denial, it alleges something
+deeply disturbing about the character of an
+individual willing to be publicly dishonest about
+such a reprehensible crime. [Maxwell]'s
+statements clearly imply that the denials are
+based on facts separate and contradictory to
+those that
+has alleged.
+Id.
+Maxwell argues that the "context" of the entire
+statement "tested against the understanding of the average
+reader" should be that of a press release as a whole being read
+only by journalists. Def.'s Br. at 22 (quoting Aronson v.
+Wiersma, 483 N.E.2d 1138, 1139 (1985)). However, the ultimate
+66
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 67 of 76
+• .
+audience for a press release is the public. The motion to
+dismiss opinion clearly addressed this issue:
+Sexual assault of a minor is a clear-cut issue;
+either transgression occurred or it did not.
+Either Maxwell was involved or she was not. The
+issue is not a matter of opinion, and there
+cannot be differing understandings of the same
+facts that justify diametrically opposed opinion
+as to whether Maxwell was involved in
+abuse as
+has ciaimed. Either
+telling the truth about her story and Maxwell's
+involvement, or Maxwell is telling the truth and
+she was not involved in the trafficking and
+ultimate abuse of l
+165 E. Supp. at 152.
+Maxwell has urged that these conclusions at the motion
+to dismiss stage should be revisited and revised when
+considering the summary judgment motion since the standard for
+deciding a Rule 12(b) (6) motion is different from the standard
+for deciding a Rule 56 motion. In deciding a 12(b) (6) motion,
+the court must accept as true the factual allegations and draw
+all inferences in the plaintiff's favori a plaintiff need only
+state a claim that is "plausible on its face." Id. at 149
+(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast,
+for a Rule 56 motion, the plaintiff defending the motion may not
+"rest on [the] allegations" in her complaint.
+, 477 U.S.
+at 249.
+67
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 68 of 76
+In deciding its motion to dismiss opinion, the Court
+relied on
+V. Boeheim, 22 N.E.3d 999 (2014), and held that
+the three allegedly defamatory statements in the Press Release
+have a specific and readily understood factual meaning, are
+capable of being proven true or false, and "clearly constitute
+fact to the reader."
+• 165 F. Supp. at 152. The Court
+determined that "[t]he dispositive inquiry" for purposes of
+deciding whether an allegedly defamatory statement is fact or
+nonactionable opinion is whether "a reasonable reader could have
+concluded that the statements were conveying facts about the
+plaintiff." Id. at 151 (internal quotation marks and citation
+omitted). To answer that inquiry, three factors enumerated in
+were applied. See id. These three factors are the same as
+the four factors in Immuno AG V. Moor-Jankowski, 567 N.E.2d 1270
+(N.Y. 1991); the difference is that the
+court collapsed
+the Immuno AG's third and fourth factors into one. See
+1, 22
+N.E.3d at 1005. "[T]he critical aspect of the inquiry, as
+articulated in the third factor set forth above, is to view the
+statements in context." Jewell, 23 F. Supp. 2d at 377. This
+contextual analysis "proceeds on two levels, the 'broader social
+setting' of the statements, as well as their 'immediate
+context.'" Id. (citing Immuno, 567 N.E.2d at 1280) .
+68
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Fited 04/27/17 Page 69 of 76
+Maxwell acknowledges that the Court properly applied
+at the motion to dismiss stage, but argues that the third
+factor, especially, benefits from the evidence presented in the
+motion for summary judgment. See Def.'s Br. at 32. In other
+words, Maxwell argues that "the Court did not have the 'full
+context'" of the Press Release or the "broader social context
+and surrounding circumstances of the statement." Id. At the
+motion to dismiss stage, the text of the Press Release had not
+yet been produced, nor had there been production of emails or
+deposition testimony regarding the Press Release.
+The developed record necessitates the same conclusion
+as at the motion to dismiss stage. The context and surrounding
+circumstances remain the same. The publication was intended by
+Maxwell to reach the average reader, not simply the reporters,
+Barden's intent, a factual issue in contest, notwithstanding.
+The issue of truth or falsity is a factual determination, not a
+matter of opinion. See
+165 F. Supp. 3d at 152
+("[S]tatements that
+claims 'against [Maxwell] are
+untrue,' have been 'shown to be untrue,' and are 'obvious lies'
+have a specific and readily understood factual meaning.").
+69
+
+
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 70 of 76
+2.
+The Pre-Litigation Privilege is Inapplicable.
+Maxwell has contended that the pre-litigation
+privilege as enunciated in Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 28 N.E.3d 15,
+16 (N.Y. 2015), applies. See Def.'s Br. at 33.
+"A privileged communication is one which, but for the
+occasion on which it is uttered, would be defamatory and
+actionable." Park Knoll Assocs. v.
+| 451 N.E.2d 182, 184
+(N.Y. 1983). "[Ilt is well-settled that statements made in the
+course of litigation are entitled to absolute privilege." Front,
+28 N.E.3d at 18. The privilege that protects statements made in
+the course of litigation "can extend to preliminary or
+investigative stages of the process, particularly where
+compelling public interests are at stake."
+v. Metlife,
+Inc., 866 N.E.3d 439, 443 (N.Y. 2007). In Front, the New York
+Court of Appeals ruled that the privilege for "statements made
+by attorneys prior to the commencement of litigation" is
+qualified rather than absolute. Id. at 16. Specifically, the
+Court held that an attorney's statements made before litigation
+has commenced are privileged if (1) the attorney has "a good
+faith basis to anticipate litigation" and (2) the statements are
+"pertinent to that anticipated litigation." Id. at 20.
+70
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 71 of 76
+The anticipated litigation, according to the Press
+Release, was "redress at the repetition of such old defamatory
+claims." See Press Release. According to Barden, Maxwell's
+lawyer, he participated in the preparation of the Press Release,
+the purpose of the Press Release was to dissuade the media from
+publishing
+allegations, and the implication of the
+Press Release was that any redress sought by Maxwell would be
+against the media.
+has disputed Barden's claim that the
+Press
+Release was his own statement.
+Certain of the cases cited by Maxwell in support of
+the privilege can be distinguished, according to
+, in
+that they involve communications to or from parties to the
+ultimate litigation. See, e.g., Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F. Supp. 2d
+586, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (the communication at issue was made by
+an attorney's client to the attorney's maipractice carrier
+concerning the client's justiciable controversy against the
+attorney over which the clients actually sued); Black v.
+Harbour Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 19 A.D.3d 962, 963 (N.Y. App.
+Div. 3d Dep't 2005) (privilege applied to a letter sent by a
+home owner's association board of directors to the association's
+members informing them of the status of litigation to which the
+71
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 72 of 76
+association was a party) -
+contends that "there was no
+statement made by anyone before the commencement of litigation
+because litigation never commenced." See Pl.'s Opp'n at 42.
+Here, the communication at issue was sent to members
+of the media, and no litigation took place between Maxwell and
+the media recipients of the Press Release.
+However, the pre-litigation privilege is not limited
+to statements between parties and their lawyers. "While the
+communications at issue in Front were among lawyers and
+potential parties, the New York Court of Appeals did not
+explicitly require the recipient of the challenged statements to
+be a lawyer or potential party." Feist v. Paxfire, Inc., No. 11
+CIV. 5436 (IGS), 2017 WL 177652, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2017);
+see Front, 28 N.E.3d at 16-17. The Second Circuit "summarily
+rejected this interpretation when it applied Front to an
+attorney's communications to the press." See Tacopina v.
+O'Keeffe, 645 E. App'x 7, 8 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Even crediting [the
+plaintiff]'s allegation that [the attorney] shared the affidavit
+with the Daily News before filing it in court, Tacopina has
+still not sustained his burden of showing that the statements
+were not pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation.").
+72
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 73 of 76
+Though a statement made to a non-party may be
+privileged, the pre-litigation privilege does not apply here
+because
+the Press Release cannot be considered a "statement []
+made by [an] attorney." Front, 28 N.E.3d at 16. Whether
+Maxwell's attorney, Barden, had a hand in drafting the Press
+Release,
+and the extent to which he may have been involved, is a
+disputed issue of fact. The record evidence establishes that,
+regardless, the Press
+Release is properly attributable to
+Maxwell. Maxwell retained a public relations firm and sent her
+representative there, Gow, a forwarded email with the statements
+that were to be used in the Press Release. Maxwell instructed
+Gow to send it, as he testified in his depositicn. While Maxwell
+herself did not disseminate the email to the media recipients,
+neither did Barden. The statement was sent out by Gow.
+Additionally, the alleged defamatory statements in the
+Press Release were attributed to Maxwell, and not to her
+attorney or his agents. The email stated that the Press Release
+was a "statement on behalf of" Maxwell and notified the media
+recipients that "[n]o further communication will be provided by
+her [Maxwell] on this matter." There is no evidence in the email
+73
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 74 of 76
+that the Press Release was anything near an attorney's
+statement; Barden was not even copied on the email.
+The pre-litigation privilege is intended to protect
+attorneys from defamations claims "so that those discharging a
+public function may speak freely to zealously represent their
+clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard." Id. at
+18. Where the statement cannot be attributed to an attorney,
+there is no justification for protecting it by privilege.
+In addition, as this Court concluded in denying
+Maxwell's motion to dismiss, "It]here is no qualified privilege
+under New York law when such statements are spoken with malice,
+knowledge of their falsity, or reckless disregard for their
+truth."
+• 165 F. Supp. 3d at 155 (internal quotation
+marks and citation omitted). It is
+contention that
+Maxwell knew the statements were false because she engaged in
+and facilitated the sexual abuse of
+• Therefore,
+according to l
+, they were not made in good faith
+anticipation of litigation, and instead were made for the
+inappropriate purpose of "bully[ing]," "harass]ment]," and
+"intimid[ation]." See Front, 28 N.E.3d at 19 (2015). According
+to
+, there is ample record evidence that Maxwell acted
+74
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27/17 Page 75 of 76
+:::
+with malice in issuing the Press Release, thereby making the
+pre-litigation privilege inapplicable.
+Because of the existence of triable issues of material
+fact rather than opinion and because
+the pre-litigation
+privilege is inapplicable, the motion for summary judgment is
+denied.
+75
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 872 Filed 04/27717 Page 76 of 76
+VII. Conclusion
+For the reasons set forth above, the motion for
+summary judgment is denied.
+The parties are directed to jointly file a proposed
+redacted version of this Opinion consistent with the Protective
+Order or notify the Court that none are necessary within one
+week of the date of receipt of this Opinion.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+March 27. 2017
+76
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e822fd598865da3cfa06c97d6029d9e4c03714a09c94fb76b669432ad531b52d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e822fd598865da3cfa06c97d6029d9e4c03714a09c94fb76b669432ad531b52d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2279371f97c283df91b23621db5d779ca436b5d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e822fd598865da3cfa06c97d6029d9e4c03714a09c94fb76b669432ad531b52d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1251,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e822fd598865da3cfa06c97d6029d9e4c03714a09c94fb76b669432ad531b52d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 83,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "24e04cc7edaa6fbbf5680f4678b03551f01b538ddf99f9e6097699b0dc77dd07",
+  "output_sha256": "cdfa0d2869dc427d780f68d5d6f1db058ed132525705cf8891d2149343a6e8fb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8440a6201eeb8255736250af4e4b469e12459eded958cee54e92ae7b8b4929c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8440a6201eeb8255736250af4e4b469e12459eded958cee54e92ae7b8b4929c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3b72590c4bb053374345b08e139a960db4553060
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8440a6201eeb8255736250af4e4b469e12459eded958cee54e92ae7b8b4929c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,421 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193
+Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 14
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+-----X
+DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ALL ATTORNEY-
+CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
+PLACED AT ISSUE BY PLAINTIFF AND HER ATTORNEYS
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDON,
+East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+AND
+L. P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193
+Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 14
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+I.
+The Florida Court's Order is not Binding on Ms. Maxwell
+1
+Il. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Does Not Apply to this At Issue Waiver
+. 3
+III. Plaintiff has Waived her Attorney-Client Privilege
+. 4
+a. New York State Law Controls the Attorney-Client Privilege
+4
+b. Plaintiff's Disclosure of Communications with Her Attorney's Waived Privilege under
+any law....
+... 5
+C.
+and Cassell's Waivers with Plaintiff's Consent ..
+..6
+d. The Communications are At Issue..
+...7
+IV. The Work Product Privilege has been Waived
+9
+a. Federal Law Controls the Work Product Doctrine
+9
+b.
+and Cassell Waived Any Work Product Protection.
+9
+and Cassell are Conflicted Because of Their Multiple Roles - Plaintiff's Choice
+to Present Their Testimony at Trial not Relevant to the Waiver Issue.
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 3 of 14
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Reply in Support of Motion to
+Compel All Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed At Issue By
+Plaintiff and Her Attorneys ("Motion"), and as grounds therefore states as follows:
+THE FLORIDA COURT'S ORDER IS NOT BINDING ON MS. MAXWELL
+The vast majority of Plaintiff's Response presumes that a one line decision, without any
+legal analysis, entered by a Florida State Court judge in a matter where Ms. Maxwell was not a
+party and did not participate, is somehow binding on Ms. Maxwell. It is not.' A party asserting
+collateral estoppel bears the burden of proving its application. May Ship Repair Contracting
+Corp. v. Barge Columbia New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 594, 599 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The rules of
+collateral estoppel prohibit any binding effect based on the decision by the Florida Court because
+Ms. Maxwell was neither a party to the prior action or in privity with a party to the prior action.
+See Weiss v. Feigenbaum, 558 F. Supp. 265, 275 (E.D.N.Y. 1982) (emphasis supplied) (citing
+Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-55 (1979) and GAF Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
+519 F.Supp. 1203, 1211 (S.D.N.Y.1981)).
+As the Supreme Court has made clear:
+The application of claim and issue preclusion to nonparties thus runs up against the
+"deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court."
+Richards, 517 U.S. at 798 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indicating the strength of
+that tradition, we have often repeated the general rule that "one is not bound by a
+judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which
+he has not been made a party by service of process."
+Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892-93 (2008) (quoting Hansberry, 311 U.S. 32, 40 (1940)).
+Ms. Maxwell was not a party to the Dershowitz Case. The Florida Court Order has no preclusive
+effect as to Ms. Maxwell, a non-party to the prior litigation.
+' Plaintiff's counsel conceded this fact in the conferral on the Motion regarding waiver.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 4 of 14
+Plaintiff's only allegation in support of a claim for collateral estoppel is the completely
+unsubstantiated allegation Ms. Maxwell is in privity with Mr. Dershowitz by virtue of a common
+interest agreement. This is not true. There is no joint defense or common interest agreement
+between Mr. Dershowitz and Ms. Maxwell. Plaintiff is well aware that this claim is false
+because Ms. Maxwell has responded to discovery requests informing Plaintiff that no such
+agreement exists. See Menninger Decl., Ex. Q. Regardless, privity requires a degree of control
+over the prior proceeding. Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders
+In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt Int'l B.V. v. Schreiber, 327 F.3d 173, 185 (2d Cir. 2003) ("In those
+cases where we have applied the doctrine of privity to a person who was not represented by a
+fiduciary or agent in the previous litigation, we have found that that person nonetheless exercised
+some degree of actual control over the presentation of a party's case at the previous
+proceeding."). Ms. Maxwell did not participate in the Dershowitz litigation, let alone exercise
+any control over Dershowitz in that matter.
+The inquiry could end there, but the other factors for application of collateral estoppel are
+equally important to assessing both the lack of preclusive effect and the unreliability of the
+Florida Court's Order. It is true that there was some briefing on at issue waiver in that litigation.
+The briefing occurred, however, before key events relied on in Ms. Maxwell's Motion. The
+briefing all occurred before the Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by
+and
+Cassell, including Plaintiff's supporting affidavit. Most importantly the decision was issued
+prior to Plaintiff's testimony in the Dershowitz case where she voluntarily testified about her
+attorney communication in a manner affirmatively waiving privilege (as noted by the magistrate
+judge overseeing the deposition). The "at issue" waiver briefed in this case is thus not identical,
+was not actually litigated, nor was there a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Moreover, there
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 5 of 14
+was no final judgement on the merits.? The Florida Court order is irrelevant and must be
+ignored.
+II. FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502 DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS AT ISSUE
+WAIVER
+Plaintiff next argues that Florida law applies to the determination of the privilege waiver.
+Again, she is wrong. Federal Rule of Evidence 502 - the sole basis cited by Plaintiff for this
+argument - was enacted primarily for two situations, neither of which apply to this motion. See
+F.R.C.P. 502 Advisory Committee Notes. First and foremost, the rule was intended to protect a
+litigant who provides limited amounts of information to government agencies under a
+confidentiality agreement to gain leniency from the government by demonstrating cooperation.
+Second, the rule addresses how the inadvertent disclosure of documents should be treated if
+those disclosures were made in another matter, with a particular concern of inadvertent wavier in
+e-discovery, because the federal and various state rules differ. Neither of these situations are the
+basis for the Motion.
+Here, Plaintiff committed a classic common law privilege waiver by putting the
+communications at issue. This type of waiver is well established in the law. The Committee
+Notes for Rule 502 state that such common law rules are not affected by the Rule and that the
+choice of law and waiver provisions of 502 have no effect on these common law rules:
+The rule governs only certain waivers by disclosure. Other common-law waiver
+doctrines may result in a finding of waiver even where there is no disclosure of
+privileged information or work product. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197
+F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1999) (reliance on an advice of counsel defense waives the
+privilege with respect to attorney-client communications pertinent to that
+defense); Ryers v. Burleson, 100 F.R.D. 436 (D.D.C. 1983) (allegation of lawyer
+malpractice constituted a waiver of confidential communications under the
+circumstances). The rule is not intended to displace or modify federal common
+" In light of the additional acts confirming waiver that occurred after the previous briefing in the Dershowitz
+case, had the Dershowitz case continued, Mr. Dershowitz likely would have moved for reconsideration or
+made a new motion. An interim discovery order is simply not a final judgment on the merits.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 6 of 14
+law concerning waiver of privilege or work product where no disclosure has been
+made.
+Thus, Federal Rule of Evidence 502 is not applicable this Motion.
+III. PLAINTIFF HAS WAIVED HER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
+a. New York State Law Controls the Attorney-Client Privilege"
+The instant motion involves the waiver of attorney-client privilege based on the common
+law "at issue" waiver doctrine. This Court has fully analyzed the applicable choice of law
+relating to attorney-client communications and determined that, as a federal court sitting in
+diversity relating to a state law claims, New York law should apply because it has the
+predominant interest.? Guiffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 CIV. 7433 (RWS), 2016 WL 1756918, at *5
+(S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016) ("Thus, any consequence resulting from a ruling on the confidentiality
+of the Barden communications will sound only in New York, the situs of this case and the
+location of the allegedly defamatory statements at issue. New York therefore has the
+predominate interest in whether these communications remain confidential. The similarity
+between New York and British attorney-client privilege demonstrates that no public policy
+conflict exists. Consequently, New York law applies to all of Plaintiff's privilege claims.").
+Indeed, Plaintiff concedes that New York law should apply. Response at 11. There is no
+D at also Henry Ruining nine ties ree tiems rraie Eluded that gic cupha way agitate judge ruling.
+privilege by putting the content of the advice of counsel at issue in this litigation rather than by disclosing the
+content of the communications, the Court finds that analysis of the issue is not affected or changed by the enactment
+of Rule 502.").
+*Ms. Maxwell admits that the citations in her brief are primarily to Federal decisions from New York Courts. Many
+of those cases either expressly or impliedly apply New York's attorney-client privilege because they are state law
+diversity cases. Regardless, both federal and New York state law recognize the common law at issue waiver doctrine
+and closely parallels federal law. Chin v. Rogoff & Co., P.C., No. 05 CIV. 8360(NRB), 2008 WL 2073934, at *5
+(S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2008) ("New York law on "at issue" waiver derives from Hearn and closely parallels federal
+law") (collecting cases).
+" The case at bar is a single state law claim for defamation in a New York Federal Court sitting in diversity. Plaintiff
+is a Colorado citizen, according to her Complaint, although she is currently living in Australia. While her attorneys
+elected to file suit in Florida (one of their places of residence, and a convenient forum shopping location), the
+subpoena for Plaintiff's third-party deposition was issued out of the County Court for Fremont Colorado. Plaintiff's
+communications to her attorneys took place in Colorado. There is simply no basis for claiming application of
+Florida state law to Plaintiff's attorney-client privilege.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 7 of 14
+difference between Florida and New York in this instance. Moreover, regardless of the law
+applied, Plaintiff did waive her attorney-client privilege by testifying about her communications
+with her attorneys (express waiver) and by permitting her attorneys/joint defense partners to rely
+on her communications with them as the basis for their claim without objection (implied at issue
+waiver). See Response at 9-13.
+b. Plaintiff's Disclosure of Communications with Her Attorney's Waived Privilege
+under any law
+Plaintiff claims that she did not intend or authorize the waiver of her privilege and
+provides a self-serving, un-notarized affidavit to that effect. McCawley Decl., Ex. 13. That does
+not change the facts, fully supported in the Motion, that she did share the content of her
+communications and thereby did waive the privilege. Hoyas v. State, 456 So. 2d 1225, 1228
+(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (there is a waiver of attorney-client privileged when "It Jhe client's
+offer of his own or the attorney's testimony as to a part of any communication to the attorney is a
+waiver as to the whole of that communication, on the analogy of the principle of
+completeness."). Ms. Maxwell does not (as Plaintiff contends) rely on the summary judgment
+motion filed by
+and Cassell to demonstrate Plaintiff's own waiver. Ms. Maxwell relies
+on Plaintiff's own sworn Declarations" and deposition testimony in which she revealed the
+content of her attorney-client communications. See Motion at 10-15. Plaintiff cannot overcome
+this waiver simply by ignoring it.
+Plaintiff attempts to avoid the issue by arguing that the facts included in various
+declarations are not privileged, thus, she contends, filing a declaration does not waive privilege.
+Everyone agrees that facts communicated to an attorney do not become privileged simply by
+explanation of the various waivers are found in the Motion at 11.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 8 of 14
+virtue of their communication to an attorney. As such, including facts upon which a client had
+personal knowledge in the form of an affidavit or declaration does not serve as a waiver - the
+facts are not privileged in the first place. That is not the issue. Plaintiff does not limit her
+Declarations and affidavits to "facts" - she specifically discusses what she has "told" her
+attorneys, what her attorney "explained" to her, and her "direction" to counsel. Menninger
+Decl., Ex. I, 19I 55-56, 61, 65, 67, 68. These are not underlying non-privileged "facts." They are
+attorney-client communications specifically drafted in support of
+and Cassell's lawsuit.
+They were expressly relied on by
+and Cassell in the prosecution of their claims.
+Menninger Decl., Ex. E ("
+has submitted a sworn affidavit, not only attesting to the
+truthfulness of her allegations against Dershowitz but also about the fact that she told her lawyers
+about these claims."). Voluntarily disclosing these communications waived the privilege.
+Plaintiff also claims, without legal authority, that her deposition testimony denying that
+her attorneys encouraged or helped her fabricate her claims is not testimony about her
+communications with them. She does not explain how she could answer these questions without
+reference to her communications, because she could not. "[I]t has been established law for a
+hundred years that when the client waives the privilege by testifying about what transpired
+between her and her attorney, she cannot thereafter insist that the mouth of the attorney be shut.
+From that has grown the rule that testimony as to part of a privileged communication, in fairness,
+requires production of the remainder." In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 101 (2d Cir. 1987).
+c.
+and Cassell's Waivers with Plaintiff's Consent
+Plaintiff acknowledges that she is in a joint defense relationship with
+and
+Cassell relating to the Dershowitz Case and was consulted at every step of that litigation
+Plaintiff actually admits this constitutes a crime or fraud under all applicable state or federal law eviscerating th
+attorney-client privilege. Ms. Maxwell agrees, and anticipates a filing of a motion on this issue in the near futuro
+based on recent discovery.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 9 of 14
+regarding how it would be prosecuted. See McCawley Decl., Ex. 16. By permitting disclosure
+of and reliance on her communications with
+and Cassell without objecting to the filings
+or proceedings in the Dershowitz Case, Plaintiff gave them the right to waive her privilege, with
+her consent. Instead of facing this issue head on, Plaintiff simply disregards it.®
+d. The Communications are At Issue
+Plaintiff's primary argument for Florida law is that somehow it would not permit an issue
+waiver. Assuming, arguendo, that Florida law applies or is somehow more protective than New
+York law on at issue waiver, Florida law also mandates a finding that waiver occurred here. As
+Plaintiff's own citation to Florida case law dictates, "waiver occurs only when a party must
+necessarily use the privilege information to establish its claim or defense." Coates v. Akerman,
+Senterfitt & Edison, P.A., 940 So.2d 504, 510-11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Waiver also occurs when
+a claim may not require support via a privileged communication, but privileged communications
+are relied on. See Response at 11-13.
+Plaintiff fails to address that the claims brought in the Dershowitz Case "must necessarily
+use the privileged information to establish [their] claim" and they did in fact use Plaintiff's
+communications to the attorneys to support their claims? Specifically,
+and Cassell
+affirmatively allege on numerous occasions that they had a "good faith basis" to rely on the
+representation of their client when they filed the Joinder Motion. See Motion at 16-17. How can
+one prove a "good faith basis" for the reliance on client representations without using or
+disclosing those representations?
+and Comment 10 (personal interest of lawyer).
+"Again, Plaintiff misleads the Court by addressing a "typical claim" made in the Dershowitz litigation that could,
+but would not be required to prove the claim. She ignores the fact that other claims do require support through
+attorney communications, causing a waiver.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 10 of 14
+In an attempt to avoid this obvious problem,
+Cassell and McCawley attempt to
+manufacture an argument that their "reliance" is not on Plaintiff's communications with them,
+but only on their clients "sworn statements." Id. This, again, is false. The Joinder Motion
+spurring the Dershowitz statements and the subsequent defamation lawsuit was filed on
+December 30, 2014. At that time, there was not a single "sworn statement" by Plaintiff. Thus,
+and Cassell's reliance on their client's representations could only be supported through
+the representations they had at the time, to wit, their client's communications to them.
+The most analogous situation to this case is an attorney responding to a motion for
+sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In that situation, the attorneys and their client have a
+choice. They can choose to rely on attorney-client privileged communication and/or their work
+product to support their contention that their filing was substantially justified; or, they can
+choose not to rely on this information. Indeed, the Committee notes to Rule 11 state "[t]he rule
+does not require a party or an attorney to disclose privileged communications or work product in
+order to show that the signing of the pleading, motion, or other paper is substantially justified...
+. But this comment merely echoes a truism: a party is not obligated to disclose privileged
+information in a Rule 11proceeding. Instead, it has the opportunity to decide whether to make
+such a disclosure." QBE Ins. Corp. v. Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 661, 666 (S.D. Fla.
+2012). Once they have relied on such information, then an at issue privilege waiver occurs
+concerning otherwise privileged matters. See id. ("If QBE decides to rely on attorney-client
+privileged information at the evidentiary hearing, then it will have generated a waiver applicable
+to all other attorney-client communications relating to the same subject matter.").
+While unusual, that is precisely what occurred here.
+and Cassell preemptively
+filed an action against Dershowitz proclaiming they did not violate Rule 11 - i.e., they acted in
+good faith reliance on their client's communications to them, conducted a reasonably diligent
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 11 of 14
+investigation of the matters communicated and their pleading was substantially justified. In
+doing so, they voluntarily put at issue and relied on: a) their good faith reliance on information
+communicated to them by Plaintiff, and b) their work product showing that their filing was
+reasonably investigated and substantially justified. Having done so,
+and Cassell
+effected a waiver as to their communications, work product and investigations.
+IV. THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED
+a. Federal Law Controls the Work Product Doctrine
+"While state law governs the question of attorney-client privilege in a diversity action,
+federal law governs the application of the work product doctrine." Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290
+F.R.D. 421, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D.
+465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("The invocation of the work-product rule is governed by federal
+law.").
+b.
+Plaintiff cannot contest that
+and Cassell Waived Any Work Product Protection.
+and Cassell's work product was put at issue and
+therefore waived. She simply ignores the fact that this alone constitutes a waiver under any
+applicable law. "Parties may waive any work product protection by putting the privileged
+information at issue... Parties waive the work product privilege for certain documents by
+asserting claims which in fairness require examination of those documents."
+v. Nassau
+Cty. Health Care Corp., 204 F.R.D. 240, 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing In re Grand Jury
+Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175, 190 (2d Cir.2000)). "As to work produet, the test for whether waiver
+has occurred is whether the disclosure at issue has 'substantially increased the opportunities for
+potential adversaries to obtain the information.'' Norton v. Town of Islip, No. CV 04-3079 PKC
+SIL, 2015 WL 5542543, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2015) (quoting In re Vitamin C Antitrust
+Litig., No. MD 06-1738, 2011 WL 197583, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2011)).
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 12 of 14
+Cassell's 50-plus pages of testimony concerning his and
+evaluation of the
+evidence prior to filing the Joinder Motion is the disclosure of both fact and thought work
+product. He extensively details not just what he looked at, but what he thought, what he was
+"seeing" in reviewing documents, his assumptions, his logic, and his conclusion. It is an obvious
+disclosure. It was not just likely to end up in the hand of an adversary - it was given directly to
+an adversary and
+and Cassell relied on the testimony in the Dershowitz case to support
+their claim for summary judgment. The issue - did they do an adequate factual investigation,
+what work did they do, and was the pleading in Joinder Motion substantially justified - was at
+the heart of their claims. There can be no question that a waiver over all work product occurred.
+V.
+AND CASSELL ARE CONFLICTED BECAUSE OF THEIR
+MULTIPLE ROLES - PLAINTIFF'S CHOICE TO PRESENT THEIR
+TESTIMONY AT TRIAL NOT RELEVANT TO THE WAIVER ISSUE.'
+Plaintiff argues that even if there were an at issue waiver in the Dershowitz Case (there
+was), since she does not plan on using the uncovered or disclosed communications and work
+product in this case, the waiver that already occurred should have no effect here. " Again, that is
+not the standard. In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 1993) ("The waiver
+doctrine provides that voluntary disclosure of work product to an adversary waives the privilege
+as to other parties [in a subsequent proceeding]."); Motion at 9. Some of the work product and
+attorney-client communications put affirmatively at issue in the Dershowitz Case support Ms.
+Maxwell's defenses. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to discovery of additional supporting evidence
+since the waiver is complete. Once Pandora's box has been opened, it cannot simply be closed.
+'' This issue was anticipated by the Court and Ms. Maxwell's counsel. Ms. Maxwell's counsel expects that there
+will be further briefing on only this issue in the upcoming weeks. It is currently, however, limited to rebutting the
+claims of "relevance" made by Plaintiff relating to the at issue waiver.
+" Plaintiff's argument on this issue is actually internally contradictory. By alleging Fed. R. Evid. 502 controls, she
+admits that if Florida or Federal law would find a waiver, then that is binding in this proceeding. As discussed
+above, under any potentially applicable law, and at issue waiver occurred.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 13 of 14
+WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and those set forth in Motion to Compel All
+Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys, Ms. Maxwell
+requests that the relief requested therein be granted.
+Dated: June 6, 2016.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone:
+303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 193 Filed 06/06/16 Page 14 of 14
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on June 6, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant's Reply in Support of
+Motion to Compel all Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by Plaintiff and Her
+Attorneys via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meridith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+9 Twin Lakes Ro
+outh Salem. NY 1059
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+1. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+12
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8440a6201eeb8255736250af4e4b469e12459eded958cee54e92ae7b8b4929c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8440a6201eeb8255736250af4e4b469e12459eded958cee54e92ae7b8b4929c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb7900e26e3aa3ff6df4a342ac5326a68c33304f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8440a6201eeb8255736250af4e4b469e12459eded958cee54e92ae7b8b4929c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -168,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e8440a6201eeb8255736250af4e4b469e12459eded958cee54e92ae7b8b4929c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 14,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f30ce694bfdbfc04e9c0245c0d687292f24e13e37d8ba65fa0c0868e3a4cba96",
+  "output_sha256": "13615afc39c8ef8d91f95d6e3c158f898c3f93b05ffe4b369d60efa096ec4269",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e86f64909bf11f7aeadc0970173131540a70222fde0f2eb160b56e48406c00c6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e86f64909bf11f7aeadc0970173131540a70222fde0f2eb160b56e48406c00c6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f74c2233b7b8c311141b9f05d7b868a5c8a5ff77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e86f64909bf11f7aeadc0970173131540a70222fde0f2eb160b56e48406c00c6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 223-1 Filed 04/20/21
+
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e86f64909bf11f7aeadc0970173131540a70222fde0f2eb160b56e48406c00c6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e86f64909bf11f7aeadc0970173131540a70222fde0f2eb160b56e48406c00c6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a54690b4f399eca862157079d5059a3241b2426e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e86f64909bf11f7aeadc0970173131540a70222fde0f2eb160b56e48406c00c6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -32,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e86f64909bf11f7aeadc0970173131540a70222fde0f2eb160b56e48406c00c6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "62b8c0c5fdecd7451f9251d11215f5a7528e852406f31fdf2839c1cc24021d8d",
+  "output_sha256": "430ae244210d60d9520d25676032d305e96484d136c8c02141a00eea6789bfee",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e87619ee7e3e51d080e67e7155f659d111750bb0a4d10b020c7141cce2e188c2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e87619ee7e3e51d080e67e7155f659d111750bb0a4d10b020c7141cce2e188c2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c39968cd6cbdff2c50e86a24cca5280edaa0033
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e87619ee7e3e51d080e67e7155f659d111750bb0a4d10b020c7141cce2e188c2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 529
+Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's
+Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+1.
+I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+|. P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of the Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard
+Jansen.
+Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of |
+Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) are true and correct copies
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 529 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 3
+4.
+5.
+Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of a BBC News
+article titled: Q&A: Prince Andrew claims, dated April 8, 2015.
+Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) are true and correct copies
+6.
+Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of a Reuters U.S.
+article titled: British socialite to face Epstein accuser"s defamation lawsuit, dated
+March 1, 2016.
+Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of a compliation of
+articles cited in
+Attached as Exhibit G (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of
+Dated: January 5, 2017
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 529 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on January 5, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+In Support Of Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion Of Dr.
+Bernard Jansen via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Pt. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Is/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e87619ee7e3e51d080e67e7155f659d111750bb0a4d10b020c7141cce2e188c2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e87619ee7e3e51d080e67e7155f659d111750bb0a4d10b020c7141cce2e188c2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..515c2644c14e2c8b6d85389deed8cc2ad884dbff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e87619ee7e3e51d080e67e7155f659d111750bb0a4d10b020c7141cce2e188c2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e87619ee7e3e51d080e67e7155f659d111750bb0a4d10b020c7141cce2e188c2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f3eab5aa1d2a3b3d39ff802d4d056bf8d02759480ab12097e33ac06c3252ac4e",
+  "output_sha256": "7915c054bedd45a24b55a8b141c97525fa58ba6eea2eb87852e353897f1a9095",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e880a84087c9600e1b90f56b5b5a40ac38feb3c4b6e70fabf8b10e05ebac7874.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e880a84087c9600e1b90f56b5b5a40ac38feb3c4b6e70fabf8b10e05ebac7874.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..677a433b19461437f9fe3da2131718ad4c8f919b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e880a84087c9600e1b90f56b5b5a40ac38feb3c4b6e70fabf8b10e05ebac7874.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 516-3 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e880a84087c9600e1b90f56b5b5a40ac38feb3c4b6e70fabf8b10e05ebac7874.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e880a84087c9600e1b90f56b5b5a40ac38feb3c4b6e70fabf8b10e05ebac7874.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..387ed3fb83102cb86c603166829a8c8129811024
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e880a84087c9600e1b90f56b5b5a40ac38feb3c4b6e70fabf8b10e05ebac7874.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e880a84087c9600e1b90f56b5b5a40ac38feb3c4b6e70fabf8b10e05ebac7874",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "087a9031c01b2a518f8b66b87bd63619a9a100ab4b5706f856c965b059271ee2",
+  "output_sha256": "c4db71f96c47a08cc21f6285e67ac24bb6383ff2cd8850b8b9d0223863a08634",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e88846a1f670ed286784eae50807487b186b9f7c0aaec59e4c451905e636c330.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e88846a1f670ed286784eae50807487b186b9f7c0aaec59e4c451905e636c330.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..888e3276e94d36c99133f9203279270adc8b032e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e88846a1f670ed286784eae50807487b186b9f7c0aaec59e4c451905e636c330.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 574 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
+MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND OPINIONS OF
+REBUTTAL EXPERT WILLIAM E.
+Sigrid McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 574 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 3
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+AND
+PAGES 1-9
+FILE UNDER SEAL
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 574 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 30th day of January, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e88846a1f670ed286784eae50807487b186b9f7c0aaec59e4c451905e636c330.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e88846a1f670ed286784eae50807487b186b9f7c0aaec59e4c451905e636c330.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf49c7791c7d4856e3e5a815181437495f6a31bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e88846a1f670ed286784eae50807487b186b9f7c0aaec59e4c451905e636c330.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e88846a1f670ed286784eae50807487b186b9f7c0aaec59e4c451905e636c330",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "88d9c044139061e5eaeb8707dba2729143313525546943c77bcb1700f483a184",
+  "output_sha256": "52d3daff27d6f38fb2372cf0ff471eb92e90a97d30e470b1f25471346c2bb881",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8c02b2ed81c912aa700ff168bce574eaf63417620cad28bbdbea69e74d58ce0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8c02b2ed81c912aa700ff168bce574eaf63417620cad28bbdbea69e74d58ce0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fa63190467dda6f642f2c49aefbcf9de614ee74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8c02b2ed81c912aa700ff168bce574eaf63417620cad28bbdbea69e74d58ce0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 165-16 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+10/2/2015
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 1662bGbase Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 3
+WM
+U.S. District Court
+Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach)
+CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
+Doe v. United States of America
+Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra
+Case in other court: USCA, 13-12923-C
+USCA, 13-12926-C
+USCA, 13-12928-C
+Cause: no cause specified
+Petitioner
+Jane Doe
+Date Filed: 07/07/2008
+Jury Demand: None
+Vature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
+Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
+represented by
+[James
+Jaffe Weissing
+L Fistos &
+Lehrman PL
+425 N Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+954-524-2820
+Fax: 954-524-2822
+Email: brad@pathtojustice.com
+LEAD ATTORNEY
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Jay C. Howell
+Jay Howell & Associates PA
+644 Cesery Boulevard
+Suite 250
+Jacksonville, FL 32211
+Email: jay@jayhowell.com
+PRO HAC VICE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Paul G. Cassell
+Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu
+PRO HAC VICE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+V.
+Respondent
+United States of America
+represented by Ann
+C. Villafana
+United States Attorney's Office
+500 South Australian Ave
+Suite 400
+https://ect./lsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.p/3428412795919127-L_1_0-1
+1/35
+
+
+10/2/2015
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document -1166+bGbase Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 3
+event. The document was re-docketed by the Clerk, see 296. It is not necessary to
+refile this document. (asl) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
+01/26/2015
+01/26/2015
+01/22/2015
+01/22/2015
+01/21/2015
+01/21/2015
+01/20/2015
+01/20/2015
+01/16/2015
+01/16/2015
+296
+RESPONSE to 286 Order Requesting Justification for Supplemental Protective
+Order by Jeffrey Epstein. See 295 for image (asl) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
+295
+MOTION Limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Order Requesting
+Justification for Supplemental Protective Order re 286 Order by Jeffrey Epstein.
+(Black, Roy) Modified to re-docket, see 296 on 1/26/2015 (asl). (Entered:
+01/26/2015)
+294
+RESPONSE to Motion re 282 MOTION to Intervene on a Limited Basis filed by
+United States of America. Replies due by 2/2/2015. (Lee, Dexter) (Entered:
+01/22/2015)
+SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 293 [misc] restricted/sealed until further notice.
+(tpl) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
+SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 291 [respm] restricted/sealed until further
+notice. (ir) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
+292
+MOTION to Seal (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(tpl) (Entered:
+01/22/2015)
+290
+RESPONSE in Opposition re 280 Motion to Adopt/Join Jane Doe #3 and Jane
+Doe #4 filed by United States of America. Replies due by 1/30/2015.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - September 3, 2008 Notification Letter to Jane Doe
+#3, # 2 Exhibit B - Civil Action filed on May 1, 2009 by Jane Doe #3, # 3 Exhibit
+C -Extract of Phone Interview of Jane Doe #3, April 7, 2011, by Jack Scarola,
+Esq. and Brad
+Esq.) Lee, Dexter) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
+289
+ORDER granting 288 Motion to File a Single Consolidated Pleading in Response
+to Alan Dershowitz's Motion for Intervention 282 and related filings. Signed by
+Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 1/20/2015. (ir) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
+288
+Unopposed MOTION Motion of Jane Doe Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4's to File a Single
+Consolidated Pleading in Response to Alan Dershowitz's Motion for
+Interventions, Declaration in Support of Motion and Supplement to Motion for
+Intervention re 285 Supplement, 282 MOTION to Intervene on a Limited Basis by
+Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(
+(Entered: 01/16/2015)
+287
+NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Gabriel Groisman on behalf of Alan M.
+Dershowitz. Attorney Gabriel Groisman added to party Alan M.
+Dershowitz(pty:intv). (Groisman, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
+01/14/2015
+286
+ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S 261
+Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order Supplemental Protective Order filed
+by Jeffrey Epstein. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 1/14/2015. (ir)
+(Entered: 01/14/2015)
+01/12/2015
+285
+SUPPLEMENT to 282 MOTION to Intervene on a Limited Basis by Alan M.
+Dershowitz (Groisman, Gabriel) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
+01/06/2015
+284
+| NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Steven
+Safra on behalf of Alan M.
+https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?428412795919127-L_1_0-1
+9/35
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8c02b2ed81c912aa700ff168bce574eaf63417620cad28bbdbea69e74d58ce0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8c02b2ed81c912aa700ff168bce574eaf63417620cad28bbdbea69e74d58ce0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8b66989f0bcf277d85df306d62864328197a1e79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8c02b2ed81c912aa700ff168bce574eaf63417620cad28bbdbea69e74d58ce0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e8c02b2ed81c912aa700ff168bce574eaf63417620cad28bbdbea69e74d58ce0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "bfb7211bf75aaaa96da2e821e17709810b6d758c4749f4e01531cf928742203c",
+  "output_sha256": "f59dd4ecf0435cda45cb4633b5f980197fd912b6564f65b3b0d3d95768054f2c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8df96e16e89abf89fa17dca5c9368c12382ae99801aefc3dc86364ce933de88.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8df96e16e89abf89fa17dca5c9368c12382ae99801aefc3dc86364ce933de88.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f2c590af2a6b22753e372136faf19c86a63f5641
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8df96e16e89abf89fa17dca5c9368c12382ae99801aefc3dc86364ce933de88.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136-5 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8df96e16e89abf89fa17dca5c9368c12382ae99801aefc3dc86364ce933de88.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8df96e16e89abf89fa17dca5c9368c12382ae99801aefc3dc86364ce933de88.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6f2fcf5ae98e558c60c32dd3ac631d6bc943fc4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e8df96e16e89abf89fa17dca5c9368c12382ae99801aefc3dc86364ce933de88.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e8df96e16e89abf89fa17dca5c9368c12382ae99801aefc3dc86364ce933de88",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7c5f07f1a11a195165b4a2b6b6df47ea4fabba0bd7c06a88e946671e891a276e",
+  "output_sha256": "51ac8719004ed885bbf0fe7dffef6ab98c120000a5c92da21a7703f067b905fc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9229805dbbad839962a216b3e6b3c5d388f2e0dbfbe8d0773eaaef1429229fa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9229805dbbad839962a216b3e6b3c5d388f2e0dbfbe8d0773eaaef1429229fa.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..204803d6f7be209f7f8b465c6e3a2fdf31a5a160
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9229805dbbad839962a216b3e6b3c5d388f2e0dbfbe8d0773eaaef1429229fa.md
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 536 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND INCORPORATED
+MEMORANDUM OF LAW
+1, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
+and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of |
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+6.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 536 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 4
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 536 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: January 6, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 536 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 6th day of January, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9229805dbbad839962a216b3e6b3c5d388f2e0dbfbe8d0773eaaef1429229fa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9229805dbbad839962a216b3e6b3c5d388f2e0dbfbe8d0773eaaef1429229fa.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58b1920890760bef2f9cdc96cf8229abcfdcd81c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9229805dbbad839962a216b3e6b3c5d388f2e0dbfbe8d0773eaaef1429229fa.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9229805dbbad839962a216b3e6b3c5d388f2e0dbfbe8d0773eaaef1429229fa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f5db062f04e960158bd504548d8f953edb4e280afc21e9c03df9766845fb8462",
+  "output_sha256": "2bc5c676b472f7ca1b1f320a86864ec283aab02711dd9786426f3ea981531788",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9232cd59efd6db674d5a3b01da25ee968447ba80f02ae3d4e9686dae18dbb0a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9232cd59efd6db674d5a3b01da25ee968447ba80f02ae3d4e9686dae18dbb0a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..537df126fe486725196e1ef4c07a143f12c147d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9232cd59efd6db674d5a3b01da25ee968447ba80f02ae3d4e9686dae18dbb0a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 264 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+THE PARTIES' AGREED NOTICE OF FILING REDACTED OPINION
+Pursuant to this Court's June 20, 2016, Opinion, Plaintiff,
+and
+Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, hereby files with the Court a proposed redacted version of its
+June 20, 2016, Opinion with agreed upon redactions. The Court ordered as follows:
+This matter being subject to a Protective Order, the parties are directed to meet and
+June 20, 2016, Order at p. 19.
+Dated: July 5, 2016.
+Accordingly, attached please find a proposed redacted version of this Court's Opinion.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 264 |
+Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 3
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+I. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202'
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 264 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 5th day of July, 2016, I served the attached document via
+CM/ECF to the following counsel of record.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9232cd59efd6db674d5a3b01da25ee968447ba80f02ae3d4e9686dae18dbb0a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9232cd59efd6db674d5a3b01da25ee968447ba80f02ae3d4e9686dae18dbb0a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f404a84c65b1938968b27cae7a5fdfce17bb3da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9232cd59efd6db674d5a3b01da25ee968447ba80f02ae3d4e9686dae18dbb0a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9232cd59efd6db674d5a3b01da25ee968447ba80f02ae3d4e9686dae18dbb0a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "24103ae3b469982fbd873b31b499c34386124fcd3d6c87ea3905e62e5a9bbbbc",
+  "output_sha256": "0a24b7b1f8540a90b009774f82d1f4a7308781b680fe5629c0549d5a96f2f432",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e92d91bbd6523ca750c696f990c6506ffe00552b97cb661fe973748cbf0a22b2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e92d91bbd6523ca750c696f990c6506ffe00552b97cb661fe973748cbf0a22b2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf734fee747acbc73378579cf0ad0a86b00edc22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e92d91bbd6523ca750c696f990c6506ffe00552b97cb661fe973748cbf0a22b2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523
+Filed 12/04/21 Page 1 of 9
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+December 4, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter moving to admit photographs from the
+interior of Jeffrey Epstein's house in New York. As explained below, particular images are
+corroborative of testimony by the witness using the pseudonym "Jane." They are therefore
+relevant to the issues before the Court.'
+I.
+Applicable Law
+Evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
+would be without the evidence," and the fact "is of consequence in determining the action." Fed.
+R. Evid. 401; see Fed. R. Evid. 402 ("Relevant evidence is unless [another law] provides otherwise
+' The Government has redacted the exhibits from this letter entirely to avoid publicizing
+photographs which may not be exhibits at trial. The Government is prepared to file publicly a
+version that contains redacted versions of the exhibits if the Court so orders.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 2 of 9
+...."). The "standard of relevance established by the Federal Rules of Evidence is not high."
+United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1375 (2d Cir. 1985) (Friendly, J.) (internal
+quotation marks omitted). A district court's "evidentiary rulings" are reviewed on appeal "under
+a deferential abuse of discretion standard," and are disturbed only if "manifestly erroneous."
+United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 662 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).
+"[A] suggestion that an item of evidence relates to a period that is too remote goes to both
+the item's relevance and its weight." United States v. Certified Env. Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72,
+90 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted.). But evidence of continuity between the time
+of the consequential fact and the time of the proffered evidence supports a finding of relevance.
+See, e.g., id. (evidence that predated the charged conspiracy by five years relevant because it
+concerned "a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct," and evidence
+that postdated acts charged in the indictment provided evidence "of' a longstanding continuous
+mental process" (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Roux, 715 F.3d 1019, 1027
+(7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a relevance challenge to prior acts evidence because they "were offered
+to establish Roux's sexual interest in minors, a proclivity that ... is unlikely to vanish with the
+passage of time"). And evidence that corroborates earlier evidence is "admissible for the same
+reasons." Certified Env. Servs., 753 F.3d at 91 ("[B]ecause the 2009 guidance document
+memorialized the 2006 email exchange, it served to corroborate that evidence, and therefore was
+admissible for the same reasons.").
+Il.
+Discussion
+Certain photographs in the 900 series are strongly corroborative of specific statements
+made by Jane. In defense counsel's words, Jane's recollection "of everything .... is critical to the
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 3 of 9
+case," and "[h]er memory of every single detail of her childhood is central to the case." (12/01/21
+Tr. at 413). Accordingly, photographs that corroborate Jane's testimony are highly relevant.
+There are two sets of photographs that are particularly corroborative: photographs of
+Epstein's massage room and photographs that corroborate details of other portions of Epstein's
+house.
+A. The Massage Room
+Jane testified that she was sexually abused in the massage room of Epstein's New York
+house, and she gave detailed testimony about permanent features of the room. Photographs taken
+of the massage room specifically corroborate that testimony.?
+Jane described the walls of the room: "[I]t was very dark," "I don't know if it was painted
+dark, but - or maybe that was the lighting, but it sort of had this, like, red mood. And then there
+was just a giant black massage table in the middle of it." (11/30/21 Tr. at 320). More generally,
+she testified that the house was decorated with "fabric wallpaper, like red curtains." (11/30/21 Tr.
+at 318).
+As depicted in Government Exhibit 903, among other photos of the massage room, the
+massage room has reddish dark walls with wallpaper and red curtains. A large massage table is
+located in the middle of the room:
+[Redacted]
+Jane explained that the room had a "built-in bookcase on the right-hand side, and there was
+a stereo system." (11/30/21 Tr. at 320).
+2 In particular, the Government seeks admission of Government Exhibits 902 through 904, 917,
+and 928.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 4 of 9
+As depicted in Government Exhibit 928, the massage room in fact has a large built-in
+bookcase with a stereo system:
+[Redacted]
+Jane also testified that the massage room was approximately the size of a "giant walk-in
+closet." (11/30/21 Tr. at 320). And more generally, she testified that the building itself had "Lots
+of
+I. you know, old
+(Id. at 317-18).
+As depicted in Government Exhibits 904 and 917, the massage room is about the size of a
+walk-in closet, and the moldings in the massage room were made of |
+[Redacted]
+Finally, Jane explained that the artwork in the house included "Paintings of naked women
+and orgies and things like that." So much so, in fact, that "Fi]t didn't seem very unusual at this
+point." (11/30/2021 Tr. at 318).
+That description is accurate, as evident from the above photos. It is also accurate with
+respect to other photos of the massage room, including Government Exhibit 902, a photo of the
+entrance to the massage room:
+[Redacted]
+These photos readily surmount the low bar of relevance. They specifically corroborate
+Jane's memories of the room in which she was sexually abused, showing that in fact she spent
+time in that room, a critical fact of the case.
+The Government understands the Court's point that there has not been testimony
+specifically comparing these particular photographs to items present during the time period of the
+conspiracy. But most of Jane's testimony about the massage room does not concern "movable
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 5 of 9
+items." (12/3/21 Tr. at 1076). Much of it concerns fixtures: the room's size, its dark and reddish
+wallpaper and curtains, its built-in bookcase, and its wooden molding. Those cannot be removed
+from the room without a renovation—in some cases, a significant renovation.
+Even those items that are "movable" are consistent with Epstein's longstanding practices,
+and therefore still probative. Jane did not testify to any art in the massage room, and the
+Government would not argue that the particular nude artwork in the exhibits was present while
+Jane was abused. But there is evidence of Epstein's practice of displaying depictions of naked
+women in his homes from the mid-1990s through the mid-2000s, through both Jane's testimony
+and evidence of the search of his Palm Beach house. The artwork in Epstein's home at the time
+of the search is a continuation of that practice and tends to make it make it more likely that Jane's
+testimony was accurate. That is all that is required to show relevance.
+At a more general level, this evidence is probative that Jane knew how Epstein decorated
+his New York massage room. It was dark, red, with curtains, a built-in bookcase, and a stereo
+system. It was in a house decorated with
+wallpaper, and artwork showing nude women.
+The jury will know full well, and the defense will surely argue, that time has passed since the mid-
+1990s. But that argument goes to weight, not whether the evidence is relevant at all. A jury could
+reasonably conclude that it is no coincidence that these photos match Jane's description it is
+because Jane has been in this room.
+If the Court remains concerned about the relevance of movable property, the Government
+can offer photos that redact the artwork. But the photographs of the massage room are probative
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 6 of 9
+evidence on a material matter, and they should be admitted.?
+B. Other Photographs
+Many of the remaining photographs of Epstein's house corroborate other testimony by
+Jane. As with the nude pictures in the massage room, each of these photographs is consistent with
+testimony about Epstein's practices, so they are probative corroboration of that testimony.
+First, Jane testified that Epstein used vibrators and back massagers of sizes while abusing
+her. (11/30/21 Tr. at 310). Juan Alessi, whose testimony corroborated Jane, also testified that he
+found two different kinds of vibrating back massagers after Epstein received massages, and that
+those massagers were kept in Epstein's bathroom in Palm Beach. (12/02/21 Tr. at 894-95).
+The Government recovered two vibrating massagers in the bathroom of the New York
+home adjacent to the massage room. The Government therefore seeks admission of two photos,
+Government Exhibits 918 and 921, depicting those two devices:
+[Redacted]
+The point of this evidence is not to show that these vibrators are the particular vibrators used on
+Jane. It is to show that they are the type that were used on Jane, and corroborate Jane's testimony
+by showing that Epstein did, consistent with the modus operandi of the conspiracy from the mid-
+1990s through the early 2000s, possess this sort of massager device.
+Second, Jane testified that the home contained "creepy looking animals." (11/30/21 Tr. at
+3 The Government could not elicit testimony from Jane about these photographs without
+substantially diminishing the probative force of the evidence. Before showing the photographs to
+Jane on the stand, the Government would surely need to show her the photographs in advance.
+Doing so would permit an inference that Jane tailored her testimony about her memories of the
+massage room to the photographs, thereby vitiating the photographs" value as independent
+corroboration.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 7 of 9
+305). This comment about Epstein's distinet decorating style may seem implausible to jurors. But
+the Government observed and photographed more than one stuffed animal that could fairly be
+described as "creepy looking" during its search of Epstein's house, including as depicted in
+Government Exhibit 9384:
+[Redacted]
+The fact that this stuffed tiger is movable property is counterbalanced by the fact that it is
+highly idiosyncratic. While the Government would not argue that Epstein had this particular
+stuffed tiger in his home in the mid-1990s, it is probative of Jane's testimony that—at any point in
+timeEpstein possessed the kind of "creepy looking animals" that she described.
+Third, the Government would offer six photosGovernment Exhibits 909 through 911,
+913, 915, and 933—to demonstrate structural features of the house. Some of these photographs
+will provide context for the law enforcement officer's testimony by showing the entrance areas of
+the house which she searched. And all of them will corroborate Jane's testimony that the house
+was intimidating and contains significant amounts of
+and
+as Jane stated. (11/30/21
+Tr. at 317-18 (describing the house as "massive" and made her feel "Intimidated."); 320
+(explaining that the house had "Lots of |
+, you know, old |
+")). Neither of these theories
+involve movable property of any kind, and the Government would not argue that any movable
+furniture or artwork was present when Jane visited the house.
+Fourth, Epstein's home contained a large number of photographs of celebrities, including
+4 A stuffed dog is also depicted in Government Exhibit 936.
+5 The Government also notes that the Court has already ruled that it will reserve, subject to
+connection, on the admissibility of costumes from the search, which are marked as physical
+exhibits and depicted in Government Exhibits 919 and 920. (12/03/21 Tr. at 929). The
+Government similarly will offer Government Exhibits 919 and 920 subject to connection.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 8 of 9
+photos of the defendant and Epstein with celebrities, and additional artwork depicting nude
+women. The Government does not currently intend to offer exhibits depicting those photographs
+or artwork, but it does intend to elicit testimony from the law enforcement witness that the home
+contained those items. That testimony is further corroboration of Jane's general knowledge of
+categories of decorations Epstein preferred, but it contains no suggestion that any particular exhibit
+corroborates Jane's testimony.
+Finally, the Government notes that the defense has not raised a Rule 403 prejudice
+argument, and for good reason. None of the evidence in this category is prejudicial to the defense.
+There will be no suggestion that the defendant or Epstein possessed these particular items during
+the time period of the conspiracy, and the defense is free to argue that the distance in time
+undermines the probative force of the evidence. But whether that probative force is significant (as
+the Government suggests) or minimal (as the defense suggests), the defense is not prejudiced by
+pictures of a massager, a stuffed tiger, or photos of structural features of Epstein's home.
+III. Conclusion
+For the foregoing reasons, photographs from the 900 series of Government Exhibits should
+be admitted.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 9 of 9
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By:.
+S/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense Counsel (by ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e92d91bbd6523ca750c696f990c6506ffe00552b97cb661fe973748cbf0a22b2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e92d91bbd6523ca750c696f990c6506ffe00552b97cb661fe973748cbf0a22b2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b14aee05952dc8a37ff176e4f14e10060b6da8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e92d91bbd6523ca750c696f990c6506ffe00552b97cb661fe973748cbf0a22b2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -108,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e92d91bbd6523ca750c696f990c6506ffe00552b97cb661fe973748cbf0a22b2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1f8fedbf430524f54aada0dc8ae4f73e30e65200ad80ac814b126e625eeadb85",
+  "output_sha256": "5a4ed56f673c4f46c49fb635b9844ba4cbac2611d204952d202a695fdde1cfdc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e936f365420c0410ef7b331d53cfb7a73884f1517a351dbbc9a53743a1c3ccce.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e936f365420c0410ef7b331d53cfb7a73884f1517a351dbbc9a53743a1c3ccce.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e430ea48318d25e9fa2bb8cdf83298597fd6f6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e936f365420c0410ef7b331d53cfb7a73884f1517a351dbbc9a53743a1c3ccce.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 369-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 1
+COMPOSITE
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e936f365420c0410ef7b331d53cfb7a73884f1517a351dbbc9a53743a1c3ccce.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e936f365420c0410ef7b331d53cfb7a73884f1517a351dbbc9a53743a1c3ccce.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f3b0296bbfac1e6fbf8e207b9c3f2f1e7ea12ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e936f365420c0410ef7b331d53cfb7a73884f1517a351dbbc9a53743a1c3ccce.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e936f365420c0410ef7b331d53cfb7a73884f1517a351dbbc9a53743a1c3ccce",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "43103d9cecf23cd17c258b336e84c7034169375521a6b62f335aba87944c3bfc",
+  "output_sha256": "301ddfc21e7d0c7ed587e0533f8ef1b3aeecd3ceb867ffbcffb7d836b1990985",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e93bc316b6ef2fdb4e1357ce42bec621fb727222e938b5755d4d4ef6f36f48d1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e93bc316b6ef2fdb4e1357ce42bec621fb727222e938b5755d4d4ef6f36f48d1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01838279451c5240427b5874c4911e7e13538ecc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e93bc316b6ef2fdb4e1357ce42bec621fb727222e938b5755d4d4ef6f36f48d1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-7 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-7 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 3
+1s* December 2020
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Your Honor,
+This letter is provided by way of support for the release on bail of
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Ghislaine and I have always remained in close touch. During the last 30 years or so
+this has been primarily by phone and email as Ghislaine has lived for the greater part
+of that time in the US whilst I live in London. On my last two trips to the US in
+February 2013 and in December 2018 I stayed with her for about a week on both
+occasions and she always made a point of seeing me whenever she came through
+in areas where we would both
+consider I have some knowledge I would certainly think of myself as a trusted
+advisor of hers.
+Ghislaine eventually excelled academically and ended up
+graduating with honours from Oxford University and has gone on to achieve many
+and varied professional goals. Determination is a notable characteristic of hers, as is
+her naturalness and honesty - which I have never doubted - whether in her dealings
+with me personally or to my knowledge with
+and friends, or in
+her business interests or charitable activities. Until the laying of these charges
+against her, I am not aware there have ever been any allegations of criminal conduct
+against Ghislaine whether in the US or in any other country for that matter.
+Ghislaine has always been an exemplary
+surrogate mother and
+friend. My son travelled with me on both my trips to the US mentioned above when
+he was aged
+staying with Ghislaine at her then homes
+in New York and
+Together with me, my son
+stands four-square behind
+her as she seeks to defend and clear her name. She has spent many hours with my
+son and he and I have never witnessed any inappropriate behaviour on her part. I
+1| Page
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-7 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 3
+have personally seen
+in many settings over the years, sometimes with
+young children
+and Ghislaine has always
+behaved totally appropriately. In my eyes she is a totally trustworthy individual and
+would have no hesitation at any time leaving children or young adults in her care.
+Regarding the extremely serious charges she is now facing, Ghislaine has
+repeatedly denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, any such improper and
+criminal conduct. Based on my knowing her very well
+nature of her character I believe in her innocence and Thave no doubt that she will
+deal with all the allegations head on and will attend trial for the opportunity it provides
+her finally to put her side of the story without it being intermediated by an
+overwhelmingly hostile media.
+have no doubt
+will not shirk the responsibility she has to
+niend her trial in this matter and wilfight the case through to the finish to clear her
+her as I do, for Ghislaine too there is simply no other option
+Respectfully,
+2| Page
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e93bc316b6ef2fdb4e1357ce42bec621fb727222e938b5755d4d4ef6f36f48d1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e93bc316b6ef2fdb4e1357ce42bec621fb727222e938b5755d4d4ef6f36f48d1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e51f871c83eb7ea66304da9a7dec9b4721626fbc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e93bc316b6ef2fdb4e1357ce42bec621fb727222e938b5755d4d4ef6f36f48d1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e93bc316b6ef2fdb4e1357ce42bec621fb727222e938b5755d4d4ef6f36f48d1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "28cc8df5b775b6a23e732199c5465ceb936abfbc91a1d05b9da69d39bb62e7b7",
+  "output_sha256": "8860a0bb34caf48c87acd48997ab09fadb50af91bb9e6bc22ba1314dad510e31",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e94837c39369403a2f4d15a748345714dcfecacccf799bb398c45613b6c9371f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e94837c39369403a2f4d15a748345714dcfecacccf799bb398c45613b6c9371f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc9ca526a52ea873e96e703caa9ebc828a160cf9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e94837c39369403a2f4d15a748345714dcfecacccf799bb398c45613b6c9371f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 853
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Filed 04/12/17 Page 1 of 1
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILITY
+DOC #.
+-X
+DATE FILED:
+
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+---X
+Sweet, D.J.
+The Defendant's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 844,
+is denied. The sealed opinion dated August 30, 2016 resolving ECE
+No. 230 also resolved ECF No. 231. ECF No. 231, the Defendant's
+motion for sanctions, was denied.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+April / 7, 2017
+SWEET
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e94837c39369403a2f4d15a748345714dcfecacccf799bb398c45613b6c9371f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e94837c39369403a2f4d15a748345714dcfecacccf799bb398c45613b6c9371f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2759a2f730713ddc3a27a7df4d157280588bd23f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e94837c39369403a2f4d15a748345714dcfecacccf799bb398c45613b6c9371f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -18,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e94837c39369403a2f4d15a748345714dcfecacccf799bb398c45613b6c9371f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2b9a7a5c02949049eb067259c946c6d1da681b354932a6609893d8a266450bb9",
+  "output_sha256": "60921a7035ca3903d09eaaf16ab62d7586647266aa5fbcccb6d2865f53f9987c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e966c56e8e43621b0b163a88c32a2a12e42d15835544bbde8606b0a0faf71afb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e966c56e8e43621b0b163a88c32a2a12e42d15835544bbde8606b0a0faf71afb.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..979dfbc6a5acb0e733e6a97a1103a42649d004be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e966c56e8e43621b0b163a88c32a2a12e42d15835544bbde8606b0a0faf71afb.md
@@ -0,0 +1,869 @@
+Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 24
+
+
+
+Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 24
+PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO FS 766.205(4) and/or WORK PRODUCT
+TELECON
+PARTICIPANTS: JACK SCAROLA
+BRAD
+RE:
+DATE:
+
+April 07, 2011
+JS: Virginia, Jack Scarola and Brad
+BE: Hi Virginia.
+V: Hi Jack! Hi Brad! How you guys doing?
+We're doing fine, thank you. I'm sorry for all of the trouble and before we go any
+further, let me tell you, if I have your permission, I have started a tape recorder and I
+want to be able to tape this conversation from the very beginning. Is that alright with
+V: Sure, that's fine, Jack. No problem
+Ok, good, thank you. I appreciate that. Let me start off by introducing myself. I know
+that Brad has spoken to you about me but I am Brad's lawyer, and I assume that you can
+confirm that you and I have never had any communication before. Is that right?
+That's correct.
+Alright. I have, however, gotten some information from Brad about conversations that
+So, let me begin by asking you first to tell us what your full name is.
+That's my maiden name. My married name is Virginia Louise
+
+
+Document 435-8
+Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 24
+
+Could you spell your last name for us? That is your married last name:
+Alright, thank you, and where are you living right now?
+V: I live in Australia.
+JS: And how long have you resided in Australia.
+This is my 19th year.
+That is where you are right now, correct? We've reached you in Australia for this phone
+conversation?
+V: That is correct, yes.
+JS: And what time is it in Australia right now?
+V: I think it's about 9:00 now.
+JS: Ok. That's 9am, correct?
+V: That's correct.
+JS: Alright. Virginia, the reason for this conversation is because it is our understanding that
+you know a man by the name Jeffrey Epstein, and I want to begin by asking you please to
+tell us about the circumstances of your first meeting Mr. Epstein.
+Ok. I was introduced to Mr. Epstein by Ghislaine Maxwell. I was working at Donald
+Trump's spa in Mar-a-Lago and I was prompted by Ghislaine to come to Jeffrey's
+mansion in Palm Beach that afternoon after work to make some extra money and to learn
+about massage. She met me at the spa, and I was reading a book about anatomy, so I was
+already interested in massage therapy as it was and not having any of the education or
+you know anything behind me, I thought this was a great opportunity to work for her and
+go. So, I went to Jeffrey's mansion about 5 or 6 in the afternoon. My dad drove me
+there. My dad worked at Mar-a-Lago with me, and he met Ghislaine and she seemed like
+a nice, proper English lady, and she knows, I mean, you know, one time then _once
+before I left to travel overseas, she just seemed really nice and like she would like to help
+me out. So my dad left, and I had no problem getting home that night, one of her drivers
+would take me back after my trial. So she led me upstairs, and into Jeffrey's bedroom,
+and past that is Jeffrey's massage room, which has got his steam room and a shower and
+a massage table, and there is actually an extra room that has, that nobody knows about it,
+it's kinda like a secret room and it's got a whole bunch of decorative pictures of
+pornographic literature and sex toys and I can _
+?
+what happened in there.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 24
+
+JS: When you say that the room was hidden, Virginia, how was the room concealed?
+It wasn't like a door that you would normally go into, like some kind of special opening,
+you open that and then a little door, so it looks like it's a little closet so-to-speak, but
+when you walk in there, it's obviously a lot bigger than just a closet. It wasn't too big,
+but it was bigger, you know. It wasn't a gigantic room, it was just like a small room,
+which you know, it probably could fit some shoes in there, _it had racks of shoes, boxes,
+some sweatshirts neatly folded, and the ceiling to the floor was covered in pornographic
+pictures of the girls that he had met.
+When you say...
+So anyways, that was getting there, and I was introduced to Jeffrey, he was laying naked
+on top of the massage table, and obviously for one, I'm a 15 year old girl and seeing him
+on the table was weird but, also learning about anatomy and massage, I thought this
+would be part of it. So obviously, I thought it was part of the massage program, so I said
+ok, this is fine. And, he then instructed me on how to touch the body, Jeffrey's body,
+how to massage him, and for the first hour, it was actually a real massage, maybe not an
+hour, maybe like 40 minutes or something, but of something like that .
+_and that's when he
+turned over on the other side and to expose himself fully. So then Ghislaine told me that
+she wanted me to undress and began to take off my shirt and skirt, my
+uniform
+from Mar-A-Lago, she also took off her shirt and got undressed, and so I was there with
+just my undies on, and she was completely bare, and made some kind of little flake about
+the underwear that I was wearing because it wasn't my normal sexy girl underwear and
+just like, I don't know, had red hearts on it or something like that; just your normal, you
+know, real cute underwear. Anyways, so during all of this I'm kind of like what's going
+on, how do I act, what do I say, I was so afraid of, not afraid or fearful for my life but
+_unsure of how all this started and wanting to obtain a profession_
+I was so afraid
+thinking about upsetting and disappointing them, I don't know, it's a weird situation by
+far and I was expected to _Lick his nipples, instructed on how to do so by J.E
+_ and give
+him oral sex while he wanted to fondle me, and then at the end, I was told by Ghislaine to
+get on top and straddle Jeffrey sexually, and when we were done, we went and had a
+shower in the room and Jeffrey told me to wash him up and down, you know with a bar
+of soap and make sure he was all cleaned up. And then he took me downstairs and took
+me to two of the guards and told John to bring me home. John was the
+at the time.
+Let me interrupt you for just a moment there if I could, Virginia. You mentioned as you
+were recounting those details that you were 15 years old at the time. What is your date of
+birth?
+August 9th
+, 1983
+And can you tell us please, as best you're able to estimate it, what the date was when this
+first encounter occurred?
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 24
+
+I've got it written down. It's like - I'm not good with math - hold on - I thought I wrote
+it down but I didn't. I'm not too sure, I think it was 1998 off the top of my head and
+around June of 1998, I would say as I was turning 16 at the end of the summer.
+Alright. You talked about the room where Jeffrey had the pornographic photographs.
+Did you actually see that room on the occasion of your first visit there?
+V: No, I got to see that room a few visits after but I was just trying to describe that room to
+you guys so you knew exactly what room I was talking about.
+Another question for you, and I don't mean to be prying into your personal life, and if I
+ask you any questions at all that you're uncomfortable answering, then you just tell me
+that and we'll move on, because I appreciate your cooperation and the last I thing I want
+to do is impose upon that cooperation, but can you tell us please just generally what kind
+of sexual experience you had had prior to this confrontation with Jeffrey?
+Yeah, sure. A close family friend has sexually abused me, and I was on the streets at 13
+years old. I was picked up by a 67 year old man named Ron _Eppinger_ who did exactly
+what Jeffrey did with me abuse and violate my youthfulness _ & I was with him for 6
+months. So, he was gone and then I had this boyfriend who was like my school friend
+from young days but we just kept in contact with each other and we were on and off
+constantly, and that was Tony Figeroua, and there was also another younger guy was
+near my age, Michael, I can't remember his last name, but yeah, there, I mean, there
+wasn't like a string of men or anything, but there was Ron, like I told you, and he was the
+first guy expecting me to do so-called disgusting affairs. Jeffrey actually knew Ron,
+which was quite weird when I told Jeffrey the story about Ron, and Jeffrey had actually
+met him, and yeah. Anyway, just another story, and yeah, there were a couple of men,
+but that gives you an idea.
+Now when you described the photographs in the room as pornographic, tell me just a
+little bit about the photographs, if you would please? First, how many of them were
+there?
+At least 100, and like I said, they covered the room from the ceiling, not the ceiling but
+from the top of the edge of the wall to the bottom of the floor. I want to say at least a
+hundred, even more, there could have been more in the boxes _Some of them were A4_
+photographs, like the large size, some of naked women posing, you know, positions, sexy
+positions.
+Others were, you know, some girls had bikinis on, and it wasn't so
+pornographic, but it was all women, and it was all in a sexual nature.
+Were there photographs where more than one person appeared?
+•yeah, plenty of them. There were lots of naked photographs, I mean I was just trying
+to give you a visual range. There was anything from 5x6s to 4x8s to 8x4s. Some of them
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 6 of 24
+
+had frames, some of them were out of frames, but they were all, like I said, they were all
+women, they were all sexual in nature.
+Was it your impression that there were a hundred photos of a hundred different people or
+were there multiple photos of the same woman or girl?
+There was definitely a lot of different girls. I mean it wasn't easy to sit there and say,
+you weren't finding 5 girls out of some photos, no. Were there a hundred different ones?
+There could have been pictures of some girls, I really couldn't get close necessarily to
+actually recognize faces or anything like that. But if you, you know, the range of them
+were all different, majority of them were different, yeah.
+Did there ever come a point in time when you became aware that a photograph of you
+had been added to the collection?
+V: Yes, there was. Ghislaine took several nude photographs of me for Jeffrey. So, yeah,
+there were pictures of me and there were pictures, he wasn't shy, that wasn't the only
+place in his house that he kept the photos. He liked photos all over his house. If you
+looked in his den or on his desk or in on the
+table, a giant
+table in his house,
+there were at least a hundred photos of girls in frames. Not all of them were naked, a lot
+of the ones that were all around his house were not naked girls posing pornographically,
+some were pictures of celebrities and politicians he had known_or things like that or had
+pants on or whatever, but yeah, there was a lot of mixed photographs in the outside ones.
+Were there any photographs of girls or young women that you knew or that you
+subsequently came to know that you saw in the house?
+• Yeah, yeah, there was. There was pictures of
+→ pictures
+, pictures Emmy, pictures of me, pictures of the regulars, but a lot of the
+girls, sometimes Jeffrey could have like 7 girls a day, and he would only see those girls
+once if he got bored. I don't know. These weren't my days. I heard he's gotten a lot
+sloppier since I left. So, I don't know anyways, but when I knew him, there was just a, it
+seemed, there was such an influx of girls coming in and out, so did 1 recognize a lot of
+them? Maybe, maybe not, but then they were all definitely beautiful, they were all
+ranging in age, some of them young, some of them older in their 20's, I mean it was just
+they were all beautiful.
+You've told us about the first visit. Was there any discussion on the occasion of that first
+visit about your returning?
+Yes, they were very pleased with me and after the encounter was finished, the sexual
+encounter, he went and told me I did well and I have a lot of potential to become a
+massage therapist and if I'd like I could return tomorrow, you know, and do the same
+thing and get paid $200/hr, so Jeffrey insisted that I come after work, and over the next
+few days, I guess the relationship grew into more, and within a couple of weeks, not even
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 7 of 24
+
+a couple of weeks, maybe a week, I had quit Mar-a-Lago and I was working for Jeffrey
+full time.
+Ok, let's talk about your job at Mar-a-Lago, if we could. You said that your Dad was
+working there. What was his position at Mar-a-Lago?
+He was a maintenance supervisor I think is what it was called? He like managed the
+tennis courts and air conditioners and things like that.
+What is your Dad's full name?
+Sky William
+JS: And is he still living here in South Florida now?
+V: No, he's not, he's in California.
+Ok. Is your Dad aware of what is currently going on with regard to your having made
+public statements about your relationship with Jeffrey?
+Yes, he is well aware of it. I told my family even before all this stuff came out, because
+they were the first ones contacted by the journalists from Mail on Sunday. I know that
+they the Mail on Sunday printed that I had gone out and tried to, I mean I think one of the
+photos said that I was angry that I saw Jeffrey and the Prince walking together and that is
+why I came out and went public with everything. Not true. I mean, I am angry about
+how they are still up to their old ways together and that they're still hanging out but I
+didn't contact the Mail on Sunday and I didn't bring it out. I figured that everyone was
+going to bring it out anyway and I better bring it out the right way. He's known
+everything from the start, and my family is very supportive with everything going on.
+I'm kind of going to jump around a little bit and I apologize for that, but since the subject
+has come up, tell me first of all why you are providing this cooperation to us, and I am
+certainly very appreciative of it, but I want you to tell us why it is you've chosen to spend
+time with us on the telephone and provide this information that you're now providing.
+I'm out to help the bigger picture, you know, I think all of us can make a big difference in
+a lot of other people's lives and I think that this has gone on long enough and it's a big
+slap in my face that he can get away with hurting me so bad let alone so many other girls
+and laugh about it. I guess I talked to you guys out because I want to see the right thing
+happen, not just to him, but I want people in the world to understand this is not the way
+of life, you know, it's not acceptable to go out procure young girls and make them think
+that, this is the way you should be living and that's all. Yeah, I guess my reason for
+doing it is to help the bigger picture, you know, I'm a big believer in karma and I believe
+that good things will come back to you, so I guess that's why I'm doing this.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 8 of 24
+
+Just for the record, neither Brad, nor I, nor anyone representing that they have anything to
+do with us has made any promises to you. Is that correct?
+That is correct. I'll tell you, since this is our first conversation, that nobody has made me
+feel like I've been bribed or bought or had to say anything. I've told you anything that I
+know from my own self, not some things somebody told me. If anything, Brad's been
+extra careful not to tell me anything and let me do all the talking, so it's quite opposite I
+think.
+Alright. Let's get back then to the story of your relationship with Jeffrey, and we've
+talked about your first encounter with him and how it evolved from that into your ful
+time employment with Jeffrey, but what were you doing at Mar-a-Lago before you quit
+Mar-a-Lago?
+I was just a locker room attendant and sometimes I did babysitting for the rich and
+famous. So, I wasn't anything big. I worked in the spa area. That's why I was studying
+anatomy, because I was really really interested in becoming a _massage therapist_, and at
+the locker room, I didn't do much. I mean I was making tea for a living, I would, you
+know, make sure the toilet paper had a little triangle in it after everybody went to the
+toilet, or wipe down the water from the basin, you know, it was a very easy peasy job.
+JS: Did you get that job through your Dad?
+V: Yes, my Dad got me the job.
+Ok, and you were only 15 years old at the time, were they aware of how old you were at
+Mar-a-Lago?
+Of course, definitely. We had to go through extensive, you know, we even had to get
+drug tested and id test and so on and so forth. I mean, Mantas (?) is very strict on
+employment, yeah, everybody knew.
+Ok. Was there ever any conversation with Ghislaine about how old you were before you
+were taken to Jeffrey's mansion?
+No. She didn't ask me how old I was from the start, but when I did get to Jeffrey's
+mansion, it was discussed how old I was.
+JS: With whom?
+V: During the entire hour of what I call the legitimate massage I was giving him, it was cat
+and mouse games getting information from me to find out who I am, am I a willing
+participant in these kind of things, and how would I react if they were about to take the
+next step. But they got information off of me, they got my age, they got my, a little bit of
+my history so they knew I was, you know, not very stable at home, and they knew that,
+
+
+
+Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 9 of 24
+you know, I was actually interested in making my life better by studying so what they
+were offering me was a chance to become a legitimate masseuse but it was getting
+trained. They would have people show me how to work the body and be called a
+massage therapist and get me books on it, and you know, keep me interested, and every
+time, you know, I was with Jeffrey, literally was about massages, I don't mean just going
+in and have sex with him. I mean massage, because it would always start out with
+massage and then it would lead into sometimes other things.
+Alright, once this evolved. into full time employment, what did full time employment
+mean?
+That was entirely having to travel with Jeffrey in every city. When he was in Palm
+Beach, I stayed at my apartment, and he would call me to his house once or twice a day
+sometimes, and that's, you know, do things with him. Sometimes we'd go out shopping,
+sometimes we'd go out and watch a movie. You know, simple things like that, go to an
+expo or a fair, whatever it was.
+But when we were in other cities, I was at my
+apartment_, I lived with him full time. What I mean by full time is even in the middle of
+the night, I could get a ring on my phone next to me and tell me to come in his room, you
+know, so it was literally full time.
+When you say that when you were in Palm Beach you were living in your apartment,
+were you living on your own or were you living with members of your family at that
+time?
+No, after I quit Mar-a-Lago, Jeffrey offered to get me an apartment in Palm Beach
+somewhere,
+Palm Beach, and it was a nice apartment. He furnished it for me, it
+was absolutely beautiful, but yeah, that's the only time I would spend time away from
+him really.
+This apartment was on
+Palm Beach Boulevard or out in the Village of
+Beach?
+Palm
+I so honestly don't remember. I've been trying to rack my brain because the FBI was
+asking the same thing and were trying to find it, but yeah, I'm Not sur_. I didn't get to
+spend as much time in it, I was only there about an entire week out of every month
+probably, but the majority of the time I was with Jeffrey anyways. It was somewhere in
+Palm Beach. I don't know about
+the
+Palm Beach drive anymore so I'm not too sure
+Ok, let me see if I can draw the distinction for you and maybe that will help you to help
+us?
+Palm Beach is a village that is...
+V: No, no, no, I got |
+Palm Beach, I just didn't know the |
+Palm Beach Drive, like
+what street it's off of. Were you talking about a street?
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 10 of 24
+
+Yes, I was talking about a street.
+Palm Drive is on the island of Palm Beach, and
+it's a street that is lined with large
+palm trees, and I'm wondering if this was an
+apartment on the island or was this an apartment out west of town...
+V: No, it was actually in
+JS: Alright.
+Palm Beach, not on the island.
+V: I would be driven, it was closer to my family than it was closer to him. I wanted to be
+close enough to everybody else so that when I was in town, I could just go see them
+quickly.
+Ok. So we're not talking about
+Palm Boulevard. We're talking about the town of
+Palm west of town. Jeffrey got you an apartment out there.
+That's correct.
+When he was in Palm Beach, you were generally not staying at the mansion, you were
+staying at the apartment that he got for you out west of town.
+That's correct.
+Ok.
+I mean then there was times, I don't wanna say that every time I stayed at my apartment.
+There was times we'd fly back from some city maybe too late at night to really want to
+go back home, so you know, it's like 12:00 at night or 1:00 in the morning. I was just
+staying in the yellow room, or something like that; one of the guest rooms in Palm Beach.
+But majority of the time, I would definitely want to get back to my own apartment.
+Alright. What were the general hours of your full time employment when....?
+There was not set hours. It wasn't like logging, and you know, hitting the shift button,
+nothing like that. The way I would get paid would be, ok, if I was in Palm Beach, I
+vould get $200 an hour to massage Jeffrey or some of his friends and then go home. S
+t would be like that. If I was traveling with him, it would be per massage, so I would b
+getting paid per day. So I wouldn't be getting paid on an hourly rate. He wouldn't say
+ok, today you're going to work for me from 7:00 in the morning until 8:00 at night. I
+never like that. I was on call all the time.
+When you were here in Palm Beach, were you actually getting paid only for the time
+spent massaging Jeffrey or were you getting paid from your arrival at his house until you
+left the house?
+From the time the massage started.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 11 of 24
+
+From the time the massage started. Ok.
+Sometimes we'd go there and I would wait for a while or talk with Ghislaine and Jeffrey
+about something or we'd meet somewhere and talk about something. A lot of times, I'd
+meet him upstairs in his room where he was ready for me. But then there was a lot of
+times where it didn't start right away, so he couldn't really pay me from the time I got
+there sometimes unless it was just paid from the time I massaged him til the time the
+massage was over.
+Alright. Did your duties for Jeffrey ever include anything other than providing him
+massages and sex in connection with the massages? Did he ever give you any other
+responsibilities to perform?
+I was asked to do the same things that I did to Jeffrey to a few of his fellow colleagues as
+vell. Those were my duties. He looked at it this way is that I was going to be a
+rofessional massage therapist, and maybe I needed some clientele, so he had me perform
+erotic massages on a few people.
+JS: Did that start here in Palm Beach County?
+V: It did. The first one did.
+JS: Ok, and how long after you first met Jeffrey did he first ask you to provide services for
+one of his friends?
+About 9 months, I think it was. It wasn't a full year, it wasn't 6 months, but between 6
+months and a year, which is why I'm saying 9 months.
+And when you provided services to a friend of Jeffrey's, who paid you for those services?
+Jeffrey would. I would get paid the next time I saw Jeffrey, so if I was invited to the
+Breakers Hotel to give a massage, I would give a massage, I would go home, and the next
+day when I saw Jeffrey, he would pay me for what I did. So, it was paid always by him,
+it was set up by him, so he always knew what to pay me. I did get tips and things like
+that, if you call it that, you know, like a hundred dollar tip or something from a few of
+them, you know, yeah.
+JS: Was there ...
+V: There was always payment from Jeffrey.
+Was there ever any discussion with Jeffrey about what was expected to happen when you
+provided massage services to one of Jeffrey's friends?
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 12 of 24
+
+V: In a roundabout way, yes. In so many ways, Jeffrey really really had to train me, and that
+was why Ghislaine said that she and Jeffrey enjoyed me so much was because they never
+really had to speak much to me to tell me what they wanted me to do. You know, I
+wasn't waiting for you know, their directions. Jeffrey would tell me to go give an erotic
+massage to friends. He wouldn't give me much detail about it, but he would say to treat
+them like you treat me.
+Did he refer to it as an erotic massage or are those your words?
+Erotic massage is my words. That's exactly what it was, but he would tell me to treat
+them how he wanted it, so I'd do what he wanted without having to say to me words
+more.
+I mean, I complied with what he wanted because it was somewhat of a, I don't
+know, I don't know how to say it, it was just very mindboggling how I let him have so
+much control or power over me basically. The massages would be routine to what Jeffrey
+wanted with my so called new clientele, and with their own words would ask me to
+provide them with sexual pleasure after the massage.
+Did you ever report back to Jeffrey about what happened when you provided massages to
+his friends?
+Of course, of course, and I knew that his friends were reporting back to him as well
+because there were times where he would instigate conversation by saying you know, so
+and so had a great time, you did wonderful, you know so and so gave me a call and told
+J.E how it went_.
+Did Jeffrey ever elicit details from you? "Tell me what happened, describe in detail what
+went on?"
+No, but he would have a laugh, he had a laugh with me a few times about some of their
+different mannerisms, I guess you would say, like some of them, one guy had a foot
+etish and that was really weird and I mentioned it to Jeffrey, and we would have a laug
+›ver it. He didn't want to know details. He wasn't asking me "so tell me what did you
+guys do exactly." No, he just basically gave me a slap on the back and said, you know,
+good job. And we had some kind of conversation about it. I can't recall any conversation
+off the top of my head. I really don't know one. It's been that long. But yeah, we did
+talk about it briefly.
+Can you give me an estimate as to the number of friends for whom Jeffrey provided and
+paid for your services?
+There was about, you know, I don't know, 8 guys possibly.
+JS: And are you able to name those people for me?
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 13 of 24
+
+No, not at this stage. I just, some of these people are really influential in power, and I
+don't want to start another shitstorm with a few of them. I'll tell you that there was some
+erotic massages given to, I'm just afraid to say it to you.
+JS: Ok, Virginia.
+V: It's like geez,, I don't know if I want to, I'm really scared of where this is gonna go.
+JS: Alright. I understand that, and as I told you from the beginning, if I ask you a question
+that you are uncomfortable answering, you just tell me that, and I will move on, and I
+understand that at least right now, you are uncomfortable answering, and I am certainly
+going to respect that.
+Thank you so much, Jack.
+No, that's quite alright. I am very appreciate of the cooperation you are providing, and I
+don't want you at any time to feel that we are taking unfair advantage of that cooperation,
+so give me the information that you're comfortable giving me, and if we get to a point
+where you're uncomfortable, I will respect that and we'll move on from there.
+Ok.
+I want to talk a little bit about the traveling that you did with Jeffrey. About how long
+into your relationship with him did that first start?
+Immediately. I started traveling immediately. Not internationally until I think about,
+Gosh, I can't remember even, I think it was a year later that we started doing international
+travel. Maybe like 9 months to a year again. Not too sure to be honest.
+So that would have been approximately the summer of 1999? Somewhere around there?
+How did you travel?
+V: Well, we took Jeffrey's private jet, and unless I was being sent somewhere by myself for
+what we were just talking about before, then I would travel on a what do you call, a
+commercial flight?
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 14 of 24
+[adv. Epstein
+
+V: Yes. Just a normal flight, an e-ticket.
+JS: Like the rest of us common folk.
+V: But when I was traveling with Jeffrey, the majority of the time would be on the black jet.
+Now, when you say there would be times when you would travel by yourself because he
+was sending you somewhere, tell me about that. How did that come about?
+V: So, one of his colleagues would be at the Carribean or Santa Fe or even New York, or
+wherever, and he would call me up on those days where I am not working with him or in
+Palm Beach with him, and he would ask me to get on the next plane to so and so and go
+meet so and so, and that's when I would take e-tickets. His secretary or special assistant,
+whatever, would organize it for me and give me the details and I would just walk up the
+line and they'd let me right through.
+Can you give me any ideas as to how many times it happened that Jeffrey would send
+you off to meet some friend of his at some location outside of Palm Beach?
+How many times it happened? I'm not too sure. Probably about 10-15 times.
+Ok. And on those occasions, how much time would you spend with one of Jeffrey's
+friends when you were sent to a location that you would have to travel to?
+V: Only a couple of days. Only 2 days, that's it.
+JS: And how were you paid for those trips?
+I would be paid in cash upon my arrival back with Jeffiey. So, whenever I was back with
+effrey, he would count up how many days I've had, sometimes give me even more tha
+hat I deserved. not deserved. but what I earned and give me a little extr
+Was there a daily rate for those trips or was that per massage also?
+Per massage. With Jeffrey, I would be honest. I wouldn't tell him I did 15 massages if I
+didn't. He knew he could trust me. He could always come back to the other person that
+he sent me to give massages and ask them as well, so you know, it was always by per
+massage.
+Alright. When we've been talking about massages, tell me exactly what it is we're
+talking about when we speak about massages.
+Same thing I would do to Jeffrey. Again, it would start out as a massage, which would
+start with them being naked, and me giving him a legitimate massage to begin with, so
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 15 of 24
+
+I'd start with his feet, go up to his calves, up his legs, buttocks, back, his neck, his head,
+his arms, yada yada, and then it would be time to flip over, and some of the men would
+want me to continue on massaging the front side of them and they would instigate me to
+begin having sex with them or foreplay, whatever you want to call it.
+So routinely, these massages involved sexual activity. Is that accurate?
+That is accurate.
+Ok. Let's talk about the travel that you were involved in when you were on Jeffrey's
+private plane. Generally speaking, who were the passengers on the plane when you
+traveled.
+Well, Larry was the pilot, and then there was a short, small solid guy, I don't know his
+name, but he was a co-pilot, and then he changed and there was another guy brought in
+later on. Generally speaking, there was always Jeffrey, sometimes Ghislaine, sometimes
+Emmy, sometimes a whole bunch of other girls, sometimes famous people, sometimes
+some politicians or yeah, just about anybody could fly on his plane. There was never no
+any set routine who would come and who would go. It was an influx of people on
+Jeffrey's airplane.
+I want to deal with these things separately in order to respect some of the reservations
+that you have, so I'm going to ask you who the people were that you remember flying
+with Jeffrey on his plane when you were personally present without regard to whether
+there was any sexual activity that occurred on the plane or not. So I'm not asking you to
+implicate any of these famous people in improper conduct, but just tell me what the
+names of the people are that you remember that you consider to be famous people.
+Ok, there was Naomi
+| Heidi Klum, there was Bill Clinton. There was Al (?)
+Gore, there was a whole bunch of models, I wouldn't really honestly be able to give their
+names. There was Matt Groning the producer of the simpons cartoon, Jack Cousteau's
+granddaughter a lot of interior designers, architects, politicians. I am just trying to think
+of as many names as possible for you. Off the top of my head, that's as good as I can get
+for now.
+Ok, alright, that's fine. And again, I am not implying by my questions, nor do I want
+your answers to be interpreted as your suggesting that any of those people that you hav
+just identified were engaged in any improper activities on any particular flight, but I wan
+to talk to you now about what went on on occasion on the airplane. Ok?
+Ok. It was a lot of the same thing that went down on the ground. A lot of times, it would
+be just be me and Jeffrey, or me and Jeffrey and Ghislaine, or me and Jeffrey and some
+other girl, sometimes Emmy, Sarah, and
+There would be sexual conduct,
+there would be foreplay, there was a bed in there, so we could basically reenact exactly
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 16 of 24
+
+what was happening in the house. It would start off with massaging or we would start off
+with foreplay, sometimes it would lead to, you know, orgies.
+JS: Were there occasions when you were in Jeffrey's company, whether on the ground or in
+the air, where there were other girls present whom you knew to be under age 18?
+V: Yes. There was a constant influx of girls coming in and going out. And we were all very
+young. On occasion, there was some older girls, and I don't mean older as in like in their
+30s or anything, I mean like 28, 29, something like that, just very rarely. The majority of
+the girls that Jeffrey actually met or had on his plane or in his house were under age.
+Do you know how it is that Jeffrey established with any of these underage girls?
+Yes, I do. He would send me personally or with other girls to clubs or shops, to _pick up
+anywhere, I mean we were constantly on the look for other girls that might satisfy
+JS: What instructions were you given about what to look for?
+V: Young, pretty, you know, a fun personality. They couldn't be black. If they were any
+other descent other than
+they had to be exotically beautiful. That was just about it.
+Who gave you those criteria?
+They both gave us the instructions, and it wasn't just me, Jeffrey asked most girls to bring
+a friend and make extra money. They would use us young girls So that way it probably
+looked a lot more safer to a girl that we were procuring to younger girls that were already
+doing it. That was the way that Jeffrey had it.
+Were you given any instruction at all on how to approach these girls?
+Yes. Jeffrey and Ghislaine both taught me to, depending on the circumstances,
+depending on the girl, you could offer them a job as a massage therapist or you could tell
+them you have a really rich friend with, you know, great contacts in the acting world or
+modeling world and he loves pretty girls, you should come back and meet him, make
+some money, you know, we had a whole bunch of ways to be able to procure girls.
+Can you give me any idea as to the total number of underage girls that you know engaged
+in sexual conduct with Jeffrey during the period of time you had your relationship with
+him?
+I would have no way of estimating that whatsoever. I mean, there could be a hundred,
+there could be more, honestly I'm not too sure how many girls, really. I wish I did know.
+I mean like I said there were so many over the course of 4 years with Jeffrey.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 17 of 24
+
+Let me see if we can try to narrow it down a little bit. Is there any doubt in your mind
+that it was more than 10?
+Yes, there was definitely more than 10.
+that blank? Definitely more than how many?
+I'd say definitely more than a hundred.
+Alright. Did Jeffrey ever help to pick out your clothes?
+yes. I mean he wasn't out to dress me like a porn star or anything. He would always
+dress me very classy, but we'd just go shopping all the time together.
+Did he ever express any style preferences in terms of how he wanted you to dress?
+Besides dressing classy, I'm, you know, any other suggestion to you about how he
+wanted you dressed?
+V: He didn't, like I said, wasn't trying to dress me in any prostitute way or anything like
+that. It was nice, classy outfits I was wearing like Gucci, Dolce Gabbana, Chanel, things
+like that. He was buying me a lot of very, very nice clothing. It was provocative. I mean
+I was wearing miniskirts, and tight short shorts and little shirts that showed my belly and
+my cleavage and everything, but they were very expensive clothes.
+Was there every any dress up role playing?
+Yes. There was. Lots of it. Jeffrey loved the latex outfits Ghislane had for us girls, he
+had bondage outfits, he had all different kinds of outfits, but his favorite was the
+schoolgirl.
+Tell me about that.
+ip _in a bow_, my hair in pigtails, stockings on up to my knees, and I would go in ther
+ind act like a kid and we'd do role playing sexing
+Did Jeffrey ever brag to you about the age of any of the girls with whom he had
+relationships?
+
+
+Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 18 of 24
+
+V: Yes, he did. He did all the time. The worst one that I heard from his own mouth was this
+pretty 12 year old girls he had flown in for his birthday. It was a surprise birthday gift
+from one of his friends and they were from France. I did see them, I did meet them.
+Jeffrey bragged afterwards after he met them that they were 12 year olds and flown over
+from France because they're really poor over there, and their parents needed the money
+or whatever the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out. Those were
+the worst ones. He was constantly bragging about girls' ages or where he got them from
+or their past and how terrible their past was and good he is making it for them.
+JS: Where were the 12 year old girls flown to from France? Where did they come to?
+V: Palm Beach.
+JS: And were they flown in on Jeff's private plane or did they get transported?
+V: No. They were transported by somebody else.
+JS: Ok. Was the sexual activity that went on on the airplane conducted in such a way so that
+any of the crew was aware of what was going on?
+They were told to knock if they had to come out, if the crew had to come out. They were
+told, you know, to come out as little as possible, so they weren't out there hanging out
+watching everything, no, but it doesn't take an idiot to put two and two together to say
+well there's a whole bunch of half dressed teenagers on board with this old man who is
+constantly being massaged by them and he wants me to keep the door shut for what
+reason? I mean, only they could put that together, but yeah, they knew.
+Did Mr. Epstein ever talk to you about people of power and influence owing him favors?
+He would laugh about it, you know, I never really knew what to take serious from Jeffrey
+because he was such a funny character at times. You never knew if what he was saying
+was true or not. Yeah, lots of people owed him favors from what he told me. He's got
+everybody in his pocket, and he would laugh about he helps people for the sole purpose
+in the end they owe him something. That's why I believe he does so many favors in the
+first place.
+When and how did you first become aware that Mr. Epstein was in trouble with the law?
+I was first informed by, I think someone from the FBI called me first and started to ask
+me questions, and I started to answer the questions but then fear took over, and I just said
+look, I don't know what's going on, I've got a young family that I don't want to risk, you
+know, please don't bother me about this again, and it was real short simple conversation,
+and within a week or 2, I had gotten a call from Jeffrey's attorney, and then a week later,
+Jeffrey himself.
+
+
+Filed 09/15/16 Page 19 of 24
+
+Ok, well let's back up before we get to those conversations and tell me approximately
+when it was that you were contacted by the person who you believe was with the FBI.
+Ok. It's hard for me to pinpoint, if I had to pinpoint it, it would be in 2007 sometime.
+JS: Alright. And you were living in Australia at that time, correct?
+V: Correct.
+JS: You were contacted by telephone?
+V: That's correct, by my cell phone.
+Ok and do you have any idea how your name came up leading to that contact.
+No idea. No idea whatsoever. When I did ask, I was told that some girls had revealed
+my name, I guess, and that's how everybody, the FBI knew to contact me.
+OK.
+But I don't know offhand or sorry, I just walked into the wrong room.
+Ok.
+Sorry go on.
+Yes & I'll never tell her you said that. Virginia, how long was it after that phone call
+from the FBI person were you contacted by Mr. Epstein's lawyers.
+Like a week. It was back to back to each other. I remember being so scared after talking
+to the Be think i What had penine what & i have to do in like so eat do
+remember that very well, and it was only about a week later I was called by his attorney.
+Who was it that contacted you, do you remember?
+I want to say Bill
+, but he might have been from the FBI. No, it was Bill |
+Not sure if that's his correct name, but that's what is coming to mind
+Bill
+What do you remember about that conversation?
+V: I remember a Mr. Goldberger as well, I remember, there might have been two of them.
+Alright.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 20 of 24
+
+V: I can't remember which one it was. I want to say Bill
+is the good one.
+Alright, so either Bill
+or a Mr. Goldberger or both of them contacted you, and what
+do you remember about that?
+I don't know if it was the same guy who contacted me that week later who put me in
+touch with Jeffrey. I think he was on the phone and he put speakerphone on with Jeffrey.
+So he connected me with Jeffrey. I don't know if it was the same guy or different, but I
+definitely know that Bill
+was the first guy to contact me. I'm pretty sure about that.
+Ok. Tell me about that conversation.
+He asked me what I knew about what's going on with Jeffrey and apparently, there was
+an investigation being held about some of the girls who had come out and said that
+Jeffrey had sexual contact with them under the age of a minor and that he was
+discrediting lot of these girls and making them out to be drug addicts and prostitutes and
+what have you so they wouldn't be looked upon as worthy in the court's eyes so to speak.
+And you know, he told me in the first five minutes that, you know, if I stay quiet, that
+"T'll be looked after". And that was the exact way it was said. It wasn't like you know,
+I'm gonna pay you a zillion dollars or anything if you be quiet, but if I stay quiet, I would
+"looked after". And I remember saying I don't want any part to do with this. You know,
+this is not something I want to be a part of, I've got a young family. I wish the best for
+everybody in this, you know, take care kind of thing. A week later, I was called after the
+hearing by one of Jeffrey's lawyers. I can't tell you exactly which one it was but he had
+Jeffrey on the other line and he connected Jeffrey and I, and Jeffrey tried to make some
+simple conversation, "How are you? How have things been?" You know what I mean,
+catching up.
+Do you know if the lawyer, did the lawyer stay on the line while Jeffrey was speaking to
+you?
+V: I'm pretty sure he did. That's why I think Jeffrey was on speaker phone because it
+sounded a lot different, and I was never taken off the line to begin with or connected to
+another line, so I was pretty sure Jeffrey was on speaker phone and the lawyer was
+making the call. After the simple conversation, it led to what was going on again and you
+know, Jeffrey couldn't believe it. You know, he thought he helped all these girls out. He
+didn't think he was wrong in any circumstance here at all. A lot of these girls were drug
+addicts and just after drug money. You know, he was really putting down these women
+or these girls I should say, not giving them the credit they deserved, and then he exactly
+repeated what the lawyer said the week before is that he would look after me if I stayed
+quiet, and if I need any help, you know, his lawyers would represent me and he would get
+legal help for me, whatever I need, he would do, and I told him exactly, I said, "Jeffrey,
+I'm the mother of two children at that stage. I'm away from everything there, I don't
+want to be a part of it. I'm not going to speak to anybody and I don't want to speak to
+anybody, I don't want to be involved." That was the last time I heard from him. And the
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 21 of 24
+1 adv. Epstein
+
+next thing I knew, I was sent my victim's letter, my notification of being a victim through
+the US Attorney's Office and that's when I knew it was well out there enough not to have
+Jeffrey's lawyers come back on me and discredit me in the same way he had done to all
+the other girls. So, I called up L
+Bird who was the recommended lawyers on my
+paperwork that they had given me and started going from there.
+So you contact Mr.
+that point forward.
+Bergs' office and then you were dealing with his office from
+That's correct.
+Tell me about the ending of your relationship with Jeffrey. That is, at what point in time
+did your full time employment end and how did that happen?
+Ok. So, it hadn't really ended. I walked away from it all. Jeffrey sent me to Thailand
+where I met my husband and escaped to Australia, never to return back to the states.
+About 6 months prior to that, he came up with a proposition that I thought was really
+disgustingly sick. And it really showed me for the first time in 4 years I had been with
+him that nothing was going to change and I was always just going to be used by him(?)
+which I did not like. He offered me a mansion and some of his money every month, I
+forget what he called it, a monthly income of what he made to bear one of his children.
+The proposition was that if anything ever happened between Jeffrey and I, that I would
+have to sign my child over to him basically and that the child would be his and
+Ghislaine's, and I would be looking after it as long as nothing happened between Jeffrey
+and I. So, I was kind of freaked out by all of that. I pushed Jeffrey more to please get me
+some more training, you know, and I was getting older and not of as much interest to
+Jeffrey anyways. I was 19 now, and he likes a female a lot younger. So he sent me to
+Thailand, in September 2002_. I was first supposed to meet a girl there and bring her
+back with me, but I never met up with her. I proceeded get a short course in Thai massage
+so that was to shut me up about my training so I went there, and one of my friends from
+school invited me to watch a fight, like a muay thai fight, which is like a form
+kickboxing. So I went and watched it, and I saw this guy that was a really good fighter,
+and a girl's word, looked really hot, so 1 asked my friend who knew him to introduce me.
+We got introduced and fell in love immediately, 3 days later Rob proposed and 7 days
+later I was being married in a buddist temple. I called Jeffrey and told him I'm sorry, I'm
+never coming back. I've gotten married, I've fallen in love. I thought he'd wish the best
+for me but he was kind of rude and he just said "have a good life" and hung up the phone,
+Ok. Virginia, is there anything else that you would like to add to what you have told us
+up to this point in time?
+I'd like to know that this time around something's going to be done about it and that
+Jeffrey and a lot of his colleagues, no matter how rich they are, will know that there is
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 22 of 24
+
+law and that there is people that still believe in it. So that's it. Thank you guys for
+listening to me, hearing me out and helping me. It's kind of hard to get through.
+Thank you very much. Yes, I'm sure it has been very difficult and I am very appreciative
+of the courage you have shown in doing what you have done, which really brings me to
+the last subject, and that is what was it that motivated you to go public with all of this?
+Sharon Richard contacted me. I like her, I do, I like her a lot. I know she's a journalist,
+and journalists are normally bloodsucking leeches, but I like her for that, but she is an
+honest bloodsucking leech. She told me a lot about what was still going on, and she
+showed me a picture of Jeffrey with a little girl who looks like she could have been 12
+years old. I mean it was disgusting. I agreed to talk with her, I never agreed to do
+anything until she showed me some pictures, and at that stage, being a mother of 3
+children and having a daughter who I would do anything for to protect, I would put my
+neck on the line to make sure she never has to go through what I had to go through, and
+knowing all of this, and knowing that he's still out there doing the same exact thing with
+no regrets, no remorse, no worry about what he's doing to those girls, and all those girls
+feeling the same way that I did, so I, you know, I'm doing it because I believe in my heart
+of hearts it's the right thing to do.
+It's what I would want somebody to do for my
+daughter or my sister or my friend, and it saddens me to know that it's still going on right
+now. It's like the seashell story. I don't know if you're heard the story about the little kid
+who throws back a starfish, you know, the little brother tries to ask his sister,
+you throw them in, they're all gonna die anyways, the little girl says "well, it's this one
+that I can help, and this one that I can help," and that's what I feel like I'm doing. I'm
+making a small dent in this big world we live in.
+I certainly appreciate that courage, and I have heard that story, and you're absolutely
+right, that one person may not be able to make a difference for everyone, but one person
+can make a difference for someone, and hopefully, you are making a difference for
+someone, and we're gonna do the best we can to make sure you are making a difference
+for as many people as possible.
+Thanks Jack.
+Just a few other follow up things I want to ask you and again, if any of these questions
+are questions that you're uncomfortable in responding to, then don't hesitate to tell me
+that. Do you have any recollection of Jeffrey Epstein's specifically telling you that "Bill
+Clinton owes me favors"?
+Yes. I do. It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking
+he one me a favor. He never be me what favors the ere ever new dive
+know if he was serious. It was just a joke.
+Where was here?
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 23 of 24
+
+He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's
+pockets.
+When you say you asked him why is Bill Clinton here, where was here?
+V: On the island.
+JS: When you were present with Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was
+there?
+Ghislaine, Emmy, and there was 2 young girls that I could identify. I never really knew
+them well anyways. It was just 2 girls from New York.
+And were all of you staying at Jeffrey's house on the island including Bill Clinton?
+That's correct. He had about 4 or 5 different villas on his island separate from the main
+house, and we all stayed in the villas.
+JS: Were sexual orgies a regular occurrence on the island at Jeffrey's house?
+V: Yes.
+JS: If we were to take sworn testimony from the people I am going to name, and if those
+people were to tell the truth about what they knew, do you believe that any of the
+following people would have relevant information about Jeffrey's taking advantage of
+underage girls? So I'll just name a name, and you tell me yes if they told the truth, I
+think they'd have relevant information or no, I don't think they would, or I don't know
+whether they would or not. Ok? You understand?
+V: Yes.
+Ok. Les Wexner.
+V: I think he has relevant information, but I don't think he'll tell you the truth.
+JS: Ok. Alan Dershowitz.
+V: Yes.
+JS: David Copperfield.
+Don't know.
+Tommy Matola.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-8 Filed 09/15/16 Page 24 of 24
+L adv. Epstein
+
+V: Don't know.
+Prince Andrew.
+Yes, he would know a lot of the truth. Again, I don't know how much he would be able
+to help you with, but seeing he's in a lot of trouble himself these days, I think he might,
+so I think he may be valuable. I'm not too sure of him.
+Ok. Virginia, I think that's all I have for you. Let me tell you what I would like to do.
+As I told you in the beginning of this conversation, we've been recording it, and
+hopefully, we've got a clear enough recording so that we've taken down everything
+accurately and when it's transcribed, it will be clear and accurate, but what I would like
+to do is transcribe it, send it to you, have you take a look at it, and if there's anything that
+we got wrong in the statement, you can write back and you can make changes in the
+transcript so that the transcript is accurate. Is that fair?
+No worries. That is fair. No problem.
+Alright, great. I really do appreciate that and tell me what the best way is to send the
+transcript to you.
+Email. If you just want to send it by email or if you want to send it by mail, either or.
+Ok. Give me your email address if you would please.
+Let me read that back to you:
+V: Yep that's it.
+BE: Thank you Jenna, appreciate it.
+V: No problem, Brad.
+JS: Thank you very very much. Bye Bye now.
+V: Take care Jack. Nice meeting you.
+JS: You too.
+*Redaction has been made at the request of the witness.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e966c56e8e43621b0b163a88c32a2a12e42d15835544bbde8606b0a0faf71afb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e966c56e8e43621b0b163a88c32a2a12e42d15835544bbde8606b0a0faf71afb.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29b38162af4e485f78d2ad0415da4fa818f88f9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e966c56e8e43621b0b163a88c32a2a12e42d15835544bbde8606b0a0faf71afb.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2217,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e966c56e8e43621b0b163a88c32a2a12e42d15835544bbde8606b0a0faf71afb",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 49,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0ed9ced680196d4171db1729c7ea607afbfeaf404cb81e4e91b056d1647dcfc7",
+  "output_sha256": "963f612214ff2505a037a0816fb24d172be8cd041749dbc749bfef7b1208eaa6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9a3a8b7af961f06b1915571f64115372b7863557334aebb1e405868de61cb0e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9a3a8b7af961f06b1915571f64115372b7863557334aebb1e405868de61cb0e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88e6d7a3cdc53ff9823423415ac67f270109c15e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9a3a8b7af961f06b1915571f64115372b7863557334aebb1e405868de61cb0e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 748-3 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9a3a8b7af961f06b1915571f64115372b7863557334aebb1e405868de61cb0e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9a3a8b7af961f06b1915571f64115372b7863557334aebb1e405868de61cb0e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23e8656b03c8a7603c53624a0d883b93df7b046c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9a3a8b7af961f06b1915571f64115372b7863557334aebb1e405868de61cb0e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9a3a8b7af961f06b1915571f64115372b7863557334aebb1e405868de61cb0e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fd4c644fc78e7dd2d28d77febbcadbf5f31265bcd7c8965fd9688cd5daf2ce71",
+  "output_sha256": "ff750ab05d7e306d3b150285547ec8107a211055fb10fb7c50de6f95c3403690",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9bd00ccbb38a243e32d8285a8c4d9da4a3691e5ce8e167e22d7629657f7aaf6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9bd00ccbb38a243e32d8285a8c4d9da4a3691e5ce8e167e22d7629657f7aaf6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa391fc98351f0887ea239b72e2807a78394f584
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9bd00ccbb38a243e32d8285a8c4d9da4a3691e5ce8e167e22d7629657f7aaf6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 788
+Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+------X
+Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude
+Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement
+and Sex Offender Registration
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON, (
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+_ P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 788 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 4
+PAGES 1-8
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 788
+Filed 03/24/17
+
+CONCLUSION
+Dated: March 24, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10"" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+,.P.C.
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 788 Filed 03/24/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 24, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Reply in Support of
+Motion in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex
+Offender Registration via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+J.
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9bd00ccbb38a243e32d8285a8c4d9da4a3691e5ce8e167e22d7629657f7aaf6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9bd00ccbb38a243e32d8285a8c4d9da4a3691e5ce8e167e22d7629657f7aaf6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa598d3075d34cbcdc38a5e870c863057a97f021
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9bd00ccbb38a243e32d8285a8c4d9da4a3691e5ce8e167e22d7629657f7aaf6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -59,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9bd00ccbb38a243e32d8285a8c4d9da4a3691e5ce8e167e22d7629657f7aaf6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "349cddb8332804607a861b8fa2bc6fe4cb19da877d7223f318937da6ee87d817",
+  "output_sha256": "44b908be7e110be5638e48d206cc5aa1b34310673da759e142e32886af81fd6f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c480259c1e9e43cad844116b6964958c9e9a3b529aaa465cf1dad6257d4726.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c480259c1e9e43cad844116b6964958c9e9a3b529aaa465cf1dad6257d4726.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ea155a039d63aaedd4074c8265326960ab7faa86
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c480259c1e9e43cad844116b6964958c9e9a3b529aaa465cf1dad6257d4726.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 578
+Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+January 18, 2022
+By ECE
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007B
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government submits this letter to respectfully request that the Court exclude time
+under the Speedy Trial Act with respect to Counts Seven and Eight, from today's date until April
+1, 2022. The exclusion of time will further the interests of justice by permitting the parties to
+research and brief post-trial motions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Government has
+conferred with defense counsel, who consent to this request.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN |
+United States Attorney
+By:
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: Defense Counsel (by ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c480259c1e9e43cad844116b6964958c9e9a3b529aaa465cf1dad6257d4726.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c480259c1e9e43cad844116b6964958c9e9a3b529aaa465cf1dad6257d4726.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fbf7da12ba060f3aca43d03fea706863a98a7802
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c480259c1e9e43cad844116b6964958c9e9a3b529aaa465cf1dad6257d4726.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9c480259c1e9e43cad844116b6964958c9e9a3b529aaa465cf1dad6257d4726",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5c828a927c93bb67d651d07a9a35bf85e9a996bf66251aaeb17f08daeed97c8f",
+  "output_sha256": "5954823d597f74a524ccef53792677f3af91d77139480a12804defaddc5f9f9e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c4adfc36ac1bb38cf4de01d0a175ecca271f45649f65ced063203e00caf0cd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c4adfc36ac1bb38cf4de01d0a175ecca271f45649f65ced063203e00caf0cd.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4aad5c18bb7cf6449785f7e180609c42bea66b8d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c4adfc36ac1bb38cf4de01d0a175ecca271f45649f65ced063203e00caf0cd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 745-4 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c4adfc36ac1bb38cf4de01d0a175ecca271f45649f65ced063203e00caf0cd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c4adfc36ac1bb38cf4de01d0a175ecca271f45649f65ced063203e00caf0cd.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56c0c21b65927fd3f8df072a13c7cc3d8ceae07b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9c4adfc36ac1bb38cf4de01d0a175ecca271f45649f65ced063203e00caf0cd.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9c4adfc36ac1bb38cf4de01d0a175ecca271f45649f65ced063203e00caf0cd",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4d008ba8b3b725661e7d7266f6d60d6ca3d43571fb3429ef88c2cc678a6c80cf",
+  "output_sha256": "d88bc18bd1f322b36e4eda7ee91b3f4cbb9f01919748c0500768143d69dd2a17",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9ed6014196880c314fc026145cab578424dff2667f15e99c9a1892035eecec7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9ed6014196880c314fc026145cab578424dff2667f15e99c9a1892035eecec7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a669e47d24c98c62c86cd668dbc48472827771a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9ed6014196880c314fc026145cab578424dff2667f15e99c9a1892035eecec7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,250 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269
+Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 9
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+May 4, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Judge
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order of
+April 27, 2021, regarding the defendant's request for an order authorizing a subpoena pursuant to
+Rule 17(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for records from Boies Schiller Flexner
+LLP ("BSF"). In the Order, the Court directed the Government to notify the Court of its views as
+to Requests 9 through 11. For the reasons set forth below, the Government respectfully submits
+that Requests 9 and 11 should be denied, and the Court should reserve decision with respect to
+Request 10, which the Government expects may be rendered moot.
+Applicable Law
+As the Court explained in its Order, a defendant seeking material pursuant to a Rule 17(c)
+subpoena bears the burden of satisfying the standard in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683
+(1974). Pursuant to that standard, a Rule 17(c) subpoena "should not issue unless it meets three
+criteria: "(1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, (3) specificity."" United States v. Binday, 908 F. Supp.
+2d 485, 491 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 700).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 9
+Page 2
+The Nixon test is enforced strictly. "The party requesting the subpoena must also show
+that the information sought is 'not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise
+of due diligence,' that 'the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production,' and
+that 'the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing expedition."''"
+United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 109 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699-700),
+abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v.
+, 751 F. App'x 44, 46 &
+n.1 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order). It is not sufficient for a party to show only that the subpoenaed
+documents "are potentially relevant or admissible." United States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237,
+254 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, as the Court has explained,
+impeachment material is not "relevant" within the meaning of Nixon "until after the witness
+testifies." (Order at 5). See Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701 ("[g]enerally, the need for evidence to impeach
+witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of trial" (citations omitted)). Finally,
+Rule 17 by its terms prohibits subpoenas aimed at statements "of a witness or a prospective
+witness." See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h).
+Il. Discussion
+Although the Government has not seen the proposed subpoena, the Government
+understands that Request 9 seeks the complete diary of Minor Victim-2, Request 10 seeks a pair
+of boots given to Minor Victim-2, and Request 11 seeks a series of photographs. Requests 9 and
+11 should be denied. The Government is working to moot Request 10, so the Court should reserve
+decision on that request until it can be denied as moot.
+A. Request 9
+The Government understands that Request 9 calls for Minor Victim-2's entire diary from
+her teenage years. This request is improper under Rule 17 in three respects.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 l
+Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 9
+Page 3
+First, the defendant has not adequately identified why the diary is relevant beyond the
+portions of the diary the defense has already received. See Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 109 (explaining
+that Rule 17(c) is not appropriate for evidence that is "otherwise procurable" (internal quotation
+marks omitted)). BSF represents that "all potentially relevant pages were produced from this
+journal to the Defendant in civil discovery in another matter." (3/22/21 Letter from BSF, Dkt. No.
+191 at 5). The Government also obtained and produced seven pages of the diary to the defendant
+in discovery. (Mot. for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures, Dkt. No. 148 at 10).
+The defendant argues that the entire diary is exculpatory because it contains no reference
+to her. (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). But the Government and Minor Victim-2
+have acknowledged the absence of references to the defendant from the start, and Minor Victim-2
+is expected to testify to that fact at trial. (See Gov't Omnibus Response, Dkt. No. 204 at 187 (citing
+Mem. in Opp. to Def.'s Renewed Motion for Release, Dkt. No. 100 at 11 n.2.); 3/22/21 Letter from
+BSF, Dkt. No. 191 at 5). The defendant earlier moved to compel the Government to obtain and
+produce the diary to her, a motion the Court has denied. (Opinion & Order, Dkt. No. 207 at 29).
+As the Government explained in its opposition to that motion, the Government understands that
+Minor Victim-2 stopped writing in her diary shortly after meeting Jeffrey Epstein, so there are no
+entries regarding her later trip with Epstein, during which she met the defendant. (See Gov't
+Omnibus Response, Dkt. No. 204 at 187). The victim provided the Government with her entries
+relating to Epstein, which the Government in turn produced to the defense. (Id.). The remainder
+of the diary consists of Minor Victim-2's unrelated personal diary entries, and the defendant has
+not explained and cannot explain why she needs to review those entries to establish a fact that the
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 4 of 9
+Page 4
+Government has acknowledged. In other words, there will be no dispute at trial that Minor Victim-
+2 did not write about the defendant in her diary.'
+The cases the defendant cites are inapposite. For instance, in United States v. Cheung Kin
+Ping, 555 F.2d 1069 (2d Cir. 1977), the parties learned that a cooperating witness kept a diary,
+which was largely written in Chinese, while the witness was still on cross-examination. Id. at
+1078. The witness turned over his diary, but after observing that the "defense was examining his
+diary,... he requested that this not be done." Id. While the parties were discussing how to review
+the diary, including for Brady material, the diary was returned to the witness. It was only given to
+the defense for examination after "roughly five days" in the witness's possession. Id. at 1079.
+Accordingly, in that case, a diary that had never been evaluated for Brady material—or any other
+material-
+-was taken from a witness in the middle of the witness's cross-examination, then
+returned to him for five days. The Second Circuit found that those events "created a serious risk
+that significant material would be destroyed or tampered with." Id. Here, in contrast, the diary
+contains no relevant material—in fact, that is the defendant's very thesis. See also
+V.
+McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 814 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining, in a § 1983 case, that the plaintiff had
+alleged bad faith by stating that a law enforcement officer in a child molestation case "deliberately
+steer[ed] the investigation to benefit his love interest," in part by "fail[ing] to preserve the alleged
+victim's diary which did not corroborate the molestation allegations," which in turn "deprived [the
+defendant] of his right to a fair trial, in part, because he could not testify about the diary without
+waiving his right not to testify"); United States v. Rios, No. 88 Cr. 186, 1989 WL 9289, at *2
+' For similar reasons, the entire diary, full of Minor Vicitm-2's personal and unrelated information,
+would not be admissible at trial. See Nixon, 418 U.S. 700 (requiring that a Rule 17(c) subpoena
+target "admissib[le]" evidence).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 l
+Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 9
+Page 5
+(N.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1989) (reaching the unremarkable result that an "undercover agent's diary" is
+"not discoverable in and of itself" except "to the extent that this diary contains" Brady material).
+Alternatively, the defendant states that she needs to inspect the "entire journal" to
+"establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoilation has
+occurred." (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). "This examination," she continues,
+"requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner." (Id.) This argument lacks
+merit. The defendant's bare assertion that authenticity might somehow be in doubt is hardly a
+sufficiently detailed explanation of relevance and admissibility to justify a subpoena for a minor
+victim's personal journal. The defendant does not identify any basis for doubting the authenticity
+of the documents, which the Government expects that Minor Victim-2 will be able to properly
+authenticate at trial. Nor does the defendant identify what kind of examiner she intends to use,
+what kind of examination will occur, or how that examination might bear on the journal's
+authenticity. See Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 253 (explaining that the "items sought cannot merely be
+potentially relevant or admissible. Rather, they must be shown to be relevant and admissible at
+the time the subpoena is sought." (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v.
+Skelos, No. 15-CR-317 (KMW), 2018 WL 2254538, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2018), aff'd, 988
+F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2021) ("[A] criminal subpoena should not be used as "a discovery device,' but
+instead should be used only as 'a mechanism for obtaining specific admissible evidence."" (quoting
+United States v. Barnes, No. 04 Cr. 186 (SCR), 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2008)).
+"Conclusory statements," like the defendant's here, are "insufficient to satisfy the Nixon
+requirements." Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *3.?
+2 In addition to the explicit bases identified in her letter on the subpoena and described above,
+elsewhere the defendant has made clear that she seeks the diary for impeachment purposes. (See
+Mot. for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial Disclosures, Dkt. No. 148 at 10; 3/22/21 Letter from
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 9
+Page 6
+Second, the request in insufficiently specific. To satisfy the specificity prong, a Rule 17(c)
+subpoena must be able to "reasonably specify the information contained or believed to be
+contained in the documents sought rather than merely hop[e] that something useful will turn up."
+Barnes, 2008 WL 9359654, at *4 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see, e.g.,
+United States v. Avenatti, No. 19 Cr. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 508682, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2020).
+The defendant's request for the entire diary is likely to sweep in a significant period of Minor
+Vietim-2's life before Minor Victim-2 met Epstein or the defendant—all of which is irrelevant.
+To justify this overbreadth, the defendant identifies two reasons she needs to review the
+diary in full: to demonstrate the absence of references to the defendant, and to establish the diary's
+authenticity. (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 9). As to the former, there is no probative
+value in showing that diary entries before the defendant had ever met Epstein or the defendant
+contain no references to Epstein or the defendant, and in any event, the Government has conceded
+the point. As to the latter, the defendant offers only the conclusory statement that review of the
+entire diary is necessary. That is insufficient, as explained above.
+Third, the request is barred by Rule 17(h). That section prohibits the use of Rule 17 to
+"subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness," Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h), explaining
+that such issues are governed by Rule 26.2. The diary is a set of recorded statements by Minor
+Victim-2. To the extent it should be produced, that production is governed by Rule 16, Rule 26.2,
+Brady, and Giglio, but not Rule 17. See, e.g., United States v. Carton, 17 Cr. 680 (CM), 2018 WL
+5818107, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018) (rejecting a request for a personnel file because the
+BSF, Dkt. No. 191 at S ("The Defendant also clearly seeks to use the journal for impeachment
+purposes, as highlighted in a prior filing in a recently dismissed civil action
+against the Defendant.")). But as the Court has recently explained, Rule 17 is not a tool to obtain
+impeachment material in advance of trial. (Order at 5).
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 9
+Page 7
+individual "is a prospective witness in this case; the Government will provide Carton with his
+3500, Jencks and Giglio material by the deadline set by the Court"); United States v. Yudong
+No. 13 Cr. 761 (VM), 2014 WL 5366107, at *3 & n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2014) (rejecting a
+subpoena request under Rule 17(h) even though the records were not in the Government's
+possession). Here, the Government has discharged its obligations already by providing the
+defendant with the relevant pages from the diary, and Rule 17(h) bars a search for additional
+statements.
+The defendant's theories miss the mark because Request 9, at its core, is precisely the sort
+of "fishing expedition" that Nixon prohibits. 418 U.S. at 700. Accordingly, Request 9 should be
+denied.
+B. Request 10
+The Government understands Request 10 to seek a pair of boots purchased by the defendant
+and Jeffrey Epstein for Minor Victim-2. The defendant states that she would like to examine the
+boots in order to "identify the make and provenance of the boots." (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt.
+No. 244 at 11). This appears to be an attempt to use the boots to impeach Minor Victim-2's
+testimony, shrouded again in a conclusory claim about the need for authentication. For
+substantially the reasons set forth above with respect to the diary, the Government respectfully
+submits such a claim is meritless under Nixon.
+However, and although the Government is not obligated to do so, the Government has
+requested that BSF provide the boots to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). BSF has
+indicated that Minor Victim-2 will likely agree to do so. When the boots are in the FBI's custody,
+the Government intends to make them available promptly to the defense for examination and use
+at trial, and will so notify the Court, which should moot Request 10. The Government submits,
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 8 of 9
+Page 8
+thus, that the Court need not resolve Request 10 at this time, as the Court will likely be able to
+deny it as moot in the near term.
+C. Request 11
+Request 11 appears to seek a series of photographs. The Government's understanding is
+that the defendant already has copies of those photographs. (See 4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No.
+244 at 11 ("[C]opies were produced by BSF in civil litigation.")). It also appears that the
+Government also produced copies of some of these photographs in Rule 16 discovery. In any
+event, and again although the Government is not obligated to do so, the Government requested
+that BSF provide it with copies of the complete set of requested photographs, which it has obtained
+and produced to the defendant.
+Remaining at issue, then, are only the original versions of the photographs. The
+Government understands from BSF that the photographs were all taken on film and are not digital
+photographs. Accordingly, the originals are physical photographs, not digital files. The defense
+subpoena for these original photographs should be denied, at least unless and until the defendant
+provides further justification for the need for and entitlement to the originals. Because the
+defendant already has copies of the photographs, the defendant must explain how her request for
+the originals can satisfy the Nixon test without being "otherwise procurable." 418 U.S. at 699.
+The defendant suggests that she needs the originals to identify the "dates of creation or any
+other specifics." (4/2/21 Letter from Def., Dkt. No. 244 at 11). It is entirely unclear what "other
+specifies" refers to, but as noted above, the Government understands that these photographs were
+taken on film, such that the originals would generally not contain metadata regarding the date or
+other information regarding when they were taken. And in any event, the defendant has not
+explained the relevance or admissibility of this information— and specifically, whether it would
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 269 Filed 05/04/21 Page 9 of 9
+Page 9
+be used for impeachment, authentication, or another purpose. Accordingly, Request 11 should be
+denied.
+III.
+Conclusion
+For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Requests 9 and 11. The Court should
+reserve decision with respect to Request 10 until the Government obtains the boots and makes
+them available for inspection by the defendant, at which time Request 10 will be moot.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+by:
+/s/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+(212) 637-2324
+CC:
+Counsel of Record (by ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9ed6014196880c314fc026145cab578424dff2667f15e99c9a1892035eecec7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9ed6014196880c314fc026145cab578424dff2667f15e99c9a1892035eecec7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d211c30fef3cfa0dbc911fc6d8ac4b7eb482bfb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9ed6014196880c314fc026145cab578424dff2667f15e99c9a1892035eecec7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -108,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9ed6014196880c314fc026145cab578424dff2667f15e99c9a1892035eecec7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "232c12c7906b2d2e64dd85f2a82887918c31ad1f4d081fc1f66d08bf7e9474da",
+  "output_sha256": "09bb1aa5d0216ae9d279a798a4182497faef054356de355047f4303a82d10bf0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9f4a81eb26c625f533201b44871c4f1e2cc448df5fb710f02d7ff42e721a2f3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9f4a81eb26c625f533201b44871c4f1e2cc448df5fb710f02d7ff42e721a2f3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb1580b9e7d7aaf18bc1c6e52c583cdbde24b3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9f4a81eb26c625f533201b44871c4f1e2cc448df5fb710f02d7ff42e721a2f3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 568-5 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9f4a81eb26c625f533201b44871c4f1e2cc448df5fb710f02d7ff42e721a2f3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9f4a81eb26c625f533201b44871c4f1e2cc448df5fb710f02d7ff42e721a2f3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0751ee6c6a25d495922033d13239e2855c6a0803
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/e9f4a81eb26c625f533201b44871c4f1e2cc448df5fb710f02d7ff42e721a2f3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "e9f4a81eb26c625f533201b44871c4f1e2cc448df5fb710f02d7ff42e721a2f3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4a2c214e343f005ed572a05351868fd4670b148c7c830a67a7145c49f3ad85d5",
+  "output_sha256": "cd8e129d94127c26c40f42f1e1804b26e1e4258486ffa40751c573e7c5308697",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea4ad5cdd28415b5aa128a18707e33e675408ce4d25c51dd99ebcada330ab1d9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea4ad5cdd28415b5aa128a18707e33e675408ce4d25c51dd99ebcada330ab1d9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1c938f0bac98265a4511a86af135608e399521ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea4ad5cdd28415b5aa128a18707e33e675408ce4d25c51dd99ebcada330ab1d9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 952
+Filed 08/23/18
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+NEW YORK, NY 10007
+ROBERT W. SWEET
+DISTRICT JUDGE
+August 22, 2018
+Christine N. Walz
+Sanford I. Bohrer
+HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
+31 West 52nd Street
+New York, NY 10014
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433, ECF No. 951
+Dear Ms. Walz,
+Thank you for your letter of August 21, 2018.
+The motion
+is under advisement.
+Geet
+Robert W. Sweet, U.S.D.J.
+
+
+case 1:15-cv-07433-RWs
+Documenf 9591:40087484&APage@perment 952
+Holland & Knight
+
+31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019 | T 212.513.3200 | F 212.385.9010
+Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
+Christine N. Walz
++1 212-513-3368
+Christine.Walz@hklaw.com
+August 21, 2018
+VIA ECF
+The Honorable Robert W. Sweet
+United States District Court
+for the Southern District of New York
+Daniel|
+Moynihan
+United States Courthouse
+500 Pearl Street., Courtroom 18C
+New York, NY 10007-1312
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you.
+Sincerely yours,
+HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
+Christine N. Wa
+aristine N. Wa
+Sanford L. Bohrer
+HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLF
+31 West 52nd Street
+New York, NY 10014
+T: 212.513.3200 / F: 212.385.9010
+Attorneys for Movants/Intervenors
+Julie
+_and Miami Herald Media Company
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea4ad5cdd28415b5aa128a18707e33e675408ce4d25c51dd99ebcada330ab1d9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea4ad5cdd28415b5aa128a18707e33e675408ce4d25c51dd99ebcada330ab1d9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e25d423095b6fd507ead70c55ca407b9f4f8b1bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea4ad5cdd28415b5aa128a18707e33e675408ce4d25c51dd99ebcada330ab1d9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -46,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ea4ad5cdd28415b5aa128a18707e33e675408ce4d25c51dd99ebcada330ab1d9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "bac4c0c628f08d413d94bc4f06d5f252e336d71151a4196cbd874a39a8559d82",
+  "output_sha256": "b41eb87a6a5c50bdaa8314b5ba21bdbac3eba7e41fef0eed5867883a9ac5c7c5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea63d4dcceef19709d1c0fc4fe24daa1770edc156d8fc2ea96d2bc8ff5709446.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea63d4dcceef19709d1c0fc4fe24daa1770edc156d8fc2ea96d2bc8ff5709446.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e90660132ed44c066235cd10882f30b1cd0c0fb5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea63d4dcceef19709d1c0fc4fe24daa1770edc156d8fc2ea96d2bc8ff5709446.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 602 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 1
+LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+212-243-1100 • Main
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+917-912-9698 • Cell
+New York, NY 10007
+888-587-4737 • Fax
+bcsternheim@mac.com
+February 16, 2022
+Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Judge
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The annexed documents pertaining to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial, previously
+submitted under seal, contain proposed redactions in conformance with the Court's Order (Dkt. 596).
+The proposed redactions are intended to ensure the integrity of any fact-gathering process to
+uncover the truth surrounding Juror 50 's conduct during the voir dire process. Any inquiry will be
+focused primarily on the testimony of Juror 50. The proposed redactions reduce the risk that his testimony
+will be tailored based on a preview of information central to the inquiry or otherwise tainted by outside
+information and influence. The proposed redactions pertain to the following information:
+• Juror 50's exact responses to the questions on his jury questionnaire, which is being kept
+temporarily under seal. See Dkt. 596 at 5, fin 1.
+• Data about the responses of other jurors and potential jurors to the jury questionnaire.
+• Details of investigative steps the defense has taken and evidence uncovered thus far.
+• The defense's view of the underlying facts.
+•
+The scope of the defense's requested discovery in advance of the hearing.
+Very truly yours,
+Is/
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+Attachments (to be kept under seal pending the Court's decision regarding redactions)
+cc: Counsel of Record
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea63d4dcceef19709d1c0fc4fe24daa1770edc156d8fc2ea96d2bc8ff5709446.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea63d4dcceef19709d1c0fc4fe24daa1770edc156d8fc2ea96d2bc8ff5709446.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..18b5d3b3c17fd3423005e75485f05c5687a2e3f1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea63d4dcceef19709d1c0fc4fe24daa1770edc156d8fc2ea96d2bc8ff5709446.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ea63d4dcceef19709d1c0fc4fe24daa1770edc156d8fc2ea96d2bc8ff5709446",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "63ee5bf78baf89cce2e6c0ca36f23a00e342cb044932da6c2ff7144eb957fdba",
+  "output_sha256": "2025e73a6fd4b1039777b3b983a98689aa02de7272e0be201afe40012e5a0abf",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea6affd3892d86d1efb7b62661b3845d034b4935f1d791f9f71e6b69f5ba78e0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea6affd3892d86d1efb7b62661b3845d034b4935f1d791f9f71e6b69f5ba78e0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..26838f205231e22bb3d978035efe05b48aaa92f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea6affd3892d86d1efb7b62661b3845d034b4935f1d791f9f71e6b69f5ba78e0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 479
+VILLAZOR
+Filed 11/21/21 Page 1 of 1
+Villazor LLP
+250 West 55th Street, 30th Floor
+New York, NY 10019
+www.smithvillazor.com
+J.
+212 582 4400
+November 15, 2021
+BY E-MAIL to NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Judge
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We represent Jordana H.
+. the independent administrator of the Epstein Victims'
+Compensation Program, the litigation-alternative program established to confidentially resolve
+claims of sexual abuse against Jeffrey Epstein, his Estate, and other related individuals and
+entities. This afternoon we were informed by counsel for the government that the defendant has
+sought, and the Court intends to authorize, a subpoena directed to
+under Federal
+Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) for certain documents. We write to (i) inform the Court that
+we are authorized to accept service of the subpoena on behalf of
+1 and (ii) request a
+briefing schedule for
+anticipated motion to quash the subpoena.
+We understand that the government intends to file a motion to quash the subpoena, with a
+deadline of this Wednesday, November 17, 2021. Given that we have just learned of the
+subpoena today, the issues it presents, and mindful of the impending start date of trial, we
+respectfully request until November 23, 2021 to file a motion to quash on
+behalf.
+We are available should the Court have any questions.
+Respectfully submitted,
+CC.
+Villazor LLP
+AUSA Alison Moe, AUSA Maurene Comey, AUSA Andrew Rohrbach, AUSA Lara
+Pomerantz, Christian R. Everdell, Esq., Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq., Laura A. Menninger,
+Esq., Mark Stewart
+Esq., Bobbi C. Sternheim, Esq. (by e-mail)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea6affd3892d86d1efb7b62661b3845d034b4935f1d791f9f71e6b69f5ba78e0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea6affd3892d86d1efb7b62661b3845d034b4935f1d791f9f71e6b69f5ba78e0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6d863a5c11fc04fd7200f75b47e7686b6812d82
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea6affd3892d86d1efb7b62661b3845d034b4935f1d791f9f71e6b69f5ba78e0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ea6affd3892d86d1efb7b62661b3845d034b4935f1d791f9f71e6b69f5ba78e0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ad9f006c78706fc1cb6bb6ef4e28a55f808c511d766aec43f5732e8d1f15bf73",
+  "output_sha256": "dac49ce15df7b913bb3da2f5098afd969975e3ef1bc5c2045f20e373ecf4cd97",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea905aacd291da91b3fe309a6ca2c8c58388fba4580deb824dff24d6a2d2943a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea905aacd291da91b3fe309a6ca2c8c58388fba4580deb824dff24d6a2d2943a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba60684821bfd611485c6e8756338e7941095efc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea905aacd291da91b3fe309a6ca2c8c58388fba4580deb824dff24d6a2d2943a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+CG
+Casase: 202000083BBAON Document 369
+Frieet/100236221 Payage off 1
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+ceverdell@)cohengresser.com
+October 25, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 10/26/21
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+SO ORDERED.
+We respectfully submit this letter to request a one-week extension until November 3, 2021,
+to file the joint proposed jury charge and verdict sheet, which are currently due on October 27,
+2021. See 8/27/2021 Order (Dkt. 330). The government consents to this request.
+10/26/21
+On October 20, 2021, the government provided the defense with its proposed jury charge.
+Because of the press of other deadlines in this case—including the motions in limine responses
+and replies, and the Rule 412 briefing the defense requests an additional week to provide its
+counterproposals to the government and to submit the final proposed jury charge to the Court.
+The government and the defense have met and conferred and agreed that the defense will
+send the government a redlined version of the government's proposed jury charge containing the
+defense's counterproposals by 7:00 p.m. on November 1, 2021. The parties will submit the final
+shin proper ust to chare 3, 20z it step cith theres of continued dispreeti
+revised schedule.
+Sincerely,
+Is/ Christian Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue, 2Ist Floor
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+CC:
+All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea905aacd291da91b3fe309a6ca2c8c58388fba4580deb824dff24d6a2d2943a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea905aacd291da91b3fe309a6ca2c8c58388fba4580deb824dff24d6a2d2943a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02f5ff8ce81c949bcd13a6dafef805a2b8536533
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ea905aacd291da91b3fe309a6ca2c8c58388fba4580deb824dff24d6a2d2943a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ea905aacd291da91b3fe309a6ca2c8c58388fba4580deb824dff24d6a2d2943a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "16fa22216ba7fbd3875750b7ba825d46596cd46928ec0664d16e46fecc27f5ad",
+  "output_sha256": "09de91ab837627d98e989a9484ca8b5127ad44522470188502d9d44142c435c2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaa9baa22d32faa010e1bbb2e470c2df4d7badbe5401f450eb2c0e77ddc05961.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaa9baa22d32faa010e1bbb2e470c2df4d7badbe5401f450eb2c0e77ddc05961.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..07bebf9e6b775ee66387a4a3441457d10ceafbd8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaa9baa22d32faa010e1bbb2e470c2df4d7badbe5401f450eb2c0e77ddc05961.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 698-2 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 1
+COMPOSITE
+
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaa9baa22d32faa010e1bbb2e470c2df4d7badbe5401f450eb2c0e77ddc05961.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaa9baa22d32faa010e1bbb2e470c2df4d7badbe5401f450eb2c0e77ddc05961.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6056a58ea9b232130d18028d05f25d54d06f9b0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaa9baa22d32faa010e1bbb2e470c2df4d7badbe5401f450eb2c0e77ddc05961.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eaa9baa22d32faa010e1bbb2e470c2df4d7badbe5401f450eb2c0e77ddc05961",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0ec94a56901fe11c4e3b538e154a87e3a2e6c363fcaaa5c46513ed2184b45e98",
+  "output_sha256": "2dcb14fa961eb1e9f4891b8dbeec4c76d50f25e06d2a7cd8232c459ae755fdc7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ead7e135dd5e43be0aaba0042cd396830faffdaea52656ea0b5d25f3a8e5e038.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ead7e135dd5e43be0aaba0042cd396830faffdaea52656ea0b5d25f3a8e5e038.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d80121bd6e8a2e35d97e0c5f67708a89b3274de0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ead7e135dd5e43be0aaba0042cd396830faffdaea52656ea0b5d25f3a8e5e038.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Cased 15C07423 LARs Doumanh357688 Filed 08/24/16 pRage h0f1
+COMPOSITE
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ead7e135dd5e43be0aaba0042cd396830faffdaea52656ea0b5d25f3a8e5e038.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ead7e135dd5e43be0aaba0042cd396830faffdaea52656ea0b5d25f3a8e5e038.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2be4d15094adba8272a2af386d727ec19450f0c4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ead7e135dd5e43be0aaba0042cd396830faffdaea52656ea0b5d25f3a8e5e038.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ead7e135dd5e43be0aaba0042cd396830faffdaea52656ea0b5d25f3a8e5e038",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "901042b072d37ff48bf75946e79b6d53baea63d4f41af310feeafddd3f43a874",
+  "output_sha256": "ee3be0855c27cb07b3249a02b70bc1ae9034b35fa312e1a60a1ffd39317adcf6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaf487fa663628f3e720aea259f14d9414ad9c9c9d62d2d6aa633d5a778f2f98.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaf487fa663628f3e720aea259f14d9414ad9c9c9d62d2d6aa633d5a778f2f98.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82e3dbfb1d4d805e3d52da5573ef31c706d90aa2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaf487fa663628f3e720aea259f14d9414ad9c9c9d62d2d6aa633d5a778f2f98.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1830 @@
+Document 452-1
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 43
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 43
+Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23:957-976, 2014
+Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LIC
+ISSN: 1053-8712 print/1547-0679 online
+DOI: 10.1080/10538712.2014.960632
+2 Koutledg
+Taylor & Francis Grou
+The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual
+Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues
+NATALIE BENNETT and WILLIAM O'DONOHUE
+University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada, USA
+There have been claims that some child molesters engage in a
+"seduction stage" prior to committing abuse. These behaviors, commonly known as "grooming, " are understood as methods child
+molesters use to gain access to and prepare future victims to be compliant with abuse. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding
+exactly what this process entails and bow it is clearly distinguished
+from normal adult-child interactions. It is important to devise an
+accurate definition of grooming for scientific, clinical, and forensic
+purposes. We critically evaluate the various definitions and reveal
+problematic heterogeneity. Furthermore, there are no methods of
+known psychometrics to validly assess grooming. We review the
+empirical literature regarding the occurrence of grooming and
+propose future directions for research.
+KEYWORDS grooming, child sexual abuse, measurement
+Understanding the process of child sexual abuse (CSA) is important for both
+its prevention and treatment. Some clinicians and researchers (e.g., Budin &
+1989; Burgess & Holmstrom, 1980; Conte,
+1989;
+Elliott, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995) agree that a type of seduction stage,
+commonly called "grooming" but also variously known as "entrapment,"
+"engagement," or "subjection" often precedes the actual sexual abuse.
+Offenders have admitted that they use techniques such as identifying a particularly vulnerable child, gift giving, and sexual desensitization to prepare
+the child for the abuse (Seto, 2008).
+Understanding grooming has both important clinical and legal implications. First, it is possible that if professionals were able to identify grooming
+Received 23 May 2013; revised 28 January 2014; accepted 10 April 2014.
+Address correspondence to William O'Donohue, Department of Psychology, University
+of Nevada, Reno, Mail Stop 298, Reno, NV 89557. E-mail: wto@unredu
+957
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 3 of 43
+958
+before abuse has actually taken place the abuse may be prevented. Second,
+in a forensic context, sexual abuse allegations might be partially substantiated
+when it is established that grooming did indeed occur. However, without
+a clear grooming definition and a valid way of measuring grooming, this
+judgment that a behavior constitutes grooming becomes problematic. For
+example, a recently convicted sex offender in Las Vegas, Nevada, is seeking
+to appeal his conviction on the grounds that the testimony provided by a
+psychologist regarding his grooming behavior is unreliable (Mower, 2012).
+His defense attorney claimed that "[Grooming) is not a proven science. It's
+a behavioral thing. ... How can you tell that this was in the mind of this
+There have been attempts to criminalize grooming in several countries.
+In the United States, a federal law (18 USC S 2252A(a)(6)) has made it illegal
+and thus adds years onto a sentence for people who knowingly offer child
+pornography to a minor to persuade the minor to participate in an illegal
+activity such as adult-child sexual contact (18 USC § 2252A, certain activities
+relating to material constituting or containing child pornography). In the
+United Kingdom, Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has covered
+"the behavior of an offender who meets, or seeks to meet, a child with the
+intention of committing a sexual assault, if he has met or communicated
+with that child on at least two earlier occasions" (McAlinden, 2006, p. 342).
+However, as Gillespie (2004) noted, definitional problems with the construct
+of grooming limit the use of this law, as grooming is "a transient feature that
+is difficult to capture and virtually impossible to decide when it begins and
+ends" (p. 586). McAlinden also described another law designed to criminalize
+grooming in the UK:
+Sections 123-9 introduce the risk of sexual harm order—a new civil
+preventative order which can be used to prohibit specified behaviours,
+including the 'grooming' of children. ... This order effectively criminalizes acts which may be carried out for the purposes of sexual grooming,
+but only after an individual had been identified as posing a risk to
+children. (p. 342)
+O'Callaghan (2011) described that in Wales a man pled guilty and was
+sentenced to a year in prison for one count of meeting a child following sexual grooming that consisted of inappropriate communication via Facebook.
+In addition, Vance (2012) described a proposed law in New Zealand that
+provides a sentence of three years in prison for anyone who participates in
+online "indecent communication with anyone under 16." This law is aimed at
+sexual offenders who use Internet chatrooms or other social media websites
+to find victims.
+It is evident that these legal definitions of grooming are both varied
+and limited. The sorts of activities that these laws target do not actually
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 4 of 43
+959
+capture the notion of grooming because these already involve illegal and
+abusive contract with a child. Grooming is generally regarded as prior activities intended to prepare the child for abuse, not actual illegal or abusive
+activities themselves. Thus, legitimate questions can be raised about whether
+showing a child pornography ought not to be regarded as grooming because
+it constitutes abuse itself. Clarifying a definition of grooming can thus make
+these laws applicable to many more behaviors that are used by offenders
+intending to sexually abuse children.
+It is important to note that clarifying key constructs is a difficult yet
+important process. The prominent philosopher of science Larry Laudan
+(1977) suggested that science has both empirical and conceptual problems and that scientific progress is made when either type of problem is
+addressed. Conceptual analysis is particularly difficult as it is traditionally
+not included as a part of the research method in the social sciences and
+also because it involves the inherent complexity of language (O'Donohue,
+2013). Here, conceptual analysis of the grooming construct is necessary in the
+research process, as it is a salient example where the complexity of language
+contributes to definitional confusion and leads to problematic implications
+in clinical and forensic
+The aim of this paper is to highlight the need for a clearer definition
+of the grooming construct that may be applied to both clinical and forensic work. The courts are currently unable to take much legal action against
+grooming as it is not well understood and clearly demarcated. Furthermore,
+psychologists are currently using clinical judgment to determine whether an
+alleged perpetrator's behaviors are considered grooming. The reliability and
+validity of these judgments are largely unknown, leaving concerns of unacceptable rates of false positives and false negatives. An additional aim is to
+review the empirical literature regarding what is known about the occurrence
+of grooming so that a clear definition can be constructed. With a clearer definition of grooming, a more scientific assessment of such behavior can be
+established. This article proposes future directions for research, including
+validation of the proposed definition and development of an assessment
+device.
+CURRENT DEFINITIONS
+The three tables presented here list various definitions of the construct of
+"grooming" currently found in the literature. Table 1 provides various general
+definitions of the term, Table 2 provides subcategories of grooming that some
+authors have proposed, and Table 3 provides stages of grooming that several
+authors have suggested.
+Thus there is a wide variability that exists in defining sexual grooming
+as well as possible subtypes or stages of grooming. Although many of the
+
+
+Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 43
+960
+TABLE 1 General Definitions of Grooming
+Author(s)
+Sgroi (1982)
+Salter (1995)
+Howitt (1995)
+Brackenridge
+Gillespie (2002)
+O'Connell
+(2003)
+Spiegel (2003)
+Craven,
+and Gilchrist
+(2006)
+Knoll (2010)
+Definition of Grooming (taken directly from reference)
+"How does [the perpetrator] get the child to participate in some type of
+sexual behavior? Usually in a low-key, nonforcible fashion, possibly by
+presenting the activity as a game or something that is 'special' and fun.
+This always entails misrepresentation of moral standards, either verbally
+or implicitly... Perhaps rewards or bribes will be offered."
+"The establishment (and eventual betrayal) of affection and trust occupies
+a central role in the child molester's interactions with children. The
+grooming process itself often seems similar from offender to offender,
+largely because it takes little to discover that emotional seduction is the
+most effective way to manipulate children."
+"The steps taken by paedophiles to 'entrap' their victims and is in some
+ways analogous to adult courtship."
+"The offender plans to make the victim less likely to resist, to make others
+unaware of what he is doing, or even to make them likely to help him,
+without their knowledge, to molest a child."
+"Entrapment involves the use of an array of material, illicit and emotional
+"inducements' to draw children into abusive situations and increases
+their difficulty in disclosing."
+"The process by which a perpetrator isolates and prepares an intended
+"The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an
+attempt to gain the child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get
+the child to acquiesce to abusive activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite
+for an abuser to gain access to a child."
+"Grooming involves a clever process of manipulation, typically initiated
+through a nonsexual approach, which is designed to entice a victim into
+2001). The inhibitions of a child are
+lowered through active engagement, desensitization, power and control.
+It is often characterized as a seduction, involving a slow and gradual
+process of learning about a child and building trust. This also
+contributes to the difficulty in detecting the activity. Grooming is also a
+deceptive process in which a child is unprepared to interpret cues
+which signal danger of risk. Predators are skilled at gaining the trust of a
+child before luring them into interactions. The process of grooming
+through the formation of a close bond creates a victim who is more
+likely to comply with sexual advances."
+"A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would
+give a reasonable person cause for concern that any meeting with a
+child arising from the conduct would be for unlawful purposes."
+"Subjection is the process of predisposing a boy to sexual abuse by means
+of subtle or blatant interactions that lead to boundary diffusion and role
+"A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the
+environment for the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining
+access to the child, gaining the child's compliance and maintaining the
+child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process serves to strengthen the
+offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of justifying or
+denying their actions."
+"The process by which sex offenders carefully initiate and maintain
+sexually abusive relationships with children. Grooming is a conscious,
+deliberate, and carefully orchestrated approach used by the offender.
+The goal of grooming is to permit a sexual encounter and keep it a
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 43
+961
+TABLE 2 Proposed Subtypes of Grooming
+Author
+Leberg (1997)
+Craven,
+and Gilchrist (2006)
+McAlinden (2006)
+Wyre (1987) as discussed in Howitt
+(1995)
+Types of Grooming
+1. Physically grooming the victim
+2. Psychologically grooming the victim and family
+3. Grooming the social environment and community
+1. Self-grooming
+2. Grooming the environment and significant others
+3.Grooming the child
+1. Personal
+2. Familial
+3. Institutional
+1. Extrafamilial
+2. Intrafamilial
+definitions share some key similarities, many behaviors may be classified as
+grooming under some definitions but not under others. Some of these similarities in definition include the chierion of preparing a child for abuse
+(Brackenridge, 2001; Craven,
+1. & Gilchrist, 2006; Gallagher, 1999),
+gaining a child's trust (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gillespie, 2002;
+Salter, 1995), making it more difficult to the child to resist or disclose the
+abuse (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Gallagher, 1999; Gillespie, 2002;
+Knoll, 2010; Leberg, 1997), and the enumeration of specific tactics used to
+groom the child (Berson, 2003; Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982).
+Furthermore, a variety of different kinds of definitional features are proposed. For example, one definition mentions "betrayal" (Salter, 1995) while
+another references "courtship" (Howitt, 1995). Some proposed definitions
+give concrete examples of grooming (Gallagher, 1999; Sgroi, 1982), while
+others try to give abstract properties to capture what the authors take to be
+the essential properties of grooming (O'Connell, 2003; Spiegel, 2003). Some
+definitions are fairly brief and more vague (Brackenridge, 2001; Howitt, 1995;
+Spiegel, 2003), whereas others are much longer and more detailed about
+what grooming looks like (Berson, 2003; Craven et al., 2006; Sgroi, 1982).
+Obviously this heterogeneity presents serious challenges for forensic and
+clinical work.
+Some of these definitions involve additional difficulties in that the terms
+used to define grooming present additional serious definitional problems
+themselves. For example, Salter (1995) used the phrase "emotional seducexactly emotional seduction entails as well as a measurement strategy to
+validly capture this alleged dimension. As another example, Spiegel's (2003)
+definition involves constructs such as "boundary diffusion" and "role confusion." These constructs are not part of the standard scientific lexicon and
+thus create further impediments to enhancing our scientific understanding of
+the grooming process. Finally, some definitions propose stages of grooming.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 7 of 43
+902
+TABLE 3 Proposed Stages of Grooming
+Author
+van Dam (2001)
+Brackenridge (2001)
+Applies to grooming in sport.
+Wyre (1987) as discussed in
+Howitt (1995)
+and Blake (1990)
+Applies to fatber-daughter
+grooming.
+O'Connell (2003)
+Applies to online grooming.
+Stages of Grooming
+1. Identify vulnerable child
+2. Engage that child in peerlike environment
+3. Desensitize the child to touch
+4. Isolate the child
+5. Make the child feel responsible
+1. Targeting a potential victim
+2. Building trust and friendship
+3. Developing isolation and control, building loyalty
+4. Initiation of sexual abuse and securing secrecy
+Applies to extrafamilial grooming:
+1. The offender masturbates and fantasizes about future
+contacts, a boy is befriended while an effort is made to
+earn his parents' trust, outings are common to achieve
+2. The oftender finds out about the boy's home/school
+problems— "counseling" role is created
+3. Physical contact of a nonsexual sort begins, offender's
+masturbation and fantasy continue, sexual touches begin
+and gradually increase in severity
+Applies to intrafamilial grooming:
+1. Tickling the child
+2. Bathing
+3. The offender's sexual arousal and fantasy
+4. The child going to the offender's bed
+5. The offender knows the child likes being tickled
+6. "Sex education"
+7. Tickling reaches child's sexual parts
+8. Offender masturbates the child's genitals
+9. The child is trapped into silence
+10. Sexual contact is increased
+11. Offenders cognitive distortions increase
+12. Becomes difficult to end sexual contact
+13. Offending behavior reinforced through masturbation to
+fantasies
+1. Trust
+2. Favoritism
+3. Alienation
+4. Secrecy
+5. Boundary violations
+1. Friendship-forming
+2. Relationship-forming
+3. Risk assessment
+4. Exclusivity
+5. Sexual
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 8 of 43
+963
+which makes the definitional and measurement process even more complex
+as each of these stages must be delineated and validly measured, and this
+must be done with the proposed sequencing as well. For example, Wyre's
+(1987) proposed stages for intrafamilial abuse involved 13 separate steps,
+the first 10 of which according to the author can be identified as grooming behaviors. As Howitt (1995) pointed out, this account of the abuse cycle
+makes it "appear a relatively short-term and repetitive process" (p. 85), which
+certainly is not representative of all cases of child sexual abuse.
+GROOMING AS A DEVIANT PROCESS
+Part of the difficulty in identifying and clarifying a useful definition of grooming is the fact that many behaviors used by perpetrators appear quite similar
+to behaviors seen in normal adult-child relationships. Buying gifts for children or taking them on private outings obviously are not always precursors
+to sexual abuse. Using the male sports world as an example, Hartill (2009)
+wrote that "in preparing for the abuse, the perpetrator is able to use such
+"disinhibiting' techniques through drawing on practices and discourses that
+are, to varying degrees, a normative feature within many, if not all, male
+sports contexts" (p. 239). Obviously part of the reason for this similarity to
+normative behavior is that the potential abuser does not want to be detected
+and thus wants to disguise what he is setting out to accomplish. In addition,
+it must be recognized that not all sexual offenders use grooming techniques.
+Groth, Hobson, and Gary (1982) differentiated between "child molesters"
+and "child rapists." Part of this distinction for these authors stems from their
+observation that child molesters use a grooming process on their victims,
+whereas child rapists do not, as their assaults occur suddenly. These authors
+also pointed out that child molesters are much more common than child
+rapists. Alternatively, some authors seem to construe grooming behaviors
+as mirroring behaviors seen in dating relationships between two consenting
+adults. For example, Herman (1981) wrote that sexually abusive fathers make
+an attempt to "court" their daughters by giving them flowers or presents (e.g.,
+expensive jewelry or lingerie).
+THE PREVALENCE OF GROOMING
+Because the definition of grooming varies from study to study, currently there
+is no way to know precisely how prevalent grooming is because each study
+employs some variant of the definition. Nevertheless, there have been several
+empirical studies conducted with child molesters to determine what specific
+methods they frequently use to choose their victims, initiate the abuse, and
+keep their victims from disclosing. Other researchers have chosen to focus
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 9 of 43
+964
+on the victims and ask them what techniques their abusers used prior to
+the abuse. It is important to note that in this article, examples of grooming
+with different genders of perpetrator and genders of victim are not readily
+distinguished. This is primarily due to the fact that the grooming literature
+reviewed did not always provide statistics about which grooming behaviors
+were used on boys versus girls. In addition, most of the grooming literature
+reviewed discussed male offenders.
+Identifying Potential Victims
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) interviewed 91 child sex offenders about the
+strategies they used when committing their offenses. They found that 33%
+of the offenders explicitly worked on becoming welcome in the child's
+home and 18% offered incentives or threatened their victims to recruit other
+children and then gave bribes to the recruits.
+Conte,
+(1989) interviewed 26 offenders about their
+crimes. They found that offenders often admitted to being able to identify what they considered a vulnerable child—often one who was "needy"
+and seemed "quiet." For example, one offender stated that his tactic was to
+"look for a kid who is easy to manipulate. They will go along with anything
+you say. I would approach them by being friendly, letting them think I was
+someone they could confide in and talk to" (Conte et al., 1989, p. 298).
+In her review of literature about sexual abuse involving teachers,
+Shakeshaft (2004) noted that selection of a victim is "influenced by the
+compliance of the student and the likelihood of secrecy" (p. 32). Teachers
+usually look to victimize students whom they have control over. Shakeshaft
+also identified factors that make a child vulnerable to educator sexual abuse,
+such as problems at home with parents, lack of confidence, and participation in other risky behavior. However, it also must be remembered that
+nonoffending adults could see the same needs in these vulnerable children
+and want to help them in legitimate ways. Thus the child's vulnerability and
+needs cannot be a sufficient condition for defining grooming.
+The Use of Attention, Bribery, and Coercion
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 53% of the offenders in their sample
+offered to play games, teach a sport, or teach how to play a musical instrument. Forty-six percent gave bribes, took the child for an outing, or drove
+the child home. Thirty percent admitted to using affection and love to gain
+the child's trust. Forty-six percent of the offenders used gifts as bribes in
+exchange for sexual favors.
+The offenders interviewed by Conte and colleagues (1989) also claimed
+they used bribery and coercive strategies prior to sexual contact. For
+example, one sex offender stated that his specific methods included "play,
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 10 of 43
+965
+talking, giving special attention, trying to get the child to initiate contact with
+me. Get the child to feel safe to talk with me" (p. 297).
+In his literature review on teacher sexual misconduct, Knoll (2010)
+found that educator sexual offenders tend to use bribery by giving their
+students special attention or rewards. According to Knoll, "the power of
+such rewards to affect the student should not be underestimated. Rewards
+from a teacher may have a crucial impact on the student's motivation and
+cognitions" (p. 376).
+Budin and
+| (1989) interviewed 72 sex offenders about methods
+they used to gain access to and abuse their victims. When asked what they
+did to gain their victims' trust, the majority of offenders admitted to acting
+like the child's friend and playing games with them. Other strategies included
+giving money, toys, candy, cigarettes, beer, or drugs to the child.
+In his study of institutional sexual abuse, Gallagher (2000) looked at
+a sample of 65 substantiated cases of abuse. He found that grooming, or
+"entrapment," which he defined as "the process by which perpetrators draw
+children into abusive situations and make it difficult for them to disclose"
+(p. 810) was reported in 35% of cases. In these cases, he found that 39%
+of perpetrators took the child away from the institution (thus isolating the
+child), 22% gave the child extra attention, 22% gave money to the child, 9%
+provided the child with illicit goods, and 4% provided the child with games
+or toys.
+In their interviews with 23 CSA victims, Berliner and Conte (1990) found
+that many children shared similar experiences with bribery and coercion
+prior to their abuse. Sixty-one percent of children reported that their abusers
+made excuses to spend time alone with them; 61% indicated that they were
+told that they were special, different, or the only one who understood the
+abuser; 61% said that their abuser treated them as an adult or he acted
+as a child toward them; 57% reported that their abusers gave them special
+privileges that made them feel obligated to be compliant in the abuse; 39%
+indicated that their abuser shared private information about spouses with
+them; 39% reported that their abuser prevented them from having friends or
+doing activities that other children do; and 30% reported that their abuser
+treated them "meaner" than other children.
+Shakeshaft (2004) wrote that in educator sexual abuse, teachers usually
+"coerce" their student victims by providing additional help (e.g., advisement
+on a project or taking on an outing) that not only allows for time alone with
+the victim but are also activities for which the victim's parents tend to be
+grateful to the teacher. Furthermore, she pointed out that because these acts
+do not yet constitute recognizable sexual abuse and because they share similarities with legitimate activities, any complaint about these activities cannot
+lead to much disciplinary action.
+and Blake (1990) discussed that in father-daughter incest,
+most fathers purposely build a trusting relationship with their daughters
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 11 of 43
+966
+prior to beginning any sexual abuse. However, this is a somewhat flawed
+analysis, as there ought to be a trusting relationship in all father-daughter
+relationships, at least prior to any abuse. Seventy-three percent of perpetrating fathers viewed this trust as crucial to the sexual relationship to reduce the
+risk of the daughter disclosing the abuse (Warner-Kearney, 1987, as cited in
+1 & Blake, 1990). Many fathers also show clear signs of favoritism
+toward their victimized daughter relative to their other children. Burgess and
+Holmstrom (1980) wrote that molesters tend to use three types of pressure
+to make their victims compliant: material goods, misrepresentation of moral
+standards, and the need for human contact. They noted that material goods
+are the most frequent tool that offenders use.
+One difference has been found between genders of the victim in this
+emotional coercion type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted that in male
+victims, emotional coercion can take on a negative tone. For example, perpetrators may use name-calling words such as "fag" or "whore" to put the
+male child down and make him feel ashamed and thus less likely to disclose
+the abuse.
+Sexual Desensitization
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that of those offenders who used babysitting as a strategy to gain access to their victims, 27% started talking to the
+child about sex, 21% misrepresented the abuse as educational or loving
+(which again may not be part of grooming because some of this would
+be postabuse), and 20% offered to bathe or clothe the child. Furthermore,
+these authors found that 40% of all offenders said the first move they made
+was sexual touching or genital kissing. Thirty-two percent of the offenders
+asked the child for help with undressing or lying down. Forty-four percent of
+the offenders used coercion and persuasion, 49% talked about sex with the
+child, and 47% used "accidental" touch. Sixty-one percent of the offenders
+would stop the abuse if the child became resistant and then persuaded the
+child to let them begin again. Many offenders committed the abusive acts in
+their own homes, where 33% used pornographic videos and magazines to
+desensitize the child.
+Conte and colleagues (1989) found that sexual desensitization was commonly used among the offenders in their sample. For example, one offender
+stated,
+Most of the time I would start by giving them a rub down. When I got
+them aroused, I would take the chance and place my hand on their penis
+to masturbate them. If they would not object, I would take this to mean it
+was OK. I would isolate them. I might spend the night with them. Physical
+isolation, closeness, contact are more important than verbal seduction.
+(p. 297)
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 12 of 43
+967
+Knoll (2010) found that while a teacher is using bribery to gain the
+trust of a victim, typically conversation about sexual matters with the student is also starting to emerge. Physical contact is then gradually increased
+Furthermore, Gallagher (2000) found that in cases where "entrapment"
+behaviors were reported, 43% of perpetrators initiated physical contact with
+the child and 17% behaved in a sexual manner with the child.
+Furthermore, differences between genders of the victim have also been
+noted in the sexual desensitization type of grooming. Spiegel (2003) noted
+that the use of pornography to sexually desensitize children is more common
+with male victims than with female victims.
+Boundary Violations
+Berliner and Conte (1990) found that 70% of children reported that their
+abusers "accidentally" came into their bedroom or bathroom while they were
+undressing; 61% indicated that their abusers "accidentally" touched their private parts; 61% said that their abusers did not respect their privacy or let
+them close doors; 61% reported that their abusers "accidentally" showed
+their naked body to them; 57% indicated that their abusers would purposely
+do things with the child that involved physical contact; 48% said that their
+abusers made sexual comments about the child's body or clothing; 44%
+reported that their abusers asked them to do things that involved physical
+contact; 30% said that their abusers would inspect the child's body "to see
+how it was developing"; 30% indicated that their abusers "taught sex education" by showing pornographic pictures and touching the child's body; 26%
+reported that their abusers told the child about sexual things he had previously done; and 22% indicated that their abusers put lotion or ointment on
+the child when they were alone but said he was doing nothing wrong.
+According to
+I and Blake's (1990) stages of grooming in
+father-daughter incest, the last step involves the father violating his daughter's boundaries. In particular, fathers may insist on bathing their daughters
+and do not allow other family members to do this. These baths frequently
+involve inappropriate sexual behavior. Fathers also insist on dressing their
+daughters or on watching them get dressed. In addition, fathers will tend
+to watch the child use the bathroom. Finally, perpetrating fathers will have
+sexually explicit conversations with the daughter to further desensitize them.
+Grooming the Child's Environment
+Elliott and colleagues (1995) found that 20% of the offenders in their
+ple admitted they gained the trust of the child's family with the purpose of
+abusing the child. Forty-eight percent isolated their victims through babysitting. Furthermore, Knoll (2010) found that a teacher can also manipulate the
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 13 of 43
+968
+relationship with her victim's parents to gain their approval of spending time
+with their child.
+Van Dam (2001) pointed out that many child molesters spend years gaining the trust of members in the community before actually sexually abusing
+any children. She hypothesized that these offenders use several social psychological techniques to groom the community effectively. As an example,
+they may use "foot-in-the-door technique" by showing up uninvited to a
+child's birthday party and spending time playing games with the children.
+The parents would feel uncomfortable asking this person to leave and have
+thus subtly cooperated with the offender. From then on it would be easier
+for the offender to gain cooperation from the parents on spending time with
+the children. Offenders can also use conformity against these parents—it
+would go against social norms and be rude to ask a person to leave a party
+when the children are enjoying spending time with an offender. In addition,
+cognitive dissonance can play a role as the parents will try to make their
+beliefs about the offender consistent with their actions of letting their children around him or her (they will believe that they think he or she is a good
+person). Finally, confirmation bias can also play a role as the parents will
+tend to only accept information that is confirming their existing beliefs about
+the offender.
+Commonalities
+The two major commonalities in the definitions reviewed as well as the
+empirical studies of grooming are (a) some sort of inappropriate behavior on the part of the prospective abuser (whether it is a bribe, boundary
+violation, invasion of privacy, misstatement of morality, mischaracterizing
+an interaction as a "game," isolation, emotional manipulation, etc.) and (b)
+the function of this inappropriate behavior is to increase the likelihood that
+the adult can sexually abuse the child (by, for example, gaining access to
+them, gaining their trust, silencing them, isolating them, desensitizing them
+to nudity or sex, etc.). Each component of the definition may have different
+topographies in individual cases (e.g., sometimes the inappropriate behavior
+s removing a door to the child's bedroom, or sometimes it may be buy
+ng the child a bikini), but the function of the behavior is to increase th
+likelihood of future abusive contact.
+A PROPOSED DEFINITION
+Any definition ought to use the empirical findings reviewed previously about
+ommon strategies used by sexual molesters. In addition, we believe that th
+nost useful definition of grooming would attempt to instantiate the followin
+definitional meta-criteria:
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 14 of 43
+969
+1. Minimize false negatives. Thus, we wanted the definition to be sensitive
+to all occurrences of grooming.
+2. Minimize false positives. Thus we also wanted the definition at the same
+time to be specific and not overinclusive including perfectly appropriate
+behaviors as invalid examples of grooming).
+3. Be capable of providing the basis for a valid assessment procedure.
+4. Not include constructs that in themselves bring about further definitional
+problems.
+5. Minimize judgment, although not completely avoid it as we believe that
+determining a behavior to be grooming essentially requires some complex
+judgments regarding appropriateness.
+6. Show interrater reliability (have a high degree of agreement across raters).
+7. Allow the rater to have multiple choices regarding final decisions given
+the complexity of individual cases, such as clearly grooming, probably
+grooming, uncertain, or not grooming.
+8. Allow a third party to understand the logic of these judgments and
+conclusions by explicating the decision pathway for these final judgments.
+We propose that grooming be defined as "antecedent inappropriate behavior
+that functions to increase the likelihood of future sexual abuse." There are
+no stages of grooming as there are in some definitions as proposing stages
+necessitates additional definitions and demarcations of each stage. Therefore,
+there are two individual criteria that must be met to consider a behavior to
+be "grooming:" (a) the behavior being evaluated must in and of itself be
+inappropriate and a case for this inappropriateness must be made, and (b) a
+sound argument must be presented that the behavior or behaviors increases
+the likelihood of future sexual abuse. The definition is further elucidated by
+providing a number of exemplars of grooming:
+1. Any sexualization of the relationship such as talking about sex in a way
+that is not permissible given the adult's relationship with the child (e.g.,
+it is permissible for parents to provide sex education to their children) or
+exposing the child to sexually explicit materials such as R rated movies
+(showing the child pornography would be abusive in and of itself and
+therefore not grooming).
+2. Inappropriate gift giving (developmentally or socially inappropriate, such
+as bikinis or bras purchased by a neighbor or teacher).
+3. Inappropriate nonsexual communication with the child (e.g., telling the
+child she is the only one who understands the offender, or telling her "l
+love you" when the social role is not appropriate for this type of communication), particularly when an adult uses these statements to manipulate
+the child to do something (e.g., "I love you and people who love each
+other touch each other").
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 15 of 43
+970
+4. Inappropriate touching of the child (e.g., excessive tickling, hugging.
+wrestling, sitting on lap).
+5. Bribes for inappropriate contact (e.g., bribes for nonsexual or sexual
+touching or bribes to meet the adult secretly).
+6. Threats related to not participating in inappropriate contact.
+7. Inappropriate isolation of the child (e.g., trips where the offender and
+victim are alone that are not part of the normal adult-child relationship.
+It is permissible for a father to drive a child to school), or inappropriately
+discouraging the child to play with friends or be with family. For parents
+or other caretakers, the threshold for what is considered inappropriate
+behavior is higher than for other adults.
+8. Favoritism directed toward the child (e.g., the child is treated much better
+than siblings or classmates, particularly when this is intimate or isolating).
+9. Boundary violations such as inappropriately bathing the child, clothing the
+child, sleeping with the child, the adult being in underwear around the
+child, the adult acting like a child, or the adult sharing private information
+with the child, particularly sexual or relationship information (e.g., "my
+wife and I are not having sex"). Again, for parents, family members or
+caregivers the threshold is much higher for defining a boundary violation
+than for others.
+10. Asking the child to keep secrets, particularly about their contact (e.g.,
+the mother's Christmas present would not be regarded as a problematic
+secret, whereas asking the child to not tell that she was with the offender
+would be).
+11. Providing the child drugs or alcohol (note: although this behavior is
+already abusive, it is not sexually abusive; thus, it can be considered a grooming behavior as it is inappropriate and serves to facilitate
+compliance with the intended sexual abuse).
+12. Misstating moral standards regarding touching, contact, or sex, particularly
+when these relate to adult-child sexual contact or sexualizing a situation.
+13. Repeated violations of the child's privacy (e.g., walking into bathroom
+when child is in there, watching her get dressed, etc.).
+The more of these features present, the more likelihood the individual's
+behavior represents grooming. To further clarify the grooming definition, it
+may be helpful to also look at a few specific exemplars of nongrooming
+behaviors that may be misinterpreted:
+1. Purchasing appropriate gifts for the child (e.g., for birthdays).
+2. Engaging in appropriate hand-holding (e.g., to cross the street).
+3. Bathing a young child by a legitimate caregiver without any inappropriate
+touching.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 16 of 43
+971
+4. Having age-appropriate and relationship-appropriate discussions of body
+parts.
+5. A care-giving figure saying "I love you" without the goal of manipulation
+(not using the phrase to get the child to do something inappropriate).
+THE ASSESSMENT OF GROOMING
+Because grooming is a set of common behaviors seen in child sexual offenders (as the previous reviewed literature seems to support this conclusion),
+it should be possible to assess behaviors to determine whether they are
+indicative that sexual abuse is likely to occur. We have reviewed the published literature and have not been able to find any measures that validly
+assess grooming behaviors (by any definition of grooming). This greatly
+reduces the value of any definition as the practical usefulness of a definition
+is seen in its ability to be operationalized in valid measurement processes
+It is important to develop valid measures as it is not ideal for the detection
+of grooming to be an entirely post hoc process-
+—that is, only after the abuse
+occurs are the gifts seen as inappropriate and thus as part of a grooming
+process. The grooming acts should seem at least somewhat inappropriate
+at the time they are occurring and thus ideally adults can intervene to stop
+future abuse. To resolve this problem, grooming requires a valid definition
+and a psychometrically adequate assessment procedure to reduce both the
+number of false positives and false negatives
+We are currently developing an assessment device that would aid a clinician in coming to a valid conclusion as to whether an individual's behaviors
+can be considered grooming. As mentioned, an assessment of grooming in
+our proposed definition would involve a two-step process: (a) determining
+that the adult's behavior is inappropriate in and of itself, such as if the tickling
+is excessive or the bikini gift is not justified by the nature of the relationship;
+and (b) reasonably arguing that the function of this inappropriate behavior
+is to increase the likelihood of future abusive contact.
+What is "inappropriate" admittedly is somewhat of a vague term that
+requires judgment because we need to clearly differentiate the behavior
+from normal adult-child relationships. However, this judgment requirement
+currently exists for other psychological constructs as well. For example,
+the diagnosis of a major depressive episode might require that a clinician
+judges the client's guilt as "excessive." In addition, under our criteria these
+judgments of inappropriateness should be explicit (there must be a clear
+argument as to why the behavior is inappropriate). Since the argument must
+be explicated, others would be able to evaluate it and decide whether it is a
+nonproblematic judgment of the behavior.
+To illustrate, a male coach buying an eight-year-old girl a bikini would
+generally be considered inappropriate, but the act of buying her a pair of
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 17 of 43
+972
+gym shoes with her mother's consent generally would not. A criticism of this
+definition is that "appropriate" behaviors may be used by some perpetrators
+to groom (e.g., buying a poor child gym shoes may still be performed to
+gain the child's trust to eventually abuse her). However, because this behavior can be entirely unrelated to abuse and because the assessment ought to
+strive to minimize false positives, we have chosen to require that all grooming behaviors be inappropriate in and of themselves. Second, we recognize
+that not all inappropriate behaviors ought to be considered grooming—an
+adult offering cigarettes to a child may be inappropriate but in addition we
+narrow the class of these inappropriate behaviors to those that are related to
+increasing the probability of sexual contact.
+It is important to note that there may be instances in which the questionable behavior falls in some gray area between grooming and nongrooming.
+For example, a father buying his daughter a bikini may or may not be considered inappropriate. Unless more details are known about the context of
+this purchase (perhaps it was just impossible for the mother or some other
+female to do this and the need for a bathing suit was urgent), one could
+explicate reasonable arguments that the behavior is and is not representative of grooming. The most logical judgment to come to, then, is that this
+behavior is an indeterminate case and that it is unclear whether it should be
+considered grooming.
+Arguments also need to be made regarding the second criterion of
+the definition: whether the function of the inappropriate behavior was to
+increase the likelihood of abuse in the future. Interpreting behavior and the
+intentions of a person performing a behavior is admittedly complex. The
+rational appraisal of behavior involves setting up a universe of plausible
+interpretations and gathering evidence in the individual case to rule in or
+rule out each. As an example, if a male neighbor has a pool and buys a
+bikini for a five-year-old girl to come over to swim and has her change into
+the bikini at his house while they are alone (the purchase of the bikini and
+having her change in his house without her guardian present would be considered inappropriate and thus meet the first criterion of the definition), the
+set of major plausible interpretations regarding the function of the behavior
+include:
+1. Buying a bikini for the girl was the only way to allow the child to engage
+in the appropriate activity of swimming. Changing at his house was the
+only way to have the child dressed appropriately for swimming. These
+facts do not function to set the occasion for abuse to occur.
+2. Buying a bikini and having the child change alone is not appropriate
+as there are more appropriate, prudent alternatives. In addition, bikinis
+can be thought of as sexualized clothing and changing alone without a
+guardian present is also a boundary violation. For example, giving money
+to the child's guardian to buy whatever bathing suit the guardian thought
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 18 of 43
+973
+appropriate (perhaps a one piece) is a better way to allow the child
+to engage in the healthy activity of swimming. In addition, the child's
+guardian should always be present when the child is swimming in the
+pool or changing into her bathing suit. This pathway does not increase
+the probability that abuse will occur in the future.
+In this case, clearly the second alternative explanation is superior due to the
+fact that it respects the guardian's control, enhances the guardian's ability to
+supervise the child, does not isolate the child, might involve a less revealing
+swimsuit, and allows the guardian to exercise his or her discretion regarding
+what is appropriate swimwear. In addition, because the first alternative contains false assertions and can set the occasion for abuse, while the second
+alternative contains true assertions and is consistent with decreasing the likelihood of abuse, it is concluded that the behavior under question meets the
+second criterion of our definition of grooming as it is functioning to increase
+the likelihood of future abuse.
+Again, the advantage of this approach is that it explicates the arguments
+for a person's behavior as meeting or not meeting the definitional criteria.
+The situation is complex because often grooming is meant to be disguised
+or ambiguous by the would-be abuser. However, this approach does allow
+the generation of alternatives that would be more prudent and reasonable
+and thus both the inappropriateness and function of the behavior can be
+rationally identified.
+Finally, before this assessment method is accepted it must be evaluated
+with respect to its interrater reliability, predictive validity, sensitivity, and
+specificity. Currently, it is unfortunate that the field has no assessment methods to properly identify grooming and thus understanding the psychometrics
+of this definitional approach (as well as others) ought to be a priority.
+Obviously the proposal of this definition is just a first step, and it generates a large research agenda. Validity studies need to be run on a sample
+of what experts clearly identify as instances of grooming and instances of
+normal behavior to see the extent to which professionals trained in this
+definition can correctly identify these two kinds of behaviors. The rates of
+false positives and false negatives need to be identified in these sorts of
+studies and modifications in the definition, assessment, or training need to
+occur in attempts to minimize these. Randomly controlled studies can be
+used to compare the accuracy of this method as compared to other proposed methods and definitions. Studies need to be conducted investigating
+different types of abuse (e.g., familial versus nonfamilial, boys versus girls,
+young children versus teenagers, majority versus minority culture) to see the
+extent to which this definition is robust across these varying dimensions.
+Again, modifications would need to be made when problems or limitations
+are found. It would also be useful to conduct some longitudinal research
+with high-risk samples to determine the likelihood of accurate detection of
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 19 of 43
+974
+grooming and the prevention of future abuse (by perhaps a comparison with
+a no treatment control). Another important issue is to investigate what sort
+of training programs or materials need to be developed so that a wide variety of professionals can faithfully implement the definition and proposed
+assessment methods.
+CONCLUSIONS
+Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or
+is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about
+key issues such as the interrater reliability of these judgments or the error
+rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false
+positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that
+ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard indicates that in court
+an expert witness may only testify if (a) "the expert's scientific, technical,
+or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
+evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
+methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case" (Rule 702: Testimony by expert witness). Right
+now it does not appear to be the case that there are "reliable principles and
+methods" to define and detect grooming
+We propose a definition of grooming that involves two parts: (a) inappropriate behavior on the part of the adult and (b) sound arguments that this
+inappropriate behavior functions to increase the probability of future sexual
+abuse. We then provide exemplars of this kind of inappropriate behavior.
+Future research on grooming would be more useful to the field if data were
+collected using a single, clear definition such as the one we have proposed.
+This would provide a basis for data to be easily aggregated and better understood, which could lead to the admissibility of grooming evidence in forensic
+settings. Furthermore, we are currently working to develop valid psychometric instruments with known reliability and validity to assess grooming
+according to this standard.
+REFERENCES
+18 SC 252g raph. in dies selling to material cositie. er creaming,
+http://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 20 of 43
+975
+Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victims"
+perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 29-40.
+Berson, I. R. (2003). Grooming cybervictims: The psychosocial effects of online
+exploitation for youth. Journal of School Violence, 2(1), 5-18.
+Brackenridge, C. H. (2001). Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual
+exploitation in sport. London, England: Routledge.
+1. D. (2001). Developing strategies for collecting and presenting grooming evidence in a high tech world. National Center for Prosecution of Child
+Abuse Update, 14(11). Retrieved from http://www.ndaa-apri.org/publications/
+newsletters/update_volume_14_number_11_2001.html
+Budin, 1. E., &/
+•. C. E. (1989). Sexual abuse prevention: Offenders' attitudes
+about their efficacy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 77-87.
+J. R., & Blake, R. H. (1990). The grooming process in father-daughter
+incest. In A. L. Horton (Ed.), The incest perpetrator: A family member no one
+wants to treat (pp. 88-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
+Conte, J. R.,
+S., &
+T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about
+prevention strategies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13(2), 293-301.
+Craven, S., l
+, S., & Gilchrist, E. (2006). Sexual grooming of children: Review
+of literature and theoretical considerations. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(3),
+287-299.
+Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What
+offenders tell us. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19(5), 579-594.
+Gallagher, B. (1999). The abuse of children in public care. Child Abuse Revieu, 8,
+357-365.
+Gallagher, B. (2000). The extent and nature of known cases of institutional child
+sexual abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 795-817.
+Gillespie, A. (2002). Child protection on the internet: Challenges for criminal law.
+Child and Family Law Quarterly, 14(4), 411-425.
+Gillespie, A. (2004). "Grooming": Definitions and the law. New Law Journal,
+154(7124), 586-587.
+Groth, A. N., Hobson, W. F., & Gary, T. S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. In J. R. Conic & D. A. Shore (Eds.), Social work and child sexual abuse
+(pp. 129-144). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
+Hartill, M. (2009). The sexual abuse of boys in organized male sports. Men and
+Masculinities, 12, 225-249.
+Herman, J. L. (1981). Fatber-daugbter incest. Cambridge,
+Harvard University
+Howitt, D. (1995). Paedopbiles and sexual offences against children. Oxford,
+England: John Wiley and Sons.
+Knoll, J. (2010). Teacher sexual misconduct: Grooming patterns and female
+offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19, 371-386.
+Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley, CA: University of California
+Press.
+Leberg, E. (1997). Understanding child molesters: Taking charge. Thousand Oaks,
+CA: Sage.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 21 of 43
+976
+McAlinden, A. (2006). "Setting 'em up": Personal, familial and institutional grooming
+in the sexual abuse of children. Social G Legal Studies, 15(3), 339-362.
+Mower, L. (2012, July 22). Sex assault conviction may be test case for testimony standards. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved from http://www.lvrj.com/news/sexassault-conviction-may-be-test-case-for-testimony-standards-163325306.html
+'Callaghan, D. (2011, November 7). Jailed after grooming teen online: Facebook
+groomer is jailed. South Wales Evening Post. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.
+com/hottopics/Inacademic
+O'Connell, R. (2003). A typology of child cybersexploitation and online grooming practices. Retrieved September 2012 from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_
+documents/lis_Paper|Price.pdf
+O'Donohue, W. (2013). Clinical psychology and the philosophy of science. New York,
+NY: Springer.
+Rule 702. Testimony by expert witness. (n.d.). In Legal Information Institute online.
+Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702
+Salter, A. (1995). Transforming trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult
+survivors of child sexual abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
+Seto, M. (2008). Pedophilia. In D.R. Laws & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance:
+Tbeory, assessment, and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford.
+Sgroi, S. M. (1982). Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse.
+Lexington, MS: Lexington Books.
+Shakeshaft, C. (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A syntbesis of existing literature
+(U.S. Department of Education Document No. 2004-09). Washington, DC: U.S.
+Department of Education.
+Spiegel, J. (2003). Sexual abuse of males: The l
+model of tbeory and practice. New
+York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
+Van Dam, C. (2001). Identifying child molesters: Preventing child sexual abuse by
+recognizing the patterns of the offenders. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
+Vance, A. (2012, August 29). Prison for online grooming proposed. The Dominion
+Post (Wellington, New Zealand). Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/
+Inacademic
+Wyre, R. (1987). Working with sex offenders. Oxford, England: |
+Publications.
+AUTHOR NOTES
+Natalie Bennett, BS, is a graduate student in the Clinical Psychology Doctoral
+Program at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her current research interests
+focus on child sexual abuse and assessment of psychological constructs.
+William O'Donohue, PhD, is a professor of psychology at the University
+of Nevada, Reno. He is also the clinical director of the Victims of Crime
+Treatment Center, a treatment clinic for victims of sexual abuse or assault,
+in Reno, Nevada. He received his and PhD from the State University of
+New York at Stony Brook in Stony Brook, New York.
+
+
+Ise 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 22 of
+Commentary
+Grooming and
+Seduction
+Journal of Interpersonal Violence
+2018, Vol. 33(1) 28-36
+© The Author(s) 2017
+Reprints and permissions:
+sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
+DOl: 10.1177/08862605 17742060
+journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv
+OSAGE
+Park Dietz'
+Abstract
+Ken Lanning's recollections of the origins of the use of the term "grooming"
+to refer to techniques used by acquaintances to gain sexual access to and
+control over children is an important contribution to the history of the
+significant recognition that many cases of child sexual abuse occur at the
+hands of offenders who are acquaintances of the child and who do not need
+to use force, threats, or violence to gain the compliance of their victims.
+That this recognition was slow in coming is obvious in retrospect, as is true
+of any social problem that remains hidden for centuries only to burst into
+public consciousness over the course of a few years. In this article, I report
+the results of searches using Google Scholar to look at the introduction of
+this use of the term "grooming" to the peer-reviewed literature in 1984 and
+its increasing use through 2016. Since 2008, the usage has been adopted
+in hundreds of articles in the professional literature each year, suggesting
+that this usage of the term "grooming" will remain common in the decades
+ahead. I also examine the history of the term "seduction" in the context of
+child sexual abuse, particularly two archaic uses of the term: as a euphemism
+for any sexual or sexually stimulating encounter between child and adult and
+in the context of suggestions that it was the child who seduced the adult.
+To avoid resurrecting any confusion over these issues, it would be a mistake
+to abandon "grooming" in favor of "seduction." | conclude that the best
+strategy may be that adopted by Lanning of using the terms grooming and
+seduction in tandem, explaining the parallels between the seduction of one
+adult by another and the grooming or seduction of a child by an adult.
+'Park Dietz & Associates, Newport Beach, CA, USA
+Corresponding Author:
+Park Dietz, Park Dietz & Associates, Newport Beach, CA 92663, USA.
+Emall: expert@parkdietzassoclates.com
+
+
+ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 23 of
+29
+Keywords
+grooming, seduction, child sexual abuse, acquaintance molestation, litigation
+Grooming and Seduction
+In the development of knowledge of child sexual abuse, few discoveries
+could outweigh the importance of recognizing that a large proportion of
+offenses are committed by acquaintances of the child using techniques other
+than force or threat of force. No individual has done more to share this insight
+with the international law enforcement community than Ken Lanning, whose
+writings and teachings have also reached mental health professionals, those
+who work in the criminal justice and social service systems, those who care
+for the nation's children, and countless concerned citizens and parents.
+The application of the terms "seduction" or "grooming" to these nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent techniques has been in the service of disseminating this important insight, which first burst into public consciousness
+reports about the McMartin School case and the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe,
+both of which stories first broke in 1984. Yet even today, far too many people,
+including many who should know better, have difficulty grasping the possibility of nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent acquaintance molestation,
+as their preconceptions of childhood innocence and predatory molesters are
+too strong to allow them to accept that children can be so readily manipulated
+into doing or allowing things that others find abhorrent.
+Grooming
+Lanning (2018) is precisely correct in dating to the 1980s the use of the term
+"grooming" to refer to techniques for gaining sexual access to children and in
+his observation that during the 1980s, this usage gradually increased. Using
+the search capabilities of Google Scholar, I found no use of the word "grooming" to mean such techniques in conjunction with the terms "child sexual
+abuse,* "child molestation," or "child molester" in the professional literature
+from 1850 through 1983. The first publication identified by Google Scholar
+as using the term "grooming" in this way was an article by Conte (1984) citing Groth and Birnbaum (1979) for the proposition that "[i]n most cases,
+except those involving abuse by a stranger, the perpetrator involves children
+in sexual abuse through a grooming process in which a combination of kindness, attention, material enticement, special privilege, and coercion are
+
+
+ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 24 of
+30
+Figure I. Use of the term "grooming" in association with "child sexual abuse" in
+the professional literature accessed by Google Scholar, 1984-2016, as of 25 August,
+expertly applied" (p. 558). Groth and Birnbaum accurately describe the process (at p. 142-143), but do not use the term "grooming."
+Figure 1 shows how the maximum number of publications in the database
+using the term "grooming" for this meaning' has increased since 1984. For
+frequency
+from 282 to 533.
+My own recollection of the growing use of the term "grooming" in this
+context during the 1980s and 1990s is that it spread not only through peerreviewed literature and books, but also though the teaching and training being
+conducted by Ken Lanning, Ann Burgess, and other thought leaders of the era,
+and that it was gradually adopted by journalists and the general public as well.
+As the term came to be widely applied, it became increasingly obvious that
+offenders who groom children often groom the parents of those children, the
+organizations through which they work or volunteer with children, and the
+communities in which they function. The success of these offenders in doing
+so makes it all the more difficult for observers to overcome the false belief that
+such a "nice guy" could not be harming children (Lanning & Dietz, 2014).
+Lanning (2018) points to some of the ways in which the term "grooming"
+has been misapplied (e.g., to refer to the use of "lures" in stranger cases or
+what might be expected parental behaviors in intrafamilial cases) but does
+
+
+Ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 25 of
+31
+not mention the misuse of the term in civil litigation. Where a victim is suing
+an employer or organization in connection with the sexual abuse of a minor
+by an employee or volunteer, it has become commonplace for the victim's
+advocate to argue that the failure to detect "grooming" was negligent on the
+part of the employer or organization. If their use of the term "grooming"
+always encompassed excessive focus on a particular child, time alone with
+the child, or inappropriate touching, this usage might not be problematic, but
+when "grooming" is applied to such common and desirable behaviors as
+being kind or attentive or helpful or caring, there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing that these latter behaviors are wellestablished predictors of child sexual abuse when there is no evidence
+whatsoever that they can help discriminate between good employees and volunteers, on the one hand, and risky employees and volunteers, on the other
+hand. In the litigation context, efforts to expand the concept of "grooming" to
+encompass desirable behaviors that are not associated with elevated risk is
+misleading, particularly when coupled with the presumption or suggestion
+that "grooming" always reflects an intent or plan to offend or, worse, that an
+offense can be proved by the fact that the accused engaged in "grooming."
+Seduction
+Although I agree with Lanning (2018) that the term "seduction" is preferable
+to the term "grooming," at least when there is an opportunity to explain how
+similar the seduction of a child is to the seduction of an age-appropriate partner, there is ample historical reason to be cautious about the use of the term
+"seduction" in this context without further explanation. This is because of
+two archaic usages of "seduction" in the older literature.
+Archaic Usage #I: Seduction as a Euphemism for the Offense
+One of the archaic usages of "seduction," found often in the older scientific
+literature, is as a vague euphemism for any occurrence of child sexual abuse
+or an event that may have been sexually simulating to the child, as in these
+passages.
+• "[A] shock of some kind is held responsible for the neurosisan
+attack by an animal, a threat of castration, a seduction, an actual viewing of parental coitus ..." (Isaacs, 1928, p. 193).
+• "... I wondered whether the precocity of these fantasies and their
+frequency might not be due to actual seduction that the child had experienced ..." (Rank, 1942, p. 56).
+
+
+Ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 26 of
+32
+#
+. It was expected that a connection would be found between the
+child's symptom and the seduction, which was assumed to be the traumatic factor….." (Bornstein, 1946, p. 230).
+• "... [W]here father or mother, either consciously or unconsciously,
+elevate the child into a substitute sexual partner or commit real acts of
+seduction with him..." (A. Freud, 1968, p. 45).
+encounter, it can range from milder types, such as exposing oneself
+and enticing the child to follow suit, all the way to forcible rape"
+(Finch, 1974, p. 34).
+"She was then able to use the dolls to reveal the drama of her own
+seduction and the ensuing family chaos ..." (Mrazek, 1980, p. 279).
+Here "seduction" is not referring to the process by which a child is
+groomed or seduced but to the offensive event itself. Freud's seduction
+hypothesis "... generalized that the roots of all adult neuroses lay in childhood sexual contacts with adults" (Gagnon, 1965, p. 177). The vagueness of
+this use of "seduction" makes it impossible to determine which child sexual
+abuse behaviors are and are not encompassed by the term and suggests that
+"seduction" may mean different specific things to different authors.
+Authors sometimes imply that "seduction" does not include violence, as when
+they distinguish it from rape or other violent assaults, as in these examples:
+• "Klein has stated that an experience of seduction or rape by a grownup person may have serious effects upon the child's psychic development.." (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 500).
+• "[T]he possible ... event of seduction, incest, or rape ..."
+&
+Sarrel, 1969, p. 606).
+• "Violence is rarely found to accompany the incestuous act, possibly
+because seduction, passive compliance, or sexual curiosity or exploration promote such relationships"
+-. 1979, p. 8).
+• "Children can be broken much more easily than adults, and the effect
+on them of torture, hatred, seduction, and rape or even of indifference, of deprivation of love and care—is the devastating one of developmental arrest ..." (Shengold, 1979, p. 537).
+Although this usage comports with the modern idea of seduction or
+grooming insofar as it is to be distinguished from the use of force, threats, or
+iolence, we would not today distinguish seduction from rape but rathe
+rould view seduction (or grooming) as a means of completing a rape or othe
+sexual offense with minimal resistance or risk of disclosure.
+
+
+Ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 27 of
+33
+Cioffi (1976) interpreted Freud as using the concept of seduction to refer
+only to nonviolent sexual assaults, writing "... he duly reported that he had
+discovered the specific cause of psychoneurotic disorder: A passive sexual experience before puberty. In other words, a seduction" (p. 275). Cioffi's (1976) quotations of Freud in the same article support this interpretation: "Freud later
+assigned to his patients in phrases like: 'hysterics trace back their symptoms to
+fictitious traumas' — or patients 'ascribe their symptoms to passive sexual experiences in early childhood'" (p. 277). Even here, however, what constitutes a
+"passive sexual experience" is unclear, as it could mean the offender did not use
+violence, that the child did not resist, or that the child was not an active
+participant.
+Archaic Usage #2: The Child as Seducer
+A second archaic usage of "seduction" is to refer to the child's tempting of the
+offender. This is diametrically opposed to our current thinking about child sexual
+abuse in its suggestion that it is the child who is at fault, as in these examples:
+• ".. ￾ [A] most striking feature was that these children were distinguished as unusually charming and attractive in their outward personalities. Thus, it is not remarkable that frequently we considered the
+possibility that the child might have been the actual seducer rather
+than the one innocently seduced" (Bender & Blau, 1937, p. 514).
+• "The majority of pedophiles are harmless individuals and their victims
+are usually known to be aggressive and seductive children" (Revitch
+& Weiss, 1962, p. 78).
+• "In many [cases] it was highly probable that the child had used his
+charm in the role of seducer rather than that he had been the innocent
+one who had been seduced ..." (Bender & Grugett, 1952, p. 826).
+• •
+(1907) and Bender and Blau (1937) have commented on
+how charming and seductive these children can be" (Rosenfeld,
+Nadelson, Krieger, & Backman, 1977, p. 332).
+Three examples of authors attempting to remedy this archaic view are as
+follows:
+
+
+Ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 28 of
+34
+"Because the affectional needs of the child are not adequately met by the
+parents, the child may indiscriminately relate to adults in an affection-seeking manner in an effort to ensure her emotional survival.
+Numerous other investigators have characterized this behavior of the child
+as "seductive'. However, our study indicates that this behavior is instead the
+child's often desperate attempt to meet her needs for care and attention...
+The child's behavior may often appear sexualized to an adult ... As a result,
+it is more appropriate to describe this behavior as affection-seeking rather
+than seductive" (Johnston, 1979, pp. 948-949).
+• "'Everybody knows' that adults must protect themselves from groundless accusations of seductive or vindictive young people. ... What
+everybody does not know, and would not want to know, is that the vast
+majority of investigated accusations prove valid and that most of the
+young people were less than eight years old at the time of initiation"
+(Summit, 1983, p. 178).
+Conclusion
+Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984,
+the term "grooming" has become so widely adopted that it will remain in
+widespread use for decades to come. We can and should clarify the meaning
+of the term wherever possible to avoid misuse or misleading of our audiences. We could benefit from prospective studies of the frequency of grooming-like behaviors among adults in target-rich environments such as schools,
+youth sports, and youth groups, which could help distinguish behaviors portending risk from those that do not, though it would require a large sample
+and a long time to reveal at least some of the offenders in the sample.
+The two archaic uses of the term "seduction" in the context of child sexual
+abuse identified here are too recent and too widely known to justify completely
+abandoning the term "grooming" in favor of "seduction," even if it were possible
+to do so. Perhaps the best strategy is that adopted by Lanning (2018) of explaining the parallel between the courtship and mating rituals that adults use with one
+another and the courtship and mating rituals that some use with children.
+Declaration of Conflicting Interests
+The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
+authorship, and/or publication of this article.
+
+
+Ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 29 of
+35
+Funding
+The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
+Note
+1. The data on which Figure 1 is based are derived from year-by-year searches
+of Google Scholar for the combination of the terms "child sexual abuse" and
+"grooming," excluding citations and patents. One should not assume that the
+underlying database is complete or that all the publications included in the count
+use "grooming" in this way or represent peer-reviewed literature, as newsletters,
+government reports, books, and other documents also make their way into such
+searches. Nonetheless, the graph gives an adequate representation of the growing
+use of the term "grooming" for this purpose.
+References
+, K. (1907). The experiencing of sexual traumas as a form of sexual activity. In E.
+| (Ed.), Selected papers on psycho-analysis (pp. 47-63). London,
+England: Hogarth Press.
+Bender, L., & Blau, A. (1937). The reaction of children to sexual relations with adults.
+American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 7, 500-518.
+Bender, L., & Grugett, Jr., A. E. (1952). A follow-up study of children who had atypical sexual experience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 22, 825-837.
+Bornstein, B. (1946). Hysterical twilight states in an eight-year-old child. The
+Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 2, 229-240.
+Cioffi, F. (1976). Was Freud a liar? Orthomolecular Psychiatry, 5, 275-280.
+Review, 58, 556-568.
+Finch, S. M. (1974). Effects of adult sexual seduction on children. Journal of Clinical
+Child Psychology, 3, 33-35.
+Freud, A. (1968). Indications and contraindications for child analysis. The
+Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 23, 37-46.
+Gagnon, J. H. (1965). Female child victims of sex offenses. Social Problems, 13,
+176-192.
+Groth, A. N., & Bimbaum, H. J. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the
+offender. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
+Isaacs, S. S. (1928). The mental hygiene of the pre-school child. British Journal of
+Medical Psychology, 8, 186-193.
+Johnston, M. S. K. (1979). The sexually mistreated child: Diagnostic evaluation.
+Child Abuse & Neglect, 3, 943-951.
+Kris, E. (1950). The significance of Freud's earliest discoveries. The International
+Journal of Psychoanalysis, 31, 108-116.
+Lanning, K. V. (2018). The evolution of grooming: Concept and term. Journal of
+Interpersonal Violence, 33, 5-16.
+
+
+Ise 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 30 of
+36
+Laming organisis Die. real of creama rolence, 29, 2nd you doi
+10.1177/0886260514532360
+•. M., & Sarrel, P.M. (1969). Some psychological aspects of seduction, incest,
+and rape in childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 8,
+Lipton, G. L.., & Roth, E. I. (1969). Rape: A complex management problem in the
+pediatric emergency room. The Journal of Pediatries, 75, 859-866.
+Mrazek, D. A. (1980). The child psychiatric examination of the sexually abused child.
+Child Abuse & Neglect, 4, 275-284.
+Rank, B. (1942). Where child-analysis stands today. American Imago; A
+Psychoanalytic Journal for the Arts and Sciences, 3(3), 41-60.
+Revitch, E., & Weiss, R. G. (1962). The pedophiliac offender. Diseases of the Nervous
+Rosenfeld, A. A., Nadelson, C. C.., Krieger, M., & Backman, J. H. (1977). Incest and
+sexual abuse of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry,
+Shengold, L. L. (1979). Child abuse and deprivation: Soul murder. Journal of the
+American Psychoanalytic Association, 27, 533-559.
+.. M. (1979). Perspective on incest as child abuse. Australian & New Zealand
+Journal of Criminology, 12, 3-16.
+Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse
+Author Biography
+Park Dietz, MD, MPH, PhD, was educated at Cornell, Johns
+University of Pennsylvania, and taught for 10 years at Harvard Medical School and
+the University of Virginia School of Law and School of Medicine. He is now a clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at University of California, Los
+Angeles (UCLA). As president of Park Dietz & Associates, Inc., he regularly oversees forensic evaluations of psychological damages and expert assessments of liability in child sexual abuse litigation, and as president of Threat Assessment Group, Inc.,
+he regularly participates in the development and implementation of programs to prevent and respond to misconduct in organizations and institutions.
+
+
+Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 31 of 43
+Journal of Sexual Aggression
+(November 2006), Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 287
+299
+R Rutledge
+Taylor & Franch Group
+Sexual grooming of children: Review of
+literature and theoretical considerations
+Samantha Craven,' * Sarah Brown' & Elizabeth Gilchrist?
+'Department of Psychology, Coventry University, Coventry, UK, and 'Department of Psychology,
+University of
+Canterbury,
+UK
+-
+Abstract The current review aims to outline the existing understanding of sexual grooming. Issues
+of poor definition, the adoption of the term "grooming" and the prevalence of sexual grooming will be
+discussed. Consideration will be given to how prominent theories of child sexual abuse often neglect
+sexual grooming. This will be followed by a detailed account of the existing knowledge within the
+literature. Three types of sexual grooming were thus identified: self-grooming, grooming the
+environment and significant others and grooming the child. Based on these findings, a new definition
+of sexual grooming is suggested. Furthermore, the findings correspond well with current models of the
+sexual offence process. A more comprehensive understanding of sexual grooming is required to facilitate
+a preventative approach to child protection.
+Keywords Sexual grooming; theory of child sexual abuse
+Introduction
+The complex nature of the tactics used by child sex offenders in their efforts to sexually abuse
+children is increasingly evident in the accounts of the people affected by this predatory
+behaviour. Sexual grooming is a pertinent issue evident in society, but there is still little
+understanding about this phenomenon. This is reflected in problems relating to definition,
+about the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Based on these findings, a new definition is
+presented and consideration is given to how current knowledge of sexual grooming relate to
+models of the sexual offence process.
+Definition
+Professionals are yet to agree on a definition of sexual grooming of children (Gillespie, 2004).
+Previous literature has provided three specific definitions of grooming. The strengths and
+*Corresponding author: Samantha Craven, Department of Psychology, Coventry University, Priory Street,
+Coventry CV1 5FB, UK. Tel: 02476 887 048. Fax: 02476 888300. E-mail: s.craven/@coventry.ac.uk
+ISSN 1355 2600 print/1742 6545 online © 2006 National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers
+DOI: 10.1080/13552600601069414
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 32 of 43
+288 S. Craven et al.
+weaknesses of these definitions are discussed in turn below. First, O'Connell defines sexual
+grooming as:
+A course of conduct enacted by a suspected paedophile, which would give a reasonable
+person cause for concern that any meeting with a child arising from the conduct would be
+for unlawful purposes. (O'Connell, 2003, p. 6)
+Second, Howitt suggests that:
+Grooming •.. is the steps taken by paedophiles to "entrap" their victims and is in
+someways analogous to adult courtship. (Howitt, 1995, p. 176)
+These two definitions are problematic, because they both refer to the term paedophile. Most
+sexual offenders who target child victims use sexual grooming, not just those classified as
+paedophiles. The term "paedophile" is a very specific clinical diagnosis, clearly not applicable
+to all offenders, and the association of grooming behaviour with paedophilia may prevent
+some offenders from acknowledging their own grooming behaviours. In addition, people
+known to the offender may not identify the grooming behaviour because they do not consider
+the individual to fit their image of a "paedophile". The public perception of a paedophile is
+littered with stereotypes that they are "dirty old men" or strangers; these perceptions may
+affect an individual's judgement of whether the behaviour they have observed is grooming.
+These misperceptions distract from the truth that most victims know their abuser. It is
+important that the wording of a definition does not thwart the identification of sexual
+grooming and the subsequent prevention or ending of abuse.
+Furthermore, the phrase "a course of conduct" requires subsequent definition.
+Additional problems include reference to "a reasonable person" and "cause for concern".
+Although legal precedent defines these phrases, they are ambiguous to the lay reader and
+grooming behaviours.
+Gillespie (2002) provides the third definition:
+The process by which a child is befriended by a would-be abuser in an attempt to gain the
+child's confidence and trust, enabling them to get the child to acquiesce to abusive
+activity. It is frequently a pre-requisite for an abuser to gain access to a child. (Gillespie,
+2002, p. 411; based on van Dam, 2001)
+This definition avoids the use of the term paedophile. It also provides some clarity about the
+purpose of sexual grooming behaviour and identifies some of the stages that it involves. This
+appears to be the most appropriate published definition to date. Further evaluation of this
+definition will follow consideration of previous literature and current understanding about
+sexual grooming.
+Prevalence
+Canter, Hughes and Kirby (1998) provide evidence for the prevalence of the sexual grooming
+phenomenon. They used Small Space Analysis on a behaviour matrix of the interaction
+between 97 incarcerated child sex offenders and their victims. They identified three distinct
+behaviour repertoires of offender-victim interaction. The different types of offender-victim
+interaction acknowledged were aggressive, which was identifiable by the use of extreme
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 33 of 43
+Sexual grooming of children 289
+violence, threat and force; criminal-opportunist, which tended to be one-off offences on
+strangers; and intimate, which was categorized by the identified use of sexual grooming
+behaviours.
+Forty-five per cent of Canter et al's (1998) sample were classified as being intimate
+offenders. Thus, 45% of the child sex offenders employed an intimate behaviour repertoire
+and sexual grooming behaviours. This figure is likely to be unrepresentative of the child sex
+offender population as a whole. Intimate offenders tend to cause less physical harm to their
+victims than the other categories of offenders and the very nature of the behaviour used to
+categorize the intimate offenders implies that they would be less likely to be reported,
+identified and convicted, because these grooming behaviours are used to avoid disclosure and
+conviction. Hence, it is likely that intimate offenders were under-represented in this prison
+Figures show that eight of 10 sex abuse victims know their abuser (Stop it Now, 2003). In
+such cases, offenders have substantial interest in preventing disclosure, because in the event of
+disclosure the victim would be able to easily identify them as their abuser. This is supported
+by offenders' accounts about the strategies they employed to victimize the children they
+sexually abused; fear of disclosure affected how and when they victimized their victims
+(Conte,
+1, 1989).
+Aetiology of' a motivation to abuse
+Before an individual begins to groom a child, some level of motivation to abuse a child needs
+to be present. Furthermore, adequate theories of sexual offending should be able to account
+for the phenomenon of sexual grooming. Until recently there have been three dominant
+theories of child sexual abuse, namely Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model (1984); Marshall and
+Barbaree's Integrated Theory (1990); and and Hirschman's Quadripartite Model
+(1992). In 2002, |
+and Siegert proposed a more comprehensive theory of child sexual
+abuse by "knitting together" the strengths of each of the above theories. They propose that
+there are five pathways to sexual offending against children; hence, the theory is called The
+Pathways Model. This review shall consider each of these only briefly, because and
+colleagues have already provided in-depth reviews (see |
+1, 2001, 2002; L
+& Hudson,
+2001). Herein, more emphasis will be placed on how these theories relate to the phenomenon
+of sexual grooming.
+Marshall and Barbaree's Integrated Theory
+Marshall and Barbaree's (1990) Integrated Theory of the atiology of sexual offending
+proposes that the presence of vulnerabilities, which develop as a result of adverse early
+developmental experiences, leave offenders unprepared to deal with the surge of hormones at
+puberty, and unable to understand the emotional world. As a resultant, offenders satisfy their
+emotional and sexual needs inappropriately in deviant ways. This theory suggests that sexual
+offending occurs as a consequence of an individual's sex and aggression drives becoming
+fused, as these functions share the same structure in the brain.
+and Siegert (2002) state
+that this need not be the case, as there are many functions that are close in proximity but that
+do not affect each other. Furthermore, this theory suggests that sexual offending would be
+aggressive. Therefore, it would seem that it does not account for the phenomenon of sexual
+grooming, because the process of sexual grooming is generally not aggressive in nature.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 34 of 43
+290 S. Craven et al.
+However, this criticism may be countered if a definition of aggression were to include indirect
+aggression, which sexual grooming could be considered to be.
+Zand Hirschman's Quadripartite Model
+and Hirschman's (1992) Quadripartite Model was first developed as a theory of rape, but
+it was applied subsequently to child sexual abuse. This model suggests that someone commits
+an act of child sexual abuse because of four vulnerability factors and the presence of
+opportunity. The vulnerability factors are physiological sexual arousal, distorted cognitions
+that act to justify sexual aggression, affective dyscontrol, and personality problems. It is
+suggested that offending will occur when the presence of these vulnerability factors exceed a
+threshold, this could include one or all of these vulnerabilities. There are several problems
+with this model; first, it does not explain why someone chooses to offend against a child rather
+than an adult. Second, sexual grooming is not an impulsive act and the threshold would need
+to be maintained over a long period of time in order to explain sexual grooming, because it
+can occur over weeks, months or even years. Hence, this theory can account for sexual
+grooming if it is accepted that, for example, sexual arousal persists over long periods of time,
+so once sexually aroused to children/child the offender would be continually aroused to them.
+A further problem with this theory relates to the presence of opportunity; offenders often
+create their own opportunities to offend.
+Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model
+Finkelhor's Pre-condition Model (1984) suggests that there are four pre-conditions to sexual
+offending. The first is the motivation to sexually abuse; it is suggested that this develops as a
+result of emotional congruence (a fit between the offender's emotional needs and the child's
+ability to meet them), deviant sexual arousal and blockage (the sexual needs of the offender
+not being met by appropriate adults). The second is to be able to overcome internal inhibitors;
+the third is to be able to overcome external inhibitors; and the fourth is to overcome the child's
+resistance. Before an incidence of abuse would take place, these pre-conditions need to be
+satisfied. Although Finkelhor does not use the term sexual grooming, others (e.g.
+Erooga & Beckett, 1994; Sampson, 1994) have reviewed his work using this term. They
+referred to overcoming the child's resistance as grooming.
+and Siegert's Pathways Model
+and Siegert's (2002) model is based on the dysfunction of one or more psychological
+mechanisms—emotional regulation, intimacy deficits, cognitive distortions and sexual
+arousal (deviant sexual scripts). All the aforementioned psychological mechanisms are
+involved to some degree. There is evidence of these dysfunctional mechanisms being present
+typically in child molesters, although to different degrees and for different functions. The five
+possible pathways are specified by whichever dysfunctional psychological mechanism is the
+most dominant; in turn this will affect the others. In the case of the fifth pathway, all the
+psychological mechanisms would be similarly dysfunctional. A sexual offence occurs when the
+above is present in conjunction with sexual need. In addition,
+and Siegert still
+emphasize the importance of there being an opportunity to offend; however, the nature of
+sexual grooming is to create an opportunity to offend. Successful theory would need to
+account for this.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 35 of 43
+Sexual grooming of children 291
+Despite
+and Siegert presenting their Pathways Model as a comprehensive theory of
+sexual offending, it still only considers actiology and no consideration is given to the offence
+process. In a comprehensive theory it is necessary to consider the whole journey from initial
+onset to the offence and beyond. In a similar way that the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska &
+DiClemente, 1982) of change considers not only the action stage, where the overt behaviour is
+changed, but also the precontemplation, contemplation, preparation and maintenance stages, a
+theory of sexual offending against children needs to consider the whole journey. As
+demonstrated above, it is necessary that theories of actiology are coherent with the
+phenomenon they are attempting to explain. While endeavouring to explain sexual offending
+it is important that sexual grooming is also factored into the equation, because it is part of the
+sexual offending phenomenon. Of the above theories, only Finkelhor's (1984) Pre-condition
+Model has taken this approach.
+Offence process
+In addition to the Pre-condition Model (Finkelhor, 1984) there is one other model that
+considers the offence process of sexual offending. This is the Descriptive Model of the
+Offence Chain (
+., Louden, Hudson & Marshall, 1995).
+et al's model provides a
+much more detailed account of the offence process than the Pre-condition Model. While little
+et al. used a
+background factors, including their perception of themselves and their life at the beginning
+of the offence chain and whether these factors caused positive or negative affect. Stage two
+describes distal planning of access to their victim; this could take the form of implicit, or
+explicit planning or chance. Contact with the victim takes place in stage three. Stage four
+involves cognitive restructuring, which will result in either positive or negative affect. Stage
+five entails proximal planning, which would either be self-focused, victim-focused or a
+mutual-focus. This leads to stage six and the sexual offence, which is followed by further
+cognitive restructuring at stage seven. This results in negative or positive evaluation and future
+resolutions regarding continued offending at stage eight. This resolution will be to either avoid
+future offending or to persist in an abusive pattern. Stage nine depicts the impact of these
+resolutions on the offender's life.
+It is important to consider how sexual grooming fits into, and facilitates, the offence
+process, as this understanding is likely to aid the management of offenders and potential
+offenders by identifying the offence process prior to an sexual offence taking place. In
+addition, it is reasonable to suggest that motivation is not static but could be affected by later
+stages of the grooming and offence process, e.g. cognitive distortions developed later in the
+process could serve to reinforce prior motivation resulting in an entrenched deviant sexual
+interest. This may prove valuable to treatment programmes efforts of reducing motivation to
+offend.
+The grooming process
+The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming present in the literature
+elf-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the child
+ach of these will be discussed to explore current understanding of sexual grooming
+Understanding of the grooming process and an ability to identify sexual grooming behaviour
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 36 of 43
+292 S. Craven et al.
+is crucial in order to prevent child sexual abuse. However, retrospective identification of
+sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than
+prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence. Nevertheless, the latter is necessary in
+order to prevent the sexual abuse from taking place. The reason for this is because the
+behaviours used to groom a child for sexual abuse are not dissimilar to innocent behaviour
+intended to broaden a young person's experiences. The only difference may be the motivation
+underlying the behaviour.
+Self-grooming
+van Dam (2001) reports that during treatment, offenders' talk about "grooming themselves".
+They were referring to the justification or denial of their offending behaviour. It therefore
+seems important to consider this as part of the grooming process. However, it may be more
+agreeable to refer to this phenomenon by another name, avoiding the use of the term
+"grooming". Nevertheless, self-grooming is likely to play a part in the move from being
+motivated to sexually abuse a child to the subsequent targeting of a child, through the
+justification or denial of the steps child sexual offenders take towards abusing a child.
+Furthermore, self-grooming is likely to be affected by the response from the community and
+the child, and the success or failure of the efforts to victimize the child. "Success" is likely to
+result in further justification or denial of their actions and more entrenched sexual interest in
+children and motivation to offend.
+"Failure", on the other hand, is likely to result in the
+desistence of offending or the offender developing/enahancing his skills/strategies to ensure
+success.
+Justification and denial of offenders' behaviour manifests in cognitive distortions.
+and Keenan (1999) propose that child sex offenders have cognitive distortions in the form of
+implicit theories, which relate to themselves, the victim and the world. Implicit theories help
+individuals to understand the world around them. Problems arise because offenders' implicit
+theories are maladaptive and supportive of sex with children. These implicit theories
+subsequently affect encoding and interpretation of future behaviours and events. [
+and
+Keenan have identified five implicit theories that account for most of the cognitive distortions
+held by child sex offenders: children as sexual objects; entitlement; dangerous world;
+uncontrollability; and nature of harm.
+Of course, it is not only offenders who have maladaptive implicit theories. For example,
+many people have an implicit theory that children are at most risk from strangers, which is not
+consistent with research findings. However, it is easier to believe that strangers sexually abuse
+children than accept that friends and family do; hence, this implicit theory helps to shelter
+peals from thie arch manures f relieve oftendes i edic cd tries thank ince fimilar way
+sexually abused a child.
+Grooming the environment and significant others
+Grooming the child begins with identifying a vulnerable child (van Dam, 2001). Child sex
+offenders seem to have a special ability in recognizing vulnerable children (Conte et al., 1989).
+These vulnerabilities may be that the children have a poor relationship with their parents, do
+not have many friends (Berliner & Conte, 1990), or have already been victimized (Leberg,
+1997). Alternatively, offenders may target women who were sexually abused as children,
+because the offender considers them easier to re-victimize.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 37 of 43
+Sexual grooming of children 293
+In order to gain access to their victims), offenders groom the environment and their
+potential victim's significant others (e.g. parents, carers, teachers, etc). This may mean the
+offender integrating themselves into society and places where they are likely to meet children.
+This will often be a position of trust. Offenders then begin grooming the adults in this
+community, specifically those who are significant to their potential victim, with the aim of
+creating an opportunity to access and abuse a child or children. van Dam (2001) reports that
+offenders are frequently charming, very helpful, and have insider status. This is often an
+important factor in gaining access to potential victim(s). As offenders help out in the
+community, they are considering how their efforts will be rewarded later when they can then
+abuse the children in that community. Offenders are often able to "read the community like a
+book" in that they assess what they "need" and fulfil these needs accordingly (Hare & Hart,
+1993). They can make themselves indispensable, too good to be true and will freely undertake
+jobs that others do not want to do (Leberg, 1997).|
+A desire on the part of parents to avoid cognitive dissonance may assist offenders'
+grooming efforts. A parent may suffer cognitive dissonance as a result of concerns about the
+trustworthiness of the offender alongside their hospitality and acceptance of the offender.
+When thoughts do not match behaviour, cognitive dissonance manifests, and often thoughts
+are changed to be consistent with behaviour (van Dam, 2001). Thus, offenders gain insider
+status long before they start abusing a victim (van Dam, 2001). Grooming is therefore a wellorganized long-term activity (Sanford, 1982). Offenders groom the community so well that if
+a victim discloses their abuse, the community may support the offender rather than the victim,
+because they deem the offender to be more believable than the child.
+In the case of intrafamilial child sexual abuse, offenders are already in a position of trust
+and integrated in an environment where they can access potential victims. Some offenders
+groom the environment by targeting single-parent families to gain this status (Elliott, Browne
+& Kilcoyne, 1995). Offenders may do this because they believe that these children are more
+vulnerable and because they believe it will be easier to create opportunities to be alone with
+the child. Alternatively, offenders may target children or young people who have absent
+parents, and hence have less protection. In this incidence there is no need for the offender to
+groom the parents. They can become the child's friend and more easily arrange to have time
+alone with the child.
+Intrafamilial offenders often isolate the victim from their non-abusing parent, siblings
+and the outside world by developing an exclusive relationship with the child. For instance,
+they may encourage mothers to have more of a life outside the home, which then gives
+themselves increased opportunities to abuse their victims. Alternatively, they may isolate nonabusing parents from the outside world in order to prevent them from having people in whom
+to confide about any concerns (Leberg, 1997). Some offenders encourage mothers to develop
+an alcohol dependency, in part so that any future disclosures made lack credibility (Leberg,
+1997). Other similar strategies employed to limit credibility include questioning the mother's
+parenting ability in front of friends and other family members. This may constitute part of
+their strategy for grooming the environment and significant others.
+Grooming the environment and significant others can occur as a result of implicit or
+explicit planning; alternatively, access to a child may occur by chance.
+and Hudson
+(2000) have developed a conceptual model of how child sex offenders' implicit planning or
+seemingly unimportant decisions (SUDs) implicate their offending behaviour by leading them
+to high-risk situations, i.e. contact with children. This appears to be automatic, because
+although offenders are conscious of their specific behaviours, they are often unconscious of
+the effect of implicit goals on these behaviours.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 38 of 43
+294 S. Craven et al.
+Gollwitzer and Schaal (1998, cited in
+& Hudson, 2000) suggest that it is through
+automatic goal-dependent action plans that these SUDs manifest. and Hudson (2000)
+propose that there are two such action plans: offence scripts and mental simulations. Offence
+relapse following treatment.
+Automatic goal-dependent action plans can be activated regardless of whether an
+individual has committed any previous sexual crimes. This alternative involves mental
+simulation. Mental simulation is where an individual plans out in detail how he would commit
+an offence. As with offence scripts, the presence of certain cues may activate this implicit
+planning, resulting in the enactment of the individual's fantasies. The notion of implicit planning may provide a possible explanation why the majority of victims know their
+abuser, because the cues that activate the implicit planning are more likely to be present within
+the family or in relation to children in the immediate locality (i.e. the places where an individual
+spends the majority of his time).
+It is reasonable to suggest that the fundamental human need to belong may present one
+possibility to further understand offenders' ability to identify a victim and groom the
+environment and significant others. Research has shown that a need to belong can affect very
+basic cognitive functions, e.g. attention and encoding of social information (Pickett, Gardner
+& Knowles, 2004). Pickett et al. found a positive relationship between a need to belong and
+sensitivity to social cues. Sexual offenders often come from neglectful, violent and
+dysfunctional backgrounds (Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002). This environment is
+unlikely to provide an abundance of opportunities for emotional closeness and thus offenders
+are likely to have a need to belong. In addition, a need to belong is related to low self-esteem
+(Pickett et al., 2004) and research to date suggests that child sex offenders typically have low
+self-esteem (Marshall,
+& Champagne, 1997). This is supportive of the idea that a
+need to belong facilitates offenders' identification and access to a victim, because of the
+associated increased sensitivity to social cues. Children may be approached because the
+offender perceives them to be less threatening than peers. Alternatively, offenders may be able
+to identify vulnerabilities in other people because they themselves are vulnerable and thus
+recognize these signs in others. This explanation would relate to offenders that commit
+offences following implicit planning. Offenders using explicit planning may also have a need
+to belong and the associated increased sensitivity to social cues, as a result of a need to belong
+to the family of community in order to groom and subsequently abuse a child. It is therefore
+suggested that, in the presence of a motivation to sexually abuse a child, a need to belong
+often facilitates the identification of a victim and grooming of the environment and significant
+others.
+Grooming the child
+Grooming the child is the most commonly recognized form of sexual grooming. In addition to
+a desire for sexual gratification, there may or may not be a relational aspect to the grooming
+process, depending on the offender's motivation to abuse. Sexual grooming has been
+considered by some to be analogous to adult courtship (e.g. Howitt, 1995). In addition,
+Herman (1981) and
+and Blake (1990) talk about sexually abusive fathers
+adopting the role of suitor towards their daughter. In the case of intrafamilial abuse, the
+offender promotes the child in place of the mother (Leberg, 1997). Alternatively, the offender
+may interact with the child on the child's wavelength (van Dam, 2001). Wilson (1999) found
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 39 of 43
+Sexual grooming of children 295
+that offenders who abused boys showed a preference for interacting at the child's level, and
+incest offenders tended to raise the victim's status to that of an adult, while offenders who
+abused girls were more concerned with sexual gratification. The types of behaviour that
+constitute grooming the child take two different forms-physical and psychological.
+Physical grooming involves the gradual sexualization of the relationship between the
+offender and the victim (Berliner & Conte, 1990). Psychological grooming is used to achieve
+this increased sexualization. At first, the offender may justify the sexual behaviour through
+providing the child with his version of sex education, which states that sex between children
+and adults is acceptable and that the offender has a responsibility to train the child for later
+life (Berliner & Conte, 1990; Leberg, 1997). The abuser builds the child's trust (
+& Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; Wyre, 1987, cited in Howitt, 1995; van Dam, 2001) m &
+him or her feel good (Warner, 2000) and then starts to violate boundaries (
+Blake, 1990; van Dam, 2001). This may involve intentionally entering the bedroom while the
+child or young person is undressed, or getting dressed together and exposing himself to the
+Offenders often desensitize a child to touch by beginning with non-sexual touching such
+as tickling or stroking the child's head. Conversation may also become more sexual.
+Alternatively, offenders may confuse victims by continuing to talk to the child about a
+positive unrelated issue while they begin touching the child sexually (Leberg, 1997). The child
+may have no idea that something inappropriate is happening. The aim is to progress to sexual
+touching, first on top of clothes and later under or without clothes (Berliner & Conte, 1990;
+& Blake, 1990; Leberg, 1997; van Dam, 2001). Thus, the intention is to make
+the child compliant with the offender's sexual demands and overcome the child's resistance
+(Finkelhor, 1984; Leberg, 1997; Warner, 2000).
+In addition to using psychological grooming to increase compliance, it is also used to
+avoid disclosure. Children are groomed to want to be around the adult who is grooming them
+1985). Offenders need to maintain the child's cooperation and secrecy to achieve this.
+One way that the offender does this is by isolating the child and alienating them from others
+(Warner, 2000). Leberg (1997) refers to this factor as something separate from grooming,
+others (e.g. van Dam, 2001) consider it to be part of the grooming process. Isolating the child
+creates a barrier which prevents the child from having a confidant in whom to disclose
+(Warner, 2000). In addition, the keeping of secrets acts as a source of further isolation
+(Lerner, 1993, cited in van Dam, 2001). Children are very good at keeping secrets when
+asked to. Peters (1991, cited in Ceci & Bruck, 1993) found that 82% of children in his study
+delayed or did not report an event that they had witnessed, because the thief in the scenario
+asked them not to tell anyone. The thief in this scenario was a stranger, to whom the children
+had no loyalty, and so it is likely that children would be even more likely to protect a known
+and loved adult.
+Further strategies used by offenders to maintain the child's compliance include issuing
+threats and bribes (Berliner & Conte, 1990;
+& Blake, 1990). Bribes may take
+the form of material gifts or extra privileges
+& Blake, 1990). In addition,
+offenders are skilled at using children's natural vulnerabilities against them. For instance,
+children very often have a strong desire to protect their parents. When the offender informs
+them that their parents would be very hurt if they found out what they had been doing,
+children may remain silent (Berliner & Conte, 1990). Offenders may also demonstrate their
+potential for violence through violence towards others, e.g. other family members. Thereby
+offenders reinforce the message that they will enact their threats about hurting the child
+and/or the child's family.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 40 of 43
+296 S. Craven et al.
+Offenders frequently make the child feel responsible for the abuse (Leberg, 1997; van
+Dam, 2001; Warner, 2000). They convince the child that they are to blame for letting the
+abuse happen and that they should have stopped it (Leberg, 1997). This is reinforced by
+stereotypes in society, which emphasize that men cannot control their sex drive (Warner,
+2000). Additional guilt may be felt if the child has been made to perform sexual acts on the
+abuser or another child (Warner, 2000). However, this feeling of responsibility and guilt is
+overshadowed by the self-betrayal the child feels as their body reacts to sexual stimulation
+against their will (Warner, 2000) which children may interpret as evidence that they are
+enjoying themselves. This is internalized and resultantly may have an impact on the child's
+developing identity. Disclosure is avoided because the child feels that it is "all their fault", that
+he/she is bad and that no one will believe them (Warner, 2000).
+Each victim's experience of grooming is different, because offenders adapt their strategies
+dependent on the child, whose response during the grooming process is important. It seems
+reasonable to suggest that offenders require some level of "empathy" during the grooming
+process to recognize reactions in the child, so that they can adapt their strategy accordingly.
+For example, during the desensitization process an offender would need to recognize the
+limits of the victim and to strategically increase those limits. It is proposed that empathy
+involves tour components: (1) emotion recognition; (2) perspective-taking; (5) emotion
+replication; and (4) response decision (Marshall, Hudson,
+& Fernandez, 1995).
+Continuing with the previous example, offenders recognize the distress in their victim and
+make a decision based on this, because they choose to stop temporarily as a strategic part of
+the desensitization process. Thus, offenders appear to have ability in components (1) and (4),
+which are the cognitive components, but not in the affective components (2) and (3). While
+early research on empathy in sex offenders concluded that they have empathy deficits, more
+recent research has found that this empathy deficit to be victim-specific (Fernandez, Marshall,
+Lightbody &
+1 1999; Marshall, [
+| & Fernandez, 2001; Marshall et al.,
+1995). This is inconsistent with the suggestion that the grooming process requires some level
+of empathy. However, Fernandez et al. (1999; Marshall et al., 2001) provide a possible
+explanation for this. They suggest that victim-specific empathy deficits manifest as cognitive
+distortions, which protect the offenders from negatively evaluating themselves, thus allowing
+them to continue abusing a child. Based on this suggestion, victim-specific empathy deficits
+arise as a consequence rather than a cause of the abuse. These cognitive distortions therefore
+facilitate self-grooming.
+The manifestation of a cognitive distortion relating to a victim-specific empathy deficit
+may be facilitated by cognitive deconstruction. Cognitive deconstruction (see |
+Hudson
+& Marshall, 1995) is a state entered into to escape negative experiences and negative selfevaluation. Cognitive deconstruction involves processing at a lower, more concrete, level, i.e.
+muscular movements, and rewards of behaviour, rather than social action. Resultantly, the
+individual has much more focus on feelings of pleasure and less awareness of the
+consequences of his behaviour. This concrete-level focus may reinforce cognitive distortions
+such as victims enjoyed the abuse because they became physically aroused, which justifies the
+offender's lack of empathy toward their victim.
+Self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others, and grooming the child
+are relevant to situational and preferential offenders, extra-familial and intrafamilial offences.
+It is important that the different types of sexual grooming apply to these different typologies
+and classifications of offenders because sexual grooming is not used solely by one group of
+offenders and, furthermore, these categories are not mutually exclusive (Itzin, 2001).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 41 of 43
+Sexual grooming of children 297
+Towards a new definition of sexual grooming of children
+The definitions of sexual grooming presented at the start of this review do not reflect the
+complexity of the sexual grooming of children, which is demonstrated in the previous
+discussion of the different types of sexual grooming. Based on the above findings it seems
+necessary to provide a new definition that attempts to encapsulate the complexity of sexual
+grooming, while still being easy to understand. We propose the following:
+A process by which a person prepares a child, significant adults and the environment for
+the abuse of this child. Specific goals include gaining access to the child, gaining the
+child's compliance and maintaining the child's secrecy to avoid disclosure. This process
+serves to strengthen the offender's abusive pattern, as it may be used as a means of
+justifying or denying their actions.
+Conclusion
+Despite the wide acceptance of the term, sexual grooming of children is not understood
+clearly, particularly in the public domain. Testimonies from both victims and perpetrators
+highlight the pertinence of the problem. Furthermore, the government in England and Wales
+has introduced legislation in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 regarding "meeting a child
+following sexual grooming" (see Part 1: section 152003). A greater understanding of the
+meaning, elements and process of sexual grooming is required to effectively utilize this
+legislation (for review see Craven, [
+& Gilchrist, in press).
+Regardless of the prevalence and pertinence of sexual grooming, most actiological
+theories of child sexual abuse neglect the phenomenon. The main reason for this is likely to be
+because prominent theories of child sexual abuse were devised more than 10 years ago, at a
+time when sexual grooming was not recognized as it is today. Therefore, it is necessary that
+theories be reconsidered based on this recent awareness.
+(2001, 2002; & Hudson,
+2001;
+& Siegert, 2002) has begun the process of theory knitting and development.
+While
+and Siegert's Pathways Model is able to account for sexual grooming, it still
+focuses on the presence of opportunity rather than explicitly recognizing that offenders often
+create their own opportunities to offend.
+The current review has identified three types of sexual grooming discussed in the
+literature: self-grooming, grooming the environment and significant others and grooming the
+child. Based on these findings an alternative definition has been suggested, which includes
+details about offenders' objectives, e.g. gaining access to a child, gaining the child's
+compliance, maintaining secrecy and avoiding disclosure.
+A fuller understanding of sexual grooming is required. Consideration needs to be given to
+offender-victim interaction (before, during and after the offence), micro behaviours that may
+indicate to significant adults that a child is being sexually groomed, or indeed that they
+themselves are being groomed by an offender, and the seemingly impossible task of proving
+beyond reasonable doubt that the ambiguous behaviour of sexual grooming is sexually
+motivated. This would provide many benefits to child protection and the policing and
+treatment of child sex offenders with a specific focus on prevention of child sexual abuse
+rather than reactive responses to it. To optimize the impact of acquired knowledge and
+understanding, it is necessary to consider how these findings are disseminated to the relevant
+groups involved with children, e.g. parents, police, and social workers.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 42 of 43
+298 S. Craven et al.
+References
+Berliner, L. & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victims" perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14,
+29 40.
+Canter, D., Hughes, D. & Kirby, S. (1998). Paedophilia: Pathology, criminality, or both? The development of a
+multivariate model of offence behaviour in child sexual abuse. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 9, 532 555.
+Ceci, S. J. & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological
+Bulletin, 11, 403 439.
+, J. R. & Blake, R. H. (1990). The grooming process in father daughter incest. In A. L. Horton (Ed.), The
+Incest Perpetrator: A Family Member No One Wants to Thear (pp. 88 98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
+Inc.
+Conte, J. R.,
+, T. (1989). What sexual offenders tell us about prevention strategies. Child Abuse and
+Neglect, 13, 293 301.
+Craissati, J., McClurg, G. & Browne, K. (2002). Characteristics of perpetrators of child sexual abuse who have been
+sexually victimized as children. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 225 239.
+Craven, S.,
+S. & Gilchrist, E. (in press). Current responses to sexual grooming: Implication for prevention. The
+Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46.
+Elliott, M., Browne, K. & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse and
+Neglect, 19, 579 594.
+Fernandez, Y. M., Marshall, W. L., Lightbody, S. &
+C. (1999). The Child Molester Empathy Measure:
+Description and examination of its rehability and validity. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 17
+32.
+Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: Neto Theory and Research. New York: Free Press/London: Collier Macmillan.
+Gillespie, A. (2002). Child protection on the internet challenges for criminal law: Child and Family Law Quarterly,
+Gillespie, A. (2004). "Grooming": definitions and the law. New Law Journal.
+G. C. N. & Hirschman, R. (1992). Sexual aggression against children: A conceptual perspective of etiology.
+Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 8 23.
+Hare, R. D. & Hart, S. D. (1993). Psychopathy, mental disorder, and crime. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental Disorder and
+Crine (pp. 104 115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
+Herman, J. (1981). Father daughter incest. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 12, 76 80.
+(accessed November 2003).
+Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophules and Sexual Offences Against Children. Oxford, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
+Itzin, C. (2001). Incest, paedophilia, pornography and prostitution: Making familial males more visible as the abusers.
+Child Abuse Review, 10, 35 48.
+Laws, D. R. & Marshall, W. L. (1990). A conditioning theory of the etiology and maintenance of deviant sexual
+preference and behavior. In W. L.. Marshall, D. R. Laws & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues,
+Theories, and Trearmenz of the Offender (pp. 209 230). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
+Leberg, E. (1997). Understanding Child Molesters: Taking Charge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
+Marshall, W. L. & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W. L. Marshall,
+D. R. Laws & H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Trearment of the Offender. New
+York: Plenum Press.
+Marshall, W. Leg
+, D. & Champagne, F. (1997). Self-esteem and its relationship to sexual offending.
+Psychology. Crime and Law, 3, 161 186.
+Marshall, W. L.,
+, K. & Fernandez, Y. (2001). Empathy deficits and cognitive distortions in child molesters.
+Sexwal Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 13, 123 130.
+Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S. M., |
+|. R. & Fernandez, Y. M. (1995). Empathy in sex offenders. Clinical Psychology
+Review, 15, 99 113.
+,. T., Erooga, M. & Beckett, R. C. (1994). Sexual Offending Against Children: Assessment and Treatment of
+Males. London: Routledge.
+O'Connell, R. (2003). A Typology of Child Cybersexploitation and Online Grooming Practices. Available at: http://
+www.safer-internet.net/downloads/UCLAN report release.pdf (accessed September 2003).
+Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L. & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to
+social cues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095 1107.
+Prochaska, J. O. & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change.
+Psychotherapy: Theory: Research and Practice, 19, 276 288.
+Sampson, A. (1994). Acts of Abuse: Sex Offenders and the Criminal Justice System. London: Routledge.
+Sanford, L. T. (1982). The Silent Children: A Parent's Guide to the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse: McGraw-C
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page 43 of 43
+Sexual grooming of children 299
+Stop it Now (2003). What we all need to know to protect our children. Available at: http://www.stopitnow.org.uk/
+Stop%2002.pdf (accessed December 2003).
+van Dam, C. (2001). Identifving Child Molesters: Preventing Child Sexual Abuse by Recognizing the Parteras of the
+Offenders. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press/The Haworth Press, Inc.
+•. T. (2001). A critique of
+| and Hirschman's quadripartite model of child sexual abuse. Psychology, Public
+Policy, and Lato, 7, 333 350.
+. T. (2002). Marshall and Barbaree's integrated theory of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psychology, Crime and
+,, T. & Hudson, S. M. (2000). Sexual offenders' implicit planning: A conceptual model. Sexual Abuse: Journal of
+Research and Treatment, 12, 189 202. |
+, T. & Hudson, S. M. (2001). Finkelhor's precondition model of child sexual abuse: A critique. Psycholog, Crime
+and Laso, 7, 291 307.
+1. T., Hudson, S. M. & Marshall, W. L. (1995). Cognitive distortions and affective deficits in sex offenders: A
+cognitive deconstructionist interpretation. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 67 83.
+- T. & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters' implicit theories. Journal of Inserpersonal Violence, 14, 821 838.
+. T., Louden, K., Hudson, S. M. & Marshall, W. L. (1995). A descriptive model of the offense chain for child
+molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 452 472.
+•. T. & Siegert, R. (2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective.
+Psychology, Crime and Lato, 8, 319 351.
+Warner, S. (2000). Understanding Child Sexual Abuse: Making the Tactics Possible. Gloucester: Handsell.
+Wilson, R. J. (1999). Emotional congruence in sexual offenders against children. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and
+Treatment, 11, 33 48.
+• S. (1985). A multi-factor model of deviant sexuality. Victimology: An International Journal, 10, 359 374.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaf487fa663628f3e720aea259f14d9414ad9c9c9d62d2d6aa633d5a778f2f98.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaf487fa663628f3e720aea259f14d9414ad9c9c9d62d2d6aa633d5a778f2f98.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88051a167d33e3d018290f65128f434f4f70ea0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eaf487fa663628f3e720aea259f14d9414ad9c9c9d62d2d6aa633d5a778f2f98.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1554,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eaf487fa663628f3e720aea259f14d9414ad9c9c9d62d2d6aa633d5a778f2f98",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 153,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0ddffeee5254760c6d703f0503b698ef7c6c7e645f4c7db2bd634b757a8e1afc",
+  "output_sha256": "040fb0f62968543a92ba86f6ea01580e5512e72a1e242a073c5c4778221a7936",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eafaa341f034d86899d87d25bbf2d8f3879ea07f3092b2601e3e44c00a99343a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eafaa341f034d86899d87d25bbf2d8f3879ea07f3092b2601e3e44c00a99343a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cf4eae9df2c434e2e2d46399e30412b483a0883
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eafaa341f034d86899d87d25bbf2d8f3879ea07f3092b2601e3e44c00a99343a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338-8 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eafaa341f034d86899d87d25bbf2d8f3879ea07f3092b2601e3e44c00a99343a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eafaa341f034d86899d87d25bbf2d8f3879ea07f3092b2601e3e44c00a99343a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..280308ff9e33e96492cfa753e8af251dc93d69e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eafaa341f034d86899d87d25bbf2d8f3879ea07f3092b2601e3e44c00a99343a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eafaa341f034d86899d87d25bbf2d8f3879ea07f3092b2601e3e44c00a99343a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a4f98ae9bedb90de715b259ee0863fd2c8d9248dee52cbbeae923945a4a6b5b8",
+  "output_sha256": "961d7590c2d8b1b4954fa351de47963ea0949f073a596684e85d8a9caaa5646a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb002602ad8370c00a3ac52a27ce0b8b3e9d350d15dedfeda678a204aab8da7c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb002602ad8370c00a3ac52a27ce0b8b3e9d350d15dedfeda678a204aab8da7c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c48fef28583cad9507fc9b4bb2389285dad9aaae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb002602ad8370c00a3ac52a27ce0b8b3e9d350d15dedfeda678a204aab8da7c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 636
+Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+USDC SONY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FOR
+DATE FiLED:
+2210
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+---X
+Sweet, D.J.
+Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017 and
+previously scheduled to be heard February 23, 2017 shall instead
+be heard at noon on Thursday, March 9, 2017 in Courtroom 18C,
+United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Opposition papers
+shall be due by February 24, 2017 and reply papers shall be due by
+March 2, 2017.
+It is so
+ordered.
+New York, NY
+February ZI , 2017
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb002602ad8370c00a3ac52a27ce0b8b3e9d350d15dedfeda678a204aab8da7c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb002602ad8370c00a3ac52a27ce0b8b3e9d350d15dedfeda678a204aab8da7c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4a6f4b867006acd08e6a386111c1128e43b9575
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb002602ad8370c00a3ac52a27ce0b8b3e9d350d15dedfeda678a204aab8da7c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb002602ad8370c00a3ac52a27ce0b8b3e9d350d15dedfeda678a204aab8da7c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a0df5f1fbfd357646aa0a456be8177855440a754490fb1f6d190370947a814f5",
+  "output_sha256": "d71fdd1059591be861f9850b4d6370305ed25774cecf9b0e2c1315e59a8e3ed3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb0f45c4db224c298cc9d9f6c74d6761dc7f0e3cf252407901fc8f8f12138aa5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb0f45c4db224c298cc9d9f6c74d6761dc7f0e3cf252407901fc8f8f12138aa5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..949839863ea50521371399dac9ddbe52f0bdfed8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb0f45c4db224c298cc9d9f6c74d6761dc7f0e3cf252407901fc8f8f12138aa5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 922-4
+Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 1
+Exhibit 4 Redacted - Filed
+Under Seal
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb0f45c4db224c298cc9d9f6c74d6761dc7f0e3cf252407901fc8f8f12138aa5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb0f45c4db224c298cc9d9f6c74d6761dc7f0e3cf252407901fc8f8f12138aa5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2a58ba7fbb44965aafa5f260bf19645d8e9f40ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb0f45c4db224c298cc9d9f6c74d6761dc7f0e3cf252407901fc8f8f12138aa5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb0f45c4db224c298cc9d9f6c74d6761dc7f0e3cf252407901fc8f8f12138aa5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1a2b4dbdab93fb224dbb2eb6b75dc29cb3a6a19c621b2761439fa7e45f377505",
+  "output_sha256": "d73e1670c8941df433799ff4d8acbc868e01f2d1aeaa482495f9ad5e20e2ea7e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb157ade83a4aa8ec6d34247af07acb0b2c174a861ca774156c3ab8ccbba17f1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb157ade83a4aa8ec6d34247af07acb0b2c174a861ca774156c3ab8ccbba17f1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..edb4cda11acffbfb3c31abfdc85fff00adbfb5d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb157ade83a4aa8ec6d34247af07acb0b2c174a861ca774156c3ab8ccbba17f1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 837
+Filed 04/07/17 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+SONY
+MENT
+"TRONICALLY FIR
+-X
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+---X
+Sweet, D.J.
+The Defendant's motion for the Court to rule
+outstanding motions, ECF No. 804, is denied as moot. ECF No. 231
+was resolved by sealed opinion dated August 30, 2016, and ECF No.
+354 was resolved by sealed opinion sent to the parties April 4,
+2017.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+April 7. 2017
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb157ade83a4aa8ec6d34247af07acb0b2c174a861ca774156c3ab8ccbba17f1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb157ade83a4aa8ec6d34247af07acb0b2c174a861ca774156c3ab8ccbba17f1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5293d8893cea0d3559c471b8d40885d380d267d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb157ade83a4aa8ec6d34247af07acb0b2c174a861ca774156c3ab8ccbba17f1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb157ade83a4aa8ec6d34247af07acb0b2c174a861ca774156c3ab8ccbba17f1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "984bc05f7798ef47e7190422dfb57dd6a979ae93a84b4cbde80dae2e18ee8ec0",
+  "output_sha256": "9d22cb682b2e21ab9abe612b3f8aa88a4ea6f8617e59eb2ce9fc6a91c41c38d1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb5eae32f9dc45bfefd7ffc74f28dd250356a7edce707ae9b664045d526b1b5a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb5eae32f9dc45bfefd7ffc74f28dd250356a7edce707ae9b664045d526b1b5a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b696fedbf3f7186ce71d9479b05952fad5b0b102
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb5eae32f9dc45bfefd7ffc74f28dd250356a7edce707ae9b664045d526b1b5a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338-2 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 1
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb5eae32f9dc45bfefd7ffc74f28dd250356a7edce707ae9b664045d526b1b5a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb5eae32f9dc45bfefd7ffc74f28dd250356a7edce707ae9b664045d526b1b5a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5865925cbca71f2d853c540eca4b878a70d55b28
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb5eae32f9dc45bfefd7ffc74f28dd250356a7edce707ae9b664045d526b1b5a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb5eae32f9dc45bfefd7ffc74f28dd250356a7edce707ae9b664045d526b1b5a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "067a48454b65de90dae1a1fba9233c5bc97f93827c989db160bb88fae1646fe6",
+  "output_sha256": "b8b93e0aff9b4ae6bd2a7f010ca359ab103bb47fd111dbf0b14777c60b65b958",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb77f05ac9b2e8985d13d1995957c67936d9933a7d66135b2e6b18c6833d1079.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb77f05ac9b2e8985d13d1995957c67936d9933a7d66135b2e6b18c6833d1079.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..255c0af6da123ffc02e7eef8d888f23422ed0ea6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb77f05ac9b2e8985d13d1995957c67936d9933a7d66135b2e6b18c6833d1079.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2550 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 46
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+Defendant.
+Oral Argument
+New York, N.Y.
+April 5, 2017
+12:10 p.m.
+Before:
+HON. ROBERT W. SWEET,
+District Judge@@
+APPEARANCES
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+BY: SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY, ESQ.
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+BY:
+|, ESQ.
+HADDON,
+AND
+Attorneys for Defendant
+•, P.C.
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA,
+ESQ-
+FISTOS, LEHRMAN, P.L.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 46
+2
+(In open court)
+THE COURT: OK.
+Epstein?
+MR.
+: Yes.
+Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Hi.
+MR. INDYKE: Your Honor, Darren Indyke again, general
+counsel for Mr. Epstein.
+THE COURT: I'm sorry?
+MR. INDYKE: My name is Darren Indyke, general counsel
+for Mr. Epstein. I do not litigate. We discussed that last
+time.
+Weinberg, who drafted the motion, was at Logan
+Airport this morning. Didn't get here on time. His flight was
+fogged in because of something at La Guardia. He is now on an
+11 o'clock flight into JFK and is going to come directly from
+JFK to the court as soon as he gets here.
+THE COURT: Let me ask you, what is Epstein's
+residence?
+MR. INDYKE: What is Epstein's -- he is a Virgin
+Islands resident.
+THE COURT: I beg your pardon?
+MR. INDYKE: A Virgin Islands resident.
+THE COURT: If that's true, then he is beyond my
+reach. Correct?
+MR. INDYKE: We do maintain that, yes.
+MR.
+: Your Honor, can we be heard on that
+issue?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 3 of 46
+3
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MR.
+: Brad
+on behalf of the plaintiff.
+While Mr. Epstein owns his own island and calls that
+his domicile, he does have a residence in New York City. He
+does regularly conduct business in New York City.
+THE COURT: That doesn't do it under the rule, does
+it?
+MR.
+: Under Rule 45, it's where you reside,
+where you regularly conduct business. And he regularly
+conducts business in New York. In fact, as Mr. Indyke just
+indicated, that is his primary business affairs attorney, who
+has been in charge of his business affairs for many years.
+Mr. Epstein employs numerous employees in New York City.
+(Pause)
+MR.
+Your Honor, additionally, Mr. Epstein
+has a home in New York City, a very large townhouse, a 50,000
+square foot townhouse, where he employs many employees there.
+THE COURT: But having a home in New York doesn't
+subject him to the jurisdiction, I mean, a house in New York.
+If that were the case, we would be in a lot of trouble,
+wouldn't we?
+OK. There is an issue. I don't have any facts except
+what I've just been told with respect to his residence,
+employed, regularly transacts business.
+MR.
+: Yes, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 4 of 46
+4
+THE COURT: So "regularly transacts business," we
+don't have any facts, which is not to say that you're not
+correct.
+MR.
+Your Honor, that's why I was raising the
+point about his home and who he employs.
+THE COURT: No, no, no. I hear you.
+MR.
+I understand.
+THE COURT: But I don't have a piece of paper that is
+any evidence of that.
+MR.
+: The point that I was trying to reach
+was, we can't ask Mr. Epstein these questions because he
+invokes the Fifth.
+THE COURT: I understand. Good Lord, I understand
+that. I'm just simply saying, I don't have any facts on which
+I can say that he regularly transacts business here. I don't
+have any facts. I hear what you say. Thanks. But that's
+lawyer talk, and I don't have any facts.
+OK. Well, I think I understand the problem. Tell him
+I'll take the motion on submission. I've had enough of this
+guy and his airplanes and his being late. We put it over at
+his request. If he's fogged in Logan, I'm fogged in New York.
+So what can I say.
+MR. INDYKE: Your Honor, he is actually on his way to
+the -- he's on his way now.
+THE COURT: Well, of course he's on his way. Where?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 5 of 46
+In an airplane?
+MR. INDYKE: The airplane left at 11, so he's
+probably -
+THE COURT: If he shows up before we're finished, I'11
+hear him. OK?
+MR. INDYKE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right. Now what's next? Where are
+we?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, I think there is one motion
+that is pending that we've pushed off, it's the defendant's
+motion, to this day, because it deals with depositions in
+general that they're trying to exclude. So it may be a good
+starting point. Jeff, if you want to take the in toto motion?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. That's probably the sensible
+starting point because it, again, deals with them trying to get
+rid of witnesses in their entirety, and, again, we waited until
+today to do that.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the motion that we are
+talking about is captioned "Defendant's Motion in Limine to
+Exclude In Toto Certain Depositions Designated by Plaintiff for
+Use at Trial." We are talking specifically about four
+witnesses. The first relates to Mr. Epstein, which I
+understand we don't want to talk about anymore today, so I will
+leave that, having heard your Honor on that issue.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 6 of 46
+6
+THE COURT: Well, I was just dealing with the subpoena
+issue.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: All right. Then I'm happy to talk
+about it, your Honor. It does relate in part to what we are
+talking about. And I will more narrowly focus it as a Rule 32
+issue, as opposed to a subpoena issue.
+The issue relates to the use of depositions at trial,
+which, in my view, is governed by Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil
+Procedure. And those rules are clear with regard to
+depositions as to unavailability of witness. And then we talk
+about the requirements that, whether they're dead, more than a
+hundred miles away, illness, age, infirmity, etc. And in my
+view, there is no unavailability under Rule 32 for Mr. Epstein
+in this particular case.
+There seems to be an attempt, I think, to -- or a
+misunderstanding of sort of conflating Rule 32 and Rule 804.
+Rule 804 of course deals with unavailability as defined under
+the Federal Rules of Evidence for hearsay purposes, which is
+different than Rule 32, as it relates to use of a deposition in
+a trial. And so I don't think we can take Rule 804 and then
+say that's the definition of unavailability.
+Rule 804 unavailability applies to many things, and it
+can apply to written statements. It can apply to testimony in
+trial. But Rule 32 of the rules of civil procedure deals
+specifically with depositions. And in my view, that has not
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 l
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 7 of 46
+7
+been met as it relates to Mr. Epstein.
+Mr. Rizzo is the second witness, your Honor.
+Mr. Rizzo lives here in New York. He was deposed in New York.
+And there has been no showing, and I don't believe there can be
+any showing, that he is unavailable under Rule 32. I
+understood from the response filed by the plaintiff that they
+were checking with Mr. Rizzo's lawyer to see what his status
+was. In my view that's not sufficient for this discussion
+today. Unavailability under Rule 32 would require something to
+happen. Mr.
+Rizzo would be sick or dead, something like that.
+Simply saying we're checking with his lawyer doesn't satisfy
+the requirements of Rule 32. And so I don't understand what
+their position is, frankly. We took a discovery deposition of
+Mr. Rizzo here in New York within a hundred miles of this
+courthouse. Mr. Rizzo, if he's going to testify, should show
+up.
+What I'm afraid of, your Honor, is that there -- and
+I'm not accusing, I'm just afraid, because, you know, call it
+spider sense or something -- what can happen is, we get to
+trial and then someone says,
+1, gee, he went on vacation, and
+so now he's more than a hundred miles away and we're going to
+use the deposition transcript. That's not sufficient
+unavailability. The party that's attempting to establish
+unavailability has to show some good-faith effort to subpoena
+the witness or get the witness here. As far as I know,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 8 of 46
+8
+Mr. Rizzo lives here in New York, and if he's going to testify,
+he should testify in person.
+The third witness that we're talking about here is
+Dr. Esplin. The Court may recall that Dr. Esplin is a rebuttal
+expert designated by the defense in this case specifically
+relating to what we call the vouching opinions of Dr. Kliman
+and Mr. Coonan, Professor Coonan. What happened with
+Dr. Esplin is, he was designated for a very narrow purpose and
+he was deposed for some seven hours. Most of the deposition by
+plaintiff's counsel was far outside of the designated purpose,
+and there were repeated objections during the course of the
+deposition -- you know, this is not what he was hired for, he
+hasn't looked at that, he doesn't have an opinion about that --
+and now they're trying to designate a rebuttal expert in their
+case in chief to talk about opinions that he wasn't hired to
+offer and didn't opine on in the first instance.
+The briefing, I think, is sufficient on this, your
+Honor, that, here, it's not appropriate designate a defense
+rebuttal on these kinds of topics. And so I don't think that
+they should be allowed to use that testimony, which is
+objectionable, frankly, as rebuttal testimony.
+The next witness, your Honor, is
+was deposed in Florida. And the Court
+basically said, I don't remember anything about any of
+this, and essentially didn't answer any substantive questions
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 9 of 46
+9
+during the deposition.
+The colloquy that has been provided to the Court as
+part of briefing establishes that
+was subpoenaed to
+this deposition by the plaintiff. She appeared with her
+counsel, Mr. Josephsberg, who represented her in the 102 case
+that was filed against Mr. Epstein, many years ago.
+sat down, essentially -- I'm paraphrasing -- said, I've spent
+years forgetting all of this, I've spent lots of time in
+therapy forgetting all of this, I'm not going to remember any
+of this, and basically refused to answer questions for whatever
+reasons.
+Mr. Josephsberg, her lawyer, made a proffer during
+this deposition reaffirming that the witness didn't remember
+anything and wasn't going to testify about anything.
+Mr.
+plunked down what he says is her -- a transcript of
+the statement she gave to the police. She didn't look at it at
+all, and that's part of the record in this case; the lawyer
+said it and she said it: I didn't look at it. She didn't turn
+the page. Mr.
+said something like, isn't the thing you
+told the police in 2006 true. She said yes. And that's
+basically the deposition.
+We have moved to exclude that in its entirety because,
+you know, in part there really is no testimony here. There is
+no establishment of any actual personal knowledge by this
+particular witness. There has been no foundation for either
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+10
+impeachment or refreshing recollection. This wasn't a
+situation where the questioner then said, well, I'm going to
+show you line 3, paragraph 5, or did you not say that. I'm
+going to show you this, that, or the other thing. That never
+happened during the course of this deposition.
+So you have a witness sitting there, looking at
+nothing, and now there is going to be this attempt, I think, to
+introduce what I view as a hearsay document without foundation
+into this trial through that deposition.
+That, I think, primarily deals --
+THE COURT: Through
+? You're suggesting that the
+plaintiff will seek to introduce the police statement through
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, or Recarey. I'm not sure which
+one. But it doesn't change the quality of it being hearsay.
+You can't wave a
+over this thing and say this is now not
+hearsay.
+THE COURT: If the statement gets in, if this
+statement gets in, then the deposition would be admissible,
+because she has said, yes, that's true.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: This is the problem, your Honor. This
+is the nuance that I think I'm trying to get to, which you have
+narrowly focused now. There is a multiple-layer issue here
+under the rules of evidence. The first is this. She had
+pieces of paper in front of her, so I don't know how long the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 11 of 46
+11
+statement is.
+THE COURT: Whatever.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. She never looked at it, not
+once. She didn't read it.
+THE COURT: Well, but she said that it was true.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No, no, no, no. The question was, is
+what you told the police in 2006 true, words to that effect.
+THE COURT:
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Not, is this the statement you gave to
+the police and is the contents of this statement true. There
+was a very vague and generic question about conversations with
+the police. And by the way, she talked with the police more
+than one time. And so there's no specificity about what she is
+referring to in that context. That's the first issue.
+The second issue is -- we talked about this the last
+time we were in court -- that particular transcript is not a
+police record. That's the other problem here. That particular
+transcript, Detective Recarey testified about. And he said, I
+don't know what this is, it wasn't prepared by my department,
+I've never looked at it.
+And so whatever this document is has not been
+authenticated by anyone. That's the first problem.
+And then it gets in front of this witness who doesn't
+look at it and doesn't read it and makes this blanket
+statement.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 12 of 46
+12
+So there is no foundation or establishment that this
+is a prior recollection recorded or any of the requirements
+under the 800 series of rules that deals with hearsay. So
+there is no foundation for any of this.
+THE COURT: OK. Thank you.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Finally, then, your Honor, we're
+talking about Mr. Rodriguez and his two depositions that
+occurred in 2009. This is a bit of an extended discussion, I
+think, your Honor.
+I need to set the stage here a little bit with regard
+to Mr. Rodriguez and this deposition testimony.
+THE COURT: Well, how does it get in? It's not in
+this case.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Exactly. That's my point exactly.
+You've cut right to the heart of this. They say, your Honor,
+their argument is that, in spite of Rule 32, that somehow there
+was -- that Mr. Epstein's lawyer, in this 2009 deposition, is
+the predecessor in interest to Ms. Maxwell, and therefore, as a
+predecessor in interest, it is admissible under Rule 804.
+That's their position.
+THE COURT: What do they have to show to establish
+that?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. There are a couple of cases on
+this issue, your Honor. What they have to show is what they
+can't show.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 13 of 46
+13
+THE COURT: The case in which he was deposed was one
+of the cases against Epstein?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+Well, there were - the answer is
+yes.
+There were a number of cases against Mr. Epstein. There
+was a series of Jane Doe cases.
+THE COURT: That arose out of the nonprosecution
+agreement and all of that.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Exactly.
+So, your Honor, if I could approach, I wanted to talk
+about the nonprosecution agreement and why the nonprosecution
+agreement, I think, ends this discussion.
+In order to be aligned as a predecessor in interest,
+the proponent of the evidence has to show essentially that
+whoever is there at the deposition has the exact same
+motivation to cross-examine, to develop the testimony, as the
+person that you're trying to use it against in this case. If
+you look at this, what I just handed you, your Honor, and we go
+to paragraph 8, which is found on page 4 of this document, 7
+and 8, part of Mr. Epstein's agreement in this nonprosecution
+deal is that the government gives Mr. Epstein a list of who
+they say are victims of Epstein. Epstein agrees to confess
+liability and damages in connection with these litigations,
+your Honor. That's paragraph 7 and paragraph 8. So going into
+these depositions, Mr. Epstein is rolling over and saying, I'm
+not contesting liability, and I'm not contesting damages.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+14
+That's paragraphs 7 and 8.
+So how
+then, how then can Mr. Epstein's lawyer be in a
+position to be aligned or defend Ms. Maxwell's interests in
+2009? Ms. Maxwell isn't a party to this litigation. She's not
+named as a defendant.
+She's not represented by counsel. There
+is no agreement with her and Epstein that would allow for
+Epstein to do anything to represent her in this deposition.
+There's no indemnification agreement. There's no identity of
+counsel. None of these things apply at all. And Mr. Epstein,
+who has agreed to be liable under his deal, in which
+Ms. Maxwell is not mentioned, by the way -- her name did not
+appear in this nonprosecution agreement -- shows up, I don't
+know why, since he has confessed liability and damages, and he
+has absolutely no incentive to cross-examine Mr. Rodriguez
+about anything. He's already agreed that he's responsible and
+he's going to pay money. So there is no effort to do anything
+on Ms. Maxwell's behalf.
+This is, when you think about it logically, had
+Ms. Maxwell been named as
+a defendant in that action, she would
+have had separate counsel, because her interests are not
+aligned with Epstein in these matters. She would have had the
+opportunity to cross-examine this witness. And she would have
+had the opportunity to develop her own evidence separate and
+apart from Epstein. And the cross-examination of Mr. Rodriguez
+would have gone something like this, your Honor: Well, isn't
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+15
+it true that Epstein did those things, isn't it true that
+Epstein was the guy that did whatever it is that we're talking
+about, isn't it true that Maxwell did not have anything to do
+with X, Y, and Z. None of these questions could be asked by
+Mr. Epstein's lawyer because there would be an obvious conflict
+of interest between
+those two positions.
+There is one case that the plaintiffs cite for this
+proposition that there is an identity of interests, and that
+is, they cite a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case Iloyd v.
+American Export Lines Incorporated, found at 580 F.2d 1179.
+This is an interesting case, your Honor, and it highlights why
+there is no identity of interest in this case. So first let me
+start with, the Third Circuit is not the Second Circuit, as you
+well know, your Honor. This 1978 case is a pretty complicated
+fact pattern, your Honor, that involved a fight on a ship in
+Yokohama, Japan. So two sailors on this ship got into a fight,
+allegedly, and there was an action brought first in a Coast
+Guard proceeding, apparently akin to some sort of Coast Guard
+court-martial proceeding, and in that case, the Coast Guard
+finder of fact, in sort of a trial, found against Mr.
+who is the third-party defendant in this case. So both, the
+two seamen, Lloyd and
+, end up suing the ship owner and
+have these competing claims. Lloyd is saying, I didn't assault
+and
+is saying, Lloyd assaulted me. And both
+of them are saying that the ship owner is liable because
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+they're negligent and they have an unseaworthy ship.
+Mr. Lloyd doesn't show up in the Third Circuit -- I
+guess in New Jersey -- no, Pennsylvania. Doesn't show up in
+Pennsylvania for this trial. And so Mr.
+is the only
+person who testifies, and then wins, because Lloyd is not
+there, and
+wins against the ship company. It goes up
+on appeal, and the American Export Lines, the company, said,
+wait a minute, that's not fair because we want to introduce
+Lloyd's testimony from the trial to show that Lloyd says he
+didn't assault
+• So that's sort of the backdrop to
+this.
+16
+The Third Circuit Court of Appeals said, yeah, that's
+not fair, that
+gets to say whatever he wants to say and
+there's directly contradictory testimony against
+in
+this Coast Guard hearing, so we're going to say for a variety
+of reasons that it comes in. There is a, what I would call a
+concurring/dissenting opinion by then-District Court Judge
+Stern. And he actually says, you know, this is not a
+predecessor-in-interest case, in his part of the opinion. And
+what he does then is he actually cites to the Second Circuit
+law on this and has to go back to 1900 for the case
+Metropolitan State RY Co., and I couldn't figure out what "RY"
+stands for, V. Gumby. And that's at 99 F. 192. And this Gumby
+case is still good law and sort of sets the Second Circuit
+apart from the Third Circuit with regard to these issues,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+17
+because the Second Circuit in the Gumby decision takes a much
+more conservative view of what it means to be a predecessor in
+interest.
+And this Gumby case has been cited by other courts
+for a number of years and essentially says, no, this is not
+just
+simply, maybe you guys have something in common here. A
+predecessor in interest is, I die, and I am the predecessor in
+interest
+in my estate,
+or I am in privity of contract with
+someone, and so therefore I'm the predecessor in interest; a
+company bought my company and so the depositions in that
+litigation are therefore admissible against the third or the
+fourth company because these are all predecessors in interest,
+not, Mr. Epstein signed a nonprosecution agreement that
+required him to confess liability and damages and therefore,
+ten years later, my client has to eat this deposition. That's
+not a predecessor in interest. There are a lot of things I
+could call that, but predecessor in interest wouldn't be one of
+them, your Honor.
+They also argue, your Honor, that somehow
+Mr. Rodriguez's statements are reliable and therefore should be
+admitted under the residual hearsay rule. Let me remind you
+again, your Honor, this is Mr. Rodriguez, who either committed
+perjury during this deposition that they are saying is so
+reliable or manufactured evidence after the fact. You can't
+have it both ways. He was asked questions about the book that
+we talked about in court here, during his deposition, and he
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+18
+said he had no such document, and then called someone,
+Mr.
+most likely, and said, hey, I'm going to sell you
+this thing for $50,000, after which he was arrested and
+prosecuted, and, the day of his change of plea hearing, then
+goes to Miami and gets arrested for 922(g) charges for
+possessing
+multiple -- multiple, dozens -- of weapons by a
+convicted felon.
+So this is the foundation upon which this reliability,
+according to the plaintiff, is established, which, it's not.
+I think that's all of the witnesses that relate to
+this particular motion, your Honor. And so for all of the
+reasons, we ask that you grant this motion and exclude these
+depositions in their entirety.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. May I be heard?
+It's Sigrid McCawley on behalf of
+A couple of these issues, I think, are pretty easy to
+deal with out of the box. As an initial matter, your Honor,
+you knew you were here today to talk about whether Mr. Epstein
+will show up pursuant to his trial subpoena. In an abundance
+of caution because multiple witnesses in this case have been
+evasive, we designated his testimony in case he doesn't show up
+and in case we can't compel him to be here pending your
+decision. We want him here in person, obviously. We believe
+that he falls within those rules and should have to be here in
+person. But in an abundance of caution we've designated his
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+19
+testimony. The defendants have argued that he is available, he
+should be here as well. So we're on the same page with respect
+to that. But if not, we have designated his testimony. And
+that's -- they were quibbling over our designating that
+testimony. We did it as a fallback in case there is an issue
+with him being compelled to be here at trial.
+THE COURT: One of the things that he's advancing,
+regrettably not here at the moment, but is his Fifth Amendment
+privilege. And am I not correct that there are a number of
+decisions that say it's up to me to decide whether or not the
+exercise of Fifth Amendment privilege comes in directly or by
+deposition?
+MS. McCAWLEY: I believe that's correct, your Honor.
+We obviously -- there's been a number of motions pending with
+respect to Mr. Epstein and the adverse inference with respect
+to his taking his Fifth Amendment right, and you heard from my
+wonderful colleague, Mr. Cassell, who argued last week about
+the adverse inference and Libutti factors with respect to his
+testimony coming in. So with respect to whether he is here in
+person versus deposition, like I said, in an abundance of
+caution, we've done both; we have compelled him to try to --
+subpoena him here in person as well as designating his
+testimony.
+We do believe that, if he were on the stand, we would
+have the ability to ask him those questions. For example, your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+20
+Honor compelled him to produce, you'll remember, pursuant to
+this subpoena, the pictures, which were no. 5 of that subpoena.
+We have not been able to ask him questions about that at this
+time because that was ruled on after we were able to take his
+deposition. So we would like to have to have him here in
+person
+and be able to have --
+THE COURT: Have any pictures been produced?
+MS. McCAWLEY: They have not, your Honor, of course.
+I mean, he is not -- obviously they're not here either. But if
+we have the power to do that, we would like to have him here in
+person.
+So that's with respect to Epstein.
+With Mr. Rizzo, we answered in our response, he will
+be here. He is within the hundred-mile jurisdiction. So
+Mr. Rizzo we again designate.
+THE COURT: So that's not a question.
+MS. McCAWLEY: Right, exactly.
+Mr. Esplin, we designated him in case they pulled him
+as an expert, so we designated that testimony. They have said
+that they're going to have Mr. Esplin here at trial. So that
+is not an issue anymore.
+I would like to address the more poignant issues, and
+that is with respect to |
+With all due respect
+to my colleague, the deposition, which I would like to hand up
+to your Honor, has 70 pages of substantive testimony from
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+21
+• She was 15 years old at the time she was
+recruited in this circumstance, in the same exact manner that
+my client was recruited. So I would like to just pass that up
+so your Honor can consider that during my argument.
+May I approach?
+believe that
+So, your Honor, the defendant would love to have you
+walked into this deposition and
+didn't say anything. That is not the case. You can view it
+with your own eyes in the testimony that she has given. Was
+she apprehensive? Absolutely. Was she unhappy about having to
+talk about this circumstance again? Absolutely. Did she say
+everything in my police statement is correct? Absolutely. So
+that is in her deposition. But she also gives substantive
+testimony, very substantive testimony. I would like to direct
+your attention to paragraph at page 25. She starts to talk
+about how she was recruited. She was brought into the bedroom
+under the guise of a massage. She was abused by Epstein during
+that time. She was asked by him and others to bring friends
+over of similar high school age. She was introduced to Nadia,
+had to participate in group sex in a similar manner that my
+client was subjected to. She was there over a hundred times
+during this time period. She was brought in by people who are
+associated with the defendant in this case because the
+defendant, as you'll recall when you've heard Tony
+testimony, was asked to bring young girls to the house. These
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+22
+young girls then brought l
+I to the house. So there is a
+chain of events directly linked to the defendant in this case.
+Her testimony, they're trying to get rid of it because it's so
+poignant, your Honor. It goes to the exact issues in this
+case.
+Unfortunately, she's in Florida. We can't compel her to
+be here. But we do have sworn deposition testimony by her.
+And most importantly, at page 54 of 57, she testifies
+that Epstein intimidated her, that his folks tried to get her
+not to talk, not to cooperate with the police, which is very
+similar to a number of other witnesses in this case.
+So this testimony is very powerful. The jury should
+be able to hear this, your Honor. There is no reason for it to
+be excluded. It's substantive. Again, was she apprehensive?
+Yes.
+With respect to her -- and they've made arguments with
+respect to the questions being leading, your Honor. We cite
+you to U.S. V.
+• When you have a witness that's a sexual
+abuse victim of this type, you're entitled to ask leading
+questions in order to solicit the response. That's 520 F.3d
+867. And that is a similar circumstance where, when a witness
+is in a circumstance where they have been abused and they are
+apprehensive and they are considered an adverse witness, at
+that point you can ask leading questions to solicit that
+testimony.
+So, your Honor, she is a very important witness in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+23
+this case, again because her circumstances are so substantially
+similar to that of my client. And there is absolutely no valid
+reason to be excluding her testimony.
+With respect to the police report that she was asked
+about, it was her statement, her police statement that was
+shown to her during that deposition. She was given the
+statement.
+She testified, the statement is correct, my
+recollection, so it's recorded recollection there, at the time
+in 2011. And that's at page 7. She states that, back from
+November 21, 2005 when she provided that sworn statement, that
+everything in that statement is correct. But then, she didn't
+just stop there, your Honor. Again, it's 60 pages of
+deposition. She gave substantive testimony reiterating what
+happened to her during her time period with Epstein, again,
+facts analogous to what happened to my client.
+So, your Honor, her testimony is substantive. There
+is absolutely no reason to be keeping it out in any way. And
+we submit that it should be before the jury in this case.
+And, again, I pointed you to some of those key pages.
+But really from page about 20 back is all substantive testimony
+in that deposition.
+Now, I would like to move, if your Honor doesn't have
+any questions with respect to
+, I would like to move
+on to Alfredo Rodriguez. Obviously Alfredo Rodriguez is
+deceased. If he was not, we would want to have him here.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 24 of 46
+24
+Unfortunately we cannot. Why is he important? Rodriguez is
+important because he testified that Maxwell, in this time
+period, which was around the 2004, 2005 time period, with as
+his direct supervisor at the home. So that contradicts
+directly what Maxwell has said in her sworn testimony. So he
+testified -- this is back years and years ago -- Who was your
+supervisor?
+Who did you report directly to at all times, day,
+night, etc.? It was Maxwell, the defendant in this case. He
+worked at the Palm Beach house for several years. He testified
+that Maxwell lived there. He testified regarding her computer,
+direct contradiction to what she has testified, that there were
+nude photographs on her computer, things of that nature.
+He testified that he was directed to go to a high
+school to drop off flowers to a high school student as part of
+this massage recruiting scheme. He testified that Maxwell was
+on a bank account for the Palm Beach house at the time he was,
+they were jointly able to write checks, etc., etc. And he
+testified regarding the numerous under-aged girls there.
+Finally, at page 172 of his testimony, he testified
+that Maxwell threatened him. When he left his employment, she
+said, if you talk, you will be in trouble. And that's in his
+testimony at page 172.
+So, your Honor, we believe that Rodriguez is a highly
+important witness. Yes, he is deceased. He is not here. I
+understand that. They have called his credibility in question
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+25
+by saying, , he was arrested for stealing a black book. We
+stipulate to that. We don't mind the jury knowing he stole a
+black book. He was arrested for it. But that doesn't mean his
+testimony regarding his employment and what he was required to
+do, etc., shouldn't come into evidence. Again, if we could
+call him we would.
+So you heard a lot about the seaman case, which is
+that Third Circuit case that we talked about. But more
+important than seaman, which I do think is on point there, that
+case, the 804(b) (1) rule is explicitly on point on this issue.
+So it addresses former testimony, as we know. And that rule
+says that former testimony in this situation, when someone is
+unavailable, which the deceased qualifies as, can be offered
+against a party who in a civil case was a predecessor in
+interest, had an opportunity or similar motive to develop it by
+direct cross or redirect examination. So you've heard from
+Mr. Pagliuca,
+1, well, Maxwell's lawyers weren't there, she
+wouldn't have had any incentive, she would have a different
+incentive than Epstein in that case. So these are the Jane Doe
+cases, as your Honor knows. And the purpose of those cases, of
+course Epstein was trying to call into question the witnesses.
+So the point was to show that the witnesses were not telling
+the truth. Rodriguez is being deposed in that case. So their
+incentive is to show that he's wrong.
+And what do they do? Epstein's lawyer spends time in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+26
+that deposition cross-examining Alfredo Rodriguez specifically
+about the testimony relating to Maxwell. So there is
+cross-examination with respect to the claims of what was on
+Maxwell's computer, etc. And I will point you to that. That's
+at pages, you're going to see that at pages 364 through 369,
+375 through 376, and 416 to 417.
+So while they say,
+• there was no incentive to
+cross-examine with respect to Maxwell, they certainly were
+doing it at the deposition.
+And they are aligned, your Honor. The point is to try
+to take down the witnesses and prove that this did not happen.
+So in that respect, your Honor, they are aligned.
+With respect to the case law on this, I cite to the
+U.S. Carnivalia case, which is an Eastern District of New York
+case, that talks about this, the interest issue. And it says,
+at the time testimony was given, did they have an interest of
+substantially similar intensity to prove or disprove the same
+side or substantially similar issues before the Court.
+THE COURT: But the issues are markedly different,
+aren't they? The issue, what interest did Epstein have in
+establishing Maxwell's role?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: The interest that Epstein had, just as
+if Rodriguez were here on the stand, the interest that Epstein
+had -- and you'll see it in the deposition -- is to disprove
+the allegations of girls coming into the house, nude photos on
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 27 of 46
+27
+the computer, abuse happening in the home that other people
+knew about, all those things that were occurring at the West
+Palm Beach home. He had the same incentive as Maxwell would.
+If we put Rodriguez on the stand here, she would be
+cross-examining him on those same exact issues.
+So, your Honor, their interests
+THE COURT: But counsel points out, he's conceded
+liability. So what's point?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I don't believe in the Jane Doe cases
+he conceded liability in that manner, your Honor. He is
+cross-examining these witnesses because of course they are
+determining how much they're going to have to pay, all the
+issues relating to these witnesses. So he's fought those hard.
+He deposed and fought every single witness that was brought up
+in those cases. They went on for several years, as your Honor
+knows.
+THE COURT: Who called Rodriguez?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: A number, there was probably, I think
+it was jointly six or seven lawyers from varying plaintiffs.
+There was Jane Doe 102, Jane Doe 1, you know, etc., all
+represented by varying counsel, so they were all present. And
+Creighton was present for Epstein.
+And that raises a good point, your Honor, because
+another --
+THE COURT: So the issue, Epstein's issue with respect
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 28 of 46
+28
+to Rodriguez was, were there girls, how many, and who they
+were.
+MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, your Honor. Did the, yes,
+exactly, what was occurring at the house. So they were trying
+to establish whether or not those things occurred, how many
+girls were they really abused, all of those issues. And so
+they called Rodriguez to try to establish that, which, they got
+his testimony with respect to him.
+On the lawyers, I do want to point something out,
+because this talk about interests being aligned, you'll
+remember Detective Recarey in this case. He gave testimony.
+He is the detective who investigated this. He testified that
+he tried to interview Maxwell, and Guy Fronstin stopped him
+from doing it, wouldn't produce her as a witness. That is
+Epstein's lawyer. So there is -- while I we haven't seen a
+JDA, your Honor has directed it to be produced, and there is a
+fight over that. At that time back in 2006-7, when these
+depositions are happening, you have the lawyer for Epstein,
+also representing Maxwell, saying she can't be interviewed by
+the detective. So, your Honor, there is an interest alignment.
+THE COURT: That clearly doesn't do it.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm sorry?
+THE COURT: That clearly doesn't do it.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Well, your Honor, I believe that when
+we look at just the purpose of 804 and how this would come in,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 29 of 46
+29
+it's for a situation like this. Again we have a diseased. So
+we cannot produce him to be here to give the testimony.
+THE COURT: I do understand he's dead. Probably a
+good thing based on everything that we know about Rodriguez,
+however.
+MS. McCAWLEY: All right, your Honor. Well, I
+appreciate your entertaining my argument on that, and I'm happy
+to answer any questions you have.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I won't talk about the first two
+people. It seems to me that there is a concession that
+Mr. Rizzo is going to be here and why, and so we can move on.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: As to
+• McCawley
+directs you to page 7 of her deposition. And the question by
+Mr.
+first is, I'm going to go ahead and show you a
+police report. Mr. Josephsberg says, I've seen it about five
+years ago. And Mr.
+says, if you need to refer to it
+for any reason, you can. That's the entirety of that colloguy
+about whatever this police report is.
+Then on line 17 there's a question, "Do you remember a
+police officer coming to speak with you in Jacksonville on
+October 11, 2005?" And she says,
+"No."
+Just because you like some testimony doesn't mean that
+you've complied with the rules of evidence, your Honor. And if
+in fact someone was going to actually try to introduce whatever
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 30 of 46
+30
+this is, what would you do? Well, if you had an audio/video
+copy of this statement, you would push "play" in this
+deposition and the witness would watch the whole thing, and
+then you could say, is that you? Is that you on that tape?
+• OK, yeah.
+And who's that you're talking to? And is that
+what you said? And is that your voice?
+Well, none of that
+happened, your Honor.
+Alternatively, if you were the questioner, you would
+say, I'm going to direct your attention to page 1; did you say
+that or did you not say that? None of that happened in this
+deposition. In fact, the opposite happened, your Honor. The
+lawyer for the witness said --
+THE COURT: But that's as to the statement. That's
+all as to the statement.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That's right. OK. I've said enough
+about that, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I mean, it doesn't get in through her.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Precisely. That was my point
+precisely, that there's no evidentiary foundation through this
+witness for admission of those pieces of paper.
+Let me finish up with this Rodriguez issue.
+THE COURT: But the so-called substantive testimony
+does get in.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I suppose -- it depends on which
+part of it you're talking about, because there are, other than
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 31 of 46
+31
+specific objections to different parts of this designated
+transcript.
+THE COURT: Is that part of the -- I have roughly,
+what is that, two feet --
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
+THE COURT:
+-- two and a half feet of depositions to
+review with objections. Is she included in that?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: To the line-by-line objections and the
+designations. So this is a more overarching issue.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Finally with regard to Rodriguez, your
+Honor, first of all, we are
+here in 2017 in a defamation
+action. Maxwell was not named a defendant in these Jane Doe
+litigations. And you asked the question, who took the
+deposition. The deposition was taken by the plaintiff's
+counsel in these various Jane Doe cases. Mr.
+was
+there. There were three or four other lawyers there that were
+asking Rodriguez questions. Maxwell was not represented.
+The notion of Recarey saying that he was prevented
+from talking to Maxwell by some guy named Guy Fronstin, I'm
+just going to call that a lie, your Honor, because that's what
+it is. Maxwell was never represented by anybody during the
+course of any of these investigations, Fronstin or anybody
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 32 of 46
+32
+else.
+So that's just a lie. Recarey said something offhand
+like, Fronstin said don't talk to the employees, but at the end
+of the day, Recarey never talked to talk to Ms. Maxwell, not
+once. And Ms. Maxwell didn't have a lawyer. Fronstin would
+have been conflicted. There is just no substance to that
+testimony whatsoever.
+And, again, I don't know how they can say that Epstein
+has a different role given the fact that he admitted liability
+and admitted damages. He has no incentive to cross-examine, at
+all.
+THE COURT: Well, he has an incentive to limit the
+number of claimants.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, the number of claimants was
+defined by the United States government, your Honor. So he
+couldn't limit the number of claimants. He got a non-- the
+nonprosecution agreement says, I think in paragraph --
+THE COURT: If they were not named by the government,
+they could not sue -- I mean, they could sue, but they wouldn't
+be part of the confession.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Exactly. That's exactly right.
+So all of these people had been named and were in this
+case.
+So there is no incentive for him to cross-examine.
+And, you know, the thing that really doesn't make any
+sense, their argument, there's a reason why co-defendants have
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17Page 33 of 46 |
+different lawyers. There is a reason why, in criminal cases,
+the same
+lawyer =-
+THE COURT: well, of course the real thing that they
+want Rodriguez's testimony for, more than anything else, is the
+role of Maxwell. And I don't see how that is an interest. Do
+they have
+the same interest in trying to disprove the sexual
+trafficking allegation? Well, you say no, because that's all
+taken out of it by the agreement.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes to that. But let me follow up.
+This is where I was going with why there are two lawyers for
+two defendants in a case. If I am in that deposition,
+representing Ms. Maxwell, or any competent lawyer is in that
+deposition representing Ms. Maxwell, I am cross-examining this
+guy about -- this is all on Epstein, Epstein did it, Epstein
+did it, Epstein did it, Epstein did it. That's what I'm
+cross-examining this guy about. I am distancing myself from
+Epstein and putting it all on him. If I'm Epstein's lawyer in
+this deposition, I'm trying to distance myself from everybody,
+including myself, your Honor. And so they have completely
+different motives in cross-examination of these witnesses. And
+time and time again, in any case before your Honor where there
+is a group of people that are accused of some kind of
+wrongdoing, everybody is pointing the finger in the other
+direction. And that's why you get different lawyers and that's
+why their interest aren't aligned.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 l
+
+34
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+But Maxwell is not at this party. She's not named as
+a defendant and she has nothing to do with this case.
+Her name
+comes up in three -- there is about, I think, 500 pages of
+transcript for Rodriguez.
+Maybe her name comes up four times,
+five times, during the entire 500 pages. That in and of itself
+shows you that there is really no commonality of interest here,
+because Maxwell is not on anybody's radar screen as having done
+anything when these cases are going.
+THE COURT: But what is his testimony about, Maxwell?
+(Continued on next page)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 35 of 46
+35
+MR. PAGLIUCA: So it's sort of, I don't have it in
+front of me but I can tell you generally because I've read it.
+There's a conversation about what did Rodriguez 100k at and did
+he have access to computers? And so at some point he says you
+know, I went on Ms. Maxwell
+THE COURT: There is the whole black book
+conversation.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: There is really no black book
+conversation other than there's some discussion about there's a
+system called Citrix which is apparently an internal e-mail
+system that Rodriguez talks about and talks about the lists
+coming from New York or words to that effect. So there's very
+brief discussion about that and then there is some other
+discussion about who did he report to and when. And then that
+is pretty much it for the entire deposition.
+THE COURT: And he reported to Maxwell?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, there's conflicting testimony
+about that in Rodriguez's deposition. And it's very unclear to
+me who he actually reported to based on that deposition
+testimony.
+The point though, your Honor, is there's no incentive
+for anybody to develop that testimony on Maxwell's behalf.
+That's the point and that's why there's no identity of interest
+or any reason that this would be admissible under Rule 804.
+Thank you.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 36 of 46
+36
+THE COURT: Yes. Anything further?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Just two points of clarification, your
+Honor, just to guide the Court. If you look at page 24 and 25
+of the Rodriguez deposition there's a question. So you took
+your instructions from Ms. Maxwell, as well as Mr. Epstein?
+She gave me instructions of how to run the household directly
+in other words like towels, et cetera. So there's testimony
+about who was your direct supervisor? Ms. Maxwell.
+And then, your Honor, as well there's testimony
+regarding Ms. Maxwell being in the bank accounts on page 121.
+There's testimony about her threatening him post leaving work
+on page 172. There's testimony about the high school flowers
+issue on page 119. And then there's, of course, the
+cross-examination of her regarding the computer. So there's
+lots of testimony regarding her computer throughout the
+deposition but lot's of deposition testimony about that on page
+364 as well as 369, as well as some of the other pages.
+Finally, one point of clarification, on the notion
+with respect to fact, you were asking whether liability was
+determined in the lower court cases, the Jane Doe cases. And I
+just wanted my co-counsel to address one point of clarification
+very briefly.
+MR.
+: Sure, your Honor. I just wanted to
+dispel the notion that because of the non prosecution agreement
+Mr. Epstein conceded liability. If you see that paragraph
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 37 of 46
+37
+number eight, it really indicates that if those victims agreed
+to exclusively pursue damages under 18 U.S.C. 2255, then he
+would concede liability. The reason that the cases were so
+hotly contested is because that did not allow for punitive
+damages, so it did not allow for a battery claim or an
+intentional infliction claim. So the plaintiffs elected then
+to sue him for claims outside of 18 U.S.C. 2255 which resulted
+in a hotly contested years long litigation where Epstein
+contested everything, liability, causation, damages, whether
+they were there, not there, all of that.
+So that provision while it came into play for a select
+few people that pursued claims exclusively under that, the bulk
+of the litigation, the vast majority of the litigation, the
+claims, the claimants did not pursue exclusive remedy under
+that section and so therefore it was totally inapplicable and
+completely inapplicable to all of the depositions. I just
+wanted your Honor to have that understanding so that you would
+understand why any of these depositions were taken, why the
+cross-examination was so extensive and why when you read
+Mr. Rodriguez's deposition or any of the others from the
+underlying case, they will read that way. There was no
+concession.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, your Honor, I'm going to move to
+strike that. And my point is exactly about Mr. Edward and his
+role in these multiple litigations. Unless he wants to get
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 38 of 46
+38
+sworn-in and we actually have the opportunity to cross examine
+any of this purported evidence, I don't think the Court should
+consider it. You have the non prosecution agreement in front
+of you. It says what it says. And Mr.
+at this point
+is not a witness and he is not sworn-in and he is not subject
+to cross-examination.
+THE COURT: Well, the 2255 damages, what kind of
+damages are they? Do you know?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, that's a statutory
+provision under the Trafficking Act that allows for civil
+damage claims under that particular statute, 18 U.S.C. 2255.
+It allows for extensive damages including pain and suffering,
+attorney's fees, et cetera. And so there are a panoply of very
+large damages recoverable under that statute.
+THE COURT: Presumably not punitive damages?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: That's correct, your Honor.
+MR.
+: That's correct, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: So what?
+THE COURT: Yes. OK. All right. Thank you. We're
+done.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Those were the only pending motions,
+your Honor. With respect to the depositions that we
+designated, we know we've submitted objections and responses.
+THE COURT: well,
+•. yeah. Well, I have that file
+and I'll take that on submission. God Lord, it would take us
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 39 of 46
+forever.
+39
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you. We appreciate your time.
+: Thank you, your Honor.
+MR.
+(Pause)
+THE COURT: My clerk graciously points out to me that
+we have the "lawyer as witness" issue that has not been argued.
+I'm perfectly willing to take that on submission. Do you want
+to be heard on it?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm happy to address it briefly, your
+Honor. If we have time today, that's fine.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm sorry, your Honor. I didn't know
+it was set for today and Paul Cassell was handling that motion.
+I don't have the papers with me either. I'm sorry. I didn't
+realize that we had that teed up for today.
+THE COURT: Well, I'll hear counsel and then --
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I'm sorry, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: This a brief argument, your Honor. The
+only thing that I want to point out is this.
+THE COURT: You're not going to call them, I take it.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That didn't sound like a question, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Well, absent their testifying on
+plaintiff's case do you intend to call them?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17
+
+40
+THE COURT: No, that's what I thought. So it's
+only -- and it's only really
+on the chain of custody of
+the black book. That's the only thing, it seems to me that the
+plaintiff could call him for. And of course, if he's called
+for and they say they're not going to call them for that, so.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: That's correct, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Here is what I perceive to be the
+problem here and I may be forecasting a little bit, your Honor.
+Mr.
+and Mr. Cassell, Mr.
+in particular, are
+really inextricably intertwined with a lot of factual issues.
+THE COURT: Yes, I know the history. I mean, some of
+the history.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: And in my view -- and I suppose
+reasonable people can differ about this. In my view this is
+not the kind of case that if I were in either of their shoes I
+would be litigating in front of a jury.
+THE COURT: That's fine. I understand the ethical
+point.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. And that's their issue. I
+agree it's their issue but when it spills over into my client's
+ability to get a fair trial it becomes my issue.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: And so what I have put in my papers
+which I just want to highlight is I think the Court has the
+authority to disqualify these lawyers. The Court may or may
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17
+
+41
+not choose to do that. I have asked as remedy one a
+disqualification.
+THE COURT: But you haven't moved to disqualify them.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: In response to their papers I have and
+that's in my responsive pleading. However, your Honor, the
+real problem that I am forecasting here -- and I think the
+Court can address this in the context of the trial of this
+case -- is the pervasive tendency of plaintiff's counsel to
+offer testimony from the podium or the table.
+THE COURT: Well, that of course, first of all, I
+would hope that it would not happen and if it does happen and
+if it should happen more than once or twice, we'll see. There
+must be something a judge could do about that.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I would think so.
+THE COURT: Maybe put the lawyer in jail? I don't
+know. Is that possible?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: It is possible, your Honor.
+THE COURT: By
+it is, isn't it? Depending on
+what I order, yeah.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Precisely.
+THE COURT: OK. It seems to me we can probably
+control that.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Enough side, your Honor.
+THE COURT: But I don't want to leave your motion to
+disqualify hanging. What under all these circumstances, do you
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+42
+want to press it? I mean --
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm raising --
+THE COURT: Do you really - I understand the thought
+about the ethical issues here. That's it, really, isn't it?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: You know, your Honor, it's something
+that I've struggled with because it's not my ethical issue.
+THE COURT: No. And those are unattractive motions.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. My fear -- and again, I don't
+know how this is going to play out -- but my fear is during the
+middle of this trial there's going to be an issue. Whether
+it's somebody --
+THE COURT: Of course you know if it's extreme bingo,
+bango, that's the end of the trial.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. And that's what I say in my
+response is that I'm foreshadowing this because I'd rather if
+there is going to be an issue --
+THE COURT: Let me ask you this because I say based on
+this colloquy and the fact that it does come in on your reply
+which really isn't kosher --
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I agree.
+THE COURT: I mean, as an affirmative motion, all of
+those things I'll consider that at the moment it's withdrawn
+and they're subject to renewal.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That's fine, your Honor.
+THE COURT: At least I got rid of one motion.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 43 of 46
+43
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: One motion that is inappropriately
+brought.
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+By admission, your Honor.
+I admit when
+that's a problem.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: There's a gentleman who just walked in. I
+don't know whether --
+MR. WEINBERG: Good afternoon, your Honor.
+Weinberg. And I apologize for being late in
+the Epstein motion to quash.
+THE COURT: Well, I don't know why you should
+apologize. You are only two and a half hours late.
+MR. WEINBERG: LaGuardia was swamped, your Honor.
+THE COURT: OK. I'll hear you.
+MR. WEINBERG: Thank you very much, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Now before you start I have a question.
+What is Epstein's residence?
+MR. WEINBERG: Epstein's legal residence is the Virgin
+Islands, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And has he done business here in New York
+regularly?
+MR. WEINBERG: He has done business in New York and
+whether it's regular or not, your Honor, would be --
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+44
+THE COURT: An issue.
+MR. WEINBERG: An issue. We accepted service to try
+to facilitate the decision making knowing about all of the
+issues in the case but we reserved all our rights to oppose
+both the surface and the necessity for Mr. Epstein to reassert
+his Fifth Amendment which I represent to you as his counsel
+would be his position. His Fifth Amendment is just as
+necessary to his rights today as it was when your Honor wrote
+your opinion under seal on February 2.
+THE COURT: Well, as this record stands, I don't think
+I have the power -- and you would I am sure agree with me -- I
+don't think I have the power to compel him to attend as this
+record stands at the moment.
+MR. WEINBERG: We would agree, your Honor.
+THE COURT: So it's really just a question of using
+his deposition.
+MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor?
+THE COURT: Of using his deposition.
+MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. And the deposition
+would cause no prejudice to either party. In the event your
+Honor determined there was no adverse inference, there would be
+no reason for more testimony and your Honor was going to 1o0k
+question by question, subject by subject, the video deposition
+600 questions, over five hours provides the Court with a
+pretrial basis to make the rulings.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 45 of 46
+45
+THE COURT: Can you imagine?, my goodness. My
+gracious.
+well, such a procedure would give me an opportunity
+to rest and doze off and so, all right.
+MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, judge.
+THE COURT: Anything else you want to tell me?
+MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor.
+THE COURT: OK.
+I'll hear from anybody who wants to
+challenge that.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, I just wanted to ask, I
+know the concern is about the regularly conducted business in
+New York. Could we have an opportunity to submit evidence with
+respect to his regular conduct of business in New York?
+THE COURT: Look, you really want to try that? Do you
+really want to try that? And just for the purpose of trying to
+compel him -- 100k, I guess you've served him. You have the
+right. Fine. Do whatever you want to do, I guess. I don't
+know how you're going to do it but good luck.
+As the record now stands, there's an assertion by
+counsel which I take in good faith that his residence is the
+Virgin Islands. Where are the Virgin Islands? They are not
+within the Southern District, I don't think. There are islands
+but no, no,
+, yes this is an island. Yeah, that's right.
+OK.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor.
+THE COURT: The fact is I don't have on this record, I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 903 Filed 05/05/17 Page 46 of 46
+don't think I have the ability to send the marshals out for
+him.
+46
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: OK. So you do whatever you want to do.
+At the moment it's his deposition. Parenthetically, there's a
+little issue about that which maybe we could clear up. His
+disposition on the use of the Fifth Amendment will be
+eliminated.
+MR.
+: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Any problems with that? OK. We all know
+what we're talking about.
+MR.
+: Yes.
+THE COURT: Squib at the top there when he initially
+invoked.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: So, yes. Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: That will be eliminated. All right.
+Anything else?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: That's it, your Honor. Thank you so
+much for your time.
+THE COURT: Thanks.
+(Adjourned)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb77f05ac9b2e8985d13d1995957c67936d9933a7d66135b2e6b18c6833d1079.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb77f05ac9b2e8985d13d1995957c67936d9933a7d66135b2e6b18c6833d1079.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..945dd60d489f7a0da27432677d9757f6e3c90ad2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb77f05ac9b2e8985d13d1995957c67936d9933a7d66135b2e6b18c6833d1079.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -4759,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb77f05ac9b2e8985d13d1995957c67936d9933a7d66135b2e6b18c6833d1079",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 65,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fb9f00f27f668254d785a8e62b1ea3784f08888a6f304e239108f5e6a1c58fe6",
+  "output_sha256": "788e8cae82b2388ae55e7e12ea07a1da580d02f671987244fb58878d06ed5b37",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb8903fb2d0ee7837d55cb3aaea7d84df725eac0640a195a058ff35aee6b31e9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb8903fb2d0ee7837d55cb3aaea7d84df725eac0640a195a058ff35aee6b31e9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d92ec8d703b00975373162baadb2ec7a2a0ff0bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb8903fb2d0ee7837d55cb3aaea7d84df725eac0640a195a058ff35aee6b31e9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 553
+Filed 01/19/17
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALIY FILEN
+-X
+DOC #:
+DA 01/19/17
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433. (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+- --X
+Sweet, D.J.
+The letters regarding page limits shall be treated as
+motion and heard at noon on Thursday, January 26, 2017 in Courtroom
+18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. All papers shall
+be served in accordance with Local Civil Rule 6.1.
+It is so ordered.
+lew loIk, N
+anuary 1S, 201°
+ROBERT W.
+SWEET
+U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb8903fb2d0ee7837d55cb3aaea7d84df725eac0640a195a058ff35aee6b31e9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb8903fb2d0ee7837d55cb3aaea7d84df725eac0640a195a058ff35aee6b31e9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d6e066f0d932e83ff3facf741251bcad679dec0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb8903fb2d0ee7837d55cb3aaea7d84df725eac0640a195a058ff35aee6b31e9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb8903fb2d0ee7837d55cb3aaea7d84df725eac0640a195a058ff35aee6b31e9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8741768c7a09f705ee2ee216839bfe2e93b89ea5deb63ac34f8a134bccfb4131",
+  "output_sha256": "5bdbfc1096f6b31111d892d93ab0cb7cf8192a2f9a5440973589553f558ed304",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb940dee85b7beb28946a4b917cc7f580f18cd128aa0d429246d82f75da6218a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb940dee85b7beb28946a4b917cc7f580f18cd128aa0d429246d82f75da6218a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53f315474d50601b0918ae6f15379f0c8160ee4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb940dee85b7beb28946a4b917cc7f580f18cd128aa0d429246d82f75da6218a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1351 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 621
+Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 51
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+-V.-
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (A.JN)
+THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
+TO THE DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+One St. Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Of Counsel
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 51
+Table of Contents
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+.. 2
+.. 2
+LEGAL STANDARD
+ARGUMENT
+I. The Defendant Was Convicted of the Crimes Charged in the Indictment, So No
+Constructive Amendment or Variance Occurred
+3
+3
+II.
+A. Applicable Law
+B. Discussion
+The Court Should Enter Judgment on Counts Three and Five
+4
+A. Applicable Law...
+B. Discussion..
+24
+25
+26
+III.
+The Defendant's Motion to Vacate Her Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment Based on
+Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied
+33
+A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice
+34
+B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish that the Government Delayed the Indictment
+for an Improper Purpose
+. 44
+The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Under Rule
+29
+CONCLUSION
+47
+.. 50
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 51
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's
+four post-trial motions, dated February 11, 2022 ("Def. Mot.") (Dkt. No. 599).
+LEGAL STANDARD
+Under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court "must enter a judgment
+of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction." Fed. R.
+Crim. P. 29(a). 'In reviewing a Rule 29 motion, the court "must view the evidence in a light that
+is most favorable to the government, and with all reasonable inferences resolved in favor of the
+government.'" United States v.
+No. 20 Cr. 603 (PKC), 2022 WL 336975, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
+Feb. 4, 2022) (quoting United States v.
+, 747 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2014)). The court
+"must "defer to the jury's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, its choices between permissible
+inferences, and its assessment of the weight of the evidence."" Id. (quoting United States v.
+482 F.3d 60, 68 (2d Cir. 2006)). A conviction must be upheld "if any rational trier of fact could
+have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Peters, 843 F. App'x
+at 372; see also United States v. Cuti, 720 F.3d 453, 461 (2d Cir. 2013) ("A judgment of acquittal
+can be entered only if the evidence that the defendant committed the crime alleged is nonexistent
+or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.").
+Rule 33 provides, in relevant part, that "[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may
+vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." Fed. R. Crim. P.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 51
+33(a).' "The defendant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to a new trial under Rule
+33[.J" United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 475 (2d Cir. 2009). Because motions for a new
+trial are strongly disfavored, "the standard for granting such a motion is strict," United States v.
+Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 364 (2d Cir. 1995), and it should be granted "sparingly and in the most
+extraordinary circumstances, and only in order to avert a perceived miscarriage of justice." United
+States v. Gramins, 939 F.3d 429, 444 (2d Cir. 2019). In deciding the motion, courts "should
+generally defer to the jury's resolution of conflicting evidence and assessment of witness
+credibility." United States v. Landesman, 17 F.4th 298, 330 (2d Cir. 2021). The "ultimate test on
+a Rule 33 motion is whether letting a guilty verdict stand would be a manifest injustice." United
+States v. Peters, 843 F. App'x 369, 374 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v.
+, 246
+F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2001)).
+ARGUMENT
+The Defendant Was Convicted of the Crimes Charged in the Indictment, So No
+Constructive Amendment or Variance Occurred
+In her motion, the defendant claims that the Government's proof at trial differed from the
+crimes charged in the Second Superseding Indictment (the "S2 Indictment" or "Indictment"), and
+that the Government therefore constructively amended Counts One, Three, and Four of the
+Indictment. Not so. At all times-before trial, in its presentation of the evidence, at closing
+argument, and in seeking jury instructions the Government consistently argued that the
+' Unless otherwise noted, case text quotations omit all internal quotation marks, citations, and
+alterations.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 51
+defendant enticed and transported Jane to New York with the intent that Jane engage in illegal
+sexual activity, and that the defendant conspired to do so regarding Jane and the other Minor
+Victims. That is the issue the Court instructed the jury to resolve. And that is the criminal conduct
+charged in Counts One through Four of the S2 Indictment. Accordingly, no constructive
+amendment or variance occurred.
+A. Applicable Law
+Under the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, "an indictment must contain the
+elements of the offense charged and fairly inform the defendant of the charge against which he
+must defend." United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279, 293 (2d Cir. 2021). "[WJhen the charge
+upon which the defendant is tried differs significantly from the charge upon which the grand
+jury voted," a constructive amendment occurs and reversal is required. Id. "Not every alteration
+of an indictment, however, rises to the level of a constructive amendment." United States v.
+Dove, 884 F.3d 138, 146 (2d Cir. 2018). Instead, "[t]o prevail on a constructive amendment
+claim, a defendant must demonstrate that the terms of an indictment are in effect altered by the
+presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of the offense
+that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense
+other than that charged in the indictment." United States v. Gross, No. 15 Cr. 769 (AJN), 2017
+WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017), aff'd sub. nom United States v. Lebedev, 932
+F.3d 40 (2d Cir. 2019). That is, a defendant "must show that the evidence and jury instructions
+at trial completely shifted the core of criminality—i.e. proved behavior entirely separate from
+that identified in the indictment." Id. at *23.
+This analysis begins by identifying the "core of criminality," that is, "the essence of a
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 51
+crime, in general terms," but not "the particulars of how a defendant effected the crime." Id. at
+*20. The "object of a conspiracy constitutes an essential element of the conspiracy offense."
+Id. However, text in an indictment, such as "factual allegations that do not prove essential
+elements of a charge" and "general factual allegations leading into the statutory allegations" are
+not limitations on the core of criminality alleged in an indictment. Id.
+Once a court identifies the core of criminality, the court "must then determine whether the
+evidence or jury instructions at trial created a substantial likelihood that the defendant was not
+convicted of the crime described in that core, but of a crime 'distinctly different' from the one
+alleged." Id. The Second Circuit has "consistently permitted significant flexibility in proof,
+provided that the defendant was given notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial."
+Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, a defendant "cannot simply show that the facts diverged
+greatly from those alleged in the indictment," but rather that "the evidence and jury instructions
+created a substantial likelihood that a defendant was convicted for behavior entirely separate from
+that identified in the indictment." Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *21; see United States v. McGinn,
+787 F.3d 116, 128 (2d Cir. 2015) ("[T]he proof at trial need not, indeed cannot, be a precise replica
+of the charges contained in an indictment ...."). "[T]he Second Circuit has made clear that a
+constructive amendment does not occur where the facts at trial involve not a 'distinctly different
+complex set of uncharged facts' but 'a single set of discrete facts consistent with the charge in the
+indictment."" Id. (quoting United States v. D'Amelio, 683 F.3d 412, 419 (2d Cir. 2012)).
+"In contrast to a constructive amendment, a variance occurs when the charging terms of
+the indictment are left unaltered, but the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 51
+from those alleged in the indictment." Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31. Reversal due to a
+variance is appropriate only when the defendant can establish "that substantial prejudice occurred
+at trial as a result of the variance," a showing that cannot be made "where the pleading and the
+proof substantially correspond, where the variance is not of a character that could have misled the
+defendant at trial, and where the variance is not such as to deprive the accused of his right to be
+protected against another prosecution for the same offense." Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294. "The
+Second Circuit has repeatedly held that, so long as a defendant receives notice of the Government's
+theory of the case before trial, he is not prejudiced by a variance." Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at
+*32.
+B. Discussion
+No constructive amendment or variance occurred in this case. The grand jury returned the
+S2 Indictment charging the defendant with knowingly transporting Jane with the intent that Jane
+engage in criminal sexual activity in New York, and aiding and abetting the same, and with
+conspiring to entice and transport minors in interstate commerce with the intent that they engage
+in criminal sexual activity in New York. That is the core of criminality charged in the S2
+Indictment, and it is what the Government proved at trial and the Court captured in its jury
+instructions.
+1. The Proof at Trial and Jury Instructions Captured the Core of Criminality
+The defendant argues that the core of criminality for the
+Act counts "was a scheme
+by Epstein and [the defendant] to entice or cause underage girls to travel to New York with the
+intent that they would engage in sexual activity in violation of New York law." (Def. Mot. at 9).
+That is precisely the theory the Government advanced at trial. As the defendant correctly states,
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 51
+the Government "consistently maintained that to convict [the defendant] on the
+Act Counts
+(Counts One through Four), it was necessary to prove that [the defendant] enticed or caused
+underaged girls to travel to New York, or conspired to do the same, with the intent that they would
+engage in illegal sexual activity that violated New York law." (Def. Mot. at 1). The Government
+never advanced a theory that the illegal sexual activity identified in the S2 Indictment was sexual
+activity that occurred outside New York.
+At trial, the Government marshalled evidence that the defendant knowingly transported
+Jane to New York, and aided and abetted Epstein in doing so, with the intent that Jane engage in
+criminal sexual activity there in violation of New York law. That evidence included testimony
+from Jane in detail about Epstein's New York residence (Tr. 316-19) and specific sexual acts that
+took place in New York while Jane was a minor (Tr. 319-20). As the defendant rightly concedes,
+"most of [Jane's] trips were to New York" and "the majority of Jane's testimony about the trips
+consisted of a description of Epstein's house in New York and the sexual abuse she experienced
+there." (Def. Mot. at 13). The Government also offered significant corroborating evidence,
+including flight records and photographs of Epstein's New York residence. On the conspiracy
+counts, the Government also offered evidence that the defendant and Epstein transported another
+victim,
+, to New York while she was a minor. (See, e.g. Tr. 1862 (describing a
+flight from 2001 in which Epstein, the defendant, and Virginia flew from Maine to Teterboro, New
+Jersey)).
+The Government's summation similarly discussed the _
+Act offenses as encompassing
+conduct directed at New York.
+The Government explained that Count Two "is about Jane and
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 51
+how Maxwell and Epstein enticed her to ... go across state lines to New York to be abused." (Tr.
+2889 (emphasis added)). On that Count, the Government reminded the jury that "Jane told you
+about traveling with Maxwell to New York," and argued that "Jane didn't end up in New York by
+accident." (Tr. 2889-90 (emphasis added)). The Government also argued that the pattern of Jane's
+relationship with the defendant and Epstein showed that the defendant "enticed Jane to New York."
+(Tr. 2890 (emphasis added)). And the Government argued that the evidence showed the defendant
+"absolutely intended that Jane would be abused in New York." (Id. (emphasis added)). The
+Government explained that Count Four differed from Count Two in that it involved travel, and not
+enticement to travel. So, the Government argued, the evidence showed that "Jane was transported
+to New York," and that the defendant was involved in making travel arrangements. (Tr. 2891
+(emphasis added)). The Government also made clear that, in order to show a violation of New
+York law, the Government did not have to show "that abuse in New York actually happened," so
+long as the defendant had the requisite intent. (Tr. 2892 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, "[t]he
+crime happened the moment [the defendant, Epstein, and Jane] crossed state lines," and "to be
+very clear, when Epstein flew Jane to New York and Maxwell aided and abetted him, that's enough
+too." (Id. (emphasis added)). For the conspiracy counts, the Government referenced its earlier
+discussion of the elements of the substantive
+Act offenses. And the Government argued
+that, "even though Carolyn and Annie were not sexually abused in New York ... that is what [the
+defendant and Epstein] both intended." (Tr. 2895 (emphasis added); see Tr. 2895-96 (arguing that
+the defendant "groomed Annie for abuse after she had already visited Epstein in New York."
+(emphasis added))).
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 51
+The Court's
+Act jury instructions also permitted the jury to determine only whether
+the defendant had intended that Jane (for the substantive counts) or the conspiracy victims were
+intended to engage in sexual activity in New York. During trial, the Court granted defense requests
+for limiting instructions at the time evidence came in to avoid the precise concern the defendant
+now articulates. (Tr. 1167-68 (Kate); 2048-49 (Annie)). See Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *27
+(explaining that the Court identified no case "in which the Second Circuit has ever found a
+constructive amendment when a district court issued limiting instructions properly defining the
+scope of the alleged crime"). And at the conclusion of trial, the Court explained that Count Two
+alleged that the defendant "enticed Jane to travel across state lines with the intent that she would
+engage in sexual activity for which a person could be charged with a crime under the penal law of
+New York State." (Tr. 3034; see Tr. 3031 (describing the third element of Count Two to require
+proof of an intent to violate "New York law as alleged in the indictment")). Similarly, the Court
+explained that Count Four alleged that the defendant knowingly transported Jane "with the intent
+that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in
+violation of New York law." (Tr. 3037; see Tr. 3035 (describing the second element of Count
+Four to require proof of an intent to violate "New York law as alleged in the indictment")). For
+both Counts, the Court specifically instructed the jury on one and only one predicate state offense:
+a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. (Tr. 3034, 3037). The instructions on Counts
+One and Three incorporated this discussion of the elements of Counts Two and Four, and the only
+statute the Court identified in its discussion of the relevant overt acts was New York Penal Law
+Section 130.55. (Tr. 3049-50, 3056-57).
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 51
+2. There is No Substantial Likelihood That The Jury Convicted The Defendant
+Solely Because Jane was Sexually Abused in New Mexico
+The defendant argues that a constructive amendment or variance occurred because the jury
+"improperly based their conviction solely on the sexual abuse that Jane experienced in New
+Mexico." (Def. Mot. at 13). That argument can be readily rejected. There is no likelihood-much
+less a substantial likelihood that the jury disregarded the Court's instructions and applied an
+unidentified New Mexico law to brief testimony about Jane's abuse in New Mexico and convicted
+the defendant solely on that basis.
+Neither the Government's proof at trial nor the Court's jury instructions provide a basis for
+that conclusion. At no point during the trial, including its summation, did the Government argue
+that the jury could convict on a theory that the defendant intended Jane to be abused in New
+Mexico.
+Similarly, the Court's charge required the jury to decide whether the defendant intended to
+violate New York law. The jury was not informed of the age of consent in New Mexico or any
+particular criminal statute in New Mexico. The defendant does not explain how the jury charge
+permitted the jury to convict the defendant for transporting Jane to New Mexico with the intent
+that she engage in sexual activity violative of some unidentified New Mexican criminal law.?
+In support of her argument, the defendant relies on (1) the fact that Jane testified about
+being sexually abused in New Mexico, and (2) the jury note regarding New Mexico. (Id.) Neither
+- Ironically, it is the defendant who proposed instructing the jury on the relevant ages of consent
+in states other than New York. (See Dkt. No. 410-1 at 51-52). Such an instruction would have
+provided the jury some state law to compare to the facts and determine whether it was violated,
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 12 of 51
+of these provide any likelihood, much less a substantial likelihood, that the jury convicted the
+defendant solely because she intended for Jane to be sexually abused in New Mexico.
+a. Jane's Testimony About Sexual Abuse in New Mexico
+Jane's testimony about her abuse in New Mexico cannot provide the basis for any
+constructive amendment argument. That testimony was entirely proper. As the Court recognized,
+the evidence of Jane's abuse in New Mexico was relevant to the jury's decision on the Act
+counts. (Tr. 3149-50; see Dkt. No. 566 at 5 n. 1 (stating that the defense does "not contest that
+alleged sexual activity that occurred in other states can be evidence of [the
+Act]
+conspiracies"). That evidence was probative of the defendant's knowledge that Epstein was
+having sexual encounters with Jane while she was a minor and that the abuse occurred while
+traveling to Epstein's various properties; and it was probative of the defendant's role in facilitating
+the abuse. This evidence "fell squarely within the charged scheme" and "was entirely consistent
+with the indictment," and was "thus no constructive amendment." United States v.
+847 F.
+App'x 28, 30 (2d Cir. 2021); see Gross, 2021 WL 4685111, at *28 (noting that if the jury
+determined that "inarguably relevan'" evidence "described a different conspiracy, the jury
+instructions ensured that the jury would not convict Gross of this other conspiracy"). Indeed, that
+evidence was no less relevant and proper than evidence of Jane's abuse in Florida, or evidence of
+Annie, Kate, Carolyn, and Virginia's abuse at Epstein's properties outside New York-none of
+enhancing the risk of conviction based on that conduct. But the Court did not give such an
+instruction, since the Government proceeded only on the theory that it had to prove an intent to
+violate New York law.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 13 of 51
+which gave rise to a constructive amendment. Relative to that evidence, Jane's testimony about
+New Mexico, spanning less than three pages of the transcript of her direct examination, was brief
+and general. (Tr. 321-23). All of this evidence was a "a single set of discrete facts consistent with
+the charge in the indictment." Gross, 2017 WL 4865111, at *21 (quoting D'Amelio, 683 F.3d at
+419). And even if that were not so, the Government is permitted "significant flexibility in proof"
+so long as the defendant has "notice of the core of criminality to be proven at trial," as the defendant
+undoubtedly did. Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 53.
+The defendant overstates the issue by suggesting that a constructive amendment would
+have occurred if the jury "based their conviction solely on the sexual abuse that Jane experienced
+in New Mexico." (Def. Mot. at 13). In fact, the jury was free to rely principally on that evidence
+to satisfy elements of Counts One, Three and Four. That is, the jury could have convicted even if
+no sexual abuse occurred in New York, so long as it concluded that the defendant intended for
+abuse to occur in New York. And evidence of the defendant's knowledge of sexual abuse that
+occurred in New Mexico would support such a conclusion about the defendant's intent as to what
+would happen in New York. But there is no substantial likelihood that the jury erroneously
+convicted the defendant of transporting Jane to New Mexico with the intent that she be abused in
+violation of some law in New Mexico. That theory of guilt was neither pursued by the Government
+nor available under the Court's jury instructions. See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 ("IT]he evidence at
+trial directly addressed the core of criminality charged in the indictment
+...."). It is not a
+constructive amendment that the Government presented relevant evidence that could lead to a
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 14 of 51
+conviction outside of the scope of the S2 Indictment only if taken entirely in isolation and applied
+by a jury that disobeyed the Court's instructions.
+b. The Second Jury Note
+The defendant argues that, notwithstanding the tight connection between the Indictment,
+evidence at trial, and jury instructions, the jury in fact actually convicted the defendant for
+transporting Jane to New Mexico to engage in criminal sexual activity there. This argument relies
+almost entirely on a single jury note.
+During deliberations, the jury sent the following note:
+Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's
+return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, where/if the intent was
+for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the
+second element?
+(Tr. 3126). The note led to a lengthy discussion, at the conclusion of which the Court concluded
+it should refer the jury back to the jury charge on the second element of Count Four because the
+jury note was otherwise "too difficult to parse factually and legally." (Tr. 3126-40).
+That night, the defense filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the Court's response and
+raising the possibility of a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance. (Dkt. No. 566 at 2-3).
+The defense asked the Court to give an additional instruction in the morning. (Id. at 7). That
+proposal instructed the jury as to the intent elements of Counts Two and Four, and ended with the
+sentence that "[a]n intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any state other than New York
+cannot form the basis of these two elements of Counts Two and Four." (Id.)
+The Court rejected the defendant's request. The Court noted that the jury did not inquire
+about Count Two, so there was no basis to respond to the jury note with information about Count
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 15 of 51
+Two. (Tr. 3149). The Court also rejected the defense's proposed final sentence as "just wrong,"
+because it suggested that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity outside of New York "may
+have no relevance." (Id.). As the Court explained, "This is the same discussion we've had a couple
+of times.... Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be
+relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I
+think." (Tr. 3149-50). The Court repeated that it did "not know how to parse the jury's question
+exactly," but that its instruction directing the jury to the original charge included a reminder that
+"it's a violation of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they're
+considering." (Tr. 3150). The defense made a further record of its views, including that "travels
+to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York
+law." (Tr. 3152-53). The Court explained that the defense suggestion was "wrong as a legal
+matter" because it suggests that the testimony was "irrelevant," and the Court also pointed out that
+the defense did not "seek to exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction with
+respect to that testimony." (Tr. 3153). The Court added that "[t]he reading of the note that you've
+suggested, I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and
+what you've proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that's why precisely
+we sent them back to the charge." (Tr. 3154).
+The defendant renews her arguments now, urging that the jury note shows that "the jurors
+had the mistaken impression that it would be sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 16 of 51
+if they found that Ms. Maxwell had intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico."
+(Def. Mot. at 13). The Court was right to reject these arguments during trial.
+First, the meaning of the jury note is entirely ambiguous. It is at a minimum unclear (1)
+which flights are referenced in the note, (2) where the sexual activity was intended to occur, and
+(3) what question is posed by the note.
+The defendant argues that the note's mention of a flight to New Mexico is a specific
+reference to a 1997 flight from New York to New Mexico captured in the flight logs that lists both
+the defendant and Jane as passengers. (See Def. Mot. at 14 (citing GX 662-R at 48)). The jury
+may have considered that flight, or some other flight. (See, e.g., GX 662 at 51 (flight to Santa Fe
+from Palm Beach with Epstein, the defendant, and "1 female"); Tr. 316 (testimony from Jane that
+she sometimes traveled on commercial flights)). If it was that flight, the subsequent flight record
+departing Santa Fe did not include the defendant or Jane (see GX 662 at 48), providing no
+information about the flight that the defendant thinks was the focus of the jury's attention. And to
+the extent it was a "return" trip, the origin of the trip to New Mexico was New York, so the jury
+could easily have inferred that the "return" trip was also to New York. That is, the defendant may
+or may not be right about which flight the jury had in mind. And if the jury was asking about this
+trip, the jury could well have been asking about a flight to New York-which, if the defendant
+arranged, could have been highly significant and proper evidence of guilt. The defendant's
+presumption that the jury was focused on this particular trip and specifically on a return flight to
+Florida with no relevance to the case is mere conjecture.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 51
+That fact is compounded by the lack of clarity about where the jury believed the sexual
+activity occurred. It is not clear whether the flight on which the 'intent was for Jane to engage in
+sexual activity" references the flight to New Mexico, as the defendant suggests, or the return flight.
+If it is the flight to New Mexico, it would still be probative evidence on Count Two, albeit not
+sufficient for conviction. If it is a flight from New Mexico, it would also still be probative and
+would not pose any risk that the jury convicted based on conduct occurring in New Mexico. And
+if the jury thought that the defendant intended Jane to engage in sexual activity at the conclusion
+of a return flight from New Mexico to New York, it could well have been sufficient for conviction
+on Count Two.
+The issue is further confused by the uncertainty about the question posed by the jury. The
+defendant understands the question to be about whether sexual activity in New Mexico is sufficient
+to find the defendant guilty. First, the jury's question does not ask whether certain facts are
+sufficient for guilt; it asks whether the defendant "can be found guilty" if a certain fact is true. The
+defendant "can" be found guilty based in part on sexual activity occurring in New Mexico, as
+described above. That is a perfectly sensible question for the jury to ask—indeed, it was repeatedly
+raised by defense counsel to the Court at trial. (See, e.g., Tr. 3149 (Court stating: "This is the same
+discussion we've had a couple of times [defense counsel]. Sexual activity with respect to Jane in
+New Mexico under the age of 17 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage
+in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this is the same basic discussion that we've
+had. So ... I think the proposal made by the defense is wrong."). And second, the question
+specifically uses the word "aided," suggesting that the jury note may have been a question about
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 51
+the scope of accomplice liability, and specifically, whether the defendant is culpable for all conduct
+related to a trip even if her role was limited to arranging the return flight. Indeed, the defendant's
+current understanding of the note's question was not her initial view, which triggered the defense
+to repeatedly request an instruction about the "purpose of the travel." (Tr. 3138; see Tr. 3131
+(requesting that the Court direct the jury's attention to the requirement that illegal activity was a
+"significant and motivating purpose" of the travel)).
+It is therefore too difficult to parse the note into a particular set of facts and a question
+about those facts. The defendant's contrary understanding is brimming with speculation. The
+defendant presumes that the jury note indicates that the jurors "decided that there was no
+corroborating evidence that Ms. Maxwell was present for, or helped arrange, any of Jane's trips to
+New York, but that the flight logs did corroborate that Ms. Maxwell was present for her trip to
+New Mexico," so "the jury began evaluating Ms. Maxwell's involvement in the New Mexico trip
+to see if it supported a conviction under Count Four, which led to the question posed by the jury
+note." (Def. Mot. at 14-15). Nothing in the note explains why the jury was asking the question it
+did. Indeed, it would be odd for the jury to reject all of Jane's testimony about travel to New York
+and the ensuing sexual abuse in New York for lack of corroboration, and then conclude that the
+defendant arranged an unidentified commercial return flight for which there is no specific evidence
+in the record, including no specific corroboration of the defendant's role in arranging that flight.
+(See Tr. 3133 (defense argument that there is "no evidence" the defendant arranged a return flight
+from New Mexico)). And there is no reason the jury would have rejected Jane's testimony about
+sexual abuse in New York due to lack of corroboration, even though a flight record shows she was
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 51
+flown to New York on Epstein's private jet (see Def. Mot. at 14 (citing GX-662-R at 44)), but
+would have accepted her much briefer and less detailed testimony about abuse in New Mexico
+solely because it was corroborated by a flight record.
+The defendant also speculates that the jury then decided to acquit the defendant on Count
+Two but not on Count Four because the jury convicted based on the evidence related to the New
+Mexico trip. Specifically, the defendant argues that the jury acquitted the defendant of enticement
+because the flight logs showed that "she was present on the trip [to New Mexico] but said nothing
+about whether she "persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced' Jane to take the trip. Indeed, Jane did
+not testify about having any interaction with Ms. Maxwell prior to the flight to New Mexico in
+which they discussed the trip." (Def. Mot. at 15). In contrast, the defendant suggests that the jury
+must have "found that Ms. Maxwell had some role in arranging Jane's return flight from New
+Mexico," which they took to be sufficient. But there is no specific evidence-not a flight record,
+and not in Jane's testimony— of how and to where Jane returned from that particular New Mexico
+trip, much less that the defendant participated in or made Jane's travel arrangements. (See Tr.
+3129-30 (defense referring to the return flight as "going somewhere away from ... New Mexico"
+and as "some other flight besides the flight to New Mexico")). In the defendant's view, the jury
+rejected nearly all of the evidence relating to Jane for lack of corroboration, and then convicted the
+3 The defendant says that the "critical difference" between those trips is that the defendant was not
+listed as a passenger on the trip to New York but is listed on the second trip to New Mexico. (Def.
+Mot. at 14). That difference, however, says nothing about whether the jury required a
+corroborative flight record before crediting Jane's account of travel to and abuse in New York or
+New Mexico.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 20 of 51
+defendant based on an unsupported speculative leap from Jane's testimony. That is not plausible,
+and it certainly is not a "substantially likely" conclusion that can be drawn from an inscrutable
+jury note.
+Second, even if the jury was so confused, the Court's response ameliorated that confusion.
+The Court did not tell the jury that it could convict based solely on conduct occurring in New
+Mexico. Instead, it referred the jury to the instruction that explained that the second element of
+Count Four requires the Government to prove the defendant's intent "that Jane engage in sexual
+activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York
+Law," and further stated that "Count Four alleges sexual activity for which an individual could be
+charged with a violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55." (Inst. No. 21). The defendant
+does not argue that this instruction incorrectly states the law.* Nor does the instruction make any
+reference to New Mexico whatsoever, much less does it suggest that conviction is available if the
+defendant intended to violate some New Mexican statute. The jury is presumed to have followed
+this instruction correctly. See United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40, 47 (2d Cir. 2002) (reciting the
+4 The defendant complains that the jury instructions were "stripped of any mention of travel to
+New York," such as a limitation that the travel be "from Florida to New York." (Def. Mot. at 1-
+2, 15). The defendant tried to incorporate several limitations from the "to wit" clause of the
+Indictment into the jury charge, and the Court correctly rejected that attempt, because the
+Government is not strictly bound by facts in the "to wit" clause of an indictment. See, e.g., United
+States v. Little, 828 F. App'x 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2020) ("Such a discrepancy, however, does not rise
+to the level of a constructive amendment because "to wit' clauses do not modify essential elements
+of the offense."). For instance, if the jury had concluded that the defendant transported Jane from
+New Mexico to New York with intent to violate New York law—which is one available reading
+of the jury note that would be a permissible basis for conviction, but outside the limitations
+proposed by the defendant. The defendant's proposed instructions containing those limitations
+would have been erroneous.
+19
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 21 of 51
+"almost invariable assumption of the law ... that jurors follow their instructions"). Accordingly,
+even if the jury note suggests some confusion, the Court's response did not constructively amend
+the S2 Indictment. See
+, 847 F. App'x at 30 (finding no constructive amendment in a sex
+trafficking case where the indictment did not contain the verb "advertise" but the evidence included
+evidence of advertising and the Court mistakenly used that verb in parts of the instructions, because
+the advertising evidence "fell squarely within the charged scheme" and the Court otherwise
+correctly instructed the jury); Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 ("The jury instructions described a
+conspiracy substantially the same as the one charged in the indictment.").
+Third, the defendant's argument is better framed as a challenge to the Court's response to
+the jury note or a challenge to the jury instructions in the form of a constructive amendment
+argument. See, e.g., United States v. Muraca, 803 F. Appx' 545, 546 (2d Cir. 2020) ("[T]he trial
+court enjoys considerable discretion construing the scope of a jury inquiry and in framing a
+response tailored to the inquiry," and "If a supplemental charge is legally correct, the district court
+enjoys broad discretion in determining how, and under what circumstances, that charge will be
+given."). Rather than challenge what she takes to be an error, however, the defendant argues
+instead that the Court's response to the jury note worked a constructive amendment. In so doing,
+the defendant must surmount the high bar of showing that, notwithstanding the focus of the trial
+evidence, the Court's limiting instructions at trial, and the Court's jury instructions taken as a
+whole, the Court's response to the jury note "so modified] essential elements of the offense that
+there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other
+than that charged in the indictment." Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *20. The original instructions
+20
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 22 of 51
+did not modify any essential element of the offense or permit conviction based on an entirely
+different theory. Referring the jury back to the same instructions could not have caused a different
+result.
+The S2 Indictment charged the defendant with
+Act offenses with an intent to engage
+in sexual activity in violation of a New York statute. The Government put on evidence that the
+defendant engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to violate that New York statute. The
+Court charged the jury that the Government had to prove an intent to violate that New York statute
+beyond a reasonable doubt. "[T]he allegations in the indictment and the proof and jury instructions
+"substantially correspond' with each other, as they involve a single course of conduct." D'Amelio,
+683 F.3d at 424. "It therefore follows that [the defendant] was convicted of conduct that was the
+subject of the grand jury's indictment, and there was no constructive amendment of the
+indictment." Id.
+5 Even if the Court agreed with the defendant that the proof as to Count Four was constructively
+Act conspiracy counts would be inappropriate. The jury note asked
+specifically about Count Four, and suggested no confusion as to the conspiracy counts. Moreover
+the jury notes which are of primary importance under the defendant's theory-reveal that the
+jury was focused on
+07). And Annie's testimony of abuse in New Mexico is no less significant than Jane's. Finally, it
+is entirely unclear how the jury's erroneous understanding of the law relating to a substantive
+transportation offense could prejudice the jury's understanding for the enticement conspiracy
+charge. See United States v. Pfaff, 407 F. App'x 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2010) ("Constructive
+amendment of the conspiracy charge would have warranted vacatur of that charge only; the
+remainder of the indictment would have stood."); United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53, 66 (2d
+Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (reversing on one count due to a constructive amendment but rejecting the
+contention that it required reversal "as a result of prejudicial spillover").
+21
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 23 of 51
+3. No Variance Occurred
+For similar reasons, no variance occurred at trial. The evidence at trial did not prove any
+facts materially different from those alleged in Counts One through Four of the S2 Indictment. See
+Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31 (explaining that a variance occurs when "the evidence offered
+at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment"). The S2 Indictment
+alleged that the defendant was Epstein's close associate and co-conspirator who groomed minor
+victims, including Jane between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, and that the defendant and
+Epstein groomed minor victims for abuse in various places, including Epstein's ranch in New
+Mexico. (See S2 Indictment 11 5, 9, 13). That is exactly what the Government proved at trial. It
+was no variance that the S2 Indictment did not specifically allege that Jane was abused in New
+Mexico especially where, as here, that fact was offered as evidence of the conduct charged in the
+S2 Indictment, but was not by itself sufficient to convict the defendant. This proof does not differ
+from the S2 Indictment, much less materially. Accordingly, the S2 Indictment and proof
+"substantially correspond," the defendant could not have been misled, and there is no variance.
+Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294.
+The defendant argues that she was prejudiced because Jane recalled that she was abused
+during her New Mexico trip shortly before trial, which prevented the defendant from filing a
+motion to preclude the testimony or giving a limiting instruction before Jane's testimony. (Def.
+Mot. at 16-18). This argument is belied by the record. As the defendant concedes, Jane has long
+recalled traveling to New Mexico. (Id. at 16-17). The defendant therefore had "fair and adequate
+notice that the
+Act conspiracies included conduct at Epstein's New Mexico home, which
+22
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 24 of 51
+is all that is required. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 622 (2d Cir. 2003). And in any
+event, Jane recalled the incident of abuse at least as early as November 3, 2021. (See Def. Mot. at
+5 n. 1 (citing 3509-033 at 1)). Notes from that interview were provided to the defense on November
+6, 2021—more than three weeks before trial. At the time, the parties were still litigating whether
+Kate could testify at all. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 417 (order dated November 6, 2021, requiring the
+Government to brief whether Kate was a "victim" for any legal purpose, including restitution)).
+The Court did not permit Kate to testify until November 19, 2021—almost two weeks after the
+defendant received the relevant notes. (Dkt. No. 477). And following that decision, the parties
+continued to litigate the limiting instructions for Kate and Annie in advance of trial. (See, e.g.,
+11/23/21 Tr. at 28-38).
+Accordingly, the defendant had ample notice to seek a limiting instruction as to this portion
+of Jane's testimony. See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 ("rejecting a prejudice argument in part because
+"[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits ... four weeks prior to trial"). The Court's
+failure to give one sua sponte is not a prejudicial variance. The defendant is simply characterizing
+her failure to ask for a limiting instruction at the time of Jane's testimony as an argument that she
+was prejudiced. To the contrary, the Court did not err—much less plainly so. See United States
+v. Petit, 19 Cr. 850 (JSR), 2021 WL 673461, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2021) (applying the plain
+error standard to a constructive amendment claim in a Rule 33 motion that was not made at trial).
+Finally, even if the defendant had been entitled to a limiting instruction but was deprived
+of the opportunity to request it, she still was not prejudiced. As the Court agreed at the charge
+conference, although the Court gave the limiting instructions for Annie and Kate, there was no
+23
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 25 of 51
+need to repeat those instructions in the context of the full charge, which clarified that "the violation
+of law is as charged in New York." (Tr. 2774-75, 2777). And the fact that the defense failed to
+seek or receive a limiting instruction before Jane's testimony did not provide a separate basis for
+including a limiting instruction in the final charge. (Tr. 2777). The Court, the Government, and
+the defense were painstaking during trial to ensure that the jury understood that the
+Act
+counts required an intent to commit a criminal sexual act in New York. That the defense missed
+an additional opportunity for a limiting instruction is not a prejudicial variance, much less a
+constructive amendment.
+II. The Court Should Enter Judgment on Counts Three and Five
+The S2 Indictment charged three conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Counts One and
+Three were predicated on two different provisions of the
+Act, whereas Count Five charged
+a conspiracy based on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. As the Court held in an April 16,
+2021 Order, the Government was entitled to present these three different counts to the jury. (Dkt.
+No. 207 at 27). Following the verdict, however, the Government agrees that the Court should enter
+judgment on only one of the
+Act conspiracy counts, given the similarities between those
+counts. Accordingly, of the three conspiracy counts charged in the S2 Indictment, the Government
+submits that the Court should enter judgment on Count Three, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2423(a), and Count Five, which was predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
+Counts Three and Five are not multiplicitous, and the Court should enter judgment on both
+counts. In particular, as discussed in greater detail below, Counts Three and Five arose from
+different criminal schemes, involving different criminal conduct, different statutory predicates,
+and a different modus operandi. The defendant ignores these important distinctions, claiming, in
+24
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 26 of 51
+her motion, that these counts are "virtually identical." (Def. Mot. at 22). But charges that cover
+different schemes under different statutes are not "virtually identical." The Court should reject
+this argument.
+A. Applicable Law
+The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution "protects against
+multiple punishments for the same offense." North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969).
+Accordingly, a defendant cannot be sentenced for multiplicitous charges covering the same crime.
+"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in
+separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed." United States v.
+Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999); see also United States v.
+482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d
+Cir. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, "unless the charged offenses are the
+same in fact and in law."" (quoting United States v.
+320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)).
+Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the
+same offense, a defendant has a right not to be punished twice for the same crime. United States
+v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam). Accordingly, "li]f the jury convicts
+on more than one multiplicitous count, the defendant's right not to suffer multiple punishments for
+the same offense will be protected by having the court enter judgment on only one of the
+multiplicitous counts." Id. Similarly, where the judgment of conviction has already been entered
+on multiplicitous counts, that right is protected by vacating the convictions on all but one
+multiplicitous count. Id.
+"For purposes of a multiplicity analysis, the determinative issue is not whether the same
+conduct underlies separate counts, but whether the offense charged in one count is the same as the
+25
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 27 of 51
+offense charged in another count." United States v. Rigas, 281 F. Supp. 2d 660, 666 (S.D.N.Y.
+2003) (citing Chacko, 169 F.3d at 146). With respect to conspiracy counts, if the two counts
+charge distinct conspiracies, "there is no double jeopardy problem regardless of an overt act or
+other evidentiary overlap."
+, 320 F.3d at 180. In the Second Circuit, courts apply the
+factors set forth in United States v. Korfant to determine whether two conspiracy counts are
+distinct. Id. at 180-81 (citing United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985)). The
+factors include "the criminal offenses charged, overlap of participants, overlap of time, similarity
+of operation, common overt acts, geographic scope, common objectives, and degree of
+interdependence." United States v.
+7 F. App'x 45, 54-55 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Korfant,
+771 F.2d at 662);
+, 320 F.3d at 181.
+When applying the Korfant factors, the Second Circuit has emphasized that *no dominant
+factor or single touchstone determines whether' the compared conspiracies are in law and fact the
+same." Id. (quoting United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 668 (2d Cir. 1994)). Moreover, "[a]t
+a certain level of generality,' the fact that two conspiracies 'overlap with respect to a number of
+characteristics, including time frame, geographic locale, participants, and criminal objective' does
+not negate the existence of two conspiracies if [t]here exist sufficient distinctions between the
+schemes charged."
+, 7 F. App' at 55 (quoting Macchia, 35 F.3d at 668).
+B.
+Discussion
+Counts Three and Five charged different offenses. The Court should reject the defendant's
+multiplicity claim and enter judgment on Counts Three and Five.
+26
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 28 of 51
+1. Offenses Charged
+Turning to the first Korfant factor, the "criminal offenses charged," Counts Three and Five
+plainly charge different criminal offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 371. In particular, Count Three is
+predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), a provision of the
+Act that makes it a crime to transport
+minors for illegal sexual activity, whereas Count Five is predicated on 18 U.S.C. § 1591, a
+provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act that makes it a crime to traffic minors for
+commercial sex acts. As charged in the S2 Indictment, these counts have different legal objects:
+Count Three concerned transporting girls under the age of seventeen to New York for purposes of
+sexual abuse in violation of New York Penal Law § 130.55, and Count Five concerned commercial
+sex acts with girls under the age of eighteen.
+When two counts charge conspiracies under § 371, "[s]imilarity at this general level ... is
+of limited import," where the objects of the conspiracies differ. United States v. Villa, No. 12 Cr.
+40 (JBA), 2014 WL 252013, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2014), aff'd, 744 F. App'x 716 (2d Cir. 2018)
+(quoting Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669). For example, in Villa, the district court concluded that, under
+the first Korfant factor, two § 371 offenses were distinct, because the aim of one count was "to
+commit theft from an interstate shipment and to transport stolen property across state lines,"
+whereas the other conspiracy was "to sell stolen property." Id. Similarly, in United States v.
+Sattar, Judge Koeltl concluded that two conspiracies charged under § 371 were distinct under
+Korfant, in part because the two counts "charge a separate conspiracy under the defraud clause
+and the offense clause of § 371, respectively." United States v. Sattar, 314 F. Supp. 2d 279, 308
+(S.D.N.Y. 2004), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009).
+27
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 29 of 51
+Here, not only are Counts Three and Five predicated on different statutes, but the legal
+distinctions between these counts are substantial. First, these counts had a different age of consent,
+as the age of consent for Count Three was seventeen (by operation of New York law), whereas the
+age of consent for the conspiracy charged in Count Five was eighteen. Second, the conspiracies
+had a different geographic locus as a result of the different legal objects of the conspiracies: Count
+Three concerned travel to New York, whereas Count Five did not require interstate transportation,
+and concerned acts mostly in Florida. Third, the scheme charged in Count Three concerned
+transporting minors to Epstein's residence in New York for sexual abuse in violation of state law,
+whereas Count Five concerned commercial sex acts with victims, who were paid to participate in
+so-called "massage" appointments. Indeed, the Government legally could not have charged these
+conspiracies together, because the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was not enacted until 2000,
+years after the defendant and Epstein victimized Jane and
+as charged in the
+Act conspiracy. Moreover, the proof at trial established that
+was a victim of the
+sex trafficking conspiracy at age 17, when flight records" established that she travelled with the
+defendant and Epstein, but that conduct could not have been charged under the
+Act
+conspiracies, which had a lower age of consent. In short, Counts Three and Five charged
+categorically different crimes.
+• See Tr. at 1855-57 (testimony of pilot David Rodgers regarding L
+as a passenger
+on flight logs): Government Exhibit 662 (flight records); Government Exhibit 14 (birth certificate
+of
+28
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 30 of 51
+The defendant asks the Court to ignore these legal distinctions. In particular, the defendant
+urges the Court not to apply the first Korfant factor, claiming—without explanation—that this first
+factor applies to claims arising from successive prosecutions, and not multiplicity claims. (Def.
+Mot. at 22 n.4). But the Korfant factors are applied both when courts compare indictments in
+successive prosecutions and when courts analyze counts in the same indictment.? See, e.g.,
+, 7 F. App'x at 54-55 (applying the Korfant factors to a claim of multiplicity arising from
+multiple conspiracy counts in the same indictment); United States v. Diallo, 507 F. App'x 89, 91
+(2d Cir. 2013) (holding that two narcotics conspiracy counts charged in the same case were not
+multiplicitous under the Korfant factors);
+320 F.3d at 180-81 (applying the Korfant
+factors to a successive prosecution); Sattar, 314 F. Supp. 2d at 307 (applying the Korfant factors
+to a successive prosecution). For good reason: it would make little sense to ignore the legal
+distinctions between counts when determining whether those counts are different in law and fact
+for double jeopardy purposes. See United States v. Hicks, 5 F.4th 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing
+Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)). The defendant asks this Court to ignore the
+first Korfant factor because it is fatal to her multiplicity claim. The two counts are legally distinct,
+and the Court can and should reject the defendant's multiplicity claim for this reason alone.
+" The lone case cited by the defendant, United States v.
+886 F.3d 146 (D.C. Cir. 2018),
+held that two § 371 counts in the same indictment were multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. at 22 n.4). In
+eaching that conclusion.
+that pinți that procedior hes Cure ine defendant at here is cites an face on was chaplicable to
+that it was inappropriate to examine the legal differences between counts when evaluating a
+multiplicity claim.
+29
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 31 of 51
+2. Overt Acts
+Counts Three and Five of the S2 Indictment charged different overt acts. There is no
+overlap whatsoever in the overt acts between these two counts in the S2 Indictment. The defendant
+does not appear to argue otherwise, (see Def. Mot. at 24), nor could she.
+The absence of
+overlapping overt acts underscores the fact that these counts charged different conspiracies.
+Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly against the defendant's claim of multiplicity.
+3. Overlap in Participants
+Turning to the overlap of participants, the evidence at trial established that some but
+importantly, not all-participants overlapped between the two conspiracy schemes charged in
+Counts Three and Five. In any event, even if the participants had been identical in both
+conspiracies, the identity of the participants alone would be insufficient to support a claim of
+multiplicity. See United States v. Coleman Com. Carrier, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 563, 565 (S.D.N.Y.
+2002) ("[T]he existence of a single conduit does not establish proof of a single conspiracy[.]")
+(quoting Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669).
+Here, although the conspiracies charged in Counts Three and Five both involved the
+defendant and Epstein, the S2 Indictment charged that, with respect to Count Five, Epstein's
+employees participated in contacting a minor victim to schedule appointments for sexualized
+massages. See Dkt. No. 187, 9| 25(d). At trial, a victim who testified under her first name, Carolyn,
+testified about receiving such calls from [
+_ who worked as a personal assistant to
+Epstein. (Tr. 1527). The evidence at trial established that
+started working for Epstein in
+or about the early 2000s. (See, e.g., Tr. 832, 1889). Carolyn also testified about an incident in
+30
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 32 of 51
+which
+took nude photographs of Carolyn for Epstein. (Tr. 1529). In short, the S2
+Indictment charged-—and the proof at trial established that there was an additional participant in
+the sex trafficking conspiracy who was not involved in the
+Act conspiracies.
+4. Overlap of Time
+Count Three charged conduct spanning from 1994 to 2004. Count Five charged conduct
+spanning from 2001 to 2004. Of the multiple overt acts charged in Count Three of the S2
+Indictment, only one occurred during the timeframe of the conspiracy charged in Count Five: an
+overt act regarding efforts to solicit Carolyn to travel with the defendant and Epstein. (Dkt. No.
+187, 1 19(e)). Aside from that single overt act, no other overt act charged in Count Three occurred
+within the timeframe of the conspiracy charged in Count Five. Put simply, the gravamen of the
+offense conduct in Count Three occurred in the 1990s, while the offense conduct charged in Count
+Five took place in the 2000s. Thus, although there is some degree of overlap in time frames
+between the two counts, it is minimal at best. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a claim of
+multiplicity, or at best is neutral.
+5. Geographic Scope
+Although the evidence at trial concerned events in multiple states, at Epstein's multiple
+properties, the offense conduct in Count Three concerned transporting minors from Florida to New
+York, for purposes of sexually abusing victims in New York. By contrast, Count Five charged a
+sex trafficking conspiracy which, as the Court instructed the jury, could be established by proof of
+conduct that had a minimal effect on interstate commerce, irrespective of whether victims crossed
+state lines. (Tr. 3041-42). As a result, the conspiracy in Count Three was focused on travel to
+31
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 33 of 51
+New York, whereas the conspiracy charged in Count Five largely concerned conduct that took
+place in Florida. Although the conspiracy overlapped in geographic scope, the locus of each count
+was distinct and weighs against a claim of multiplicity.
+6. Similarity of Operation, Common Objectives, and Degree of Interdependence
+Finally, the conspiracies
+charged in Counts Three and Five were fundamentally
+independent schemes, with different objectives and modes of operation. While the defendant
+claims that the Government argued at trial that only one scheme existed, the trial record proves
+otherwise.
+In particular, the Government's opening statement made clear that the Government
+intended to prove that the defendant sexually exploited underage girls through different
+conspiratorial schemes. The first scheme, charged in Count Three, occurred largely in the 1990s,
+and involved establishing mentoring relationships with victims to groom them to travel to
+Epstein's properties for sexual abuse. See Tr. 40:8-25 (describing an "earlier phase" of the
+defendant's crimes that involved developing relationships with victims, and the defendant's later
+participation in a "pyramid scheme of abuse" in which victims recruited other victims for so-called
+"massage" appointments). The second scheme, in the 2000s, involved paying victims for so-called
+"massage" appointments, where they were sexually exploited. Id. The Government described the
+different schemes in the same manner during summations. See Tr. 2885-87 (describing the
+timeline of events, and the shift between an earlier scheme and a later pyramid scheme involving
+victims recruiting victims).
+32
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 34 of 51
+It makes no difference, as the defendant argues, that both crimes involved grooming minors
+for sexual abuse. (Def. Mot. at 23-24). As Dr. Rocchio testified at trial, the use of grooming
+techniques is common among perpetrators of child sexual abuse. (See Tr. 713). But using a
+common tool among sexual offenders does not render the distinct conspiracies here multiplicitous;
+if that were true, presumably many federal crimes against children would be multiplicitous.
+The Government was clear at trial that, while the defendant and Epstein committed crimes
+together for years, they did so through different schemes, in violation of different laws. That is
+what the S2 Indictment charged, and that is what the Government proved at trial: different
+conspiracy crimes. The Court should deny the motion and enter judgment on Counts Three and
+Five.
+III.
+The Defendant's Motion to Vacate Her Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment
+Based on Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied
+The defendant contends that the Court should vacate her conviction and dismiss the
+Indictment because the Government's allegedly excessive delay in bringing the charges violates
+her due process rights. (Def. Mot. at 25). The defendant's contention should be swiftly rejected.
+The Court has twice evaluated the defendant's speculative and baseless arguments and twice
+concluded that the defendant could not meet the "stringent standard" necessary to prevail on a
+claim that any alleged pre-indictment delay violates her due process rights. (Dkt. No. 207 at 17;
+Dkt. No. 317 at 10). Her arguments fare no better post-trial.
+The defendant has not and cannot successfully establish a violation of the Due Process
+Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, the defendant has not established that any alleged preindictment delay caused actual prejudice to the defense. Her speculative assertions about lost
+33
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 35 of 51
+witnesses and records are hardly the sort of evidence that she can use to carry her heavy burden.
+Without proof of actual prejudice, the motion fails. Second, even if the Court finds actual prejudice
+to the defense, the defendant has not established that the Government's purpose in any alleged preindictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. As the Court
+previously found, "nothing in the record indicates that the Government's delay in bringing these
+charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense." (Dkt. No. 317 at 10; see
+also Dkt. No. 207 at 17). The defendant did not previously make any showing of an intentional
+and deliberate delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose. She fails to address the
+Court's prior findings and has made no additional showing.
+Because the defendant cannot establish either element, let alone both, her due process claim
+is meritless and should be denied.
+A. The Defendant Has Failed to Demonstrate Actual and Substantial Prejudice
+1. Applicable Law
+It is well-settled that the statute of limitations is "the primary guarantee against bringing
+overly stale criminal charges." United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971). Thus, when a
+case has been brought within the statute of limitations, it is "only rarely dismissed," and carries a
+"strong presumption of validity." United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 752 (2d Cir. 1999);
+see also United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982).*
+" As this Court previously found, the "applicable statute of limitations" does not "bar[] the charges
+here." (Dkt. No. 207 at 18).
+34
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 36 of 51
+The Second Circuit standard for pre-indictment delay imposes a heavy burden on the
+defendant to show "both that the Government intentionally delayed bringing charges for an
+improper purpose and that the delay seriously damaged the defendant's ability defend against the
+charges." (Dkt. No. 207 at 17 (citing Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752)). The burden for proving both
+prongs of the standard rests squarely on the defendant. United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993,
+1014 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51, 66 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Ricco,
+549 F.2d 264, 272 (2d Cir. 1977). The burden is so heavy that it is rarely met by a defendant. See
+DeMichele v. Greenburgh Centr. Sch. Dist. No. 7, 167 F.3d 784, 790-91 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[W]hile
+the [Supreme] Court may not have shut the door firmly on a contention that at some point the Due
+Process Clause forecloses prosecution of a claim because it is too old, at most the door is barely
+ajar.").
+Substantial prejudice is just that-substantial, actual, non-speculative prejudice. See
+United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982) (a defendant's "proof of prejudice
+must be definite and not speculative"); see also United States v.
+337 F.3d 914, 920
+(7th Cir. 2003) (prejudice sufficient to warrant dismissal for pre-indictment delay must be "actual
+and substantial" and "specific, concrete, and supported by evidence"). Prejudice in this context
+refers to "actual prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial." United States v. Elsbery, 602
+F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1979). It is well-established that the mere loss of evidence or of
+witnesses, by death or otherwise, without more, is insufficient. See, e.g., United States v.
+668 F.2d 686, 689 (2d Cir. 1982) (death of a defense witness three years before indietment
+insufficient prejudice); United States v.
+560 F.2d 122, 130-31 (2d Cir. 1977) (death of
+35
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 37 of 51
+witness and missing documents insufficient prejudice); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr.
+541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (death of a defense witness and
+defendant's own memory issues insufficient prejudice). Moreover, even when a claim of prejudice
+is based upon the complete loss of a witness's testimony or other evidence, a defendant
+nevertheless must show how that testimony or evidence would have affected the outcome or
+otherwise have assisted the case. See United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001)
+(defendant's pre-indictment delay claim rejected due to failure to show "how the testimony from
+[three absent] witnesses would have benefitted his case"); United States v. Spears, 159 F.3d 1081,
+1085 (7th Cir. 1998) ("[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is
+unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped the defense. He must also show
+that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-examination, and that the jury would have
+found the witness credible."). "Courts have held that 'the defendant also has the burden of showing
+that the lost testimony or information was not available through other means."" Pierre-Louis, 2018
+WL 4043140, at *4 (quoting United States v. Sprouts, 282 F.3d 1037, 1041 (8th Cir. 2002)).
+The vast majority of pre-indictment delay cases fail on the first prong. See, e.g., Marion,
+404 U.S. at 324-26 (fading witness memories insufficient; "no one suggests that every delaycaused detriment to a defendant's case should abort a criminal prosecution");
+, 668 F.2d at
+689 (death of a defense witness three years before indictment insufficient prejudice);
+560
+F.2d at 130-31 (death of witness and missing documents insufficient prejudice); United States v.
+lannelli, 461 F.2d 483, 485 (2d Cir. 1972) (unavailability of witnesses insufficient prejudice);
+36
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 38 of 51
+Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4-5 (death of a defense witness and defendant's own memory
+issues insufficient prejudice).
+2. Discussion
+The defendant contends that she has suffered substantial prejudice due to the death of
+certain witnesses and the unavailability of certain documentary records. (Def. Mot. at 25-30). The
+defendant's speculative claims fail to establish substantial and actual prejudice caused by the
+allegedly excessive pre-indictment delay. See Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06.
+The defendant claims she has suffered substantial prejudice as a result of pre-indictment
+delay due to the unavailability of (1) Alberto Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects who worked for
+Epstein; (2)
+"a property manager hired to help run Epstein's properties in the early
+2000s"; and (3)
+Fontanilla, the live-in housekeeper in Epstein's New York townhouse. (Def.
+Mot. at 29-30)." The defendant's speculative claims of prejudice do not withstand scrutiny. First,
+the fact that certain deceased witnesses cannot testify does not compel a finding of actual prejudice.
+"[U]navailable witnesses are inherent in any delay, even if justifiable. To merit dismissal a
+defendant must demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to his ability to defend himself." United
+° The defendant also reasserts that the witnesses "already mentioned in [her] previous filings"-
+namely, Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael
+(the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1),
+and Palm Beach Police Department Detective
+Recarey—"could have provided evidence
+contradicting the government's proof." (Def. Mot. at 29). The Court already rejected the
+defendant's claims of actual prejudice as to these witnesses, finding that the defendant "provide[d]
+no indication of what many of these potential witnesses might have testified to" and noting "serious
+doubts under all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein
+credible even if he had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf."
+(Dkt. No. 207 at 18). The defendant offers no new arguments as to these witnesses, and her claims
+certainly fare no better after the trial in this matter.
+37
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 39 of 51
+States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). The defendant has not made such a
+showing. Her abstract assertions simply do not rise to that level, and the law is clear that "proof
+of prejudice must be definite and not speculative." Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697
+F. Supp. at 657 (finding that "perceived prejudice is speculative" where there was "no way of
+knowing what [the unavailable witness's] testimony would have been"); United States v. Valona,
+834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis must consider whether the
+missing witness "would have withstood cross-examination," whether the jury would have found
+him a "credible witness," and whether the testimony, when compared to other trial evidence
+"would affect the trial outcome"); Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085. "Courts have generally found that
+vague assertions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify
+dismissing an indictment for delay." (Dkt. No. 207 at 17); see also United States v.
+, 388 F.
+Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("Counsel's unsworn assertions as to vague generalities"
+that witnesses,
+"if alive, would give testimony helpful to [the defendant] do not show that [the
+defendant's] ability to present a defense has been substantially and actually prejudiced."). Here,
+"there is no evidence before the Court as to what [the deceased witnesses] would have testified,
+much less specific evidence of how losing that testimony has caused [the defendant] actual
+prejudice." Id. at 400. The defense's unsworn assertions about what "the defense believes" these
+witnesses "could have established" or "could have testified" to do not justify dismissing the
+Indictment or vacating the defendant's conviction. (Def. Mot. at 29-30).
+Second, even assuming that Pinto, Salhi,
+L, and Fontanilla would have testified as
+the defendant contends, such testimony would have no bearing on whether the defendant did, in
+38
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 40 of 51
+fact, participate in the sexual abuse of the victims in the manner described in the Indictment. As
+a factual matter, the record is crystal clear that these witnesses were not with the defendant and
+Epstein at "every moment" during the period charged in the Indictment. See Pierre-Louis, 2018
+WL 4043140, at *4. It would thus be "impossible" for them "to testify that [the] defendant did not
+commit the charged crimes, so whatever helpful testimony [they] might have offered (the details
+of which are sparse in the motion) would be easily undermined on cross-examination." Id. (citing
+Spears, 159 F.3d at 1081-85). Moreover, even assuming that these witnesses would have testified
+as the defendant claims and that such testimony would have been admissible, the defendant does
+not address why the unavailability of these particular individuals has caused her actual prejudice
+when other employees who worked for Epstein and the defendant were available to offer (and did
+offer) testimony about Epstein's residences and the defendant's role and time spent at such
+residences. It is the defendant's burden to establish that these witnesses' testimony could not be
+put before the jury through other means, and the defendant has not established-and cannot
+establish-
+-that these four witnesses were "key" witnesses who would have testified at her trial in
+an irreplaceable way that would have helped, rather than hurt, her. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752.
+In particular, the defendant cites the absence of Pinto and Salhi, "architects who built,
+renovated, and decorated many of Epstein's residences" and speculates that their testimony "would
+have cast significant doubt on Jane's recollection of events." (Def. Mot. at 29). The defendant
+has not set forth what Pinto and Salhi would have attested to had the charges been brought sooner.
+Moreover, at trial, the defendant cross-examined other employees who worked for Epstein during
+the relevant time periods—- such as Juan Alessi and pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers-and
+39
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 41 of 51
+inquired about Epstein's residences in an effort to cast doubt on Jane's recollections of events. In
+addition, the defendant listed as a defense witness one employee who worked for Epstein in his
+New York residence at East 71" Street in the mid-1990s, but tellingly elected to not call that
+witness. (Def. Dec. 14, 2021 Letter to Court). The defendant also cites the absence of
+, claiming that she "could have testified that the household manual [Government Exhibit
+606] was not created by Ms. Maxwell, but by another individual known as 'the Countess,' whom
+Epstein brought in to "professionalize' his staff." (Def. Mot. at 30). The defendant conveniently
+ignores Alessi's testimony about the manual (Tr. 807-09) and Government Exhibit 424, an email
+chain in which the defendant and
+discussed the household manual, which made
+abundantly clear that the defendant was involved in developing the manual. The defendant's bald
+assertions about
+testimony are speculative and belied by the trial record. Finally, the
+defendant's musings about what Fontanilla "could have testified" about (Def. Mot. at 30) the
+details of which are sparse do not "demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to [her] ability to
+defend [herself]." Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657. Even assuming that Fontanilla would have testified
+as the defendant now contends, such testimony would also have no bearing on whether the abuse,
+in fact, occurred.
+In sum, the defendant "fail[s] to identify what [these] witnesses would have attested to had
+the case been brought sooner; [she] fail[s] to substantiate the proposition that the testimony would
+have been favorable to [her]; and [she] fail[s] to provide any proof to support [her] claims of actual
+and substantial prejudice." United States v. Berry, No. 20 Cr. 84 (AJN), 2021 WL 2665585, at *3
+(S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2021). "Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the [defendant] had
+40
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 42 of 51
+established that the testimony would have been favorable to [her], [she has] not shown that the
+witnesses would have been "key' and not peripheral." Id.; see also id. ("The rule in this Circuit
+has long been that "missing peripheral witnesses are not enough[.]" (quoting Rubin, 609 F.2d at
+66)).
+The defendant also claims to have suffered prejudice regarding what she calls "critical
+documentary records" that were no longer available to challenge certain Government assertions or
+"test critical dates." (Def. Mot. at 25, 27). She specifically points to the unavailability of certain
+flight records, financial documents, phone records, and property records as proof of actual and
+substantial prejudice. (Id. at 26-29). Her unsubstantiated claims fail for at least three reasons.
+First, the defendant's motion either speculates about or lacks any suggestion of what such
+records would have shown.
+For example, the defendant argues that "[c]ritical financial
+documents" were unavailable to her. (Id. at 27). The defendant—who herself knows about the
+nature of the financial transactions between herself and Epstein-fails to indicate or suggest what
+the financial documents would have shown. The defendant also argues that property records about
+Epstein's homes could have rebutted Jane's testimony about the appearance of his homes at
+various points in time. (Id. at 28-29). But ample evidence about the appearance of Epstein's
+homes was offered at trial, and the defendant's motion offers no non-speculative information about
+what property records would specifically have provided that was absent from trial testimony and
+could not have been obtained another way.
+Second, the defendant's "motion does not provide any basis to conclude that the evidence,
+if available, would have been favorable to the [defendant]." Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at *2. As
+41
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 43 of 51
+one example, the defendant claims that Carolyn's trial testimony that the defendant called her to
+set up massage appointments "could have been disproven with contemporaneous phone records."
+(Def. Mot. at 28) (emphasis added). The defendant's claim is entirely speculative; she makes no
+claim about what Carolyn's phone records, or those of her mother or then-boyfriend, would have
+shown, and she ignores that the records may well have helped the Government, not her, if they
+were available.
+As another example, the defendant argues that had the flight manifests been available for
+the time period charged in the Indictment, " she "could have used them to challenge whether Jane
+was on those flights as well as the accuracy of Jane's recollection of events." (Id. at 26). The
+defendant does not establish how the flight manifests would have helped her. She claims that she
+needed the flight manifests because the flight logs are incomplete. (Id.). In so arguing, the
+defendant assumes that the flight manifests were complete" and contained information that would
+10 The defendant baldly argues that the flight manifests "did not go back to the time period charged
+in the Indictment" "[b]ecause of the passage of time." (Def. Mot. at 26). However, at trial, Visoski
+testified that between approximately 1994 and 2004, he would drop off the passenger manifests he
+personally completed at Epstein's main office in New York. (Tr. 172). Similarly, Rodgers
+testified that he turned over the passenger manifests that he completed to one of Epstein's
+attorneys. (Tr. 1819). The defendant has not established that such manifests were not available
+due to any intentionally manufactured delay. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091,
+1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("The fact that evidence may be lost or destroyed during the pre-indictment
+stage is inherent in any delay, no matter what the duration. Furthermore, there has been no
+allegation in this case that the destruction of the records was deliberate on the part of either the
+government or trustee.").
+' The defendant complains that the flight logs kept by Rodgers "were incomplete and often
+identified passengers simply by their first names or generic identifiers like '1 female' or *1 male'"
+in her efforts to argue that the unavailability of the passenger manifests was material. (Id.). The
+defendant ignores Visoski's testimony that when completing the manifest, he "tried to be as
+accurate as [he] could," but that if he "didn't know a passenger name, [he] wanted to put whether
+42
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 44 of 51
+be helpful to her. Indeed, she again ignores that the flight manifests may well have helped the
+Government. Once again, the defendant's argument is entirely speculative and unsupported by the
+record. The defendant offers no proof or basis for concluding that the flight manifests would be
+helpful and merit the extreme relief she seeks.
+Third, the defendant's "motion is unsupported by any proof that might substantiate a
+finding of actual and substantial prejudice as a result of the delay." Berry, 2021 WL 2665585, at
+*2 (citing Birney, 686 F.2d at 106). The defendant's "bare assertions do not satisfy the "definite
+and not speculative' requirements attendant on the [defendant's] "heavy burden' to show actual
+prejudice." Id. Instead, the defendant appears to "rely on the proposition that the loss of evidence
+merits an inference that the evidence would have been both favorable and material." Id. The
+defendant, however, is "not entitled to any such inference" "[a]s the side that bears the burden."
+Id. "Without even a cursory showing of what the evidence would have shown, the [defendant]
+raise[s] 'at most the possibility of prejudice,' but 'InJo actual prejudice is established.'" Id.
+(quoting United States v. Foddrell, 523 F.2d 86, 88 (2d Cir. 1975)).
+In short, the defendant's complaints are nothing more than the type of self-serving, vague,
+speculative, and conclusory claims of prejudice that courts have consistently rejected as
+insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon pre-indictment delay. The motion should
+therefore be denied.
+they were male or female." (Tr. 172-73). Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the manifests
+would have contained the information as the defendant speculates, much less that they would have
+been helpful to the defense.
+43
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 45 of 51
+B. The Defendant Has Failed to Establish that the Government Delayed the Indictment
+for an Improper Purpose
+3. Applicable Law
+If, and only if, a defendant has established significant, actual prejudice does the inquiry
+turn to the reason for the delay. See, e.g., Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (Because
+Defendant failed to show prejudice, the Court need not even address the second prong[.]"). The
+reason for delay violates due process only if it is so extreme that it departs from fundamental
+notions of "fair play." United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795 (1977). The Supreme Court
+has "defined the category of infractions that violate "fundamental fairness' very narrowly,"
+Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990), and the Supreme Court has "stressed the
+importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on the part of the Government when
+the claim is based on loss of evidence attributable to the Government," Arizona v. Youngblood,
+488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988).
+The Second Circuit has clearly held that a defendant seeking the dismissal of an indictment
+filed within the statute of limitations must establish that the Government acted intentionally,
+deliberately, or with some strategy, and that the Government used that delay to gain a tactical
+advantage over the defendant. See, e.g., Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (delay must be an "intentional
+device to gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused" (quoting Marion, 404 U.S. at 324)); see
+also United States v. Alameh, 341 F.3d 167, 176 (2d Cir. 2003) ("To show unjustifiable conduct,
+a defendant must demonstrate that the government has intentionally used delay to gain unfair
+tactical advantage."); United States v. Delacruz, 970 F. Supp. 2d 199, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("[The
+defendant's] motion to dismiss would nevertheless fail for the independent reason that he has not
+44
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 46 of 51
+made any showing that the preindictment delay was an intentional device designed by the
+Government to gain a tactical advantage."); United States v. J
+,, No. 94 Cr. 219 (RPP), 1995
+WL 10849, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1995) ("In order to establish improper delay by the
+Government in filing an indictment, a defendant must show that the delay was the result of an
+intentional device of the Government to gain tactical advantage over the accused." (citing United
+States v. Hoo, 825 F.2d 667, 671 (2d Cir. 1987))). Indeed, some version of the phrase "deliberate
+device" and "tactical advantage" is found in nearly every Second Circuit decision on the issue.
+See, e.g., Alameh, 341 F.3d at 176 ("intentionally used delay to gain unfair tactical advantage");
+Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752 (requiring "intentional device" to gain "tactical advantage"); Lawson,
+683 F.2d at 694 (delay not "engineered by the government for an improper purpose, such as gaining
+a tactical advantage");
+668 F.2d at 689; United States v.
+599 F.2d 1149, 1156 n.5
+(2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Tanu, 589 F.2d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Laurenti,
+581 F.2d 37, 40 n. 11 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Hillegas, 578 F.2d 453, 460 (2d Cir. 1978).
+4. Discussion
+Because the defendant has failed to establish prejudice, the Court need not address the
+defendant's specious arguments that the Government's purpose in any alleged pre-indictment
+delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. See Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL
+4043140, at *5. In any event, in denying the defendant's pre-trial motions and supplemental pretrial motions, the Court noted the absence of "evidence that the Government's delay in bringing
+these charges was designed to thwart Maxwell's ability to prepare a defense." (Dkt. No. 207 at
+17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). That remains true.
+45
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 47 of 51
+As the Government explained in its memorandum in opposition to the defendant's twelve
+pre-trial motions, dated February 26, 2021 (Dkt. No. 204 at 41-59), and in its memorandum in
+opposition to the defendant's supplemental motions, dated May 21, 2021 (Dkt. No. 295 at 13-16),
+the Indictments in this case were brought in a timely manner upon the Government's collection of
+evidence to support the charges. Any suggestion that the Government intentionally delayed
+obtaining the Indictments to gain some strategic advantage has no basis in fact, and for good
+reason: it is not true. The defendant has not established—and cannot establish—an undue delay,
+much less an intentional and deliberate delay caused by the Government for an improper purpose.
+In her current motion, the defendant offers no additional argument or factual claims
+whatsoever in support of her argument that the Government's purpose in any alleged preindictment delay was improper or designed to gain any sort of tactical advantage. Indeed, she
+ignores the second prong of the pre-indictment delay standard and refers the Court back to her
+prior briefing, which this Court has twice considered and rejected. (Dkt. No. 207 at 17; Dkt. No.
+317 at 10). If anything, the trial record undermined the defendant's argument on this prong. In an
+effort to show the victims' supposed financial motivations for testifying, the defendant repeatedly
+focused the jury's attention on the fact that victims only recently agreed to cooperate with the
+Government. That same evidence precludes any argument of intentional delay by the Government.
+The defendant's renewed complaints are insufficient to warrant dismissal of charges based upon
+pre-indictment delay, and accordingly, the motion should be denied.
+46
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 48 of 51
+Because the defendant cannot meet her "heavy burden" of establishing either element of
+unconstitutional delay, Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752, let alone both, her motion to vacate her
+conviction or dismiss the Indictment for pre-indictment delay is meritless and should be denied.
+IV.
+The Court Should Deny the Defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal Under
+Rule 29
+In a brief paragraph at the end of her motion, the defendant "reasserts th[e] same motion"
+under Rule 29 she made following the close of the Government's case and the close of her case
+and "incorporates the arguments previously made to the Court." (Def. Mot. at 30). The Court
+should reject those arguments as it has before.
+The defendant has only offered a specific challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as to
+Counts One and Two, the enticement counts. Specifically, the defendant argued that the record
+lacked sufficient evidence that the defendant "or anyone else who allegedly participated in this
+conspiracy persuaded, induced, or enticed Jane to travel to New York to engage in illegal sexual
+activity." (Tr. 2266-67; see Tr. 2269-70 ("There is not testimony whatsoever that Ghislaine
+Maxwell encouraged [Jane] to travel.")). Of course, the jury acquitted the defendant on Count
+Two, the substantive enticement count. As to Count One, the jury could have readily concluded
+that the defendant conspired with Epstein to groom minor victims and entice them to travel to
+Epstein's various properties, including his home in New York, to be sexually abused. For instance,
+Jane testified that she was abused by Epstein and the defendant in New York. (Tr. 320). And the
+record is replete with testimony regarding the manner in which the defendant worked with Epstein
+to groom minor victims and entice them to travel to Epstein's properties. (See, e.g., Tr. 300 (Jane
+seeing the defendant topless), 348 (making Jane feel special, in part by taking her on "field trips"),
+47
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 49 of 51
+2080-84 (shopping with Annie in New Mexico and teaching her to massage Epstein's feet), 840-
+45 (recruiting Virginia and instructing Alessi to bring her to Epstein's Florida house), 1524
+(Virginia receiving money for sex with Epstein), 1534 (inviting Carolyn to travel)). The jury
+evidently credited this testimony, and based on that testimony and the reasonable inferences from
+it, a rational jury easily could have (and did find her guilty on Count One.
+The defendant has made no substantive argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence on
+the remaining counts, and for good reason. Just as the conspiracies in Counts One and Three are
+multiplicitous because enticement and transportation are dual aims of the same conspiracy, see
+supra Part III, Count Three is amply supported by the evidence underlying Count One. As to
+Count Four, the record contains evidence that the defendant made travel arrangements for Jane,
+including the specific incident in which Jane had difficulty returning from New York to Palm
+Beach, and that the defendant traveled with Jane on Epstein's private plane. (Tr. 2268-69; see Tr.
+316-17 (testimony that the defendant traveled with Jane on Epstein's private jet and would "assist"
+in "making travel arrangements"); Tr. 323-24 ("[S]ometimes it would be - Jeffrey would ask her,
+hey, can you get Jane, you know, tickets and the times and whatnot and make the arrangements to
+be picked up."). That, in combination with evidence of the defendant's participation in Jane's
+abuse in New York, is sufficient on its own for the jury to convict on Count Four. See United
+States v. Vargas-Cordon, 733 F.3d 336 (2d Cir. 2013) ("The record is replete with evidence from
+which a reasonable jury could infer that sexual access to Jaire was a dominant purpose of Vargas-
+Cordon's repeated transport of her from his New Jersey home into Brooklyn."); United States v.
+Mi Sun Cho, 713 F.3d 716, 720 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Cho does not dispute that one who arranges
+48
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 50 of 51
+another's transportation across state lines for purposes of prostitution violates § 2421"); United
+States v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2004) ("*A defendant will be deemed to have
+"transported' an individual under Section 2421 where the evidence shows that the defendant
+personally ... performed the proscribed act of transporting."). But the jury could also have
+convicted the defendant by concluding that Epstein transported Jane, as he undoubtedly did by
+transporting her on his private jet, and that the defendant aided and abetted that transportation by
+grooming Jane, accompanying her on the plane, and participating in the abuse once she arrived in
+New York.
+Finally, the record contains ample evidence for the jury to convict on Counts Five and Six.
+Carolyn's testimony, corroborated by testimony from Shawn and physical evidence including
+message pads, showed that the defendant knew that Carolyn was a minor and made phone calls to
+arrange for Carolyn to engage in sex acts with Epstein in exchange for money. That is sufficient
+for Count Six. And the evidence showed that the defendant conspired with Epstein to traffic
+Carolyn and other minors for sex, including evidence that the defendant personally recruited
+Virginia while she was a minor. That is sufficient for Count Five.
+The defense at trial focused largely on the credibility of the victims who testified against
+the defendant. Now that the jury has convicted on five counts, and in a posture in which the Court
+must defer to the jury's evaluation of the witnesses and take all inferences in favor of the
+Government, those arguments are not availing. The evidence at trial is more than sufficient to
+sustain the jury's verdict.
+49
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 51 of 51
+CONCLUSION
+For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should
+grant the defendant's motion as to Count One, and otherwise deny the defendant's post-trial
+motions.
+Dated: February 25, 2022
+New York, New York
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+By:
+/s/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomeran
+Andrew Rohrbac
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+50
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb940dee85b7beb28946a4b917cc7f580f18cd128aa0d429246d82f75da6218a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb940dee85b7beb28946a4b917cc7f580f18cd128aa0d429246d82f75da6218a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4d01617b2c0dd6d7f8471cfebf5a0c4bad05ae7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb940dee85b7beb28946a4b917cc7f580f18cd128aa0d429246d82f75da6218a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -622,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb940dee85b7beb28946a4b917cc7f580f18cd128aa0d429246d82f75da6218a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 56,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "aa732b3e40688a6e5c0d6650b44a14d74081059e37058a2b50c7c06bed994ca5",
+  "output_sha256": "48cbeb3547c4efda175d6118491350e14436103f7cc0c78720cd0f9776fc1a7e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb98c32a7fc3f648c01373e023490eebf6fd85aaf971bb17e8f9eeea6dc065aa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb98c32a7fc3f648c01373e023490eebf6fd85aaf971bb17e8f9eeea6dc065aa.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1452146877da75750782732879bad0ce1f1772e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb98c32a7fc3f648c01373e023490eebf6fd85aaf971bb17e8f9eeea6dc065aa.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 582-2 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb98c32a7fc3f648c01373e023490eebf6fd85aaf971bb17e8f9eeea6dc065aa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb98c32a7fc3f648c01373e023490eebf6fd85aaf971bb17e8f9eeea6dc065aa.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72fd282f7834d2e2e0a60dbe66891940ee4ca911
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eb98c32a7fc3f648c01373e023490eebf6fd85aaf971bb17e8f9eeea6dc065aa.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eb98c32a7fc3f648c01373e023490eebf6fd85aaf971bb17e8f9eeea6dc065aa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "073fa9459adbefaf6b49c36945ae3eac7c306822127a30180c6a8fbb677f15c6",
+  "output_sha256": "9dba7461bf38a0ff12532a024e387282163977e6931afa15e5961fa49cef174c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eba9f7a7f247a463bd9065f7fef024bea002954386fd0d9a7417a28f9cbff91c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eba9f7a7f247a463bd9065f7fef024bea002954386fd0d9a7417a28f9cbff91c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f10883706a38e26d4451a8d04d10bd0938c5965
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eba9f7a7f247a463bd9065f7fef024bea002954386fd0d9a7417a28f9cbff91c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1599 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 31
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 31
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+15 Civ. 7433
+(RWS)
+Defendant.
+--x
+New York, N.Y.
+April 21, 2016
+11:05 a.m.
+Before:
+HON. ROBERT W. SWEET,
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LIP
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+BY: SIGRID |
+| MCCAWLEY
+-and-
+I. JAFFE,
+WEISSING,
+BY:
+BRAD
+-and-
+PAUL G. CASSELL
+HADDoN,
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: LAURA A. MENNINGER
+JEFF PAGLUICA
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT
+REPORTERS, P.C.
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 31
+2
+1
+(Case called)
+2
+THE COURT:
+Welcome back.
+I have read the papers.
+3 Who knows.
+I might have missed something, but I think I've got
+4
+it
+fairly
+well under
+control. I would be pleased to hear
+anything anybody wants to tell me in addition to what you've
+6
+already given
+me.
+MS. McCAWLEY:
+Your Honor, this is Sigrid McCawley. I
+8 would like to start, if it's convenient with the Court, with
+9 the pro hac vice motions that are
+pending because we would like
+10 counsel to be able to anticipate in these proceedings. Would
+11 that be all right if I started with that?
+12
+THE COURT: I don't care.
+13
+MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you. Your Honor, you have before
+14
+you two pro hac vice motions. My client,
+15 would like to have counsel of record in the case be added as
+16 Professor Paul Cassell and Brad
+We have presented
+17 those pro hacs to your Honor. This is the first time in my
+18 years of practice that I've had a contested one, so I've looked
+19
+at the case
+law surrounding that and I think it is very clear
+20
+that a client is entitled to counsel of choice in a case.
+21
+In this matter she has selected these lawyers. They
+22
+have been working with her. They had been working on this
+23
+matter for many months now. We need them as counsel of record
+24
+in the case now because we are going
+to have depositions
+25 throughout the country where, for example, Professor Cassell is
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 31
+3
+G4 LMGIUC
+1
+in Utah.
+He will be able to handle the Colorado depositions
+2
+and things
+of
+that nature.
+We are here because those pro hac
+vice motions are being contested. The core piece of that is
+4
+the
+argument that they
+should not be allowed to seek
+confidential information in this case.
+6
+Your Honor will remember that I was before you a
+7
+couple of weeks ago again trying to get the deposition of the
+8 defendant, which is set for tomorrow, but still hasn't occurred
+9 yet.
+And in order to expedite that
+process I agreed to the
+10 protective order that was put in front of the Court and I
+11
+waived all of my objections to that in order to be able to
+12
+facilitate and move that deposition forward. That protective
+13 order provides that attorneys who are actively working on the
+14
+case can receive confidential material.
+15
+My opposing counsel has interpreted that to mean that
+16 that must be a counsel of record in the case. We disagree with
+17 that interpretation. I wouldn't have agreed to a protective
+18 order knowing that they were already working on the case. If
+19
+that were the situation, as your Honor can understand in this
+20 case, the majority of the material has been marked
+21 confidential, so it would prohibit my cocounsel from working on
+22 behalf of their client.
+23
+Your Honor, I'm here to request on behalf of my
+24
+client,
+that she be entitled to have her
+25 counsel of record of choice in this matter. If your Honor will
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 31
+4
+1
+indulge
+me, I would like Mr. Cassell to address his pro hac
+2
+motion, please.
+3
+MR. CASSELL: Good morning, your Honor, Paul Cassell.
+4
+I'm
+a law
+professor.
+THE COURT: I don't want to hear it. Sorry. No.
+6
+Thanks very
+much.
+7
+MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor.
+8
+THE COURT: Anything from the defense.
+9
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Jeff Pagliuca on
+10 behalf of Ms. Maxwell.
+11
+Your Honor, I have never opposed a pro hac motion in
+12 my 34 years of practice, so this is a first for me. But it is
+13 clear, your Honor, that these lawyers will be witnesses in this
+14 case.
+15
+THE COURT: This we don't know. I can't make that
+16 determination now. Anything else?
+17
+18
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+THE COURT: You may be totally right, but I don't
+19 know.
+20
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, here is the problem. |
+This
+21
+case is about the plaintiff's false allegations.
+22
+THE COURT: Yes. I think I picked up on that.
+23
+MR. PAGLIUCA: These are the lawyers that wrote the
+24
+25
+false allegations.
+THE COURT: I think I picked up on that, too.
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 6 of 31
+5
+1
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+These are the lawyers that admitted
+2
+that these were false allegations.
+3
+THE COURT: I know. I don't have to tell you, you
+4 know, there is going to be all kinds of privilege issues, all
+kinds of issues about whether or not they have to testify. We
+6
+are not at that stage.
+I cannot and I will not decide that
+now.
+8
+What else?
+9
+MR. PAGLIUCA: There is a problem with the sharing of
+10 confidential information with these lawyers. These lawyers
+11 have both personal and professional interests.
+12
+THE COURT: I understand that. I get that point.
+13 Anything else?
+14
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No, your Honor.
+15
+THE COURT: This is what we will do on the pro hac.
+16 Everybody agrees, nobody, maybe in the world, but nobody in
+17 this courtroom, including me, has dealt with this kind of
+18 problem before. That's perhaps only one of a number of issues
+19
+that are unique about this case. That's neither here nor
+20
+there. Clearly, the plaintiff has the right to consult with
+21
+any lawyer she chooses. However, the materials here are
+22
+sensitive.
+I don't know
+the extent to which they have been
+23
+designated confidential, but I'm quite sure that a substantial
+24
+number of them
+have been, by the very nature of the case, I
+25
+guess.
+Let me put it this way. I want to be sure that we
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 7 of 31
+6
+1
+enforce the confidentiality appropriately.
+2
+Now,
+with those
+preliminary thoughts in mind I am
+3
+going to deny
+the motion at this time because I know that there
+4
+statement,
+some kind of a statement from the mediator in
+the Florida action.
+When I get a piece of paper that says the
+6
+Florida action
+is dismissed, a court order or whatever, then
+7
+this motion can be
+renewed.
+8
+Also,
+I want an affidavit from the two lawyers that
+9 there is no
+matter in which they
+are personally involved, that
+10 they are making no claim,
+there is no claims, there is no
+1l litigation in which they are involved. The reason I say that
+12 is that I would not grant the application for a pro hac status
+13 to a party in this or a related litigation. If I get those
+14 affidavits and the
+statement about the closure of the Florida
+15 case in which they are a party, then the application can be
+16 renewed
+and at that point I would be probably inclined, unless
+17
+something else comes up or unless the defense tells me
+18 something that I don't now know, I would grant the application
+19
+that brings us to the order
+itself and the meaning of the
+20
+order. I think active in the litigation is the key phrase.
+21
+The plaintiff has listed the people that she considers would be
+22
+appropriate and it's these two gentleman and I think one other
+23
+person, and that's fine. That is the definition.
+24
+However, I'm also going to ask the parties to agree
+25
+upon an order that would expand the confidentiality agreement
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 8 of 31
+7
+1
+to this extent, to require the plaintiff to indicate to me and
+to the defense if
+there is anyone else who is going to be
+active in the litigation. I'll tell you why I feel this way.
+4
+I want to be
+sure that
+can enforce the confidential aspect
+of that agreement, and I think that could be critical down the
+6
+line.
+That's the reason for those requests.
+NOW,
+we
+also have
+a motion to compel.
+8
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, can I just get
+9 clarification very quickly because I don't want to have to come
+10 back to the court so I want to make sure I'm following
+11
+correctly. Your ruling, because we have a deposition tomorrow
+12 that counsel was going to be assisting me with, particularly on
+13 the Fifth Amendment --
+14
+THE COURT: Can't have access unless I get these
+15 materials by then. If I do, that's something else. If I do,
+16 fine. Otherwise, they can't have access to the confidential
+17 data. They can assist.
+18
+MS. MCCANLEY: Can I just point something out to the
+19
+Court as well.
+20
+THE COURT: The plaintiff can have any lawyer she
+21
+wants. The question is the confidential materials.
+22
+MS. McCAWLEY: Can I just point the Court to one more
+23 issue, because this is their protective order. They now said
+24 to the Court that these two individuals are witnesses or
+25 potential witnesses. The protective order allows in Section G
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 9 of 31
+8
+1
+confidential material to
+go to deponents, witnesses or
+2
+potential witnesses.
+3
+THE COURT:
+That's a different issue. I have not
+dealt with
+that.
+Obviously
+anybody who is a witness may have
+access to the confidential material, because they have to buy
+6
+into the confidentiality order in order to do that. But they
+are outside of it at the
+moment.
+8
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your ruling is, they cannot attend the
+9 deposition tomorrow?
+10
+THE COURT: They can. Anybody can attend the
+11 deposition that anybody wants to have, but they can't
+12 participate in it. They can't have access to the confidential
+13
+material until we get this matter straightened out. Ok.
+14
+15
+MS. MCCAWLEY: I understand, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, we will be designating the
+16
+testimony as confidential.
+17
+THE COURT: You see. There you go. That's life. I
+18 can't believe that this entire testimony is going to be
+19
+confidential. Honestly, you all are too much. Ok. If that's
+20
+what you do, you know that's not going to work because not all
+21 of this stuff at issue is going be to confidential. No, no
+22 way. What is your name? Ok. We will deal with tomorrow's
+23 problem tomorrow.
+24
+25
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Ok, your Honor.
+THE COURT: The compel. Anybody want to add anything
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 10 of 31
+9
+on that?
+1
+2
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Yes, your Honor.
+Laura Menninger on
+3 behalf of Ms. Maxwell. |
+I have taken the liberty, your Honor,
+4
+of
+just
+making
+a very
+short little cheat
+sheet of the
+5
+outstanding issues, if I may approach.
+6
+THE COURT: Yes.
+It will be interesting to see if
+7
+yours is the same
+the
+one we have prepared.
+Yours
+is much
+8
+longer than ours.
+9
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I'm happy to address all
+10 of the ones on mine. I certainly am also happy to take
+11 direction from the Court regarding issues that you believe to
+12
+still be of more interest.
+13
+THE COURT: As I say, I've read your papers. I would
+14 be pleased to hear anything you want to add that you think is
+15 not covered or you want to respond or anything like that.
+16
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, one of the largest and
+17
+most significant pieces to us are the assertions by plaintiff
+18 that her own communications with law enforcement are somehow
+19
+protected by --
+20
+THE COURT: I'm prepared to deal with that.
+21
+MS. MENNINGER: The second one, your Honor, and it
+22
+relates somewhat to the issues already presented on the pro hac
+23 motions, are our requests for the fee agreements with all of
+24
+plaintiff's various 15 or so lawyers who purport to be
+25
+representing her. Your Honor, I can find no case law that
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 11 of 31
+10
+G4 LMGIUC
+1
+suggests that the agreements are privileged, as plaintiff
+argues.
+She has refused
+to identify when these individuals
+3 began their representations, the nature of the representations.
+4
+THE COURT:
+There
+is a little confusion here,
+at least
+in my mind, as to what we are talking about. I certainly
+6
+understand
+the two
+gentlemen whose applications I have just
+7
+dealt with
+and
+the third
+person, who I take it is affiliated
+with the Boies firm.
+9
+Obviously, over time the plaintiff has probably
+10 conferred with other lawyers. But who cares? Let's assume she
+11 has talked to 20 more lawyers. You want all those retainers?
+12 That doesn't make any sense. What is the universe we are
+13 talking about?
+14
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor,
+I certainly understand all
+15 of the members of the Boies firm that currently represent her.
+16 The third individual, if I understand correctly, is a gentleman
+17 by the name of Stan Pottinger.
+He is a lawyer of some renown.
+18 He is also an author of best-selling books. He is listed quite
+19 frequently on plaintiff's privilege log as being part and
+20 parcel of advice being given to her on, quote/unquote, media
+21
+issues.
+22
+THE COURT: That is one.
+23
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there are other persons
+24 listed on their privilege log. Many
+are listed as counsel for
+25 plaintiff, but others are listed.
+Attorney giving advice to
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 12 of 31
+11
+1
+victim's --
+2
+THE COURT:
+Is what you want the retainer agreements,
+3 if there are any, whatever the arrangements are, with anybody
+4
+on the privilege log
+that
+is listed
+as rendering advice?
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Yes, your Honor. That, I think, would
+6
+be appropriate because
+some of our biggest issues concern the
+7
+8
+9
+privilege log.
+THE COURT: I understand.
+What else?
+10
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we have asked for, but
+11 been denied by plaintiff, her own deposition testimony in the
+12 Florida action. In that case the Court entered a confidential
+13 order --
+14
+THE COURT: I'm prepared to deal with it.
+15
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the next topic are
+16 plaintiff's medical records.
+17
+THE COURT: I think I understand that. There is one
+18 thing, though. Are there any pre-'99 medical records?
+19
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the case law is quite
+20
+clear that injuries that were preexisting --
+21
+THE COURT: I'm sorry. Excuse me. Go ahead.
+22
+MS. MENNINGER: Plaintiff has alleged that the
+23 defamation of this action triggered or caused her to reflect
+24 back upon her alleged sexual abuse.
+She has also alleged, for
+25 example, that many, several, three, I think, at last count, or
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 13 of 31
+12
+1
+four individuals had sexually abused her prior to
+ever meeting
+2
+Mr. Epstein.
+3
+If she has evidence that she already was suffering
+4
+from depression
+some type of mental health disorder before
+meeting our client, Ms. Maxwell, or Mr. Epstein, then her
+6
+flashbacks, if
+you will, could be related to other incidents
+7
+that
+she has put out in the press.
+And she, I believe, has
+8
+also told the press that she was in a drug rehabilitation
+9
+facility at the time that she met Mr. Epstein.
+10
+Obviously, to the extent she was under the influence
+11
+12
+of drugs, which is what she has told the press, at the time she
+met him, she persisted in being addicted to drugs during the
+13 time that she knew Mr. Epstein, and it certainly relates to all
+14 of her requests for, I believe she has requested $30 million in
+15 damages, your Honor, not just from the defamation, but also
+16 harkening back to what she claims were her years as a sex abuse
+17
+victim.
+18
+THE COURT: What's the basis of your statement that we
+19
+will call it the flashback?
+20
+21
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe --
+THE COURT: Because, quite frankly, I was unaware of
+22
+that. Is that my error? Are you telling me something that's
+23 not quite right?
+24
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe that is what
+25 plaintiff has alleged in her complaint. If you can give me a
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 14 of 31
+13
+1
+moment.
+To the extent she is now alleging she suffers from
+2
+emotional distress
+from
+any preexisting
+--
+3
+THE COURT:
+That's from the defamation.
+4
+MS. MENNINGER:
+She claims it's from the defamation.
+5
+However, your Honor, if she has preexisting conditions that
+6
+were truly the cause of whatever emotional injury she claims
+7
+that
+she now
+possesses
+8
+THE COURT: Correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps
+9 plaintiff will make it clear, my
+understanding is that the
+10 injuries alleged result from the claim of the alleged
+11 defamation, period.
+12
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, she has claimed emotional
+13 distress from the defamation, yes. We are requesting evidence
+14 that would show that she has preexisting
+emotional conditions.
+15
+THE COURT: Not from the defamation.
+16
+MS. MENNINGER: Not from the defamation. From the
+17
+many, many other things that have occurred in her life
+18 predating even her meeting Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, as she
+19
+has told the press, not because we
+told the press that.
+20
+Your Honor, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
+21
+address her claimed $30 million emotional distress from a
+22
+defamation statement that was a denial of her allegations
+23
+versus any emotional distress or emotional conditions she
+24
+already had before any such statement was made.
+25
+Similarly, your Honor, we have asked for discovery of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 15 of 31
+14
+1
+claimed
+prior sexual abuse.
+She has, again, put in the
+press
+a
+number
+of
+statements regarding that, and I can't
+3
+imagine that it is
+to the extent she claims privacy now, those
+4
+might be
+relevant
+in
+QUI
+case both on credibility and also
+5
+damage issues.
+6
+Your Honor, we have asked for a lot of other
+7
+interrogatories and documents that go to her damage claims, her
+8
+education records, her work history. She has refused to answer
+9
+any questions before where she has worked. She has refused to
+10 answer any questions about where she went to school. All of
+1l these are appropriate under the local rule for interrogatories.
+12
+Finally, your Honor, we have asked for her contracts
+13 with media. She has refused to disclose those. She has
+14 refused to disclose her tax returns that
+show all of the
+15 payments that she has received from various media sources.
+16
+THE COURT: I take it your view of any funds from the
+17
+media would operate to reduce her damages.
+18
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, it also shows her motive
+19
+and bias in bringing this case.
+To the extent she has been
+20 paid for her stories to the media, which she has, she has
+21
+admitted that she has been paid hundreds of thousands of
+22
+dollars for giving these stories to the media.
+23
+But to the extent that she is now bringing this
+24
+defamation claim, if she is still either planning to receive
+25
+more money from the media, she has a motive and bias to make
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 16 of 31
+15
+1
+story consistent with her previous stories.
+She has
+2
+claimed
+$5
+million
+in lost
+wages, your Honor.
+This is a person
+3
+who has worked
+primarily
+as a waitress in the last 15 years,
+4
+until her
+media
+sensational
+story
+was purchased from her by
+5
+some British press.
+6
+THE COURT:
+Anything else?
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Your Honor,
+the other issues are
+8 addressed in our papers. We have highlighted her incomplete
+9 production on several
+fronts
+and her
+refusal to answer any
+10 interrogatories. So I would rest on my papers with respect to
+11 the other arguments. Thank you.
+12
+MS. McCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to be
+13 very clear here, your Honor. Discovery production, I've tried
+14 to do that
+in our papers. But listening to opposing counsel
+15 I'm concerned maybe she hasn't reviewed the documents we have
+16 produced.
+We
+have clearly produced all of the media
+17
+communications she has, including records --
+18
+THE COURT: All the media.
+19
+MS. MCCAWLEY: All of the media communications. She
+20
+has issued wildly broad requests in this case which we have
+21
+complied with.
+We ran over 200 search terms. Her request No.
+22
+5 alone
+seeks communications
+with over 100 individuals. And we
+23
+have complied, your Honor.
+This is coming from the defendant
+24
+who until Monday night, when you directed her to produce
+25 privileged information, has only produced two e-mails in this
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 17 of 31
+16
+case.
+1
+2
+Your Honor, we have complied with our production.
+We
+3 have produced the materials that she is saying we have not
+4
+produced.
+It's incorrect.
+We have produced her school records
+5
+that we have.
+We have
+produced her tax records that we have.
+6
+We have
+produced all of those items that we have.
+With
+respect to her medical records I am going to
+8 direct you to the case that is cited in our brief as the Evanko
+9 case and it
+was
+similar circumstance to here. It was a Title
+10
+VII case where there were emotional distress damages being
+11
+alleged and the Court found that the other side could not have
+12
+carte blanche ruling over all of her medical records from the
+13 time she was born to the present. We met and conferred on two
+14 hours on their discovery requests, your Honor.
+We agreed to
+15 produce all of her medical records that we had from 1999 to
+16
+2002 and anything else we had that was related to the sexual
+17
+abuse
+she endured at the hands of the defendant and
+18 Mr. Epstein. We have agreed to produce those.
+19
+We have
+already started producing those records from
+20
+the various doctors, from the treating physicians. Those are
+21
+in their production.
+Should they be entitled to things that
+22
+happened prior to that? Absolutely not, your Honor.
+They are
+23
+not entitled to a full-scale production of everything that's
+24
+happened in this young lady's life.
+She was abused by these
+25 individuals. She shouldn't be reabused by having to disclose
+
+
+Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 18 of 31
+17
+1
+things that happened
+prior to her time with them.
+Your Honor,
+2
+we do object to the production of that material.
+3
+THE COURT:
+The flashback allegation.
+4
+MS. McCAWLEY:
+I think what
+she may be referring to, I
+have not heard that term used, I think what she may be
+6
+referring
+to was the fact that this is a defamation claim and
+7
+the person who defamed
+my
+client was also an abuser, we allege.
+8
+So when she is defamed by the person who abused her and that
+9
+abuser is calling her
+a liar, that caused her significant
+10 emotional distress. It's different than if some other
+11 individual that she had not had contact with called her a liar.
+12
+When she is talking about a flashback, maybe that's what she is
+13 referring to, but we don't have the word flashback anywhere in
+14
+our complaint.
+15
+THE COURT: No. I made that up.
+16
+There will be no claim by the plaintiff that the
+17
+defamation caused her distress by making her aware or as a
+18/
+result of the prior sexual abuse.
+19
+MS. McCAWLEY: The sexual abuse by the defendants?
+20
+THE COURT: No.
+21
+MS. McCAWLEY: Sexual abuse by others.
+22
+THE COURT: Yes.
+23
+MS. MCCAWLEY: No. Sexual abuse that relates to the
+24
+Epstein period, yes.
+25
+THE COURT: That I understand.
+
+
+Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 19 of 31
+18
+1
+MS. McCAWLEY: I think we are on the same page.
+2
+THE COURT:
+I think talking about the earlier period.
+3
+MS. McCAWLEY:
+Prior to Epstein, no, no, she doesn't
+4
+have
+a claim
+with
+respect to that.
+THE COURT:
+Anything else?
+6
+MS. McCAWLEY:
+Your Honor, I just want to point out
+7
+again that
+our production
+-- you asked us to complete that.
+We
+8 have gone through and run over 200 search terms. We have
+9 produced all of those communications
+she has had with all of
+10 those individuals. The things that we have not produced are
+1l the criminal investigation records. I know your Honor is going
+12
+to address that. I would like to be very clear there.
+13
+The point there is that she has said in the motion to
+14
+stay papers that
+she filed Tuesday that she needs to have that
+15 information so she can decide whether she is going to be
+16
+asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege. Truthful testimony
+17
+shouldn't have to be crafted, your Honor. She shouldn't need
+18 to know what agency is investigating her in order to decide
+19
+whether or not she
+is going to be asserting her Fifth Amendment
+20 privilege.
+21
+We do have with us, your Honor, for an in camera
+22
+submission, if you would like it. That is the way that courts
+23 have dealt with this issue in the past. When there is a claim
+24
+from an agency that the disclosure of that investigation could
+25 harm the investigation, we can submit that to you for in camera
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 20 of 31
+19
+1
+review so you are aware of the ongoing investigation.
+But it
+2
+is my view that that
+needs to be protected.
+3
+As you probably know, the history of these cases with
+4 Mr. Epstein, there
+were
+variety of things that went on in
+that investigation, so there is reason to keep an investigation
+6
+in this situation protected so that they can properly
+7
+investigate and
+move forward
+with that without being inhibited
+8 by other individuals. Your Honor, I would ask that that remain
+9 protected. It's covered by her very, very broad requests,
+10 which is why we had to lodge those objections. I would
+11 appreciate your Honor considering our arguments with respect to
+12 that issue.
+13
+The other things, your Honor, that she has raised is,
+14 for example, she had asked for the Epstein settlement agreement
+15 and that was one of the things that she asked for. We agreed
+16 to produce that if we got the waiver from Mr. Epstein because
+17
+we can't produce it without that waiver.
+18
+I believe that covers it, your Honor. If you have any
+19
+questions, I would be happy to answer them.
+20
+21
+THE COURT: Thanks very much.
+Thank you all for all the clarification that you've
+22
+given me. I much appreciate it.
+23
+With respect to the retainers and the dates of
+24
+representation, that information will be provided for any
+25 attorney that's listed on the privilege log.
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 21 of 31
+20
+1
+The plaintiff has told me that they have now supplied
+2
+all the education and
+employment records that they have.
+think if there is any question about that, if the defense is
+4
+skeptical,
+I would
+ask
+the
+counsel for the plaintiffs to make
+5
+that statement on the record, not necessarily here, but by way
+6
+of a statement to the Court
+and principally to the defendant.
+On the question
+of
+residences, that's, in my view, not
+8 a contention interrogatory because of the nature of this case.
+9 I think it's more like listing witnesses. So I would say that
+10 the plaintiff should supply all residences.
+11
+The Dershowitz deposition will be produced under the
+12
+confidentiality provision.
+As I read what I've been given,
+13 it's to be held in confidence and it will remain in confidence,
+14 but it will be produced.
+15
+Yes, the tax returns should be produced. 15 years
+16 seems like -- I see. Ok. 15 years.
+17
+The medical records of the period '99 to 2002 will be
+18 produced and the plaintiff will indicate whether that
+19 production
+is complete or, if it isn't complete, when it will
+20 be complete.
+21
+As for the pre-'99 medical records, based on where we
+22
+are at the moment, I do not believe
+that those are relevant.
+23
+Because the damage issue relates,
+in my view, solely to the
+24
+defamation. If that changes in any way, I will revisit that
+25 issue.
+
+
+Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 22 of 31
+21
+1
+The criminal investigation. Any materials that the
+2
+plaintiff has
+with respect to any criminal investigations will
+3 be turned
+over except for any statements made by the plaintiff
+4
+to law
+enforcement
+authority
+and those statements, if there are
+5
+such, will be submitted in camera, and I will review them.
+6
+I hope that clears up our problems.
+Tell me if I have
+7
+failed in my
+effort to do
+so. Yes,
+•. MENNINGER: Your Honor, two quick things, I think.
+9
+With respect to medical records,
+also certainly believe that
+10 the period from the time the statement was made in January 2015
+11 until the present, because she has claimed emotional distress
+12
+from that defamation --
+13
+THE COURT: Sure, yes.
+14
+MS. MENNINGER: The problem
+is, we have asked through
+15 interrogatory what were the names of the medical providers
+16 because they have not disclosed who her medical providers were.
+17/
+So there is no way
+for us
+to tell
+whether the records in fact
+18 have been sought from and produced with respect to each of
+19
+those
+medical providers. I will say that other records in the
+20 possession of plaintiff lists other doctors who they have not
+21
+asked for records from or releases.
+22
+THE COURT: Let's see if
+we can clear that up.
+23
+MS. MCCAWLEY: We have disclosed the names.
+She has
+24
+those names. We have also disclosed records, the more recent
+25 records. We have not contested that.
+
+
+Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 23 of 31
+22
+1
+With respect to the interrogatories, your Honor ruled
+on this
+previously,
+but there is a local Rule 33.3, which is
+why we didn't serve interrogatories in this case at this point.
+4
+She
+deposing
+the plaintiff in two weeks, next week, whenever
+5
+it is, and can certainly ask those questions as well. But we
+6
+have disclosed the
+names of the providers.
+7
+MS. MENNINGER:
+They have not, your Honor.
+8
+THE COURT: Look. Wait just a moment. You two are
+9 lawyers. Now, that is not an issue about which you should
+10 differ. Go over in the corner right now, both of you, and
+11 let's make it clear who is telling me the right story. Now.
+12
+I take it that I misunderstood the colloguy and that
+13 this matter has been resolved.
+14
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, I think there was a
+15
+misunderstanding with respect --
+16
+THE COURT: I was sure.
+17
+MS. McCAWLEY: Dr. Olsen has been noticed for
+18 deposition in Colorado already. In my view, we have disclosed
+19
+the doctors. Ms. Menninger says that there is other doctors
+20
+that have been disclosed in documents that we have not yet
+21 listed to her. I think in discovery we are finding
+22
+additional --
+23
+THE COURT: You think you may not have discovered that
+24
+25
+your client has had some doctors --
+MS. MCCAWLEY: In the past. We are talking about
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 24 of 31
+23
+1
+years
+and years ago.
+The recent
+doctors
+we have disclosed they
+2
+have
+noticed for deposition.
+3
+THE COURT:
+What else?
+4
+MS. MENNINGER:
+Your Honor, with respect to the
+5
+employment and education records, as you heard plaintiff say,
+6
+she has disclosed, quote/unquote, what she has.
+Under local
+7
+rule 33.3,
+we are allowed to
+ask for the names of witnesses
+8 with knowledge at the outset of the case, and they might be
+9 custodians of records. We asked her who have been your
+10 employers. She won't tell us who her employers have been. She
+11 has just gone through her computer and say if I have an
+12 employment record I'll give it to you, but I am not going to
+13 tell you who her employers were.
+14
+THE COURT: She will.
+15
+MS. MENNINGER: Same thing with the education records.
+16
+We asked her to list where she had gone to school and tell us
+17
+where it is. She won't do it. Those are the things where my
+18
+skepticism arises from.
+19
+Largely, to the extent your Honor has ordered the
+20
+production of whatever materials, criminal investigation
+21
+materials that were not to be submitted in camera, those were
+22
+the ones that involved plaintiff's
+statements, we would like
+23 the other materials that they have brought with them today to
+24
+give to your Honor that do not encompass their client's
+25 statements to law enforcement.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 25 of 31
+24
+1
+THE COURT:
+I don't know whether there are such. Is
+it possible that
+nothing
+in this lawsuit is clear?
+Well, I
+3 tried to make it clear
+what
+should be produced and what
+4
+shouldn't.
+Anything
+that has been submitted to any
+• law
+enforcement officer by the plaintiff I will take in camera.
+6
+Anything other than that with respect to any law enforcement
+7
+should be
+produced.
+8
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+9
+THE COURT: Thank you, all. I think we have the
+10 pleasure of your company -- do we need you next week? We are
+11 up to date, aren't we?
+12
+MS. MCAWLEY: Your Honor, we have a motion with
+13 respect to our discovery that's set for next Thursday.
+14
+THE COURT: That's fine.
+15
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Just before we adjourn, because
+16 Mr. Cassell had a question, and I just want to make sure that I
+17 understand, with respect to tomorrow's deposition, they are
+18 entitled to attend but have to leave the room if confidential
+19
+information is disclosed?
+20
+THE COURT: That's where we are at the moment, unless
+21
+it changes.
+22
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, with regard to next
+23 Thursday, both Ms. Menninger and I have other matters that are
+24
+previously scheduled and it would be impossible for us to take
+25
+care of those matters and be here at the same time. I'm
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 26 of 31
+25
+1
+wondering what the Court would like to do about that.
+2
+THE COURT:
+First of all, you know how we play this
+3 game. You don't
+ask
+me first.
+You ask your opponent first.
+4
+Have you done that?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I have not, your Honor.
+6
+THE COURT: Will you?
+7
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+I certainly will, your Honor.
+8
+THE COURT: Now.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Absolutely.
+10
+11
+THE COURT: You can go over to the corner, too.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we need a corner bar on this,
+12 your Honor.
+13
+Ms. McCawley, I'm wondering if we can get a mutually
+14
+convenient date to hear that matter as opposed to next
+15 Thursday.
+16
+17
+18
+19
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Of course.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That was simple enough, your Honor.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Your Honor, one more thing. I didn't
+realize that my counsel can submit that stipulation to you
+20
+because that case has been settled --
+21
+THE COURT: If I get something that closes that case
+22
+and I get the affidavit that there are no other matters in
+23 which they have any claims or defenses relating to any of these
+24
+25
+statements, that will do it.
+MS. MCCANLEY: Your Honor, so I know, if we can submit
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 27 of 31
+26
+1
+that by fax this afternoon, will they be able to attend the
+2 deposition tomorrow?
+3
+THE COURT: I would think so, if I think those are
+4
+adequate
+representations
+and
+so on.
+The statement from a
+mediator doesn't mean anything to me. Something that has a
+6
+court sign
+to it.
+That I
+understand. But the mediator saying
+7
+that
+it's
+settled doesn't work for me.
+8
+MR. CASSELL: Your Honor, maybe Mr.
+could
+9 briefly explain Florida procedure.
+The case has been
+10 dismissed, but it does not require a Court's signature.
+11 Mr.
+can elaborate more fully on that.
+12
+MR.
+Sure.
+If I may. There are two ways in
+13 which a case can be dismissed in Florida. One is by way of a
+14 court order. The other is by way of a stipulation. That is
+15 what was done. There was a stipulation of dismissal signed by
+16 both parties, that being the plaintiff and the defendants and
+17
+counsel, that has been done and that was dismissed.
+18
+THE COURT: That's filed in the case.
+19
+MR.
+That's filed in the case and filed in
+20
+the court.
+21
+THE COURT: Do you have a copy of that?
+22
+MR.
+- I can get a copy of it immediately.
+23
+THE COURT: Give it to the defense. If they have any
+24 problems, they will let me know. That sounds all right to me.
+25 What do I know about Florida except that it's flat and hot.
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 28 of 31
+27
+1
+Your representation sounds right.
+2
+MR.
+Additionally, just with respect to the
+3
+affidavit, there needs to be an affirmation that we have no
+4
+other
+claims that
+relate
+to the
+statements in this case.
+Is
+that what we are saying?
+6
+THE COURT: I think it should be broader than that. I
+7
+think it should be -- look.
+I don't think it would be
+8 appropriate if there is any possibility for either of you to
+9 being a party. That's what I'm after. And having any
+10 proceedings against you arising out of the situation with the
+11 plaintiff. I think it would be inappropriate for you to be
+12
+counsel if you have the potentiality of being a party, either
+13 plaintiff or defendant, in any proceedings. If I get an
+14 affidavit saying that you're unaware of any claims against you
+15 or any intention to make a claim arising out of the
+16 circumstances surrounding this lawsuit, that should be broad.
+17 I think that would satisfy me.
+18
+MR.
+: Ok.
+19
+MR. CASSELL: I'll be filing those materials this
+20
+afternoon, your Honor. My plan is to attend --
+21
+THE COURT: The defense has a thought on this.
+22
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I am looking at documents
+23 from Florida. One is a docket sheet captioned: Epstein v.
+24 Brad
+and Paul G. Cassell, Lower Tribune Cases 15 000072
+25 which shows that that matter is still pending. There is
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 29 of 31
+28
+1
+another case, as I
+understand it,
+v. Epstein and
+2
+Rothstein, which
+is
+also
+pending.
+I can confer about this,
+3 your Honor.
+4
+THE COURT:
+Let's do this.
+When do you plan to return
+to the snow l
+MR. PAGLIUCA: There is still snow on the ground, your
+Honor. Well, Friday
+night or Saturday
+morning
+is my current
+6
+7
+8 plan.
+9
+THE COURT: That's great. Whatever the applicants
+10 have on this subject, please turn it over. You all can work
+11 out how you are going to do that. Turn it over to the defense.
+12 And if there is anything you want me to do, I would be prepared
+13 to do it tomorrow. But that way I hope we can get it cleared
+14 up.
+15
+MS. McCAWLEY: Your Honor, we do have the deposition
+16 of the defendant scheduled for tomorrow.
+17
+THE COURT:
+Then everybody will be having a nice time
+18 together. Maybe you can all go out and have lunch, have a
+19 drink, and exchange these documents
+and go away happy.
+Not
+20
+21
+likely, but perhaps, depending on where you have lunch.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Anything else?
+MS. MENNINGER: Nothing.
+THE COURT: Thank you, all.
+One thing. I would appreciate it if counsel would get
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 30 of 31
+29
+1
+2
+3
+4
+G4 LMGIUC
+together on my
+request for additional coverage
+in
+the
+confidentiality agreement.
+MS. MCCAWLEY:
+Sure.
+THE COURT:
+Thanks
+a lot.
+00o
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+SOUTHERN
+DISTRICT
+REPORTERS, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 235-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 31 of 31
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eba9f7a7f247a463bd9065f7fef024bea002954386fd0d9a7417a28f9cbff91c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eba9f7a7f247a463bd9065f7fef024bea002954386fd0d9a7417a28f9cbff91c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de35dad0ec103e6a4e37b130525450d1915b7fc8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eba9f7a7f247a463bd9065f7fef024bea002954386fd0d9a7417a28f9cbff91c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2751,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eba9f7a7f247a463bd9065f7fef024bea002954386fd0d9a7417a28f9cbff91c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 33,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c2954a319a9e61ef17754c915ea0845437512582abeb2265b639c81eb9374e7c",
+  "output_sha256": "2aaa3f6387b5ad9705d355dfec11cb6bca090a0a18bb8e0c769543df31a321e9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebb40dcb0231b8a49d0a1af2a88943cb6e6406d14a60b3aed68a64116089aa39.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebb40dcb0231b8a49d0a1af2a88943cb6e6406d14a60b3aed68a64116089aa39.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..89a3f27ff5156b041f95b4ba12fa563a6d75691c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebb40dcb0231b8a49d0a1af2a88943cb6e6406d14a60b3aed68a64116089aa39.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 542-9 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebb40dcb0231b8a49d0a1af2a88943cb6e6406d14a60b3aed68a64116089aa39.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebb40dcb0231b8a49d0a1af2a88943cb6e6406d14a60b3aed68a64116089aa39.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2865c637fe4ad48e5c8ddcc7c55eb47e0ae89b02
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebb40dcb0231b8a49d0a1af2a88943cb6e6406d14a60b3aed68a64116089aa39.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ebb40dcb0231b8a49d0a1af2a88943cb6e6406d14a60b3aed68a64116089aa39",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1e3fa6783f14dc1620e7e3b3bfa888b6957413f67cffdb545b695aec8ddc76d5",
+  "output_sha256": "acd52ce7c452118fac1d040cf2a1e792b8f9d2ee6b03ccc6ee2235ce4d90a541",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebce69b41ff224e83583f171e47aa5033acc462b0e708a3f9c6834e679ac286e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebce69b41ff224e83583f171e47aa5033acc462b0e708a3f9c6834e679ac286e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b44780a1948d2e15c221808f6f212e786bef642
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebce69b41ff224e83583f171e47aa5033acc462b0e708a3f9c6834e679ac286e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 684-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1
+COMPOSITE
+
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebce69b41ff224e83583f171e47aa5033acc462b0e708a3f9c6834e679ac286e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebce69b41ff224e83583f171e47aa5033acc462b0e708a3f9c6834e679ac286e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab2f88dd58198436d5b9f5f134882bb7ef3c0d65
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebce69b41ff224e83583f171e47aa5033acc462b0e708a3f9c6834e679ac286e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ebce69b41ff224e83583f171e47aa5033acc462b0e708a3f9c6834e679ac286e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "53d44b9b4924c831ee4ed3b1a005b6d3c78ba0d4a96fa689ec2764480a69fe07",
+  "output_sha256": "67763eba603f268a5855ddb3885e1f8ca982026a2a2e63320204fdb5cd866f80",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdb5a41ecb6e952c20147f26dfd25c73db7f1b529ca3d1c33d14547e4312d0a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdb5a41ecb6e952c20147f26dfd25c73db7f1b529ca3d1c33d14547e4312d0a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1434de7424324a7d9c9b5697a9861512c5dbca76
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdb5a41ecb6e952c20147f26dfd25c73db7f1b529ca3d1c33d14547e4312d0a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 229-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdb5a41ecb6e952c20147f26dfd25c73db7f1b529ca3d1c33d14547e4312d0a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdb5a41ecb6e952c20147f26dfd25c73db7f1b529ca3d1c33d14547e4312d0a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57d6616da16fc8481c23945bd9652d7e54772ab9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdb5a41ecb6e952c20147f26dfd25c73db7f1b529ca3d1c33d14547e4312d0a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ebdb5a41ecb6e952c20147f26dfd25c73db7f1b529ca3d1c33d14547e4312d0a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a18fe6c1700b80c80ce1560e3d5c6ddf2f621a1263c7cfd1f709cce2cae8d49a",
+  "output_sha256": "23405f3dc41f62122bf1fc9eea4e3bc86243af894052f09bc08749fc5fd77806",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdd56cd1283628a65908996861553dbc33cc9a4ffabfeb81c9cd3196d6ba306.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdd56cd1283628a65908996861553dbc33cc9a4ffabfeb81c9cd3196d6ba306.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92b81b8ec3795f81a80064f6ddd9ca7d74d9a3cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdd56cd1283628a65908996861553dbc33cc9a4ffabfeb81c9cd3196d6ba306.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-23 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-23 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 2
+December 7, 2020
+Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Judge
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan,
+I am writing this letter on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman who I grew up knowing
+and looking up to.
+we continue to be in touch today.
+I do not write this to discuss the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell, to plead that she is
+innocent or argue that she is guilty. I am simply hoping to offer a more well-rounded picture of
+Ms. Maxwell as a person outside of the opinions of the media. As a kid, I saw Ghislaine as an
+example of a strong, caring woman.
+In addition, her passion for saving the oceans was
+inspiring. At a very impressionable age, Ghislaine taught me a lot about generosity,
+determination, and resilience.
+Thank you for the opportunity to write this letter. I hope you will consider granting bail
+to Ghislaine Maxwell. Given the seriousness of the situation, I would not have considered taking
+action if I did not feel it necessary. Whatever the outcome, I felt it was important for me to share
+my unique perspective and stand up for what I believe in.
+Sincerely,
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdd56cd1283628a65908996861553dbc33cc9a4ffabfeb81c9cd3196d6ba306.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdd56cd1283628a65908996861553dbc33cc9a4ffabfeb81c9cd3196d6ba306.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da2aab90230abb9bcf89ef1163035ca1104bc579
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ebdd56cd1283628a65908996861553dbc33cc9a4ffabfeb81c9cd3196d6ba306.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ebdd56cd1283628a65908996861553dbc33cc9a4ffabfeb81c9cd3196d6ba306",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b50f95f1ff4ebb0c76b3863fb24a7dce4663db0f9df25fdfb5fdb12d98c58705",
+  "output_sha256": "8f9fd1c73d33a75b9a0c1f94467ecf596807f7e756a5e94702c0af815b790f95",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec029a5f2a93f4cadcbe91ece7c7db61521ac8d5fa847b54ec30a4d89ccf5eda.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec029a5f2a93f4cadcbe91ece7c7db61521ac8d5fa847b54ec30a4d89ccf5eda.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b575c55c88714e0256d34bb318199ac4cd6d26fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec029a5f2a93f4cadcbe91ece7c7db61521ac8d5fa847b54ec30a4d89ccf5eda.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Case 1:200Cr500880-AJN Document 11 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 2
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 7/8/2020
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+July 7, 2020
+VIA ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in connection with the Court's Order dated
+July 6, 2020 (the "Order") (Dkt. 7) and the defendant's letter of July 6, 2020 (the "Defense Letter")
+(Dkt. 8). Pursuant to the Order, the parties have conferred regarding the scheduling of an initial
+proceeding in the above-captioned case. As set forth in the Defense Letter, the parties are available
+to proceed remotely on the morning of July 14, 2020. Additionally, the parties jointly respectfully
+propose the following briefing schedule in connection with the Government's Memorandum in
+Support of Detention, dated July 2, 2020 (Dkt. 4):
+• Defense response to be due by 3:00 p.m. on Friday, July 10, 2020
+• Government reply to be due by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 13, 2020
+The Government also respectfully renews and amends its request that the Court exclude
+time under the Speedy Trial Act, see Government Letter dated July 5, 2020 (Dkt. 5), between the
+defendant's arrest on July 2, 2020, and the revised proposed date of the arraignment, initial
+appearance, and bail hearing. In the interim, the Government intends to confer with defense
+counsel regarding the terms of a protective order and initial discovery, to facilitate the production
+The Court hereby sets the following briefing
+schedule. The Defense response is due by
+1:00 p.m. on July 10, 2020. The Government
+reply is due by 1:00 p.m. on July 13, 2020.
+Additionally, defense counsel is ordered to
+file notices of appearance on the docket by
+the end of the day today.
+SO ORDERED.
+SO ORDERED. 7/8/20
+Alia Go. Notor
+Alison J. Nathan, U.S.D.J.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 11 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 2
+Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+July 7, 2020
+Page 2
+of discovery, which will serve the interests of justice by facilitating the timely production of
+discovery materials. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). I have conferred with defense counsel, who
+consent to this request.
+Very truly yours,
+AUPREY STRAUSS
+Acting United States Attorney
+Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Tel: (212) 637-2415
+Cc:
+Christian Everdell, Esq., and Mark |
+, Esq., counsel for defendant
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec029a5f2a93f4cadcbe91ece7c7db61521ac8d5fa847b54ec30a4d89ccf5eda.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec029a5f2a93f4cadcbe91ece7c7db61521ac8d5fa847b54ec30a4d89ccf5eda.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b21324f603c386c377128df6ede79ae6dfc75ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec029a5f2a93f4cadcbe91ece7c7db61521ac8d5fa847b54ec30a4d89ccf5eda.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec029a5f2a93f4cadcbe91ece7c7db61521ac8d5fa847b54ec30a4d89ccf5eda",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ace96e322fa282db98c06f7235e5be60a19d8e697622790ecb7907f0bfb7e641",
+  "output_sha256": "5ec8e134d00db893918f70711976613b7868a7870a52d35fd6119b332179abe8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ddfef163f2bfd04ef823a847630150160ba3d9efac06a348529d4ef8a1714.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ddfef163f2bfd04ef823a847630150160ba3d9efac06a348529d4ef8a1714.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47c938c6860288bfdf43f5060f56a799d2400fe9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ddfef163f2bfd04ef823a847630150160ba3d9efac06a348529d4ef8a1714.md
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN
+SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 345)
+I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+1.
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Reply in Support
+of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (DE 345).
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+4.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
+5.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+6.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 4
+7.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 398
+Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: August 24, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley(Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+725 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+"This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Filed 08/24/16 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 24"* day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+.P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+4
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ddfef163f2bfd04ef823a847630150160ba3d9efac06a348529d4ef8a1714.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ddfef163f2bfd04ef823a847630150160ba3d9efac06a348529d4ef8a1714.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32190502dd3bb03147bafc4353a3874a656e27b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ddfef163f2bfd04ef823a847630150160ba3d9efac06a348529d4ef8a1714.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -157,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec1ddfef163f2bfd04ef823a847630150160ba3d9efac06a348529d4ef8a1714",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "dd1c6ac97bbff491116df747915b7972e6a84ef62268cb59f30b375775cac1db",
+  "output_sha256": "a8e54c3a754e07c1b6a2aa067f14adb41aaffa61cf28f1af0d53b6bf2dae6870",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ed1c3ef115aa183b7dedc2e7b567b8809d7f6766a5118492d6bd85e8fbd28.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ed1c3ef115aa183b7dedc2e7b567b8809d7f6766a5118492d6bd85e8fbd28.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aec91ab9aaf48cedf6ce5a237ecaa2f9f68fdd82
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ed1c3ef115aa183b7dedc2e7b567b8809d7f6766a5118492d6bd85e8fbd28.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 907-10 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ed1c3ef115aa183b7dedc2e7b567b8809d7f6766a5118492d6bd85e8fbd28.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ed1c3ef115aa183b7dedc2e7b567b8809d7f6766a5118492d6bd85e8fbd28.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d8313f6e44b8e8972e731b9e7a56acdeb97a753
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec1ed1c3ef115aa183b7dedc2e7b567b8809d7f6766a5118492d6bd85e8fbd28.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec1ed1c3ef115aa183b7dedc2e7b567b8809d7f6766a5118492d6bd85e8fbd28",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f4df0c772d6f3f1ad6856813912cd713ea90b3b9da47e1631706c35acd4610c0",
+  "output_sha256": "9cf0fa69fe1c73e4e3009916c075c4376fea73f8a796e9aa86e62eab35d8dde7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec258204519cdb454d2d4ca5c84cd6953cfdb3294d0295b585ef89e740e0db07.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec258204519cdb454d2d4ca5c84cd6953cfdb3294d0295b585ef89e740e0db07.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d546f7e960938be42fe400842965eaee5837582b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec258204519cdb454d2d4ca5c84cd6953cfdb3294d0295b585ef89e740e0db07.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 907-3 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec258204519cdb454d2d4ca5c84cd6953cfdb3294d0295b585ef89e740e0db07.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec258204519cdb454d2d4ca5c84cd6953cfdb3294d0295b585ef89e740e0db07.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9ebbac17a79ff9576e33b6d874677d7110d69ed2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec258204519cdb454d2d4ca5c84cd6953cfdb3294d0295b585ef89e740e0db07.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec258204519cdb454d2d4ca5c84cd6953cfdb3294d0295b585ef89e740e0db07",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2138eff00329fc64a5ac1af0eae6f5c26a87739793986e8a3fdac2a12eba53b7",
+  "output_sha256": "c3a2c0cf181f990f1247681a7082fe8e41852c388a9505f71b6b1a47c61a2c8d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec3a03a1b7ed1134370b9f14254f6a52c7c9d75f07292cb286e164b1017f921f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec3a03a1b7ed1134370b9f14254f6a52c7c9d75f07292cb286e164b1017f921f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..798351c1cc0ae78ac0fb905061eb825de48bc601
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec3a03a1b7ed1134370b9f14254f6a52c7c9d75f07292cb286e164b1017f921f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 724 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 7
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
+EXCLUDE THE COMPLAINT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN
+JANE DOE 102 V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Plaintiff,
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe
+102 v. Jeffrey Epstein.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+Defendant wrongly seeks to exclude the Complaint from
+action against Jeffrey
+Epstein which was filed on May 11, 2009, styled Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, No. 9:09-cv-
+80656-KAM in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.!
+' At that point, many if not all of the Complaints against Epstein pursuant to his plea agreement
+to fund such lawsuits against him were styled as "Jane Doe" to protect the privacy of his
+underage victims.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 724 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 724 |
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 7
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 724 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 7
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 724 Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 7
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 724 Filed 03/17/17 Page 6 of 7
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+igrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice
+Meredith |
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 724 Filed 03/17/17 Page 7 of 7
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52022
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 17th day of March, 2017, I served the attached document
+via CM/ECF and e-mail to the following counsel of record.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+Ty Gee, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+tgee@hmflaw.com
+,. P.C.
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+101 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120C
+(954) 356-0011
+2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+7
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec3a03a1b7ed1134370b9f14254f6a52c7c9d75f07292cb286e164b1017f921f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec3a03a1b7ed1134370b9f14254f6a52c7c9d75f07292cb286e164b1017f921f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b820d30e6d5f5c1bda93f3d6a89afdf4a0771874
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec3a03a1b7ed1134370b9f14254f6a52c7c9d75f07292cb286e164b1017f921f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -84,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec3a03a1b7ed1134370b9f14254f6a52c7c9d75f07292cb286e164b1017f921f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "836bf2b2900d169e3e9b8d24c89a0d9626a35ba179705d7c1f46db05b1839240",
+  "output_sha256": "f6f0898402e61d0a201fb2339d96045eed4f309e6edfb2cb42c333d6c51e2c39",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6aa51aceb2c25bd024b70dffac0ab864e5736f49e50fe37a9edbe4556965f2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6aa51aceb2c25bd024b70dffac0ab864e5736f49e50fe37a9edbe4556965f2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4789676407ad3833cc877d55163c457de5283253
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6aa51aceb2c25bd024b70dffac0ab864e5736f49e50fe37a9edbe4556965f2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+CG
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 323
+& GRESSER LLP
+Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 2
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+ceverdell@)cohengresser.com
+August 19, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+Pursuant to the Court's order, dated August 13, 2021, we respectfully submit this letter to
+inform the Court that Ms. Maxwell does not seek any redactions to the Court's sealed Opinion and
+Order, dated August 13, 2021, or the underlying motion papers.
+We note that, under the terms of the Protective Order entered in this case, defense counsel
+are prohibited from "filing publicly as an attachment to a filing or excerpted within a filing the
+identity of any victims or witnesses referenced in the discovery, who have not spoken by name on
+the public record in this case." (Dkt. 36 9 6). The underlying motion papers reference the names
+of accusers and potential witnesses who have spoken on the public record in this case and others
+who have spoken publicly but not associated themselves directly with this case. The Court has
+ruled that the existence of the Protective Order, by itself, is not sufficient to justify redactions, and
+that any redactions must be justified under the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in
+Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
+The defense has consistently taken the position that the names of the accusers and other
+witnesses who have chosen to speak to the media about their alleged experiences, including
+regarding the very materials sought by the subpoena, should be publicly disclosed and that it is not
+the defense's burden to justify redacting their names. Accordingly, the defense does not seek any
+redactions. If the government wishes to seek any redactions, we respectfully submit that it is their
+burden - not Ms. Maxwell's - to justify them under Lugosch.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 323
+Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 2
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+August 19, 2021
+Page 2
+The exhibits to the motion also attach documents that were obtained independent of the
+criminal discovery. We submit that it is the government's burden to justify any redactions to these
+documents under Lugosch.'
+Sincerely,
+Is/ Christian Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
+1Prson Peson The definit as the miring to er to contains eran a drai adresses of one of the accusers and another
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6aa51aceb2c25bd024b70dffac0ab864e5736f49e50fe37a9edbe4556965f2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6aa51aceb2c25bd024b70dffac0ab864e5736f49e50fe37a9edbe4556965f2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0303f36c381ed7a0568e23d99dccf7171f01d12
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6aa51aceb2c25bd024b70dffac0ab864e5736f49e50fe37a9edbe4556965f2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec6aa51aceb2c25bd024b70dffac0ab864e5736f49e50fe37a9edbe4556965f2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7f5997d041379f726797a25389bfe6c37ff4c70eb586818768ef451fb0a0f501",
+  "output_sha256": "8d96d7ffa63eff531ac09b58f25050746092c332fc080ba71db14f2de7d0245d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6bf3a9a019bff8c0c9947fb539a98a30362d1d2dadd622890449d4b1b78386.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6bf3a9a019bff8c0c9947fb539a98a30362d1d2dadd622890449d4b1b78386.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..24ed09d2ac2fd6daa2d7a8cfa2e97b6271a3e8fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6bf3a9a019bff8c0c9947fb539a98a30362d1d2dadd622890449d4b1b78386.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 517 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 4
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+November 30, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the question whether the
+defense is required to disclose exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence through Government
+witnesses as "impeachment." While the defendant need not disclose exhibits being introduced
+solely for impeachment, the defendant may not circumvent Rule 16's disclosure requirements by
+describing defense exhibits as being used for impeachment when in fact they are properly
+considered part of the defendant's case in chief. Further, the introduction of extrinsic evidence for
+the purpose of impeachment is narrowly circumscribed, as set forth below.
+Rule 16(b) expressly requires disclosure of items the defense "intends to use ... in the
+defendant's case-in-chief at trial." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A). The defendant's "case in chief"
+is not a formalist term for the events that begin the moment the Government rests. Rather, "where
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 517 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 4
+a defendant cross-examines a government witness to buttress her theory of the case, rather than to
+impeach the testimony given by the witness on direct examination, the cross-examination is
+properly seen as part of the defendant's case-in-chief." United States v. Napout, No. 15 Cr. 252
+(PKC), 2017 WL 6375729, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017) (quoting United States v. Hsai, No. 98
+Cr. 75 (PLF), 2000 WL 195067, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2000)) (alterations and internal quotation
+marks omitted). "[T]his interpretation of Rule 16 has been adopted by almost every district court
+to consider the issue." Id. (collecting cases); see United States v. Young, 248 F.3d 260, 269 (4th
+Cir. 2001) (affirming exclusion of evidence offered through cross-examination as part of the
+defense's "evidence in chief," under the prior language of Rule 16, due to the defense's failure to
+disclose). Accordingly, the rule "requires [the defense] to identify all non-impeachment exhibits
+they intend to use in their defense at trial, whether the exhibits will be introduced through a
+government witness or a witness called by [the defense]." Napout, 2017 WL 6375729, at *7. The
+reasoning is simple: a contrary rule would "permit defendants to evade pretrial disclosure simply
+by presenting much (or all) of their case-in-chief before the government rests," thereby
+"frustrating] the practical intentions behind Rule 16: to avoid unfair surprise and unwarranted
+delay by providing both the government and the defense with a broad, reciprocal right to
+discovery." United States v. Crowder, 325 F. Supp. 3d 131 (Mem.) (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2018).
+The defendant's Rule 16 disclosures were due on November 8, 2021. (Dkt. No. 297 at 2).
+Accordingly, any exhibits which the defense intends to offer as part of its case-in-chief, whether
+through Government witnesses or its own, should have been disclosed at that time. The
+Government of course understands that there are circumstances in which intervening event may
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 517 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 4
+give rise to good cause for a belated disclosure.' Absent such a showing, however, new defense
+exhibits should be precluded or, at a minimum, ordered to be disclosed forthwith.
+To the extent the defense anticipates offering exhibits for impeachment, as a general matter,
+"extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to
+attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness." Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). This rule is
+subject to certain exceptions. For instance, as the parties agreed this afternoon, extrinsic evidence
+of a witness's prior statement is not barred by Rule 608. Fed. R. Evid. 613. The Rules also permit
+"other grounds of impeachment (such as contradiction, prior inconsistent statement, bias, and
+mental capacity)." United States v.
+1. 469 F. Supp. 3d 193, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting
+Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) Advisory Committee Notes). But even then, "[e]xtrinsic evidence offered
+for impeachment on a collateral issue is properly excluded." United States v.
+144 F.3d 241,
+245-46 (2d Cir. 1998); see United Sates v. Dore, No. 12 Cr. 45 (RJS), 2013 WL 3965281, at *6
+(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2013)
+J.) (*IT]he Second Circuit has held ... that introduction of'
+extrinsic proof of a prior inconsistent statement is only appropriate as it relates to matters which
+are not collateral, i.e., as to those matters which are relevant to the issues in the case and could be
+independently proven." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, the defense may offer
+extrinsic evidence for impeachment, if the defense articulates an appropriate exception to the
+general prohibition on such evidence described above.
+' To be clear, good cause is not established simply because the defense has not made a final
+determination as to what evidence they intend to introduce-a position that effectively renders
+Rule 16 a nullity. See, e.g., United States v. Rajaratnam, No. S2 09 Cr. 1184 (RJH), 2011 WL
+723530, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011) ("A defendant would always like more information about
+the government's case before revealing anything about his or her own, but Rule 16 conditions a
+defendant's disclosure obligations on the government's having made certain specified disclosures,
+not on the government's laying open its entire case or the defendant's satisfaction.").
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 517 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 4
+Accordingly, the defense should be precluded from offering further exhibits that have not
+been turned over to the Government absent (a) a showing of cause for the delayed disclosure, or
+(b) an articulation of a theory by which they are admissible impeachment notwithstanding Rule
+608 and the collateral-matter bar.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+S/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: Defense Counsel (by ECF)
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6bf3a9a019bff8c0c9947fb539a98a30362d1d2dadd622890449d4b1b78386.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6bf3a9a019bff8c0c9947fb539a98a30362d1d2dadd622890449d4b1b78386.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed221556e85a6732b268892eea517f19460479a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec6bf3a9a019bff8c0c9947fb539a98a30362d1d2dadd622890449d4b1b78386.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec6bf3a9a019bff8c0c9947fb539a98a30362d1d2dadd622890449d4b1b78386",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1a088a74e04639aa01f85b11fb37e2b0d931c90d2308b78e2e3d97a66bc6d0c2",
+  "output_sha256": "74c6aae4cabf8a21e1b548ebe112ee38bc7db2cf5abed34df27d67f234ca7772",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec75b18d10adff4a87cbbd34382b8f8123b35aae436b5ad9214798150859f30c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec75b18d10adff4a87cbbd34382b8f8123b35aae436b5ad9214798150859f30c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae9b41f490fa8aff7be851b0ceda5ceda85e6ecf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec75b18d10adff4a87cbbd34382b8f8123b35aae436b5ad9214798150859f30c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 292
+Filed 05/25/21
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-x
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+NOTICE OF MOTION
+Defendant.
+ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
+DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION
+TO OBTAIN THE RELIEF SPECIFIED IN HER SUPPLEMENTAL PRETRIAL
+MOTIONS RELATING TO THE S2 SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying omnibus memorandum of law
+and exhibits, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves for the reliet
+requested in her supplemental pretrial motions relating to the S2 Superseding Indictment.
+Dated: May 7, 2021
+New York, New York
+Respectfully submitted,
+& GRESSER LLP
+Is/ Christian R. Everdell
+Christian Everdell
+ceverdell@cohengresser.com
+800 Third Avenue, 21" Floor
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: (212) 957-7600
+Fax: (212) 957-4514
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+&
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 292 Filed 05/25/21 Page 2 of 2
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec75b18d10adff4a87cbbd34382b8f8123b35aae436b5ad9214798150859f30c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec75b18d10adff4a87cbbd34382b8f8123b35aae436b5ad9214798150859f30c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51a684b10fedf42d03d93140d5f24d6c13367b04
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ec75b18d10adff4a87cbbd34382b8f8123b35aae436b5ad9214798150859f30c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ec75b18d10adff4a87cbbd34382b8f8123b35aae436b5ad9214798150859f30c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "da21c905ffd9410d43b1f3870f3ab7f8652a08ceda44d7ea67b9f9fb626f8433",
+  "output_sha256": "f2ca9de2afeeb3db8a0fa9b7ce23a35b064c31ff38a5c149f8b0ba8471e1f0f5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ecae283714562975fc41099fbf474c70e100e64bd5306328083576ba9f992f75.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ecae283714562975fc41099fbf474c70e100e64bd5306328083576ba9f992f75.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4945193c16ba6e3d452f44847a2175f678a9f676
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ecae283714562975fc41099fbf474c70e100e64bd5306328083576ba9f992f75.md
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+CG
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 166 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 2
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+mcohen(@)cohengresscr.com
+ceverdell@cohengresser.com
+March 15, 2021
+VIA ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we will be filing the following reply
+memoranda with accompanying exhibits:
+1. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for
+Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement
+2. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of
+the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred
+3. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress
+All Evidence Obtained from the Government's Subpoena to
+and to
+Dismiss Counts Five and Six
+4. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six of the
+Superseding Indictment Because the Alleged Misstatements Are Not Perjurious as a
+Matter of Law
+5. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a
+of and Separate Trial on
+Counts Five and Six of the Superseding Indictment
+6. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Superseding
+Indictment
+7. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the
+Superseding Indictment for Pre-Indictment Delay
+8. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Either Count One or Count
+Three of the Superseding Indictment as Multiplicitous
+9. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment as
+It Was Obtained in Violation of the Sixth Amendment
+10. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Pretrial
+Disclosures
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 166 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 2
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+March 15, 2021
+Page 2
+11. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion Under the Fourth Amendment, Martindell,
+and the Fifth Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the Government's
+Subpoena to
+and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six
+12. Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Four of
+the Superseding Indictment for Lack of Specificity
+Several of the reply memoranda reference or discuss Confidential Information produced
+in discovery and are therefore redacted pursuant to paragraph 15 of the Protective Order (Dkt.
+36). In order to give the government the chance to review the proposed redactions, we will not
+file on the public docket any reply memoranda that contain redactions until we are instructed to
+do so by the Court.'
+The remaining reply memoranda do not contain any redactions. However, we are
+mindful of the fact that the government's Omnibus Memorandum in Opposition to the
+Defendant's Pre-trial Motions, to which the reply memoranda respond, has not yet been filed on
+the public docket. Accordingly, we will also refrain from filing the reply memoranda that do not
+contain redactions on the public docket until we are instructed to do so by the Court.
+Instead, we will submit by email to the Court and the government all of the reply
+memoranda and exhibits pursuant to Rule 2(B) of the Court's individual rules of criminal
+practice. For the reply memoranda and exhibits that contain redactions, we will submit two
+versions - an unredacted original to be kept under seal and a version for public filing with
+proposed redactions.
+Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Christian R. Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+ce: All counsel of record (via email)
+'For documents that the government has designated as "Confidential," we have preliminarily indicated that they be
+led under seal, as required by paragraph 15 of the Protective Order. However, because some of the exhibits ar
+¡udicial documents, " we intend to propose that those "Confidential" designations be amended consistent with ot
+March 9, 2021 letter to the Court.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ecae283714562975fc41099fbf474c70e100e64bd5306328083576ba9f992f75.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ecae283714562975fc41099fbf474c70e100e64bd5306328083576ba9f992f75.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..73d840f14f177fb4d25a917658fa45ba9eb2bc21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ecae283714562975fc41099fbf474c70e100e64bd5306328083576ba9f992f75.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ecae283714562975fc41099fbf474c70e100e64bd5306328083576ba9f992f75",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9ab1fc92781519271c8cff1114e1e09289bd0cfacdcc09bbbbf62c0bfa2a7271",
+  "output_sha256": "856e1e1e9043b4731182b0dfef4ace67acfd56002221bf5400bfce28ad9c18e2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ece39055a04c112e65f3ff279ba1726b9dbfbb43565a4b17c82c03588b5dee8a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ece39055a04c112e65f3ff279ba1726b9dbfbb43565a4b17c82c03588b5dee8a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0aa4b05dd041cb9891bfe6325e75b42021ef3045
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ece39055a04c112e65f3ff279ba1726b9dbfbb43565a4b17c82c03588b5dee8a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 177 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 1
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 3330|- 22li • PH. 954.356.00|| • FAX 954.356.0022
+Meredith L.
+z, Esq.
+Email: mschultz@bsfllp.com
+May 31, 2016
+Via CM/ECE
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Peari Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+". Maxwell,
+Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+This is a letter motion to file
+Response in Opposition to Defendant's
+Motion to Compel Non-Privileged Documents and certain accompanying exhibits under seal
+pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).
+The Protective Order states:
+Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAI
+INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to
+Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the
+Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016. at n. 4. Defendant has designated
+documents produced by Defendant as confidential.
+whether Defendant's designations are proper. Because of the Protective Order, however,
+believes that she cannot presently produce or reference such documents in public cour
+filings. Accordingly, she seeks leave to file the Response and certain related exhibits under seal.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Mith Plath
+Meredith L.
+1, Esq
+cc:
+Laura Menninger, via CM/ECF
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, via CM/ECF
+WWW.BSFLLP.COM
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ece39055a04c112e65f3ff279ba1726b9dbfbb43565a4b17c82c03588b5dee8a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ece39055a04c112e65f3ff279ba1726b9dbfbb43565a4b17c82c03588b5dee8a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3cb6fc7a6f6de8a67fbe1b57a7965392bf6efdca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ece39055a04c112e65f3ff279ba1726b9dbfbb43565a4b17c82c03588b5dee8a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ece39055a04c112e65f3ff279ba1726b9dbfbb43565a4b17c82c03588b5dee8a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "646fb76db58107c5b442ac9b9b1c9c95123264a05c937dc4f9ce389a5f0dfa80",
+  "output_sha256": "9ee92ca8b0dc78cfe41eea0b3a8291fae842a6f77e7b5dc604bec9e74ee8f43e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed0f7a58d8bc844dfca2190e7d1d65062e4175496a11ac5958866461acdfa419.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed0f7a58d8bc844dfca2190e7d1d65062e4175496a11ac5958866461acdfa419.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b696900214666e6b81ca19a5ad682e251264db58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed0f7a58d8bc844dfca2190e7d1d65062e4175496a11ac5958866461acdfa419.md
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 919
+Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 2
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 916 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 2
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
+Plaintiff,
+and Defendant, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, by and
+through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that pursuant to the Settlement
+Agreement entered into between the parties and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this action shall be
+DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs.
+Dated: May 24, 2016
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+Haddon,)
+and
+150 East 10% Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+Respectfully Submitted,
+JAFFE, WEISSING
+, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+By: /s/
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+t. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+5-25.1
+7
+
+
+-
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 919
+Filed 05/25/17 Page 2 of 2
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 916 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 2
+Armonk, NY 10504
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52021
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 24th day of May, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10"h Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+I, P.C.
+i taid yo imply is lats preme for ie univeriy nd on pond pe purposes only and is nee
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed0f7a58d8bc844dfca2190e7d1d65062e4175496a11ac5958866461acdfa419.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed0f7a58d8bc844dfca2190e7d1d65062e4175496a11ac5958866461acdfa419.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2eadf8e6dff52828010e3e46bdc96118283d4e03
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed0f7a58d8bc844dfca2190e7d1d65062e4175496a11ac5958866461acdfa419.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed0f7a58d8bc844dfca2190e7d1d65062e4175496a11ac5958866461acdfa419",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "862c9ab4fd732f5880b97516b07487dcf5c87da92f9e3ac42f278374dff388f7",
+  "output_sha256": "a68ab654d61c879c84ef9aa1fe3da9f0cc94a230dd67560397d75aa9cf9f475b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed19a9927f9f61258175a98049a11edd2d5735255573ffbde8742ef57f2d1344.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed19a9927f9f61258175a98049a11edd2d5735255573ffbde8742ef57f2d1344.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b98f0da696d814ac523d5bd575a8c454d83754c4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed19a9927f9f61258175a98049a11edd2d5735255573ffbde8742ef57f2d1344.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 510-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed19a9927f9f61258175a98049a11edd2d5735255573ffbde8742ef57f2d1344.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed19a9927f9f61258175a98049a11edd2d5735255573ffbde8742ef57f2d1344.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd2e3f684e5608a5d6a6a4162ef6918aa40aad69
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed19a9927f9f61258175a98049a11edd2d5735255573ffbde8742ef57f2d1344.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed19a9927f9f61258175a98049a11edd2d5735255573ffbde8742ef57f2d1344",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "05439d9b5784203df9996d3728cea08b8b7e4089025e13eede27b16141dcea6d",
+  "output_sha256": "5fe8ad91ec0dd1a4928d563662923a26deaf7a2a29d04a4325c98eb8349bcef8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed1fff615950d0428cd929a64d5ac377e2403fd460cd06b9ab1b77a687a6c250.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed1fff615950d0428cd929a64d5ac377e2403fd460cd06b9ab1b77a687a6c250.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a85c2bdb7f8f2872985a2ac7a5c8099e4e70158a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed1fff615950d0428cd929a64d5ac377e2403fd460cd06b9ab1b77a687a6c250.md
@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 394
+Filed 10/29/21
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE
+TESTIMONY ABOUT ANY ALLEGED "RAPE" BY JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Jenver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Christian R. Everdell
+7 & GRESSER LIP
+800 Third Avenue New York,
+NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway. Suiti , Siemheim
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+P.C.
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 9
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+Table of Contents
+Table of Authorities
+Factual Background
+Argument.
+Conclusion
+• ii
+1
+4
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 394
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 9
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997).
+United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010)...
+United States v.
+130 F.3d 523 (2d Cir. 1997)..
+United States v. Livoti, 196 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. 1999)...
+United States v. Midyett, 603 F. Supp. 2d 450 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
+United States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61 (Ist Cir. 1982).
+United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1990).
+United States v.
+,521 F. Supp. 2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
+Constitutional Provisions
+U.S. Const. amend. V
+U.S. Const. amend. VI.
+Rules
+Fed. R. Evid. 401
+Fed. R. Evid. 402
+Fed. R. Evid. 403 ......
+.2
+.. 3
+1
+.. 3
+..3
+3
+3
+3
+1
+1
+..2
+2
+.. 1,2,3
+iii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 9
+Ghislaine Maxwell moves to exclude any testimony or reference to an alleged "rape" by
+Jeffrey Epstein.
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+Accuser-I's allegations against Mr. Epstein have been inconsistent. Sometimes she has
+claimed that Mr. Epstein raped her. At other times, however, Accuser-1 has not made any
+allegation about being raped.
+All the same, Accuser-1 has never accused Ms. Maxwell of knowing that Mr. Epstein
+allegedly raped her or of facilitating or participating in an alleged rape. And the indictment in
+this case does not charge any such conduct by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Rather, the
+indictment charges enticement and transportation of minors across state lines to provide
+"sexualized massages" to Mr. Epstein and conspiracy to do the same.
+It is not clear whether any other witness will allege having been raped by Mr. Epstein.
+But what is clear is that the indictment does not allege that any rape occurred. Nor does it allege
+that Ms. Maxwell knew of, facilitated, or participated in an alleged rape.
+ARGUMENT
+The United States Constitution guarantees due process of law and fair trials by impartial
+juries. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Essential to that guarantee is a promise that the jury will not
+be misled by irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that will district jurors from their one and only
+duty—to decide whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. See
+United States v.
+130 F.3d 523, 538-39 (2d Cir. 1997). A jury that has been misled by
+irrelevant and prejudicial evidence cannot be considered impartial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403,
+Advisory Committee Notes, 1972 Proposed Rules (evidence must be excluded when it risks
+inducing a decision based on a purely emotional basis).
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 9
+Under the Federal Rules, relevant evidence is generally admissible while irrelevant
+evidence is categorically inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Evidence is relevant if it tends to
+make a fact of consequence to the action more or less probable than it would be without the
+evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. In turn, relevant evidence must be excluded when its probative
+value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
+misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
+Fed. R. Evid. 403.
+Here, testimony that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) is irrelevant
+to the charged offenses. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein
+raped anyone. And Accuser-1 has never alleged that Ms. Maxwell knew about or participated in
+an alleged rape. Because the conspiracy charged in the indictment is limited to enticement and
+transportation of minors across state lines to provide Mr. Epstein with sexualized massages, there
+is no argument that Accuser-I's rape allegation is relevant to the charged conspiracy. It (and any
+other allegation of rape by anyone else) therefore must be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
+Even if a rape allegation had some relevance, Rule 403 would still require its exclusion
+because the minimal probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of
+unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is
+unfairly prejudicial when it has an "undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,
+commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172,
+180 (1997).
+Here, any allegation that Mr. Epstein raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) will suggest to the
+jury that it should convict Ms. Maxwell based on Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct and not the
+offenses with which she has been charged. Admission of this evidence poses a serious risk that
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 9
+the "jury will convict for crimes other than those charged or that, uncertain of guilt, it will
+convict anyway because a bad person deserves punishment." See id. at 181 (quoting United
+States v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 63 (Ist Cir. 1982) (Breyer, J.)) (discussing propensity evidence).
+A rape allegation is also highly emotional and inflammatory, much more so than the
+actual conduct charged in this case (sexualized massages). "Evidence shall be excluded as
+unduly prejudicial when it is "more inflammatory than the charged crime.'" United States v.
+Midyett, 603 F. Supp. 2d 450, 456 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting United States v. Livoti, 196 F.3d
+322, 326 (2d Cir. 1999)); cf. United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 133 (2d Cir. 2010)
+(affirming admission of evidence under Rule 403 when it was "no more inflammatory than the
+charges alleged in the indictment"); United States v. Roldan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir.
+1990) (affirming admission of evidence that "did not involve conduct any more sensational or
+disturbing than the crimes with which [the defendant] was charged").
+The allegation that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) will also
+confuse the issues at trial and mislead the jury. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein
+raped Accuser-1. And Ms. Maxwell is not accused of conspiring to entice or transport minors
+across state lines so Mr. Epstein could allegedly rape them. Again, the alleged conspiracy in this
+case is limited to securing "sexualized massages" for Mr. Epstein. If jurors hear an allegation
+about an alleged rape by Mr. Epstein, that evidence will confuse and mislead them, in addition to
+suggesting that they convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper and highly emotional basis. See United
+States V.
+521 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (excluding other-act evidence in a
+conspiracy case under Rule 403 because of the "risk that this evidence would confuse the issues,
+cause undue delay, and be used for an improper purpose").
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 |
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 9
+CONCLUSION
+For these reasons, this Court should enter an order precluding any testimony or reference
+to any alleged rape by Jeffrey Epstein.
+Dated: October 18, 2021
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 |
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 8 of 9
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 9 of 9
+Certificate of Service
+Thereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine
+Maxwell's Motion Preclude Testimony About Any Alleged "Rape" by Jeffrey Epstein with the
+Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
+following:
+Alison Moe
+Maurene Comey
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Lara Pomerantz
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Alison.moe @usdoj.gov
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach @usdoj.gov
+Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov
+s/ Nicole
+6
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed1fff615950d0428cd929a64d5ac377e2403fd460cd06b9ab1b77a687a6c250.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed1fff615950d0428cd929a64d5ac377e2403fd460cd06b9ab1b77a687a6c250.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7936f1e3212215164bbc75e617969c8e5c164085
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed1fff615950d0428cd929a64d5ac377e2403fd460cd06b9ab1b77a687a6c250.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -119,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed1fff615950d0428cd929a64d5ac377e2403fd460cd06b9ab1b77a687a6c250",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4e5be34d32ea20a6a263d1a2bc8d840473c7fac6fb609b099d57e2e8468b512f",
+  "output_sha256": "ef696ace811945f63b8056f5ee330859714957054134df1b618c526c0001f399",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2943e8c5d573521c6db3f31826c19c3b57d75b31437715dd84b91376b02a06.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2943e8c5d573521c6db3f31826c19c3b57d75b31437715dd84b91376b02a06.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29c625977d14d0d47bcea8169107d04db61521d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2943e8c5d573521c6db3f31826c19c3b57d75b31437715dd84b91376b02a06.md
@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 1 of 10
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION BASED ON
+DEFENDANT'S LATE PRODUCTION OF NEW, KEY DOCUMENTS
+Plaintiff,
+by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Motion to
+Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Production of New, Key Documents because
+Defendant produced documents subsequent to her deposition about which she should answer
+questions. The Court has already ruled that reopening a party deposition is appropriate where
+important documents are produced after the deposition is completed. Accordingly, the Court should
+grant
+request to reopen Defendant's deposition to answer questions relating to her
+lately produced documents.
+I.
+BACKGROUND
+The Court will recall Defendant's case-long, unjustified recalcitrance regarding her
+testimony. She first attempted to avoid her deposition (causing unnecessary motion practice),
+and, then, she failed to answer questions at her deposition, upon which the Court ordered her to
+sit for her deposition again. Specifically,
+started her quest to obtain Defendant's
+deposition back on February 2, 2016, by serving a Notice of Deposition. Defendant filed a
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 2 of 10
+Motion for Protective Order trying to avoid her deposition. After a hearing on the issue, the
+Court directed Maxwell to sit for her deposition on April 22, 2016.
+As a result, L
+was forced to file a Motion to Compel
+Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed under Seal (DE 143). On June 20, 2016, this
+Court granted
+Motion and directed Defendant to sit for a second deposition to
+(June 20, 2016 Sealed Order, filed in
+redacted version DE 264-1).
+As a
+result, on July 29, 2016,
+was forced to file a Motion to Enforce the Court's Order
+and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed under Seal. (DE 314/356). That
+motion is still pending before this Court.
+Discovery closed in this case on July 31, 2016. On August 16, 2016, after the close of
+discovery, and after Defendant's second deposition was taken, Defendant produced two critical
+documents which were e-mail communications:
+See
+McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 1,
+It is important for
+communications with
+to ask questions about these newly-produced
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 3 of 10
+Accordingly, a follow up deposition of Defendant is critical. It is necessary both to ensure
+that she answers the questions
+(as set forth in Plaintiff's Motion to Direct
+Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions (DE 314/356)), and to ensure that
+can
+ask Defendant questions about the critical and late produced
+Indeed, Defendant cannot credibly oppose
+request because Defendant
+herself previously sought and received a deposition based on newly produced documents.
+Defendant previously argued before this Court that
+deposition should be reopened,
+in part, because
+obtained and produced certain documents that Defendant wanted to
+ask her about after
+deposition was taken. Specifically, Defendant's motion stated
+"Plaintiff's production of key documents after her deposition necessitates additional
+examination." See (DE 230) at 3. Defendant's brief continued: "All of the new information that
+has come to light ... justifies the reopening of Plaintiff's deposition." Id. at 5-6.
+The Court granted Defendant's motion in a sealed Order that stated: "
+' See Sealed
+August 30, 2016 Order. As the Court has already ruled that reopening a deposition is appropriate
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 4 of 10
+when where important documents are produced after the deposition is completed, the same relief is
+appropriate for
+upon this motion.
+Il.
+ARGUMENT
+The same standard set forth in the Court's August 30, 2016, Order applies to Defendant's
+post-deposition production of key documents. Defendant's late production of two key documents
+similarly "necessitates" and "justifies" the reopening of Defendant's deposition for questioning
+upon them. Therefore,
+should receive the same relief from the Court that Defendant
+obtained: the reopening of Defendant's deposition to answer questions about these key
+documents. See Wesley v. Muhammad, 2009 WL 1490607, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("while
+defendants' delay in producing documents may have interfered with the completeness of
+depositions, plaintiff will be free to reopen any depositions for which he deems the newly
+produced documents to be a relevant source of questions"); Ganci v. U.S. Limousine Serv., Ltd.,
+2011 WL 4407461 at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2011) ("Courts will typically reopen a deposition
+where there is new information on which a witness should be questioned").
+Moreover, it was after Defendant's deposition was complete, and after the briefing to
+reopen her deposition (on other grounds) was complete, and after discovery closed, that
+Defendant produced these key documents. [
+should be allowed to ask Defendant
+questions concerning them.
+A.
+These documents are of particular importance because one
+did not have the opportunity to question Defendant about
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 5 of 10
+, nor did she have the opportunity to
+use it to cross
+Additionally, due to the late production,
+did not have the opportunity to include these facts in her briefing related to her
+Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions
+Filed under Seal (DE 315).
+a.
+For example,
+See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 2,
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 6 of 10
+See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 2,
+should not be prejudiced or penalized by Defendant's late production, just as Defendant
+was not prejudiced nor penalized by
+late production.
+b.
+Importantly, Defendant's evasive responses regarding
+Gow in her Answers to
+Requests for Admission'
+necessitate reopening of questioning regarding
+For example, Defendant stated as
+follows:
+See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 3, L
+Notably,
+' Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendant in order to obtain a follow up deposition regarding these
+newly produced documents without Court intervention. Defendant refused stating that she would consider
+responding to written questions. However, as the Court can see from Defendant's pattern of evasive written
+responses, an oral deposition is necessary in order to attempt to obtain a complete response.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 7 of 10
+Defendant did not produce her response to Gow's email. Additionally, since the communication
+appears to directly contradict her deposition testimony as well as her responses to Requests for
+Admission,
+to cross Defendant on her prior
+deposition answers.
+Similarly,
+C.
+Did Not Oppose the Relief Sought When Defendant Brought
+The Same Motion and the Court Ruled that this Relief was Appropriate
+As the Court will recall,
+motion to reopen her deposition. (*
+did not oppose the relief sought in Defendant's
+agrees to reopen the deposition for a limited
+amount of time, and for discrete lines of questioning." DE 259 at I). And,
+specifically agreed to the relief of answering questions about, inter alia, documents produced
+after her deposition: "
+agrees to reopening the deposition for
+(DE 259 at 12). Accordingly, as Defendant sought and received the same relief upon her motion,
+which was unopposed by
+, Defendant can put forth no valid argument against re-
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 8 of 10
+opening Defendant's deposition to ask questions about these newly-produced documents,
+particularly given the case law that also requires the re-opening of a deposition in these
+circumstances.
+Il.
+CONCLUSION
+Therefore, based on the foregoing, L
+respectfully requests that the Court
+Reopen Defendant's deposition to (1) answer lines of questions discussed in
+Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions
+Filed under Seal (DE 315) which is pending before the Court; and (2) answer questions related to
+the two key documents produced by Defendant after her deposition.
+Dated: October 13, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+| (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+-JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 9 of 10
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52022
+2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 466 Filed 10/14/16 Page 10 of 10
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 13, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing
+System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+I P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2943e8c5d573521c6db3f31826c19c3b57d75b31437715dd84b91376b02a06.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2943e8c5d573521c6db3f31826c19c3b57d75b31437715dd84b91376b02a06.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb421f8cbf2924093feab179c6780a62ffd56514
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2943e8c5d573521c6db3f31826c19c3b57d75b31437715dd84b91376b02a06.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -120,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed2943e8c5d573521c6db3f31826c19c3b57d75b31437715dd84b91376b02a06",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "182401c992d3781d3ec8ca348d65a5448b88935e5b90a44a893b38f1da188a1f",
+  "output_sha256": "7d937cd4e1178a4e7f1b42903e30c0b02114c71b59b3fb74d2272d90eeea46ba",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2fe591ac37014b655213d69552eb53f21766aa41c558025c165f012fe0cd33.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2fe591ac37014b655213d69552eb53f21766aa41c558025c165f012fe0cd33.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..976d1421c1520807be82ed7e4c8de73f1c063722
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2fe591ac37014b655213d69552eb53f21766aa41c558025c165f012fe0cd33.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 626
+Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-X
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+Sweet, D.J.
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #: -
+DATE FILED: 21417
+Plaintiff's motion in limine filed February 10, 2017
+shall be heard at noon on Thursday, February 23, 2017 in Courtroom
+18C, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street. Any opposition
+shall be filed by February 16, 2017; any reply shall be filed by
+February 20, 2017.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+February T3, 2017
+U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2fe591ac37014b655213d69552eb53f21766aa41c558025c165f012fe0cd33.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2fe591ac37014b655213d69552eb53f21766aa41c558025c165f012fe0cd33.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02884aabd89ee5cf012afb26c219ac92d493b7d2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed2fe591ac37014b655213d69552eb53f21766aa41c558025c165f012fe0cd33.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed2fe591ac37014b655213d69552eb53f21766aa41c558025c165f012fe0cd33",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e8bfd01e1e0a0575c15eb6a6829307606c61cbc754ee7d0762b901f7b096b9f3",
+  "output_sha256": "24a33043dfa3f5d5cdc480d2711c5bcf6eb27c67d3fb77fc027415af73117545",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed537d70bd9fb397b143a2978473674a0cf216e452ff2f3bf4330a6d01d43e28.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed537d70bd9fb397b143a2978473674a0cf216e452ff2f3bf4330a6d01d43e28.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68df5a8617458bcbc166f5d83b1a5611d66bf6df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed537d70bd9fb397b143a2978473674a0cf216e452ff2f3bf4330a6d01d43e28.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 523
+Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's
+Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F.
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+|. P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of the Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F.
+Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of |
+3.
+Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of •
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 523 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 3
+Dated: January 5, 2017
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 523 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on January 5, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+In Support Of Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of
+William F. Chandlervia ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Pt. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Is/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed537d70bd9fb397b143a2978473674a0cf216e452ff2f3bf4330a6d01d43e28.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed537d70bd9fb397b143a2978473674a0cf216e452ff2f3bf4330a6d01d43e28.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a683799984c4d8b6e64db84077d4a9455873f22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed537d70bd9fb397b143a2978473674a0cf216e452ff2f3bf4330a6d01d43e28.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed537d70bd9fb397b143a2978473674a0cf216e452ff2f3bf4330a6d01d43e28",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c79ce044630601df2c0d21099b3883be9816f92f9fe83e25eb953ddb49ba6c93",
+  "output_sha256": "bf7433ecfa81cd883c137fe5ceaf1b0a5bb678c5445b0ad8217e1f5c66c2c2a1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed53a1de97058d4965dc431ffba0d6360742f7c85356ff8f07fae53eb8edcdf3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed53a1de97058d4965dc431ffba0d6360742f7c85356ff8f07fae53eb8edcdf3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d44408765291cd67b6db80e1f8eb6be640dddca5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed53a1de97058d4965dc431ffba0d6360742f7c85356ff8f07fae53eb8edcdf3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+RICHARD D. EMERY
+ANDREW G. CELLI, JR.
+MATTHEW D. BRINCKERHOFF
+JONATHAN S. ABADY
+EARL S.
+ILANN M. MAAZEL
+HAL R.
+DANIEL J. KORNSTEIN
+O. ANDREW F. WILSON
+ELIZABETH S. SAYLOR
+DEBRA L. GREENBERGER
+ZOE SALZMAN
+SHAPIRO
+ALISON FRICK
+DAVID LEBOWITZ
+HAYLEY HOROWITZ
+DOUGLAS E. LIEB
+ALANNA SMALL
+JESSICA CLARKE
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 457
+Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 1
+EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP
+ATTORNEYS AT LAW
+600 FIFTH AVENUE AT ROCKEFELLER CENTER
+10m FLOOR
+NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10020
+
+FACSIMIL
+(212) 763-500
+WEB ADDRESS
+www.ecbalaw.com
+CHARLES J. OGLETREE, JR.
+DIANE L. HOUK
+October 6, 2016
+By ECF
+The Honorable Robert W. Sweet
+United States District Judge
+Daniel
+Moynihan United States Courthouse
+500 Pearl St.
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+This firm represents Proposed Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz, whose motion for
+permissive intervention and related relief was filed in this case on August 11, 2016.
+We have reviewed Plaintiff's correspondence withdrawing her opposition to
+Professor Dershowitz's letter-motion for leave to file a less redacted version of his previous!
+iled Reply Declaration, as well as the Proposed Order submitted by Plaintiff that would gran
+the stipulated relief. Professor Dershowitz has no objection to the Proposed Order and consents
+to its entry by the Court.
+We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.
+Respectfully submitted
+/s/
+Andrew G. Celli, Jr.
+David A. Lebowitz
+All Counsel of Record (by ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed53a1de97058d4965dc431ffba0d6360742f7c85356ff8f07fae53eb8edcdf3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed53a1de97058d4965dc431ffba0d6360742f7c85356ff8f07fae53eb8edcdf3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e55763df4ee22603f18870657629b0c4fc94e0b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed53a1de97058d4965dc431ffba0d6360742f7c85356ff8f07fae53eb8edcdf3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed53a1de97058d4965dc431ffba0d6360742f7c85356ff8f07fae53eb8edcdf3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "99e40d50472130fe627e4d9f796c3dccf688f2d85e66527533355e6290f78c3f",
+  "output_sha256": "68d47c7429b87dcf97bfdb0883cc3ad66d01c2e4f7e850b02d45675085a59f0d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed5a4693a76d236998077af78c86cda887c459b9162f8eb90718e0636fb39710.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed5a4693a76d236998077af78c86cda887c459b9162f8eb90718e0636fb39710.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca5977bdcdd9b05bf7a8867d6f1d4561f69def05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed5a4693a76d236998077af78c86cda887c459b9162f8eb90718e0636fb39710.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 165-10 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed5a4693a76d236998077af78c86cda887c459b9162f8eb90718e0636fb39710.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed5a4693a76d236998077af78c86cda887c459b9162f8eb90718e0636fb39710.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..49b6206df71e64f37c006d2af68420f5f1cc833b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed5a4693a76d236998077af78c86cda887c459b9162f8eb90718e0636fb39710.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed5a4693a76d236998077af78c86cda887c459b9162f8eb90718e0636fb39710",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8eb9535d90ebcac603d121f3b3201e6016b6540cfcbe409586a98999902d2e94",
+  "output_sha256": "a362c95e1360f29d99e953b4caeb379e30ccfff424abf051dfa9f00d5dea2d9b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed79509b32c904b7e4a881b45f787df505176e90403cca15d650504e186817b4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed79509b32c904b7e4a881b45f787df505176e90403cca15d650504e186817b4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e5e0a49b38d886c229d1833d03a79aa0aa5055e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed79509b32c904b7e4a881b45f787df505176e90403cca15d650504e186817b4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134-6 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed79509b32c904b7e4a881b45f787df505176e90403cca15d650504e186817b4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed79509b32c904b7e4a881b45f787df505176e90403cca15d650504e186817b4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9606a7d1276a8778015b82fe030f42635e2b46b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed79509b32c904b7e4a881b45f787df505176e90403cca15d650504e186817b4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed79509b32c904b7e4a881b45f787df505176e90403cca15d650504e186817b4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "566d546b951b973ed8f933a5ad34a78305fd52aeedcf84a5488f25a05e699837",
+  "output_sha256": "ba5e32d55a7a3b90e9102a961ef39283d3777dc3cb56481ce4b82ca6e9743e7e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed82136fa243c6168b11acafe695136f19516861a1bb16405e4c2ffe125ef254.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed82136fa243c6168b11acafe695136f19516861a1bb16405e4c2ffe125ef254.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30374e679ca5020f05082192800d9d1482294997
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed82136fa243c6168b11acafe695136f19516861a1bb16405e4c2ffe125ef254.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138-3 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed82136fa243c6168b11acafe695136f19516861a1bb16405e4c2ffe125ef254.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed82136fa243c6168b11acafe695136f19516861a1bb16405e4c2ffe125ef254.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..050d7ee1586bf439a26a5f862ac24aa6364ccb0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed82136fa243c6168b11acafe695136f19516861a1bb16405e4c2ffe125ef254.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed82136fa243c6168b11acafe695136f19516861a1bb16405e4c2ffe125ef254",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "14a6bf736418658dd2d89b8bd83d6e48f467f8165e5e29ea647f684d8b00d698",
+  "output_sha256": "6eed866ac601352fca891fd7755b015a173d21f7642af93d29f44b097fb8aebe",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed84ae53d04cb4cde4ea2f3a5c660398fd11026b1d7c9ef7fe67e3ffbb8895ac.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed84ae53d04cb4cde4ea2f3a5c660398fd11026b1d7c9ef7fe67e3ffbb8895ac.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff22d99e02a88b2b1e30384cb7b687813f2354cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed84ae53d04cb4cde4ea2f3a5c660398fd11026b1d7c9ef7fe67e3ffbb8895ac.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 873
+Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff
+Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS
+VS.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant
+NOTICE OF ERRATA AND MOTION TO CORRECT DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT
+Comes now the deponent:
+
+
+19-18+7
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-LAP Document 873 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of
+record by CM/ECF on April 28, 2017.
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Jack A. Goldberger
+Jack Alan Goldberger
+Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South, #1400
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+(561) 659-8305
+(561) 835-8691 (fax)
+goldberger @agwpa.com
+G. Weinberg
+20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
+Boston, Massachusetts 02116
+(617) 227-8616
+(617) 338-9538 (fax)
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 873
+Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 3
+
+[FILED UNDER SEAL]
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed84ae53d04cb4cde4ea2f3a5c660398fd11026b1d7c9ef7fe67e3ffbb8895ac.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed84ae53d04cb4cde4ea2f3a5c660398fd11026b1d7c9ef7fe67e3ffbb8895ac.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fb417c3fa45be352a7b0b36af39e4a42b8697b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed84ae53d04cb4cde4ea2f3a5c660398fd11026b1d7c9ef7fe67e3ffbb8895ac.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed84ae53d04cb4cde4ea2f3a5c660398fd11026b1d7c9ef7fe67e3ffbb8895ac",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3ceeaf2195cb76db581f53ab522a04eb5c21ddab544694a139d02404b961f5f6",
+  "output_sha256": "5272d8f395f791d8808e77d23bc299f371fad2d0b1ef1bc00d0af597ef8b6d80",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed96e14a679bb766849b6b35be99ca02f6b9d2157d4594a52300a65f56e51943.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed96e14a679bb766849b6b35be99ca02f6b9d2157d4594a52300a65f56e51943.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..352eb1455f30133fa4cc1ddef188dd5f8bacfb17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed96e14a679bb766849b6b35be99ca02f6b9d2157d4594a52300a65f56e51943.md
@@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 738 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 30
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
+Meredith
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 738 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 30
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+Page
+... il
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..
+IS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT …
+II. LEGAL STANDARD...
+III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
+IV.
+CONCLUSION....
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE …
+... 24
+... 26
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 738 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 30
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Bennett v. Spitzer,
+2007 WL 389213 (E.D.N.Y. 2007)
+Grant v. Demskie,
+75 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
+Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney Gen. of U.S.,
+666 F. Supp. 621 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)
+State v.
+490 NW2d 787 (lowa 1992)
+State v. Mayhorn,
+720 N.W.2d 776 (Minn. 2006) .
+United States v. Galloway,
+937 F.2d 542 (10th Cir. 1991)
+United States v.
+2015 WL 1886967 (E.D.N. Y. Apr. 24, 2015)...
+United States v.
+937 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1991)
+United States v. Valenzuela,
+967 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1992)
+v. Multimedia Entertainment, Inc.,
+1997 WL 729039, (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
+Rules
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
+Fed. R. Evid. 403
+Fed. R. Evid. 608
+Fed. R. Evid. 608(b).
+Fed. R. Evid. 401
+Fed. R. Evid. 412(2).
+Page
+10
+23
+24
+24
+. 8
+19
+23
+23
+23
+..passim
+16
+16
+• passim
+8,10
+8, 10, 11
+..passim
+21
+ii
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 30
+Fed. R. Evid. 412
+Fed. R. Evid. 412(b)(2).
+Statutes
+Fla. Stat. § 741.0405
+..passim
+22,23
+9
+Other Authorities
+California Senate Bill 1322
+2
+GREGORY MATOESIAN, REPRODUCING RAPE: DOMINATION THROUGH TALK
+IN THE COURTROOM (1993) …..•..…....
+1
+ANDREW E. TASLITZ, RAPE AND THE CULTURE OF THE COURTROOM (1999)....
+....1
+ili
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 30
+I.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 6 of 30
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 738 Filed 03/17/17 Page 7 of 30
+3
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 8 of 30
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 738 Filed 03/17/17 Page 9 of 30
+
+
+_Page 10 of 30
+6
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 11 of 30
+7
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 12 of 30
+lol
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 13 of 30
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 14 of 30
+10
+
+
+
+11
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 16 of 30
+12
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 17 of 30
+13
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 18 of 30
+14
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 19 of 30
+15
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 20 of 30
+16
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 21 of 30
+17
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 22 of 30
+18
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 23 of 30
+19
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 24 of 30
+20
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 25 of 30
+21
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 26 of 30
+22
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 27 of 30
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 28 of 30
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 738 Filed 03/17/17 Page 29 of 30
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52024
+14 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended
+to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+25
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 738 Filed 03/17/17 Page 30 of 30
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 17, 2017, 1 electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
+of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+26
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed96e14a679bb766849b6b35be99ca02f6b9d2157d4594a52300a65f56e51943.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed96e14a679bb766849b6b35be99ca02f6b9d2157d4594a52300a65f56e51943.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae60b3dc7a6d6ac3bec2b3996397b8014e5a40e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ed96e14a679bb766849b6b35be99ca02f6b9d2157d4594a52300a65f56e51943.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1232,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ed96e14a679bb766849b6b35be99ca02f6b9d2157d4594a52300a65f56e51943",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 32,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9cc90fe3e6b6cf1d784a19b96077ae461a968b6936f2757b8af51ac5709c303e",
+  "output_sha256": "22b225240b2648291fb892b92d9706b0c9343a6ff52c72720b5f6262d29d628b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eda24b23cb1b5282da32f65df13f37644149aefed9f5811ddbe38ad7eea88afd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eda24b23cb1b5282da32f65df13f37644149aefed9f5811ddbe38ad7eea88afd.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d2f383bd50a2645905fc7c10d340630fda5721c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eda24b23cb1b5282da32f65df13f37644149aefed9f5811ddbe38ad7eea88afd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1538 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 48
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 48
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AND
+OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF
+DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFE
+Plaintiff hereby serves her second amended supplemental responses and objections to
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests.
+GENERAL OBJECTIONS
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests violates Local Civil Rule 33.3. Defendant
+has served interrogatories that are in direct violation of that Rule because the interrogatories are
+not "restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to
+the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and the
+existence, custodian, location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent
+insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar nature." Local
+Civil Rule 33.3(a). Instead, they seek information under subsections (b) and (c) of Local Civil
+Rule 33.3, and therefore, they should not be served because they are not "a more practical
+method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition," and
+because they were served in advance of the period "30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date."
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 48
+Local Civil Rule 33.3(b), (c). The interrogatories you served violate Local Rule 33.3 and we ask
+that you immediately withdraw those interrogatories. See Rule 33.3, Local Rules for the
+Southern District of New York; see also Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV.
+5079 (Sweet, J.), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001); accord Gary Friedrich
+Enterprises, LLC v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 08 CIV. 1533 BSJ JCF, 2011 WL 1642381, at
+*4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011). Specifically, Rule 33.3 provides:
+(a)
+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, at the commencement of discovery,
+interrogatories will be restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with
+knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of the action, the
+computation of each category of damage alleged, and the existence, custodian,
+location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent
+insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar
+nature.
+(b)
+During discovery, interrogatories other than those seeking information described
+in paragraph (a) above may only be served (1) if they are a more practical method
+of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition,
+or (2) if ordered by the Court.
+(c) At the conclusion of other discovery, and at least 30 days prior to the discovery
+cut-off date, interrogatories seeking the claims and contentions of the opposing
+party may be served unless the Court has ordered otherwise.
+Similarly, Requests for Production numbers 1, 2, 4, 6(i), 9, 12, 30, 35 and 37 also violate
+Local Rule 33.3 in that they rely on the offending interrogatory requests. The Rule provides that
+a party must first try to obtain discovery through document production and testimony. Discovery
+does not close in this case until July 1, 2016, and Defendant has not yet noticed a deposition. As
+such, these interrogatories violate Local Rule 33.3 and are premature.
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests also violates Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P., which
+provides "a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 interrogatories, including all
+discrete subparts" - in that Defendant has served a total of 59 interrogatories, including subparts,
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 48
+in violation of Rule 33. We ask that you immediately withdraw those interrogatories that exceed
+the 25 interrogatory limit set by Rule 33.
+objects to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to the extent they
+seek information that is protected by any applicable privilege, including but not limited to,
+attorney client privilege, work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, public
+interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to the requests to the extent Defendant's First Set of Discovery
+Requests call for the production of documents or information that is already in the possession,
+custody, or control of the Defendant.
+further objects to the requests to the extent that
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests is duplicative of documents and information that
+can equally or more readily be obtained by the Defendant.
+objects to the requests to the extent that they seek documents that are not
+relevant, material, or necessary to this action and, thus, are not reasonably calculated to lead to
+the discovery of admissible evidence. Many of the requests in the Defendant's First Set of
+Discovery seek documents that are in no way limited to their relation to this case. Indeed, they
+seek documents that are not important to resolving the issues; documents that are not relevant to
+any party's claim or defense; and documents that are not proportional to the needs of the case.
+Such requests create a heavy burden on
+that outweighs any benefit. Such discovery
+is prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly under the 2015 amendments to
+Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and is wholly inappropriate.
+objects to the requests to the extent that they are overly broad and unduly
+burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly
+burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are overly
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 48
+broad under Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Specifically,
+objects to the requests as
+overly burdensome to the extent that they would require logging voluminous and ever-increasing
+privileged communications between
+and her counsel after the date litigation
+commenced on September 21, 2015.
+objects to the requests as overly burdensome to
+the extent that they would require logging voluminous privileged documents between
+and her counsel related to Jane Doe #l and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case no. 08-
+80736-CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District of Florida;
+and Paul
+Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz, Case no. CACE 15-000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial
+Circuit, Broward County, Florida; and Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-80656-
+CIV-Marra.
+(Southern District of Florida). Accordingly, due the undue burden of
+individually logging responsive privileged documents related to Defendant's overly broad
+requests, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging of such privileged responsive documents
+pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c).
+objects to the requests in that they seek to invade her privacy for the sole
+purpose of harassing and intimidating
+who was a victim of sexual trafficking.
+objects to the requests to the extent they are overly broad and unduly burdensome.
+objects to Defendant's definition of "your attorneys" because it includes
+names of attorneys that do not represent her, including Spencer Kuvin and Jack Scarola.
+responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests are being made
+after reasonable inquiry into the relevant facts, and are based only upon the information and
+documentation that is presently known to her.
+reserves the right to modify and/or
+supplement her responses.
+is producing documents and information herewith, and
+she will continue to review and produce relevant documents until completion.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 48
+incorporates her above-listed general objections in the responses herein.
+INTERROGATORIES
+State:
+a.
+Your present residential address;
+b. Each residential address You have had since 1998, including any
+residential treatment facilities;
+C.
+the dates You lived at each address;
+d. the other Persons who lived with You at each address and for what period
+of time they lived at such address.
+Response to Interrogatory One:
+objects to this interrogatory in part because it violates Rule 33.3.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information that is sought by Defendant only
+to harass and intimidate
+who was a victim of sexual trafficking. Per the Plaintiff's
+First Responses and Objections, and per our representations during the March 21, 2016 meet and
+confer phone call, we are working diligently to find information to supplement the below
+information with regard to address and dates, and once that information is obtained, Plaintiff will
+serve supplemental responses. Additionally, per the March 21, 2016 meet and confer phone call,
+we are addressing with the Plaintiff whether she will reveal here address to Defendant's counsel
+confidentially and we will update you with her response.
+a.
+Due to safety concerns with respect to
+and her minor children,
+she is not at liberty to reveal her present residential location. To ensure that
+Defendant is not prejudiced by the failure to provide information about Ms.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 48
+c.
+specific residential location,
+agrees to have her
+attorney's accept service on her behalf of any necessary communication or
+filings in this matter to be addressed to: Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Boies
+Schiller & Flexner LLP, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Fort
+Lauderdale, FL 33316.
+can recall living at the following addresses during the period of
+1998 to the present.
+have lived at other locations for which
+she does not presently have the address.
+is providing the
+information she has presently to the best of her recollection and review of
+documents and will supplement to the extent she obtains additional
+information responsive to this interrogatory.
+believes she has lived at the following residences:
+In January 1998, |
+was 14 years old.
+recalls
+one facility named "Growing Together" that was located in or around
+Palm Beach, but she does not recall the dates when she resided at the
+facility.
+• From 2000-2002,
+lived and travelled with Jeffrey
+Epstein and stayed at his various mansions in New York (9 E.
+71st Street, New York, NY 10021-4102), Palm Beach (358 El
+Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, New Mexico (Zorro
+Ranch, 49 Zorro Ranch Rd., Stanley, New Mexico 87056),
+U.S.V.I. (Little St. James, 6100 Red Hook Quarters, Suite B3,
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 48
+St.
+Virgin Islands 00802), and Paris (22 Avenue Foch
+Apt 2DD, Paris, France 75116).
+Jeffrey Epstein also rented a residence for
+Palm
+Beach, the exact address and dates of rental are in the possession,
+custody and control of Jeffrey Epstein. Tony
+, James Michael
+Austrich and a few other individuals for whom
+cannot
+recall the names of, stayed with her from time to time at the residence
+that Jeffrey Epstein rented.
+I parents' address was 12959 Rackley Road, Loxahatchee,
+Florida 33470, and she lived there from time to time with her mother,
+her father, and her brothers.
+2C Quentin St. Basshill NSW in approximately 2003, but she is not
+certain of that date. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+N. Paramentata, NSW from approximately 2003 - 2005, but she is not
+certain of those dates. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+• Blue Bay, NSW from approximately 2005 - 2008 but is not certain of
+those dates. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+3 Elk St., NSW from approximately 2008 - 2009 but is not certain of
+those dates. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+50 Robertson Road, Basshill, NSW, from 2009 through January of
+2010. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 48
+50 Bundeena Rd., Glenning Valley, NSW from approximately January
+of 2010 through October 13, 2013. At this location,
+lived
+with Robert
+5035 Winchester Drive, Titusville, FL from approximately November
+6, 2013 to October of 2014. At this location,
+lived with
+Robert
+1270 J. Street, Penrose, CO 81240, from approximately October of
+2014 through October of 2015. At this location
+lived with
+Robert
+Identify any email address, email account, cellphone number and cellphone
+provider, social media account and login or screen name, text or instant messaging account name
+and number, that You have used, applied for or been supplied between 1998 and the present.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 2
+objects to this request in that it violates Rule 33.3.
+objects to this
+request in that it is overly broad and seeks information solely to harass and intimidate
+For the period of 1998 to the present
+I provides the following information.
+During the time period that she was sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant, the
+defendant provided
+with a cellphone so that she could be reached by the Defendant
+and Jeffrey Epstein at any time. Defendant is in possession of the information relating to this
+cellphone that she provided to
+is responding with the information she
+can presently recall, but to the extent she obtains additional information she will supplement this
+response.
+e-mail address is
+She can recall having the
+following cell numbers
+had a
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 48
+Facebook account for a short time but it is no longer active. Per our representations during the
+March 21, 2015 meet and confer phone call, we are working diligently to find information to
+supplement the above information, and once that information is obtained, Plaintiff will serve
+supplemental responses.
+3.
+Identify each attorney who has represented you from 1998 to the present, the
+dates of any such representation, and the nature of the representation.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 3
+objects to this interrogatory as it seeks privileged information relating to her
+representation by attorneys.
+responds as follows: Bob Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi
+(among other possible Podhurst Orseck, P.A. attorneys) represented |
+as a party in the litigation styled as Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No.
+09-80656-CIV-Marra
+, starting on January 27, 2009.
+• Stan Pottinger, David Boies, and Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies
+Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") attorneys) represented
+as a
+non-party in the litigation styled as
+and Paul Cassell v. Alan
+Dershowitz, Case no. 15-000072, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County,
+Florida, starting in February, 2015.
+• Brad
+(along with other
+, Jaffe, Weissing,
+, Fistos &
+Lehrman, P.L. ("1
+Jaffe") attorneys), Paul Cassell, Stan Pottinger, David
+Boies and Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represent
+as a party in the litigation styled
+v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-
+RWS in the Southern District of New York, the complaint of which was filed in
+September, 2015.
+Paul Cassell represents
+as a non-party in the litigation styled as Jane
+Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-Marra,
+Southern District of Florida, starting in May of 2014.
+• Brad
+(along with other
+_ Jaffe attorneys) represents
+as a non-party in the litigation styled as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United
+States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-Marra, Southern District of Florida, starting in
+2011.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 48
+Brad
+with legal advice concerning media inquiries
+had received starting in 2011.
+• Paul Cassell, Brad
+(along with other
+Jaffe, attorneys), Stan
+Pottinger, David Boies (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represented
+regarding investigations into potential legal action starting in the
+second half of 2014.
+• Paul Cassell, Brad
+(along with other
+, Jaffe, attorneys), Stan
+Pottinger, David Boies, and Sigrid MeCawley (along with other Boies Schiller
+attorneys) represent
+as a cooperating witness with regard to a law
+enforcement investigation, starting in May, 2015.
+Paul Cassell provided
+action starting in early 2011.
+with legal advice concerning potential legal
+Paul Cassell and Brad
+(along with other
+Jaffe, attorneys)
+represented
+and Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding
+Victims Refuse Silence, starting in October, 2014.
+• Meg Garvin (law professor at
+& Clark Law School, and the Executive
+Director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute ) represented
+and
+Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding Victims Refuse Silence, starting
+in October, 2014.
+Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represented
+and Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding Victims Refuse
+Silence, starting in February 2015.
+Identify each Communication, including the transmission of any Document, that
+You or Your Attorneys have had with any local, state or federal law enforcement agent or
+agency, whether in the United States or any other country, whether in Your capacity as a
+purported victim, witness, or perpetrator of any criminal activity, and whether as a juvenile or as
+an adult, including without limitation:
+a.
+the date of any such Communication;
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 48
+b.
+the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if
+written, the format of any such Communication;
+C.
+the identities of all persons involved in the Communication, including the
+identity of the law enforcement agency with whom the agent is or was
+affiliated;
+d.
+the case number associated with any such Communication;
+e.
+the subject matter of any such Communication;
+f.
+the disposition of any case associated with any such Communication,
+irrespective of whether the matter was sealed, expunged or later dismissed.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 4
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks protected information regarding confidential
+investigations.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the
+public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to the extent
+this seeks information regarding sexual assaults that occurred prior to her involvement with the
+Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
+responds as follows:
+in accordance
+with the Court's direction at the hearing on April 21, 2016, has submitted documents to the
+Court for In Camera review.
+met with the FBI on or about March 17, 2011.
+also
+corresponded with Maria Villafano from the U.S. Attorney's office and that
+correspondence has been produced.
+Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any
+author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist,
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 48
+photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any
+media organization or independent consultant to the same, including:
+a.
+the date of any such Communication;
+b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if
+written, the format of any such Communication;
+C.
+the identities of all persons involved in such Communication,
+including the identity of the media organization with whom the agent
+is or was affiliated;
+d.
+the article title, date of publication, and means of publication of any
+article, report, or re-printing of any such Communication made by
+You or Your Attorneys;
+e.
+the amount of Income that You and/or Your Attorneys received in
+exchange for any such Communication;
+f.
+the dates on which You and/or Your Attorneys received any such Income
+for any such Communication.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 5
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any
+other applicable privilege.
+objects in that this request is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3
+Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 48
+6.
+Identify any "false statements" attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell which were
+"published globally, including within the Southern District of New York" as You contend in
+paragraph 9 of Count 1 of Your Complaint, including:
+a.
+the exact false statement;
+b. the date of its publication;
+c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the
+purportedly false statement;
+d.
+the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and
+e.
+the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some
+other form of media.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 6
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
+attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+further objects because the
+information requested above is in the possession of Defendant who has failed to comply with
+her production obligations in this matter.
+7.
+State whether You believe that You have ever been defamed by anyone other than
+Ghislaine Maxwell. If so, as to each alleged act of Defamation, state
+a.
+the exact false statement;
+b.
+the date of its publication;
+C.
+the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the
+purportedly false statement;
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 48
+d.
+the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and
+C.
+the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some
+other form of media.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 7
+objects to this request in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects
+to this request in that it seeks information protected by the attorney client and work product
+privileges.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it is not limited in time or to the
+subject nature of this litigation.
+8.
+Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed in the U.S. District
+Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States of
+America, 08-cv-80736-KAM, as the "high-profile non-party individuals" to whom Mr. Jeffrey
+Epstein sexually trafficked You, "including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful
+business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,"
+including as to each episode of alleged sexual trafficking:
+a.
+the date of any such sexual trafficking;
+b. the location of any such sexual trafficking;
+c. any witnesses to any such sexual trafficking;
+d.
+any Income You received in exchange for such sexual trafficking; and
+e.
+any Documents You have to support or corroborate Your claim of such
+sexual trafficking.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 8
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. |
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 48
+product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any
+other applicable privilege. Additionally, |
+objects to this interrogatory because naming
+some such individuals would jeopardize her physical safety based on credible threats to the
+same.
+refers to the list of witnesses identified in her Revised Rule 26 Disclosures.
+9.
+Identify any Employment You have had from 1996 until the present, including
+without limitation, the name of Your employer or the name of any Person who engaged You for
+such Employment, the address and telephone number for any such Employment, the beginning
+and ending dates of any such Employment, Your job title in such Employment, and Your
+Income from such Employment.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 9
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and
+seeks information that is not relevant to this case.
+responds as follows:
+worked at Mar a Lago as a locker room attendant for the spa area. Records
+produced in this case identify the date of employment as 2000, and she recalls being
+there in the summer.
+previously attempted to gather employment records
+from Mar-A-Lago. See Giuffire002726. She earned approximately $9 per hour. The
+address is 1100 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, with the telephone
+number of 561-832-2600
+worked at Roadhouse Grill as a waitress in approximately 2002, but |
+is unsure of the exact dates of employment. Her wages primarily consisted of
+tips.
+does not recall the location of Roadhouse Grill. A Google search for
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 48
+the same yields an address at 8865 Southern Blv., West Palm Beach, FL 33411 and a
+telephone number of 561-651-0400.
+worked at Employment Training and Recruitment Australia from
+approximately 2005 through January of 2006, but |
+is unsure of the exact
+dates of employment.
+was a receptionist earing approximately $15 per hour
+to the best of her recollection. Upon information and belief, this corporation is currently
+located in a different location from the location at which
+was employed.
+Upon information and belief, based on an internet search, the new location of this entity
+is 123 Donniforn Street, Gofford NSW 2250, with a telephone number of 02-4323-1233
+worked at Gemma Catering/Wedding Receptions in approximately 2004.
+She received approximately $10/hr. She does not recall the name of the proprietor nor its
+location.
+worked at Manway Logistics in approximately 2003.
+recalls it
+located in or around Sydney, Australia. An internet search yielded an address of 246
+Road, Villawood NSW 2163, and a phone number of 02-8707-2300.
+worked as a receptionist and earned approximately $20/hr.
+10.
+Identify any Income from any source other than Your Employment that You have
+received from January 1, 1996 until the present, including the Person or entity providing such
+Income, the amount of the Income, the dates on which any such Income was received, and
+the nature of the Income, whether a loan, investment proceeds, legal settlement, asset sale,
+gift, or other source.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 18 of 48
+Response to Interrogatory No. 10
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and seeks confidential financial
+information.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information covered by
+confidentiality provisions.
+objects to this information in that any payment
+information for the sexual trafficking she endured at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and
+Ghislaine Maxwell is in the possession, custody and control of the Defendant and Jeffrey
+Epstein.
+is in possession of a responsive document that contains a confidentiality
+provision. If Defendant obtains, and produces to
+a written waiver from her coconspirator, Mr. Epstein, of the confidentiality provision, freeing
+from any
+liability whatsoever under the confidentiality provision, she will produce the document.
+11.
+Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered
+as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell "past and future lost wages and
+past and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings - precise amounts yet to be
+computed, but not less than $5,000,000."
+Response to Interrogatory No. 11
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. |
+objects to this interrogatory in that it prematurely seeks expert witness disclosures.
+incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures, which includes her
+computation of damages.
+12.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 19 of 48
+physical, mental or emotional condition, that You suffered from subsequent to any
+Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+C.
+the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+the medical expenses to date;
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+g. for each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 12
+Pursuant to this Court's Order,
+will provide information for health care
+providers from 1999 through the present.
+continues to search for medical providers
+that appear in documents.
+• Dr. Steven Olson, St.
+CO 81212, treated
+More Hospital, 1338 Phay Avenue, Canon City,
+as described in the medical records produced at
+GIUFFE005342-5346.
+• Dr. Mona Devansean, 11476 Okeechobee Blvd.,
+Palm Beach, FL. It
+appears Dr. Devansean is retired. We produced the letter we sent her as well as a
+document indicating the practice was closed at GIUFFRE005335-
+GIUFFRE0005338.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 20 of 48
+• Dr. Chris Donahue, 12 Clifton Village Shopping Centre, Captain Hook Hwy,
+Clifton Beach, QLD 4879 is believed to have treated
+has sent a release to Dr. Donahue, and is awaiting a response.
+• Dr. John Harris and Dr. Darshanee Majaliyana at The Entrance Medical Centre,
+120 The Entrance Road, The Entrance 2261, 43321300, treated
+as
+described in the records produced at GIUFFRE005315-5322.
+• Dr. Wah Wah, Central Coast Family Medicine, Unit 2, 17 Anzac Rd., Tuggerah
+2259, 0243518777 treated
+as described in the medical records
+produced at GIUFFRE005339-5341.
+• Dr. M. Sellathurai (a/k/a Dr. Sella), Buss
+Plaza, Medical Center, 753 Hume
+Highway, Bass
+NSW 2197, 02297555292 treated
+as described
+in the medical records produced at GIUFFRE005089-5091.
+Oaks Medical Center, 1855 Knox McRae Dr., Titusville, FL 32780, was
+believed to have possibly treated
+but Medical Center responded
+stating that they have no records for
+see GIUFFRE005347-5349.
+• Dr. Carol Hayek, Denison Road, Dulwich
+NSW 2203. Records have been
+requested, but thus far have been denied. Another medical release was sent and is
+pending.
+• New York Presbyterian Hospital treated
+as described in the medical
+records produced at Giuffre003258-3298.
+• Campbelltown Hospital, 8 Monerleff [illegible] Close, St. Helens treated
+as described in the medical records produced at Giuffre003193-3257.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 21 of 48
+• Sydney West Hospital treated
+as described in the medical records
+produced at Giuffre003291-3298.
+• Westmead Hospital treated L
+on as described in the medical records
+produced at GIUFFRE003291-003298.
+• As Defendant requested, Medical releases have been provided for:
+• Dr. Karen Kutikoff
+• Wellington Imaging Associates, PA
+• Growing Together
+13.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal
+drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e. the medical expenses to date;
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+8.
+For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 13
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+20
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 22 of 48
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case.
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it is not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the
+abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
+14. Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You
+engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,
+including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate
+sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else
+concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the
+outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 14
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim.
+objects to this request in that it seeks sexual assault information for a
+period prior to the sexual abuse at issue in this matter for a period when she was a minor child
+from the time
+was born until she was 15.
+objects to this request in that
+it is sought solely to harass, and intimidate
+who is a victim of sexual abuse by the
+defendant.
+21
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 23 of 48
+REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
+All Communications and Documents identified in Interrogatories 1-14,
+above.
+Response to Request No. 1
+objects to this request in that Defendant's interrogatories violate Local Rule
+33.3.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request on the grounds
+that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, incorporating the interrogatories that total 59
+subparts, and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks to invade the privacy rights of a sex abuse victims, and is meant for the
+improper purpose of harassing and intimidating this victim.
+Subject to and without waving the above objections,
+is withholding
+production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work
+product privilege, and the public interest privilege.
+is also withholding electronic
+renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits
+and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children.
+Subjection to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict
+images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement her production.
+22
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 24 of 48
+All Documents reviewed or relied upon in answering Interrogatory Nos.
+1-14 above.
+Response to Request No. 2
+objects to this request in that defendant's interrogatories violate Local Rule
+33.3.
+objects to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the
+attorney client, work product, and public interest, and other applicable privileges.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad incorporating the interrogatories that total 59
+subparts.
+objects to this request in that it seeks to invade the privacy rights of a sex
+abuse victims and is meant for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating this victim.
+Subject to and without waving the above objections,
+is withholding
+production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work
+product privilege, and the public interest privilege.
+is also withholding electronic
+renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits
+and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children.
+Subjection to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict
+images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement her production.
+All Documents from any law enforcement agency, whether local, state or
+federal, whether in the United States or elsewhere, which concern or relate to You in any
+way. These Documents should include, without limitation, any witness statements,
+including statements made by You.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 25 of 48
+Response to Request No. 3
+objects to this request in that it secks information that is protected by the
+attorney client, work product, public interest privilege and other applicable privileges. |
+objects to this request in that it is not limited in time period.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+_ is withholding documents that concern or relate to
+any currently ongoing investigation by any law enforcement agency under the public interest
+privilege and other applicable privileges.
+4.
+All Documents reflecting any letter of engagement, any fee agreement, or
+any other type of writing reflecting an engagement of any attorney identified in
+response to Interrogatory No. 3.
+Response to Request No. 4
+objects to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the
+attorney client, work product, joint defense and other applicable privileges.
+is
+withholding documents based on this objection. Specifically,
+is withholding
+documents reflecting the engagements between herself and her attorneys she has engaged in
+relation to the above-captioned action and other actions as those documents involve
+privileged communications.
+5.
+All Documents relating to any Communications occurring from 1998 to the
+present with any of the following individuals or with their attorneys, agents or
+representatives:
+24
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 26 of 48
+a. Jeffrey Epstein;
+b. Ghislaine Maxwell
+c. Any witness disclosed in Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) disclosures;
+d. Any witness identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No.
+14;
+e. skyL
+f.
+-
+Kimberley
+h. Daniel|
+, half-brother of Plaintiff;
+i. Carol
+Kess;
+j. Philip Guderyon;
+k. Anthony Valladares;
+1. Anthony
+m. Ron Eppinger
+Response to Request No. 5
+objection to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome, particularly as it seeks documents relating to over 60 individuals, and calls for the
+production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to
+the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects because compliance with this request
+is unduly burdensome.
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this
+request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with
+whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and Ms.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 27 of 48
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+objects to this request to the
+extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public
+interest or any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it is sought
+solely to harass and intimidate
+, and invade her privacy, by seeking her private
+communications with her various family members, including aunts, uncles and parents and
+siblings.
+Subject to and without waving the above objections,
+is withholding
+production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work
+product privilege, and the public interest privilege.
+is also withholding electronic
+renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits
+and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children.
+Subjection to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict
+images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement this production.
+6.
+All photographs or video containing any image of You and the following
+individuals. To the extent You have such photographs and video in their original, native
+format, please produce them in that format (not a paper copy).
+a.
+Ghislaine Maxwell
+b. Alan Dershowitz
+c.
+Jeffrey Epstein
+d. Andrew Albert Christian Edward, the
+of York (aka Prince
+Andrew)
+26
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 1331-3
+Filed 01/05/24 Page 28 of 48
+e. Ron Eppinger
+f. Bill Clinton
+g. Stephen Hawking
+h. Al Gore
+i.
+Any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory
+No. 8 and No. 14.
+Response to Request No. 6
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her
+does not have "original, native format," as requested so she is
+producing the paper copies she has in her possession, custody and control.
+7.
+All photographs and video of You in any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties,
+including, but not limited to: his home in Palm Beach, Florida; his home in New York
+City, New York; his ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Little Saint James Island in the
+U.S. Virgin Islands. To the extent You have such photographs and video in their original,
+native format, please produce them in that format (not a paper copy).
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 29 of 48
+Response to Request No. 7
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her production.
+does not have "original, native format," as requested so she is producing the paper
+copies she has in her possession, custody and control. The Defendant has documents
+responsive to this request that she should produce.
+8.
+All photographs or video of You in any of Ms. Maxwell's properties,
+including her home in London, England and her home in New York City, New York. To
+the extent You have such photographs or video in their original, native format, please
+produce them in that format (not a paper copy).
+Response to Request No. 8
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and |
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+28
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 30 of 48
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+| labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her
+does not have "original, native format," as requested so she is
+producing the paper copies she has in her possession, custody and control. The Defendant has
+documents responsive to this request that she should produce.
+9.
+Any Documents reflecting rental agreements or purchase agreements for the
+residential addresses identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 1.
+Response to Request No. 9
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant to this action.
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client,
+work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege.
+objects
+to this request in that the information regarding rental agreements for the apartments that
+Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein rented for her are in the Defendant's possession, control and
+custody.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+29
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 31 of 48
+10.
+All Documents relating to Your Employment and/or association with the
+Mar-a-Lago Club located in Palm Beach, Florida, including any application for
+Employment.
+Response to Request No. 10
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the
+attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+11. Any Document reflecting any confidentiality agreement by and between, or
+concerning, You and the Mar-a-Lago Club.
+Response to Request No. 10
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by
+the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable
+privilege.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+12.
+All Documents concerning any Employment by You from 1998 to the
+present or identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 9, including any records of
+Your Employment at the Roadhouse Grill in Palm Beach, Florida.
+Response to Request No. 12
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+30
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 32 of 48
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint
+defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+13. All Documents concerning any allegations of theft by You from the
+Roadhouse Grill in Palm Beach, Florida from 1999 - 2002.
+Response to Request No. 13
+objects to this request in that it seeks information solely to harass, embarrass,
+and intimidate
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents
+protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint
+defense/common interest privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it wrongfully characterizes a "theft by You".
+objects to this request as it seeks documents of sealed juvenile records, and the only
+means of obtaining such records are either through court order or illegal means.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+14.
+A copy of Your federal, state or local tax returns for the years 1998 to the
+present, whether from the United States or any other country.
+Response to Request No. 14
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+31
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 33 of 48
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant to this action. |
+objects to this request in that it seeks financial information from her when she was a
+minor child starting at age 14.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the
+attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest
+privilege, the accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+15.
+All Documents concerning Your attendance at or enrollment in any
+school or educational program of whatever type, from 1998 to the present.
+Response to Request No. 15
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
+work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and
+any other applicable privilege.
+_ objects to this request in that her school records from
+when she was a minor child are an invasion of privacy, and sought only to harass and embarrass
+her.
+documents
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-
+32
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 34 of 48
+privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+16.
+Any diary, journal or calendar concerning Your activities between 1996 -
+2002.
+Response to Request No. 16
+objections to this Request on the grounds that the time period is overly
+broad and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects
+to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary and copyright protected materials.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
+attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other
+applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks highly personal
+and sensitive material from a time when she was being sexually trafficked.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+17.
+All Documents relating to Your travel from the period of 1998 to the
+present, including, but not limited to a copy of Your passport that was valid for any
+part of that time period, any visa issued to You for travel, any visa application that
+You prepared or which was prepared on Your behalf, and travel itinerary, receipt, log,
+or Document (including any photograph) substantiating Your travel during that time
+period.
+Response to Request No. 17
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 35 of 48
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects in that
+it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
+privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and not limited to travel records relevant
+to the abuse she suffered.
+objects to this request in that it seeks information that is
+wholly irrelevant to this lawsuit.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+production. Per the agreements made in the March 21, 2016 meet and confer, we will attempt to
+locate and make copies of Plaintiff's current passport book.
+18.
+All Documents showing any payments or remuneration of any kind
+made by Jeffrey Epstein or any of his agents or associates to You from 1999 until the
+present.
+Response to Request No. 18
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within
+the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a
+joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any
+other applicable privilege.
+At this point in time,
+has been unable to locate any such documents, but
+continues to search for responsive documents.
+34
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 36 of 48
+19.
+Any Document reflecting a confidentiality agreement, settlement agreement,
+or any contractual agreement of any kind, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or any
+attorneys for You and/or Mr. Epstein.
+Response to Request No. 19
+objects to this request in that the documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the
+public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+is in possession of a
+responsive document that contains a confidentiality provision. As discussed during the
+March 21, 2016 meet and confer, If Defendant obtains, and produces to
+a
+written waiver from her co-conspirator, Mr. Epstein, of the confidentiality provision,
+releasing
+from any liability whatsoever under the confidentiality provision, she
+will produce the document.
+20.
+Any Document reflecting Your intent, plan or consideration of, asserting
+or threatening a claim or filing a lawsuit against another Person, any Document
+reflecting such a claim or lawsuit, including any complaint or draft complaint, or any
+demand for consideration with respect to any such claim or lawsuit against any Person.
+Response to Request No. 20
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and
+unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this
+action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 37 of 48
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney
+client, work product, joint defense or any other applicable privilege.
+objects
+because this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks wholly privileged
+communications from other cases the logging of which on a privilege log would be unduly
+burdensome. As
+is providing categorical privilege entries relating to those
+matters.
+At this point in time,
+has not found any non-privileged documents
+responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents.
+21.
+All Documents relating to Your driver's license from 1998 - 2002.
+Response to Request No. 21
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and
+control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and
+defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+At this point in time,
+but continues to search for responsive documents.
+has not found any documents responsive to this request,
+22.
+A copy of Your marriage license(s) from 1999 to the present.
+Response to Request No. 22
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to this action
+and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+36
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 38 of 48
+objects in that it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this request, and will continue to supplement this production.
+23.
+All documents concerning Your naturalization application to Australia from
+1999 to the present.
+Response to Request No. 23
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to this action
+and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects in that it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+24.
+All Documents concerning Your Employment in Australia, including, but not
+limited to employment applications, pay stubs, Documents reflecting Your Income
+including any tax Documents.
+Response to Request No. 24
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks confidential financial information
+objects to this request to
+the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, or
+37
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 39 of 48
+any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks overly broad
+financial information not tailored to the sexual abuse and defamation issues in this case.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this request, and will continue to supplement this production.
+25.
+All Documents concerning any massage therapist license obtained by
+You, including any massage therapy license issued in the United States, Thailand and/or
+Australia.
+Response to Request No. 25
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+At this point in time,
+has not found any non-privileged documents
+responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents.
+26.
+All Documents concerning any prescription drugs taken by You,
+including the prescribing doctor, the dates of said prescription, and the dates of any
+fulfillment of any such prescription.
+Response to Request No. 26
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and
+unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this
+action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms.
+38
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 40 of 48
+objects to this request in that it is not limited in date range in any way; therefore if
+she was on a prescription drug when she was 2 years old, she would have to produce that
+document.
+_also objects to this request in that it is not limited to prescription
+drugs she has taken as a result of the abuse she endured.
+objects to this request
+to the extent it seeks confidential medical records that are not relevant to this action.
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney
+client, work product, or any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and is
+producing non-privileged documents responsive to the Request limited to documents
+relating to prescription drugs relating to her treatment for sexual abuse she suffered at the
+hands of the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, and relating to conditions or symptoms arising
+after Defendant's defamatory statement, and will continue to supplement this production.
+27.
+All Documents, written or recorded, which reference by name, or
+other description, Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Response to Request No. 27
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it
+seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-
+39
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 41 of 48
+privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+28.
+All Documents reflecting notes of, or notes prepared for, any
+statements or interviews in which You referenced by name or other description,
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Response to Request No. 28
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege,
+the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to
+this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials.
+At this point in time,
+has not found any non-privileged documents
+responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents.
+29.
+All Documents concerning any Communications by You or on Your behalf
+with any media outlet, including but not limited to the Daily Mail, Daily Express, the
+Mirror, National Enquirer, New York Daily News, Radar Online, and the New York Post,
+whether or not such communications were "on the record" or "off the record."
+Response to Request No. 29
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected
+materials.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+40
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 42 of 48
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+30.
+All Documents concerning any Income received by You from any media
+outlet in exchange for Your statements (whether "on the record" or "off the record")
+regarding Jeffery Epstein, Alan M. Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton or Ghislaine
+Maxwell or any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8
+and 14.
+Response to Request No. 30
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work produet privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it secks proprietary or copyright protected
+materials.
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial
+information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+31.
+All Documents concerning any actual or potential book, television or movie
+deals concerning Your allegations about being a sex slave, including but not limited to a
+potential book by former New York Police Department detective John Connolly and writer
+James Patterson.
+41
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 43 of 48
+Response to Request No. 31
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected
+materials.
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial
+information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+32.
+All manuscripts and/or other writings, whether published or unpublished,
+created in whole or in part by or in consultation with You, concerning, relating or
+referring to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell or any of their agents or associates.
+Response to Request No. 32
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. |
+objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial
+materials.
+information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+42
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 44 of 48
+33.
+All Documents concerning or relating to Victims Refuse Silence, the
+organization referred to in the Complaint, including articles of incorporation, any financial
+records for the organization, any Income You have received from the organization, and any
+Documents reflecting Your role within the organization or any acts taken on behalf of the
+Organization.
+Response to Request No. 33
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to
+this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials.
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+34.
+To the extent not produced in response to the above list of requested
+Documents, all notes, writings, photographs, and/or audio or video recordings made or
+recorded by You or of You at any time that refer or relate in any way to Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Response to Request No. 34
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within
+the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a
+joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+43
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 45 of 48
+product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the
+extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected material.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+35.
+All phone records, including text messages, emails, social media
+Communications, letters or any other form of Communication, from or to You or
+associated with You in any way from 1998 to the present, which concern, relate to,
+identify, mention or reflect Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Prince
+Andrew, Bill Clinton, or any of the individuals identified in response to Interrogatory Nos.
+8 and 14.
+Response to Request No. 35
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request to the extent it seeks documents from "anyone associated with you" as that is vague and
+ambiguous.
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she
+claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
+attorney work product privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+44
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 46 of 48
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected
+material.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+production. While
+has produced her documents,
+response does not
+include documents "from anyone associated with you" based on the above referenced objection.
+36.
+All Documents relating to massages, including but not limited to any
+Documents reflecting the recruiting or hiring of masseuses, advertising for masseuses,
+flyers created for distribution at high schools or colleges, and records reflecting e-mails
+or calls to Persons relating to massages.
+Response to Request No. 36
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to
+this request in that it is not time limited in any way.
+objects to this request in that
+documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the
+defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has
+refused to produce responsive documents. [
+objects in that it seeks information
+protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+45
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 47 of 48
+37.
+Statements or records from any bank into which You deposited money
+received from Jeffrey Epstein, any Person identified in Interrogatory No. 8 or 14, any
+witness disclosed in Your Rule 26(a) disclosures, any media organization or any employee
+or affiliate of any media organization.
+Response to Request No. 37
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks
+personal financial information.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad as it
+has no time limitation.
+documents
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+Dated: April 29, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3330
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+46
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 48 of 48
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on April 29, 2016, I electronically served Plaintiff
+Amended Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Discovery
+Requests on the following:
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10' Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+'s Second
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+47
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eda24b23cb1b5282da32f65df13f37644149aefed9f5811ddbe38ad7eea88afd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eda24b23cb1b5282da32f65df13f37644149aefed9f5811ddbe38ad7eea88afd.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c95fbd326637a15b500257bd3a78a9c3fbe0af3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eda24b23cb1b5282da32f65df13f37644149aefed9f5811ddbe38ad7eea88afd.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -782,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eda24b23cb1b5282da32f65df13f37644149aefed9f5811ddbe38ad7eea88afd",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 62,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0346e84ea548c0261eb30dc4e0097f4cbfde43b69ff2a639b3a470906b2ac2a3",
+  "output_sha256": "91bf44e88890eae97c154e77c207f6b5198353d65f926e638ed47d9034f966cf",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb6c2cbc70f344c038f263cc9e87070f2e80be367a114c69e0179859dd2ca5a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb6c2cbc70f344c038f263cc9e87070f2e80be367a114c69e0179859dd2ca5a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b4953a8cfcf030e444976d2b9493834d2c0c7cb9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb6c2cbc70f344c038f263cc9e87070f2e80be367a114c69e0179859dd2ca5a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,991 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 18
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+V.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+19 CR 490 (RMB)
+Conference
+Defendant.
+New York, N.Y.
+July 8, 2019
+2:00 p.m.
+Before:
+HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+ALEXANDER ROSSMILLER
+MAURENE R. COMEY
+ALISON G. MOE
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+REID H. WEINGARTEN
+G. WEINBERG
+MARC FERNICH
+Attorneys for Defendant
+Also Present:
+AMANDA YOUNG - Special Agent FBI
+PAUL BYRNE - NYPD
+KEYANA POMPEY - Probation Officer
+LEA HARMON - Probation Officer
+(212)
+805-0300
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 2 of 18 2
+(Case called)
+THE COURT: Good afternoon.
+I think I'm pretty much up to speed as to where you
+are in the sense that I am aware that you have been before
+Magistrate Judge Pitman earlier this morning and up to some few
+minutes ago for purposes of presentment, arraignment, and some
+preliminary discussion of bail. Is that accurate?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: That's correct, your Honor. I don't
+want to speak for defense counsel, but my understanding is they
+expect to put in some sort of written submission and return to
+argue the rest of the bail hearing on Thursday before Judge
+Pitman at 2:00. That is, if your Honor refers the bail hearing
+to Judge Pitman on that basis as well.
+THE COURT: I might just take that bail application
+before me. We'll figure out a time when that would be
+comfortable for all of you. How is that?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: That's fine with the government, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: I have a few items on my list. I want to
+make mention, I'm sure Magistrate Judge Pitman did, of our
+presumption of innocence.
+Even though in some of these
+discussions, and probably more so when we get to bail, it may
+sound like we are talking about merits of the case, it's
+important that we underscore that the presumption of innocence
+pertains to Mr. Epstein, now and until such time, if it comes,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 3 of 18 3
+that there is a guilty determination by a jury or by the Court,
+that he is presumed to be innocent.
+I did have these questions. One has to do with
+persons who are categorized as victims. I want to get some
+assurance from the U.S. Attorney's office that they have been
+notified about this case and that you will keep them abreast of
+developments in this case.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor, we are acutely aware
+of our obligations to the victims in this case. We have
+notified them and we expect to continue to do so as the case
+moves forward.
+THE COURT: Second, for my background, I am aware that
+there are certain conditions that attach to Mr. Epstein's sex
+offender status resulting from his Florida state prosecution in
+or about 2008. One result is that under New York law --
+correct me if I'm wrong about any of this -- he is considered
+to be at high risk of committing another sex crime with minors.
+Is that a fair characterization of his sex offender status?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, as the government set
+forth in its submission to Judge Pitman, and we copied this
+Court, it is our understanding that the defendant is a tier 3
+sex offender in New York and that that is characterized as
+high-risk individual.
+THE COURT: The question that I have is what are the
+implications, if any, of the search conducted by the U.S.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 4 of 18
+4
+Attorney's office over the weekend of Mr. Epstein's residence
+on East 71st Street for the terms and conditions of his sex
+offender status, if any? Are there any consequences or
+relationship between what was uncovered and what he is obliged
+to do?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: May I have one moment, your Honor?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, in response to that
+question, at the outset I should say that we don't have
+particular interaction with state authorities with respect to
+those types of notifications. We are, I would say, in the
+early stages of reviewing those materials. With respect to the
+defendant's obligations or potential consequences in the New
+York State system, we certainly will notify whichever
+authorities are appropriate. I don't think that we have a role
+other than that.
+I will say that they are extremely concerning with
+respect to bail here, with respect to the conduct here, and I
+expect we will get into that more in our submissions and bail
+argument.
+THE COURT: By the way, if defense counsel wants to
+jump in at any point, feel free to do that?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: On that, we have not seen the
+pictures.
+THE COURT: I haven't either.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 5 of 18
+5
+MR. WEINGARTEN: I understand. It is our expectation
+that they are ancient, that they are pre his spending time in
+prison, and/or they are erotic pictures of adults who
+voluntarily engaged in that conduct.
+THE COURT: I have a question about the Southern
+District of Florida nonprosecution agreement dated probably in
+2008 -- is that correct?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: It's dated in 2007, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Is that a public document?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: It is, your Honor. It's been
+publicly filed in connection with other civil litigation.
+THE COURT: Does that agreement bear on in any way the
+search and results of the search that were conducted at Mr.
+Epstein's townhouse over the weekend?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Not in ways that I am aware of now,
+your Honor. Again, we are very much in progress on the search.
+We will continue to consider any other implications beyond this
+case as we continue to review those materials.
+On a separate note, your Honor, I want to add the
+government noted it is aware of its victim obligations. In
+terms of notification, we have made notification to individuals
+that we are in particular aware of. We also have listed a
+phone number for victims to be in touch with the FBI, with the
+U.S. Attorney's office. We have also put a website up and have
+asked victims to be in touch with us through those sources as
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 6 of 18
+6
+well. That is just to round out the notification that the U.S.
+Attorney's office has made.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: May I be heard briefly on that?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: For us, your Honor, the NPA is the
+center of the universe
+for everything, search included, because
+the NPA was the result of an extensive 3-year investigation by
+law enforcement in Florida.
+In essence, the Feds made Mr.
+Epstein plead to a state offense and they declined prosecution
+federally, and that is translated in the NPA. Mr. Epstein did
+his time, Mr. Epstein is on the registration list, and Mr.
+Epstein paid the alleged victims.
+As I am sure you have noted from the indictment, that
+conduct too is an ancient history. That conduct is 2002 to
+2005. It is our belief that this is basically a re-do. This
+is basically the Feds today, not happy with what happened in
+the decision that led to the NPA, redoing the same conduct that
+was investigated 10 years ago and calling it, instead of
+prostitution, calling it sex trafficking. We think that is the
+heart of everything, and that will be the centerpiece of our
+defense, at least legally.
+THE COURT: My understanding of what the government is
+asserting is that the episodes that occurred in Manhattan were
+not included in the nonprosecution agreement in Florida and
+that there is a separate basis not only for a sex trafficking
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 7 of 18
+count but also for a sex trafficking conspiracy count.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: We have had good conversations with
+the prosecutors, and we like and respect them. We are looking
+forward to getting discovery. We are interested to see whether
+the prosecutors in Florida, who are now under severe criticism
+10 years later, steered the alleged victims to New York,
+whether or not they violated their responsibilities under the
+NPA.
+THE COURT: Whether the federal prosecutors in Florida
+violated their terms and conditions?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: That will certainly be germane.
+THE COURT: Is that the point?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes.
+THE COURT: Got it.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, if I could very briefly
+respond to those points?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: I expect this will be briefed and
+argued on Thursday. I don't intend to go into extensive
+details about that. I just want to flag for the Court that
+defense counsel is saying that this conduct is ancient. What
+he is not saying is it is beyond the statute of limitations,
+because it is not.
+Second, the allegation that this is some kind of a
+conspiracy within the Department of Justice is just false.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 8 of 18
+8
+There is no evidence to support that. The investigation was
+begun and conducted entirely separate from any other district.
+It began in the Southern District of New York.
+Certainly there is evidence that was gathered that is
+consistent with and even overlapping with the prior
+investigation. But as the Court noted, in particular an entire
+count of this
+indictment is with respect to New York victims.
+And that is before we even get to the fact that the
+nonprosecution agreement does not bind the Southern District of
+New York.
+THE COURT: I was going to ask you about that too.
+Now that you have mentioned the topic, explain that, would you.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor. I do expect that we
+can brief this, but the short version is that this prosecution
+is not precluded by the nonprosecution agreement entered into
+by the defendant in the Southern District of Florida. That
+agreement expressly referred to that federal district. It
+didn't purport to bind any other office or district.
+It is well-settled in the Second Circuit that a plea
+agreement in one U.S. Attorney's office does not bind another
+unless otherwise stated. That is even if, based on case law,
+the agreement refers generally to "the government." Again,
+additionally, as set forth in the indictment returned by the
+grand jury, the substantive count alleges acts occurring in New
+York and alleges New York-based victims.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caset:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 9 of 18
+9
+That is in spite of the fact that the Southern
+District is not bound, is not a signatory to, and otherwise has
+no connection to the NPA. And there is no evidence that we
+have come across that the Southern District of New York was
+consulted, asked, involved, notified as far as we have seen.
+For those
+reasons and others I'm sure we will brief,
+we don't think the NPA applies to us.
+MR. WEINBERG: If I may reply briefly, your Honor?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. WEINBERG: I have been one of Mr. Epstein's
+counsel through the CVRA litigation which started in 2008 and
+continues. In fact, our briefing is today. The NPA provided
+him with immunity for any offenses arising from a joint
+FBI/grand jury/U.S. Attorney investigation that led to a
+decision by Mr. Epstein to plead to a higher state offense than
+the state prosecutors contemplated. He went to jail, signed an
+agreement, and has lived up to its terms 100 percent.
+We have seen in the paperwork of the CVRA, in the
+Southern District of Florida, in writing at docket 205-2 the
+government's motion to dismiss CVRA, urging that the witnesses
+there go to the Southern District of New York and essentially
+try to motivate them to prosecute for the very same conduct, in
+other words, the conduct that Mr. Epstein was immunized,
+including travel between two states, telephonic communications
+between two states. Florida immunized him for the same travel
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caseep19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 10 of 18
+10
+and telephonic communications as well as the 1591 category.
+In addition, the Department of Justice reviewed the
+NPA on several occasions in 2008 and essentially confirmed that
+the exercise of discretion shown in Florida was appropriate.
+But the most important thing is that there was communication
+between the prosecutors in Florida, perhaps through prosecutors
+in
+Georgia that took over the case because the Florida
+prosecutors were recused as a result of Judge Marrah's
+decisions in the CVRA case.
+We know the government is relying in part on evidence
+that was generated by the Southern District of Florida case
+back in 2007. They have talked about message pads, telephone
+records. They are the same message pads and telephone records
+that reflect conduct that was exclusively 15, 16, 17 years ago.
+So we do have a principal position that we will put to the
+Court at the appropriate time regarding the legality of this
+prosecution and whether or not it is appropriately barred.
+I can say as a criminal defense lawyer of 45 years,
+when there is an interstate wire, mailing, travel, and there is
+one district that is conducting an investigation, you negotiate
+with that district and count on the Department of Justice to
+what it does every day decade after decade after decade, which
+is not to go to the second jurisdiction that received the mail
+that was sent from the immunizing jurisdiction and have a
+prosecution on the very same conduct. We will be briefing
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Casede19-cr-00490-RMB
+that.
+Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 11 of 18
+11
+THE COURT: Do you anticipate that there is going to
+be any discussion here about the legality of the NPA?
+MR. WEINBERG: Not the legality of the NPA. I think
+the discussion here is going to be about its scope.
+THE COURT: From the defense, yes. You don't think
+you expect to hear anything from the government, for example?
+MR. WEINBERG: In the Southern District case, the CVRA
+case, maybe two weeks ago the Northern District of Georgia
+prosecutors, who are proxy for the Southern District of
+Florida, filed the submission before District Judge Marrah in
+the CVRA case totally supporting the constitutionality and
+legality of the NPA, their discretion to enter into it, and
+that there absolutely has never been a charge that Mr. Epstein
+ever did anything other than fully perform his end as a citizen
+who is expecting the benefits of a contract that he lived up
+to.
+THE COURT: I thought there had been some contention
+that the way that the victims vis-a-vis the Florida NPA were
+dealt with or not dealt with was one basis for attacking the
+legality of that arrangement.
+MR. WEINBERG: The petitioners are vigorously and have
+vigorously for many years challenged, many years starting quite
+frankly after Mr. Epstein performed his obligations to go to
+jail and challenged it, claiming that there was no consultation
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caseeo19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 12 of 18
+12
+prior to the government's entering the agreement.
+The Department of Justice at the time did not believe
+the CVRA extended absent a federal charge. The predicate is a
+federal crime that harms a victim. The petitioners have
+vigorously asserted a different position. Judge Marrah, in a
+summary judgment motion, agreed with the petitioners as to the
+fault of the government in not conferring. The issue of remedy
+is before Judge Marrah at the present time, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, if I may very briefly?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: The crux of the defense argument here
+I think cuts precisely the other way. They are arguing that
+the Southern District of Florida has sort of sent up a flag
+that these prosecutions could be undertaken elsewhere. That's
+true. The Southern District of Florida has argued in papers
+that they believed, the Southern District of Florida believed,
+that the nonprosecution agreement was limited to that district.
+They have said that out loud and in public and in their
+positions in filing.
+So certainly this investigation was not shoveled to
+the Southern District of New York from anywhere else, including
+the Department of Justice.
+We expect that the nonprosecution
+agreement will not be an impediment, in particular because the
+defendant certainly did not lack for sophisticated counsel in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caseep19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 13 of 18
+13
+negotiating that agreement, which again did not include the
+Southern District of New York. We don't expect that to be any
+impediment at all here.
+THE COURT: Got it.
+This is a small item. In the pretrial services report
+which was prepared today -- how many, if more than one,
+passports does Mr. Epstein have?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Mr. Epstein reported today one. Two
+others were rescinded. As we understand it, there is one
+effective passport today.
+I would like to make one other point about the
+pretrial that is extremely important.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: The way it reads is that we have
+refused to provide information about income and assets.
+THE COURT: I didn't really read it that way myself.
+I thought it was incomplete in some places and I thought it
+could be beefed up, so to speak. But I imagine that in the
+bail application those matters may be dealt with.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Exactly.
+THE COURT: For Mr. Rossmiller: In your letter you
+describe some obstruction or harassment, witness tampering,
+alleged, by Mr. Epstein. That, I take it, is going to be
+included in any response or any bail submission made by the
+government?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caseep19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 14 of 18
+14
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, I think we addressed that
+in our initial submission. To the extent defense counsel has a
+response to it, we will evaluate that response and see whether
+additional submission from the government is required or
+appropriate.
+THE COURT: I think that's it for me in terms of
+questions that I might have had.
+There is, of course, a conspiracy charge here, one of
+the two counts. It may be early in your investigation to know.
+Do you anticipate that there may be other defendants in this
+proceeding?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, we don't expect any
+imminent superseding indictments in this case. It certainly is
+possible down the road.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: May I make one point, your Honor?
+These obstruction allegations we find very nettlesome and
+bothering. My understanding is that the Feds and Mr. Epstein's
+attorneys back in the early 2000s, or 2007 and 8, when they
+were negotiating were looking desperately for an appropriate
+statute. They finally settled on a state statute that Mr.
+Epstein pled to. We all know how unusual that is. There was
+some consideration of a federal statute, including obstruction.
+So lawyers in good faith were having discussions back
+and forth whether or not they could squeeze Mr. Epstein's
+conduct into a particular statute, and they concluded they
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case-lob9-cr-00490-RMB Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 15 of 18
+15
+couldn't because the facts didn't fit. That is my
+understanding of how those obstruction discussions arose.
+THE COURT: Got it.
+In terms of bail application, it would be helpful, and
+maybe this is your anticipation, to file written submissions.
+If you could do that. What I'm getting to is Thursday
+afternoon is not a good time, in my opinion. I would prefer to
+do it, if you would go along with this, Monday morning at, say,
+9:30. That would give everybody more time to make these
+submissions and to study them. Is that agreeable?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes.
+MR. WEINBERG: Yes.
+THE COURT: Why don't we say Monday at 10:00. Have
+you arranged written submissions on any time schedule with
+Magistrate Judge Pitman?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: May we have just a moment, your
+Honor, with defense counsel?
+THE COURT: Yes, would you. And also determine if one
+party or the other is going first and that the other is
+responding or they are simultaneous.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+(Pause)
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor, the government is
+prepared to rely on its initial submission at least for its
+first argument. I expect defense counsel will respond to that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Caseep19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 16 of 18
+16
+and propose a package. Then the government would like an
+opportunity to reply to that submission.
+The parties would be happy to make those deadlines
+Thursday and Saturday respectively. However, we are also happy
+to back that up a little bit if the Court prefers not to
+receive the government's submission over the weekend. We could
+do an earlier deadline on Thursday for defense and a late
+Friday deadline for the Court from the government, depending on
+what the Court prefers.
+THE COURT: I was going to propose defense Thursday at
+noon. Is that okay to get your submission in?
+MR. WEINBERG: We can do that, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thanks.
+And if you could respond Friday by 5:00 p.m.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: We will, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Then we can have oral presentations. I
+take it everybody wants to have oral presentations in addition
+to the written. I'll set aside as much time as we need on the
+15th at 10:00.
+I ask the government if there is a speedy trial issue
+or application that takes us to Monday at 10:00 a.m.
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Yes, your Honor. The government asks
+that speedy trial time be excluded until Monday. We do expect
+to begin the process of working on producing discovery, to
+include discussions with defense counsel about a protective
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Casedpl9-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 17 of 18
+17
+order. I think, frankly, the outcome of that will be effected
+by the coming week.
+But we do expect to have those
+conversations and therefore request that speedy trial time be
+excluded until Monday.
+THE COURT: I am going to find under 18 United States
+Code 3161 that the request for adjournment, joined in by both
+sides, to and
+including Monday the 15th at 10:00 a.m., is
+appropriate and warrants exclusion of the adjourned time from
+speedy trial calculations.
+I further find that the exclusion is designed to
+prevent any possible miscarriage of justice to facilitate these
+proceedings and, initially at least, so that counsel has time
+to prepare written bail submission and to guarantee effective
+representation of and preparation by counsel for both sides.
+Thus, the need for exclusion and the ends of justice outweigh
+the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial
+pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h) (7) (A) and (B).
+Does anybody want to add anything to today's session?
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Your Honor. May we have one more
+moment with defense counsel?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+(Pause)
+MR. ROSSMILLER: Nothing from the government. Your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Defense?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Casedp19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 18 of 18
+MR. WEINBERG: Nothing from the defense, your Honor.
+THE COURT:
+Nice to see you all. See you on Monday.
+18
+Thank you.
+(Adjourned)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb6c2cbc70f344c038f263cc9e87070f2e80be367a114c69e0179859dd2ca5a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb6c2cbc70f344c038f263cc9e87070f2e80be367a114c69e0179859dd2ca5a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f0dcaf7613a8a15ee8d831633f37f5a5d6c028e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb6c2cbc70f344c038f263cc9e87070f2e80be367a114c69e0179859dd2ca5a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1084,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "edb6c2cbc70f344c038f263cc9e87070f2e80be367a114c69e0179859dd2ca5a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 19,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6701427658ef8a67f33bb17d12f06ee5452fb1aef45bba825e28c2c4fa4074b3",
+  "output_sha256": "a4250ba771dc7d60216cdfab62d2d4c61ee22315a4a5fc9d12ca56c7fe34cac3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb7fedca13e4893c5e2a59199b63c32a7b47ac61cf3dc6c31cfbc1d19bf30d2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb7fedca13e4893c5e2a59199b63c32a7b47ac61cf3dc6c31cfbc1d19bf30d2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bc1ddb775a9178fef2803a4c971387894c7d116
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb7fedca13e4893c5e2a59199b63c32a7b47ac61cf3dc6c31cfbc1d19bf30d2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 920
+Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VIRGINIA L. GUIFFRE,
+Plaintiff,
+-against-
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Case No.: 15-cv-7433 (RWS)
+NOTICE OF APPEAL
+Defendant.
+-X
+Notice is hereby given that Intervenor Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media
+(Cernovich Media") appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from
+the Order dated May 2, 2017 and filed on May 3, 2017 (ECF No. 892), which construed
+Cernovich Media's Motion to Unseal (ECF No. 550) as a motion to modify the protective order
+and, so construed, denied the motion, and from each and every part thereof denying the said
+motion. Cernovich Media further appeals the implicit order pursuant to which the Opinion (ECF
+No. 872) setting forth the denial of summary judgment was filed in redacted form on April 27,
+2017, implicitly denying Cernovich Media's Opposition to Notice of Plaintiff's Proposed
+Redactions to this Court's Order Denying Summary Judgment (ECF No. 833).
+Dated: May 31, 2017.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Jay M. Wolman
+Jay M. Wolman (JW0600)
+RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
+100 Pearl Street, 14* Floor
+Hartford, CT 06103
+Tele: 702-420-2001
+Fax:
+305-437-7662
+Email: ecf@randazza.com
+Attorneys for Intervenor,
+Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 920 Filed 05/31/17 Page 2 of 2
+CASE NO. 15-cv-7433 (RWS)
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31ª day of May 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that a true and
+correct copy of the foregoing document is being served via transmission of Notices of Electronic
+Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Jay M. Wolman
+Jay M. Wolman
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb7fedca13e4893c5e2a59199b63c32a7b47ac61cf3dc6c31cfbc1d19bf30d2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb7fedca13e4893c5e2a59199b63c32a7b47ac61cf3dc6c31cfbc1d19bf30d2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88d0c725bdbada0d2201c123474146c69d59111c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb7fedca13e4893c5e2a59199b63c32a7b47ac61cf3dc6c31cfbc1d19bf30d2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "edb7fedca13e4893c5e2a59199b63c32a7b47ac61cf3dc6c31cfbc1d19bf30d2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ababd3add6bfc28a7748f8eb2ac65decbaa6cf568cd43b4c1737b25e615480e7",
+  "output_sha256": "c265b26c019c58ad80217d8ad455b39cb9ab478908ed0e2a303786dfec6da0ca",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb8628ed206167531788d6f70ed1fb9c9c3bf831cbebd17177d1d12e6351490.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb8628ed206167531788d6f70ed1fb9c9c3bf831cbebd17177d1d12e6351490.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7544a0f56b9a5b70826debf7c0efdea563e7bd53
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb8628ed206167531788d6f70ed1fb9c9c3bf831cbebd17177d1d12e6351490.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 29 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Case No. 19 Cr. 490 (RMB)
+NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
+Defendant.
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Michael G. Scavelli, a member in good standing of the
+Bar of this Court and a member of the law firm Steptoe & |
+LLP, hereby enters his
+appearance as counsel of record for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, in the above-captioned action.
+Dated: New York, New York
+July 17, 2019
+Respectfully submitted,
+By: /s/ Michael G. Scavelli
+Michael G. Scavelli
+LLP
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+Tel: (212) 506-3900
+Fax: (212) 506-3950
+E-mail: mscavelli@steptoe.com
+Counsel for Defendant
+Jeffrey Epstein
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb8628ed206167531788d6f70ed1fb9c9c3bf831cbebd17177d1d12e6351490.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb8628ed206167531788d6f70ed1fb9c9c3bf831cbebd17177d1d12e6351490.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..408839c08fda6c8eab4f135c5cea34362b0bc46c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edb8628ed206167531788d6f70ed1fb9c9c3bf831cbebd17177d1d12e6351490.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "edb8628ed206167531788d6f70ed1fb9c9c3bf831cbebd17177d1d12e6351490",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "39421293d0f7e8b00d55503dd3b78186ca352a09f796d2b9695c8fbf4876fb2d",
+  "output_sha256": "321fe89704437800254bc1addfeb1252af3c9afdc58520a43652e0c3a5b43419",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edecf9400dcc87225387a598298c4e87888d063c7e56dea3f72d88cb4437e17d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edecf9400dcc87225387a598298c4e87888d063c7e56dea3f72d88cb4437e17d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01eeed2b7de2770d4b551979195e8e1b35b3b63e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edecf9400dcc87225387a598298c4e87888d063c7e56dea3f72d88cb4437e17d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE COURT'S ORDER AND DIRECT
+DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
+I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's September 29, 2015
+Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce
+the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 3
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4
+
+
+Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 4
+7.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7
+10.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 8
+11.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 9|
+12.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 10|
+13.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 11
+14.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 12
+15.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 13
+16.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 14
+17.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 15 |
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 369 l
+Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 4
+18.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 16 |
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+Dated: August 12, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fir. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+•JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation
+3
+
+
+Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 12" day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+4
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edecf9400dcc87225387a598298c4e87888d063c7e56dea3f72d88cb4437e17d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edecf9400dcc87225387a598298c4e87888d063c7e56dea3f72d88cb4437e17d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3046ea56f7f37f70aeb3fed850cd7d9e86d5ea8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edecf9400dcc87225387a598298c4e87888d063c7e56dea3f72d88cb4437e17d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -157,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "edecf9400dcc87225387a598298c4e87888d063c7e56dea3f72d88cb4437e17d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "63907f6565493dadc6492220bfd2c51b8ae5a793028504c16358619bfc8c7b59",
+  "output_sha256": "59475e4ab779f1a08be2373555fd447e42bc0c0d3db059fb3f3e25920cfe327d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edf5fa19481421d460e6c9c1e6677ff6270ff2b77808c01cb173a7cf6a5fd5d0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edf5fa19481421d460e6c9c1e6677ff6270ff2b77808c01cb173a7cf6a5fd5d0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f7102b34ff8d20408b418fc0cdea4ea613837a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edf5fa19481421d460e6c9c1e6677ff6270ff2b77808c01cb173a7cf6a5fd5d0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 192-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edf5fa19481421d460e6c9c1e6677ff6270ff2b77808c01cb173a7cf6a5fd5d0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edf5fa19481421d460e6c9c1e6677ff6270ff2b77808c01cb173a7cf6a5fd5d0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb49d25dcc99ecbd20087e27fb67787080a1f02f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edf5fa19481421d460e6c9c1e6677ff6270ff2b77808c01cb173a7cf6a5fd5d0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -19,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "edf5fa19481421d460e6c9c1e6677ff6270ff2b77808c01cb173a7cf6a5fd5d0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "63f2602c8f747f215c1a0ea2a9957c9381e97ec9d82de78afe436d286570faf9",
+  "output_sha256": "74294007aa6298ee0a8cb9a037b1292111ab3aefc5e32768f80e0deb6826aca2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edfff7020b92abc3d7633705c381d533755398a63eb4f202a403228c78c7eca8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edfff7020b92abc3d7633705c381d533755398a63eb4f202a403228c78c7eca8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..170ca0a784dcdb0ab9156c49c3d55bd5c026b9e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edfff7020b92abc3d7633705c381d533755398a63eb4f202a403228c78c7eca8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,292 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653
+Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 11
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+------X
+Defendant's Response to "Motion to Compel" Work Product
+and Attorney-Client Communications with Philip Barden
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON, [
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+L P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 2 of 11
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, submits this Response to plaintiff's
+"Motion to Compel All Work Product and Attorney Client [sic] Communications with Philip
+Barden" (Doc.637).
+PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
+On February 24, 2016, we served on plaintiff's counsel Ms. Maxwell's Initial Fed. R.
+Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) Disclosures. The third-listed individual we identified who "likely [has]
+discoverable information" was Philip Barden, who, we disclosed, had information "concerning
+press statements ... at issue in this matter":
+3. Philip Barden
+Devonshires Solicitors LLP
+30 Finsbury Circus
+London, United Kingdom
+EC2M 7DT
+DX: 33856 Finsbury Square
+(020) 7628-7576
+Philip.Barden@devonshires.co.uk
+Mr. Barden has knowledge concerning press statements by Plaintiff and
+Defendant in 2011-2015 at issue in this matter.
+Menninger Decl., Ex.A. Plaintiff never sought to depose Mr. Barden.
+On June 23, 2016, this Court ordered that the parties complete all fact discovery by
+July 29, 2016. See Doc.317 at 2.
+Plaintiff propounded discovery requests as follows:
+10/27/2015 Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production
+4/14/2016 Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production
+5/27/2016 Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories
+5/27/2016 Plaintiff's Request for Admissions
+The First Set propounded thirty-nine (39) requests for production. The Second Set
+propounded an additional forty-three (43) requests for production. None requested Mr. Barden's
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 3 of 11
+attorney work product. Nor did plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for admissions
+propounded on May 27, 2016.
+On January 6, 2017, Mr. Barden submitted a declaration in support of Ms. Maxwell's
+motion for summary judgment. In the declaration, he stated,
+See generally id., Ex.K. He did disclose his intent and strategy underlying his
+preparation of the statement he caused to be transmitted January 2, 2015, via
+• to various journalists. See id., Ex. K 91l 12-24, 26-30.
+PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL ERRORS
+Plaintiff makes numerous factual errors in her motion's factual "Background."
+1. Plaintiff says Mr. Barden's submission is "a post hoc, self-serving declaration."
+Mot. 2. Of course every declaration submitted in this litigation by witnesses to events that took
+place in 2012-2015 by definition is post hoc. Since Mr. Barden is a third-party witness and not
+one of the parties, by definition his declaration is not "self-serving." In any event, calling a
+declaration "self-serving" is a legal canard. There is nothing improper even for litigants suing for
+money, such as plaintiff, to submit "self-serving" declarations so long as they are truthful, and
+there is nothing improper about a court's considering and giving due weight—to "self-serving"
+testimony. See Lupyan v. Corinthian Colls., 761 F.3d 314, 321 n.2 (3d Cir. 2014) ("As with any
+other kind of evidence, the declarant's interest in the outcome is merely one factor ... to weigh
+in determining the reliability of the evidence. It is not a reason to automatically reject the
+evidence. Indeed, the testimony of a litigant will almost always be self serving since few litigants
+will knowingly volunteer statements that are prejudicial to their case. However that has never
+meant that a litigant's evidence must be categorically rejected by the fact finder.").
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 4 of 11
+2. Plaintiff says Mr. Barden's declaration "and the briefing" to which it was attached
+reference his "'intent' (and other synonymous phrases) ... at least 62 times." Mot. 3 (emphasis
+omitted). She suggests it is improper for a declaration and the briefs to which it is attached to
+reference or discuss intent. The suggestion is misguided. If intent is a relevant question of fact, of
+course there is nothing wrong with discussing it.
+3. Plaintiff says Mr. Barden's declaration "reveals attorney client [sic] legal advice
+given to Defendant, such as" these two sentences in the declaration:
+Doc.542-7, Ex. K 9| 13. Neither of the two sentences "reveals" attorney-client
+communications. To the contrary, the first sentence references a non-communication with
+Ms. Maxwell, i.e., what Mr. Barden did not talk to Ms. Maxwell about. The second sentence
+simply discloses attorney Barden's thought process, which by definition is not an attorney-client
+communication. We italicize plaintiff's use of "such as," connoting disingenuously, we
+submit-the introduction of an example. Besides these two frivolous examples of attorney-client
+communications, plaintiff identifies no others.
+4. Supplementing her lengthy summary-judgment brief and oral argument, plaintiff reurges her point that really it was Ms. Maxwell personally, and not Mr. Barden, who directed
+to issue the January 2015 statement. Mot. 3. We suggest plaintiff's persistent repetition
+of her arguments
+as with any repetition, they have become familiar, but not more persuasive
+suggests her recognition that we have advanced meritorious and weighty arguments for summary
+'Mot. 3 (emphasis supplied).
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 5 of 11
+judgment. On her third try, plaintiff makes no further headway. We address here each piece of
+"documentary and testimonial evidence" plaintiff alleges supports her argument.
+a. As plaintiff acknowledges, Ms. Maxwell's testimony is completely consistent
+with Mr. Barden's testimony;
+Mot. 4 (emphasis omitted).
+b. Plaintiff argues Mr. Gow produced a "smoking gun" email chain in which
+Ms. Maxwell personally directed him to distribute the January 2015 statement. Mot. 4.
+The "smoking gun" is a dud. It too is consistent with—corroboratesMr. Barden's
+testimony. The earlier email is from Ms. Maxwell to Mr. Gow with Mr. Barden copied on
+the email. See Doc.638-4. There is no instruction in the email. It merely contains the
+January 2015 statement. In the subject line is this text: "FW: URGENT - this is the
+statement." The "FW" is important—it is the abbreviation for "Forward," indicating an
+email has been forwarded by the sender, in this case Ms. Maxwell. The email does not
+disclose who originally sent the email to Ms. Maxwell that she then forwarded to
+The later, reply email—from [
+] to Ms. Maxwell, copying Mr. Barden, is
+notable. Its text reads:
+(Emphasis supplied.) This
+suggests Mr. Barden was
+that, notwithstanding the absence of any direction in the earlier email from Ms. Maxwell,
+which itself suggests prior direction from someone.
+"Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Barden is "nowhere to be found on any of these communications" between
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 6 of 11
+c. Plaintiff next asserts
+supports her argument Mr. Barden
+did not direct
+Mr. Barden originally and because I
+Plaintiff's reliance on this testimony is misplaced.
+how he came to receive the email were admissible, it hardly makes plaintiff's point. One,
+there is no direction-no instruction-given in the email. The words in the subject line
+is hardly a "command," as plaintiff argues, let alone direction to
+take action. Two, since the email contains no direction, it begs the question, how did
+upon receiving the email? The
+answer is found in Mr. Barden's declaration.
+received the email he
+already knew he was to issue the statement. In Mr. Barden's words: "In liaison with
+Doc.542-7, Ex.K | 10
+(emphasis supplied). The answer also is found in Ms. Maxwell's April 22, 2016,
+testimony:
+Mot. 4 (boldface omitted).
+5. Plaintiff also argues Ms. Maxwell "attempts to blame the defamatory press release
+entirely on [Mr. Barden]. " Mot. 4. There is no "blaming." The facts are not in dispute.
+See
+Doc.542-7, Ex.K 19 9-10. Ms. Maxwell has not disclaimed legal responsibility for the January
+3 Mot. 5.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 7 of 11
+2015 statement prepared on her behalf by D
+ARGUMENT
+Plaintiff' is entitled to no discovery of Mr. Barden's work product or Ms. Maxwell's
+attorney-client communications.
+A.
+Plaintiff has violated every rule governing motions to compel, including the
+one requiring the existence of an unsatisfied request for production.
+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) provides that any motion to compel must be
+accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred with the "party failing
+to make ... discovery" (emphasis supplied).
+Rule 37(a)(3) provides that "[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order
+compelling ... production ... if ... a party fails to produce documents ... as requested under
+Rule 34" (emphasis supplied).
+Local Civil Rule 37.1 provides that in any motion brought under Rule 37, including a
+motion to compel, "the moving party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion
+papers each discovery request and response to which the motion... is addressed" (emphasis
+supplied).
+Plaintiff failed to comply with any of these rules.
+On the last page of the motion plaintiff counsel certifies she "raised" "the failure to
+produce issue [sic]" when she "oppos[ed]" Ms. Maxwell's summary judgment and when she
+presented "oral argument" on summary judgment. Mot. 12 (emphasis supplied). That is not a
+Rule 37(a)(1) certification. Plaintiff's counsel fails to certify she (a) "in good faith"
+(b) "conferred" with the defense. Instead, she certifies she (a) "raised" (b) an "issue." The failure
+to comply with Rule 37(a)(1) warrants denial of the motion. Dorchester Fin. Holdings Corp. v.
+Banco BRJ, S.A., 11-CV-1529 KMW KNF, 2014 WL 3747160, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2014).
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 8 of 11
+Rule 37(a)(3) requires that a motion to compel the production of a document be grounded
+on the existence of an unsatisfied request for production. So too does Local Civil Rule 37.1.
+Plaintiff has identified no unsatisfied request for production. That violates both rules. Her motion
+must be denied on this basis alone, as a legion of cases confirms. See, e.g., Hassan v. Town of
+Brookhaven, No. 13-CV-4544 JMA SIL, 2015 WL 3455108, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2015)
+(rejecting motion to compel: "Even more troubling, it appears that Hassan did not prepare or
+serve any requests for discovery in this action, and simply made a motion to compel as his first
+and only method of obtaining discovery.");
+v. Chappius, No. 13-CV-00105A F, 2015 WL
+5316356, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2015) (denying motion to compel production of documents:
+"Plaintiff has failed to serve formal discovery demands requesting such materials.").
+The meritlessness of a motion to compel combined with failure to confer warrants denial
+and a sanction. Window Headquarters, Inc. v. Mat Basic Four, Inc., No. 91 CIV. 1816 (MBM),
+1996 WL 63046, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 1996) ("Because the motion was without basis and was
+filed by
+without consulting his adversary,
+will pay to counsel for Ventech a
+sanction in the amount of $200, that being the minimum reasonable cost of responding to this
+meritless motion.").
+B.
+Even if plaintiff had a pending discovery request and had complied with the
+rules, she would be barred from access to Ms. Maxwell's attorney-client
+communications.
+The attorney-client privilege "belongs solely to the client and may only be waived by
+him. An attorney may not waive the privilege without his client's consent." In re von Bulow, 828
+F.2d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1987); accord, e.g., In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex
+Transactions Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 406, 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
+Plaintiff cites a bevy of cases from New York to Minnesota to Texas for the proposition
+that the attorney-client can be waived. That is not in question. What is in question is whether
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 9 of 11
+Ms. Maxwell's attorney-client privilege has been waived. Plaintiff makes a one-sentence
+argument: The privilege "was waived by her affirmative submission of Mr. Barden's declaration
+which included references to attorney-client communications between [Ms. Maxwell] and
+Mr. Barden." Mot. 8 (emphasis supplied). We italicize the plural references" to accentuate the
+disingenuousness of the argument, which identifies no "reference," let alone "references," to
+attorney-client communications in Mr. Barden's declaration. See id.
+Five pages earlier, in the "Background" section of the motion, plaintiff does identify two
+sentences in Mr. Barden's declaration that she says effected a waiver of the attorney-client
+privilege:
+Doc.542-7, Ex.K 9| 13.
+As we suggested above, see This Resp. 3, the contention that these two sentences effected
+an attorney-client privilege waiver is nonsense. It is well established that "absent a client's
+consent or waiver, the publication of confidential communications by an attorney does not
+constitute a relinquishment of the privilege by the client." von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 100.
+Mr. Barden stated explicitly in his declaration,
+• Doc.542-7, Ex.K 9 3. Regardless, a lawyer cannot
+waive his client's attorney-client privilege by stating what he did not say to his client; it is
+frivolous to suggest otherwise.
+CONCLUSION
+The Court should deny the motion to compel, and award sanctions.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 10 of 11
+Dated: March 2, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 653 Filed 03/02/17 Page 11 of 11
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 2, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Response to "Motion to
+Compel" Work Product and Attorney-Client Communications with Philip Barden via ECF on the
+following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+TARTE
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/edfff7020b92abc3d7633705c381d533755398a63eb4f202a403228c78c7eca8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edfff7020b92abc3d7633705c381d533755398a63eb4f202a403228c78c7eca8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..970604a0c05170783197807f0280cd4b5a265b5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/edfff7020b92abc3d7633705c381d533755398a63eb4f202a403228c78c7eca8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -134,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "edfff7020b92abc3d7633705c381d533755398a63eb4f202a403228c78c7eca8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 12,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0138def7a6ac10752d5188d97250fdfd53dda14bf9b1d54aa96e47fb165bd320",
+  "output_sha256": "d22a4ed618da13124a7c254f5deac120dae135704546c1ff728cfcd9301fd0a7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee23f6be8f2d848afb645519d71890302986973a1ff320248385042da319e557.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee23f6be8f2d848afb645519d71890302986973a1ff320248385042da319e557.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17fa2f623e008c8e75dbbd70d09ebbe35e5cfd89
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee23f6be8f2d848afb645519d71890302986973a1ff320248385042da319e557.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-4 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-4 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 3
+1 December 2020
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Folev Sauare
+New York, NY 10007
+PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
+Your Honor
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+I am sending this letter of support knowing it is to be presented to the Court in connection will Gilisiane
+Maxwell's renewed bail application. The content of this letter is true and within my knowledge.
+I first met Ghislaine Maxwell in
+we remained in touch and became close friends and have been in regular
+contact ever since. I staved with her in her apartment in New York for some weeks immediatelv after her
+father's death in 1991 and have visited with her on numerous occasions and see her whenever she travels
+to the UK. She has also staved with me and mv familv at our home
+I have always found Ghislaine to be open, honest and trustworthy in all her dealings and therefore had no
+hesitation when she asked me to be
+Ghislaine is transparent in evervthing she does
+including in her financial dealings
+of TerraMar which, following
+unwarranted press speculation last year, was investigated by the Charity Commission. No wrongdoing was
+found whatsoever but the Charity was subsequently dissolved as the connection with Ghislaine allied to
+relentless media pressure made it an untenable enterprise.
+Ghislaine knows my family well,
+my children
+have known her all their lives, love and adore her and she has always been a great support
+to them.
+Speaking for myself and my family I can confirm that we stand absolutely behind her in her fight to clear
+her name. I have never known Ghislaine to be involved in anything unlawful and she has always been a
+loyal, genuine and generous friend. Nor have I ever witnessed any inappropriate behaviour on her part.
+-1-
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-4 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 3
+Page 2-Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+In 2017 I lived with Ghislaine and her familv for a few weeks. helping move them into their house. Her
+Spouse.
+It is very obvious that they love her
+deeply. They are an incredibly strong and close family unit.
+Ghislaine has lived in the United States since the beginning of the 1990s and has had to deal with
+fluctuating amounts of press interest in her life. This was notwithstanding her huge and understandable
+mistrust of the media which started with the fall-out from the sudden death of her Father and has
+continued to this day. Despite the tremendous ramping of press interest in her following the death of
+Jeffrey Epstein in August 2019 Ghislaine remained living in the States. This was primarily so that she could
+be with her family but also to ensure she was available to deal with any civil or even criminal allegations
+arising from her past connection to Epstein should these arise. When the press intrusion became too
+intense, she removed herself from the family home to protect her Spouse
+Any reports to
+the effect Ghislaine took that decision to evade law enforcement are as far from the truth as they are
+offensive.
+My husband and I experienced first-hand what it felt like to be on the receiving end of such relentless press
+intrusion in our own lives in the UK. We had to leave our home for a week because the press presence was
+so aggressive and so constant: we had phone calls, emails, letters, visits - and everyone in our village was
+spoken to. Even my parents and children were harassed.
+Ghislaine's house in
+London and today still there are journalists knocking on the door and filming the house. Ghislaine was
+terrified of being found by the press, or by deranged individuals and conspiracy theorists who threatened
+to harm her. A UK newspaper (The Sun) put up a bounty for information leading to her discovery. She had
+to isolate herself to protect her family and friends as much as herself. I spent a couple of days and nights
+with her in October 2019 - we went for a walk and 1 directly experienced for myself the pressure and fear
+she was living under. Any car or person that went by the house, or any unusual sounds she heard when we
+were in the house, she thought the press or bounty hunters might have found her. She was genuinely
+terrified for her safety and this ended up making me feel terrified too.
+Ghislaine has always met problems head on and has never been afraid of the truth. I have personally
+witnessed this at many points in her life when she has had to pick herself up and rise to the challenge in
+front of her. Ghislaine has been a constant and very important part of my lifel
+doubt - particularly if she is permitted properly to prepare her defence in a non-custodial environment
+conducive to that end (the primary rationale for her renewed bail application) - that she will attend her
+trial to fight these heinous charges and to clear her name.
+Respectfullv
+-2-
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee23f6be8f2d848afb645519d71890302986973a1ff320248385042da319e557.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee23f6be8f2d848afb645519d71890302986973a1ff320248385042da319e557.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..827e401e0d6ecf3ea13391f520c369c7cf85090f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee23f6be8f2d848afb645519d71890302986973a1ff320248385042da319e557.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ee23f6be8f2d848afb645519d71890302986973a1ff320248385042da319e557",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "34e1b706a07b497d2334a5814d6e0d5fa2f187cb7754fea657f750770561cdcb",
+  "output_sha256": "1d49234592439259217508c23a194097f3ea1e29e5197d1f6eca4dba74b12d0b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee26dc273e11b30d794def8190a09ea3247059800c74ab653c40bed8bb405e62.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee26dc273e11b30d794def8190a09ea3247059800c74ab653c40bed8bb405e62.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c27f7718e75e7ae4362e7587d3738eaeb6f60b7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee26dc273e11b30d794def8190a09ea3247059800c74ab653c40bed8bb405e62.md
@@ -0,0 +1,418 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 42
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF
+MOTION TO PRESENT TESTIMONY FROM
+FOR PURPOSES OF
+OBTAINING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION
+Sigrid McCawley
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 42
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+BACKGROUND
+Page
+.. il
+.. 4
+.. 4
+6
+... 6
+A.
+B.
+Controlling Second Circuit Case Law from LiButti v. United States Permits
+Calling a Witness for Purposes of Obtaining Adverse Inferences...
+Federal Law Rather than New York Law Controls the Evidentiary Issue of
+Whether
+Can Be Called as Witnesses...
+.. 7
+.. 9
+11
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....
+...39
+...41
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 42
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page
+Cases
+Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern,
+No. 07CIV11586LAKGWG, 2016 WL 4249965 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2016)
+Andrew Carothers, M.D., P.C. v. Progressive Ins. Co.,
+42 Misc. 3d 30, 979 N.Y.S.2d 439 (App. Term 2013)
+Baxter v. Palmigiana,
+425 U.S. 308 (1976)
+Brink's Inc. v. City of New York,
+717 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1983)
+Cerro Gordo Charity v. Fireman's Fund Am. Life Ins. Co.,
+819 F.2d 1471 (8th Cir. 1987)
+Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.,
+45 F.3d 969 (5th Cir. 1995)
+Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc.,
+518 U.S. 415 (1996).
+In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issues June 18, 2009,
+593 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010)
+John Paul Mitchell Sys. v. Quality
+106 F. Supp. 2d 462 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)...
+| Distributors, Inc.,
+Legg v. Chopra,
+286 F.3d 286 (6th Cir. 2002) ..
+LiButti v. United States,
+107 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 1997).
+RAD Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur: Co.,
+808 F.2d 271 (3d Cir. 1986).
+Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. A & P Steel, Inc.,
+733 F.2d 509 (8th Cir. 1984)
+S.E.C. v. Durante,
+No. 01 CIV. 9056 DAB AJP, 2013 WL 6800226 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013)
+10
+. 12
+. 8
+. 8
+8,9
+8
+11
+12
+10
+...11
+• passim
+. 8
+.9
+10
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 42
+Salas by Salas v. Wang,
+846 F.2d 897 (3d Cir. 1988)
+U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. LCRF Enterprises, LLC,
+No. 10-CV-3418 GBD, 2012 WL 993502 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012).
+Fifth Amendment invoked by a
+United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod,
+263 U.S. 149 (1923)..
+Rules
+Fed. R. Evid. 1101(b)..
+Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403
+Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)
+Other Authorities
+The Conjurer's Circle - The Fifth Amendment in Civil Cases,
+91 Yale LJ. 1062 (1982)
+11
+,11
+10
+40
+11
+..11
+... 9
+..8
+iii
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 42
+Plaintiff
+respectfully submits this Motion to Present Testimony from |
+for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+BACKGROUND
+4
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 42
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 42
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 42
+A. Controlling Second Circuit Case Law from LiButti v. United States Permits
+Calling a Witness for Purposes of Obtaining Adverse Inferences.
+has recently briefed the controlling law for obtaining an adverse inference,
+but it bears repeating in light of this crucial motion. The Second Circuit (among many other
+courts) has made clear that a litigant can present to the jury the fact that a witness has invoked
+her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answering questions. In
+LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997), the Second Circuit began by
+observing that that "while the Fifth Amendment precludes drawing adverse inferences against
+defendants in criminal cases, it "does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil
+actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them."" 107
+F.3d at 121 (quoting Baxter v. Palmigiana, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)). The Second Circuit then
+explained that although "Baxter focused on the invocation of the privilege by parties, '[a] nonparty's silence in a civil proceeding implicates Fifth Amendment concerns to an even lesser
+degree."" LiButti, 107 F.3d at 121 (citing RAD Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 808
+F.2d 271, 275 (3d Cir.1986)). In light of the lesser concern, the Second Circuit held in Brink's
+Inc. v. City of New York, 717 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1983), that a plaintiff's ex-employees' claims of
+privilege were admissible evidence in that case. The Second Circuit adopted the rational that the
+ex-employees' refusal to testify could be appropriately conceptualized "as vicarious admissions
+of their former employer." LiButti, 107 F.3d at 121 (citing Robert Heidt, The Conjurer's Circle
+- The Fifth Amendment in Civil Cases, 91 YALE LJ. 1062, 1119-20 n.214 (1982)).
+LiButti also surveyed other Court of Appeals decisions on the subject, in which
+invocations of the Fifth Amendment were properly allowed into evidence. See LiButti, 107 F.3d
+at 121-22 (discussing RAD Servs., Inc., 808 F.2d 271 (3d Cir.1986); Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
+v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 45 F.3d 969 (5th Cir. 1995); Cerro Gordo Charity v. Fireman's Fund
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 42
+Am. Life Ins. Co., 819 F.2d 1471 (8th Cir. 1987); Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. A & P Steel, Inc., 733
+F.2d 509 (8th Cir.1984)). For example, in the Rosebud Sioux Tribe case, the Eighth Circuit
+affirmed a district court decision allowing a witness (Mr. Richards) to be called to the stand
+solely to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. The Circuit explained that Richards was a key
+figure in this case. His actions form the very basis of the affirmative defense of fraud. If anyone
+knew whether there was an intent to commit a fraud, it was Richards. Hearing Richards invoke
+the privilege informed the jury why the parties with the burden of proof... resorted to less
+direct and more circumstantial evidence than Richards" own account of what had occurred.
+Otherwise, the jury might have inferred that the companies did not call Richards to testify
+because his testimony would have damaged their case." Cerro Gordo Charity, 819 F.2d at
+1482 (citing Heidt, supra, at 1123-24).
+LiButti also articulated several non-exclusive factors to be considered, in light of the
+circumstances of the case, which should guide a district court in making a determination about
+whether to allow the jury to hear a Fifth Amendment invocation. The factors are worth quoting:
+1. The Nature of the Relevant Relationships: While no particular relationship
+governs, the nature of the relationship will invariably be the most significant
+circumstance. It should be examined, however, from the perspective of a nonparty witness' loyalty to the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be. The closer
+the bond, whether by reason of blood, friendship or business, the less likely the
+non-party witness would be to render testimony in order to damage the
+relationship.
+2. The Degree of Control of the Party Over the Non-Party Witness: The degree of
+ntrol which the party has vested in the non-party witness in regard to the ke
+icts and general subject matter of the litigation will likely inform the trial cou
+whether the assertion of the privilege should be viewed as akin to testimony
+approaching admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2), and may accordingly be
+viewed, as in Brink's, as a vicarious admission.
+3. The Compatibility of the Interests of the Party and Non-Party Witness in the
+Outcome of the Litigation: The trial court should evaluate whether the non-party
+witness is pragmatically a noncaptioned party in interest and whether the assertion
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 10 of 42
+of the privilege advances the interests of both the non-party witness and the
+affected party in the outcome of the litigation.
+4. The Role of the Non-Party Witness in the Litigation: Whether the non-party
+witness was a key figure in the litigation and played a controlling role in respect
+to any of its underlying aspects also logically merits consideration by the trial
+court.
+LiButti, 107 F.3d at 123-24. The Second Circuit emphasized, however, that whether these or
+other circumstances unique to a particular case are considered by the trial court, "the
+overarching concern is fundamentally whether the adverse inference is trustworthy under all of
+the circumstances and will advance the search for the truth." Id. at 124 (emphasis added).
+A number of subsequent decisions from the Southern District of New York have
+allowed evidence of a third party's invocations to be used against a party in litigation. See, e.g.,
+Amusement Indus., Inc. v.
+Stern, No. 07CIV11586LAKGWG, 2016 WL 4249965, at *8
+(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2016) (drawing negative inference against defendant based on key witness
+invocation of privilege); S.E.C. v. Durante, No. 01 CIV. 9056 DAB AJP, 2013 WL 6800226, at
+*11 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013) (drawing negative inference when Fifth Amendment invoked by
+a "prominent figure in the case," report and recommendation adopted, No. 01 CIV. 9056 DAB,
+2014 WL 5041843 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2014), aff'd, 641 F. App'x 73 (2d Cir. 2016); John Paul
+Mitchell Sys. v. Quality
+Distributors, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 462, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
+(drawing inference from invocation and noting alignment of interests).
+B.
+Federal Law Rather than New York Law Controls the Evidentiary Issue of
+Whether
+Can Be Called as Witnesses.
+9
+
+
+
+"[F]ederal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural
+law." U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. LCRF Enterprises, LLC, No. 10-CV-3418 GBD, 2012 WL
+993502, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012) (quoting Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518
+U.S. 415, 427 (1996)). For these purposes, "[r]ules of evidence are deemed rules of procedure,
+and therefore, the Federal Rules of Evidence, rather than state evidentiary laws, are held to
+apply in federal diversity proceedings." Legg v. Chopra, 286 F.3d 286, 289-90 (6th Cir. 2002)
+(citing 19 CHARLES ALAN
+ARTHUR R.
+& EDwARD H.
+§ 4512 (2d
+ed. 1996); Salas by Salas v. Wang, 846 F.2d 897, 905-06 (3d Cir. 1988)). Indeed, the Federal
+Rules of Evidence themselves provide that they "apply generally to civil actions and
+proceedings." Fed. R. Evid. 1101(b). The Second Circuit's LiButti decision rests ultimately on
+the admissibility of relevant evidence recognized in Rule 402 as well as the concern about
+possible unfair prejudice reflected in Rule 403. See LiButti, 107 F.3d at 121. Defendant even
+appears to (unwittingly) concede this point. See Mot. at 6 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403).
+10
+
+
+
+11
+
+
+
+12
+
+
+
+13
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17l
+
+14
+
+
+
+15
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 17 of 42
+16
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 18 of 42
+17
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 19 of 42
+18
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 20 of 42
+19
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 21 of 42
+20
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 22 of 42
+21
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 23 of 42
+22
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 24 of 42
+23
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 25 of 42
+24
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 26 of 42
+25
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 27 of 42
+26
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 28 of 42
+27
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 29 of 42
+28
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 30 of 42
+29
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 31 of 42
+30
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 32 of 42
+31
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 33 of 42
+32
+
+
+
+33
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 35 of 42
+34
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 36 of 42
+35
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 37 of 42
+36
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 38 of 42
+37
+
+
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 39 of 42
+38
+
+
+
+Dated: March 3, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+39
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17
+
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202'
+'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+40
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 689 Filed 03/03/17 Page 42 of 42
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3rd day of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+41
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee26dc273e11b30d794def8190a09ea3247059800c74ab653c40bed8bb405e62.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee26dc273e11b30d794def8190a09ea3247059800c74ab653c40bed8bb405e62.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dab33bfe35b974c28f2dbe3e98d787ebdf1b42f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee26dc273e11b30d794def8190a09ea3247059800c74ab653c40bed8bb405e62.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1847,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ee26dc273e11b30d794def8190a09ea3247059800c74ab653c40bed8bb405e62",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 54,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "55133d8d052c5b5fba36fa175d89eaf6a33ef0199fedf37ab7bcb25f599bd6bc",
+  "output_sha256": "1d8d0773f97c980f6fe4fae007b3dd9e4f0adaabed3f0a9d719a36c463af19f8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee33a7b231605c0af9b6cd9223dfc7a2e07bb27e5c19464db36898aa452c69fc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee33a7b231605c0af9b6cd9223dfc7a2e07bb27e5c19464db36898aa452c69fc.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9737eae26ad37d684d27ed205c829f5741da5e46
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee33a7b231605c0af9b6cd9223dfc7a2e07bb27e5c19464db36898aa452c69fc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 57 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VE
+USA / Plaintiff(s)
+V.
+Case No.: 19-cv-07625
+NINE EAST 71ST STREET, et al.,
+Defendant(s)
+)
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
+Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a_ scheduling conference
+has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned
+held on 2/11/2020
+matter.
+Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the
+person requesting the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.
+The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file
+with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A
+copy of said NOTICE must also be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the
+transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after
+ninety (90) calendar days.
+request redaction of other information may proceed by motion.
+Carole Ludwig
+Court Reporter
+Date:
+2/13/2020
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee33a7b231605c0af9b6cd9223dfc7a2e07bb27e5c19464db36898aa452c69fc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee33a7b231605c0af9b6cd9223dfc7a2e07bb27e5c19464db36898aa452c69fc.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4364b6eadcc38a61a322eed1710521c63cd7751
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee33a7b231605c0af9b6cd9223dfc7a2e07bb27e5c19464db36898aa452c69fc.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ee33a7b231605c0af9b6cd9223dfc7a2e07bb27e5c19464db36898aa452c69fc",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9ff60eb0394bb39925887ba7dcf9185fd80448dcb2510718a99a1ce4a1f41166",
+  "output_sha256": "698943b77c86c6f30dcc8cce7cb2623df80b27f6efd068be6fea8ffac829980d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4001c91a128bcde2aac5b3d69bc755a94eb2e879dfa0657958d844cafc951f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4001c91a128bcde2aac5b3d69bc755a94eb2e879dfa0657958d844cafc951f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8efad592e8a2fd2b67e05caab2c347f25021f7c7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4001c91a128bcde2aac5b3d69bc755a94eb2e879dfa0657958d844cafc951f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 794
+Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern Distriet of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No: 15-cv-07433-R WS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO BRING PERSONAL ELECTRONIC
+DEVICES AND GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING DEVICES INTO THE
+COURTHOUSE FROM MARCH 30, 2017 - JUNE 16, 2017
+Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court for an Order
+granting leave to bring Personal Electronic Devices and General Purpose Computing Device into
+the Courthouse for hearings and trial currently scheduled in the above-styled case from March
+30, 2017 - June 16, 2017. Plaintiff has included a list of attorney names and related devices. See
+Exhibit A, Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Bring Personal Electronic
+Device and General Purpose Computing Devices to the Courthouse from March 30, 2017 - June
+16, 2017.
+Plaintiff and listed attorneys will comply with all of the obligations and restrictions
+imposed pursuant to Standing Order M10-468, as Revised.
+Dated: March 27, 2017
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 794 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 3
+Dated: March 27, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+L. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 794 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27st day of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4001c91a128bcde2aac5b3d69bc755a94eb2e879dfa0657958d844cafc951f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4001c91a128bcde2aac5b3d69bc755a94eb2e879dfa0657958d844cafc951f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a4b46af4a44e276504403d2bbc8616034ca2b0d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4001c91a128bcde2aac5b3d69bc755a94eb2e879dfa0657958d844cafc951f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ee4001c91a128bcde2aac5b3d69bc755a94eb2e879dfa0657958d844cafc951f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d7df69ae695bfa34bc89c188e4f5f11184dc8e9d4a0c063e7c0b19bf595582e9",
+  "output_sha256": "f6cc946ee8ff0a03ef7e9a981f71989e03a466d1ddc79bd6bc9ff3d8895bd0cd",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4c89769029ace68c2a46ead5ce950957e013de2cba4dcefa704acc891bdca4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4c89769029ace68c2a46ead5ce950957e013de2cba4dcefa704acc891bdca4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8923eb7c0f6ddb687745b2bc3381eb873cfc8df2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4c89769029ace68c2a46ead5ce950957e013de2cba4dcefa704acc891bdca4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4868 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 1 of 86
+1
+- X
+19 CR 490 (RMB)
+Defendant.
+-x
+New York, N.Y.
+August 21, 2019
+10:30 a.m.
+Before:
+HON. RICHARD M. BERMAN,
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+BY: MAURENE R. COMEY
+ALISON MOE
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+G. WEINBERG, PC
+Attorney for Defendant
+BY:
+G. WEINBERG
+STEPTOE &
+•. LLP
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: REID WEINGARTEN
+MICHAEL I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 2 of 86
+2
+(Case called)
+THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. Please be
+seated.
+So just some housekeeping. We have a podium here for
+both attorneys and others who may be speaking, and so we would
+like you, attorneys and others who are speaking, to come up to
+the podium. This room is a little cavernous.
+We thought the
+podium over there would be more comfortable.
+For starters, and for this you don't have to go up to
+the podium, if you could just indicate your names. This table
+in front to my left, your right, are defense counsel, and that
+table to my right, your left, are government attorneys.
+If we could just ask the attorneys to introduce
+themselves.
+MS. COMEY: Good morning, your Honor. Maureen Comey
+and Alison Moe for the government. Joining us at counsel table
+are Special Agent Amanda Young of the FBI and Detective Paul
+Byrne of the NYPD.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Good morning, your Honor.
+Reid Weingarten.
+MR. WEINBERG:
+Weinberg.
+Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Good morning.
+MR.
+: Good morning, your Honor.
+Michael
+from Steptoe &
+on behalf of the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB |
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 3 of 86
+J8RsEPS1
+3
+defendant.
+THE COURT: Great.
+Again, good morning to all of you. This hearing that
+we're having today considers the government's motion to dismiss
+the indictment in this case.
+I must add that it also serves as the opportunity for
+me to thank all of you, the attorneys and the victims who are
+here today, among others, for your very hard work and
+dedication in this case.
+We also have here today the U.S. Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who has also
+been very helpful and indispensable in this matter.
+The news on August 10, 2019, that Jeffrey Epstein had
+been found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional
+Center, at the MCC, was certainly shocking. Most of you, and
+myself for that matter, were anticipating that the next steps
+in this case would be defense motion practice, including a
+motion to dismiss, followed by a trial on the merits before a
+jury, if the motions were not successful, and through which the
+accusers and the accused would come face to face, allowing
+everyone to get their day in court. Mr. Epstein's death
+obviously means that a trial in which he is a defendant cannot
+take place. It is a rather stunning turn of events.
+The government's motion to dismiss the indictment
+because of Jeffrey Epstein's death on August 10, 2019, is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 4 of 86
+4
+relatively straightforward. In my view, a public hearing
+clearly is nevertheless
+the preferred vehicle for its
+resolution.
+Incidentally, while I'm on this subject, I got some
+help today from the New York Law Journal from two professors
+who write that a hearing is -- let me tell you exactly what
+they said. They say, in part, that this is an odd moment for
+transparency in a criminal case. I think that is an odd
+sentence to hear about, transparency in a criminal case.
+They go on to say that normally, if a prosecutor seeks
+to dismiss an indictment for such an obviously worthy reason,
+the court would simply grant the request. As to that
+statement, I respectfully say it is incorrect as a matter of
+law.
+They go on to say the judge would not schedule a
+hearing and he definitely would not allow the victims to speak.
+If he did hold a hearing, whatever informational interests the
+victims may have would be served by affording them a chance to
+attend the hearing, not by giving them a speaking role.
+I read it. It was incredulous. I'm still
+incredulous. I don't quite understand at all. There is a
+suggestion in the article that the reason they are making these
+suggestions has to do with minimization of drama in this case.
+In the Jeffrey Epstein case, there has not been much a
+minimization of drama, and what little drama might happen
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB |
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 5 of 86
+5
+today, I don't think it would be very significant.
+On a somewhat more serious note, don't quote me on
+this, but it is my understanding that one of the authors of
+that article is himself counsel in one of the Epstein-related
+cases. I was surprised to learn that very recently. I'm
+certain it is true.
+I was also surprised that that aspect was
+not disclosed in the Law Journal.
+But in any event, I think you know where I'm heading.
+I respectfully disagree with the Law Journal piece. I was
+saying that the government's motion is relatively
+straightforward, and in my view, a public hearing is clearly,
+nevertheless, the preferred vehicle for its resolution. I'm
+still convinced of that.
+A few may differ on this, but public hearings are
+exactly what judges do. Hearings promote transparency and they
+provide the court with insights and information which the court
+may not otherwise be aware of.
+The victims have been included in the proceeding today
+both because of their relevant experiences and because they
+should always be involved before rather than after the fact.
+Indictment 19 CR 490 charges Jeffrey Epstein with sex
+trafficking and with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. The
+U.S. Attorney, on August 19, 2019, requested that the court
+approve the government's proposed order of nolle prosequi.
+I
+think that's a rough justice. That means nolle prosequi,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 6 of 86
+6
+discontinuance by the prosecutor of all or of a part of the
+case that he or she has commenced.
+The government in its motion concludes that Epstein's
+death abates these proceedings. In accordance with Federal
+Rule of Criminal Procedure 57(b), I determined to hold a public
+hearing and I notified the victims that they would be given the
+opportunity to be heard before any final action on the motion.
+That is the purpose also of today's proceeding. I would do
+that every time.
+Also, recognized that Epstein, Mr. Epstein died before
+any judgment of conviction against him had been obtained, and
+that the government's proposed order appears, in form and
+substance, to be appropriate.
+Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) codifies the
+nolle prosequi process. It is entitled dismissal, and it
+states in relevant part that the government may, with leave of
+the court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint,
+and that leave of the court proviso, you should know, was added
+as an amendment to the original draft of Rule 48, which had
+originally provided for automatic dismissal upon the motion of
+the government.
+This proviso, in my judgment, is clearly directed
+toward an independent judicial assessment of the public
+interest in dismissing the indictment. Thus, even whereas, in
+this case, the standard of court review is deferential, the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 7 of 86
+7
+court must still make its own independent determination. A
+conclusory statement from the government that dismissal is
+appropriate does not satisfy the court's obligations.
+It is also, in my view, required that the court
+consider the views of the victims in the case at the hearing
+and before deciding whether to grant the motion. This is being
+done here both as a matter of law and as a measure of respect
+that we have for the victims' difficult decisions to come
+forward in this matter.
+In a case called United States v.
+H-e-a-t-o-n-, the government filed a Rule 48 motion for leave
+to dismiss a charge against a defendant who allegedly committed
+a sexual offense against a young victim. Although I should
+point out, very importantly, that that defendant was still
+alive, which distinguishes it from our case.
+Nevertheless, I think it is irrelevant because in
+evaluating the Rule 48 motion, then district Judge Paul G.
+Cassell -- who is now a law professor at the University of Utah
+and is regarded to be a noted expert in victims' rights --
+concluded that under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, victims
+have broad rights that extend to a court's decision whether to
+grant a government motion to dismiss under Rule 48.
+I completely share that viewpoint in these
+circumstances, even though the facts of our case, as I said,
+are somewhat different from those in
+• I believe it is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB |
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 8 of 86
+8
+the court's responsibility, and manifestly within its purview,
+to ensure that the victims in this case are treated fairly and
+with dignity.
+The fundamental substantive principle which applies in
+considering the government's motion is termed the rule of
+abatement.
+This principle originated in the English conmon
+law. It was adopted by most U.S. federal courts, but more
+recently, it has faced some appropriate criticism. The rule of
+abatement is best explained in the Second Circuit case of
+U.S. V.
+In that
+I case, two defendants had pled guilty to
+embezzlement and tax evasion. Both defendants appealed, but
+one of the defendants died while his appeal was pending in the
+Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals rule that under the rule
+of abatement, the judgment of conviction against the deceased
+defendant was required to be vacated and the indictment was to
+be dismissed. The
+court held that when a convicted
+defendant dies while his direct appeal as of right is pending,
+his death abates not only the appeal, but also proceedings had
+during the course of the prosecution.
+The Second Circuit incidentally has also held that
+when a criminal conviction abates upon the death of a
+defendant, any restitution ordered as a result of that
+conviction must also abate, and it is also ruled the same with
+respect to associated forfeiture orders.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB |
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 9 of 86
+9
+This latter application of the rule of abatement
+regarding forfeiture has not been universally accepted among
+federal courts, but it certainly is the law in this circuit.
+Some of you may be interested to know that some United States
+courts, state courts, have criticized the rule of abatement,
+particularly in the face of growing recognition of victims'
+rights in the criminal justice system, including the Crime
+Victims' Rights Act.
+It has been written and contended in the Brooklyn Law
+Review -- I can give you the cite later -- that when courts
+abate criminal convictions, they reimpose a burden on victims
+that legislatures intended to alleviate through these victim
+rights statutes. The state Supreme Court has even concluded
+that the expansion and codification of victims' rights provides
+the changed conditions needed for overruling the rule of
+abatement. It has also been stated that Alaska's statute and
+its constitution now require the criminal justice system to
+accommodate the rights of crime victims. Further, that the
+abatement of criminal convictions has important implications
+for these rights.
+But coming back to our case, which is what you are
+concerned about and I am as well, it is appropriate to conclude
+that if the rule of abatement applies to a convicted defendant
+as in the
+case, it should also apply a fortiori in the
+Epstein case, which was still in the pretrial phase when
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 10 of 86
+10
+Mr. Epstein died, when there had been no conviction.
+So that's just some background I wanted to share with
+you. At this point in time, I would like to turn to the
+government prosecutors to hear from them in support of their
+Rule 48 application to dismiss the Epstein indictment.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+Would you like me to address the court from the
+podium?
+THE COURT: If you wouldn't mind.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+I believe your Honor has accurately summarized the
+state of the law, as set forth in our papers, in light of the
+clear Second Circuit law, that upon the death of a defendant
+before a final entry of a judgment of conviction, all
+proceedings must be abated.
+In light of that clear law, the government is legally
+obligated to seek dismissal of the pending indictment against
+Jeffrey Epstein, and we respectfully submit, likewise, that the
+entry of the proposed order is similarly required by law.
+A few notes to make about that, though, your Honor.
+Io be very clear, dismissal of this indictment as to Jeffrey
+Epstein in no way prohibits or inhibits the government's
+ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators, nor
+does it prevent the bringing of a new case in the future or the
+prosecution of new defendants.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+
+11
+It also does nothing to prevent the government from
+continuing to explore the possibility of seeking civil
+forfeiture of any assets that were used to facilitate the
+crimes charged in this indictment. Indeed, as has been stated
+publicly, investigations into those matters have been ongoing,
+remain ongoing, and will continue following dismissal of the
+indictment here.
+I would also like to note that, as the government has
+previously mentioned, this dismissal in no way lessens the
+government's resolve to stand up for the victims in this case,
+both those who have come forward and those who have yet to do
+so. We agree with your Honor's sentiment that those victims
+should be respected, and we appreciate your Honor's recognition
+of that.
+One housekeeping matter that I did want to reference
+for your Honor. The protective order in this case requires
+destruction or return of any and all discovery material upon
+conclusion of the case. We have been in communication with
+defense counsel, who have confirmed that they have returned all
+physical copies that they have of discovery that the government
+has produced to date, and they are in the process of deleting
+any copies that they may have made. So the parties are in
+compliance with the protective order.
+Finally, I just wanted to say a word about the victims
+in this case, and particularly those who are here in court
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 12 of 86
+12
+today. I'll note that in light of the court's order indicating
+that the victims and their counsel would be permitted to be
+heard in court here today, the government has endeavored to
+provide notice to all known victims of today's proceeding. We
+did so either directly where a victim was not represented by
+counsel or through counsel where a victim is represented by an
+attorney.
+The government does not know exactly how many victims
+or their attorneys are here today and we do not know how many
+of them or their counsel would like to speak. To the extent
+any individuals do wish to speak, we do not know the substance
+of what they would like to say. We have left that entirely up
+to the individual decisions of the victims and their attorneys.
+I will note, though, that throughout this case, the
+government has endeavored and done our utmost to fulfill our
+obligations under the Crimes Victims' Rights Act. We have done
+so by trying to keep as many victims as we are aware of up to
+date about the ongoing case and about any developments in the
+case.
+We will continue to provide services and offer
+services to any of the victims in this case, even after the
+indictment is dismissed. Both the U.S. Attorney's office and
+the FBI have been in touch with all known victims or have
+attempted to be in touch with all known victims, either again
+directly where victims are not represented by counsel or
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 13 of 86
+13
+through counsel where they have attorneys. We have expressed
+to them that services are available for those who wish to take
+advantage of them.
+Unless the court has any questions for me, the
+government will otherwise rest on its papers.
+THE COURT: I just have one question.
+The protective order, is that self-executing or do I
+need to do something?
+MS. COMEY: It is self-executing, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thanks very much, Ms. Comey.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+I'll turn to counsel for the defense at this time.
+Mr. Weingarten, I'm happy to hear from you.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Thank you.
+Your Honor, I think it is an understatement of the
+year to say the world looks and feels differently today than it
+did the last time I was before you. For us, the elephant in
+the room is what happened to our client. I would like to tell
+you how we see the world and where we are on that subject.
+We start with the Attorney General's statements,
+public statements, that there were very serious improprieties
+in the jail. We obviously read the press. We see that the
+warden has been taken out. We see that the guards on duty at
+the time have been put on leave. We understand guards are
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 14 of 86
+14
+refusing to cooperate with the investigation. We have heard
+allegations that people at the time who had responsibility for
+protecting our client falsified information. We understand
+that there were orders out there that Jeffrey Epstein was never
+to be left alone and that the orders were ignored by many of
+the employees of the prison.
+In a word, yikes.
+In addition, obviously we followed
+the medical examiner's report, or we haven't followed the
+report, we haven't seen it, but heard conclusions, initially
+not enough evidence to come to a conclusion, wanted to see
+more. We assumed she was talking about the videotapes, but
+then came to the conclusion that it was suicide.
+We report to the court that --
+THE COURT: Suicide by hanging --
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes.
+THE COURT: -- was her conclusion?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes.
+And we report to the court that we had a doctor there
+at the time, and we also have been in receipt of a tremendous
+amount of medical and scientific evidence volunteered to us
+opining that the injuries suffered, as reported, were far more
+consistent with assault than with suicide, and we are happy to
+supply the court with all the information that we have.
+Now, in addition, as the court noted, we were underway
+with our pretrial motions, and as the court obviously
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 15 of 86
+15
+understands, the NPA and the role of the NPA was going to be
+critically important.
+And I would simply like to report that
+we went pretty far along.
+We interviewed all of the relevant lawyers on the
+defense side who participated in the NPA, and we were satisfied
+that we had a very strong argument that every one of those
+lawyers believed with an objective basis that the deal was
+global. That is, at the time --
+THE COURT: I'm sorry, that?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: The deal of the NPA was global. That
+is, more specifically, at the time, the Florida prosecutors and
+agents knew of conduct in New York, and that no competent
+defense counsel negotiating in good faith with the prosecutors
+would have ever agreed to a deal back then that allowed New
+York prosecutors to indict for precisely the same conduct in
+the future, which, of course, is what happened.
+In addition, we have come up with very powerful
+evidence, we believe, that Florida prosecutors, who
+participated in the deal, steered the victims and the alleged
+victims to New York on more than one occasion because they did
+not want to suffer the sleights of attacks against them. So we
+have advanced the ball on this very subject and we are prepared
+to completely report to the court as to where we are and what
+we've done.
+Another point. We obviously had contact with our
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 16 of 86
+16
+client at or around the time of his death, and obviously the
+attorney-client privilege survives death and we are not going
+to forfeit the privilege, but we will report to the court, with
+as much specificity as the court may want, that at or around
+the time of his death, we did not see a despairing, despondent
+suicidal person. Details to follow, if the court wishes.
+The 800-pound gorilla, for us, of course, are the
+video surveillance tapes. Obviously we assume there is a tape
+that leads directly to the door where Jeffrey Epstein was
+housed. If that tape reports for 12 hours before his death
+that no one went in and out of that room, then the suggestion
+that there was something other than a suicide seems
+preposterous.
+But there is no such evidence that has surfaced to
+date. Just the opposite.
+We have heard, and we actually read
+in the press, that the tapes were either corrupted or not
+functioning. Talk about a yikes. If, in fact, the system was
+broken for six months before Jeffrey Epstein was housed, I
+mean, that would be stunning incompetence. If it was allowed
+to continue to be inoperative when Jeffrey Epstein was housed,
+it would be incompetence times ten. But what if the tapes only
+broke down or were inoperative or were corrupted on the day he
+was killed or the day he died? Then we're in a completely
+different situation.
+So where does this lead? I think where it leads,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 17 of 86
+J8RsEPS1
+17
+Judge, is there are incredibly important questions that remain
+open.
+The public interest in this matter is obvious from this
+courtroom. There are conspiracy theories galore. We are all
+for finding the truth. We believe this court has an
+indispensable role to play.
+Whether or not this indictment is dismissed, I think
+this court has the inherent authority to find out what happened
+on its watch. Obviously, when the court detained Jeffrey
+Epstein, the court did not anticipate that weeks later he would
+be dead in his cell. I think given the inherent authority of
+the court, the court should make inquiry.
+This could come in many forms. Obviously the court
+made inquiry as to what happened in the first incident. When
+there was an allegation of an attempted suicide, the court made
+inquiry. The court obviously was interested.
+I recall your language. You talked about that being
+one of the several open questions indicating an interest on the
+court for the others as well. Obviously, the ultimate question
+is what happened to the client.
+THE COURT: You're talking about the July 23, 2019
+incident?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes.
+The court obviously could hold hearings. The court
+could assign a lawyer to help the court. I think this is an
+area where there is intense public interest. We have complete
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 18 of 86
+18
+confidence in the prosecutors in the Southern District and the
+FBI to do a competent investigation. But these are allegations
+against serious components of the United States Department of
+Justice.
+Sometimes the appearance of justice is just as
+important as justice itself.
+I think the court supervising, or at least keeping an
+interest in this proceeding, is incredibly important for the
+public to have confidence in the ultimate findings, and
+certainly for us to have confidence in the ultimate findings.
+One more issue, Judge. The conditions of the jail, in
+a word, they were dreadful. Not just for Jeffrey Epstein, but
+for many of the prisoners over there. This is a prison within
+the shadows of this courthouse. The situation is rife with
+vermin. The abuse and the conditions in that prison, in a
+word, are a disgrace and everybody knows it.
+A person with authority told us, someone with
+knowledge, that the prisoners in Guantanamo -- and he spoke
+with personal knowledge -- are treated better than the
+prisoners right across the way. The feds certainly know how to
+run a disciplined, clean prison. I've been in 20 of them.
+They know how to do it just fine. And the question is, why in
+the world does it not happen down the road? I think that is a
+perfectly legitimate subject for the court to make inquiry.
+In a word, we want the court to help us find out what
+happened. The court has a role to play. It is the institution
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 19 of 86
+that most people have confidence in in these very troubled
+times.
+19
+So whether or not you dismiss the indictment, to us,
+is beside the point. We want you to stay on the case, we want
+you to conduct an investigation, and we want to know what
+happened here.
+Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just so it is clear, so your view on the
+motion directly on its merits of the nolle prosequi order and
+application by the U.S. Attorney, do you have a view on that?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: I think if the court felt that the
+case had to stay alive for the court to continue, we would
+oppose it. I think --
+THE COURT: I'm sorry, if what?
+MR. WEINGARTEN: If the issue, if you took the
+position for you to conduct the investigation or lead the
+investigation or participate in the investigation, then we
+want, the role we want you to play, if the indictment has to be
+alive, we would oppose the motion.
+I don't think you need to do that. I think you can
+dismiss the indictment.
+THE COURT: So you're suggesting that you support the
+government's motion, just viewed in the context of --
+MR. WEINGARTEN: Yes, of course.
+THE COURT: Great.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 20 of 86
+20
+MR. WEINBERG: Judge, if I can just supplement?
+THE COURT: Absolutely.
+MR. WEINBERG: Thank you, sir.
+Thank you, as an out-of-town lawyer for the privilege
+to appear in front of you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: It's my pleasure.
+MR. WEINBERG: First, as to the conditions, we think
+your Honor trusted the government, the Bureau of Prisons, to
+keep our client safe and keep him in civilized conditions. The
+government will again ask, as to other defendants, that they be
+detained at the MCC, some
+subset of them will end up in the SHU
+unit.
+It is a horrific. I've called it medieval. There's
+vermin on the floor. There is wet from the plumbing. There is
+no sunlight. There is limited exercise. It is simply
+conditions that no pretrial detainee -- and I would go farther
+as a criminal defense lawyer -- no United States defendant
+should be subjected to.
+Certain judges have taken views of the conditions. We
+would urge your Honor, the government talks about and we talk
+about transparency, to see what kind of conditions there exist
+within 50 or 100 yards of one of the great United States
+district courts.
+Second, in terms, we have a profound problem with the
+conclusions of the medical examiner. There are for three
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 21 of 86
+reasons, your Honor.
+One is the timing of Mr. Epstein's demise. It was on
+August 10. On August 12, a bail pending appeal motion was
+being filed in the Second Circuit. On August 12 or 13, the
+United States Attorneys were going to respond to our request
+for the preservation and production of documents that would
+have facilitated and furthered our efforts to demonstrate
+communications between the Southern District of Florida, the
+Northern District of Georgia, which was standing in the shoes
+of the Southern District of Florida main justice and the
+Southern District.
+In other words, we were beginning the process
+discharging our responsibilities. There had been no new
+evidence that Mr. Epstein had committed any offense against a
+minor after 2005. The subject matter of the New York
+prosecution was squarely within the heartland of the Florida
+NPA. We had a significant motion to dismiss. This was not a
+futile, you know, defeatist attitude.
+Third, we had all the discovery motions that your
+Honor had scheduled. So the timing for a pretrial detainee to
+commit suicide on August 10, when his bail pending appeal
+motion is being filed on August 12, strikes us as implausible.
+Second, we had an independent doctor who was present
+at the autopsy which occurred on August 11. On August 11, the
+city medical examiner's findings were inconclusive. We are
+21
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 22 of 86
+22
+told by a very experienced forensic pathologist that the broken
+bones in Mr. Epstein's neck, in his larynx, are more consistent
+with external pressure, with strangulation, with homicide, if
+you will, than with suicide. It doesn't exclude suicide, but
+the pure medical forensic evidence creates profound issues
+about what happened to him.
+Also the time of death. Our medical examiner's
+opinion is it occurred at least 45 minutes and probably hours
+before 6:30 a.m. on August 10, when he was first found, if you
+will, according to the reports. Yet he was moved, something
+that is not ordinary in these circumstances.
+I would also --
+THE COURT: Excuse me. He was moved?
+MR. WEINBERG: Instead of having the cell in the
+condition it was found, if he had been dead for 45 minutes or
+two hours or four hours, there were efforts to move him and,
+therefore, make it more difficult to reconstruct whether or not
+he died of suicide or some other cause.
+I spoke to Stacey Richmond, who is a responsible
+member of this court who represents the family of Mr. Epstein.
+She spoke to the medical examiner on the Friday after
+Mr. Epstein's death and asked why, if the conclusion was made
+late in the afternoon on Friday that week. She specifically
+asked about what extrinsic nonmedical evidence caused the
+medical examiner to go from uncertain to suicide, and she was
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 23 of 86
+23
+told that the medical examiner had seen nine minutes of one
+video which was on a stairwell between floors at the MCC. She
+was told that the principal video that would have showed the
+whole
+was corrupted. It was in DC with the FBI to see if
+they can reconstruct it.
+And I asked the same questions that my co-counsel did,
+you know, was the dysfunction of the critical pivotal video, in
+the most secure prison east of Florence, out in Colorado known
+to the MCC before August 10, or was this corruption occurring
+on August 10, which would again cause us to be skeptical of the
+servitude of the medical examiner's conclusions that this was
+suicide rather than some other cause.
+So with my co-counsel, we ask your Honor, it is not a
+question of trust or not trust. They ask you to detain people
+and you trust the Bureau of Prisons. And it is within your
+inherit authority, your Honor, to find out what happened to our
+client.
+We are angry about the conditions he was held in. And
+we're also angry, quite frankly, your Honor, that the only
+source of information that we get as to what happened to him is
+through the media rather than through the United States
+Attorney's office. We've made requests informal. We have
+made Touhy requests. We've been told there is a pending
+investigation.
+But we trust your Honor and the judiciary, and with
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 24 of 86
+24
+all due respect, we believe there is an inherent and central
+role, a pivotal role in your Honor to find out what happened to
+a defendant in a case before the court, whether or not the
+court grants the nolle pros today or whether it holds it
+pending an investigation into Mr. Epstein's death.
+We're not here without significant doubts regarding
+the conclusion of suicide.
+We are not here to say what
+happened.
+We don't know what happened. But we deeply want to
+know what happened to our client.
+Thank you, sir.
+THE COURT: And you, as Mr. Weingarten, have the same
+view of the nolle prosequi motion?
+MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may I respond to some of those
+points?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+Just briefly. With the exception of the noting that
+the defense does not have an objection to the government's
+motion, virtually everything else that defense counsel just
+argued, respectfully is completely irrelevant to the purposes
+of today's proceeding and to the motion that is pending before
+your Honor.
+As an initial matter, the question --
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 25 of 86|
+25
+THE COURT: Well, it may be. Well, I don't know. You
+say irrelevant.
+It is a public hearing, and I think it is fair game
+for defense counsel to raise its concerns.
+MS. COMEY: Certainly, your Honor. But it is
+irrelevant to whether or not the motion should be granted.
+THE COURT: Right. I get that.
+MS. COMEY: I would also note that the question of
+Mr. Epstein's death is the subject of an ongoing and active
+investigation, as has been publicly noted, by a separate team
+of Assistant United States Attorneys from the Southern District
+of New York, separate from the team who is handling this
+prosecution, as well as a separate team of FBI agents.
+There is an ongoing and active grand jury
+investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's
+death. It is the function of a grand jury and of the Federal
+Bureau of Investigation to investigate crimes in the federal
+court system. It is not the purview, respectfully, of the
+court to conduct an investigation into uncharged matters.
+So respectfully, we disagree with defense counsel's
+suggestion that the court has some authority to conduct an
+independent investigation. Io the extent any other defendants
+who are detained in the MCC have concerns about the conditions
+or believe that the conditions are relevant to a future or
+current bail determination, it is for those defendants and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 26 of 86
+26
+their counsel to raise those arguments and for the judges
+hearing those arguments to evaluate those claims. It is not
+relevant to today's proceedings.
+Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: In those other cases, Ms. Comey, judges do
+have authority to investigate, but don't here?
+MS. COMEY: Not to investigate, your Honor, but to
+hear arguments about the conditions of confinement in the MCC
+as they may relate to any bail determination. I believe that
+was the argument that was made.
+The bigger picture here, your Honor, is that the focus
+of today's proceeding, as we understand it, is to allow the
+victims who have gathered here today to be heard and to comment
+upon the case and to comment upon the motion that is pending,
+and to bring this case to a close.
+THE COURT: Got it.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: May I?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MR. WEINGARTEN: We obviously saw this as, perhaps,
+the last opportunity to be before you, and we wanted to take
+advantage of the opportunity to say our peace and thank you for
+allowing us.
+There is precedent here. Ted Stevens, the Senator
+from Alaska case in Washington, DC, Judge Emmet
+ordered an independent investigation by a private lawyer when
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 27 of 86
+27
+he was deeply troubled by the alleged Brady violations. I
+represented the prosecutors in that case, so I'm very, very
+familiar with it.
+It is analogous. It is a situation where there was
+tremendous controversy over what happened in the case and
+whether or not the prosecutors went off the reservation. Judge
+and there were three or four independent -- not
+independent, DOJ inquiries into the very same matter. But
+Judge
+wanted his own opportunity to make a judgment
+with his own independent investigation.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MR. WEINBERG: If I could just add one precedent, your
+Honor.
+The Chief judge in the District of Massachusetts or
+the Chief Judge at the time, Judge
+,, in a case called
+U.S. V. Fleming, when the conditions at walpole, which is a
+state prison where federal prisoners were being held -- we
+don't have a federal MCC in Boston -- went to the prison,
+stayed in the prison to determine whether or not the complaints
+about the conditions were authentic.
+I think your Honor has the inherent authority to go to
+the ninth floor and see how the MCC houses pretrial detainees.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: Are you saying that whether or not the
+motion is granted that is pending before us?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 28 of 86
+28
+MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.
+I think, like when appeals are taken, bail issues
+remain before the district court. Jurisdiction is not
+completely divested. Your Honor issued a pretrial detention
+order and your Honor has the power, the inherent authority,
+they are not going to refuse to allow you to go look at the
+ninth floor. They are going to count on you to make decisions
+in the future.
+I just trust that the executive branch is not going to
+prevent the judicial branch from looking into the death of
+Jeffrey Epstein or the conditions in the SHU unit at the MCC,
+sir.
+THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
+• I, your Honor?
+Just very briefly, your Honor. I would note that upon
+the dismissal of the indictment, which I believe the parties
+agree is appropriate in this case, there would be no case.
+There would be no jurisdiction for the court to conduct any
+sort of inquiry, even if the court had such authority.
+THE COURT: Right.
+OK. I think we've heard enough.
+It is at this point in the hearing that I would like
+to call upon victims' counsel, plural, for any remarks they may
+have and they may wish to make. Also, to introduce their
+clients, those of them who wish to be heard.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 29 of 86
+29
+It would be helpful if, in doing that, if counsel --
+Mr.
+and I see and I see Mr. Boise as well -- I know
+they are counsel to several, at least several of the victims.
+It would be helpful if whoever is speaking, both Mr.
+and Mr. Boise, would indicate to the court whether or not they
+have discussed the pending motion with their clients, that is
+to say and the rule of abatement, etc., etc. with them prior to
+today's hearing.
+Are we going to hear from Mr.
+first, is that
+right?
+MR.
+: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: You bet.
+It would be helpful, Mr.
+if you would state
+and spell your name for the court reporter.
+If you are going to introduce someone else, which I
+trust that you are, if you could state and spell their name as
+well.
+MR.
+: Yes, your Honor.
+May it please the court. Brad
+B-r-a-d
+E-d-w-a-r-d-s, with the law firm of|
+Pottinger.
+I have in the courtroom today 15 victims that I
+represent and have represented over the years. There are at
+least 20 more who didn't make this hearing today for a
+multitude of reasons, some out of fear of public exposure,
+others because the way in which this case ended will never
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 30 of 86
+30
+bring full justice, and they decided it was best for them not
+to talk today.
+Some of my clients are going to address the court that
+are here today. Others are not. Some are going to use their
+names, and have in the past, and others wish to remain
+anonymous.
+And I have instructed each of them to inform the
+court reporter that they will be proceeding as Jane Doe so that
+the court reporter can take them down.
+THE COURT: For those who wish to remain anonymous?
+MR.
+: Exactly, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And that is satisfactory, as far as I am
+concerned.
+MR.
+: Before we do that, I would like to
+address a couple of the things that have occurred this morning.
+First of all, whether relevant or not, I personally,
+and on behalf of my clients, do appreciate the presentation
+that Mr. Weingarten made and Mr. Marty Weinberg made.
+I have tremendous respect for Mr. Weinberg. I've
+worked with him through this and related cases for years, and I
+understand the reason why they made the presentation that they
+made.
+There is two things of interest to our clients in that
+respect. One is, because of the tragic ending, that none of my
+clients wanted, nor did I, nor did anyone else, if there is
+some civil rights violation and there is some civil remedy for
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 31 of 86
+31
+Mr. Epstein that goes to the estate, certainly the victims are
+interested in that as they might help to repair the damage
+done.
+Second, Mr. Epstein's untimely death, the timing is
+curious to us. But more so, it makes it absolutely impossible
+for the victims to ever get the day in court that they wanted
+in court and to get full justice. That now can never happen.
+I know that Mr. Epstein's attorneys say he wanted it, and they
+know, we did too. And there are a lot of people here today
+that are very sad by the way that this ended for both
+Mr. Epstein and the fact that full justice was robbed from
+them, once again.
+The second issue I wanted to address was the Law
+Review or the Law Journal article that your Honor referenced,
+which is troubling because the opinion seems to say that
+transparency is not appropriate in the criminal system and is
+not appropriate at this point in time.
+That's tough to swallow, especially in this case,
+given the long history of this case. Personally, it is tough
+to swallow, and on behalf of my clients, I can say that is very
+concerning. Transparency is the only way that the justice
+system works. We know this because there was a similar
+investigation of Mr. Epstein many years ago, from 2005 to 2008.
+My personal involvement in this case was because a
+young female came into my office named
+and she
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 32 of 86
+32
+came to me not asking to file a lawsuit against Jeffrey
+Epstein, but simply asking for the government to talk to her.
+She was cooperating in an FBI investigation and wanted the
+government to speak with her, and I thought that was going to
+be an easy task.
+It was only a few months later that we learned that
+this investigation that was represented to my client in written
+form, that it would be a long investigation, and to be patient.
+Basically, to hang tight. It was resolved by way of a secret
+deal that never allowed any of the more than 30 victims who had
+been identified of Mr. Epstein's abuse in Florida to ever
+participate in a single hearing. There was a hearing. They
+were never notified.
+I then went on to represent many of them in civil
+cases and also in extensive pro bono work. And I can tell your
+Honor that while Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of them hurt them and
+harmed them for many years, the feelings they had was
+aggravated exponentially by the facts that they had no rights
+in the criminal justice system, by the fact that they were
+treated as if they didn't matter. They were not allowed their
+rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act to meaningfully
+confer with prosecutors, to be treated with fairness, to be
+treated with dignity. That is what this is supposed to be
+about, and to have notice of hearings.
+So I do want to thank your Honor, and especially the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 33 of 86
+33
+prosecutors who have worked this investigation and this case,
+which is very different in experience for all of my clients and
+the other Epstein victims in this case, because they were
+allowed to be a part of the process. While some of them
+elected not to be here today, that opportunity should always be
+allowed for them.
+In 2008, we filed that case under the Crime Victims'
+Rights Act because our clients' rights were violated, and as
+your Honor knows, a federal judge has ruled in our clients'
+favor that their rights were violated. So this hearing today
+means a lot to them. The fact that they may never get their
+chance to speak in court, they may never get complete closure,
+and all of us have to wonder, if their rights had been afforded
+them the first time, would any of us be here right now. Or
+wouldn't it more likely be the case that everyone, including
+Jeffrey Epstein, would have turned out better for it?
+Today, I have not only represented, but met and become
+very close with many of these victims. Many of these
+survivors. They are very strong people. They are people who
+have persevered through a lot of adversity. It's been a roller
+coaster of emotions that has led us to where we are today. And
+while they have all been cast over the years because of the
+secrecy of the first investigation, in the shadow as victims,
+you can't put them all in one bucket and say one size fits all.
+They are each individual people who were harmed differently and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS1
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 34 of 86
+34
+distinctly through not only the abuse, but the system.
+And on behalf of all of them, I would like to thank
+your Honor for the fairness with which they've been treated,
+and the United States Attorney's office for the way in which
+you have handled this investigation, and especially how you
+have treated the victims in this case.
+Like I said, I have many who want to speak. Some that
+can't. This is a very difficult day for them. But we
+appreciate the opportunity and the invitation.
+The first client that I have that is going to address
+your Honor is the one who walked into my office in 2008 asking
+just to be heard,
+THE COURT: Hold on one second. Did you all want to
+be seated?
+You don't need to be standing. Whatever is more
+comfortable until you're ready to give some comments. It's up
+to you.
+• if you could spell your name for the court
+reporters, please.
+C-o-u-I-t-n-e-y, last name
+w-i-1-d.
+(Continued on next page)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPS2
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 35 of 86
+35
+: My name is
+, and I'm a victim
+of Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused me for
+years, robbing me of my innocence and mental health. Jeffrey
+Epstein has done nothing but manipulate our justice system,
+where he has never been held accountable for his actions, even
+to this day.
+Jeffrey Epstein robbed myself and all the other
+victims of our day in court to confront him one by one, and for
+that he is a coward.
+I want to thank the U.S. Attorney's for seeking
+justice that has been long over due, and most importantly,
+given us, the victims, our day in court to speak our peace and
+find some sort of closure. I feel very angry and sad that
+justice has never been served in this case. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thanks very much.
+MR.
+: I believe my next client who is going to
+speak is probably going to speak as Jane Doe.
+JANE DOE NO. 1: Yes, Jane Doe.
+THE COURT: We'11 say Jane Doe No. 1, just for the
+record.
+JANE DOE NO. 1: Okay. Thank you for allowing us to
+speak today. I've shifted what I want to say in hearing
+what's already been said, and just about the question of
+Jeffrey's death. I don't know what the relevance is to this
+hearing, but I do know that it is profoundly relevant to my
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 36 of 86
+36
+life, as a victim. I don't like that word, but I still feel
+like I am learning the ways that he's impacted me as a complex
+situation, but he was also a major part of my life. As
+destructive as that relationship was and as much of a villain
+as we have created him to be -- based on facts we've created
+him to be a villain -- he's a complex villain and actually all
+of that is irrelevant. Anybody deserves -- an investigation is
+the right thing to do. Like, we do need to know how he died.
+It felt like a whole new trauma all over again, and I
+don't know why, you know, because I -- I'm trying to defend
+myself against him at this point in my life, but it still does
+not feel good. It didn't feel good to wake up that morning and
+find out that he had allegedly committed suicide. Okay. But I
+also wanted to say to the press, I'm reading -- I read my story
+in the paper. I read so many other girls' stories that are so
+similar to my own, and everything that's been focused on is not
+the most important part of it.
+There was - the problem with focusing on these, the
+facts of the situation, that were out of the ordinary and like
+because he was such a grand person, and it was just a unique
+situation. I know that that's the more interesting side of the
+story, but I don't want to be used as entertainment. And the
+problem, the fundamental problem of the whole situation is the
+element of exploitation and coercion, and these are things that
+so many girls can relate to.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 37 of 86
+37
+And even though this Jeffrey Epstein brought it to a
+grand scale, on some level, a lot of girls could relate to the
+trauma
+that we are talking about, and even though this whole
+situation sucks, I would like to think that it may be possibly
+a catalyst for change because, obviously, as we're seeing with
+the "Me Too" movement, change needs to happen and it's -- what
+I'm seeing in the papers is not a common story, but it's so
+much more common than you realize. That's all. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you very much.
+MR.
+: I believe that the next client is going
+to also be a Jane Doe; so I think for the purposes of the
+record it will be Jane Doe 2.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+JANE DOE NO. 2: Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Good morning. How are you?
+JANE DOE NO. 2: Doing okay. I hadn't prepared any
+words to speak today, but there is something that was on my
+mind this morning when I got here. It's been on my mind in
+reading through the press and through the people that I've
+spoken to about it, friends, family. It's something that's
+bothered me because I think it has a lot of blame in it, as
+well, a little bit of what my friend, who was up here, was
+speaking about.
+I think that a lot of people asked why we spent so
+much time, why we stayed. It's an experience that's really
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 38 of 86
+38
+hard to explain to people who haven't gone through it. I think
+there's a writer,
+• Nagel, who wrote an essay called "What
+is it like to be a bat?" And I think that he touches on it
+pretty strongly and if you haven't experienced something, it's
+very hard to fully understand why someone makes the decisions
+they do and what the circumstances were.
+I don't want to speak for all of the victims. I think
+each of us has a different story and different circumstances
+for why we stayed in it, but for me, I think he was really
+strategic in how he approached each of us. Things happened
+slowly over time. We didn't -- it almost was like, putting it
+like that analogy of a frog being in a pan of water and slowly
+turning the flame up. You didn't realize it was happening, and
+it just -- I don't think anyone can fully understand the
+experience, but I just -- the blame feels very strong.
+There's a lot of support as well, but I just want
+people to try and understand that we aren't bad people. We
+weren't trying to -- it wasn't a situation where we were trying
+to extort money from someone. A lot of us were in very
+vulnerable situations and in extreme poverty, circumstances
+where we didn't have anyone on our side, to speak on our
+behalf, and that's really scary.
+You start to blame yourself because, at first, you
+don't tell anyone what's happening, and it becomes your deep,
+dark secret that you tried to keep from everyone. And I didn't
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 39 of 86
+39
+even know I was a victim until I spoke with my lawyers. I had
+no idea.
+I had so much self-hatred and doubt and just guilt
+for everything.
+I still do. I still don't feel like I deserve
+to say I'm a victim, and I think that's a big problem with our
+society right now, that people are still blaming victims, and I
+think that does need to change.
+I hope that today people understand that each of us
+has a story, has a past, has a family and just give us a chance
+to - you know, that's basically all I just wanted to say.
+THE COURT: Thank you so much.
+JANE DOE NO. 2: Thank you so much.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR.
+: Okay. I think that the next person who
+is going to speak is also going to be speaking as Jane Doe; so
+for the purpose of the record, Jane Doe No. 3.
+JANE DOE NO. 3: Thank you for allowing us to speak
+today. I came to New York City 15 years ago to pursue modeling
+from a small town. I signed on with an agency and was excited
+to pursue my passion and my dream. Several months later, I met
+a female who told me about Mr. Epstein. She portrayed him as
+an amazing man who genuinely cared for people and that he was
+going to be able to help me in a modeling career.
+I was excited to meet him, after hearing her talk
+about him. He sounded like an amazing person. An introduction
+was made at his New York home, and it is there that I was
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 40 of 86
+40
+sexually assaulted. I left his home, after he threw me,
+basically put money on the table, and I was ashamed. I was
+embarrassed. This was not the way I was brought up, and I
+couldn't believe this had happened to me.
+I left and my world kind of spiraled after that. I
+stopped going on modeling castings. I gained weight. I became
+depressed. I stopped going out with my friends, and only five
+months after I had been in New York City to pursue my dream, I
+left. I left the modeling industry, and I left New York City,
+and I totally switched my career paths.
+I buried this deep within me, and all of the new
+occurrences that have come up in the media is what brought it
+back up for me. And I feel sickened and saddened that it took
+so many years, and God knows how many victims, for this to
+finally come out, but I'm thankful it did. And I'm just angry
+that he's not alive anymore to have to pay the price for his
+actions. So I thank you for your time.
+THE COURT: You're very welcome.
+MR.
+Your Honor, Jane Doe No. 4, I believe,
+is going to speak now.
+JANE DOE NO. 4: Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Good morning.
+JANE DOE NO. 4: I just have something very short to
+say. I met Jeffrey Epstein at a very vulnerable place in my
+life, and whatever the outcome is with everything, I just
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 41 of 86
+41
+wanted to express that we, the victims, we will always carry
+irreparable damage and pain throughout our lives after this.
+It's something that's never going to go away.
+You know, whoever we marry in our life, whatever
+future we have in our life, it's always going to be something
+that's always there for us. And I'm very nervous right now.
+And Jeffrey Epstein, he took away the chance I had at having
+the future I had envisioned for myself as a young girl, and I
+think many of us here today will never fully heal from that
+pain and the heartache that we'll continue carrying with us.
+So I just wanted to say that. It's something that
+it's irreparable. I can't even really use a better word to
+describe that. So thank you for hearing us today.
+THE COURT: You're very welcome.
+MR.
+Your Honor, Jane Doe No. 5 would like to
+speak.
+JANE DOE NO. 5: This is a letter that I wrote; so
+it's going to be: Dear Jeffrey, I think you are a mentally
+disturbed human being. You used your power to make me believe
+at a young age that I could have my dreams of being a model.
+You paid for your freedom. You violated my rights. You should
+have to pay for them, just as anyone else. You got a plea deal
+that no one else would have been able to get. You used your
+money to get out of paying the price for your actions.
+Also, as a victim, I never got to see what the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 42 of 86
+42
+agreement was or why the special treatment got approved. I
+think you should have been in jail for several years in
+population and live like everyone else that is mentally
+disturbed like you. You paid for yourself to get special
+treatment while you were in jail. I don't even think you spent
+a day in a jail as a normal human being.
+You had investigators come to my house and also went
+to my friend's house to question them. I will never be able to
+over -- I will never be able to get over the overwhelming
+emotions and embarrassment I experienced from that trauma. I
+needed therapy several times a week and had high stress and
+anxiety levels.
+You paid your way to make the public think that the
+girls had nothing in life going on for them. You wanted to try
+and blame that we were lower class and that was the problem
+with the girls. I was from a middle class family and did well
+in school. I lived the American girl dream -- or the American
+girl life. I went on family vacations around the world, grew
+up in a good city, and my parents are still married to this
+day. Basically, everything you said that we didn't have in our
+life, I did.
+It all came down to I was told I was making $200 in an
+hour. Being young, that was a lot of money, and I didn't know
+any better. Sadly, you were the one with an illness that you
+should have to go and see a doctor and also have a mentor group
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 43 of 86
+43
+for the sickness you have. I will continue with writing my
+book about that secret life, with all the newspaper articles of
+the case, my high school agenda book of official dates. I'm
+basing that proof that I deposited cash after leaving
+Jeffrey's. I still have all of the information, articles that
+I collected over the years.
+You mentally and physically traumatized me. I went to
+therapy, and it was the best thing I did for myself. If anyone
+only learns one thing from this case, I hope is that money
+should not let you buy your way free. A crime is a crime and a
+victim is a victim. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you very much.
+MR.
+C-h-a-u-n-t-a-e, l
+: Your Honor, my next client is
+, D-a-v-i-e-s.
+: I met Jeffrey Epstein through my first
+massage teacher, a man who took me in as his apprentice to
+teach me a practice I wanted to learn while in desperate search
+to find a cure for a debilitating neurological disorder that I
+have, which manifests into violent vomiting attacks, largely
+triggered by stress. It's called Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome.
+I was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell. Upon my first
+meeting of her, I wouldn't know I had been recruited until many
+years later, when I would read it in a headline. Ghislaine and
+Jeffrey took me in. They sent me to school. They gave me a
+job. They flew me around the world, introduced me to a world I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 44 of 86
+44
+had only dreamt of and made me feel as though I had become a
+part of their family, another thing I was desperately searching
+for.
+But on my third or fourth time meeting them, they
+brought me to Jeffrey's island for the first time, and on the
+first night there,
+came tapping on my door late at
+night to inform me Jeffrey was ready for another massage. My
+instincts told me this didn't feel right, but I got up and
+followed her to a villa I hadn't yet seen. Jeffrey and
+Ghislaine's villa.
+I began my massage, trying not to let him smell my
+fear and obvious discomfort, but before I knew what was
+happening, he grabbed onto my wrist and tugged me towards the
+bed. I tried to pull away, but he was unbuttoning my shorts
+and pulling my body onto his already naked body faster than I
+could think. I was searching for words but all I could say was
+meek, "No, please stop," but that just seemed to excite him
+more.
+He continued to rape me, and when he was finished, he
+hopped off and went to the shower. I pulled my shorts up, and
+I ran as fast as I could back to my own villa, my feet bloodied
+from the rocks. I cried myself to sleep that night.
+I spent two weeks vomiting, almost to death, in a
+Los Angeles hospital after that first encounter. Jeffrey's
+abuse would continue for the next three years, and I allowed it
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 45 of 86
+45
+to continue because I had been taken advantage of my entire
+life and had been conditioned to just accept it.
+It took me a long time to come forward, too long
+maybe, and all it took to bring -- and all that it took to
+bring this man to justice has been robbed by his death. Every
+day, every week I've spent in the hospital since, I've suffered
+and he has won. Every job offer that's been offered to me and
+then retracted because of my connection to this case, I have
+suffered and he has won. Every public humiliation I have
+endured, I have suffered and he has won. Every relationship
+that I've had to end because of the abuse that I have endured
+by the hands of this man, I have suffered and he has won.
+Every woman sitting in this room today, and all of the
+women who have yet come forward and who have not yet to come
+forward and whose lives have been affected by Jeffrey Epstein's
+sick abuse of young girls, we have all suffered, and he is
+still winning in death.
+I refuse to let this man win in death. I couldn't
+fight back when Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused me because I
+hadn't yet found my voice. Well, I have found my voice now,
+and while Jeffrey may no longer be here to hear it, I will not
+stop fighting, and I will not be silenced anymore. I needed
+him to hear the pain he's caused, what I've gone through
+because of him. I wrote a 350-page book of all the pain that I
+have endured at the hands of this man that I really needed him
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 46 of 86
+46
+to hear. His death has robbed me of that justice.
+Please don't rob us of justice again. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MR.
+Your Honor, I think I have one more
+client that is going to speak today,
+THE COURT: Would you spell that?
+: Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Good morning.
+: My name is spelled A-n-o-u-s-k-a,
+D-e, space, G-e-o-r-g-i-o-u.
+Thank you, your Honor, for giving us the opportunity
+to be heard this morning.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+: When I was introduced to Jeffrey
+Epstein, I was young and full of hope and the foolishness of a
+teenager. I was idealistic, and I saw the good in people.
+Jeffrey Epstein manipulated me, coerced me and sexually abused
+me.
+Something I think is very important to communicate is
+that loss of innocence, trust and joy is not recoverable. The
+abuse, spanning several years, was devaluing beyond measure and
+affected my ability to form and maintain healthy relationships,
+both in my work and my personal life. He could not begin to
+fathom what he took from us, and I say "us" because I am every
+girl he did this to, and they're all me. And today we stand
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 47 of 86
+47
+together, those that are present and those that aren't.
+I was a victim, and it has taken me many, many years
+to stand here and say, yes, it was me. I was a victim, but I
+will not remain a victim and be silent for one more day.
+Although I think it's tragic when anybody dies before their
+time, I'm extremely relieved that Jeffrey Epstein will not be
+in a position to hurt anymore children or anymore women, and
+I'm glad to be part of a group of women who are now bonded
+forever in the trauma that we endured at the hands of this man.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MR.
+: Your Honor, we had one client who was
+not able to be here but sent a message through a letter. Her
+name is
+L-i-c-a-t-a. And Brittany
+1, M-i-c-h-e-1-1-e; last name,
+, of my office, is going to
+read her letter as instructed.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Yup.
+: What happened to me occurred many
+years ago when I was in high school, but it still effects my
+life. I was told then that Jeffrey Epstein was going to be
+held accountable, but he was not. In fact, the government
+worked out a secret deal and didn't tell me about it. The case
+ended without me knowing what was going on, without him being
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 48 of 86
+48
+held responsible, without any explanation and without a chance
+for my voice to be heard. I was treated like I did not matter.
+Many years later, he was arrested again. These
+investigators and attorneys representing the United States have
+been completely different.
+I am still mad, concerned and
+confused about how he committed suicide and escaped
+responsibility again, but I know it is not the fault of the
+judge or the government attorneys.
+I was allowed to be a part of the process this time.
+My attorney was able to tell me what was going on at every
+stage because they kept him informed. Thank you for inviting
+me. It means more to me than you can ever know. I was not
+able to be here this time, but I know that I was allowed to be
+and I had the chance to attend this hearing, which is helping
+me in my healing process. The fact that I mattered this time
+and the other victims mattered is what counts. For that, I am
+grateful.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MR.
+: Your Honor, finally, in 2008 when I
+filed the case under the Crime Victims Rights Act, it wasn't me
+alone. I did it with Paul Cassell and Jay Howell.
+Paul Cassell is here today, and I think your Honor
+even cited to a piece of -- an opinion of his from when he was
+on the bench, and he has some remarks to make.
+Once again, your Honor, I really do believe that this
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 49 of 86
+49
+is a model for how victims should be treated in a criminal
+process, and we really do appreciate it. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MR. CASSELL: I'll be very brief because I know there
+are others that want to speak here. I'm Paul Cassell,
+C-a-s-s-e-1-1, previously served as a federal judge at the
+District of Utah, currently a law professor, where I teach
+crime victims rights at the University of Utah, College of Law.
+I just wanted to take one minute to address some
+suggestion that there would be no need for a hearing this
+morning. I think, having heard already from these powerful
+victims and recognizing how important giving those statements
+will be in the trajectory of their lives, makes clear that your
+Honor has followed exactly the right path. Legally, there is
+one precedent, which is U.S. v.
+• a case that you cited
+that I wrote about a decade ago, and as explained in that
+opinion, victims have important interests in the criminal
+justice system that can only be recognized if they're given
+their day in court.
+With all due respect to other law professors that have
+recently written an article, I think transparency is one of the
+overriding objectives in our criminal justice system, and the
+one substantive action that I would urge your Honor to take
+today is to publish your remarks as a published opinion. The
+case is, to my knowledge, the only reported decision on
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 50 of 86
+50
+this particular issue, even though it's more than a decade old
+and, yet, we can see today that these problems recur in many
+other cases.
+Your remarks today, I think, should be published
+so that they can serve as a guide for other judges around the
+country.
+I would encourage you to add into your remarks a
+reference to the Crime Victims Rights Act. The Crime Victims
+Right Act promises victims the right to be treated with
+fairness, dignity and respect, and the process that we see
+unfolding this morning is a clear example of how victims can be
+treated with fairness, dignity and respect.
+So I know that your Honor is wondering what is the
+appropriate action here. Unfortunately, it seems like there
+are no other legal options, but there was a legal option for
+you to decide to exercise, which was to allow these victims to
+come forward. And if there's been one positive thing that has
+come out of the tragedies, the abuse, the other events of this
+case, it's been your decision to allow these victims to be
+heard this morning, and I encourage you to publish your
+decision and to encourage other judges to follow what is
+clearly a model for crime victims rights and is clearly an
+example that should be followed in other cases down the road.
+THE COURT: Thank you very much. I appreciate your
+being here. I had no idea that you would be here when I wrote
+the remarks, but it was clear from the literature that you are
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 51 of 86
+51
+the leading expert formerly of the District Court of Utah, I
+believe, and it's a pleasure to have you here today.
+MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thanks.
+Mr. Boies?
+MR. BOIES: Thank you, your Honor. David Boies of
+Boies Schiller Flexner. We have with us today five of the
+victims that we represent. There are a number of additional
+victims who either were unable to attend or are still unwilling
+to come forward publicly. This has been an enormously
+traumatic aspect of their lives, something that, as you've
+already heard and will hear more today, is something that they
+can never entirely escape from.
+I want to, as prior counsel have, commend both the
+Court and counsel for the Department of Justice for the
+consideration and respect and attention that they have paid to
+the victims. We believe that that is not only right, as a
+matter of human dignity, but we think that is exactly what the
+law requires and intends.
+I will be more blunt than the Court has been, or
+Professor Cassell has been about Professor
+article.
+That is an article that cites no authority, and I believe there
+is no authority for his proposition. I entirely respect his
+right to advocate on behalf of his client Alan Dershowitz, who
+has retained him in connection with litigation that we've
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 52 of 86
+52
+brought against Mr. Dershowitz, but I would have expected that
+the Law Journal or Professor
+himself would have disclosed
+that connection, which I think is a conflict.
+But regardless of the appropriateness of his
+disclosure, or lack of disclosure, I think that his article
+opposing allowing the victims to have a voice in this
+proceeding is inconsistent not only with the policy that
+underlies the Crime Victim Rights Act and the very statute that
+Mr. Epstein is being prosecuted under, but it ignores the
+actual language of those statutes, and many other statutes, in
+which Congress has made clear that the purpose of the criminal
+law is no longer simply to punish the individual defendant, but
+it is to find some way of trying to mitigate the damage that
+has been done to the victims through restitution and economic
+mitigation, but also through the ability to confront and to
+have the court system and the justice system and the
+prosecutors treat these victims as they are victims, as they
+are human beings, and they are entitled to the respect that our
+society needs to give every human being. So I think that this
+is not only commendable, but I think it is what the law
+requires.
+In response to the question the Court asked, I have
+discussed this hearing with my clients. I have told them that,
+under the applicable law, the government has no alternative but
+to move to dismiss this case, and I believe under the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 53 of 86
+53
+applicable law in this circuit, the Court has no alternative
+but to grant that motion.
+I think the current law is outdated, as the Court
+suggested in some of its remarks. I think there will come a
+time when either an Appellate court or the Congress will make
+clear that, just as it's possible to continue civil cases
+against someone after they have deceased, it is possible, at
+least for purposes of things like restitution, to continue
+criminal cases, but we are not there now. And, fortunately, in
+this case, there are other ways and perhaps even more efficient
+ways to vindicate the interests of the victims here.
+We greatly appreciate the remarks of the
+representative of the Department of Justice today, and we, too,
+on behalf of the victims, are not going to stop when we walk
+out of this courtroom. We are going to continue to seek
+vindication against Mr. Epstein's estate and, in some senses,
+perhaps even more important, against the people who worked with
+him and enabled him.
+As you have already heard, and will hear more,
+Mr. Epstein did not act alone. He could not have done what he
+did, on the scope and the scale of what he did, for as many
+years as he did it without the activities and support and the
+co-conspirator activity of a number of other key individuals,
+and those individuals also need to bear their share of
+responsibility, and those people need to have a reckoning as
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+well.
+Page 54 of 86 54
+My partner Sig McCawley, who's been working with me
+for more than five years on this case, is going to, with the
+Court's permission, introduce five of our clients who will
+speak briefly to your Court. Thank you very much.
+THE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Boies. Pleasure
+to have you here.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Thank you, your Honor, the first victim
+that would like to speak today is
+THE COURT: Can we have the spelling of your name?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Sure. Sigrid, S-i-g-r-i-d, and the
+last name is M-c-C-a-w-l-e-y, and I'm a partner at Boies
+Schiller Flexner.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+: Good morning.
+THE COURT: Good morning.
+Thank you, prosecutors and Judge, and the
+Court. My name is
+I note today I do feel
+respected and listened to; so I appreciate that, and I have to
+say that I commend the boldness of the New York prosecutors for
+pursuing a man that has, you know -- and others, that have
+clearly taken a lot from a lot of people.
+17 years ago I knew him only as "Jeffrey." I was
+recruited and brought from California to New York, and that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 55 of 86
+55
+experience for the last 17 years has been a dark corner in my
+story, in my life, in my life story and that has been
+definitely made worse by my own self-shame and that -- and
+anger for normalizing all of the red flags. I feel like we are
+conditioned to do that, and that's something that needs to
+change.
+So I'm here today, you know, I'm coming forward
+because it is time to bring light to that darkness, and it's
+time to replace that darkness with light. And I am a survivor
+of this, and I do aim to progress further from being a
+survivor, you know. I feel I've worked hard, quite hard, to
+get to where I'm at now, and I'm definitely at a place in my
+life where I will no longer cover up. I'll no longer cover up
+what needs to be brought to light.
+Jeffrey is no longer here, and the women that helped
+him are, Ghislaine Maxwell. My experience is with Ghislaine
+Maxwell and
+. and they definitely need to be held
+accountable for helping him, helping themselves, helping one
+another carry on this huge, almost like a system. So they need
+to be held accountable, all of them, and I would like to see
+that, certainly on behalf of myself and for everyone here.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thanks so much.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Our next client, who is going to speak
+this morning, is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPS2
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 56 of 86
+56
+Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT:
+Good morning. How are you?
+Okay. Thank you. My name is
+that's V-i-r-g-i-n-i-a,
+R-o-b-e-r-t-s,
+G-i-u, double F, for Fred, -r-e.
+I am a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell
+in the dark and cruel and criminal acts they committed against
+me and hundreds of other girls and young women for years and
+years and years, unstopped.
+Thank you for allowing me to address the Court and
+speak the truth. I commend the prosecutors from the Southern
+District of New York for the ongoing investigation and its
+pursuit of justice for us victims. It has given me hope, and I
+will not let go of that hope.
+When I was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell at
+Mar-a-Lago, just before I was 17, I thought I was given a big
+break, and I'd be able to reset my life and become an actual
+real massage therapist. My hopes were quickly dashed, and my
+dreams were stolen. Jeffrey Epstein is no longer alive, but
+this is not about how he died. This is about how he lived.
+He will not have his day in court, but the reckoning
+of accountability has begun, supported by the voices of these
+brave and beautiful women in this courtroom today. The
+reckoning must not end. It must continue. He did not act
+alone and we, the victims, know that. We trust the government
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPS2
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 57 of 86
+57
+is listening and that the others will be brought to justice.
+Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you very much.
+MS. McCAWLEY: The next client of ours that will be
+speaking this morning is |
+Thank you, your Honor. My name is
+R-a-n-s-o-m-e. I'm a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and
+Ghislaine Maxwell's international sex trafficking ring.
+I would like to thank the Court for the dignity and
+the respect you are showing me here today, as well as the other
+victims. I would also like to acknowledge and extend my
+gratitude to the prosecutors from the Southern District of
+New York for pursuing justice on behalf of the victims.
+Please, please finish what you have started. I struggled to
+find the words to adequately say how important your work is to
+us.
+For a very long time Jeffrey Epstein gamed the system
+at every level, and when he realized he couldn't do that any
+longer, he showed the world what a depraved and cowardly human
+being he is by taking his own life. But we, the victims, are
+still here, prepared to tell the truth, and we all know he did
+not act alone. We are survivors, and the pursuit of justice
+should not abate. Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: You're very welcome.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Our next client who is going to be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPS2
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 58 of 86
+58
+speaking this morning is l
+Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Good morning.
+• A-n-n-i-e,
+F-a-r-m-е-г .
+I had the opportunity to speak at Jeffrey Epstein's
+bail hearing, and I really appreciate that you heard me and
+listened to me that day. I am so sorry that others will not
+have the opportunity to stand before him the way that I did.
+But I'm here today to speak on behalf of my sister,
+who could not be here.
+Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell not only assaulted
+her, but as we're hearing from so many of these brave women
+here today, they stole her dreams and her livelihood. She
+risked her safety in 1996, so many years ago, to report them,
+to no avail, and it is heartbreaking to her and to me that all
+this destruction has been wrought since that time.
+We were deeply disappointed and disturbed by Epstein's
+death and the fact that that was allowed to happen while he was
+in the government's custody, and I'm encouraged to hear that
+there will be a full investigation as to how that was allowed
+to happen.
+But it is extremely important, as others are saying,
+that he did not act alone and that the other people that were a
+part of what he did are held accountable and that that
+investigation continues.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 59 of 86
+59
+I believe that we have a real problem in this country
+with perpetrators of sexual abuse and sexual assault being held
+accountable.
+There are so many roadblocks to victims being
+heard, to cases being investigated thoroughly, and then to
+those cases being prosecuted. And so I think this is a really
+important signal to send a message to victims out there that
+people will take you seriously, people will follow through, and
+that even those in power, as we have unfortunately seen, that
+has not been often are able to escape that, that even those in
+power will be held accountable. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thanks
+so much.
+MS. MCCAWLEY: Our next client, who's going to address
+the Court is
+She says it much more
+beautifully than I do; so
+I'll let her say it.
+: My first name is spelled,
+M-a-I-i-j-k-e; last name is C-h-a-r-t-o-u-n-i.
+My name is
+and I am a victim of
+Jeffrey Epstein and the sophisticated sex trafficking operation
+he ran, where he allegedly was to be a financier.
+I was 20 and previously modeled and was living in the
+West Village. I met a young woman named Rena through a mutual
+friend. We were friends for a few months. She was an amazing
+artist and liked to party. One day she called me and asked if
+I was interested in meeting a friend of hers. She told me he
+wanted to meet me and really liked blonds, and I thought he was
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 60 of 86
+J8RPEPSZ
+our age and liked to do the same things we did at that age; so
+I agreed.
+60
+On a sunny, crisp day, we took the train together to
+the Upper East Side. She then began to talk a little bit about
+him on our way to his house. I was at his house. I was
+sexually assaulted by both Rena and Jeffrey Epstein in his
+mansion. It left me feeling both disgusted and betrayed.
+As we walked home to the subway afterwards, she
+continued to tell me about the man who had just abused me with
+her participation. She seemed exhilarated from the horrific
+experience. I was shocked and in a daze. This is a few things
+that she had told me. She told me he went to
+Union. He
+was a mathematical genius. That he had favorite girls that he
+would take to Chanel for 15-minute, all-you-can-buy shopping
+trips. She told me his right-hand person had connection to the
+arts and the fashion world, and she could help me.
+This is not my complete story. I'll stop here. I'm
+in a good, stable place in my life, and I had decided to come
+forward to be a voice to the victims who may not be able to
+tell their story, or at least not yet. I feel like I am a
+survivor.
+Thank you, Judge Berman, for inviting victims to speak
+today before you. We hope the government is listening very
+closely to the words we are saying.
+THE COURT: Thank you very much.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 61 of 86
+61
+MR. BOIES: Your Honor, just very briefly.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MR. BOIES: I would like to express to the Court how
+proud I am of all of these women who have come forward. It's
+taken an enormous amount of strength and courage for them to do
+so. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Boies. Hold on one second.
+(Pause)
+MS. LERNER: Thank you, your Honor. My name is
+Kimberly Lerner, of Lerner and Lerner, and your Honor, with
+your permission, I would like my client, Jennifer Aroz, to
+stand next to me.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MS. LERNER: Would that be okay?
+THE COURT: Absolutely.
+MS. LERNER: Your Honor, I would like to begin by
+saying that I am in awe of all of these beautiful women. I
+just want to let you know, on behalf of Jennifer and myself, we
+admire you, we respect you, and we applaud you, and you are
+brave survivors. And Jennifer's heart is with all of you, and
+we thank you so much for coming forward.
+Jennifer, when she went public, she thought she was
+one of the only ones, and to see all of these faces is, I know,
+amazing for her.
+Jeffrey Epstein was a predator, a pedophile and a sick
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 62 of 86
+62
+individual. However, he was also a thief. He stole Jennifer's
+childhood dreams, her innocence and her self-confidence.
+She
+was 14 years old.
+What he could not buy, he forcibly took.
+Why? Because he surrounded himself with a network of powerful
+people who not only looked the other way, but also actively
+facilitated and participated in his sexual abuse of children.
+Jeffrey Epstein thought he was above the law, and
+essentially he was until now. The system let Jennifer and the
+other victims down, but it does not have to end here. We ask
+the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI to bring all of
+Epstein's enablers and co-conspirators to justice.
+It has taken Jennifer 18 years to find her voice, and
+again, Jeffrey Epstein has tried to silence her. While she
+will never have her chance to face him in court, he no longer
+has any power over her. Today, this brave survivor will be
+heard.
+MS. AROZ: Thank you for allowing me to be able to
+have my chance in court today, to be able to tell you what this
+horrific man did to my life. You can't even imagine how much
+it affected my childhood, all the way through my adult life.
+He robbed me of my dreams. He robbed me of my chance to pursue
+a career I always adored. He stole my chance at really feeling
+love because I was so scared to trust anyone for so many years
+that I had such severe anxiety. I didn't want to leave my
+house let alone my bed.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 63 of 86
+63
+The fact that he felt entitled to take away my
+innocence, the fact that he felt that he could do whatever he
+wanted, regardless of the laws, hurts me so very much. It took
+me years to tell anyone what Epstein did to me because I was so
+ashamed and embarrassed at what people would say or think of me
+until I found out there were other victims, girls just like me.
+I knew I could no longer keep my silence no matter how ruthless
+and powerful Epstein was, and still is even after his death.
+The fact I will never have a chance to face my
+predator in court eats away at my soul. Even in death, Epstein
+is trying to hurt me. I had hoped to at last get an apology,
+but this evil man had no remorse or caring for what he did to
+anyone. I felt let down by the people who were supposed to
+watch him in prison. They let this man kill himself and kill
+the chance of justice for so many others in the process, taking
+away our ability to speak.
+Out of all the damages and side effects that Epstein
+caused by his heartless and selfish acts, it's very hard to put
+my feelings and emotions into words, trying to let his
+horrendous actions go and attempting to forgive him, has been
+so difficult for me. Yet, as hard as it's been to come so
+publicly forward, I refuse to let Epstein take me as a victim
+anymore.
+I am a survivor. The many that stand before me here
+today that have shared the horrific experiences with this
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 64 of 86
+64
+deplorable human being, because even though this weak, evil
+coward tried to steal all of our childhoods, tried to steal all
+of our innocence and tried to steal all of our means of
+justice, he will never steal our inner strength, and he will
+never, ever, ever steal our voice. Thank you so much.
+THE COURT: You're welcome.
+MS. GIBBS: Good morning, your Honor. Teri Gibbs,
+T-e-r-i, G-i-b-b-s. For the record, I am a California
+attorney. I'm not admitted to the New York State bar. I am
+here to make a statement on behalf of New York attorney, Lisa
+Bloom. I work for her firm, The Bloom Firm.
+Lisa Bloom represents four of Jeffrey Epstein's
+victims, Jane Doe 6, for the record, Jane Doe 7 and Jane Doe 8.
+I am so proud of all of you victims who are here today and are
+able to voice yourselves today. I will not and cannot comment
+on the criminal case, or Ms. Bloom's communications with her
+clients.
+Ms. Bloom would like to share three of her client's
+statements for the record. Here are the statements. Statement
+of Jane Doe 6.
+To the Honorable Richard M. Berman. Jeffrey Epstein
+stole my innocence. He gave me a life sentence of guilt and
+shame. I do not consider myself a victim. I see myself a
+survivor. The abuse that I endured cannot continue. Let's
+stop this before it happens to other young women. Jane Doe.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 65 of 86
+65
+Statement of Jane Doe 7. To the Honorable Richard M.
+Berman. I used to be relatively carefree, inquisitive, hopeful
+and excited about life, but my life changed because of Jeffrey
+Epstein. My perspective on life became very dark when I was
+unknowingly recruited by one of his agents. Jeffrey Epstein
+ruined me. His recruiter ruined me. The far-reaching
+consequences of that day ruined my family's lives.
+I've chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect my
+family from unwanted media attention.
+I was just trying to figure out my path in life when I
+encountered Jeffrey Epstein in his New York City mansion. I
+cannot even begin to summarize the many detriments this
+experience of sexual assault has had on my life. Immediately
+following the incident, I was unable to function and be around
+other people. My parents had to rescue me and bring me home,
+where I became a recluse for years.
+I was changed forever and buried my assault deep down,
+where the darkness couldn't hurt me anymore, but of course, it
+has always been here, lingering and affecting me unconsciously.
+At the time, I was mired in shame, guilt and humiliation. I
+had somehow tricked myself into thinking that I had allowed the
+assault to happen, that I did it to myself, that I don't
+deserve to be alive or to be loved. I believed that I was a
+disgusting, shameful person who does not deserve to ever be
+happy. These are the thoughts I've lived with on a daily
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPSZ
+basis.
+
+66
+Furthermore, because I couldn't tell anyone, out of
+fear of judgment, blame or retaliation, keeping this secret
+completely hindered my ability to uncover why these issues
+existed for me, which could have led to a path of healing over
+the years.
+It is time for those of power to do the right thing.
+It is time for compassion toward our fellow human beings to
+reign over money, power and greed. We need to protect our most
+vulnerable to allow them a chance at a normal life, and nothing
+should come in the way of that. I believe that for future
+generations, including my own children, this case will set a
+precedent that victims must no longer suffer in silence on our
+own or be shamed for coming forward to seek protection.
+This case should demonstrate to those who want to harm
+others that there will be a reckoning, and they will pay dearly
+for the harm they inflict on innocent people. Judge Berman, I
+thank you for from the bottom of my heart for this forum and
+opportunity.
+To all of those survivors who came before me, I
+commend your bravery. There is no way I could have done this
+without you.
+Thank you to the public following this story, for your
+outrage and desire for answers, which will hopefully move this
+case forward so that victims can stop having to relive their
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RPEPS2R
+
+67
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+experiences every day and move on to begin to heal.
+God bless the victims, their families, the
+investigators and public servants working so diligently to find
+those answers and to right all these wrongs. Jane Doe 7.
+(Continued on next page)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 68 of 86
+68
+THE COURT: Thanks very much.
+MS. GIBBS: One more. Statement of Jane Doe 8.
+In the past few weeks, I have had to reflect on my
+interaction with Jeffrey Epstein and realized that, though I
+have yet to put it all behind me, I am still a victim. I say
+this because I have to come to terms with it in an effort to
+truly get past the abuse I suffered at the hands of Epstein.
+Pursuing criminal penalties against him and having an
+opportunity to address the egregious crimes he committed
+against me and other young woman would have helped my recovery
+process. This all came to an abrupt halt when he took his own
+life. This point of disclosure is lost.
+I cannot say that I am pleased he committed suicide,
+but I am at peace knowing he will not be able to hurt anyone
+else. However, a sad truth remains. I, along with other
+people, will never have an answer as to why. I will never have
+an apology for the wrongdoing. And most importantly, Epstein
+will not be justly sentenced for his crimes. Now I sit in my
+home questioning the well-being of those girls like myself. In
+choosing death, Epstein denied everyone justice.
+Any efforts made to protect Epstein's name and legacy
+send a message to the victims that he wins and that he is
+untouchable. I understand his case may be dismissed or closed,
+but this makes me feel as though I, and anyone else who fell
+pry to his hands, simply do not matter.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 69 of 86
+69
+I ask that you very seriously consider the final
+decision, because it will undoubtedly affect all other facets
+of this case, including any future charges brought against the
+recruiters or third parties to his crimes. I do not want the
+narrative to be, Those poor girls. I want to send a message to
+anyone who would consider engaging in similar acts to think
+twice beforehand. I want some sort of closure for those of us
+who relive those horrible moments where we were assaulted,
+abused, and taken advantage of by Epstein.
+You have the opportunity to help us seek that closure.
+I appreciate your time and consideration and ask for your
+continued support in dealing with this case to illustrate that
+we, Epstein's victims, do matter.
+Sincerely, Jane Doe 8.
+On behalf of Lisa Bloom and The Bloom Firm, thank you,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Gibbs.
+Did we have any other victim's counsel or victims?
+Ms. Allred.
+MS. ALLRED: Good morning, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Good morning. How are you?
+MS. ALLRED: Fine.
+Thank you.
+Allred, Maroko & Goldberg by Gloria Allred,
+G-1-o-=-i-a A-1-1-r-e-d.
+Your Honor, thank you so much for this opportunity to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 70 of 86|
+70
+afford the victims their voice, because many of them have never
+spoken
+before.
+They never spoke in Florida. They never spoke
+anywhere.
+They never told their mother. They never told their
+father. They never told their family members. This is an
+opportunity for them to be heard. We thank you for that.
+Your Honor, for 43 years my firm has been the leading
+women's rights private law firm in the United States. We have
+helped thousands of victims. And I, as an officer of the
+court, and as a believer in the system, have tried to encourage
+the victims to have confidence in the system that should
+provide them access to justice that should help them to assert
+and vindicate their rights in a court of law. It has been
+increasingly difficult in this case for me to say to my clients
+that they should have confidence in the system of justice given
+what has occurred in this case, People v. Jeffrey Epstein.
+Having said that, I am encouraged by the fact that
+this court, essentially, in an unprecedented situation where
+the defendant is deceased, is still affording these victims an
+opportunity to be heard. So we thank you for that. It is some
+encouragement.
+Your Honor, you also asked do our clients wish to be
+heard in reference to some of the issues that have been raised
+this morning, including what should happen into this case.
+Your Honor, there has been a suggestion that the court should
+investigate the circumstances of the death of Mr. Epstein. I'm
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 71 of 86
+71
+not going to repeat the arguments made by counsel, but I would
+say that if there is jurisdiction, and I know that is a legal
+issue which has been previously argued, that certainly it would
+increase the confidence of my clients. Not just my clients,
+but victims all over, and some are, by the way, located in
+other parts of the world, to have the court oversee the
+investigation.
+We are encouraged by the sensitivity of the attorneys
+for the United States Attorney's office for the Southern
+District of New York and the investigation that is going on
+with the separate team. However, and, of course, the defense
+is also conducting its own investigation. But I do think the
+greatest confidence would be if the court in some way would be
+able to oversee an investigation because the court is a neutral
+party. And although the court certainly has a stake in finding
+out what happened to defendants who are in the custody of the
+federal system and who should be there to face the prosecutors
+and the charges against them, but now are not because clearly
+the system has failed.
+And the United States Attorney has admitted that, and
+even before he admitted that, everybody knows the system
+failed. Failed the victims, failed the court, failed everyone.
+In any event, your Honor, having seen so many
+thousands of victims of gender violence, sex harassment, sexual
+assault, I've dealt with child sex trafficking, child
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 72 of 86
+72
+molesters,
+I mean, this is a unique case because there are so
+many victims and so many failures of the system. At this
+point, what we would really ask for is not just words, but
+words have been helpful, but deeds, and that is very important.
+In addition, I would like to say, throughout this case
+is the running theme of the betrayal of trust. Betrayal of
+trust by Jeffrey Epstein. Betrayal of trust by the system.
+And betrayal of trust to the victims who had a right to
+justice. And the Crime Victims' Act should not just be words,
+it should have meaning and it should be enforced.
+In essence, we are asking, although you may need to,
+of course, grant this motion to dismiss, I think because the
+court has shown sensitivity to victims and victims' needs, if
+there is a way to at least keep the record open so that victims
+who have not been able to be physically present in the
+courtroom today and who have not been able to submit to the
+court any letters, victim impact, and who have not been able to
+secure attorneys or speak to attorneys yet -- so, for example,
+I'll still hearing from victims who I have not been able to
+meet with yet because they just recently are now contacting
+me -- so if they could submit, at least for the record, their
+victim impact statements, that, I think, would be a very
+important assistance to them. So that would be, at least they
+would know that what they are sharing is on the record.
+So, in summary, I would say that they are looking
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 73 of 86
+73
+forward to the very serious investigation by the United States
+Attorney of who may have conspired in this case, and that is
+very hopeful, and we're hoping that everyone who may have a
+role to this criminal prosecution will submit that evidence.
+This is about power. This is about many victims
+having lived in fear - fear of the rich, the powerful, the
+famous, fear that the system will not afford them justice.
+So
+fear of not coming forward. And fear, of course, is a weapon
+that the rich, powerful, famous, and sexual predators used to
+silence the victims. But that
+is gone for a lot of victims
+because they refuse to suffer in silence.
+Finally, it does take courage to speak truth to power.
+We thank this honorable court for giving these victims a voice.
+we thank them, even after the death of the defendant, for
+showing respect for the victims, allowing them dignity,
+allowing them a voice. We do want truth, we do want justice,
+we do want accountability, and we do want those conspirators to
+face the justice system.
+Your Honor, right now we have two of our clients who
+would like to address the court.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MS. ALLRED: Then I have a couple of statements on
+victims who do not wish to address the court.
+As they come up, we'll give them the opportunity to
+say either their name or Jane Doe.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 74 of 86
+74
+By the way, thank you, your Honor, for allowing some
+of these victims to be called Jane Doe. What number the court
+affords to them, we'll accept whatever that is.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: We're up to nine.
+MS. ALLRED: Thank you.
+Hello. My name is
+That is
+T-e-a-1-a D-a-v-i-e-s.
+I was going to start this statement by saying that I
+was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. But that's not the case. I'm
+still a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. I'm still a victim because
+the fear of not being heard stopped me from telling my story
+for so many years. This lingering fear almost stopped me from
+attending this monumental movement of strength and power.
+I'm still a victim because I am fearful for my
+daughters and everyone's daughters. I'm fearful for their
+future in this world, where there are predators in power, a
+world where people can avoid justice if their pockets run deep
+enough.
+I'm still a victim because the 17-year-old Teala was
+manipulated into thinking she had found someone who cared,
+someone who wanted to help. Jeffrey knew I had nowhere to go.
+He knew I was vulnerable, and he took advantage of that poor
+girl, who will never be the same.
+I cannot eat at the thought that Jeffrey Epstein -- I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 75 of 86
+75
+cannot eat at the thought of Jeffrey Epstein not serving the
+time he needed to realize the pain and suffering he caused so
+many vulnerable young girls. He thought he was untouchable,
+and honestly, so did I. I thought he was the most powerful
+person I would ever meet.
+But the end is here and here I stand becoming more
+powerful than he will ever be. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+JANE DOE: Jane Doe.
+Um, in 2004, when I was 15 years old, I flew on
+Jeffrey Epstein's plane to Zorro Ranch, where I was sexual
+molested by him for many hours. What I remember most vividly
+was him explaining to me how beneficial the experience was for
+me and how much he was helping me to grow. Yikes.
+I remember feeling
+so small and powerless, especially
+after he positioned me by laying me on his floor so that I was
+confronted by all the framed photographs on his dresser of him
+smiling with wealthy celebrities and politicians.
+After he finished with me, he told me to describe in
+detail how good my first sexual experience felt. That was the
+first of many lies I was forced to carry for him, the weight of
+which proliferated my trauma. I felt powerless not merely
+because one man wanted to strip me of my innocence, but because
+I was the victim of a system that just enfranchises human
+beings, making them vulnerable to pedophilic exploitation.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 76 of 86
+76
+As unjust as what happened to me was, I believe that
+experience to be a symptom of insidious and pathological
+violence that extreme wealth yields, a violence which
+ultimately stays hidden through channels of extreme power that
+serve it.
+I first identified with this feeling the night after I
+was molested by Epstein, when another girl and I took out two
+of his ATVs and raised them across the mesa. I crashed mine
+and expressed my concern to the other girl of getting in
+trouble, which she replied to me, Don't worry, no one gets in
+trouble for anything here.
+Even as a child, I understood, in a sad and precocious
+way, what I hoped we have the ability of changing now. Even
+though Epstein is dead, there
+is still justice to be brought
+for the crimes we felt powerless against concealing for him and
+the system that supported him for all these years.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: You're very welcome.
+MS. ALLRED: Thank you.
+Your Honor, may it please the court. I would like to
+read a statement for Jane Doe, my client, who is present in
+court, but requested that I read it.
+We only have one opportunity at childhood. One
+opportunity to develop. One opportunity to find direction for
+our lives. Jeffrey Epstein robbed and denied me at each
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 77 of 86
+77
+opportunity he had.
+I came from a small Texas town, not far from the New
+Mexico border. My mother died when I was 11, after suffering
+from cancer for many years. My father was devastated, as were
+my siblings and I. My father was saddled with debt. My only
+hope for college was to get a scholarship.
+When I was 15, I was a blossoming freshman in high
+school and was trying to carry on my mother's dream. She
+wanted me to
+the violin. After school, I would often go
+to a mall in a nearby city. A lady approached me and saw I had
+a violin case with me and asked if I was any good. We talked
+about the violin, my family, and why I had clothes that looked
+like hand-me-downs.
+The lady told me she works for a very rich man who had
+a home close by and that he would pay to hear me play. I was
+told that if I could get away, she could arrange for
+transportation to and from his place and have me back before
+anyone knew I was gone. After some hesitation, I agreed. This
+decision was the beginning of the end of my childhood.
+The man who only identified himself as J or Jeff had
+asked if I would give him a massage, and over four visits,
+eventually progressed to forced oral copulation. The money he
+gave me further placed my young soul into a perverse sense of
+hell.
+I was so utterly disgusted with myself and what he did
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 78 of 86
+78
+to me that I stopped going to see him. I had documented the
+events with a Texas rape crisis center about the man I know now
+as Jeffrey Epstein.
+Epstein targeted and took advantage of me, a young
+girl, whose mother had recently died a horrific death and whose
+family structure had deteriorated. His actions placed me, a
+young girl, into a downward spiral to the point where I
+purchased a gun and drove myself to an isolated place to end my
+suffering.
+A voice that could only have been from my mother told
+me, quote, I am not the victim, I am the victor, and I dare not
+pull the trigger." I returned the gun days later.
+Epstein is a coward. He lived his life leaching off
+the souls of inspiring, young girls due to the fact that he
+could never know how it feels inspired to live. Like a leach,
+once Epstein had his fill, he would unlatch and seek out
+another victim.
+The only sense of justice I had hoped to see was
+Epstein being sentenced. However, Epstein died as he lived,
+taking the easy way out without any responsibility.
+Your Honor, the next statement is also a statement of
+a Jane Doe. May it please the court.
+I was a 16-year-old virgin when Jeffrey Epstein first
+raped me. I was naive and gullable. He was a pillar of
+finance and a giant in the world that I was an insignificant
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 79 of 86
+79
+part of. I was so impressed that this great man would even
+talk to me and impart any of his wisdom on me. I gladly jumped
+at the chance to meet him again, when he told me how impressed
+he was with my personal story and maturity for my age.
+When I was in his presence, he made an effort to call
+celebrities and influential people on speakerphone, like
+Academy Award-winning actresses and super models, who always
+answered his calls. Sadly, I was impressed.
+He was friends with former and future heads of states
+and every other fixture in the New York social scene and
+beyond. He knew important people in my own world that I looked
+up to and revered, but he spoke about them like they were sweet
+distractions far beneath his stature. He could easily reach
+down from his position and influence the people directly
+involved with my daily life and future prosperity. I was the
+perfect victim.
+My whole life was extremely turbulent. But one of my
+mother's greatest wishes was that all her children would
+graduate from respectable universities. He promised me that he
+would write me a letter of recommendation for Harvard if I got
+the grades and scores needed for admission. His word was worth
+a lot, he assured me, as he was in the midst of funding and
+leading Harvard's studies on the human brain, and the president
+was his friend.
+The fact that all of you already know these next
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Document 53|
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 80 of 86
+80
+details, which I'll share, should ignite fire instead of induce
+the complacency they did in the past, when heard repeatedly
+over the
+years, but yes, an innocent massage turned sexual
+almost immediately.
+"Here, come.
+Come help me with a kink in my shoulder
+while we finish our discussion." A large vibrator and a couple
+of hundred dollars, disgust and dirty secret, more praise and
+imparted wisdom from a godlike figure, a deliberate diabolical
+depression of grooming and submission for his pleasure and
+release.
+Even if I resisted, I was no match for him. I felt
+powerless, ashamed, and embarrassed. I wanted to vomit
+remembering these moments.
+What I learned in those depraved sessions, staring up
+at the dome ceiling in his private massage room, tore a violent
+hole through any normal sexual awakening. I'm haunted forever,
+having learned everything there is to know about sex through a
+vile criminal. Every time a new molestation would bring a new
+lesson, the progressive and constant unwinding. I was nothing
+more than a teenage prostitute. I was his slave.
+I had never even kissed a boy before I met him, and
+never throughout the horrific abuse did Jeffrey Epstein kiss me
+even once. When he stole my virginity, he washed my entire
+body compulsively in the shower and then told me, "If you're
+not a virgin, I will kill you." And then I wasn't a virgin
+anymore.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 81 of 86
+81
+He forcefully penetrated me. I was numb. There was
+pain, but his use of the vibrator and his fingers in previous
+sessions with me had left a black hole-like void between my
+legs. I protested, but he forced my face into the bed to
+stifle my cries. That was my first time.
+I got a few hundred dollars, as usual, as he led me
+out of his mansion with assurances that I was on the right path
+guided by him. I lied to myself and tried to believe him. I
+became a hollow shell. If I missed an appointment, he
+threatened me and let me know who was in charge. "Do you know
+how important my time is? I'll bury you. I owe this -- I
+won't say the word -- F'ing town." He would hang up.
+I would stand there frozen in the street, terrified
+that his assistant would call to reschedule. I made sure to
+stay in line and not disobey him. I was in complete denial.
+Being paid after every scheduled meeting felt routine and
+disgusting. He was the
+of the universe and the world
+bent to his will.
+He would eventually brag to his assistants about my
+ability to please him sexually right in front of me, leaving me
+feeling grotesque and worthless. Everything in my outside life
+was falling apart. I distanced myself from friends and grew
+further away from my family. I felt less human after each
+ordeal. My psyche broke down completely and wouldn't let me
+continue.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 82 of 86
+82
+One day I walked out of his residence and passed a
+girl similar to myself. When I turned around, she was entering
+Jeffrey's residence. He no longer even tried to schedule his
+appointments with other girls in secrecy from me. Maybe he
+never did. I was too stupid to see.
+My world shattered. I had been so naive. I had an
+epiphany in a calvary of desperation. I realized I was just
+one of many young girls he had in rotation come to perform for
+him for money. I went into a deep depression and never lifted
+completely. I wanted to inflict pain on myself. I was
+humiliated, angry, and suicidal. I locked myself away from
+everything. I cut myself off forever from the world I had
+known.
+I endured the daily agony of knowing my life would
+never be the same. I could never go back to New York City and
+the wonderful life I had taken for granted before I met this
+demon named Jeffrey Epstein.
+This creature had manipulated and outwitted the whole
+system, including some of the most intelligent scientists,
+political people, prosecutors, and power players. How easy was
+it to manipulate a 16-year-old virgin who never had a boyfriend
+and came from a background of hardship with no parental
+guidance or support.
+I went to therapy and was given antidepressants for
+severe anxiety and depression. My only solace, years later,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 83 of 86
+83
+was my desire to succeed on my own terms. I emersed myself
+into my studies and was accepted to every college I applied to,
+graduating from a top university. To this day, there is still
+an ache in my being that I did not apply to Harvard in fear of
+his influence there.
+They say you never forget your first. I'm in a
+never-ending nightmare trying to do just that. I'm forever
+suffering because everything reminds me of that horror. This
+new wave of worldwide publicity only worsens my despair.
+It was only many years later that I was finally
+intimate with a man again, and those moments were marred by my
+actions as a child with Jeffrey Epstein. Even now is
+impossible to separate his treachery from any care of a good
+man.
+For one brief moment there was elation when he was
+recently arrested. I would finally get my chance to see him
+again face to face and show him what I had become, that I had
+succeeded on my own, that I was worth something in spite of his
+abuse, and that I had surmounted the monumental obstacles he
+laid before me throughout my entire life since falling prey to
+him.
+I had hoped humanity would prevail, but it seems to me
+that he outsmarted everyone so far, and his ghost is still
+laughing at us. I appeal to all of those just and true that
+his evil legacy and his death not stand in the way of
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+J8RsEPS3
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 84 of 86
+84
+resolution and justice for all of his underaged victims.
+Thank you, your Honor.
+And then just one last one, and this is much shorter.
+Statement of Jane Doe, also my client.
+I was a model in another country when I came to the
+United States.
+I was told by a booker that I needed to meet
+with a man named Jeffrey Epstein, who was the owner of
+Victoria's Secret. The booker told me that Mr. Epstein could
+help me get into Victoria Secret's world.
+It was my childhood dream to be a Victoria's Secret
+model. So I went one day in the afternoon and I met
+Mr. Epstein in his office in his mansion in New York. A woman
+introduced herself and suggested to me that I should be
+extremely nice to Mr. Epstein, because if he liked me, he would
+probably have photographers
+shooting photos of me right away.
+The told me to go upstairs and directed me to Jeffrey
+Epstein's office. Mr. Epstein had a
+robe on and we
+chatted very briefly. I had my portfolio of photos, but he
+didn't even look at it. Suddenly, he took his robe off and got
+close to me. I got up to leave, but the door was locked.
+I didn't know what was going on. It was my first
+official meeting to be cast in the United States. I was a
+young girl and confused. He got very close to me, and I had a
+skirt on. He started to touch my genitals. I refused him.
+Then he went to the massage table and showed me the vibrator.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Filed 09/03/19 Page 85 of 86
+J8RsEPS3
+85
+I took it and threw it at him.
+At that point, I ran to the door again and figured out
+how to get out of there. A girl outside asked me where I was
+going and she said to be careful. She said that Mr. Epstein
+knew a lot of powerful people, including Bill Clinton, and that
+if I didn't do what Mr. Epstein wanted, I would not be able to
+have any job in the industry.
+I was so scared. I couldn't wait to get out of there,
+and I left. I took the train home. I had spent all of my
+savings getting Victoria's Secret lingerie to prepare for what
+I thought would be my audition. But instead, it seemed like a
+casting call for prostitution. I felt like I was in hell.
+Thank you, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Allred.
+Was there anybody else, any victim's counsel or any of
+the other victims who have not been heard and wish to be heard?
+Well, OK then. All I have to say, really, is thank
+you, all of you, for your participation in today's remarkable
+hearing. I think everybody has benefited greatly from your
+input, and especially from the testimony of victims here today
+and who have had the courage to come forward.
+We have also benefited throughout these proceedings,
+however brief altogether, from the attorneys' legal advocacy
+and their written and oral submissions. I'm grateful to them
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB |
+Document 53 Filed 09/03/19 Page 86 of 86
+J8RsEPS3
+86
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+as well, both for the government and the defense and those
+representing the victims.
+Finally, we're also grateful to the press for their
+very diligent coverage of seemingly every detail of this case.
+That concludes our work for today and we stand
+adjourned.
+Thanks.
+(Adjourned)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4c89769029ace68c2a46ead5ce950957e013de2cba4dcefa704acc891bdca4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4c89769029ace68c2a46ead5ce950957e013de2cba4dcefa704acc891bdca4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30816014eefa374e676e6e156fa5d75a02fbe42a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee4c89769029ace68c2a46ead5ce950957e013de2cba4dcefa704acc891bdca4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -6342,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ee4c89769029ace68c2a46ead5ce950957e013de2cba4dcefa704acc891bdca4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 90,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "23437f678e6e8d3bf18320954163932d225c8332702dbed65feb32f82a44b8d5",
+  "output_sha256": "0cad3ad00691b75a8984725f7036c5153a9a72fd7c16542ceb11be8b57d25404",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee6601fe72aefb028837c182539c9afaae1a432d22cdb8916314412e0cec0ac5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee6601fe72aefb028837c182539c9afaae1a432d22cdb8916314412e0cec0ac5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d878c1a567cf75c146e9f5b694eb6d75fe152ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee6601fe72aefb028837c182539c9afaae1a432d22cdb8916314412e0cec0ac5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 780
+Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 1
+SFI
+BOIES
+SCHILLER
+FLEXNER
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+E-mail: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+March 24, 2017
+VIA ECE
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+This is a letter motion to exceed the page limits for Plaintiff
+Reply In
+Support of Her Motion in Limine to Present All Evidence of Defendant's Involvement in
+Epstein Sexual Abuse and Sex Trafficking.
+respectfully requests the Court grant her request to exceed the page limits by
+21 agent in Defendant a desponse to Plain e sal Stand rid invile td inesent ase Evidence of
+Defendant's Involvement in Epstein Sexual Abuse and Sex Trafficking.
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid MeCawley, Esq.
+SM:akc
+cc:
+Jeft Pagliuca, Esq. (via e-mail)
+Laura Menninger, Esq. (via e-mail)
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 Eost Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee6601fe72aefb028837c182539c9afaae1a432d22cdb8916314412e0cec0ac5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee6601fe72aefb028837c182539c9afaae1a432d22cdb8916314412e0cec0ac5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8cf6755fb066fbfaa7663dd7dfb153a4d1b27920
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee6601fe72aefb028837c182539c9afaae1a432d22cdb8916314412e0cec0ac5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ee6601fe72aefb028837c182539c9afaae1a432d22cdb8916314412e0cec0ac5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f5bf3becba1e488969d59e3161a384f982387953e76f238b79ffb9443a342e87",
+  "output_sha256": "e7d1f08eadf0caf6e348cd2864de4df968e44179b8413973da42d329eec8d942",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee8133af14938b28235ef5cf47ffa45bb3b75414872c91f4c8260855bea01e04.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee8133af14938b28235ef5cf47ffa45bb3b75414872c91f4c8260855bea01e04.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1da91f7c4460032c65d34798de79fb42b567c64e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee8133af14938b28235ef5cf47ffa45bb3b75414872c91f4c8260855bea01e04.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 75
+Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+CASE NO.: 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+VE,
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+DARREN K. INDYKE AND
+RICHARD D. KAHN AS JOINT
+PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
+THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+NINE EAST 71$T STREET, CORPORATION,
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC.,
+NES, LLC,
+Defendant.
+JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
+Plaintiff, VE, and Defendants, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as Co-Executors of
+the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc.,
+and NES, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that due to
+Plaintiff's resolution of her claims) against Defendants via the Epstein Victims' Compensation
+Program, this action shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own
+attorneys' fees and costs.
+Dated: December 7, 2020
+POTTINGER LLC
+SANDERS LLP
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Brad@epllc.com, Brittany@epllc.com
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+Respectfully Submitted,
+TROUTMAN PEPPER
+Molly S- DiRago
+By:
+Molly S. DiRago
+875 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+(212) 704-6000
+bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com
+Attorneys for Defendants
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee8133af14938b28235ef5cf47ffa45bb3b75414872c91f4c8260855bea01e04.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee8133af14938b28235ef5cf47ffa45bb3b75414872c91f4c8260855bea01e04.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7482b3ab6b7121f6e70daf72c5fa9815cd38b3b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ee8133af14938b28235ef5cf47ffa45bb3b75414872c91f4c8260855bea01e04.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ee8133af14938b28235ef5cf47ffa45bb3b75414872c91f4c8260855bea01e04",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2e98e34976cb9441ea6dcc5c8d7f25a436cb839d703ec79f1481f511742793ce",
+  "output_sha256": "4286ee919a267311630d8e913296dae9ea66dfb894b3194b1d36b4ab285e9e7a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eec38baa946153a5cd10eb2efebbbe478d7c22189a8bddc02300cfe52fc1c4a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eec38baa946153a5cd10eb2efebbbe478d7c22189a8bddc02300cfe52fc1c4a9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86fcb86a9259ce7dd67ff3705fbea40e018ac0ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eec38baa946153a5cd10eb2efebbbe478d7c22189a8bddc02300cfe52fc1c4a9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 580-2 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eec38baa946153a5cd10eb2efebbbe478d7c22189a8bddc02300cfe52fc1c4a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eec38baa946153a5cd10eb2efebbbe478d7c22189a8bddc02300cfe52fc1c4a9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ecc0356770988dcabc9c63a7d7dd5d9c35b3202
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eec38baa946153a5cd10eb2efebbbe478d7c22189a8bddc02300cfe52fc1c4a9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eec38baa946153a5cd10eb2efebbbe478d7c22189a8bddc02300cfe52fc1c4a9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a2c71e03520d65fcaf415409f8c23efd0ea8f179ddd47f10cd549521bb4ab5f5",
+  "output_sha256": "ba5e73268eba6a265ddcace12fcbe22333bcd2fcdf99a8be722a0c8d9b4e67b6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eecd24e2a431462e31b7ee245d0acadf0dac69614a69f1915926be709f98fc6c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eecd24e2a431462e31b7ee245d0acadf0dac69614a69f1915926be709f98fc6c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..200944f94a3128487f7e3412f4cb30b2a4cd6759
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eecd24e2a431462e31b7ee245d0acadf0dac69614a69f1915926be709f98fc6c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 422
+Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 2
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+November 8, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated
+November 3, 2021, ordering the Government to docket a letter with a proposal from legal counsel
+at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"") regarding what additional steps can be taken to
+ensure that the defendant promptly receives her legal mail within the weeks leading up to trial
+(Dkt. No. 412).
+Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government of the following: MDC mail room
+staff will continue to pick up legal mail from the post office once every business day and follow
+the processes outlined in the Government's November 1, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 403). As to
+electronic discovery sent to legal counsel at the MDC, staff at the MDC's warehouse will continue
+to process and log the mail and the legal department will deliver the mail to the inmate. Legal
+counsel at the MDC has indicated that they call or stop by the warehouse every day or every other
+day to check for packages that have been delivered for the Legal Department.' Legal counsel at
+' The Government will continue to inform legal counsel at the MDC when it sends a hard drive to
+the attention of legal counsel, which goes to the MDC's warehouse as outlined in the Government's
+October 15, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 350).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 422 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 2
+Page 2
+the MDC also noted that defense counsel can deposit legal mail in the MDC's legal mailbox during
+visiting hours (between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.); MDC's mail room staff picks up such mail between
+approximately 6 a.m. and 2 p.m. once every business day and logs the mail, which is then delivered
+to an inmate by the unit manager. According to legal counsel at the MDC, any additional steps
+would be extremely burdensome and not practicable in light of the various responsibilities of the
+MDC's legal department and staff, which are responsible for issues relating to the approximately
+1,700 inmates at the MDC.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN I
+United States Attorney
+By:
+S/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eecd24e2a431462e31b7ee245d0acadf0dac69614a69f1915926be709f98fc6c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eecd24e2a431462e31b7ee245d0acadf0dac69614a69f1915926be709f98fc6c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d48ae03adfc7bbc3a0bff98fda42077d3b0424b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eecd24e2a431462e31b7ee245d0acadf0dac69614a69f1915926be709f98fc6c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eecd24e2a431462e31b7ee245d0acadf0dac69614a69f1915926be709f98fc6c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6d82b374c8ed08097bbbef3dab410b6001980bc5bea132dc145036bacb1ff8af",
+  "output_sha256": "a2aff4e1f9e80e215a5cc0b1c2a87b49106bdf4e74be890c1272f929bc80ab5d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef14182b5353335c372d03eb881bee13e9b09c0c2de5f8bd7edbd2c6cd5241a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef14182b5353335c372d03eb881bee13e9b09c0c2de5f8bd7edbd2c6cd5241a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..497af1194e80d7159f237f4cf3df98896d7a93fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef14182b5353335c372d03eb881bee13e9b09c0c2de5f8bd7edbd2c6cd5241a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610
+Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:_
+DATE FILED: 2/24/22
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+On January 19, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal
+Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis that Juror 50 "falsely answered a material question
+during voir dire and ... that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a
+challenge for cause." Maxwell Br., Jan. 19, 2022, at 48. The Defendant contends that the
+current paper record sufficiently supports her motion and should be granted without a hearing.
+In the alternative, she requests that a hearing be conducted. Id. She also argues that if a hearing
+is ordered, a broader hearing is required based on a news article that suggests a second juror was
+allegedly a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 48-49.
+In an Opinion & Order filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's
+motion for a new trial on the current record. As explained in the temporarily sealed Opinion &
+Order, Defendant's motion on the current record relies extensively on statements made by Juror
+50 regarding what occurred during jury deliberations that the Court is prohibited from
+considering under Federal Rule of Evidence 606. With regard to Juror 50's statements that do
+not pertain to jury deliberations, in order to resolve the motion on this record, the Court would
+have to accept unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual
+determinations that are not available on the current record.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 3
+Accordingly, for the reasons fully explained in the Opinion & Order, a hearing is
+necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. Because of the important interest in the finality of
+judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high. The Court concludes, and
+the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary
+hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection
+process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse. Following trial, Juror 50 made several
+direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not
+pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury
+selection. Juror 50's post-trial statements are "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible
+evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety"—namely, a false statement during jury
+selection has occurred. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018). To be clear,
+the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on
+the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury
+selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be
+explored.
+In contrast, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to
+the conduct of any other juror. The Court DENIES the request to conduct a hearing with respect
+to the other jurors. The Court also DENIES the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and
+pre-hearing discovery.
+The Court therefore ORDERS that a hearing take place at which the Court will question
+Juror 50 under oath. The Court further ORDERS that Juror 50's questionnaire be unsealed, for
+the reasons explained in the Opinion & Order. The Court will email counsel for Juror 50 a copy
+of his questionnaire and a copy of this Order. As also explained in the Opinion & Order, the
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 3
+Court will conduct the questioning at the public hearing with input from counsel for the
+Defendant and the Government. The parties may submit by email proposed questions in
+accordance with the Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022.
+The hearing will take place on March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS Juror
+50 to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre
+Street, New York, New York at that date and time to give testimony under oath in response to
+the Court's questions. The Court will ensure public access and will provide information on
+public access as soon as it is available.
+The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties. By noon on
+February 25, 2022, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks limited
+redactions to the Opinion & Order, conforming any requests to this Court's prior order, Dkt. No.
+596, and justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second
+Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: February 24, 2022
+New York, New York
+Alis O. Notor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef14182b5353335c372d03eb881bee13e9b09c0c2de5f8bd7edbd2c6cd5241a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef14182b5353335c372d03eb881bee13e9b09c0c2de5f8bd7edbd2c6cd5241a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ec786ffd4ae257f3b4fdb9c0e9678447612e0d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef14182b5353335c372d03eb881bee13e9b09c0c2de5f8bd7edbd2c6cd5241a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eef14182b5353335c372d03eb881bee13e9b09c0c2de5f8bd7edbd2c6cd5241a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fe745c605b26bcd68f09e1d1f0a35c359c99e95a3300e092ce1200d58cbc2beb",
+  "output_sha256": "70fd86ab0e7280aa3b5bbbb292a96aea60aebfa6c6cbe73cb80b8c9017926842",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef16b004edeccb5281584543565fed99f35a8f240b9a8645452f0877ab70673.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef16b004edeccb5281584543565fed99f35a8f240b9a8645452f0877ab70673.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a49a27a7f1fc19d174013bf42a75e2101e025bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef16b004edeccb5281584543565fed99f35a8f240b9a8645452f0877ab70673.md
@@ -0,0 +1,394 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 1 of 10
+KRIEGER
+500 Fifth Avenue
+New York, NY 10110
+& LEWIN LLP
+Telephone: (212) 390-9550
+www.KKIlp.com
+The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
+United States District Judge
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street, Room 2220
+New York, NY 10007-1312
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 07433 (LAP)
+Dear Judge Preska:
+We write on behalf of an anonymous third party, John Doe, in advance of the conference
+scheduled for tomorrow in the above-referenced matter. As this Court well knows, the July 3,
+2019 Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit directed this Court to
+perform a "particularized review" of materials previously filed under seal in this matter (the
+"Sealed Materials") to determine whether they, in the first instance, constitute judicial records
+and, if so, whether and to what extent such records may be unsealed without infringing upon the
+privacy and reputational rights of persons not before this Court. See
+v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d
+41, 51 (2d Cir. 2019). We respectfully write to ask this Court to protect those non-party
+interests; a request that is consistent with long-standing Circuit precedent establishing that this
+responsibility "rests heavily upon the shoulders" of the district court. In re New York Times, 828
+F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987).
+To that end, we submit that: (a) non-judicial records in this matter should remain sealed;
+(b) judicial records found to have had only a negligible role in the performance of Article III
+duties should likewise remain sealed; and (c) as to all other judicial records, the Court should
+balance the competing interests of public access and non-party privacy and reputational interests
+by redacting the names and other identifying information of the non-parties. We further propose
+for the Court's consideration a protocol to assist the Court in conducting its review.
+A. Judge Sweet Observed That The Sealed Materials Implicate Non-Parties
+And Include Non-Adjudicated Claims On Non-Public, Private Matters.
+We represent John Doe. Doe is not, and has never been, a party in any judicial
+proceeding involving Ghislaine Maxwell or
+,, or in any proceeding relating to
+allegation that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused her.
+As a non-party to these proceedings, Doe lacks specific knowledge about the contents of
+the Sealed Materials. But it is clear that these materials implicate the privacy and reputational
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 2 of 10
+Page 2 ot 7
+interests of many persons other than the two primary parties to this action,
+and Maxwell.
+Judge Sweet summarized the contents of documents sealed in this action as including a "range of
+allegations of sexual acts involving Plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some famous,
+some not; the identities of non-parties who either allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff
+or who allegedly facilitated such acts."
+v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 442 (S.D.N.Y.
+2018). Of course, these allegations against non-parties remain unadjudicated even though they
+are based upon events occurring over a decade and a half ago.
+The Court of Appeals plainly contemplated that this Court's review process would
+include the participation of "outside parties whose privacy interests might be implicated by the
+unsealing" - as demonstrated by the Court of Appeal's observation that the parties can assist this
+Court in notifying such parties.
+, 929 F.3d at 51. Thus, although Doe has not received
+such notice, we respectfully make this submission in furtherance of the privacy rights of such
+non-parties and propose a non-party objection protocol in light of what is reasonably discerned to
+be the far-ranging scope of the allegations contained in the Sealed Materials.
+B.
+The Court of Appeals' Stated Concern For The Publication Of Libelous
+Statements Protected By The Litigation Privilege Emphasizes This Court's
+Responsibility To Protect The Interests Of Non-Parties.
+While the Court of Appeals ultimately found Judge Sweet erred in not conducting an
+individualized review of the Sealed Materials, it "share[d the district court's] concern that court
+files might be used to promote scandal arising out of unproven potentially libelous statements."
+, 929 F.3d at 51 (internal quotation omitted). The Court of Appeals specifically observed:
+Our legal process is already susceptible to abuse. Unscrupulous litigants can
+weaponize the discovery process to humiliate and embarrass their adversaries.
+Shielded by the litigation privilege, bad actors can defame opponents in court
+pleadings or depositions without fear of lawsuit and liability. Unfortunately, the
+presumption of public access to court documents has the potential to exacerbate
+these harms to privacy and reputation by ensuring that damaging material
+irrevocably enters the public record.
+929 F.3d at 47 (internal quotation omitted).
+The media coverage over the course of the previous weeks bears out - powerfully - the
+concerns expressed by the Court of Appeals. A review of media reporting from the date of
+Epstein's arrest through August 26, 2019, reveals the following:
+• More than 17,000 different articles concerning the Epstein matter have been published
+worldwide (which includes print and online reports, but excludes strictly web sources).
+• If one were to include online blogs and the like, that number would soar to more than
+180,000.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 3 of 10
+
+• Over 230,000 mentions of the Epstein matter have been broadcast on television
+worldwide.
+Unsealing references to non-parties would throw those non-parties into the middle of this frenzy,
+and unfairly do irreparable harm to their privacy and reputational interests. Indeed, a vast
+number of these articles have published unsubstantiated allegations as fact. The careless
+regurgitation of allegations made under the litigation privilege, and not elsewhere, has the
+potential to permanently and unjustifiably harm non-parties and their families.
+The concerns about non-party interests are particularly acute here because - as a result of
+the parties' settlement of the underlying civil action - the allegations at issue in this matter will
+likely never be resolved. Whereas named parties can avail themselves of the litigation process to
+refute false accusations, non-parties whose names become associated with misconduct can suffer
+the "unfairness of being stigmatized from sensationalized and potentially out-of-context
+985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); see also, e.g., Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger
+d Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016). And some will never have that opportunity, as
+is the case with former Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Marvin Minsky, who
+was recently implicated in the Epstein matter when the summary judgment materials were
+publicly released. More than 350 different news reports repeating these allegations of sexual
+misconduct with Plaintiff have been published regarding Professor Minsky. But, because he has
+passed away, his family must confront these allegations and the associated stigma without the
+benefit of Professor Minsky's response, let alone an available forum for seeking redress.
+Providing the media more unsubstantiated allegations, never leveled outside of the cloak
+of the litigation privilege, only serves to continue this cycle of irresponsible, sensationalist
+reporting. For these reasons, the privacy and reputational interests of third parties, like Doe,
+"should weigh heavily in [this Court's] balancing equation in determining what portions of [the
+Sealed Materials] should remain sealed or should be redacted." In re New York Times, 828 F.2d
+at 116. "The job of protecting [privacy rights] rests heavily upon the shoulders of the trial judge,
+since all the parties who may be harmed by disclosure are typically not before the court." Id.
+C. Iwo Categories of the Sealed Materials Should Readily Remain Sealed.
+From a review of the docket sheet, it is clear there are several categories of materials
+within the Sealed Materials relating to non-parties that should remain permanently sealed.' First,
+discovery materials, including written responses and deposition transcripts, or excerpts of the
+same, that were not relevant to the performance of Article III functions, are not judicial records,
+are entitled to no presumption of access, and should remain sealed pursuant to the terms of the
+Protective Order. See
+1. 929 F.3d at 49 (If a court "determines that documents filed by a
+party are not relevant to the performance of a judicial function, no presumption of public access
+attaches.") (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir.
+' Doe takes no position as to the unsealing of records relating solely to the parties and not implicating non-parties.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 4 of 10
+
+1995) ("Documents that play no role in the performance of Article III functions, such as those
+passed between the parties in discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption's reach.").
+Nevertheless, should the Court consider unsealing portions of these discovery materials,
+its review necessarily requires a page-by-page review. For example, simply because one page of
+a deposition transcript is deemed a judicial record, does not mean another page, which pertains to
+a different subject or person, is as well. This approach is compelled by the particularized review
+set forth by the Court of Appeals. See
+, 929 F.3d at 49-51.
+The second category of Sealed Materials consists of those records determined to be
+judicial records, but that only "play[ed] a negligible role in the performance of Article III
+duties." Id. at 49 (internal quotation omitted). These records may, in fact, have had the tendency
+to influence a district court's ruling or relate to the court's exercise of its supervisory power, thus
+rendering them judicial records, but the role of the information was ultimately negligible to the
+judicial function. Thus, the presumption of access accorded such information is so low that it
+"amounts to little more than prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason." Id. at
+49-50 (internal quotation omitted). In practical terms, as to records within this category, where a
+non-party's privacy or reputational interests are implicated, these records should also remain
+sealed in their entirety.
+D.
+Privacy and Reputational Harm To Non-Parties Outweigh The Lower
+Presumption of Access To The Final Category of Sealed Materials, Or,
+Alternatively, Require The Redaction Of Personal Identifving Information.
+With the Court of Appeals' disposition of the summary judgment materials, the final
+category of Sealed Materials consists of judicial records that played something more than a
+negligible role in the performance of this Court's Article III duties. Importantly, however, this
+Court's analysis of this category of materials should be markedly different from that undertaken
+with respect to the summary judgment materials by the Court of Appeals.
+To be sure, though this Court must still articulate specific and substantial reasons for
+sealing [the] material[s], the reasons [for sealing) usually need not be as compelling as those
+required to seal summary judgment filings."
+, 929 F.3d at 50. This is because the
+presumption of access "in filings submitted in connection with discovery disputes or motions in
+limine is generally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial,
+or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment."
+Id. As the Court of Appeals explained, a district court's authority to oversee discovery and
+control the evidence introduced at trial is "ancillary to the court's core role in adjudicating a
+case." Id.
+On the other side of the scale, here, the privacy and reputational interests of non-parties
+are indisputably strong, especially where the allegations in the Sealed Materials may be the
+product of false statements, mistake, confusion, or failing memories based upon events
+occurring more than sixteen years ago. And, critically, such allegations will never be resolved
+here in light of the parties' settlement. Courts routinely protect the identities of non-parties
+who are subject to unproven allegations of impropriety. See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 5 of 10
+
+Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) ("[Jourts have refused to permit their files to
+serve as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption ...."); Amodeo, 71 F.3d at
+1051 ("Raw, unverified information should not be as readily disclosed as matters that are
+verified. Similarly, a court may consider whether the nature of the materials is such that there
+is a fair opportunity for the subject to respond to any accusations contained therein."). This is
+particularly true where the alleged impropriety is sexual in nature. See, e.g., United States v.
+Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016) (permitting
+redaction of the names of two women with whom the defendant had allegedly had extramarital
+affairs, despite the fact that - in the court's view - the women were "not entirely innocent
+third parties.") (internal quotation omitted).
+As the Third Circuit has explained in declining to publicize a list of unindicted coconspirators in a criminal case:
+The individuals on the sealed list are faced with more than mere
+embarrassment. It is no exaggeration to suggest that publication of
+the list might be career ending for some. Clearly, it will inflict
+serious injury on the reputations of all. In some instances, there may
+be truth to the prosecutor's accusation. On the other hand... it is
+virtually certain that serious injury will be inflicted upon innocent
+individuals as well. In these circumstances, we have no hesitancy
+in holding that the trial court had a compelling governmental interest
+in making sure its own process was not utilized to unnecessarily
+jeopardize the privacy and reputational interests of the named
+individuals.
+United States v.
+776 F.2d 1104, 1114 (3d Cir. 1985). Similar considerations recently
+motivated Judge Pauley to order the redaction of the names of non-parties from warrant materials
+filed in connection with the Michael
+case. United States v.
+1. 18 Cr. 602 (WHP),
+2019 WL 472577, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2019) ("The relevant considerations weigh in favor of
+redacting the names and descriptions of these uncharged individuals, who may nonetheless be
+stigmatized from sensationalized and potentially out-of-context insinuations of wrongdoing,
+combined with the inability of these third parties to clear their names at trial... [R]eferences to
+those around
+from which the public might infer criminal complicity.. should also be
+redacted.") (internal quotation omitted).?
+= Courts within this Circuit and otherwise across the country have found that the privacy interests of third persons
+warranted the sealing of a record or redactions thereto notwithstanding a presumption of access. In addition to the
+cases cited above, the following are offered as examples: Am. Friends Ser: Comm. v. City & Cty. of Denver, 02 Civ.
+N740 (CBS), 2004 WL 7334020 (D. Colo. Feb. 19, 2004) (privacy concerns can overcome the First Amendment
+presumption of access in permitting redaction of certain court records); v. Private Diagnostic Clinic, PLLC, 16
+Civ. 0526 (LCB), 2018 WL 1384486, (M.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2018) (interest in preserving the confidentiality of the
+sensitive personal information regarding non-parties is sufficiently compelling to overcome the First
+Amendment presumptive right of access); Guessford v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Case. Ins. Co., 12 Civ. 260 (WLO), 2014 WL
+12594127 (M.D.N.C., September 30, 2014) (employee personnel files implicate privacy interests and redactions are
+the less intrusive means of protecting such private data); C
+v. Bowser, 12 Civ. 301 (LPA) 2013 WL 3791770
+at *4 (M.D.N.C. July 19, 2013) (explaining that the interest in keeping "sensitive personal material regarding third
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 6 of 10
+
+Here, the public interest is not adversely impacted by redacting personal identifying
+information from the materials unrelated to the summary judgment motion. The public is still
+afforded access to the specific allegations contained in the Sealed Materials: the alleged acts of
+misconduct. This information is sufficient for the public to evaluate and review the district
+court's faithful discharge of its judicial function in this case consistent with the facts, law, and
+basic precepts of fairness.
+More practically, nothing precludes participants in this matter from publicly disclosing
+their own allegations with more particularity. This is true in two key respects. First, New
+York's recent legislation extending and revising the statute of limitations for child abuse claims,
+permits victims to institute proceedings to seek relief, state their claims, and identify those whom
+they believe were involved or otherwise complicit in any wrongdoing. No sealing order would
+necessarily apply in any such action. Second, Plaintiff and others remain free to publish their
+claims to the world. No gag order has been ever imposed - their ability to share their stories and
+personal experiences remains absolutely unfettered. An order maintaining the seal order or
+otherwise redacting personal identifying information of non-parties in this case in no way limits
+or impairs such rights.
+E. Proposed Protocol.
+Fashioning a mechanism to protect the privacy and reputational interests of non-parties is
+a challenging task. But it is a critical one. Accordingly, if this Court is inclined to unseal the
+names of non-parties in the Sealed Materials, John Doe respectfully requests that the Court adopt
+a protocol designed to protect non-parties and give them an opportunity to be heard, as
+contemplated by the Court of Appeals. We have set out such a protocol in an Exhibit appended
+hereto, and respectfully request that the Court implement it.
+*
+*
+*
+The Court of Appeals concluded its opinion by emphasizing that, "[d]istrict courts should
+exercise the full range of their substantial powers to ensure their files do not become vehicles for
+parties[ ] private outweighs the First Amendment right of access"); Corl v. Burlington Coat Factory of N.C., LLC, 10
+Civ. 406 (LPA) 2011 WL 2607942 (M.D.N.C. June 30, 2011) (finding that personal privacy of defendant's employees
+and former employees represent a compelling interest sufficient to overcome First Amendment right of access to some
+materials filed in connection with Defendant's summary judgment motion); In re Savitt/Adler Litig., 1997 WL 797511,
+*3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1997) (citing Amodeo, the court allowed the redaction of names identifying details in summary
+judgment materials based upon the strong privacy interests of the non-parties); Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
+281 F.R.D. 507, 511-12 (D. Utah 2012) (*judicial documents may still be kept under seal if there are weightier
+judicial documents, a court must balance ... the private interests of innocent third-parties....") (internal footnote
+and quotation omitted); Nettles v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 06 Civ. 5164 (RJB), 2007 WL 858060 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar.
+16, 2007) (granting motion to seal in part because information at issue related to nonparties "who have not sought to
+place [their] private information in the public sphere").
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 7 of 10
+
+defamation,"
+929 F.3d at 53. John Doe respectfully submits that in this case, this Court
+should do just that - and should therefore maintain the Sealed Materials under seal or, at the very
+least, redact from them the names and other identifying information of non-parties.
+In furtherance of that objective, if this Court determines that unsealing the identities of
+some non-parties may be appropriate, we respectfully request that the Court adopt the protocol
+outlined in the attached Exhibit to facilitate this process and ensure adequate notice and
+opportunity to be heard are afforded to affected non-parties in order to protect against potentially
+life-changing, unfair and irremediable disclosures.
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+KRIEGER C
+& LEWIN LLP
+By: !
+duble Suin
+Nicholas J. Lewin
+Paul M. Krieger
+cc (by ECF): All counsel of record
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 8 of 10
+
+PROPOSED PROTOCOL
+(1) Parties Identify Non-Parties: Plaintiff
+and Defendant
+Ghislaine Maxwell (collectively, the "Original Parties") shall be required to jointly identify any
+non-parties whose privacy or reputational rights may be implicated by the unsealing of the
+Sealed Materials (each, a "Non-Party" and collectively, "Non-Parties"). The Non-Parties
+identified by the Original Parties should include, but not be limited to: (a) those persons who
+produced or answered discovery based upon the representation or understanding that the
+discovery would be subject to the Protective Order previously issued in this action; (b) persons
+who are identified to have allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff, or other alleged
+victims, or allegedly facilitated such acts; (c) persons whose intimate, sexual, or private conduct
+is described in the Sealed Materials; and (d) persons who are alleged to have been victimized by
+Jeffrey Epstein or Defendant.
+(2) Notification to This Court: The Original Parties shall apprise the Court of
+the identities of the Non-Parties by making a joint submission, under seal, identifying each Non-
+Party and noting where in the Sealed Materials that Non-Party is identified or referenced. The
+Original Parties' submission to the Court shall also include the following:
+• The Original Parties' respective contentions as to whether the content of
+the Sealed Materials referring to each Non-Party constitutes a judicial
+record, and the basis for each Original Party's contention, including the
+purported use of such record in the exercise of the judicial function.
+• In order to facilitate an orderly adjudication of the privacy interest of each
+Non-Party, the Original Parties' sealed submission to the Court should
+also assign to each Non-Party a numerical identifier (e.g. J. Doe #1, J. Doe
+#2, and J. Doe #3.
+• The Original Parties should also be required to exercise best efforts to
+identify and provide the Court any available contact information or
+addresses for each Non-Party or his or her legal counsel.
+(3)
+Initial Judicial Adjudication: The Court may determine that portions of the
+Sealed Materials will remain sealed because they are non-judicial records or judicial records that
+played a nominal role in the judicial function. If so, the additional involvement of a Non-Party
+affected by such records is unnecessary. However, to the extent that the Court elects to receive
+the benefit of Non-Parties' participation because it preliminarily determines that a portion of the
+Sealed Materials may warrant unsealing, we submit that the Court should then provide written
+notice to affected Non-Parties in order to permit such Non-Parties to file, under seal, objections
+to the release of the Sealed Materials. As set forth below, the notice to each Non-Party should
+furnish to him or her the assigned anonymous description and numerical assignment, and set out
+the process for responding to such notice.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 9 of 10
+(4)
+Provision of Sealed Materials to Affected Non-Parties: Upon request, a
+Non-Party so notified shall receive from the Original Parties the excerpts of the Sealed Materials
+pertaining to him or her (the "Excerpts"). Such request should be made under seal and served
+upon counsel for the Original Parties. Upon receipt, the Original Parties shall jointly release the
+Parties. y, Such rip the.
+Excerpts to the requesting Non-Party, who must maintain the Excerpts as confidential and not
+disclose the same absent further order of this Court. The requesting Non-Party may utilize the
+Excerpts only as part of its sealed objections, if any, submitted to this Court.
+(5)
+Non-Party Objections: This Court should then set a fixed date for the
+receipt of objections from Non-Parties. The Court should permit that any such objections be: (a)
+filed under seal; and (b) served upon the Original Parties. In order to ensure as transparent a
+process as possible in these circumstances, in addition to filing under seal, the objecting Non-
+Party shall publicly file a redacted objection on the Electronic Case Filing system ("ECF")
+reflecting the assigned J. Doe identifier. The redacted versions, publicly filed on ECF must
+remove all identifying information about the Non-Party, and any other referenced Non-Parties,
+including from the Excerpts.
+A Non-Party's participation in this protocol should be optional. Non-Parties should be
+under no obligation to formally object and a Non-Party's decision not to do so should not be
+deemed as consenting to the unsealing of the Sealed Materials. The solicitation and receipt of
+objections from Non-Parties who wish to do so is intended to aid this Court in balancing privacy
+interests against the public's right of access; it is not intended to substitute for that critical
+balancing test, which is the responsibility of the Court. See In re New York Times, 828 F.2d at
+116 ("The job of protecting [non-party privacy rights] rests heavily upon the shoulders of the
+trial judge ...."). Accordingly, even if no objection is filed by a Non-Party, the Court must
+nonetheless undertake the particularized review directed by the Court of Appeals.
+Responses of the Original Parties to Any Non-Party J. Doe Objections:
+The Court should provide the Original Parties an opportunity to respond to any objections filed
+by Non-Parties. Accordingly, we submit that the Court may elect to set a schedule that provides
+the Original Parties fourteen (14) days to file any opposition to a Non-Party J. Doe objection, and
+the objecting J. Doe seven (7) days to file a reply in support of any such Original Party objection.
+The Original Parties and J. Doe would file their respective submissions under seal, and, as set out
+above, file a redacted copy of their submissions on ECF redacting the Sealed Materials (or
+excerpts therefrom) and any personally identifying information concerning each J. Doe.
+*
+Unless expressly stated otherwise, all notices, submissions, and filings made pursuant to
+this Order should remain permanently sealed inasmuch as they are submitted solely so that the
+Court may decide whether any Sealed Materials may be unsealed. See
+1, 929 F.3d at 50
+n.33 (2d Cir. 2019).
+This process outlined in this Order is intended to afford Non-Parties the opportunity to
+participate in this proceeding solely as to the issue of whether the Sealed Materials should be
+unsealed. Thus, if a Non-Party files an objection, he or she will be treated as having made a
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 980 Filed 09/03/19 Page 10 of 10
+limited purpose appearance in this action. An order from this Court unsealing the Sealed
+Materials, in whole or part, as to a Non-Party should be deemed to have affected the Non-Party's
+rights and interest for purposes of appeal.
+Pending the Court's in camera review, the Sealed Materials should remain
+sealed. However, nothing set forth herein precludes any party from communicating, publicly or
+otherwise, including to law enforcement agencies, so long as such disclosures do not reveal the
+contents of the Sealed Materials. A party is, therefore, free and without any restraint whatsoever,
+to disclose any information within their personal knowledge. He or she is only limited, pending
+the completion of the Court's inquiry, from proceeding in violation of the Protective Order and
+other direction of this Court.
+3
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef16b004edeccb5281584543565fed99f35a8f240b9a8645452f0877ab70673.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef16b004edeccb5281584543565fed99f35a8f240b9a8645452f0877ab70673.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c9734d356da2fd69cc6bea1420ca39722b196515
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef16b004edeccb5281584543565fed99f35a8f240b9a8645452f0877ab70673.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -311,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eef16b004edeccb5281584543565fed99f35a8f240b9a8645452f0877ab70673",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 18,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9d6d8f3f2ea3ccc0a2f035cfe83713971bd00d2d60a3dbd06b4e0612a6015f2d",
+  "output_sha256": "66cde9273f9b0b5d323ac5e7ff5f503c2083065033a1792f3b9eeeb85a1b9840",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef9cea5aee25d1561cd070203a0acb73fc2f55df9773727e75887deeebd4835.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef9cea5aee25d1561cd070203a0acb73fc2f55df9773727e75887deeebd4835.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30bd9c38815f6801669e05bf2d6cc4ddf5dcf723
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef9cea5aee25d1561cd070203a0acb73fc2f55df9773727e75887deeebd4835.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 192-3 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef9cea5aee25d1561cd070203a0acb73fc2f55df9773727e75887deeebd4835.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef9cea5aee25d1561cd070203a0acb73fc2f55df9773727e75887deeebd4835.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e774ee3b085c854de54dff04df5c17a036f018f7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eef9cea5aee25d1561cd070203a0acb73fc2f55df9773727e75887deeebd4835.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eef9cea5aee25d1561cd070203a0acb73fc2f55df9773727e75887deeebd4835",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ebd62f59225a911d49241062a1864a34159eab4de84d87122add1fc7d704ba09",
+  "output_sha256": "0c66fa0ca3c163fac0437a358c4d2f8dce787f9fd17e9f01e650d621a268925d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef0c25261f0f76841fa8fb56c66b529587d804e8396b9eca46196e2a6c03d853.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef0c25261f0f76841fa8fb56c66b529587d804e8396b9eca46196e2a6c03d853.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d7b1e5deeabd6e39d70e214bfda477e64f8fd8c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef0c25261f0f76841fa8fb56c66b529587d804e8396b9eca46196e2a6c03d853.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 15-3 Filed 07/08/20
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+20-CR-330-AJN
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+--X
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
+The motion of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca for admission to appear and practice pro hac vice in
+this action is GRANTED.
+Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the state of
+Colorado; and that his contact information is as follows:
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Colorado Atty. Reg. #12462
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10' Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax: 303.832.2628
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+Applicant having requested admission pro hac vice to appear for all purposes as counsel
+for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in this action,
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in his
+action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 15-3 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 2
+appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules
+governing discipline of attorneys.
+Date:
+United States District Judge
+Alison J. Nathan
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef0c25261f0f76841fa8fb56c66b529587d804e8396b9eca46196e2a6c03d853.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef0c25261f0f76841fa8fb56c66b529587d804e8396b9eca46196e2a6c03d853.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..137a0755858e342413f0e72e3d2678da858b129a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef0c25261f0f76841fa8fb56c66b529587d804e8396b9eca46196e2a6c03d853.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ef0c25261f0f76841fa8fb56c66b529587d804e8396b9eca46196e2a6c03d853",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7dceab4ba7fd15a2c2da2c6420c02efa7761ab3caa361d035da737509db06093",
+  "output_sha256": "33cfad0eb66642667861e3dcf5b24b06ca23abc9f61096548147676ad82bfd85",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef2a0ecd909d413b7af855a9ba82c472004629f7b4e67611ba1445f136c4e59b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef2a0ecd909d413b7af855a9ba82c472004629f7b4e67611ba1445f136c4e59b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91c038361beb0323cf16e9845cbbb1845e7cc5ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef2a0ecd909d413b7af855a9ba82c472004629f7b4e67611ba1445f136c4e59b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 321-4 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef2a0ecd909d413b7af855a9ba82c472004629f7b4e67611ba1445f136c4e59b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef2a0ecd909d413b7af855a9ba82c472004629f7b4e67611ba1445f136c4e59b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47000805cbca4647f30eb55da1acb96663fca1a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef2a0ecd909d413b7af855a9ba82c472004629f7b4e67611ba1445f136c4e59b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ef2a0ecd909d413b7af855a9ba82c472004629f7b4e67611ba1445f136c4e59b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "14e4bba63615272311a4a500427faa064314b06efd2f7a4f6e7fd611f8ec0feb",
+  "output_sha256": "3b78e8eca8291d5fdc64c9b79583d7f1ff5e15bb5242e485cf115f51c04e0b2e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef83c517f10f7ea7e3f371696095cc87a1f770b0639cd9439bbf1bad544f4347.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef83c517f10f7ea7e3f371696095cc87a1f770b0639cd9439bbf1bad544f4347.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7432a39d96da274ebe0f94c1684eb7eba9151aa0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef83c517f10f7ea7e3f371696095cc87a1f770b0639cd9439bbf1bad544f4347.md
@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 21
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE
+INSTRUCTION BASED ON NEW INFORMATION
+Plaintiff
+, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+Supplement to her Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on New Information. Eleven
+months into this case, and after the close of fact discovery, Defendant continues to refuse to
+abide by her most basic and fundamental discovery obligations. A summary of this ongoing and
+willful non-compliance, as well as a supplement to her motion for an adverse inference
+instruction based on new information, follows.
+I.
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+On October 27, 2015, |
+submitted her first set of Requests for Production.
+Defendant failed to make a reasonable search or production of her documents, and |
+sought relief from the Court numerous times:
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 21
+• Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery (DE 20)
+- Defendant's Motion to Stay - Denied (DE 28).
+• Plaintiff's February 26, 2016 Letter Motion to Compel Defendant to Sit for Her
+Deposition (DE 63) - Granted (DE 106).
+• Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Privilege (DE
+33) - Granted in Part (DE 73).
+• Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Documents Subject to Improper Objections (DE 35) -
+Granted in part (106).
+• Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order
+Regarding Defendant's Deposition (DE 70) - Defendant's Motion Denied (DE 106).
+• Plaintiff's Motion for Forensic Examination (DE 96) - Granted in part (June 20, 2016
+Sealed Order).
+• Plaintiff's Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 279) - Pending.
+2
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 21
+II.
+DISCUSSION
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 21
+4
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 21
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 6 of 21
+6
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 7 of 21
+7
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 8 of 21
+8
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 9 of 21
+
+
+
+-
+10
+
+
+
+11
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 12 of 21
+12
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 13 of 21
+13
+
+
+
+14
+
+
+
+15
+
+
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 16 of 21
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 Filed 08/08/16 Page 17 of 21
+The Second Circuit has stated, "[w]here documents, witnesses, or information of any
+kind relevant issues in litigation is or was within the exclusive or primary control of a party and
+is not provided, an adverse inference can be drawn against the withholding party. Such adverse
+inferences are appropriate as a consequence for failure to make discovery." Bouzo v. Citibank,
+N.A., 1993 WL 525114, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant's
+continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism - even following the Court's June 20 order
+- makes an adverse inference instruction with regard to Defendant's documents appropriate. An
+adverse inference instruction is appropriate when a party refuses to turn over documents in
+defiance of a Court Order. See Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2005
+WL 1026461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005) (denying application to set aside Magistrate Judge
+Peck's order entering an adverse inference instruction against defendant for failure to produce
+documents that the Judge Peck had ordered Defendant to produce). Accordingly, because a
+"party's failure to produce evidence within its control creates a presumption that evidence would
+be unfavorable to that party" an adverse inference should be applied with respect to Defendant's
+failure to produce "in order to ensure fair hearing for [the] other party seeking evidence." Doe v.
+U.S. Civil Service Commission, 483 F. Supp. 539, 580 (S.D. N.Y., 1980) (citing International
+Union v. NLRB, 148 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 312-317, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336-41 (D.C.Cir.1972)).
+"An adverse inference serves the remedial purpose of restoring the prejudiced party to the
+same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of [or willful refusal to
+produce] evidence by the opposing party." Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 296 F.R.D. 168, 222
+(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (granting an adverse inference when defendants refused to produce documents
+pursuant to the District Court's order). Where "an adverse inference ... is sought on the basis that
+the evidence was not produced in time for use at trial, the party seeking the instruction must
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 Filed 08/08/16 Page 18 of 21
+show (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to timely produce it;
+(2) that the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had 'a culpable state of mind'; and
+(3) that the missing evidence is 'relevant' to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable
+trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense." Id. (citing Residential
+Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002)).
+See
+v. Coleman, 2009 WL 2877602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009) ("Where a party violates a
+court order-either by destroying evidence when directed to preserve it or by failing to produce
+information because relevant data has been destroyed-Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
+Procedure provides that the court may impose a range of sanctions, including dismissal or
+judgment by default, preclusion of evidence, imposition of an adverse inference, or assessment
+of attorneys' fees and costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge
+Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 106-07 (2d Cir.2002)"). See also Essenter v. Cumberland Farms,
+Inc., 2011 WL 124505, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011); and Rule 37(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. ("If
+electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct
+of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it ... the court: (2)
+only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the
+information's use in the litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 |
+Filed 08/08/16 Page 19 of 21
+the party; (b) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to
+the party; or (C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.").
+Ill.
+CONCLUSION
+Dated: August 8, 2016
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 Filed 08/08/16 Page 20 of 21
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52022
+2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+20
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 338 Filed 08/08/16 Page 21 of 21
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+THEREBY CERTIFY that on the 8th day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+21
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef83c517f10f7ea7e3f371696095cc87a1f770b0639cd9439bbf1bad544f4347.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef83c517f10f7ea7e3f371696095cc87a1f770b0639cd9439bbf1bad544f4347.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c4220eba8251d6d2d43c7db4a0c828d0348581c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef83c517f10f7ea7e3f371696095cc87a1f770b0639cd9439bbf1bad544f4347.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -833,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ef83c517f10f7ea7e3f371696095cc87a1f770b0639cd9439bbf1bad544f4347",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 26,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a9e058a03bcf98dacb816289d7202a0a8fd1f1da8fd2acb8ae020550fb0400a8",
+  "output_sha256": "a810ccb41c3fe13a5d2d228a28082bb3e31b8f98ff8f637fb04746ea80885688",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef8d64ec4cd282fabe256eb23dfe5fa85008fff4fc43ac9e1d09a46ed617fac3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef8d64ec4cd282fabe256eb23dfe5fa85008fff4fc43ac9e1d09a46ed617fac3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31448039a69fef3bc0125e5997629c4703a39286
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef8d64ec4cd282fabe256eb23dfe5fa85008fff4fc43ac9e1d09a46ed617fac3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 171 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 1
+BOIES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 3330|- 22|1 • PH. 954 356.001| • FAX 954.356.0022
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+May 27, 2016
+Via CM/ECF
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell,
+Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+This is a letter motion to file
+ill Motion to Exceed Presumptive Ten
+Deposition Limit in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 30(A)(2)(a)(ii) and certain accompanying
+exhibits under seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).
+The Protective Order states:
+Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL
+INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to
+Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the
+Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Defendant has designated
+Defendant's entire deposition testimony as confidential. |
+ume on whether Defendant's designations are proper. Because of the Protective Order, however
+believes that she cannot presently produce or reference such documents in public
+court filings.
+• has designated a third-party witness deposition as confidential. As
+Motion contains material that the parties have designated as confidential, she seeks
+leave to file the Non-Redacted Motion and certain related exhibits under seal.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Sigrid'S McCawley, Esq.
+cc:
+Laura Menninger, via CM/ECF
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, via CM/ECF
+WWW.BSFLLP.COM
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef8d64ec4cd282fabe256eb23dfe5fa85008fff4fc43ac9e1d09a46ed617fac3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef8d64ec4cd282fabe256eb23dfe5fa85008fff4fc43ac9e1d09a46ed617fac3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0cf6aa9fbec20492db9c979f255ea98d5e9fbd24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ef8d64ec4cd282fabe256eb23dfe5fa85008fff4fc43ac9e1d09a46ed617fac3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ef8d64ec4cd282fabe256eb23dfe5fa85008fff4fc43ac9e1d09a46ed617fac3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d74803aff4bf3b1da702dfea61e5f1caf73141ca340a03f409ac7646b4bb61fa",
+  "output_sha256": "781e876d991e5d85c7fda94f46729bb686c7b765158dcfcb90c08387730ec74e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/efa41e1b4cfbd0a1a24ff6edce8d5489970fb7a5842fbc807eee49b447b17d77.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efa41e1b4cfbd0a1a24ff6edce8d5489970fb7a5842fbc807eee49b447b17d77.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c93bb55ff8f720aac96d59263aa8271c82e0bed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efa41e1b4cfbd0a1a24ff6edce8d5489970fb7a5842fbc807eee49b447b17d77.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 145 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+NOTICE OF MOTION
+Defendant.
+DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION
+TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE FROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
+(Pretrial Motion # 6)
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum of law, Defendant
+Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves to strike surplusage from the superseding
+indictment.
+Dated: January 25, 2021
+New York, New York
+Respectfully submitted,
+& GRESSER LLP
+Is/ MarkS.
+Mark S. I
+mcohen@cohengresser.com
+Christian Everdell
+ceverdell@cohengresser.com
+800 Third Avenue, 21" Floo
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: (212) 957-7600
+Fax: (212) 957-4514
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 145 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 2
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/efa41e1b4cfbd0a1a24ff6edce8d5489970fb7a5842fbc807eee49b447b17d77.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efa41e1b4cfbd0a1a24ff6edce8d5489970fb7a5842fbc807eee49b447b17d77.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..beb17a730164b359aa7cac9daf6e9b1235fa9408
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efa41e1b4cfbd0a1a24ff6edce8d5489970fb7a5842fbc807eee49b447b17d77.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "efa41e1b4cfbd0a1a24ff6edce8d5489970fb7a5842fbc807eee49b447b17d77",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f4eb5589c80272927e8211e119957358f08734185141e0c21d755e8265563de2",
+  "output_sha256": "0be3a71c113ca8741733fda03cdf7216702e895d13c06d2ce140d08b49d09b7c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/efb1b3b6a3a3bbd1323840516d07db3e25feebecdfd7413a449125c2fb86ec15.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efb1b3b6a3a3bbd1323840516d07db3e25feebecdfd7413a449125c2fb86ec15.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4352eeaeae2eeabbd01633433d0baffaf6c8e840
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efb1b3b6a3a3bbd1323840516d07db3e25feebecdfd7413a449125c2fb86ec15.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 798 |
+Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 2
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OMNIBUS MOTION IN LIMINE
+TABLE OF CONTENTS AND
+PAGES 1-58 REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 798 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 2
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-520225
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 27, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
+of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+25 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+59
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/efb1b3b6a3a3bbd1323840516d07db3e25feebecdfd7413a449125c2fb86ec15.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efb1b3b6a3a3bbd1323840516d07db3e25feebecdfd7413a449125c2fb86ec15.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..978ffa6adf000d82f4017a42a629d3cebc2ba3f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efb1b3b6a3a3bbd1323840516d07db3e25feebecdfd7413a449125c2fb86ec15.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "efb1b3b6a3a3bbd1323840516d07db3e25feebecdfd7413a449125c2fb86ec15",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a1a00e1aa9bc3a425adeef2575f95b1be694da6bb905ece91314d09398f74745",
+  "output_sha256": "10214502f0d472f9327ce8dbe95563f162e0d4eb395f7fe2b1cbe6a4f6872f41",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/efe2cbaa86ce333a588db441bb1ecf2888f68c278732a293482db2e57d2c0f34.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efe2cbaa86ce333a588db441bb1ecf2888f68c278732a293482db2e57d2c0f34.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e6ca3a21eae0aa55c35753c930e31e58d12f29ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efe2cbaa86ce333a588db441bb1ecf2888f68c278732a293482db2e57d2c0f34.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 694-4 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/efe2cbaa86ce333a588db441bb1ecf2888f68c278732a293482db2e57d2c0f34.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efe2cbaa86ce333a588db441bb1ecf2888f68c278732a293482db2e57d2c0f34.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..653a738dc78b5b056348c2955bf9f49f6a80332d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/efe2cbaa86ce333a588db441bb1ecf2888f68c278732a293482db2e57d2c0f34.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "efe2cbaa86ce333a588db441bb1ecf2888f68c278732a293482db2e57d2c0f34",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "09f7970ac9f6f83d590f2cc90cd3910b69daf9a9c5da942d53b883611db97883",
+  "output_sha256": "a91ced192ca64e4dc3c088cf314ffead38df3357d63e7edb01f09083b1c48976",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eff79308ea114874afec0ef175a57cbc82c97c24770da90dd563a7e2e6f44a1f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eff79308ea114874afec0ef175a57cbc82c97c24770da90dd563a7e2e6f44a1f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2757938cafb759d26d1482b04686b3562b2593a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eff79308ea114874afec0ef175a57cbc82c97c24770da90dd563a7e2e6f44a1f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 599
+Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+NOTICE OF MOTION
+Defendant.
+DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S NOTICE OF MOTION
+TO OBTAIN THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN HER MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
+OF HER POST-TRIAL MOTIONS
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying omnibus memorandum of law,
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, hereby moves for the relief requested in her
+memorandum in support of her post-trial motions.
+Dated: February 11, 2022
+New York, New York
+Respectfully submitted,
+& GRESSER LLP
+Is/ Christian R. Everdell
+Christian Everdell
+ceverdell@cohengresser.com
+800 Third Avenue, 21" Floor
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: (212) 957-7600
+Fax: (212) 957-4514
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+&
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 599 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 2
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/eff79308ea114874afec0ef175a57cbc82c97c24770da90dd563a7e2e6f44a1f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eff79308ea114874afec0ef175a57cbc82c97c24770da90dd563a7e2e6f44a1f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..caf0caafe184457ec0834460fb5101650c43c258
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/eff79308ea114874afec0ef175a57cbc82c97c24770da90dd563a7e2e6f44a1f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "eff79308ea114874afec0ef175a57cbc82c97c24770da90dd563a7e2e6f44a1f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fe30093dd23de9d1cef0adbc44f098ac09e1d79bc02a5ba32e7857116467a3a1",
+  "output_sha256": "9c1a43260abfc9a6761b0dbc82342e6ef6fe445c77a365cbda6e6329e5f3bf3b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f02329e005478c1bcefed69fe896eda9d1d4f64dd50a3b7f3e096d0e4a05e9ae.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f02329e005478c1bcefed69fe896eda9d1d4f64dd50a3b7f3e096d0e4a05e9ae.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e65aa39a1a16105d76fd4d87be7cdae10c1dd0ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f02329e005478c1bcefed69fe896eda9d1d4f64dd50a3b7f3e096d0e4a05e9ae.md
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 648
+Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 4
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 643 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 4
+DECEIVE
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+FEB 242017/
+ID)
+-X
+JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-ev-07433-RWS
+AMENDED SECOND PROPOSED DISCOVERY AND CASE MANAGEMENT
+DEADLINES AND REQUEST TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
+So on dered
+Suretosar
+2-24.-17
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 22117
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 648 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 4
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-RWS Document 643 Filed 02/23/17 Page 2 of 4
+The Parties, through their respective counsel, propose the following case management
+deadlines and request that the Court enter an order modifying its Order of October 3, 2016, ECF
+#455 for the following reasons:
+Subsequent to the hearing on February 16, 2017 the parties have conferred extensively
+about the viability of the existing case management deadlines. The parties agree that the
+previous deadlines are no longer tenable. Accordingly, subject to the Court's approval and
+availability the parties propose the following schedule:
+The jury trial scheduled for March 13, 2017 is rescheduled to begin on May 15, 2017 and
+is anticipated to last four weeks;
+Motions in Limine/other motions shall be filed by March 3, 2017;
+Final Exhibit lists shall be exchanged by the parties no later than April 3, 2017 and
+submitted to the Court by April 15, 2017;
+The Revised Joint Pre-trial Order shall be submitted by April 15, 2017;
+Proposed agreed upon/disputed Jury Instructions and Verdict forms shall be submitted by
+April 24, 2017;
+Proposed jury questions shall be submitted by May 1, 2017.
+The parties suggest that the Court may wish to consider scheduling hearings on
+outstanding issues, as necessary, as follows:
+March 9, 2017, hearing on Plaintiff
+Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference, ECF #608, hearing on Plaintiff's
+Motion to Compel all Work Product and Attorney Client Communications with Philip Barden,
+ECF #637, hearing on outstanding motions including Motion to Quash |
+in the Southern District of Florida on June 13, 2016 under case number 16-mc-61262, and
+March 23, 2017, hearing on 702 Motions ECF #520, 522, 524, 526, 528, 530, 533, 535
+and motions in limine.
+April 6, 2017, hearing on objections to deposition designations.
+May 4, 2107, Pre-trial Conference to address any outstanding issues including
+confidentiality.
+WHEREFORE, the parties request that the Court adopt the proposed schedule and
+modify the Court's Order of October 3, 2016 to reflect the above deadlines.
+1
+
+
+-
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 648 Filed 02/27/17 Page 3 of 4
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 643 Filed 02/23/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: February 23, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Attorney for
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+, P.C.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 648 Filed 02/27/17 Page 4 of 4
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 643 Filed 02/23/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on February 23, 2017, I electronically served this AMENDED SECOND
+PROPOSED DISCOVERY AND CASE MANAGEMENT DEADLINES AND REQUEST TO
+MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+_ JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+Is/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f02329e005478c1bcefed69fe896eda9d1d4f64dd50a3b7f3e096d0e4a05e9ae.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f02329e005478c1bcefed69fe896eda9d1d4f64dd50a3b7f3e096d0e4a05e9ae.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f1a7a85b55614f1a6a937fa1c05e22a00465db11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f02329e005478c1bcefed69fe896eda9d1d4f64dd50a3b7f3e096d0e4a05e9ae.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f02329e005478c1bcefed69fe896eda9d1d4f64dd50a3b7f3e096d0e4a05e9ae",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "52846ce482914ce377f678af306bf2b2ab349b4218544bd098d211435f5fe7e9",
+  "output_sha256": "eaef4ba463cb6acd6b7b491afc1f48c50408029f7d9645ae9ce89aed0a1e3775",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f03f37b8985fcc11d90fe81142e140fee2e7328f02be41b860dc58e02c700913.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f03f37b8985fcc11d90fe81142e140fee2e7328f02be41b860dc58e02c700913.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..908ac6723278dfb7ee2bd5d7c71f13ef9e663747
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f03f37b8985fcc11d90fe81142e140fee2e7328f02be41b860dc58e02c700913.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 748-5 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 748-5 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 2
+From: <1
+Date: 2 January 2015 at 20:38
+Subject: Ghislaine Maxwell
+To: Rossacuity Gow <r
+bcc: g
+P.Peachey@independent.co.uk.
+nick.sommerlad@mirror.co.uk,
+nick.alway@bbc.co.uk.
+jo-anne.pugh@bbc.co.uk
+To Whom It May Concern,
+Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Ms Maxwell.
+No further communication will be provided by her on this matter.
+Thanks for your understanding.
+Best
+Gow
+ACUITY Reputation
+Jane Doe 3 is
+- so not a new individual. The allegations made by Victoria
+against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue. The original allegations are not new and have
+been fully responded to and shown to be untrue.
+Each time the story is re told it changes with new salacious details about public figures and
+world leaders and now it is alleged by
+that Alan Derschowitz is involved in having
+sexual relations with her, which he denies.
+claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicised as news, as
+they are defamatory.
+Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same.
+Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavoury nature, which have appeared in the British
+press and elsewhere and reserves her right to seek redress at the repetition of such old
+defamatory claims.
+Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
+GM_00068
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f03f37b8985fcc11d90fe81142e140fee2e7328f02be41b860dc58e02c700913.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f03f37b8985fcc11d90fe81142e140fee2e7328f02be41b860dc58e02c700913.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60f282a503989c18041b359feb515d16a65df15e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f03f37b8985fcc11d90fe81142e140fee2e7328f02be41b860dc58e02c700913.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f03f37b8985fcc11d90fe81142e140fee2e7328f02be41b860dc58e02c700913",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "31a2876e51418209108f17d62abd4f3674b8e9da6d60267db6e7d14df2ec9a7c",
+  "output_sha256": "674fe63a470e7b469b0d4649a728845e6f722ce7fb78c6a0a3a423b4bed2b6da",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f04dcedf895700bfd237d6c664e3ff0f31d9a046e798653cf13e9e20dd2c96fe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f04dcedf895700bfd237d6c664e3ff0f31d9a046e798653cf13e9e20dd2c96fe.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2591aebfde5da3b772bcd4d70552be25e3f40309
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f04dcedf895700bfd237d6c664e3ff0f31d9a046e798653cf13e9e20dd2c96fe.md
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 746 |
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-----X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+:
+------
+Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Present Testimony From
+and
+for Purposes of
+Obtaining an Adverse Inference Instruction
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON, (
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 746 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 4
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+and
+PAGES 1-18
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 746 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 4
+CONCLUSION
+For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court exclude from trial the
+or any witness invoking their Fifth
+testimony of
+and
+Amendment Privilege, through deposition or otherwise.
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+aura A. Menninger (LM-1374
+effrev S. Pagliuca (pro hac vic
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 746 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 17, 2017, I electronically served this Response to Plaintiff's Motion to
+Present Testimony from
+And
+For Purposes of Obtaining an
+Adverse Inference Instruction via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bstllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+20
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f04dcedf895700bfd237d6c664e3ff0f31d9a046e798653cf13e9e20dd2c96fe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f04dcedf895700bfd237d6c664e3ff0f31d9a046e798653cf13e9e20dd2c96fe.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4adfc4ed189e5985b726da734d268db148622acf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f04dcedf895700bfd237d6c664e3ff0f31d9a046e798653cf13e9e20dd2c96fe.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f04dcedf895700bfd237d6c664e3ff0f31d9a046e798653cf13e9e20dd2c96fe",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0190db0d4d2bb6afe8d5bffe6d50072df362901b23f24f46181eadafb518cedf",
+  "output_sha256": "f927ad53769a080013608fe53c09891af02c55691f5d2e08ff86bc5fb9907814",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f096fc61fa9ebac6d76dbf5cf1c809e5b947128422cad505146d30d6b130e754.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f096fc61fa9ebac6d76dbf5cf1c809e5b947128422cad505146d30d6b130e754.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b4a60c9061292ac0b4077a763d41922af5d7dcd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f096fc61fa9ebac6d76dbf5cf1c809e5b947128422cad505146d30d6b130e754.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 12 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+:
+:
+:
+*
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
+To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record:
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby appears for purposes of
+arraignment, initial appearance and a bail hearing only (until final retainage issues are completed)
+as counsel for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the above-captioned action. The undersigned
+counsel certifies that he is admitted to practice in this Court.
+Dated: New York, New York
+July 8, 2020
+& GRESSER LLP
+1s/ MarkS./
+Mark S.
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+Attorney for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f096fc61fa9ebac6d76dbf5cf1c809e5b947128422cad505146d30d6b130e754.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f096fc61fa9ebac6d76dbf5cf1c809e5b947128422cad505146d30d6b130e754.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ea5257a1bc2e31512d0731856e071dca4f06312
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f096fc61fa9ebac6d76dbf5cf1c809e5b947128422cad505146d30d6b130e754.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f096fc61fa9ebac6d76dbf5cf1c809e5b947128422cad505146d30d6b130e754",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "03a0ef9a05832bb36925ae55b3d9e1f66b1191e4ca2c07fdf0d386a73aa3e4a4",
+  "output_sha256": "d6b900e23076cd883535b57ea1d407de7cb11316e5c36d2362953c4f4c76133b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0d957591fb61d316badfadd6af5939f17887f6dee5bff901db12da59073739f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0d957591fb61d316badfadd6af5939f17887f6dee5bff901db12da59073739f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50861b64937dbc495b54193e94bea94fb34b6220
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0d957591fb61d316badfadd6af5939f17887f6dee5bff901db12da59073739f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1106 @@
+Casese: 150074333BAAP Document 13327 Fited(V08124 PRagê bo29
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintift,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NON-PARTY'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
+OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S COMBINED MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY
+WITNESS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND RESPOND TO DEPOSITION
+
+
+Casese: 156407433BAAP Danimentt13327 it00108124 PRage @fol929
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+BACKGROUND
+ARGUMENT....
+I.
+NON-PARTY
+HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS OF AND DOES NOT
+HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF REQUESTS.
+IL.
+DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
+PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
+WITNESS REQUEST 10 (CURRENT PASSPORT/CURRENT VISAS):
+III.
+DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
+DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
+INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY
+IV.
+NON-PARTY
+SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
+BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG
+V. NON-PARTY
+JANE DOE 43.
+HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO
+CONCLUSION
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+Page
+... ii
+1
+12
+.15
+.17
+20
+.22
+23
+24
+
+
+Casest: 15-5/07433BAAP Donument 13321 FiledOW08224 PRage 8f0f29
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page
+Cases
+Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc.,
+300 F.R.D. 406 (C.D. Cal. 2014)..
+Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc.,
+2016 WL 4203490 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
+Buck v. Indian Mountain Sch.,
+2017 WL 421648 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2017)
+City of Pontiac Gen. Employee's Ret. Sys. v. Lockheed
+2012 WL 4202657 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2012)..
+Corp.,
+DaCosta v. City of Danbury,
+298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014).
+Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co.,
+649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) .
+Gerber v. Down E. Cmty. Hosp.,
+266 F.R.D. 29 (D. Me. 2010).
+Hickman v. Taylor,
+329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)
+Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc.,
+984 F.2d 422 (Fed.Cir.1993)..
+Liz Claiborne, Inc., v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc.,
+No. 96 CIV 2064 (RWS), 1997 WL 53184
+Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
+210 F.R.D. 175 ((M.D.N.C. 2002) .....
+Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited,
+No. 03 CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003)
+S.E.C. v. NIR Grp., LLC,
+283 F.R.D. 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).
+Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese,
+No. 06 CIV 1501 (JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007)
+12
+12
+, 22
+22
+13,18
+12
+.22
+22
+12
+22
+21
+23
+. 22
+. 12
+
+
+Casest: 15-007/333BAAP Document13327 FitedV08124 PRage 4f01929
+Solarex Corp. v. Arco Solar, Inc.,
+121 F.R.D. 163 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)
+Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc.,
+281 F.R.D. 85 (D. Conn. 2012).
+United States v. Jacques Dessange, Inc.,
+2000 WL 310345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000)
+Upjohn Co. v. United States,
+449 U.S. 383 (1981).
+Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover,
+2009 WL 585434 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009)
+William A. Gross Const., Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.,
+262 F.R.D. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
+Rules
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 37...
+21
+20,21
+22
+22
+20
+.. 21
+... 12
+iii
+
+
+Casest: 15-60733BAAP Donmentt1332I FiletOW08124 PRage 61o129
+Non-party,
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this Reply
+in Support of Her Motion for Protective Order (DE 640) and Opposition to Defendant's Combined
+Motion to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition (DE 655).
+BACKGROUND
+Non-party
+has already provided significant discovery in this case. She
+previously flew from Barcelona to New York, sat for a ten-hour deposition, and produced many
+relevant documents. Indeed, witness
+has provided more significant evidence, including
+photographic evidence and electronic communications, than Defendant has produced in the two years
+she has been litigating this matter. Defendant has not produced a single document prior to 2009 and
+not a single photograph, despite testimony that she was an avid photographer of the young girls at
+Epstein's mansions, including taking nude photographs.
+Specifically, and by way of example, non-party
+produced the following types
+of highly relevant information about Defendant's involvement in the sex trafficking and abuse:
+Jeffrey Epstein in 2006 on Little
+St. James Island
+Various females on Island in 2006 including|
+1
+
+
+Casese: 1560733฿BAAP Danment13321 Filet/08124 PRage 6f0129
+Various females on Island in 2006 including
+Various females on Island in 2006 including
+CONFIDENTIAI
+Defendant on Little St. James Island in 2006
+Defendant on Little St. James Island in 2006
+2
+
+
+Cases#:15-6v60743B8AAP Douument13327 FiletQW0824 PRage øfof29
+Defendant on Little Si. James Island in 2006 Dejendant with Jean Luc Brumel in 2006
+Various females on Little St. James in 2006
+Jeffrey Epstein and male friend in 2006 on Island
+3
+
+
+Casese: 15 6407433BAAP Danimentt13327 ilet00108124 PRage 8fol929
+Non-Party
+in 2006 on Little St. James Island
+4
+
+
+Casese: 15-640733฿BAAP Domiment13327 FiledOV0824 PRage 9fol29
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Thureday February 08. 2007 2:43 PM
+RE FIT website
+Hi Lesely
+1 will fax my application to you later on today as 1 am not able to email it. Could you also please tell Jeffery to
+phone me on the number i gave asap as 1 am not prepared to go under 56kg in order to study at FIT. Labso
+need a flight booked back to New York so could you please check with Jeffery. The date that I would like to fly
+back is the 27th Feb.
+Thanks very much
+PS3 game gun
+be latest P'S3 news and previces at Yahool Games
+3 0006 837 PM
+Here is your flight
+You will be going with a girl
+as well. I have a car pick
+this. thanks!
+ed Simona and a guy named Valdson. They will both be staying at 301 E. 6
+Il up at 6:45am if you want to meet in the lobby... Please let me know you go
+Saturday, December 30, 2006
+Continental Airlines 1884
+Depart: 9:25 am
+morning Newark, NJ
+Newark Liberty Int1 (EWR)
+Arive: 2:43pm
+Virgin Tilands (US)
+Cyril E King (STT)
+Economy | Boeing 737-700 Passenger (73G) | 4hr 18min | 1635 miles
+Seat: 20F
+Seat is confirmed
+Ransome 000203
+5
+
+
+Moreover,
+sat for ten hours of deposition and gave critical testimony showing
+Defendant's direct involvement in Epstein's sex abuse and sex trafficking conspiracy:
+Maxwell provided
+with
+massaging traming.
+Massage was a key
+word for sex.
+The girls were on
+rotation for the
+purpose of giving
+Epstein sexual
+massages each day.
+Maxwell was
+Epstein's main
+right-hand woman
+in 2006-2007;
+Maxwell ran the
+house like a brothel
+with girls on
+rotation for the
+purpose of giving
+Epstein sexual
+massages each day.
+| Transcript Citation
+Dep. Tr. at 331 (Q. What did Ghislaine say to you? A. I can't
+remember the specific conversation. But the fact that she helped me refine
+my massage skills to satisfy Jeffrey, I think it's pretty self-explanatory.)
+Dep. Tr. at 330 (Q. Does that have something to do with body
+massages? A. Can you repeat -- let me read the question again. So I
+would just like to clarify, body massages meant sex, okay? That's like a
+key word for sex. So as soon as you stop having sex with Jeffrey and his
+friends and his girls, you're out, because otherwise there's no reason for
+you to be associated with Jeffrey, because you're just there to have sex
+with him, so...)
+Dep. Tr. at 152 (Q. Did you see Natalya having any type of
+sexual relations with Jeffrey during the trip? A. Yes, I did. Q. When did
+you see that? A. I didn't see it in the bedroom, but we were called on, like,
+a rotation visit for Jeffrey throughout the day and evening.)
+Dep. Tr. at 290-292 (Q. So we have
+having a
+discussion with Ghislaine about girls. *** There was a constant influx of
+girls. There were so many girls. There were girls in Miami. There were
+guests coming. There were -- It's like, I'm sure if you go into a
+brothel and see how they run their business, I mean, it's just general
+conversation about who's going to have sex with who and, you know --
+what do you talk about when all do you is have sex every day on
+rotation? I mean, what is there to talk about? *** Q. Apart from general
+conversation, do you recall any specifics of any female reporting to
+Ghislaine? A. Yes, I saw. And with my own eyes, I saw how Ghislaine
+and Lesley Groff and the other girls reported to them. *** And we were
+told by Jeffrey Epstein to listen to Ghislaine. So Ghislaine was the main
+right-hand woman of Jeffiey Epstein. We were told by Jeffrey Epstein to
+listen to Ghislaine.)
+Dep. Tr. at 311-312 (Q. And when you say you were on
+rotation, you mean you were having sex with Jeffrey multiple times per
+day? A. No. As in when I was finished, another girl was called by
+Ghislaine. And when they had finished, another girl was called. Q. How
+do you know that another girl was called by Ghislaine? A. Because I was
+there, and I saw it and heard it with all my senses. I saw Ghislaine call
+another girl, and she called me herself, to go give Jeffrey Epstein a sexual
+massage. Q. What do you mean by call? I guess I'm thinking like
+telephone. That may be my - A. No. As in going up to the person and
+going, Jeffrey wants to see you in his bedroom, which meant it's your tum
+to be abused. That kind of thing. Q. And this is on the island? A. This is
+6
+
+
+Cases:15 6074333BARP Douument13327 FiledOMOB24 PRagê110o129
+reported to
+Maxwell.
+All the girls
+providing sexual
+massages to Epstein
+reported to
+Maxwell; Maxwell
+"called the shots."
+Girls were paid to
+recruit other girls;
+Maxwell was the
+main lady.
+Maxwell recruited
+girls to the island;
+Maxwell was the
+"mamma bear."
+Transcript Citation
+on the island. Q. You heard -- as soon as you were done with Jeffrey, you
+heard Ghislaine go up to another girl and say, it's your turn with Jeffrey?
+A. So every single day *** So, I mean, our rotation changed every day
+that specific trip we had in December. So, for example, I would be called.
+Maybe a couple hours when Jeffrey had a little, you know, break, another
+girl was called,
+Then another girl was called. Every single day.
+We tried to hide on different -- like, so we wouldn't have to get called.
+We'd generally have to sit in the main area. There was like a big pool, the
+main seating area. There was a big table. We'd sit there and do kind of art
+on the table, and we always had to be around. We weren't allowed to go
+very far on the island. We always had to report to Ghislaine and Jeffiey
+and tell them if we were going down to the beach to swim because they
+had an inflatable trampoline. So they -- I mean, we always had to tell
+Ghislaine and Jeffrey where we were at all times.
+Dep. Tr. at 289 (A. everyone was afraid of Ghislaine. All the
+girls were afraid of her, so everyone --
+reported to her.)
+Dep. Tr. at 288-290 (Q. You said that the girls reported to
+Ghislaine. What did you see or hear that caused you to say that? A. Well,
+it's pretty obvious. I mean, Ghislaine called the shots. *** So, for
+example, there was one occasion where Jeffrey didn't like my hair and
+Ghislaine told me to change it. So there was - everyone was afraid of
+Ghislaine. All the girls were afraid of her, so everyone --
+reported to her. Lesley Groff reported to her. I don't know how to tell you.
+So when I say reporting, I witnessed with my own two eyes
+reporting to Ghislaine in front of me, but I can't remember specifics. They
+were talking about girls. I can't remember the specific conversation. But
+every single person 100 percent, 200 percent reported to Ghislaine. 100
+percent.)
+Dep. Tr. at 387 (Q. Apart from what
+told you. do
+you have any other basis for knowing that
+reported to
+Groff and Maxwell and was paid for her recruitment of young females,
+including you? A. What she told me. Q. Apart from what she told you, do
+you have any other basis for that? A. Well, I saw it with my own eyes. I
+was a witness. Q. What did you witness? A. I witnessed the same thing
+all the other girls did, the same thing I had to do, was go and report to
+Lesley Groff and Ghislaine. Ghislaine was the main lady...)
+Dep. Tr. at 287-288 (Q. You said, "Watching her interact with
+the other girls on the island, it became clear to me that she recruited all or
+many of them to the island." What do you mean that? A. That she
+recruited a lot of the girls. Q. What did you see? A. I saw how she
+interacted with all the girls. You know, if you walk into any -- I mean,
+common sense wise, if you walk into a firm, you kind of know who the
+boss is. You know, all the girls kind of reported to Ghislaine. Ghislaine
+was like the mama bear, if you know what I mean. She called the shots;
+we had to listen to Ghislaine. And Ghislaine was Jeffrey's right-hand
+7
+
+
+Casesd:15-5/074383BAAP Documentt1332I FitetDV0B/24 PRage22f0129
+witnessed Epstein
+having sex with
+on his
+plane in plain view.
+Maxwell and
+Epstein used
+promises to assist
+in
+getting into FIT and
+paying for her in
+return for being
+Epstein's sex slave.
+Maxwell bullied the
+girls if they didn't
+comply with
+Epstein's sexual
+demands.
+Transcript Citation
+woman, so, you know, whatever Jeffrey wanted went through Ghislaine
+and then filtered through.)
+Dep. Tr. at 121-123 (Q. Describe for me what happened on the
+plane ride? A. Nadia walked in, sat down in front of me, Nataly. We all
+buckled up, we took off. The rest of the passengers in the -- I think it's
+towards the front of the plane where all the seats are -- we all - all the
+guests were -- fell asleep. I pretended to be asleep. Jeffrey then went --
+Jeffrey went to his - was in his bed on the plane, having open sex with
+Nadia for everyone to see, on display. ***Q. What types of sexual
+relationship did Jeffrey and Nadia have on the plane in your presence? A.
+Well, Nadia was straddling Jeffiey for quite some time. I watched them
+both ejaculate with each other. They were having quite a good time
+together.)
+Dep. Tr. at 234-235 (Q. Did you apply for any financial aid for
+FIT? A. No. Jeffrey was covering FIT. Q. That's what Jeffiey told
+you? A. Multiple, multiple times. Q. Did Ghislaine Maxwell say anything
+to you with regards to FIT? A. It was various conversations. It was
+known among everyone that I was going to FIT, and Jeffrey - everyone
+knew he was helping me to get into FIT. It was common knowledge. Q.
+You described earlier that Ghislaine was helping review your application
+and your essay. Was there something else that she was doing to help
+you? A. Well, she said she would, but whether she did, I have no idea
+She said she would. Whether she made calls, I doubt, because I didn't end
+up at FIT. So...)
+Dep. Tr. at 332 (A. Well, the fact that she used to personally call
+me herself to give Jeffrey sexual massages. Not body massages; sexual
+massages. It should be rephrased. I mean, it was pretty obvious. I mean,
+the whole weight thing. I tried to swim off the island. I tried to escape
+from an island during the evening to try and escape from her because if I
+didn't lose weight, they would cut me out of their -- financially off. I
+would lose the place that I was staying at. I would lose my education. You
+name it. They bullied me with everything, just like they did with the other
+girls.)
+Dep. Tr. at 333-334 (Q. ... What was the threat that was made to
+you by Maxwell? A. The fact that I would lose everything that they
+promised me. They - they were really naughty. You know, they took girls
+from very underprivileged families. They gave them accommodation, they
+gave them food, gave them money for transportation, you know, private
+planes, etcetera, etcetera. So if I didn't have sex with Jeffrey, I would be
+homeless and starving in New York, so -- and my dream of getting a fulltime education at one of the top fashion institutes in the world would be
+diminished. And that's what he held over my head, exactly like he did
+with
+and the other girls. He was paying for all of their educations.
+Q. How do you know that? A. Because they were telling me. It was
+common knowledge amongst all the girls. No other girl would be there
+8
+
+
+Casest: 15-56074383BAAP Document13827 FitedV08224 PAge318f0129
+Victoria Secret
+outfits were
+provided to the girls
+on the Island
+testified that she is
+fearful for her life
+after coming
+forward.
+Transcript Citation
+willingly just to have sex with Jetfrey.)
+Dep. Tr. at 350 (Q. They were supplied to you? A. Yes. All of
+the outfits -- there were clothes that were provided on the island by Jeffrey
+Epstein, which were all Victoria's Secret clothing: bikinis, nightwear.)
+Dep. Tr. at 40 (There were two people following me after I
+came forward to Maureen Callahan. I went to - I walked downstairs. I
+walked around -- I have a usual routine that I do. In the morning I went
+out, I saw the same two people. Later on that afternoon, I saw the same
+two people again. I was frightened. I'm frightened for my life, absolutely
+frightened. So there you go.)
+provided clear testimony as a non-party victim of sex trafficking that her
+motivating factor for testifying is to hold her traffickers accountable:
+Q. I'm just asking your understanding.
+A. Nothing's been promised to me about money.
+Q. Were you seeking money when you authorized this complaint to be filed on
+your behalf?
+A. No. I just wanted a pedophile behind bars, really, and for him to stop abusing
+young girls. Seeing as I'm going to be a parent myself, I can't really live with
+myself, knowing that there's a pedophile with my kids on the planet. So as a
+responsible human being, I thought that I would come forward.
+See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 324:10 - 325:21.
+Non-party
+further testified during her deposition about her motivation in
+coming forward and speaking openly: "I wanted to tell my story, and I want to run a campaign in
+which all the girls that have been abused by Ghislaine and Jeffiey can come forward. And I
+wanted to run a campaign with the New York Post to get these girls to have the courage to come
+forward, because I know a lot of them are frightened like myself." See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 39:19 to 40:22.
+Despite this straightforward and commonsense explanation, Defendant uses her briefing to
+repeatedly suggest that non-party
+is motivated by "money" and that she "fabricated"
+9
+
+
+Casese:15 6407433BAAP Document13827 FiedOVOB24 PRage44f0129
+her story. From this dubious premise, Defendant then argues that
+should therefore be
+punished by having to make burdensome and invasive disclosures of such things as her boyfriend's
+cell phone mumber and information from her current bank account. Unwilling to confine her attacks
+to
+Defendant then levels attacks on the professionalism of
+legal counsel,
+stating in her brief: "One can hardly imagine a better motive to fabricate testimony that the type of
+lottery win. To make it even better, there is no purchase price for the ticket, because the people who
+want the testimony are willing to front the cost of the litigation either on a contingency or pro-bono
+basis." Defendant's Combined Motion at 7. Any suggestion of "fabrication" is directly refuted by
+the multiple pictures and e-mails non-party
+produced - documentary evidence that
+Defendant fails to discuss in her brief. Moreover, non-party
+is identified as a passenger
+on Epstein's own flight logs:
+DEP B 127-200
+10
+14
+21
+G-11590
+N909.55
+270-
+8-727-3161
+Icenty lhat the disteninte sado by no en
+MIA
+MIA
+EWE
+TIST
+GWR
+PBI
+TIST
+MIA
+_MIA
+TLST
+EWR
+FBI
+ISP
+EWR
+BALAN, 2 cales not
+429
+PLACE FIND LV
+112055 REMANNAVE
+LV
+192) GERALD LEICOURT
+1422. GORALO LEFCOURT
+51.
+Non-party
+fulsome production included items such as multiple e-mails with
+a known key conspirator and recruiter of females, and Leslie Groff, Defendant's other
+co-conspirator who was also named in the non-prosecution agreement. These e-mails are direct
+evidence of the trafficking of females for the purpose of sex, and the use of fraud and manipulation to
+accomplish that purpose
+also produced numerous photographs of her travels to
+Epstein's Little Saint James Island, which unequivocally establish Defendant's presence during the
+years that she swore under oath that she was hardly around
+testimony proves that
+what little Defendant did say during her deposition was far from the truth.
+10
+
+
+Casest:15-607433BAAP Document13B2D FitetOV0B124 PRjage516fof29
+These documents do not lie, and moreover make it abundantly clear that Defendant was far
+from truthful during her deposition when she denied being a part of Epstein's sexual abuse
+conspiracy. Rather than engage
+allegations on the merits, Defendant responds with
+technicalities. For example, Defendant attempts to suggest that
+counsel was not diligent
+in disclosing
+Yet if there was any failure of disclosure here, it was entirely
+Defendant's failure. Clearly, witness
+is someone who has relevant evidence in this
+case, as her many photographs, e-mails, and other documents undoubtedly establish. And yet
+Defendant failed to disclose
+existence not only in her Rule 26 disclosures, but also
+through (to put it mildly) her inaccurate testimony during her deposition. As a result,
+legal counsel did not learn of
+existence and whereabouts until November.
+Furthermore, as
+counsel informed the Court, it was not until the first week in January
+that non-party
+was able to meet with counsel in person in Barcelona.
+counsel was not going to petition to bring a new witness before this Court without conducting
+complete due diligence to assure that her testimony was credible. As soon as that in-person meeting
+was accomplished in carly January,
+filed the appropriate papers with this Court and
+immediately offered to make
+available to Defendant for a deposition. After first
+delaying in taking that deposition, Defendant then made this victim of sex trafficking, who had flown
+to the United States from Barcelona, sit for ten hours at a deposition and be subject to harassing
+questions.
+11
+
+
+Casest:15-6v074333BAAP Documentt13B2T FitetV0B224 PRjage6l6f0129
+ARGUMENT
+In light of non-party
+diligent efforts to satisfy Defendant's needs for
+discovery, the Court should enter a protective order against further discovery (DE 640) and deny
+Defendant's Combined Motion to Compel' (DE 655).
+As explained in Non-Party
+Motion for Protective Order, Defendant should not
+be allowed to use the discovery process as a means of intimidating and harassing a non-party.
+Counsel is not permitted to intentionally harass or embarrass a non-party witness during a
+deposition. See Smartix International LLC v. Garrubbo, Romankow & Capese, No. 06 CIV 1501
+(JGK), 2007 WL 41666035 at *2 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2007) (court protecting deponent from
+annoyance, embarrassment and harassment by denying party's attempt to obtain personnel
+records relating to non-party).
+Courts are more vigilant with these protections when the discovery is being sought from a
+non-party. "[T]he fact of non-party status may be considered by the Court in weighing the
+burdens imposed in the circumstances." Katz v. Batavia Marine & Sporting Supplies, Inc., 984
+F.2d 422, 424 (Fed.Cir. 1993); accord Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings,
+Inc., 300 F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood
+' In her Motion to Compel, Defendant failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1 and only inserted
+selected text from certain objections. Rule 37.1 requires: "upon any motion or application
+involving discovery or disclosure requests or responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, the moving
+party shall specify and quote or set forth verbatim in the motion papers each discovery request
+and response to which the motion or application is addressed." For all of the discovery items
+upon which Defendant moves, Defendant has wholly failed to do this. Upon a motion to compel,
+a court is called upon to evaluate the discovery requests as well as the responses and objections.
+Local Rule 37.1 is designed to protect against the exact type of self-serving omission of the
+responding party's objections that Defendant has done in her brief. Accordingly, the Court
+should deny Defendant's motion in its entirety for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1. See
+Blodgett v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2016 WL 4203490, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying motion
+without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 37.1 (which is the same rule in the
+Eastern District of New York)); see also Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 2, Non-Party
+Responses and Objections to Defendant's Subpoena Requests.
+12
+
+
+Chemical Co., 649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) ("While discovery is a valuable right and should not
+be unnecessarily restricted, the 'necessary' restriction may be broader when a non-party is the
+target of discovery.").
+Courts have routinely denied the discovery of non-parties when it is clear that the purpose
+is to obtain personal information for intimidating or harassing the witness. See DaCosta v. City
+of Danbury, 298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014) (protective order granted with respect to personal
+information of nonparties, including home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of
+birth, children's names, financial account numbers, and social security numbers).
+Despite
+robust production, Defendant comes before this Court to seek
+additional information solely for the purpose of harassing and intimidating this witness.
+Defendant's onerous subpoena contained thirty (30) separate categories of requests.
+Nevertheless,
+produced the documents she had and sat in a deposition for over ten
+hours with Defendant's counsel. In fact,
+testified that she had produced all of the
+photographs and documents that she has that relate to Defendant and Epstein.
+02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 364:17 to 367:6
+Q. Okay. If I could have you tur to
+A. Mm-hmm.
+the last three pages, where it says
+"Documents to be Produced."
+Q. Have you seen that list before?
+A. Yes, I have.
+Q. Did you conduct a search of
+A. Yes, I believe that I produced every single document
+your records to produce documents?
+I can
+Q. After looking at this list, did you go
+A. As I said, I looked at everything I had during that
+back
+and
+look
+through
+your
+time frame and I produced everything I can during that
+photographs in Barcelona?
+time frame that I was with Jeffrey.
+Q. Just tell me what you did in
+A. Okay. So I went through a box of about over 5,000
+order to make sure you had produced
+photos that I had, and I went through every single photo,
+everything that was called for in this
+every single disk, everything that I had. I went through
+list.
+all my emails. I tried to look for the BlackBerry sim
+card, which I had hoped that I had kept, which had all
+Ghislaine' s messages on and Jeffrey's and Lesley's,
+and stupidly I misplaced that, which is really annoying.
+But I myself, you know, considering my objective is to
+13
+
+
+Cásesé:15-6G074338AAP Doument13827 FiletOW08/24 PRagê88fo129
+get these people and get justice for the abuse that
+Ghislaine caused me - and Jeffrey - I have given as
+sufficient evidence that I have.
+A. Yes.
+Q. Did you look for all photographs
+taken by you or containing any image
+of you at or near any home, business,
+private vehicle or any other property
+owned or controlled by Jeffrey
+Epstein, as indicated in paragraph 72
+Q. Likewise in paragraph 8, did you
+| A. Yes.
+look for any photographs that depict
+any home, business, private
+vehicle or any other property owned or
+controlled by Jeffiey Epstein?
+Q. And you did that after reviewing
+this list of documents?
+A. Yeah, I mean, I received the list and I've complied
+with everything. I have given absolutely everything
+that I can to you guys.
+02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 370:16 to 370:18
+Q. Where are these photographs?
+A. I have given all the photographs to my lawyers.
+02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 371:9 to 371:13
+Q. Were there photographs of other
+A. I have given all the photos that I have.
+people taken around the same time that
+you have?
+02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 371:14 to 371:19.
+Q. In other words, if you were
+messing around with Simona at this
+time and there's a photo of Simona
+that you have, did you provide that?
+A. I provided every single photograph that I have.
+02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 379:9 to 380:13.
+Q. Okay. So you believed that
+you produced six emails of
+**
+conversation between yourself and
+Natalya
+***
+A. Yeah, I collected all -- all -- everything I had, I gave
+to my lawyers.
+A. Yes, I gave all my evidence.
+Q. Okay. So you believe you gave six
+emails between vourself and
+Natalya
+to your attorneys?
+14
+
+
+Casesé:15-60743338APP Documentt13321
+FitedDV0B124 PRagê99f0129
+02/17/17 Dep. Tr. at 382:14 to 386:16.
+Q. So did you produce the
+A. I've given all my email correspondence to my
+February 04, '07, 4:01 p.m. email
+lawyers.
+from yourself to Nataly
+to
+your attorneys?
+Q. Did you give that email to your A. I've given all my emails to my lawyers.
+lawyer?
+Q. Okay. The next email down
+A. Mm-hmm.
+says
+February 5,
+2007, at 10:09 p.m." - Can you read
+the
+text of that email on this
+document?
+Q. What does the 10:09 p.m. email
+say?
+A. As I've specified before, this is a screenshot,
+, okay,
+of the actual Yahoo email. This is a screenshot. So
+technically I can't read that anyways, seeing as it's a
+screen shot.
+***
+Q. Did you search your Inbox for
+A. I did. I wanted to be thorough with my research, so I,
+documents responsive to the
+during that time frame, went through every single email.
+subpoena that I showed you a little
+while ago?
+Q. You went through each one?
+A. I went through all of my emails to make sure I gave
+all my evidence to my lawyers.
+A. I read each email.
+Q. Did you search for keywords or did
+you just read each email?
+Q. And did you print out each email?
+Q. All of them or just the ones that you
+thought were needed?
+A. I didn't print out. I saved them to a USB stick.
+A. Just the ones that were for - just anything related to
+Jeffrey, I sent over.
+I.
+NON-PARTY
+HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS OF AND DOES NOT
+HAVE DOCUMENTS FOR A NUMBER OF REQUESTS.
+Defendant's Motion to Compel' is misleading because it suggests that non-party
+refused to produce documents in response to all thirty categories in the subpoena. That is
+produced both screen shots and the associated emails. Defendant asked about the
+screenshots during the deposition, rather than about the supplemental production of the actual
+emails. Defendant also requested additional pieces of the email chains which non-party
+has provided the Defendant the additional pieces of the email chains to the extent they were
+responsive to the Defendant's subpoena.
+3 Defendant also requested a copy of the CD of photographs that non-party
+already
+produced in hard copy. A copy of said CD has been made and sent to Defendant.
+15
+
+
+incorrect. To be clear,
+produced documents, or responded that no documents exist,
+to Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 23. Request 24 was withdrawn by Defendant
+and non-party
+does not have any documents responsive to Request 26. As to the
+remaining requests:
+• Request 12 -
+testified that she does not have any credit card receipts,
+cancelled checks, or documents reflecting travel from 2006-2007, other than what she has
+already produced. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Tr. at 367, 402-403.
+• Request 15 - She testified that she does not have any documents reflecting the money
+paid to her by Jeffrey Epstein (she was paid in cash). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Tr. at 151-152, 415.
+• Request 16 - She testified that she was given cash by Epstein during the years 2006-2007
+while she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Tr. at 415-416.
+• Request 17 - She testified that she lived in Epstein's apartment and thereafter lived with a
+male friend, but she does not have any leases, deeds, or rental agreements for 2006-2007...
+See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+_Tr. at 76-78, 228-229.
+• Request 19
+produced a copy of her FIT essay but testified that she does
+not believe she has the application but Jeffrey Epstein or the Defendant likely have a
+copy because they claimed to be assisting her with the application and submission
+process for FIT). See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Tr. at 171-172, 179-180.
+• Request 21 -
+testified she did very little modeling because she wasn't
+successful at it and has no documents relating to her modeling) See Pottinger Dec. at
+
+Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415.
+• Request 25 - She testified she has not had any communication with law enforcement. See
+Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1.
+Tr. at 183-184, 189.
+• Request 27 - She testified that she has never written a book or any similar writings about
+her time with Defendant. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1.
+Tr. at 9, 12-13, 35-38.
+• Request 28 - Defendant already has her civil complaint in Jane Doe 43, and
+already testified that she is involved in that litigation.
+• Request 30
+testified that she does not have a current account on Twitter
+or any other social media platform, and does not have the information for any for the
+years 2006-2007. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Tr. at 61.
+16
+
+
+Casest:15-5v60743BBAAP Douumentt13B27 Fiet0W0B24 PRagê20fo129
+II.
+DEFENDANT'S SUBPOENA SEEKS DOCUMENTS SOLELY FOR THE
+PURPOSE OF INTIMIDATING AND HARASSING THIS NON-PARTY
+WITNESS
+Request 10 (Current Passport/Current Visas):
+As to Request 10.
+produced her passport during the time that she was being
+trafficked by Defendant and Epstein. She does not have Visas from that time period, as she
+testified. Non-party
+should not have to produce her current passport, and
+Defendant has given no good faith reason for why she should have to.
+The remainder of Request 10 is overly broad, seeking "all communications regarding any
+of Your passports, visas, visa applications or to her permissions to live, work or study in a
+foreign country for the years 2005 - present." What is responsive and relevant to this case - the
+passport she held during the years 2006 and 2007 - has been produced. The reminder is simply
+being sought in order to learn the patterns of
+travel for purposes of harassing and
+intimidating her.
+Request 18 (Current Driver's License):
+Despite non-party
+having produced her passport showing her travel during the
+period she was being trafficked by Defendant and Epstein, Defendant seeks a "copy of her
+current driver's license." Non-party
+is already fearful for her life and has been
+followed at least once since she disclosed the abuse she endured at the hands of Defendant and
+Epstein. Obtaining a copy of this non-party's current driver's license is solely for the purpose of
+harassing and intimidating her and should not be permitted. The evidence that is relevant to the
+claims from 2006-2007 has already been produced, including the copy of her passport.
+Request 29 (Current Bank Statement, Paycheck, Credit Card Statements):
+Non-party
+testified that she is presently unemployed and is living with her
+boyfriend. Nevertheless, Defendant insists on moving to compel highly personal financial
+17
+
+
+Casese:15 64074333BARP Document13827 Miled0W0BI24 PRage220fo129
+information from this non-party as set forth in Request 29: "A copy of your most recent
+paycheck, paycheck stub, earnings statement and any bank statement, credit card statement and
+any document reflecting any money owed by you to anyone." This type of current financial
+information is only being sought for the improper purpose of embarrassing, intimidating, and
+harassing this non-party. See DaCosta v. City of Danbury, 298 F.R.D. 37 (D. Conn. 2014)
+(protective order granted with respect to personal information of nonparties, including home
+addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, children's names, financial account
+numbers, and social security numbers).
+Request 22 (All Modeling Contracts Signed or Entered into By You):
+Non-party
+provided testimony that she did very little modeling while in New
+York because she was not successful at it, and she also testified that it was mostly freelance
+modeling. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Tr. at 82, 85, 112-113, 216, 415. Despite
+receiving this testimony, Defendant is now insisting that she conduct a search for any modeling
+contract that
+has signed and produce them. This search is solely for the improper
+purpose of embarrassing, harassing, and intimidating this non-party witness, and should be
+precluded.
+Accordingly, non-party
+objects to these Requests which are only being sought
+for the purpose of harassing and intimidating this non-party witness, and requests that the Court
+protect her from this clearly, highly personal and harassing discovery.
+III. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ASKING ANY ADDITIONAL
+DEPOSITION QUESTIONS THAT ARE SOLELY MEANT TO EMBARRASS,
+INTIMIDATE AND HARASS THIS NON-PARTY.
+Defendant had
+present for a deposition for over ten hours with breaks,
+ensuring that Defendant got a full seven (7) hours of tape time as provided by the Rules. Despite
+this, Defendant seeks to compel
+to sit for additional questions. The following are
+18
+
+
+Casese:15 64074333BARP Donumentti3327 FiletOW0824 PRag₴328fol29
+the categories of deposition testimony that Defendant seeks for which non-party
+contends are sought only for the purpose of harassment and intimidation:
+• Current paycheck records and other banking records. Defendant has now added to
+this that she wants her boyfriend's current income and financial position since nonparty
+testified that she is living with her boyfriend. See Pottinger Dec at
+Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 8-9, 13-14.
+• Boyfriend's cell phone number. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,|
+Dep. Tr. at
+27-28
+• Her parent's current address information. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 14.
+• Communications that non-party
+testified she recalls having with a
+reporter in the fall of 2016. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 37-
+43, 386-388.
+• Privileged communications with Alan Dershowitz when he was meeting with
+about a legal matter. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at
+182-186.
+• Her partner's occupation. See Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 13-14.
+• What hotel
+Pottinger Dec at Exhibit 1,
+was staying at in New York for her deposition. See
+Dep. Tr. at 30-34.
+Whether Alan Dershowitz contacted anyone on
+Dec at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 199.
+behalf. See Pottinger
+• Her stepmother's phone, e-mail address and physical address - despite the fact that
+non-party
+already gave testimony at her lengthy deposition that she
+does not have her stepmother's contact information. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+Dep. Tr. at 239-240.
+When
+provided her photos to her lawyer. See Pottinger Dec. at Exhibit
+Dep. Tr. at 363.
+testified that she believed that Alan Dershowitz had been retained to be her
+lawyer in a legal matter that she was having. Accordingly, counsel objected on privilege grounds
+when Defendant's counsel attempted to obtain specifics about those meetings. In addition,
+Defendant attempted to obtain privileged and work product information about
+19
+
+
+Casest:15-6074333BAAP Document13321 fledOV0B124 PRage 424f0129
+meetings with her counsel in this matter. As the Court can see, the other questions relate to a
+number of personal family information that a non-party witness should not be required to
+disclose, particularly when she has a justified fear of Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant
+also requests documents relating to
+testimony that she recently had conversations
+with a reporter when she was trying to encourage other victims of Defendant and Epstein to
+come forward with their stories. After giving fulsome testimony on this topic, Defendant is now
+demanding that
+conduct a search for documents relating to this reporter. Again,
+non-party
+has produced a significant amount of discovery and has given her
+testimony and she should not be forced to undertake an additional burden. Finally, prying into
+her current personal financial information or her boyfriend's personal financial information
+should not be condoned. Simply put, all of these categories above for which Defendant seeks
+additional testimony have nothing to do with this action and are being sought solely to
+embarrass, harass, and intimidate this non-party, which should not be condoned.
+IV. NON-PARTY
+SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO INCUR THE
+BURDEN AND EXPENSE OF PRODUCING A PRIVILEGE LOG.
+Despite being given less than seven days to respond to Defendant's subpoena and
+produce documents, Defendant also wrongly demands that this non-party undertake the burden
+and expense of producing a privilege log. New York law protects non-parties from the
+significant burden and expense of producing a privilege log. "The burden on the party from
+which discovery is sought must, of course, be balanced against the need for the information
+sought." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Konover, 2009 WL 585434, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 4, 2009)
+(denying Rule 45 motion to compel production of documents from non-party). "In performing
+such a balance, courts have considered the fact that discovery is being sought from a third or
+non-party, which weighs against permitting discovery." Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 281
+20
+
+
+Casese:15 64074333BARP Document13327 #letOW08124 PAage526fol29
+F.R.D. 85, 92 (D. Conn. 2012) (finding request for production on non-party - including creation
+of privilege log - too burdensome); see also Medical Components, Inc. v. Classic Medical, Inc.,
+210 F.R.D. 175, 180 n.9 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (**the court should give special weight to the unwanted
+burden thrust upon non-parties when evaluating the balance of competing needs.")). "Within this
+[Second] Circuit, courts have held nonparty status to be a "significant' factor in determining
+whether discovery is unduly burdensome." Tucker, 281 F.R.D. at 92 (citing Solarex Corp. v.
+Arco Solar, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 163, 179 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (status as non-party "significant" factor
+in denying defendant's discovery demand)).
+is a victim of sex trafficking who bravely came forward to help another
+victim of abuse. She is not a large corporation with a team of in-house lawyers. In these
+circumstances, imposing the burden of producing a privilege log on this non-party is inherently
+unfair. A non-party is not required to undertake the burden of filing a privilege log. Defendant is
+only seeking to try to have this Court force non-party
+to produce a privilege log in
+this matter to impose additional burden on
+In addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and
+witness interviews between
+lawyers and non-party
+It is well settled
+that documents relating to witness interviews are protected by the work product privilege. In
+addition, Defendant wrongly argues that she is entitled to any communications and witness
+interviews between
+lawyers and non-party
+See William A. Gross
+Const., Assoc., Ine. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 262 F.R.D. 354, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (upholding
+work-product privilege, finding doctrine "'extends to notes, memoranda, witness interviews, and
+other material'" created in preparation for litigation and trial (emphasis added) (internal citation
+omitted)). Indeed, "protection of witness interviews has been one of the focuses of the attorney
+21
+
+
+Casese:15 6407433BARP Documentt13327 fletOW08224 PRag₴626f0929
+work-product privilege since its inception in American law." Gerber v. Down E. Cmty. Hosp.,
+266 F.R.D. 29, 31 (D. Me. 2010) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 497, 510-11, 67 S.
+Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)). Courts have continuously found an attorney's communications
+and notes of witness interviews to be privileged work product. See, e.g., City of Pontiac Gen.
+Employee's Ret. Sys. v. Lockheed
+Corp., 2012 WL 4202657, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18,
+2012) (denying motion to compel, upholding work-product privilege with respect to witness
+interviews and accompanying notes, emails, and memoranda); United States v. Jacques
+Dessange, Inc., 2000 WL 310345, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) (finding notes of witness
+interviews to be core work product); S.E.C. v. NIR Grp., LLC, 283 F.R.D. 127, 134 (E.D.N.Y.
+2012) (work product privilege applied to interviews - along with accompanying notes and
+memoranda - conducted by attorney); Buck v. Indian Mountain Sch., 2017 WL 421648, at *7 (D.
+Conn. Jan. 31, 2017) ("the disclosure of witness interviews and documents related thereto, is
+"particularly disfavored"" (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 399 (1981))).
+V. NON-PARTY
+JANE DOE 43.
+HAS PRODUCED DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO
+Defendant also claims that non-party
+has not produced all documents
+covered in the subpoena that relate to Jane Doe 43 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Lesley Groff and Natalya Malesheve, Case Number 1:17 - cv-0016-JGK, which involves
+a claim under the sexual trafficking statute. Regarding the Jane Doe 43 documents,
+testified that she produced everything that she had that relates to Defendant. See Chart
+supra. The case law is clear that a party cannot use the subpoena power in this litigation to gather
+discovery for a different litigation which is exactly what Defendant is trying to do here. See Liz
+Claiborne, Inc., v. Mademoiselle Knitwear, Inc., No. 96 CIV 2064 (RWS), 1997 WL 53184 at *5
+(Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 1997) (this Court limiting deposition questioning of party because
+22
+
+
+Casese:15 6407433BARP Documentt13327 flet@WOBI24 PRag₴72øfol29
+relevance of the questions were tenuous at best and appeared to be directed at improperly
+gathering information for a different lawsuit); Night Hawk Limited v. Briarpatch Limited, No. 03
+CIV. 1382 (RWS), 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003). Irrespective of this case law
+that says a party should not wrongfully seck a non-party's documents for use in a different
+matter, non-party
+did produce the documents that she has that relate directly to
+Defendant and Epstein as she testified.
+Non-party
+CONCLUSION
+respectfully requests that this Court grant her protection from
+having to produce any additional discovery or sit for any additional deposition testimony (DE
+650). Non-party
+also respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant's
+Combined Motion to Compel (DE 655).
+Dated: March 7, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+By: Is/ J. Stanley Pottinger
+J. Stanley Pottinger (Pro Hac Vice)
+Counsel for
+23
+
+
+Casese:15 64074333BARP Document13827 MiledW0B24 PRag₴828fol29
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 7th of March, 2017, 1 electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+Meredith
+Esq.
+BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
+Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Tel: (954) 356-0011
+Fax: (954) 956-0022
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultzl@bstllp.com
+David Boies
+BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+dboies@bsfllp.com
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+AFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+24
+
+
+Cases&:15 6074333BARP Donument13827 Filet0W08124 PRag₴29f0129
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52024
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+Peter Guirguis, Esq.
+MINTZ & GOLD, LLP
+600 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10016
+(212) 696-4848
+guirguis@mintzandgold.com
+Is/ J. Stanley Pottinger
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+* This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+25
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0d957591fb61d316badfadd6af5939f17887f6dee5bff901db12da59073739f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0d957591fb61d316badfadd6af5939f17887f6dee5bff901db12da59073739f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d33cfe039292315af230722556f87b304558b10e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0d957591fb61d316badfadd6af5939f17887f6dee5bff901db12da59073739f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -419,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f0d957591fb61d316badfadd6af5939f17887f6dee5bff901db12da59073739f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 33,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "401339964ed16a1c893a28a07a085f71be29f4e4610ed651e812b0700c04edb2",
+  "output_sha256": "64f0f81ef9b55439b0447c29ce1c8c425a93e6b868720ad3b4bc9bea5ab913ad",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e27eba012f4cabc2ff5d055d3dbcae9cc4d0858ad4d199305ba9f4d48a378b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e27eba012f4cabc2ff5d055d3dbcae9cc4d0858ad4d199305ba9f4d48a378b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b81201ccd36222e7e0674b7bc2ad1435ec0be226
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e27eba012f4cabc2ff5d055d3dbcae9cc4d0858ad4d199305ba9f4d48a378b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 773
+Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-- X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+-- X
+Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's Response in
+Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendant
+from Calling Plaintiff's Attorneys As Witnesses At Trial
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+1 am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+, P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of Ms. Maxwell's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude
+Defendant from Calling Plaintiff's Attorneys As Witnesses At Trial.
+Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of
+Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Emergency Victim's
+Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 filed in the
+Southern District of Florida, Case No. 08-cv-80376-KAM on July 7, 2008.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 773 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 4
+4.
+Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Complaint filed in the
+Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No.
+502009CA040800XXXXMBAG on December 7, 2009.
+S.
+Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of an article from the
+FloridaBulldog.org by Dan Christensen, titled President Trump on witness list in Palm Beach
+lawsuit involving billionaire pedophile, dated March 14, 2017.
+Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Filing in the
+Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No.
+502009CA040800XXXXMBAG dated May 17, 2011.
+Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of |
+8.
+Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a press release in the
+stamped GM_00523-4.
+et. al v. Dershowitz matter dated April 8, 2016,
+9.
+Attached as Exhibit H (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of
+10.
+Attached as Exhibit I (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the |
+11.
+Attached as Exhibit J (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of l
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 773 l
+Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 4
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Executed on March 23, 2017
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 773 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 23, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+In Support Of Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Preclude
+Defendant from Calling Plaintiff's Attorneys As Witnesses At Trial via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Pt. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Is/ Nicole
+Nicole
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e27eba012f4cabc2ff5d055d3dbcae9cc4d0858ad4d199305ba9f4d48a378b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e27eba012f4cabc2ff5d055d3dbcae9cc4d0858ad4d199305ba9f4d48a378b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e33dc0bd8b5ff94050e8eba1b3370e5c03bfadd2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e27eba012f4cabc2ff5d055d3dbcae9cc4d0858ad4d199305ba9f4d48a378b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f0e27eba012f4cabc2ff5d055d3dbcae9cc4d0858ad4d199305ba9f4d48a378b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a77c1bd81fea65573bf3ebc991bb3bd2eb0d8c3a8f7578cbecc18fba1b7180f9",
+  "output_sha256": "ebc2d1c84b3b3453ab0c536f86fc3ec531c152653d3e22c55c91a9010933f3a3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e354775321cc56689998fb9017c12c664f3c30544fcb181afd904b630996d9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e354775321cc56689998fb9017c12c664f3c30544fcb181afd904b630996d9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b599b86de78dea08c7a9eec31435aebbf10a4307
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e354775321cc56689998fb9017c12c664f3c30544fcb181afd904b630996d9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 646
+Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-----X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+:
+------X
+RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER STATEMENTS
+UNDER, IF NECESSARY, THE RESIDUAL HEARSAY RULE
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+,, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 646 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 4
+PAGES 1-5
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 646 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: February 24, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 646 Filed 02/24/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on February 24, 2017, I electronically served this Response to Plaintiff's Notice Of
+Intent To Offer Statements Under, If Necessary, The Residual Hearsay Rule via ECF on the
+following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+J.
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+7
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e354775321cc56689998fb9017c12c664f3c30544fcb181afd904b630996d9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e354775321cc56689998fb9017c12c664f3c30544fcb181afd904b630996d9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..157452bc536d636d19a354bf7e2daef1a46df10f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e354775321cc56689998fb9017c12c664f3c30544fcb181afd904b630996d9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f0e354775321cc56689998fb9017c12c664f3c30544fcb181afd904b630996d9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1052513312362f50bd75789771fcf87559a41d9ac9e05d20ecc6674271588810",
+  "output_sha256": "a93f5ea1c9bea4d9e4bcd1ba2014919ac3b48831b145d5fe152693f8b31ae6a4",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e80047ad91e062073f12e27e1fe78b856fe60d2be9b4af10e3b2a03c67651d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e80047ad91e062073f12e27e1fe78b856fe60d2be9b4af10e3b2a03c67651d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48542fed8a231fe7748a0051b3498b02cc04f793
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e80047ad91e062073f12e27e1fe78b856fe60d2be9b4af10e3b2a03c67651d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 181 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+-V.-
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+No. 1:20-cr-00330 (AJN)
+NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
+Defendant.
+PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney, Sigrid S. McCawley,
+hereby appears as counsel for Intervenor Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and the victims it
+represents in the above-captioned action.
+Dated: New York, New York
+March 26, 2021
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+By:
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Pro Hac Vice application pending
+foies Schiller Flexner LLI
+401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Tel: (954) 356-0011
+Fax: (954) 356-0022
+Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+Attorney for Intervenor
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+and the victims it represents
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e80047ad91e062073f12e27e1fe78b856fe60d2be9b4af10e3b2a03c67651d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e80047ad91e062073f12e27e1fe78b856fe60d2be9b4af10e3b2a03c67651d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc92e17f5520e6b5ff0f1adb2bb15f95e24a9993
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f0e80047ad91e062073f12e27e1fe78b856fe60d2be9b4af10e3b2a03c67651d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f0e80047ad91e062073f12e27e1fe78b856fe60d2be9b4af10e3b2a03c67651d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0ffd49f2692cbe0257e27001efbe614b4b49788476c61a0a3f4f556cf3c75971",
+  "output_sha256": "78c8ca6b054f09d198d693738ba6f9077f11618d989c6d8e9afacc402cbe10a6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f10b2e9d549fafd85934f4c02a711aa77353158ce0ac8e910687427320865b44.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f10b2e9d549fafd85934f4c02a711aa77353158ce0ac8e910687427320865b44.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da6281bed1361a3e6fef766ffb9fcd38b6c23f58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f10b2e9d549fafd85934f4c02a711aa77353158ce0ac8e910687427320865b44.md
@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-12 Filed 01/08/24
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-----X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+:
+-----X
+Motion to Appoint Special
+to Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+150 East 10' Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+AND
+, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-12 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 7
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
+Procedure 53, files this Motion to Appoint a Special
+I to Preside over the Third Deposition
+of Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, and states as follows:
+STATEMENT OF CONFERRAL
+The undersigned has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, who stated that they do not
+agree to the appointment of a special
+Maxwell's third deposition.
+INTRODUCTION
+Plaintiff has deposed Defendant for more than thirteen hours of testimony on the record.
+During the previous depositions, a variety of issues arose, including repetitive and duplicative
+questioning on a variety of subjects outside of the Court's previous orders, resulting in the need
+for objections to the questioning and instructions not to answer. The Court has permitted Ms.
+Maxwell to be deposed for a third time, on limited subject areas, limited to non-duplicative
+examination, for a maximum of two hours. To avoid the possibility of any request for yet
+another deposition of Ms. Maxwell, we submit it is in the best interest of all parties to appoint a
+special
+to preside over the deposition to provide immediate rulings on any objections that
+may arise regarding questions that are outside of the scope of the deposition as set forth in this
+Court's March 23, 2017 and November 10, 2016 Orders, or any other issues that might arise
+during the deposition.
+THE SCOPE OF THE DEPOSITION
+On November 2, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to permit a third deposition
+of Ms. Maxwell concerning the following subjects:
+(a) |
+(b) |
+(C) women brought by Tony
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-12 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 7
+(d) other women who gave massages to Jeffrey Epstein, and any evidence, circumstances,
+or records relating to the massages.
+Order of Nov. 2, 2016 at 7.
+During the hearing on November 10, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to
+permit this third deposition to include questioning concerning two emails produced August 16,
+2016 (Doc. # 466); see Tr. of Nov. 10, 2016 hearing at 34.
+On November 15, 2016, Defendant moved for reconsideration or clarification of portions
+of the November 2, 2016 Order. With respect to the third deposition of Ms. Maxwell, the Court
+granted the motion for clarification, which requested that the Court clarify that the deposition
+would be limited to non-duplicative questioning "limited to the four areas of inquiry referred to
+in the Order at page 7." Sealed Order of March 23, 2017 at 4.'
+Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53, the Court may appoint a special
+to "address pretrial
+and post-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district
+judge or magistrate judge of the district." In light of the trial in this matter scheduled to begin
+May 15, 2017, it is in all parties" best interest to complete this final two hours of deposition
+quickly and efficiently. Given that in the prior depositions of Ms. Maxwell, counsel for Plaintiff
+has repeatedly covered the same questions, we believe that there is a high likelihood that this
+repetitive duplicative questioning will occur again, necessitating objections by counsel to enforce
+this Court March 23, 2017 Order, as is permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2). Should this occur,
+an immediate ruling on the issue by a special
+would prevent the need for any further
+briefings on these matters, whether by Motion for Protective Order or otherwise.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-12 Filed 01/08/24 Page 4 of 7
+There is also a legitimate concern regarding Plaintiff's counsel's treatment of Ms.
+Maxwell during her deposition, as evidenced by tactics in the prior depositions such as refusing
+to permit Ms. Maxwell to take requested breaks, scolding Ms. Maxwell that she could not speak
+with her counsel at break, and other deposition tactics clearly improper under Fed. R. Civ. P.
+30(d)(3)(a). By way of example, in her second deposition, the following occurred:
+THE WITNESS: Can we take a break?
+MR. BOIES: Only if you commit not to talk to your counsel during the break.
+THE WITNESS: That's ludicrous.
+MR. BOIES: You want a break to talk to your counsel, right?
+THE WITNESS: I want to use the bathroom.
+MR. BOIES: You want to talk to your counsel, right?
+THE WITNESS: I talk to my counsel all the time.
+MR. BOIES: I don't want you talking to your counsel while I'm in the middle of this
+examination.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to talk to her, so are we going to sit here and go for the rest
+of the day until we're done?
+MR. BOIES: No, but I'm going to go through the rest of this line of questioning, unless
+you take her and walk out and then, I'm going to protest that to the judge.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: He is refusing a bathroom break to you right now.
+See Menninger Decl. Ex. A, at 102-103. Obviously, the risk of such improper oppressive
+conduct by counsel would be greatly reduced with the presence of a third-party neutral arbiter in
+the room.
+Thus, for efficiency purposes and to protect Ms. Maxwell from harassment and
+oppression, we request that the Court appoint a Special
+third deposition and be given the following powers:
+to preside over Ms. Maxwell's
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-12 Filed 01/08/24 Page 5 of 7
+1)
+Provide immediate and binding rulings on any and all objections concerning whether the
+questioning exceeds the limitations imposed by the Court, including duplicative
+questioning;
+2)
+Provide immediate and binding rulings on any claims of oppression or harassment of the
+witnesses;
+3)
+4)
+Provide immediate and binding rulings on any objections that would otherwise
+necessitate a Motion for Protective Order, other than instructions not to answer based on
+privilege, which shall be preserved in the deposition record.
+Provide immediate and binding rulings on any other matter occurring during the
+deposition that will effectuate the completion of Ms. Maxwell's final 2-hour deposition.
+Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f) the Special
+ruling on these questions will
+be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. We propose that each side share in the cost of
+the special
+equally, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g)(2)&(3). Within 2 days after the
+Court's approval of this request Ms. Maxwell will propose a list of three qualified special
+masters and request that the Court select one of these individuals to act as the Special
+for
+this deposition.
+CONCLUSION
+WHEREFORE, Defendant requests the appointment of a Special |
+Civ. P. 53 to oversee and rule of any objections raised (other than form and foundation
+objections) in Ms. Maxwell's final two hours of deposition.
+under Fed. R.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-12 Filed 01/08/24 Page 6 of 7
+Dated: April 11, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-12 Filed 01/08/24
+
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on April 11, 2017, I electronically served this Motion to Appoint Special
+to
+Preside Over Third Deposition of Defendant via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+1. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f10b2e9d549fafd85934f4c02a711aa77353158ce0ac8e910687427320865b44.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f10b2e9d549fafd85934f4c02a711aa77353158ce0ac8e910687427320865b44.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14f3c792af235c7ff34884dc2b6533d6f9eaab62
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f10b2e9d549fafd85934f4c02a711aa77353158ce0ac8e910687427320865b44.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -106,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f10b2e9d549fafd85934f4c02a711aa77353158ce0ac8e910687427320865b44",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3b41106fa4f0d675bfde79cb4712d3df705b17456b1ecb1ed871c716dbd1d001",
+  "output_sha256": "9da49d34125d8e06ceaf8e2254c0b5b8b9f275963def6469eeabd7051c6d685a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f111e5e02595015bd07c9c1d9df05fb240ae0da99a69983c7b5c79c89210efdc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f111e5e02595015bd07c9c1d9df05fb240ae0da99a69983c7b5c79c89210efdc.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9aee1a3f9429bee69f9d2cbdce163649f1f87cbb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f111e5e02595015bd07c9c1d9df05fb240ae0da99a69983c7b5c79c89210efdc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,349 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 13
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1
+Filed 08/12/16 Page 2 of 13
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
+DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT GHISLAINE MAXWELL
+Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby propounds Plaintiff's Second
+Request for Production of Documents pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
+Procedure to the Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The responses are due at the offices of Boies,
+Schiller & Flexner LLP, 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
+33301, within thirty (30) days of service hereof.
+DEFINITIONS
+Wherever they hereafter appear the following words and phrases have the following
+meanings:
+"Agent" shall mean any agent, employee, officer, director, attorney, independent
+contractor or any other person acting, or purporting to act, at the discretion of or on behalf of
+another.
+"Correspondence" or "communication" shall mean all written or verbal
+communications, by any and all methods, including without limitation, letters, memoranda,
+and/or electronic mail, by which information, in whatever form, is stored, transmitted or
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 3 of 13
+received; and, includes every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every
+disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or otherwise,
+face-to-face, by telephone, telecopies, e-mail, text, modem transmission, computer generated
+message, mail, personal delivery or otherwise.
+3.
+"Defendant" shall mean the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell and her employees,
+representatives or agents.
+"Document" incorporates the definition as set forth in Rule 26.3(c)(2), Southern
+District of New York Local Rules, and, therefore, is defined to be synonymous in meaning and
+equal in scope to the usage of the term "documents or electronically stored information in Fed.
+R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning
+of this term.
+"Employee" includes a past or present officer, director, agent or servant, including
+any attorney (associate or partner) or paralegal.
+6.
+"Including" means including without limitations.
+7.
+"Income" includes income in-kind, and means all money, L
+bonds, in-kind
+income, earnings, salary, pay, remuneration, wages, stipends, revenue, profits, gains, proceeds,
+turnover, yield, or dividends.
+8.
+"Jeffrey Epstein" includes Jeffrey Epstein and any entities owned or controlled by
+Jeffrey Epstein, any employee, agent, attorney, consultant, or representative of Jeffrey Epstein.
+9.
+"Person(s)" includes natural persons, proprietorships, governmental agencies,
+corporations, partnerships, trusts, joint ventures, groups, associations, organizations or any other
+legal or business entity.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 4 of 13
+10.
+"You" or "Your" hereinafter means Ghislaine Maxwell and any employee, agent,
+attorney, consultant, related entities or other representative of Ghislaine Maxwell.
+INSTRUCTIONS
+Unless indicated otherwise, the "Relevant Period" for this Request is from 1999
+to the present. A Document should be considered to be within the relevant time frame if it refers
+or relates to communications, meetings or other events or documents that occurred or were
+created within that time frame, regardless of the date of creation of the responsive Document.
+This Request calls for the production of all responsive Documents in Your
+possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location of such documents.
+If any Document requested was in any defendant's possession or control, but is no
+longer in its possession or control, state what disposition was made of said Document, the reason
+for such disposition, and the date of such disposition.
+4.
+For the purposes of reading, interpreting, or construing the scope of these
+requests, the terms used shall be given their most expansive and inclusive interpretation. This
+includes, without limitation the following:
+a)
+b)
+c)
+d)
+Wherever appropriate herein, the singular form of a word shall be
+interpreted as plural and vice versa.
+"And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or
+conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any
+information (as defined herein) which might otherwise be construed to be
+outside the scope of this discovery request.
+"Any" shall be understood to include and encompass "all" and vice versa.
+Wherever appropriate herein, the masculine form of a word shall be
+interpreted as feminine and vice versa.
+"Including" shall mean "including without limitation."
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 5 of 13
+If You are unable to answer or respond fully to any document request, answer or
+respond to the extent possible and specify the reasons for Your inability to answer or respond in
+full. If the recipient has no documents responsive to a particular Request, the recipient shall so
+state.
+6.
+Unless instructed otherwise, each Request shall be construed independently and
+not by reference to any other Request for the purpose of limitation.
+The words "concern," "concerning," "concerns," or any other derivative thereof,
+as used herein is defined as meaning relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing or
+constituting, under Rule 26.3(c)(7), Southern District of New York Local Civil Rules.
+8.
+"Identify" (with respect to persons) incorporates the definition as set forth in Rule
+26.3(c)(3), Southern District of New York Local Rules. Therefore, when referring to a person,
+"to identify" means to give, to the extent known, the person's full name, present or last known
+address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the present or last known place of
+employment.
+9.
+Identify (with respect to documents) incorporates the definition as set forth in
+Rule 26.3(c)(4), Southern District of New York Local Rules. Therefore, when referring to
+documents "to identify" means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of documents, (ii)
+general subject matter; (iii) date of the documents; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s) and
+recipients). In the alternative, the responding party may produce the documents, together with
+identifying information sufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
+10.
+In producing Documents, if the original of any Document cannot be located, a
+copy shall be produced in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same
+manner as the original.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 6 of 13
+11.
+Any copy of a Document that is not identical shall be considered a separate
+document.
+12.
+If any requested Document cannot be produced in full, produce the Document to
+the extent possible, specifying each reason for Your inability to produce the remainder of the
+Document stating whatever information, knowledge or belief which You have concerning the
+portion not produced.
+13.
+If any Document requested was at any one time in existence but are no longer in
+existence, then so state, specifying for each Document (a) the type of document; (b) the types of
+information contained thereon; (c) the date upon which it ceased to exist; (d) the circumstances
+under which it ceased to exist; (e) the identity of all person having knowledge of the
+circumstances under which it ceased to exist; and (f) the identity of all persons having
+knowledge or who had knowledge of the contents thereof and each individual's address.
+14.
+All Documents shall be produced in the same order as they are kept or maintained
+by You in the ordinary course of business.
+15.
+You are requested to produce all drafts and notes, whether typed, handwritten or
+otherwise, made or prepared in connection with the requested Documents, whether or not used.
+16.
+Documents attached to each other shall not be separated.
+17.
+Documents shall be produced in such fashion as to identify the department,
+branch or office in whose possession they were located and, where applicable, the natural person
+in whose possession they were found, and business address of each Document's custodian(s).
+18.
+If any Document responsive to the request is withheld, in all or part, based upon
+any claim of privilege or protection, whether based on statute or otherwise, state separately for
+each Document, in addition to any other information requested: (a) the specific request which
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 7 of 13
+calls for the production; (b) the nature of the privilege claimed; (c) its date; (d) the name and
+address of each author; (e) the name and address of each of the addresses and/or individual to
+whom the Document was distributed, if any; (f) the title (or position) of its author; (g) type of
+tangible object, e.g., letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, report, recording, disk, etc.; (h) its title
+and subject matter (without revealing the information as to which the privilege is claimed); (i)
+with sufficient specificity to permit the Court to make full determination as to whether the claim
+of privilege is valid, each and every fact or basis on which You claim such privilege; and (i)
+whether the document contained an attachment and to the extent You are claiming a privilege as
+to the attachment, a separate log entry addressing that privilege claim.
+19.
+If any Document requested herein is withheld, in all or part, based on a claim that
+such Document constitutes attorney work product, provide all of the information described in
+Instruction No. 18 and also identify the litigation in connection with which the Document and the
+information it contains was obtained and/or prepared
+20.
+Plaintiff does not seek and does not require the production of multiple copies of
+identical Documents.
+21. This Request is deemed to be continuing. If, after producing these Documents,
+You obtain or become aware of any further information, Documents, things, or information
+responsive to this Request, You are required to so state by supplementing Your responses and
+producing such additional Documents to Plaintiff.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 8 of 13
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19
+Produce all documents concerning any alleged illegal activity involving Plaintiff from the
+Relevant Period. This request includes, but is not limited to, any documents concerning the
+Roadhouse Grill in Florida.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20
+Produce all documents concerning any apartment or other dwelling occupied by Plaintiff
+from 1999 to the present, including but not limited to, all documents concerning the acquisition
+of, and payment for, such dwellings. This Request includes, but is not limited to, any dwelling
+paid for - in whole or in party by Defendant or Jeffrey Epstein.
+DOCUMENT REQUESTS CONCERNING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21
+Produce all copies of the complaints in any lawsuits that You have filed in any court in
+which You seek damages or any other financial recovery from 2014 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22
+Produce all Financial Statements prepared for or submitted to any Lender or Investor for
+the past three years by You personally or on Your behalf or on behalf of any entity in which You
+hold or held a controlling interest from January 2015 to the Present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23
+Produce all W-2s, K-1s, and any other documents reflecting any income (including
+salary, bonuses, dividends, profit distributions, royalties, advances, annuities, and any other form
+of income), including all gross and net revenue received by You directly or indirectly from
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24
+Produce all tax returns filed with any taxing entity (either foreign or domestic) from
+January 2015 to the present by You or on Your behalf, or on behalf of any entity in which You
+hold or held a controlling interest at the time of filing.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 9 of 13
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25
+Produce all bank statements or other financial statements which were prepared by You,
+on Your behalf or by or on behalf of any entity in which You held an ownership interest of 10%
+or more at any time from January 2015 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26
+Produce all deeds and titles to all real property owned by You or held on Your behalf
+either directly or indirectly at any time from January 2015 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27
+Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all
+savings accounts, checking accounts, and savings and loan association share accounts owned by
+You or on which You hold a right or have held a right to withdraw funds at any time from
+January 2015 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28
+Produce all passbooks (or other documents showing account balances) with respect to all
+savings accounts, checking accounts and savings loan association share accounts, owned by You
+in whole or in party jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business enterprise, or
+owned by an entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest at any time from
+January 2015 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29
+Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank
+accounts in which You have a right to withdraw funds, reflecting the highest balance in said
+accounts from January 2015 to the present..
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30
+Produce all bank ledger sheets (from the internet or otherwise) concerning all bank
+accounts owned by You solely, or jointly as co-owner, partner, or joint venture, in any business
+nterprise, or any entity in which You have or have had a controlling interest from January 201.
+o the present, reflecting het highest balance in said accounts for each month from January 201.
+to the present.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 10 of 13
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31
+Produce all checkbooks for all accounts on which You were authorized to withdraw
+funds from January 2015 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32
+Produce the 2015 and 2016 balance sheets and other financial statements with respect to
+any and all business enterprises of whatever nature (including not-for-profit enterprises), either
+foreign or domestic, in which You possess any ownership interest of 10% or more, whether a
+partner, joint venture, stockholder, or otherwise.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33
+Produce all corporate securities (stocks or bonds), foreign or domestic, directly or
+indirectly held by You, or held on Your behalf or for Your benefit by another individual or
+entity, including trusts from January 2015 to the Present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34
+Produce all accounts receivable ledgers or other records which set forth the names and
+addresses of all persons or business enterprises that are indebted to You and the amounts and
+terms of such indebtedness from August 2016 to the Present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35
+Produce all copies of the partnership or corporation Income Tax Returns for any
+partnership or corporation, either foreign or domestic, in which You do possess or have
+possessed any ownership interest of 4% or more whether as partner, joint venture, stockholder or
+otherwise, from 2014 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36
+Produce all title certificates, registration certificates, bills of sale, and other evidences of
+ownership possessed by You or held for Your beneficial interest with respect to any of the
+following described property owned by You or held directly or indirectly for Your beneficial
+interest from January 2015 to the present:
+a. Motor vehicles of any type, including trucks, other automobiles, and two or threewheeled vehicles (motorcycles, ATV, etc.).
+b. Aircraft of any type, including jets, propeller planes, and helicopters
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 11 of 13
+c. Boats, launches, cruisers, sailboats, or other vessels of any type
+d. Real estate and real property
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37
+From January 2012 to the present, produce all documents concerning any source of
+Associated, ine ring Ma point or to tiding refered From the vion Gid antiative, the
+Clinton Foundation (a/k/a William J. Clinton Foundation, a/k/a/ the Bill, Hilary & Chelsea
+Clinton Foundation), and the Clinton Foundation Climate Change Initiative.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38
+Produce all memoranda and/or bills evidencing the amount and terms of all of Your
+current debts and obligations that exist presently.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 39
+Produce all records indicating any and all income (whether taxable or not) received by
+You from all sources from January 2015 to the present.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 40
+Produce all copies of any and all brokerage account statements or securities owned by
+ou individually, jointly with any person or entity or as trustee, guardian or custodian, fron
+anuary 2015 to the present, including in such records date of purchase and amounts paid fo
+such securities, and certificates of any such securities.
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 41
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 42
+Produce all policies of insurance having any cash value that exist or existed from January
+bens i the present, which policies You or any emily controlled by You is the owner of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 12 of 13
+DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 43
+Produce all copies of any and all trust agreements that exist or existed from January 2015
+to the present in which You are the settlor or beneficiary together with such documents necessary
+and sufficient to identify the nature and current value of the trust.
+Dated: April 14, 2016
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 370-1 Filed 08/12/16 Page 13 of 13
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of April, 2016, I served the attached
+document PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST For PRODUCTION Of DoCUMENTS To DEFENDANT
+GHIsLAINE MAXWELL via Email to the following counsel of record.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10' Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Email: jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+15
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f111e5e02595015bd07c9c1d9df05fb240ae0da99a69983c7b5c79c89210efdc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f111e5e02595015bd07c9c1d9df05fb240ae0da99a69983c7b5c79c89210efdc.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71d4d04f10d3a6e53eee6d841d842a0e8bb9b8fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f111e5e02595015bd07c9c1d9df05fb240ae0da99a69983c7b5c79c89210efdc.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -167,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f111e5e02595015bd07c9c1d9df05fb240ae0da99a69983c7b5c79c89210efdc",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0ed3b61ef9935c3c3fa3fa3bcaaa35fa9b2ea9e808a5ed153531f8cc65db8486",
+  "output_sha256": "249bb7cf58a58db4f5ddcd23429862962a376f59aa599ac0e4f3178378130a29",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f117d60bf63d51a504498e13e69296c03146028e7b51d35801eed9126e8da6ef.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f117d60bf63d51a504498e13e69296c03146028e7b51d35801eed9126e8da6ef.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..659f1f8514b8e8c637d746af427a1bbc33c7d86e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f117d60bf63d51a504498e13e69296c03146028e7b51d35801eed9126e8da6ef.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-6 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+REDACTED
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f117d60bf63d51a504498e13e69296c03146028e7b51d35801eed9126e8da6ef.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f117d60bf63d51a504498e13e69296c03146028e7b51d35801eed9126e8da6ef.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e69ab081b9da7ef7525ddb30fe310975575c717d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f117d60bf63d51a504498e13e69296c03146028e7b51d35801eed9126e8da6ef.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f117d60bf63d51a504498e13e69296c03146028e7b51d35801eed9126e8da6ef",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6629b903c191cd53a62a170f61795473e63771d5cd136e3feb32b1d21c66fc9d",
+  "output_sha256": "1e1d0687cd1cfa7fbccb5e45a6ebf07705b962f6aea390286c24f3fc12cb5c9c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f11843fe4d644b8f61571f309fd20757851753bc1253c72534e4f5e66056b324.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f11843fe4d644b8f61571f309fd20757851753bc1253c72534e4f5e66056b324.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4428fd9f85f6b55d9558538c86c9d489f5813eb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f11843fe4d644b8f61571f309fd20757851753bc1253c72534e4f5e66056b324.md
@@ -0,0 +1,419 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 244
+Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 14
+HADDON
+N
+N
+Haddon,
+and
+P.C
+Jeffrey Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver. Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628
+www.hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+VIA ECF
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: Response to Letter Motion to Quash Rule 17 Subpoena to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan,
+Ms. Maxwell's Rule 17 subpoena directed to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") seeks
+discrete sets of material relevant to legal issues before the Court now and relevant to the jury at
+trial. Each item sought by the subpoena is identified with specificity and is admissible as
+relevant evidence in this case. The Court should therefore deny BSF's Motion to Quash
+("Motion") (Dkt. No. 191) and direct BSF to comply with the subpoena with one narrowing
+modification to Request 12, the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program ("EVCP") Material.
+Ms. Maxwell agrees, based on BSF's representations, that the subpoena should be narrowed at
+this time in one respect. BSF proffered that they "submitted claims and supporting evidence to
+the Epstein Victim's Compensation Program on behalf of several Epstein survivors who have not
+made separate claims against Maxwell." Motion at 5. BSF acknowledged that that it represents
+alleged victim 2 and potential trial witnesses
+and
+Id. at 1, 5. Ms.
+Maxwell does not seek production of EVCP materials from any person who is not testifying as a
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 14
+Page 2
+government witness in this case. Presumably, BSF is in communication with the government and
+knows which of their clients will testify. This narrowing language was offered to BSF but
+rejected during the Court ordered conferral. As to the rest of the items, BSF's boiler-plate
+arguments fail for the reasons discussed below.
+Requests 1-5
+BSF argues that Requests 1-5, communications between BSF and the government about
+Ms. Maxwell, are "overbroad and non-specific." To advance this argument BSF carefully
+ignores the actual language of Requests 1-5 which are specific as to date and limited by the
+identified individuals and subject matter. Request 1 is for communications between BSF and the
+United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ("USAO-SDNY") starting in 2015
+about Ms. Maxwell including the meeting that former SDNY-AUSA-turned-BSF lawyer Peter
+Skinner (and others) had with then AUSA •
+Request 2 similarly narrowly
+requests communications regarding
+|, an alleged witness against Maxwell being
+promoted by BSF to the government. Requests 3, 4, and 5 are for communications between BSF
+and lawyers Brad
+Stanley Pottinger, and Paul Cassell about any meeting with the
+USAO-SDNY concerning Ghislaine Maxwell or|
+This is no fishing expedition. The government admits that there were, in fact, meetings
+and communications between these individuals and the USAO-SDNY about Ms. Maxwell and
+We know that|
+had at least one in-person meeting (and possibly
+another) and that she communicated by email and telephone with Mr. Pottinger about |
+| who was being proffered to the government as a witness against Ms. Maxwell.
+As these requests are narrowly limited by time, subject matter, and participants, it is
+disingenuous to argue that they fall into the disfavored "any and all" document subpoenas. In
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 14
+Page 3
+fact, none of the requests contains the words "any" or "all" because they are specifically limited
+to communications between BSF and the USAO-SDNY about Ms. Maxwell and |
+and communications between BSF and their co-counsel in the
+v. Maxwell matter about
+those known meetings. BSF tries to cobble an "any or all" argument together by picking the
+word "any" from the definition section of the subpoena identifying the two entities, BSF and the
+USAO-SDNY, and attaching it to the word "all" from a separate paragraph defining
+"communication." Of course, absent these definitions, BSF would be complaining that the
+subpoena was vague because it failed to define either the entities involved or what was meant by
+"communication."
+Significantly, BSF already identified some of the communications between itself and the
+government. According to its so called "Plaintiff
+Revised Supplemental
+Privilege Log Dated April 29, 2016," BSF refused to produce as privileged "approx. 57"
+documents that it identified as "correspondence re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of
+the Defendant [Ms. Maxwell] and others." Entry 153 in the log identified "email and letter
+" The privilege log was produced in response to an interrogatory, served by Ms. Maxwell's
+counsel on BSF, as counsel for
+"Tildentify each Communication, including the transmission of any Document, that You or Your
+Itorneys have had with any local, state or Tederal law enforcement agent or agency, whether 1
+he United States or any other country, whether in Your capacity as a purported victim, witnes
+or perpetrator of any criminal activity, and whether as a juvenile or as an adult, including without
+limitation:
+a. the date of any such Communication;
+b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if written, the format
+of any such Communication;
+c. the identities of all persons involved in the Communication, including the identity of
+the law enforcement agency with whom the agent is or was affiliated;
+d. the case number associated with any such Communication;
+e. the subject matter of any such Communication;
+f. the disposition of any case associated with any such Communication, irrespective of
+whether the matter was sealed, expunged or later dismissed."
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 4 of 14
+Page 4
+communications" between "the law enforcement entity,
+David Boies, Stan
+Pottinger, Sigrid McCawley, Paul Cassell, [and] Brad |
+government purportedly subpoenaed all of the BSF files relating to
+" Curiously, although the
+v. Maxwell,' the
+production from the government to Ms. Maxwell does not contain these 57 documents reflecting
+communications between these lawyers and a "law enforcement entity." Only after Ms. Maxwell
+filed her pre-trial motions did the government produce a few of its communications with BSF
+and their co-counsel from 2016. The peculiar failure of the government to produce these items
+in connection with the "entire" BSF file has yet to be explained. Clearly, BSF knew what the
+terms meant when it used them to block the production of this information in the civil litigation
+and it should not be allowed to profess confusion or ignorance here.
+The cases cited by BSF are not helpful to its cause. For example, the court in United
+States v. Avenatti, No. (S1) 19 CR. 373 (PGG), 2020 WL 86768, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020),
+quashed the subpoena because it did "not satisfy the initial requirement of relevance." In United
+States v. Mendinueta-Ibarro, 956 F. Supp. 2d 511, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), the defendant requested
+"any and all writings and records" related to the NYPD's contact with a particular confidential
+witness who, according to the defendant, provided relevant information. The subpoena was
+unlimited in time or scope and, to the extent a time or scope were determined, production of the
+information was limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Id. at 513.
+United States v. Barnes, No. S9 04 CR 186 SCR, 2008 WL 9359654, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
+Apr. 2, 2008), involved a subpoena served by the Defendant on the Metropolitan Detention
+= Judge McMahon described the subpoena as a "general subpoena..I mean, everything that's in
+Boies Schiller's files, other than privileged documents, which of course you don't exclude from
+your subpoena."
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 14
+Page 5
+Center that demanded production of telephone recordings and various types of prison records for
+another inmate. Notably, the subpoena was issued after the government produced all Brady and
+$ 3500 material and was for "[a]ll disciplinary records, booking records, inmate records, transfer
+movement records, and telephone call recordings and log for ... [the]inmate at the Metropolitan
+Detention Center Brooklyn from about April 2006 to the Present." Of course, the court found the
+subpoena did not call for relevant evidence and was also deficient under all three Nixon prongs.
+Id. at 5.
+Nor does this Court's decision in United States v. Pena, No. 15-CR-551 (AJN), 2016 WL
+8735699, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016), help BSF. There, Mr. Pena requested that this Court
+issue five subpoenas to the MDC, MCC, and the DOC seeking records relating to two
+cooperating witnesses expected to testify at trial. Those subpoenas lacked any specificity and
+were for:
+Any and all records relating to inmate [cooperator name], including but not limited
+to: (a) name and address of all [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] locations in which
+[cooperator name] was housed, the dates when [cooperator name] was housed in
+such facilities, and all records relating to the transfer of [cooperator name] between
+and among [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] facilities; (b) all records of phone calls made
+to and from [cooperator name] from [Bureau of Prisons/DOC] custody, including
+but not limited to: call logs and audio recordings; and (c) all Corrlinks emails sent
+to and from [cooperator name's] account.
+As this Court correctly pointed out, the subpoenas were unlimited in time or scope and
+called for the production of either inadmissible hearsay or privileged information. Id. at *2.
+Additionally, this Court observed in Pena, at *3, as applicable here, that:
+[T]he Court trusts that the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v.
+Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and
+18 U.S.C. § 3500, and that it will be prepared to make all necessary disclosures at
+the appropriate time to minimize any delay at trial. Moreover, although the
+government is not obligated to obtain information not presently in its possession, it
+may be improper for the government to remain willfully ignorant to key
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 14
+Page 6
+impeachment material. Accordingly, the Court "encourages the government to
+obtain evidence that may be relevant to the credibility and impeachment of its
+witnesses and disclose this information" to the defendants as soon as practicable.
+By contrast, in this case, the government has scrupulously avoided looking for or
+acquiring any information favorable to Ms. Maxwell. To the contrary, the government met with
+lawyers for civil litigants, took possession of selective items of their information and only
+disclosed what information it views necessary to justify its current dilemma. The investigation it
+conducted to determine the scope of its communication with BSF was incomplete and entirely
+self-serving.
+Subpoena Requests 1-5 are substantially like those approved by this Court in United
+States v. Wey, 252 F. Supp. 3d 237, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), which called for "all correspondence
+and records sent or received" between identified individuals and entities over specific periods of
+time?
+Although BSF admits it cannot make any cogent argument that the communications
+sought in Requests 1-5 are not relevant (Motion at 4), the relevance is clear: pending before the
+Court are two motions to suppress based on misrepresentations made by the government to Chief
+Judge McMahon and a motion to dismiss the indictment for prejudicial delay. These
+communications are the evidence necessary for resolution of those motions. They are
+" The language authorized by the Court was for:
+All correspondence and records sent or received by Keely Walter, William
+Slattery, or Andrew /
+relating to, interpreting or applying NASDAQ'S 300
+round-lot shareholder requirement, with respect to the listing applications of
+1. [SmartHeat], during the period of June 20, 2008 through January 27, 2009;
+2. [Deer], during the period of May 4, 2009 through July 16, 2010; and
+3. [CleanTech], during the period July 13, 2010 through December 10, 2010.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 7 of 14
+Page 7
+admissible, either as a written supplement to the motions, or at any motion hearing under Fed. R.
+Evid. 104 and 803(6). Ms. Maxwell has requested, and is entitled to, an evidentiary hearing on
+her motions to suppress. The requested information would establish the substance and frequency
+of the communications between BSF and the government prior to the government's end run
+around Martindell.
+Relegated to footnote 2 is BSF's half-hearted attempt to claim that communications
+between civil plaintiffs' lawyers who are conspiring to obtain an indictment against a civil
+defendant (to further their own economic interests) are "work product." This footnote is, in fact,
+an astonishing admission. First, BSF admits that these communications occurred. Second, the
+communications about trying to get Ms. Maxwell indicted were "prepared in anticipation of
+litigation or for trial," admitting both relevance and admissibility. BSF does not and cannot
+plausibly explain how a joint effort to procure a civil opponent's indictment is protected by the
+work product doctrine. BSF's ipse dixit fails because the
+"burden of justifying the application of the work product doctrine is on the asserting
+party, and the burden is a heavy one because privileges are neither lightly created
+nor expansively construed. In particular, the burden of showing a document is
+entitled to work-product protection may not be discharged by mere conclusory
+or ipse dixit assertions."
+In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 293 F.R.D. 568, 574 (S.D.N.Y.
+2013) (cleaned up); see also Wey, 252 F.Supp.3d at 251 (party asserting privilege may not
+discharge its burden with mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions but rather must present those
+facts that are the essential elements of the privileged relationship). It is also noteworthy that
+when it claimed investigative privilege in its 2016 privilege log, BSF did not invoke the work
+product exception.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 8 of 14
+Page 8
+Regardless, the government has failed to produce, or even look for these communications
+and Ms. Maxwell has no other means to obtain them.
+Requests 6 and 7
+Requests 6 and 7 request the engagement agreements between BSF and alleged victim 2
+and her sister. BSF has previously claimed that it represented these individuals.
+V.
+Indyke, No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF);
+v. Indyke, 19-cv-10474-NRP. The scope and dates
+of these engagements are relevant to Ms. Maxwell's pending motions and are relevant and
+admissible for many of the reasons articulated with respect to Requests 1-5. Moreover, these
+agreements are exculpatory evidence that, as discussed below in connection with Request 12, are
+procurable in advance of trial.
+Request 8
+Request 8 seeks the grand jury subpoena the government served on BSF. This is hardly a
+controversial, sensitive or speculative item. It is however relevant to Ms. Maxwell's pending
+motions to suppress because it is the document reviewed by Judge McMahon commanding
+production of the entire BSF file including confidential materials subject to a strict protective
+order in
+The subpoena is admissible either as part of the written motion practice or in a
+hearing on the motions to suppress. Indeed, the Court could take judicial notice of the document
+which is in the SDNY court files. Ms. Maxwell would then be the only party to the motion
+practice that was in the dark about the content of the subpoena. What the subpoena commands,
+when it was served, and who accepted service are all relevant to the issues before the Court.
+BSF's only retort is that Ms. Maxwell should get the subpoena from the government. Ms.
+Maxwell asked the government for the subpoena and the government refused this request. She
+has no other recourse but to ask this Court for assistance.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 9 of 14
+Page 9
+Requests 9-11
+Requests 9, 10, and 11 seek evidence for inspection in advance of trial. A subpoena issued
+pursuant to Rule 17(c)(1) "may order the witness to produce designated "books, papers,
+documents, data, or other objects'" so long as they are "evidentiary." Bowman Dairy Co. v.
+United States, 341 U.S. 214, 219 (1951). Rule 17(c)(1) further provides that "[t]he court may
+direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be
+offered in evidence." When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys
+to inspect all or part of them. Id
+The Rule operates to "expedite the trial by providing a time and place before trial for
+the inspection of subpoenaed materials," rather than "provide a means of discovery for criminal
+cases." United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698-99 (1974) (citing Bowman Dairy, 341 U.S. at
+220)) (emphasis added). Here, Ms. Maxwell's subpoena strictly adheres to that which Rule 17
+allows: production of admittedly relevant and admissible items of evidence in advance of trial.
+Item 9, the journal, purports to be an account of alleged victim 2's interactions with Epstein that
+form the basis of multiple counts in the indictment. It is exculpatory because the journal contains
+no reference to Ms. Maxwell. Partial pages of the journal were produced in civil litigation
+against Epstein, not to help Ms. Maxwell. Inspection of the entire journal is necessary to
+establish whether the journal is authentic and complete and whether or not spoliation has
+occurred. This examination requires the services of a qualified forensic document examiner and
+cannot be performed in the middle of trial without a significant disruption in the proceedings.
+Given that alleged victim 2 placed the document in issue when she was trying to collect money
+from Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, BSF's argument that the journal is irrelevant or inadmissible is
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 10 of 14
+Page 10
+not credible. And, once again, the government has turned a blind eye to the existence of the
+journal, refusing to collect clearly relevant and exculpatory evidence.
+This type of evidence, "journals," or "diaries" is, without question, exculpatory material
+that the government would have to provide to the defense in advance of trial if it were in their
+possession. The government's failure to obtain the journal contravenes Second Circuit law:
+If the diary had contained exculpatory information or other material that would
+have been useful to the defense for the purpose of impeaching [the witness's]
+credibility, the government would have been required under Brady v. Maryland,
+supra, to turn over such material to the defense. See, e.g., United States v. Seijo,
+514 F.2d 1357 (2d Cir. 1975). By allowing a potential source of such material to
+remain in the possession of the very witness whose credibility it might be used to
+impeach, the government created a serious risk that significant material would be
+destroyed or tampered with.[*]Under the circumstances, the diary should have been
+impounded with the court, subject to use and inspection by both sides under
+conditions that would protect the defendants from destruction or alteration, and the
+witness from unwarranted invasions of privacy or disclosure of information that
+might jeopardize his safety. Under no circumstances should the diary have been
+returned to the unsupervised possession of the witness.
+United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069, 1079 (2d Cir. 1977); see also
+V.
+McKinley, 519 F.3d 806, 810, 814 (8th Cir. 2008) (where diary contained no entries related to
+the defendant's alleged sexual abuse the failure to preserve the diary deprived the defendant of
+his right to a fair trial; United States v. Rios, No. 88-CR-186, 1989 WL 9289, at *2 (N.D.N.Y.
+Feb. 6, 1989) ("IT]o the extent that this diary contains evidence favorable to one of the
+" Ms. Maxwell's concerns about spoliation and authenticity of an accuser's diary are far from
+speculative. BSF's client
+spaula contain cerallegations against Jeffrey Eatin and siaine Makeling) burned her
+as though they were a contemporaneous "diary." See Exhibit A.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 11 of 14
+Page 11
+defendants and material either to his guilt or eventual punishment such evidence must be made
+available to that defendant as Brady material.").
+Request 10 is another piece of physical evidence, boots purportedly purchased by Epstein
+for alleged victim 2. Once again, the government has scrupulously avoided actually obtaining the
+evidence, and Ms. Maxwell seeks to use Rule 17 as it is intended, to examine the boots in
+advance of trial. The examination will identify the make and provenance of the boots, something
+which would be difficult to do during any trial without significant delay.
+Similarly, the photographs listed in Request 11 are physical evidence that exists -- copies
+were produced by BSF in civil litigation, the photographs are admittedly relevant, and admissible
+as evidence. Again, the government has not obtained the originals. Accordingly, no one knows
+the dates of creation or any other specifics related to these items of evidence. Because the
+government is failing at its job to seek justice, not a conviction, Ms. Maxwell needs the Court's
+help in establishing her innocence.
+Request 12
+Request 12 asks for EVCP Material, the submissions by BSF on behalf of witnesses who
+will testify for the government in this matter, and the settlement materials obtained as a result.
+We know that alleged victim 2 and her sister, along with
+are all represented by
+BSF and made claims against Epstein which in some fashion involved Ms. Maxwell. BSF
+argues that the request for this information is premature because according to BSF it is merely
+"impeachment" evidence and that the information should be classified as "witness statements"
+not reachable by a Rule 17 (C) subpoena.
+BSF is wrong on both counts. First, the documents do not meet the definition of "witness
+statements." These are submissions to a fund requesting large sums of money and the
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 14
+Page 12
+justification for payment of the funds. BSF does not explain why it claims the submissions are
+"witness statements" and cites no authority for this proposition. Second, because the material is
+not in the possession of the government it is not a "statement" falling within Rule 17(h).
+"Witness Statements" covered by Rule 17 are defined by Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2(f):
+(1) a written statement that the witness makes and signs, or otherwise adopts or
+approves,
+(2) a substantially verbatim, contemporaneously recorded recital of the witness's
+oral statement that is contained in any recording or any transcription of a recording;
+or
+(3) the witness's statement to a grand jury, however taken or recorded, or a
+transcription of such a statement.
+The "statements" are those of a testifying witness in the possession of the party who did not "call
+the witness," produced upon request after the witness testifies at a qualifying event, such as a
+pretrial hearing or trial.
+Materials held by entities other than the United States generally fall outside the Jencks
+Act and are therefore not "witness statements." United States v. Bermudez, 526 F.2d 89, 100 n.9
+(2d Cir. 1975) (no violation of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b), which requires the United
+States to turn over to defendants the statements of a witness which are "in the possession of the
+United States*); see also United States v.
+1. 478 F. Supp. 2d 220, 240 (D. Conn. 2007)
+(1979 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 26.2: "The rule ... is designed to place
+the disclosure of prior relevant statements of a defense witness in possession of the defense on
+the same legal footing as is the disclosure of prior statements of prosecution witnesses in the
+hands of the government under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500....").
+Once again, the government has purposely not obtained any of the EVCP Material.
+Accordingly, the EVCP Material is not a "statement" covered by Rule 17(h). Ms. Maxwell's
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 13 of 14
+Page 13
+only recourse is to seek production from BSF which admittedly has the material in its possession.
+Otherwise, once the witness testifies and a request is made for the material the government will
+simply profess blessed ignorance.
+Contrary to BSF's assertion, the EVCP is not "mere" impeachment material; it is Brady
+material that the government would be required to turn over if in their possession. The
+government knows that it "is under no obligation to turn over that which it does not have,"
+United States v. Upton, 856 F. Supp. 727, 746 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), which is why it refuses to obtain
+the material. Once again, Ms. Maxwell needs the Court's assistance.
+Information is "exculpatory and thus 'favorable' to the defense for Brady purposes when
+it directly contradicts the motive theory testified to by prosecution witnesses. Mendez v. Artuz,
+303 F.3d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 2002). For the reasons articulated in Ms. Maxwell's ex parte
+submission, the EVCP Materials directly contradict the "motive theory" that will be advanced by
+the prosecution at trial - that Ms. Maxwell was the procurer of underaged women for Epstein.
+In addition, even if the materials were deemed "impeachment only" they would remain
+discoverable by a subpoena as exculpatory evidence. Where, as here, the government's proof
+depends almost entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the accusers, "impeachment"
+evidence is material and discoverable in advance of trial. As discussed in Poventud v. City of
+New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL 1062186, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015),
+[I]mpeachment evidence constitutes exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed.
+The disclosure of impeachment evidence, where "the [g]overnment's case depended
+almost entirely on [the vietim's] testimony," Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150,
+154-55 (1972), goes to the heart of Brady and Giglio. See Napue v. People of State
+of Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959) ("The jury's estimate of the truthfulness and
+reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence.").
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 Filed 04/23/21 Page 14 of 14
+Page 14
+See also United States v. Petrillo, 821 F.2d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 1987) (explaining impeachment
+evidence of uncorroborated testimony is material where the witness "whose credibility was at
+issue supplied the only evidence linking the defendant[ ] to the crime"); Grant v. Alldredge, 498
+F.2d 376, 382 (2d Cir. 1974) (finding a Brady violation occurred where the prosecution did not
+disclose that a witness identified someone other than the accused); United States v. Wilkins, 326
+F. .2d 135, 140 (2d Cir.1964) (where the state's case depended on the positive identification by
+two witnesses, the existence of two other witnesses who would testify the defendant was not the
+perpetrator of the crime was material).
+Because the EVCP Material constitutes exculpatory evidence, it is procurable by
+subpoena in advance of trial.
+Conclusion
+For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny BSF's Motion to Quash and enforce
+the proposed subpoena on BSF.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+Jeffrey/S. Pagliuca
+CC: Sigrid McCawley, David Boies
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f11843fe4d644b8f61571f309fd20757851753bc1253c72534e4f5e66056b324.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f11843fe4d644b8f61571f309fd20757851753bc1253c72534e4f5e66056b324.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31c13902bd7290b80d2fd13919d14ae947f5537c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f11843fe4d644b8f61571f309fd20757851753bc1253c72534e4f5e66056b324.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -799,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f11843fe4d644b8f61571f309fd20757851753bc1253c72534e4f5e66056b324",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d80a023e4b235cc30a9fff4f948fe73cbed4e7c3b5581611e36cb7c9481a3169",
+  "output_sha256": "88f1881359c1565d21b24176b556fbbac1b7355a9632cea97b1d4b938ba8d70e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f12c0d8affb263717a6773c2cfb1d76d02b2c49e1e0d883c089da09f1f0fd07c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f12c0d8affb263717a6773c2cfb1d76d02b2c49e1e0d883c089da09f1f0fd07c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b198d2b88cff34a1096068848a0e7146e38e9e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f12c0d8affb263717a6773c2cfb1d76d02b2c49e1e0d883c089da09f1f0fd07c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 692-6 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f12c0d8affb263717a6773c2cfb1d76d02b2c49e1e0d883c089da09f1f0fd07c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f12c0d8affb263717a6773c2cfb1d76d02b2c49e1e0d883c089da09f1f0fd07c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51d1a392d462dde46016a8beaf38d411ea7935ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f12c0d8affb263717a6773c2cfb1d76d02b2c49e1e0d883c089da09f1f0fd07c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f12c0d8affb263717a6773c2cfb1d76d02b2c49e1e0d883c089da09f1f0fd07c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ee8c7fc41b8c9e645f1fa692f36758531b6ff8df1bb13342815be3e3d8ac6293",
+  "output_sha256": "5b650043a89918e9ffef793b249f384e86b208f6fc2947f485067304ac91a0a6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f13bb5fbd91ca58b6a01a7221393c3e602c9fb2fc664071fc21887c04cc4bd91.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f13bb5fbd91ca58b6a01a7221393c3e602c9fb2fc664071fc21887c04cc4bd91.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f7dd5eb182095b9fffa20e192fa9608c83f7b29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f13bb5fbd91ca58b6a01a7221393c3e602c9fb2fc664071fc21887c04cc4bd91.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 596
+Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-x
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+Declaration of Ty Gee in Support of
+Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
+I, Ty Gee, declare as follows:
+1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado. I am a member of the
+law firm Haddon,
+,P.C., I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of
+my Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2. I have not ever been convicted of a felony.
+3. I have not ever been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or
+readmission by any court.
+4. There are no disciplinary proceedings presently against me.
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Executed on February 7, 2017.
+s/ Ty Gee
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 596 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 2
+Certificate of Service
+I certify that on February 7, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration of Ty Gee in Support
+of Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Tate, Weising M
+, Fistos &
+Lehrman, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+s/ Nicole
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f13bb5fbd91ca58b6a01a7221393c3e602c9fb2fc664071fc21887c04cc4bd91.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f13bb5fbd91ca58b6a01a7221393c3e602c9fb2fc664071fc21887c04cc4bd91.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58ba233a1ec482c0452e4a236700a65bee47897b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f13bb5fbd91ca58b6a01a7221393c3e602c9fb2fc664071fc21887c04cc4bd91.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f13bb5fbd91ca58b6a01a7221393c3e602c9fb2fc664071fc21887c04cc4bd91",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1bc7baf7790a6e6e0217ed44e216deac4a01f83e4c422113d95cc0e0bd4c1645",
+  "output_sha256": "d697b6e1a0ed0f96f6256ed57f42923199e1df9a3b518e6903073a71c77e0e1c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f15d2f44f7cd6fe32f0693addda1b7b2154363b70bbda66fbca101c03010b9c6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f15d2f44f7cd6fe32f0693addda1b7b2154363b70bbda66fbca101c03010b9c6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1871f059e79a331b5bb105f6675be30afc8dc763
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f15d2f44f7cd6fe32f0693addda1b7b2154363b70bbda66fbca101c03010b9c6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,393 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 293-2
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 1 of 16
+
+
+
+Case 1:10age 21386rA8330BAFner₽gcgmente72a ên FEt* 956Kº/205/1P)2928 Фде 1 of 15
+COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A
+NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND
+ADDENDUM
+
+
+IN RE:
+INVESTIGATION OF
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State
+Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County hereinafter,
+the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey
+Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein");
+IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment
+with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07;
+IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of
+Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any
+offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or
+around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including:
+(1)
+knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to
+commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means
+of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice
+minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States
+Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
+(2)
+knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel
+doned in 18 U.S.C.8 2r (, pose of or eige, i vietn order, s
+United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States
+Code, Section 2423(e);
+(3)
+using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly
+persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in
+violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2;
+traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual
+conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(D), with minor females; in violation
+
+
+
+Case 1:10age 21386rA8330BAFner₽gcgmente72a en FEt 956kº205/1P)2920 age 3 of 15
+of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and
+(5) knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting,
+enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had
+not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a
+commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title
+18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and
+T APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal crimine
+ability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefit
+provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain
+actions with the State Attorney's Office:
+IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by
+both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State
+Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the
+Defendant will be served by the following procedure;
+THEREFORF, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attomey for
+he Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be
+deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the
+following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
+If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that,
+during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this
+Agreement, then the United States Attomey may, within ninety (90) days following the
+expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely
+notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its
+prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any
+notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the
+United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of
+the Agreement.
+After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution
+
+
+
+Case 1:10age 21386rA8330BAFner₽gcgmente72a en FEt 956Kd205/1P)2926 age 4 of 15
+Terms of the Agreement:
+1.
+2.
+4.
+Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as
+currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for
+Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging
+one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. §
+796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed
+by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that
+requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of
+minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section
+796.03;
+Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a
+thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows:
+(a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12)
+months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without
+any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and
+without probation or community control in lieu of
+Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of
+community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail
+as described in Term 2(a), supra.
+This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit
+accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State
+Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this
+agreement.
+The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreclose
+pstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommer
+y additional charge(s) or any additional term(s) of probation and/
+incarceration.
+6.
+(2), supra.
+Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all
+
+
+
+Case 1:10age 21386rA8330BAFner₽gcgmente72a ên FEt 956Kº205/1F)2926 Фде 5 of 15
+7.
+8.
+proposed agreements with the State Attomey's Office prior to entering
+into those agreements.
+The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of
+individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced.
+Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation
+with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall
+select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for
+by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals
+through that representative.
+If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to
+file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the
+jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District
+of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epstein waives
+his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest darnages
+up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and
+Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed
+exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other
+claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law.
+Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names
+appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signeture on
+this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such
+damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any
+criminal or civil liability.
+Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an
+admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictiona!
+or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the
+list provided by the United States.
+10.
+11.
+Jefense as to any person, whether or not her name appears on the lis
+provided by the United States.
+Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be
+
+
+
+Case 1:10age 21386rA833QBAFner₽gcgmente72a ên FEt* 956Kd205/1F)292đ Фд 6 of 15
+12.
+sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no
+objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not
+later than January 4, 2008.
+Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to
+gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other
+inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit
+based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of
+Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an
+accounting of the gain time he cared during his period of
+incarceration.
+13.
+The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any
+public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information
+Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of
+the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that
+disclosure.
+Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the
+State Attomey's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that
+it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his
+best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary
+to satisfy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use
+his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding
+recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to
+do so will be a breach of the agreement.
+In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation
+in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfilis all of the terms and conditions
+of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges
+arainst any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to
+Lesley Groff, or 1
+outstanding grand jury subpoenas shall be deemed withdrawn.
+
+
+
+Case 1:10age 21386rA833QBAFner₽gcgmente72a ên FEt 956Kd205/1F)2928 Фде 7 of 15
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is
+material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach
+of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement
+and to investigate and prosecute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all
+federal offenses.
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that
+the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal
+prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. Epstein further
+is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court
+may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting
+a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein
+hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such
+prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to
+the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be
+deemed to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such
+prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of
+the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
+United States to a spcedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute
+of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this
+agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the
+grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the
+Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all
+felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agrees
+and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the
+subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed
+by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as
+to any such offense.
+11/
+11/
+
+
+
+Case 1:10age 21386rA833QBAFner₽gcgmente72a ên FEt* 956Kº205/1F)292® Фде 8 of 15
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+Dae tetor
+By:
+VILLAFAÑA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+JEFPREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+ESQ.
+ATTORNEY POR JEPFREY EPSTEIN
+
+
+
+Case 1:080 22986-A9330 RAEmeRormeniteR3d on Filed 0562R67 05/19299100 pfalfe 9 of 15
+Jy signing this agrecment, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been rea
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+By:
+A.
+VILLAFANA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+Dated: 9/24/07
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Pall fount
+EFCOURT/ESC
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated: _
+ESQ.
+
+
+
+Case 1:10ase 21386A833@BAFner₽9cmente722-ên FEB 956k₴/205/1712990 1 pagê 10 of 15
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with thern.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+By:
+A
+VILLAFAN
+SSISTANT U.S. ATTORNE
+Dated: _
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated: _
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Datod: 9-24-07
+ILLY ANN SANG
+Z, BSQ.
+
+
+
+Case 1:10ąse 21386ґA833@BAFmer₽9cgmente72a-ên FEB 956ke/205/1F129902págê 11 of 15
+IN RE:
+INVESTIGATION OF
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+ADDENDUM TO THE NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+TAPPEARING that the parties seck to clarify certain provisions of page 4, paragraph
+f the Non-Prosecution Agreement (hereinafter "paragraph 7*), that agreement is modified e
+follows:
+7A.
+The United States has the right to assign to an independent third-party the responsibility
+for consulting with and, subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's consel, selecting
+the attorney representative for the individuals identified under the Agreement. If the
+United States elects to assign this responsibility to an independent third-party, both the
+United States and Epstein retain the right to make good faith objections to the attorney
+representative suggested by the independent third-party prior to the final designation of
+the attorney representative.
+7B.
+The parties will jointly prepare a short written submission to the independent third-party
+regarding the role of the attorney representative and regarding Epstein's Agreement to
+pay such attorney representative his or her regular customary hourly rate for representing
+such vietims subject to the provisions of paragraph C, infra.
+7C.
+Pursuant to additional paragraph 7A, Epstein has agreed to pay the fees of the attorney
+representative selected by the independent third party. This provision, however, shall not
+obligate Epstein to pay the fees and costs of contested litigation filed against him. Thus,
+if after consideration of potential settlements, an attorney representative elects to file a
+contested lawsuit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s 2255 or elects to pursue any other contested
+remedy, the paragraph 7 obligation of the Agreement to pay the costs of the attorney
+representative, as opposed to any statutory or other obligations to pay reasonable
+attorneys fees and costs such as those contained in s 2255 to bear the costs of the attorney
+representative, shall cease.
+
+
+Case 1:10agR 21386rA8033ФBAFmer₽9cgmente722-3n FEte FEde F)29903 págê 12 of 15
+By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
+explained to hilm. Epstein hereby, states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
+Prosecution: Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+Dated: 10/30/07
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Jeffen" Homan FAUSA
+fA À.
+VILLAPAÑA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Des /425/7
+Dated:_
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+, ESQ.
+
+
+Case 1:10ase 21386A8330BAFner₽9cmente722 8n FEB 956k₴/205/17129904 págê 13 of 15
+By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read and
+explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
+Prosccution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER AÇOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated: 10/30/07
+By:
+бА.
+İLLAPAN
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated:_
+он 0/29707
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+POtecount
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated: _
+_ ESQ.
+
+
+Case 1:10ase 21386A833@BAFner₽9cmente722 8n FEB 956k₴/205/17129905 pagê 14 of 15
+By signing this Addendum, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above hes been read and
+explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the clarifications to the Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+Dated: 10/30/07.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+By:
+74f 1 Horan FAUCA
+fA.
+VILLAFAÑA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated: _
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:_
+GERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated: 10-29-07
+LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ.
+
+
+Case 1:10ase 21386rA833ФBAFmer₽gcgmente72a-ên FEB| 956ke/205/1F129906págê 15 of 15
+Dac-07-07
+04:55pm
+Froe
+Burnett
+
+T-REG
+P.003/004 ~ F-I78
+Afirmation
+I, Jefiney B. Epstein do hertby ro affirm the Noo-Proscontion Agreement and Addendura io
+Rame dared Octaber 30, 2007,
+1h/A
+Bato
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f15d2f44f7cd6fe32f0693addda1b7b2154363b70bbda66fbca101c03010b9c6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f15d2f44f7cd6fe32f0693addda1b7b2154363b70bbda66fbca101c03010b9c6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93c11625f055a67e723ab18ba4fac3a4b3dbae11
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f15d2f44f7cd6fe32f0693addda1b7b2154363b70bbda66fbca101c03010b9c6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -496,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f15d2f44f7cd6fe32f0693addda1b7b2154363b70bbda66fbca101c03010b9c6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 28,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "1c3edd2b376a7b3afb4e8c833ec6113cad630d643760e959aeb25b294035a9aa",
+  "output_sha256": "b6d5df296974a1e675588045d1e8cc90730900dcee7cdc5d91a175d27a209056",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f16f7697a31531906492c7ce470980838b906cb2737e4077ca71a5e5b9abe8a3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f16f7697a31531906492c7ce470980838b906cb2737e4077ca71a5e5b9abe8a3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f035001c7b85a75387cb19e77390855814aecc1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f16f7697a31531906492c7ce470980838b906cb2737e4077ca71a5e5b9abe8a3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 516-1 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f16f7697a31531906492c7ce470980838b906cb2737e4077ca71a5e5b9abe8a3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f16f7697a31531906492c7ce470980838b906cb2737e4077ca71a5e5b9abe8a3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..434dfa9879dcbb26fec2a43a706c536ab7f57234
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f16f7697a31531906492c7ce470980838b906cb2737e4077ca71a5e5b9abe8a3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f16f7697a31531906492c7ce470980838b906cb2737e4077ca71a5e5b9abe8a3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e51abdce0d85107ad524e1670ad92dba012f6b7f750d844ed9599d6a3c8773d4",
+  "output_sha256": "68da44c31d1839b476fa1309acbb3c1a4523c67c682e30564c9134db28d1d3e1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f17c3381b7babe0db4086e788521df006ef2ae78ebf8a72ef0ff5ad4edf616c5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f17c3381b7babe0db4086e788521df006ef2ae78ebf8a72ef0ff5ad4edf616c5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e81069e14279b4a72ccc475d478ccb28823a5abb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f17c3381b7babe0db4086e788521df006ef2ae78ebf8a72ef0ff5ad4edf616c5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 578 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
+TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND OPINION OF DIANNE C. FLORES
+I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Response In
+Opposition To Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of
+Dianne C. Flores.
+3.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+4. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of |
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+6.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 578 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 4
+7. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of |
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 578 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: January 31, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202'
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 578 Filed 01/31/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 31st day of January, 2017, 1 electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by C/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f17c3381b7babe0db4086e788521df006ef2ae78ebf8a72ef0ff5ad4edf616c5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f17c3381b7babe0db4086e788521df006ef2ae78ebf8a72ef0ff5ad4edf616c5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5f21a876fe8ae8d11a771d468c867a853b5de67
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f17c3381b7babe0db4086e788521df006ef2ae78ebf8a72ef0ff5ad4edf616c5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f17c3381b7babe0db4086e788521df006ef2ae78ebf8a72ef0ff5ad4edf616c5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9609d27dffc8d115705485faf415f79390a7b612ef926be11d2beabbc30a63de",
+  "output_sha256": "4afeb289f773df8e193b9a9968d2ffd0e608b57a946a9c0656a765fe0ed0c843",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1a3cafc8e13b6662dc512b15d44cdb9b462a8b23e974e1aa1deb5d2fc47dd60.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1a3cafc8e13b6662dc512b15d44cdb9b462a8b23e974e1aa1deb5d2fc47dd60.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4cfebbd3dcb2fd06771b55bd60caf1f943bf2d73
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1a3cafc8e13b6662dc512b15d44cdb9b462a8b23e974e1aa1deb5d2fc47dd60.md
@@ -0,0 +1,5654 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 30
+
+
+
+5
+6
+7
+9
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 30
+Page 117
+Amendment privilege, that you sexually abused Jane Doe 3
+when she was a child?
+MR. PIKE: Form, speculation, calls for a legal
+conclusion.
+THE WITNESS: The Supreme Court has said that
+the Fifth Amendment should be used by people who
+are innocent, Mr. Horowitz. That's one of the
+benefits of the Fifth Amendment. My counsel has
+advised me I cannot answer your questions here
+today, though I'd like to. I'm sure this -- these
+sort of embarrassing questions posed for the jury
+where your partner has been disbarred since filing
+this claim, or Mr.!!
+partner who sits in
+jail probably for the rest of his life for crafting
+cases of a sexual nature to fleece people for -- of
+money, just money, money, money. His firm is
+bankrupt. So, yes, I'd like to answer these
+questions, and all your questions here today, but
+unfortunately, on advice of counsel, I cannot.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sir, are you asserting your Fifth, Sixth and
+Fourteenth Amendment privileges because you're
+innocent? Is that what you're telling us?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would like to answer every one
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 118
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+of your questions posed by you, your partner, Mr.
+Herman, who's been disbarred by the Florida Bar
+after filing this claim, Mr.
+partner who
+sits in jail, his firm accused by the U.S. Attorney
+-- accused by the U.S. Attorney of being a criminal
+enterprise, for fleecing South Florida investors
+out of millions of dollars by crafting, malicious,
+fabricated cases of a sexual nature against people
+-- other people -- me and others, I would like to
+answer each and every one of your questions.
+However today, on advice of counsel, I cannot
+answer any of your questions that may be relevant
+to this lawsuit.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sir, you know I also represent Jane Doe Number
+16 4, do you understand that?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Yes.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay. Isn't it true, sir, that a girl named
+Jane Doe 4 came to your Palm Beach home on multiple
+occasions between 2003 and 2005?
+A Could we take a break? Is that it?
+Q I would like you to answer that question.
+A Sorry. Id like to answer that question. I'd
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 119
+like to answer every question you've posed here today
+about you -- about these girls you say came to my
+house. However, on advice of counsel, I cannot answer
+that question today. I have to assert, on the advice --
+my Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth
+Amendment Rights.
+I'd like to answer that question about Jane Doe
+4, and I believe she was represented by your partner,
+Jeffrey Herman, who after representing her was disbarred
+by the Florida Bar Association.
+Mr. Rothstein -- or Mr. 1!
+HI partner,
+Mr. Rothstein, who sits in jail accused by the Florida
+U.S. Attorney of running a criminal enterprise in
+Mr.
+firm, fabricating malicious cases to fleece
+investors out of millions of dollars, fabricating cases
+of a sexual nature, I would like to answer every one of
+your questions here today. However, on advice of
+counsel, I cannot do so.
+MR. HOROWITZ: Did you want that break now?
+THE WITNESS: Yes, please.
+MR. PIKE: No, actually before we take a
+break -
+MR. HOROWITZ: Okay.
+MR. PIKE: - my understanding was, is that you
+wanted to take a break around 12:30 or 12:45 for
+Page 120
+lunch. It is 12:35 right now. If you want to keep
+going for another 10 minutes, we'll go for another
+10 minutes, or if you want to just break now for 30
+minutes, go grab something to eat, and then come
+back.
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yeah. I mean, this line of
+questioning is going to be more than 10 minutes, so
+I would suggest we take our break now.
+MR. PIKE: You want to take lunch right now?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yeah.
+MR. PIKE: Okay.
+THE WITNESS: All right. Thank you.
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time off the record 12:30,
+(Thereupon, a lunch break was taken.)
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time on the record 1:11.
+This is Tape 3.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Mr. Epstein, did you pay H.R. $200 to bring a
+girl named Jane Doe 4 to your home so that you could
+engage Jane Doe 4 in sexual activity?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Mr. Horowitz, I'd like to answer
+that. I am going to have to answer that question,
+as I've answered most of your questions here today,
+which is upon advice of counsel, I am going to have
+30 (Pages 117 to 120)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 30
+Page 121
+to assert my Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment
+and Fifth Amendment Right, though I'd like to
+answer that question.
+I'd also like to correct some of the -- a
+previous statement I made regarding your partner
+that he had been disbarred. I understand he wasn't
+disbarred, but he was simply suspended for improper
+behavior, suspended by the Florida Bar. So I would
+like to make the correction that he's not totally
+disbarred, but he's no longer practicing for the
+time being. So - but on advice of counsel, at
+least with respect to this question, or any
+question that may be relevant to this lawsuit, my
+counsel has told me 1 must assert those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay. And if I'm hearing you correct, your
+testimony that Mr. Herman was disbarred is -- was
+erroneous; is that right?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: My testimony that your partner
+who filed these lawsuits was disbarred seems to be
+incorrect. He was -- according to what I was told,
+he has only been disbarred for his greatly improper
+behavior, but -- and so he -- one day he will, in
+fact, be practicing law again in South Florida --
+Page 122
+MR. HOROWITZ: Okay.
+THE WITNESS: - unlike Mr.
+partner
+who currently sits in jail for perpetrating one of
+the largest frauds in South Florida's history.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay. I'm glad we got that squared away.
+Did you pay Jane Doe 4 to bring other minor
+girls to your home for your own sexual gratification?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: That question I believe would --|
+is -- is -- I would like to answer that question.
+Unfortunately, my counsel has advised me that I
+cannot answer any questions today that may become
+relevant to any of your lawsuits filed by you and
+your currently suspended partner, suspended by the
+Florida Bar, or answer questions relevant to Mr.
+who is sitting on your right, his firm's
+partner who's sitting in jail for fabricating cases
+of a sexual nature against people like me and
+others.
+I'd like to answer -- as you might imagine, I'd
+like to answer these questions, but I risk losing
+my counsel if you do so, so I must accept their
+advice today.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+6
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 123
+Q Mr. Epstein, at any time before May 2005, did
+you receive a phone call from H.R. that she was bringing
+Jane Doe 4 to your home so that Jane Doe 4 could give
+you a massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question,
+but unfortunately, I am going to have to answer
+that question as I've answered most of your
+questions here today, Mr. Horowitz, which is upon
+advice of counsel, they've told me I cannot answer
+your questions no matter how much I want to. They
+told me I have to assert my Sixth Amendment, Fifth
+Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
+Though you're currently suspended -- I keep
+saying "disbarred," but I'm not a lawyer, so I
+don't really understand the difference between
+disbarred and suspended -- he seems to be only
+suspended by the Florida Bar, I -- I cannot answer
+that question today upon advice of counsel.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q. Okay. Sir, at any time before May 2005, did
+you instruct S.K. to place a telephone call to H.R., so
+that H.R. could arrange for Jane Doe 4 to come to your
+home for sexual activity with you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+Page 124
+THE WITNESS: Id like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every specific --
+every question you've asked me here today, but I am
+going to have to respond as I've done with most of
+your questions here today, Mr. Horowitz, which is
+that upon advice of counsel, I am going to have to
+assert my Sixth Amendment Rights, my Fourteenth
+Amendment Rights and my Fifth Amendment Rights.
+Though I'd like to answer the question, though I'm
+sure the jury will understand your partner has been
+suspended from practicing law in the State of
+Florida, Mr.
+partner is in jail for
+fabricating cases of a sexual nature, so, though
+I'd like to answer that question as your other
+questions today with specificity, my counsel has
+advised me that if I do so, I risk losing their
+representation, so I must decline to answer.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you inform S.K. that the massage Jane Doe 4
+was to give you would be sexual in nature?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question,
+just like I'd like to answer each and every one of
+your questions here today, Mr. Horowitz.
+Unfortunately, my counsel has advised me I cannot
+31 (Pages 121 to 124)
+
+
+5
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+B
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 30
+Page 125
+answer any questions that may become relevant to
+this lawsuit, or any of the lawsuits filed by you,
+1
+2
+or your partner that's been suspended by the
+Florida Bar from practicing law in the State of
+4
+Florida after he's had conferences, held public
+conferences accusing me of things, of Mr.
+partner who sits in jail probably for the rest of
+his life for fabricating cases against people like
+me and others. So, though I'd like to answer that
+question, I'm going to have to answer that question
+as I've answered most of your questions here today,
+which is upon advice of counsel, I must refrain
+from answering.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you either observe or overhear S.K.
+speaking with H.R. making arrangements for Jane Doe 4 tr
+come to your home for sexual activity?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd really like to answer that
+question. However, today, my counsel has advised
+me that I cannot. And they've advised me I must
+assert my rights under the Sixth Amendment,
+Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment of the
+U.S. constitution. So, though I'd like to answer
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 126
+questions posed by you, your partner that's been
+1
+suspended by the Florida Bar after filing these
+2
+types of cases, cases against me, Mr.
+who
+3
+sits next to you, his partner in jail for filing
+4
+cases, fabricating cases of a sexually charged
+5
+nature against me and others. The U.S. Attorney
+6
+has accused his firm, his former firm, the firm he
+7
+left now because the firm went bankrupt, for being
+a criminal enterprise, perpetrated one of the
+8
+9
+largest frauds in South Florida's history, fleecing
+10
+investors out of millions and millions of dollars.
+11
+I'd like to answer each and every one of your
+12
+questions, but my counsel has advised me today that
+13
+I cannot.
+14
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+15
+Q Prior to May 2005 didn't you instruct Jane Doe
+16
+4 to place phone calls to you on your home phone in
+17
+order to schedule visits to your home?
+18
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+19
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+20
+your questions here today, Mr. Horowitz, that
+21
+question specifically. However, my counsel has
+22
+advised me that today I cannot, and he advised me I
+23
+must assert my Sixth Amendment Rights, my
+24
+Fourteenth Amendment Rights and my Fifth Amendmen;
+25
+Page 127
+Rights. So, though I'd would like to answer
+questions posed by you, your partner who has been
+suspended by the Florida Bar, Mr
+' partner,
+Scott Rothstein, that many people have read about,
+has perpetrated the largest fraud in Florida
+history, specifically for fabricating such cases of
+a sexual nature, fabricating malicious cases in
+order to get money, money, money from people here
+in South Florida. I'd like to answer each and
+every one of your questions, however, upon advice
+of my counsel, they've advised me today I cannot do
+SO.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to May 2005 did you ever observe S.K
+speaking with Jane Doe 4 by telephone to arrange for
+Jane Doe 4 to come to your home so that Jane Doe 4 could
+give you a massage?
+THE WITNESS: May I -- excuse me, may I have a
+moment with my attorney?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yes.
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time off the record 1:20.
+(Thereupon, a short break was taken.)
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time on the record 1:23.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q_ Mr. Epstein, you had a moment to speak with
+Page 128
+counsel. Do you need me to repeat that question to
+refresh your recollection?
+A Yes, please.
+Q Prior to May 2005 did you ever observe S.K.
+speaking with Jane Doe 4 by telephone to arrange for
+Jane Doe 4 to come to your home to give you a massage?
+A I would like to answer that question-- I
+assume this is the Jane Doe 4 who in her testimony wrote
+a note to me that said "for a good time, call Jane Doe
+4." I assume that's the same Jane Doe 4.
+Unfortunately, Id like to answer all your questions
+with specificity today, Mr. Horowitz. However, on
+advice of counsel, I cannot.
+Q "Good time" --
+A Excuse me?
+Q Continue, please.
+A So, therefore, the -- and I represent -- I
+understand you represent Jane Doe 4. I understand your
+partner that's been suspended by the Florida Bar who
+represented Jane Doe 4 in this case -- I'd like to
+answer each one of your questions with respect to Jane
+Doe 4. However, I cannot based on advice of counsel,
+and I must assert at their request my Sixth Amendment,
+Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights undet
+the U.S. Constitution.
+32 (Pages 125 to 128)
+
+
+1
+3
+4
+5
+6
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 30
+Page 129
+Page 131
+Q When is it that you believe Jane Doe 4 wrote
+you the message you just referred to?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: You know, I'd like to answer all
+those questions with respect to the note that she
+testified to that she wrote saying "for a good time
+call Jane Doe 4." However, on advice of counsel, I
+cannot answer any questions that may be relevant to
+Mr.
+whose partner sits in jail probably for
+the rest of his life to try to get money from
+residents of South Florida, and the biggest fraud
+in South Florida's history, called by the U.S.
+attorey a criminal -- the firm is called a
+criminal enterprise, and I'd like - so I'd surely
+like to answer your question, Mr. Horowitz,
+regarding Jane Doe 4, and -- however, on advice of
+counsel at least today, I cannot.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sir, you said that Jane Doe 4 testified that
+she had written a note to you. Is -- was that truthful
+testimony? You acknowledge that she did write such a
+note?
+Page 130
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Mr. Horowitz, I'd like to answer
+each and every one of your questions. However, on
+the advice of counsel, I can't answer any of your
+questions with respect to the note that she
+testified she wrote. I can't answer any questions
+separate from -- that may be relevant to your
+lawsuit. I can't answer any questions posed by
+you, the attorney sitting next to you whose partner
+sits in jail, your former partner suspended or -
+for improper behavior after filing this lawsuit,
+and suspended by the Florida Bar. I'd like to
+answer every question you ask. However today,
+Mr. Horowitz, I cannot because my counsel is
+telling me if I - ifI do, I risk losing their
+representation.
+BY MR HOROWITZ:
+Q You've read the deposition transcript of Jane
+Doe 4; is that correct?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: You know, again, Mr. Horowitz, I
+would like to answer every one of your questions;
+however, my counsel has told me I cannot. They
+told me I must assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the 25
+U.S. Constitution. So in response to that
+question, as in response to most of your other
+questions here today, no matter how much I would
+like to answer those questions, answer those
+questions specifically with respect to Jane Doe 4
+and the -- your former partner -- wait - as a
+current partner, you won't tell me -- but your
+partner who brought the lawsuit who the Florida Bar
+suspended for improper behavior, Mr.
+partner who sits in jail for fabricating cases,
+stealing millions of dollars from unsuspecting
+Florida investors, I'd like to answer every one of
+your questions. However, my counsel told me today
+that I cannot answer any questions that may be
+relevant to the lawsuit.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+@ Prior to May 2005 did you instruct S.K. to get
+Jane Doe 4's phone number, so that S.K. could
+communicate with Jane Doe 4 to schedule Jane Doe 4 for
+massages with you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I would like to answer your other
+questions posed here today. However, my -- on
+advice of counsel, they've instructed me that I
+Page 132
+must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth
+Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights. So then my
+-. I would like to answer questions posed by you.
+I know your partner could not be here since he was
+suspended by the Florida Bar after filing these
+cases, after holding press conferences he was
+suspended by the Florida Bar. Mr.
+-, who
+sits on your right, his partner is sitting in jail,
+I'd like to answer every one of your questions.
+However, my counsel said at least today, I cannot.
+So I must accept their advice or risk losing their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did S.K. tell you that she confirmed by
+telephone that Jane Doe 4 would be coming to your homd
+at a specific time to give you a massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again. I'm sorry, could you
+repeat the question?
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Did S.K. tell you that she had confirmed by
+telephone with Jane Doe 4 that Jane Doe 4 would be
+coming to your home at a particular time to receive a
+massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+33 (Pages 129 to 132)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 30
+Page 133
+THE WITNESS: I assume when you say "Jane Doe
+4," this is Jane Doe 4, a girl who testified that
+she wrote a note to me that said "for a good time,
+call Jane Doe 4." I assume that's the same Jane
+Doe 4. I'd like to answer all questions about Jane
+Doe 4, her notes, anything that she said. However,
+my attorneys told me I cannot, and they advised me
+I must assert my rights under the Sixth Amendment,
+Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment, though
+your partner who filed the lawsuit was suspended by
+the Florida Bar after filing the lawsuit, holding
+press conferences. Mr. I|!
+partner sits in
+jail for fabricating cases of a sexual nature
+against me and others. So, though I would like to
+answer those questions, as you might imagine,
+Mr. Horowitz, is I'd like to answer --
+unfortunately, as I've had to answer most of your
+questions here today, I cannot under advice of
+counsel.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Was it your intent during the course of Jane
+Doe 4's visits to your home that you would persuade,
+induce or entice her to engage in sexual activity with
+you?
+Page 135
+questions. I'd love to answer the questions directly to
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+Page 134
+THE WITNESS: Well, I assume this the Jane Doe
+4 who wrote a note to me, according to her
+testimony that said, "for a good time, call Jane
+Doe 4." I assume that's the same Jane Doe 4 you're
+referring to.
+Unfortunately, your partner couldn't be here
+referring to it because he's been suspended by the
+Florida Bar after filing Jane Doe 4's case.
+Mr.
+partner can't be here because he's
+in jail for filing cases of a malicious nature, of
+sexual cases, fabricated cases. The U.S. Attorney
+Has referred to the entire firm as a criminal
+enterprise, a criminal enterprise of the large --
+purporting to have the largest fraud in South
+Florida's history. So, though I would like to
+answer each one of your questions, on advice of
+Counsel today, 1 cannot.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 4's visits to
+your home, did you in fact persuade, induce or entice
+her to engage in sexual activity with you?
+A I'd very much like to answer cach one of your
+questions here today, Mr. Horowitz.. However, as I've
+done for mostly all of your other questions, on advice
+of counsel, they've told me I cannot answer those
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+you.
+I'd like to answer the questions to your
+partner, Jeffrey Herman. Jeffrey Herman who was --
+after he filed this Jane Doe 4 case against me -- was
+suspended by the Florida Bar for improper behavior, or
+Mr. E
+i partner who sits in jail. I much prefer to
+be talking to them. However, I cannot answer questions
+to you, and on advice of counsel, I must assert my
+rights, or risk losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q You knew that Jane Doe 4 was younger than 18
+when she came to your home in 2003 and 2004, correct?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer each and every one of
+your questions. However, on advice of counsel,
+they've instructed me that I cannot answer any
+questions that may be relevant to any of your
+lawsuits brought by either you, your partner that's
+been suspended by the Florida Bar for improper
+behavior, Mr. | who sits to your right,
+whose partner sits in jail for bringing fabricated
+cases of a sexual nature against people like me and
+others, called -- his firm called a criminal
+Page 136
+1
+2
+enterprise by the U.S. attorney for stealing
+millions of dollars from South Florida residents.
+Id like to answer every one of your questions.
+4
+However, today, under advice of counsel, I cannot.
+5
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+6
+Q Jane Doe 4 told you that she attended
+7
+Palm Beach High School when she was in your home; is
+8
+that right?
+9
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+10
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+11
+question. I'd like to answer every question you've
+12
+asked me here today. However, upon advice of
+13
+counsel at least today, I cannot, according to
+14
+their advice, answer any questions that may be
+15
+relevant to this lawsuit -- excuse me -- I would
+16
+prefer to have had your partner, Jeffrey Herman,
+17
+who -- who I actually believe filed the suit, but
+18
+he's been disbarred in the interim -- I'm sorry,
+19
+not disbarred. He's been suspended. I'm not
+20
+really sure what the difference is, but he's been
+21
+suspended from practicing law, while Mr.
+22
+partner sits in jail for fabricating cases of a
+23
+sexual nature against people like me and others.
+24
+So, though I would like to answer that question, as
+25
+you probably understand, on the advice of counsel
+34 (Pages 133 to 136)
+
+
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+4
+5
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 30
+Page 137
+today, I cannot.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Isn't it true, sir, that on multiple occasions
+Jane Doe 4 discussed her activities at 1!
+| Palm Beach
+High School with you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again?
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Isn't it true, sir, that on multiple occasions
+Jane Doe 4 discussed her activities at 1l
+Palm Beach
+High School with you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: 1| Palm Beach High School with!
+me?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yes.
+THE WITNESS: I don't understand the question.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay. You know, in your mind, who Jane Doe 4
+is, correct?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Jane Doe 4 is the one girl you
+told -- I believe was the one who testified that
+she wrote a note to me that said "for a good time,
+call Jane Doe 4." Is that the Jane Doe 4 - you
+can't testify, I'm sorry. Yes, I believe that's
+Page 138
+1
+2
+3
+4
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+correct.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Is it your testimony that Jane Doe 4 did not
+write such a note after a massage at your house?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Which question would you like me
+to answer, the first one or --
+7
+MR. HOROWITZ: The one I just asked.
+8
+THE WITNESS: Id like to answer every question
+9
+with respect to everything with respect to Jane Doe
+10
+4, every single thing. However, my attorneys today
+11
+told me that I cannot, and they instructed me to
+12
+assert the Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth and Fifth
+13
+Amendment.
+14
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+15
+• Isn't it true that Jane Doe 4 regularly
+16
+discussed with you her activities at
+Palm Beach
+17
+High School?
+18
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+19
+THE WITNESS: My attorneys told me that, though i
+20
+I'd like to answer that question, as I'd like to
+21
+answer all your other questions, I have to answer
+22
+it the same way I've answered the others, which is
+23
+asserting my Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment
+24
+and Fifth Amendment Rights.
+25
+Page 139
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Jane Doe 4 told you she could not travel with
+you over - overseas because she was not yet 18; isn't
+that true?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every one of your
+questions. However, my attorneys today have
+instructed me, at least for today, I can't answer
+any questions that may become relevant to your --
+one of your lawsuits brought by your firm and at --
+your partner that's been suspended by the Florida
+Ваг.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Between 2003 and May 2005, were you ever nude
+in front of Jane Doe 4?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every one of your
+questions here today. However, my attorneys, who
+have advised me, that I cannot answer any questions
+that may be relevant to this or any of your other
+lawsuits brought by you and your partner that was
+suspended from the practice of the law in Florida,
+so I must respectfully decline.
+Page 140
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Between 2003 and May 2005, did you ever
+instruct Jane Doe 4 to remove her clothing?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again, I would like to answer
+every one of your questions, every one, every
+specific one, but my attorneys have advised me that
+today at least, 1 cannot answer any questions
+relevant, or may be relevant to your lawsuit.
+They've instructed me that I must assert my Sixth
+Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment
+Rights. So, though I'd like to answer the
+question, Mr. Horowitz, I cannot do so.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Between 2003 and May 2005, did you instruct
+Jane Doe 4 to pinch your nipples --
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q - and rub your chest?
+MR. PIKE: Same objection.
+THE WITNESS: Is it -- is it one or the other?
+MR. HOROWITZ: It's both.
+THE WITNESS: I see. No. I would --
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q No you did not, sir?
+35 (Pages 137 to 140)
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 30
+Page 141
+1
+2
+A I said -- I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.
+Q I thought you said "no" to my question?
+A No. I'II -- I'Il tell when my -- I said no.
+4 I'd like to answer that question. I'd like to answer
+5
+every one of your questions. I'd like to answer each
+and every one. However, my counsel today told me l
+7
+8
+9
+10
+cannot. They told me I have to assert my Sixth
+Amendment, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment Rights. And
+if I didn't, and if I chose to answer the question, I
+would risk losing their representation. So at least for
+today, I have to assert those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to June of 2005, did you ask Jane Doe 4
+questions about her sexual experience and preferences?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would be happy to answer that
+question, if I could. My attorneys have told me I
+can't. They've instructed me that I have to assert
+my Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Amendment Rights. I would like to answer the
+question. However, they told me that if I do, I
+risk losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Prior to June 2005 did you touch Jane Doe 4's
+breasts?
+2
+4
+5
+7
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 142 |
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer all your other
+questions here today. However, my counsel has told
+me, at least today, I cannot. I have - they've
+instructed me to assert my Fourteenth Amendment, my
+Sixth Amendment and my Fifth Amendment Right. And
+they told me that if I chose to answer, I would
+risk losing their representation, so therefore, I
+must respectfully decline to answer them.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to June 2005 did you rub Jane Doe 4's
+vagina?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would like to answer that
+question with spocificity. However, my attorneys
+have told me at least today that I must
+respectfully decline and assert my Fifth Amendment,
+Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Right. I
+would have preferred that your partner, who after
+he filed the lawsuit, was suspended by the Florida
+Bar for improper practice, or Mr.
+' partner,
+who sits in jail, to have been here to at least ask
+some of the questions, but my attorneys have told
+me 1 cannot answer those questions today, sir.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 143
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to June 2005 did you perform oral sex on
+Jane Doe 4?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+A I'd like to answer that question. I'd very
+much like to answer that question, but I cannot today,
+because on advice of my counsel, they have told me that
+I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment
+and Fifth Amendment Rights. And ifI chose to answer,
+if I did answer that question, I risk losing their
+representation, so at least for that -- for today, 1
+must respectfully decline, sir.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to June 2005 did you place your mouth on
+Jane Doe 4's genitals?
+MR. PIKE: Forn.
+THE WITNESS: You know, Id like to answer that
+question. I would have preferred that either your
+partner, who was here, would have been here, the
+one who filed the lawsuit, who is suspended by the
+Florida Bar, or Mr.
+' partner, Scott
+Rothstein, who sits in jail, was to be here. I
+would prefer to respond to them. However, today, I
+cannot answer those questions based on advice of
+counsel, so I must respectfully decline.
+Page 144
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to June 2005 did you place a vibrator on
+Jane Doe 4's genitals?
+MR. PIKE: Forn.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every question you've
+asked here today. I'd like to respond to you -- to
+your partner who's been suspended. I apologize,
+before I said he was disbarred, but -- for improper
+behavior after filing this lawsuit. On advice of
+counsel, they've instructed me that I must assert
+my Fourteenth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Sixti
+Amendment Rights to any question that may become
+relevant to this lawsuit or risk losing their
+representation, therefore, I would have to
+respectfully, respectfully decline.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Prior to June 2005 did you give lingerie to
+Jane Doe 4 to wear for you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would like to answer that
+question. I would like to answer all your
+questions. However, I am going to have to respond
+to that question, as I responded to all your other
+questions here today, Mr. Horowitz, which is on
+36 (Pages 141 to 144)
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 30
+Page 145
+Page 147
+advice of counsel, they've instructed me I must
+1
+As you are well aware we have hyper-technical
+assert my Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and
+Constitutional privileges at issue here. IfI
+Fifth Amendment Rights. And if I chose to answer,
+3
+choose to communicate with my client regarding
+4
+which I prefer to do, that question, I risk losing
+4
+those privileges, I will communicate with him. If
+their representation.
+5
+you'd like me to take breaks, I will do so. But
+6 BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+6
+once again, we're here to answer your questions,
+Q Prior to June 2005 was Jane Doe 4 ever nude in
+7
+B front of you at your request?
+8
+and I would like to just move forward.
+9
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+A I'd like to answer that question. I'd very
+9
+• Prior to June 2005 did you coerce Jane Doe 4
+10
+much like to answer that question. However, my
+10
+into putting her hands on your penis?
+11
+attorneys have counseled me that I cannot answer that
+11
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+12
+question or any question today that may be relevant to
+12
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+13
+one of the lawsuits that you've brought, or your partner
+13
+question. I cannot answer that question on advice
+14
+who has brought -- your partner who is suspended from
+14
+of counsel, but I'd like to answer that question.
+15
+practice in Florida. So, though I would like to answer
+15
+My counsel has advised me that I must assert my
+16
+the question, Mr. Horowitz, today under the advice of
+16
+17
+counsel, I cannot.
+17
+Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth
+Amendment Rights. And if I choose to answer that
+18
+Q Prior to June 2005 did you coerce Jane Doe 4
+18
+question, I risk waiving those rights, and risk
+19
+into putting her hands on your penis?
+20
+A Again, I'm sorry?
+19
+losing their representation.
+21
+Q If -- if -- if -- if your attorney passing you
+20
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+22
+21
+Q Prior to June 2005 did you insert your fingers
+notes is -- is causing you to be distracted from
+22
+into Jane Doe 4's vagina?
+23
+listening to my questions, I am -- I am going to ask
+23
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+24
+that you not do it.
+24
+25
+A I - I understand.
+25
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question
+about Jane Doe 4, and all the other girls you've
+Page 146
+Page 148
+1
+MR. PIKE: Fine.
+1
+mentioned today. However, my counsel has told me I
+2
+THE WITNESS: It was just the fact -- it wasn't
+2
+cannot answer any questions that may be relevant to
+3
+that. It was, in fact, I had put my glasses on.
+3
+the lawsuit. I'd like to answer that question
+4 BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+4
+directly to you, Mr. I
+| Mr.
+5
+• Your glasses were preventing you from hearing
+5
+partner, unfortunately, is in jail, so I can't talk
+6
+me?
+6
+A Yes.
+7
+to him directly. Your partner has been suspended
+after filing a lawsuit against me. But, though I'd
+8
+MR. PIKE: First of all, you're not going to
+8
+like to answer those questions, I risk losing their
+9
+tell me how to communicate with my client. Im
+9
+10
+trying not to take a break again, so that, you
+10
+representation and waiving those rights, if I do
+so.
+11
+know, we don't -- we can keep going forward. If
+11 BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+12
+you'd like me to take a break, I can take another
+12
+Q Prior to June 2005 did you masturbate in front
+13
+break right now.
+13
+of Jane Doe 4?
+14
+MR. HOROWITZ: Well, I'm not here to tell you
+14
+15
+16
+how to do your job, but the Rules of Civil
+15
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+Procedure do, and what they say -- let me finish --
+16
+question. I'd like to answer all your other
+17
+is that "if you interrupt an examination to
+17
+questions posed here today; however, I cannot do so
+18
+communicate with your clients, you can be
+19
+sanctioned for it."
+18
+20
+19
+on the advice of counsel. And they told me that if
+I do answer the questions, I may waive those
+21
+MR. PIKE: Okay. Well, first of all,
+20
+rights, or risk losing their representation.
+Mr. Horowitz, I didn't interrupt any examination.
+22
+21
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+You interrupted the examination. I didn't say a
+23
+22
+• Prior to June 2005 did you ejaculate in front
+24
+word. So, let's just go ahead and proceed
+23
+forward. The witness asked you to repeat the
+24
+of Jane Doe 4?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+25
+question, okay?
+25
+THE WITNESS: I would like to answer that
+37 (Pages 145 to 148)
+
+
+2
+4
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 30
+Page 149
+question about Jane Doe 4, the girl who wrote "for
+a good time, call" -- I - from her testimony, "for
+a good time, call Jane Doe 4" or "call Jane Doe
+4." I'm not actually sure. You maybe could clue
+me in. However, my counsel has told me today that
+I - I must assert my Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth
+Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights as provided by
+the U.S. constitution. And, though I would like to
+answer each and every one of your questions, I
+cannot do so. I risk waive -- risk losing or
+waiving those rights and losing their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did Jane Doe 4 come to your Palm Beach home on
+multiple occasions between 2003 and May 2005 to give you
+massages during which you engaged her in sexual
+activity?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer cach and every
+one of your questions posed here today. I would
+like to answer that question, and all the other
+questions you've asked about Jane Doe 4. However,
+upon advice of my counsel, they've instructed me to
+assert my Fourteenth Amendment Rights, my Sixth
+Amendment Rights and my Fifth Amendment Rights as
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 150
+provided by the constitution. So, though I'd like
+to answer, I don't. I've been instructed that I
+risk waiving those rights and losing their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to May of 2005 did you pay Jane Doe 4
+$200 after having had sexual contact with her?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again?
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to May 2005 did you ever pay Jane Doe 4
+$200 after having had sexual contact with her?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every one of your
+questions posed here today. However, according to
+my counsel, he's asked me to assert my rights under
+the Fourteenth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the
+Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and he's
+instructed me that no matter how much I'd like to
+answer these questions, that if I do so, I may
+waive those rights and risk losing his
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you try to persuade Jane Doe 4 that it was
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 151
+okay that you were touching her breasts and genitals
+while she was still a child?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every question you've
+asked here today, every question. However, my
+counsel has instructed me at least today, I cannot
+answer those questions, and they've instructed me
+that 1 must assert my Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth
+Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights as provided by
+the Constitution. And by not doing so, I may waive
+those rights or risk losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Prior to June 2005 did you instruct S.K. to
+communicate with Jane Doe 4 by telephone to schedule
+Jane Doe 4 to come to your Palm Beach home for sexual
+activity?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer all your questions.
+I wish your partner that had been suspended from
+practice after he fi - he sis nes suit, or
+' who's -- who sits next to you, whose
+partner sits in jail, I would like nothing more
+than to answer these questions today, but upon
+Page 152
+advice of my counsel, they've told me that I must
+assert my Fourteenth Amendment Rights, my Sixth
+Amendment Rights and my Fifth Amendment Rights.
+And by not doing so, I may waive those rights or
+risk losing their representation. Adam, may I take
+a quick five minutes?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Sure.
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time off the record 1:50.
+(Thereupon, a short break was taken.)
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time on the record 2:00.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to June 2005 you instructed Jane Doe 4 to
+call you at your Palm Beach home to confirm the specific
+dates and times you wanted her to come over for sexual
+activity, correct?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. Id like to answer every question you've
+asked me here today, but I'm going to have to
+respond the same way I've responded to most of your
+questions, Mr. Horowitz, which is on advice of
+counsel, I'm going to have to assert the Sixth
+Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment
+Rights. Though I'd like to answer that question,
+as all your other questions, I'm informed that if I
+38 (Pages 149 to 152)
+
+
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 30
+Page 153
+do so, I risk waiving those rights and losing my
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you instruct Jane Doe 4 to lie to police
+investigators during their 2005 investigation into your!
+criminal activities?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Did I instruct Jane Doe 4 to
+lie?
+MR. HOROWITZ: That's my question, yes.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every one of your
+questions here today. I'd like to answer questions
+of -- unfortunately, the -- I guess your partner
+that filed this lawsuit was suspended by the
+Florida Bar. I'd like to answer. However, my
+counsel has advised me at least today that I must
+assert my rights under the Fourteenth Amendment,
+Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment. And if!
+choose to answer that question, which I prefer to
+do, I risk losing their representation and waiving
+those rights, so 1 must respectfully decline.
+Sorry, Mr. Horowitz.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Are you suggesting that you have some
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 154
+information that Jeffrey Herman was suspended from the!
+1
+practice of law because he made false statements in a
+2
+lawsuit against you?
+3
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+4
+THE WITNESS: Jeffrey Herman was your partner!
+5
+Are you asking me why he was suspended? I'm sorry,!
+6
+are you asking me --
+7
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+8
+Q I'm asking you why -
+9
+THE REPORTER: Wait a second.
+10
+THE WITNESS: Sorry. Are you asking why your
+11
+partner was suspended from the practice of law in
+South Florida?
+12
+13
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+14
+Q I'm asking you whether you have any information 15
+or you're suggesting here today that his suspension of
+16
+practice of law had anything to do with you or the
+lawsuits against you?
+17
+18
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+19
+THE WITNESS: Am I suggesting that his
+20
+disbarment -- I'm sorry -- his suspension or -- I'm
+sorry -- can you do it again? Was he disbarred or
+21
+22
+suspended?
+23
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+24
+& Are you suggesting today in your testimony
+25
+Page 155
+that -
+A Yeah.
+Q - his suspension had anything to do with you
+or the lawsuits against you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question,
+but my counsel has advised me I cannot today. I
+must assert the Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth
+Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights, though
+obviously, I'd like to answer that question.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you instruct S.K. to tell Jane Doe 4 to lie
+to police investigators during their 2005 investigation
+into your criminal activity?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd very much like to answer that
+question. I'd very much like to answer all your
+questions here today, but as I've done with most of
+those questions, on advice of my counsel -- it's
+been a long day so far -- I am going to have to
+refrain from answering, at least today, to any
+questions that may be relevant to any of your
+lawsuits brought by you, your suspended partner,
+Mr. 1
+and his partner who's in jail. So,
+though I'd like to answer those questions, I risk
+Page 156
+losing or waiving my rights and my counsel's
+representation, so I must respectfully decline
+today.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you instruct J.B. to rent a car for Jane
+Doe 4?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question
+- Jane Doe 4 -- have we moved from a different
+person, I'm sorry?
+MR. HOROWITZ: We're on Jane Doe 4.
+THE WITNESS: Okay. I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every one of your
+questions. However, my counsel has advised me, at
+least today, that I cannot do so. I must assert my
+Fourteenth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and Sixth
+Amendment Rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Did you intend for Jane Doe 4 to use the car
+that you rented for her, for her to come to your home to
+give you sexual massages?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Did I intend a car that was
+rented for Jane Doe 4 -- could you do the question
+again?
+39 (Pages 153 to 156)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+B
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 30
+Page 157
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sure. Did you intend for Jane Doe 4 to use the
+car you rented for her to come to your home to give you
+sexual massages?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: You said I rented a car?
+MR. HOROWITZ: I'm just asking the questions.
+My -
+THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, you have to ask the
+question again.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Sure. Previously I asked you if you rented a
+car, and you asserted the Fifth --
+A I don't believe you did.
+Q Okay. All right. Did you --
+A
+You asked me if I instructed somebody --
+Q That's right. You're correct. The car that
+you instructed J.B. to rent for Jane Doe 4. I'm talking
+about that -- that vehicle, okay? Did you intend for
+Jane Doe 4 to use that car to come to your home and give
+you sexual massages?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Id like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every question about
+Jane Doe 4 that you asked me here today. My
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+B
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 158
+counsel has advised me that I may not. And they've
+instructed me that I am to assert my Fourteenth
+Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment
+Rights. And, though I'd like to answer each one of
+your questions, my counsel has advised me that if I
+choose to do so, which is my preference, I risk
+waiving those rights and/or losing their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Isn't it true that you and Jane Doe 4 watched a
+videotape of Jane Doe 4 and her boyfriend having sexual
+intercourse?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Can you describe this videotape
+to me?
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Would that refresh your recollection?
+A I don't know. Would you want to tell me about
+1
+2
+3
+it?
+Q My question for you is: Isn't it true that you
+and Jane Doe 4 watched a videotape of Jane Doe 4 and her
+boyfriend having intercourse? Does that refresh your
+recollection?
+MR. PIKE: Same objection, form.
+THE WITNESS: T'd like to answer that question
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 159
+-- a videotape of her and her boyfriend having sex?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yes.
+THE WITNESS: Okay. I'd like to answer that
+question, but my counsel has instructed me that I
+must assert my Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth
+Amendment and Fifth Amendment Rights. And, though
+it's obvious I'd like to answer that question, my
+attorneys have counseled me that I -- by doing so,
+I waive those rights, or risk losing their
+representation.
+May I get some - a cup? Is this yours?
+MR. HOROWITZ: No.
+THE WITNESS: Okay.
+MR. HOROWITZ: It's mine.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sir, you don't deny that you sexually abused
+Jane Doe 4, do you?
+MR. PIKE: Form, argumentative.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question
+very much so. However, my counsel has advised me
+today that I must assert -- at least today, I must
+assert Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and
+Fifth Amendment Rights. And by choosing to answer,
+I may waive those rights or risk losing their
+representation.
+Page 160
+So, though your partner after he filed that
+Jane Doe 4 lawsuit was suspended from the practice
+of law by the Florida Bar, or some of these other
+cases brought by Mr.
+• firm who is sitting
+next to you, whose partner sits in jail for
+bringing cases of a sexual nature, accusing people
+fallaciously, maliciously, simply to get money, Id
+like to answer each one of your questions, but
+today, unfortunately, I must respectfully decline.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sir, are you asserting your Fifth Amendment,
+Sixth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to
+protect your innocence, or conceal your guilt?
+MR. PIKE: Form. I'm going to instruct him not
+to answer that question.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q. Is there any reason that the jury should not
+infer that you did in fact have sexual contact with Jane
+Doe 4 when she was a child, given that you've asserted
+the Fifth Amendment?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: The Fifth Amendment has been used
+many times to protect the innocent, especially
+people who've been falsely accused by people like
+your - Mr.
+' partner, Scott Rothstein, who
+40 (Pages 157 to 160)
+
+
+2
+3
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 30
+Page 161
+sits in jail accused by the U.S. Attorney of
+running the biggest fraudulent scheme in South
+Florida's history, stealing millions of dollars
+from South Florida residents. The U.S. Attorney
+called his enterprise a criminal -- his firm,
+Mr.
+' firm, sitting next to you -- another
+one of the lawsuits, a criminal enterprise.
+I'd like to answer that question very
+specifically. However, my attomeys have counseled
+me that today I may not, and I may risk losing my
+rights, my waiver - excuse me - my rights, and
+risk losing my representation, if I choose to
+answer that question.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay. I don't want to know why other people
+assert the Fifth Amendment. I want to know why you're
+asserting it. Are you asserting it because you're an
+innocent man, or because you're a guilty man?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd love to answer that
+question. However, my attorneys have counseled me
+that I cannot and must assert my rights under the
+Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth and Fifth, even to that
+question. Though I would be more than happy to
+answer it, my attorneys have counseled me that by
+Page 162
+doing so, I may waive those rights and risk losing
+their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Okay. Sir, I'm going to ask you a few
+questions about a young woman named Jane Doe 5.
+A Yes. Okay.
+Q First name is Jane Doe 5.
+MR. PIKE: You said her last name was Jane Doe
+5?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yes.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q So you know her as Jane Doe 5?
+MR. PIKE: Form, mischaracterizes the witness'
+testimony, move to strike. Let's not play with
+words.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Do you recognize her name as A.G. or Jane Doel
+5?
+A I don't recognize her name.
+Q Okay. Well, for the moment I would like you toi
+hold on to that name, so -- because I'll be asking you a
+series of questions about it, okay?
+А Окау.
+Q Isn't it true that a girl named Jane Doe 5 came
+to your Palm Beach estate in approximately 2001 or
+Page 163
+1
+2002?
+2
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+3
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question
+4
+with respect to Miss Jane Doe 5.
+5
+Q Iasked you the right -- I know you did write
+6
+it down.
+7
+A I know. But how did you pronounce it?
+8
+Q Jane Doe 5.
+9
+A Okay. However, my attorneys have counseled me
+10
+that at least today I cannot answer questions that may
+11
+become relevant to any of your lawsuits that you have
+12
+filed with respect to these girls, or your partner filed
+13
+14
+before he became suspended by the Florida Bar for
+improper behavior.
+15
+So, though I'd like to answer that question,
+16
+Mr. Horowitz, as I would like to answer every one of
+17
+your questions, at least today, I am going to have to
+18
+19
+assert the rights dictated to me by my counsel, either
+20
+the Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth and -- or Fifth
+Amendment, or all of the above.
+21
+22
+I mean, I would like to answer each and every
+23
+one of your questions. If I do so, I'm told that I risk
+24
+waiving those rights, or losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+25
+Q All right.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 164
+A Excuse me.
+Q In either 2001 or 2002, did S.K. inform you
+that she had received a telephone call in which she was
+referred to an underage girl named Jane Doe 5 who would
+be willing to come to your home and give you a massage
+for money?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question,
+as I'd like to answer mostly every one of your
+questions here today. These questions, my
+attorneys have counseled me, I cannot answer today
+because -- as they may be relevant to the lawsuit.
+They have instructed me that I must assert my
+Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth
+Amendment Rights, though I'd very much like to
+answer that question.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did S.K. inform you that she was provided with
+Jane Doe 5's telephone number?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again?
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did S.K. inform you that she was provided with
+Jane Doe 5's telephone number?
+A "Provided with" - I - I don't understand the
+41 (Pages 161 to 164)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+7
+B
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 30
+Page 165
+question.
+MR. PIKE: Form to that. And I know you're
+going to ask it again.
+THE WITNESS: Yes, he is.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did -- TIl try and ask it as fundamentally as
+I can.
+A Okay.
+Q Did S.K. inform you that she had Jane Doe 5's
+telephone number?
+A I'd like to answer that question. I've been
+have -- I'd like to answer every question you've asked
+here today. However, on advice of counsel, they've
+instructed me that I cannot answer that question today
+because it may be relevant to one of your lawsuits filed
+by either you, Mr.
+3 -- Мг.
+#' partner who
+sits in jail, your partner who's been suspended from the
+Florida Bar.
+So, though I'd like to answer that question, at
+least today, my counsel said I risk waiving those rights
+under the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth, or risk losing
+their representation.
+Q Did you instruct S.K. to call Jane Doe 5 to
+come to your home and give you a massage in 2001 or
+2002?
+Page 166
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: This is the same Jane Doe 5--
+whatever her name is?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yes, keep that same person in
+your head.
+THE WITNESS: It's a little bit tough. I'd
+like to answer that question. I'd like to answer
+all your questions. However, today, my counsel has
+advised me that 1 cannot answer any questions that
+may be relevant to the lawsuit, and they've
+instructed me that I must assert my Fourteenth,
+Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights.
+And by answering those questions, that I choose
+-- that prefer to do so today, they've instructed
+me that I may waive those rights, or risk losing
+their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you inform S.K. that the massage Jane Doe 5
+was to give you would be sexual in nature?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each and every
+one of your questions. My counsel has advised me
+-- my counsel has advised me that I cannot today,
+and they've instructed me that I should assert my
+Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fifth
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 167
+Amendment rights.
+And if I choose not to do so, I risk waiving
+those rights, or losing their representation. So,
+though I'd like to answer that question, I cannot.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you observe S.K. speaking with Jane Doe 5
+on the telephone to arrange for Jane Doe 5 to come to
+your home for a massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+your questions, Mr. Horowitz, cach and every one
+that you've posed here today, but I am going to
+have to answer that question, as I've answered most
+of your other questions here today, which is my
+counsel has advised me, at least today, at least
+today, that I cannot answer those questions and
+must assert my Fourteenth Amendment Rights, Sixth
+Amendment Rights and Fifth Amendment Rights or -
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did --
+A I'm sorry.
+Q I'm sorry, go ahead.
+A - or risk waiving those rights, or losing
+their representation.
+_& Did S.K. tell you that she had confirmed by
+Page 168
+telephone that Jane Doe 5 would be at your home at a
+specific time to give you a massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every one of your
+questions posed here today, Mr. Horowitz. However,
+on advice of counsel, they've instructed me that I
+must assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and
+Fourteenth Amendment Right.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Was it your intent during the course of Jane
+Doe 5's visit to your home in either 2001 or 2002, that
+you would persuade, induce or entice her to engage in
+sexual activity?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: It would give me great pleasure
+to be able to answer that question to you, as itas all the other questions you've asked about these
+girls here today. My counsel has told me that I
+cannot answer those questions that may be relevant
+to any of the lawsuits brought by you, your partner
+that's been suspended or disbarred -- I'm not
+really sure what the difference is - or
+Mr.
+' partner who sits in a Florida jail for
+fleecing people out of millions of dollars by
+42 (Pages 165 to 168)
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 30
+Page 169
+1
+2
+crafting cases of a sexual nature against people
+like me and others, and those are -- though I'd
+like to answer those questions, my counsel has
+4
+advised me, at least today, that I cannot.
+5
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+• During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+7
+home in 2001 or 2002, did you, in fact, persuade, induce
+or entice her to engage in sexual activity with you?
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Though I'd like to answer that
+question, as well as every other question you've
+asked me here today, I am going to respond in a
+similar fashion, which is my counsel, at least
+today, has told me I may not, may not respond, and
+must assert my rights under the Fourteenth, Sixth
+and Fifth Amendment.
+Though I'd like to respond to each question, my
+counsel has told me that if I choose to do so, I
+risk waiving those rights and losing their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you pay for Jane Doe 5 to take a taxi to
+your home in either 2001 or 2002?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each question
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 170
+2
+you've asked me here today. However, on advice of
+1
+counsel, they've asked -- they've instructed me to
+assert my Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment and
+4
+5
+Fourteenth Amendment Rights under the U.S.
+Constitution.
+5
+Though I'd like to answer each question, I have
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+to respond, unfortunately, the same way I've
+7
+responded to mostly every one of your questions
+8
+here today, and assert those rights on counsel's
+9
+advice, or risk waiving those rights and losing
+10
+their representation.
+11
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+12
+• During Jane Doe 5's visit to your home in
+13
+either 2001 or 2002, Jane Doe 5 told you she was under!
+14
+18, didn't she?
+15
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+16
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+17
+question. I'd like to answer every question you've
+18
+asked me here today. I'd like to answer the
+19
+questions posed by you, Mr.
+your partner,
+20
+Mr. Herman, who unfortunately was suspended after
+21
+he filed these cases, Mr.
+I partner who's
+22
+sitting -- sitting in a jail for fabricating cases
+of a sexual nature against people like me and
+23
+24
+others for stealing money from people in South
+25
+Page 171
+Florida.
+I'd like to answer every question you've asked
+me here today, Mr. Horowitz, but my counsel has
+instructed me that I may not.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q When Jane Doe 5 came to your home in either
+2001 or 2002, she appeared to you to be under the age of
+18; isn't that right?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer all your
+questions. I'd like to answer each and every one
+of your questions. However, my counsel has
+instructed me that I may not answer any questions
+that may be relevant to this lawsuit, or any of
+your lawsuits brought by your firm, your suspended
+partner or Mr.
+' firm, his partner who sits
+in jail -- excuse me.
+So, though I'd like to answer those questions,
+I was told that -- by my counsel that if I choose
+to do so, 1 risk waive -- risk waiving my right and
+risk losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During Jane Doe 5's visit to your home in 2001
+and 2002, she told you she attended Wellington High
+School; isn't that right?
+Page 172
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. Id like to answer every question you've
+posed here today, but unfortunately, I am going to
+have to respond the same way I've responded to most
+of these other questions, which is my counsel has
+advised me that at least today, I cannot answer
+those questions. And if I choose to do so, I may
+waive my rights, but I -- so I must assert them
+under the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During Jane Doe 5's visit to your home in 2001
+or 2002, were you nude in front of Jane Doe 5?
+A I'd like to answer -
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: - that question. I'd like to
+answer every question you've asked me here today.
+But my counsel has advised me that I may not answer
+any questions that may be relevant to your lawsuit,
+Mr.
+' lawsuit, his partner's lawsuit who
+sits -- his partner who sits in jail, and my
+counsel has advised me that, though his partner
+sits in jail for bringing fabricated cases of a
+sexual nature against people like me and others,
+that I still have to assert my rights under the
+43 (Pages 169 to 172)
+
+
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 30
+5
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 173
+Sixth Amendment, Fifth -- Fourteenth Amendment and
+2
+Fifth Amendment; otherwise, I risk waiving those
+rights, or losing their representation.
+4 BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+6 home in either 2001 or 2002, did you instruct Jane Doe 5,
+to remove all of her clothing?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every question you've
+asked me here today with specificity. However, my
+counsel has told me that I may not answer any
+questions that may be relevant to this lawsuit,
+must assert my rights under the Fourteenth, Sixth
+and Fifth Amendment, so I must respectfully
+decline, Mr. Horowitz.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 or 2002, did you instruct Jane Doe 5 to
+pinch your nipples and rub your chest?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Like all the other questions --
+questions you've asked me here today, I'd love to
+answer that question. I'd love to answer cach and
+every one of your questions here today, but my
+Page 174!
+counsel has told me I cannot. They've instructed
+me that I have to assert my Fourteenth, Fifth and
+Sixth Amendment Rights. And, though I'd like to
+answer -- prefer to answer, that by doing so, I may
+waive those rights, and risk -- and/or risk losing
+their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Okay. During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit
+to your home in 2001 or 2002, isn't it true you asked
+Jane Doe 5 questions about her sexual experience and
+preferences?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Td like to answer cach and every
+one of your question about Jane Doe 5 -- Jane Doe 5
+and her claims. However, my attorneys have told me
+I cannot, at least today, answer any of those
+questions that may be relevant to the lawsuit that
+you have filed, your suspended partner has filed,
+Mr.
+has filed, his partner in jail has
+filed.
+Unfortunately, there's lots of things I cannot
+answer questions to. My partner -- my counsel has
+told me that I risk waiving my rights and losing
+their representations, if I choose to do so.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 175
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 and 2002, did you remove Jane Doe 5's bra
+and rub her breasts?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: The answer is: I'd like to
+answer that question. I believe Jane Doe 5
+testified that that was not the case, or you're
+asking me a question that she testified to
+something else? But, though I cannot answer those
+questions, my counsel has advised me that I have to
+assert my rights under the Fifth, Fourteenth and
+Sixth Amendment. So, though I'd like to answer
+that question, I may not.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Well, which version of events is true, that you
+did touch her breasts, or that you did not touch her
+breasts?
+A Are you asking me whether she tells the truth
+or not in her deposition? Is that the question?
+Q My question is: Which version of events is
+true, that she touched your breasts -- that you touched
+her breasts, or that you did not touch her breasts?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. As you might imagine l'd like to answer
+Page 176
+that question very much. However, my counsel has
+advised me I may not, today anyway, and I must
+assert my right under the Sixth, Fourteenth or --
+and/or Fifth Amendment.
+And, though I'd like to answer that question
+specifically -- Id like to answer it to you, I'd
+like to answer it to your partner who's not here
+because he's been suspended from the practice of
+law in South Florida after he filed this lawsuit.
+Id like to answer that question specifically to
+Mr.
+' partner who remains in jail for
+perpetrating a fraud on people in South Florida,
+stealing money from them.
+Unfortunately, under -- my counsel has told me
+that I must respectfully decline and assert my
+rights, or risk waiving those rights and losing
+their representation.
+THE WITNESS: I'm going to have to take a
+break.
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. Time
+off the record 2:25.
+(Thereupon, a short break was taken.)
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time on the record 2:37.
+This is Tape 4.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+44 (Pages 173 to 176)
+
+
+2
+3
+4
+6
+7
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+7
+B
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 30
+Page 177
+Page 179
+Q Okay. We've been discussing Jane Doe 5 for
+some time now. Okay. I'm going to ask you a few more
+questions about her. During the course of Jane Doe 5's
+visit to your home in 2001 and 2002, did you rub Jane
+5 Doe 5's vagina over her underwear?
+MR. PIKE: Form, and assumes facts not in
+evidence.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+question. I'd like to answer every question you've
+asked me here today. But on advice of counsel,
+they've instructed me, I must assert my Sixth
+Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendmen;
+Rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 and 2002, did you rub her vagina under her
+underwear?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'm afraid it's the same answer
+as most of the other answers I've given here
+today. Though I would like to answer these
+questions with specificity, especially that
+question, my counsel has advised me that I may not,
+and must assert my rights under the Sixth
+Amendment, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment.
+Page 178|
+And if I chose to answer, which I prefer to do,
+they've advised me I may waive those rights, or
+risk losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 and 2002, did -- did you insert your
+fingers into her vagina?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd very much like to answer that
+question as well, Mr. Horowitz, but my attorneys
+have advised me today that I cannot, and I must
+assert my rights under the Sixth, Fifth and
+Fourteenth Amendments.
+Though it would -- Id prefer to answer the
+question, they told me that if I choose to do so, I
+risk waiving those rights. I would prefer to have
+that conversation with your partner that was
+suspended or disbarred from the Florida Bar after
+filing the lawsuit on Jane Doe 5's behalf. la
+prefer to talk to Mr.
+I partner, if he was
+able to be here, except he's in jail for
+fabricating cases of a sexual nature against people
+like me. So, believe me, I'd like to answer those
+questions, but today my attorneys have told me I
+may not.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+2
+3
+4
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 or 2002, did you place a vibrator on her
+vagina?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that
+7
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Hold on. There's major
+8
+static. Time off the record 2:40.
+9
+(Thereupon, a short break was taken.)
+10
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time on the record 2:41.
+11
+MR. HOROWITZ: Back on the record. I don't
+12
+know that we did or did not get an answer to this
+13
+14
+question, so I'm going to repeat it. And if you
+have to repeat your answer, I apologize.
+15
+MR. PIKE: Thank you.
+16
+BY MR. HOROWITZ;
+17
+• During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+18
+home in 2001 or 2002, did you place a vibrator on her
+19
+vagina?
+20
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+21
+22
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer the questions
+about Jane Doe 5. However, my attorneys have told
+23
+me that I may not answer any questions regarding
+24
+anything that may be relevant to any of the
+25
+lawsuits brought by you, your firm, your partner
+Page 180
+that was suspended or disbarred after he brought
+these lawsuits. So, though I'd like to answer the
+question, Mr. Horowitz, my attorneys have advised
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+me, at least today, that I must assert my rights
+under the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifteen -- Fifth
+Amendment, and I respectfully have to decline.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 or 2002, did you masturbate in her
+presence?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Td very much like to answer
+every question, every single question regarding
+Jane Doe 5 and her claims. However, my attorneys
+have advised me, at least today, that I may not do
+so, and must assert my rights under the Sixth
+Amendment, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment.
+And, though I would prefer to answer, they have
+advised me that if I choose to do so, 1 risk
+waiving those rights and risk losing their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 or 2002, did you ejaculate in her presence?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+45 (Pages 177 to 180)
+
+
+1
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 30
+Page 181l
+THE WITNESS: Did I ejaculate in Miss Jane Doe
+S's presence? I'd like to answer that question and
+that all her claims -- however, today, my attorneys
+have counseled me that I may not.
+They've instructed me that I have to assert my
+Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth
+Amendment Rights. Though I'd like to answer that
+question, I am going to have to respond as I've
+answered most of your other questions here today,
+which is by asserting those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you have sexual contact with Jane Doe 5 in
+your Palm Beach home in either 2001 or 2002?
+MR. PIKE: Forn.
+THE WITNESS: "Sexual contact"?
+MR. HOROWITZ: Yes.
+THE WITNESS: Can you tell me what you mean by
+that?
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Contact, sexual -- of a sexual nature. Do you
+understand -- do you understand what that means?
+A I've asked you--
+Q Have you had sexual contact?
+A I've asked you to clarify what you mean,
+please.
+Page 182
+Q Well, I'm going to use a broad definition,
+okay?
+A Yes.
+Q That would involve touching someone's sexual
+organs, someone else touching your sexual organs, having
+sexual contact together, such as intercourse or oral sex
+or anal sex. Did you have any of those activities of a
+sexual nature with Jane Doe 5?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to respond to every one
+of Jane Doe 5's claims. However, today, my counsel
+has advised me that I may not. So I am going to
+have -- under their instructions have to assert my
+Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth
+Amendment Rights. Though I'd like to answer that
+question, I've been told that if I choose to do so,
+1 risks losing their representation and waiving
+those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 5's visit to your
+home in 2001 or 2002, did you also touch another
+underage girl in a sexual manner in the presence of Jane
+Doe 57
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to respond to every one
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 183
+of Miss Jane Doe 5's complaints or claims. My
+attorneys have told me that, at least today, that I
+may not do so today, and must assert my rights
+under the Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment and
+Fourteenth, and I have to respond the same way I've
+responded to most of your -- my -- your other
+questions posed here today.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+& Did you pay Jane Doe 5 $200 after you had
+sexual contact with her in your home?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to respond to every one
+of Jane Doe 5's claims, but my attorneys have
+advised me that at least today I must assert my
+rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
+Amendment. Though I'd like to answer that
+question, I am going to have to respond similarly
+that I've answered most of your other questions
+here today. This is no different.
+And I -- though I would -- I've been advised by
+my attorneys, if I choose to answer, I risk waiving
+my rights and/or risk losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q You never asked Jane Doe 5 for permission to
+touch either her breasts or genitals, correct?
+Page 184
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would like to respond to every
+single one of your client's claims. My attorneys
+have advised me at least today, I cannot answer any
+questions that may be relevant to those claims.
+And, though your partner who filed this lawsuit on
+Miss Jane Doe 5's behalf was disbarred - suspended
+by the Florida Bar -- suspended hy the Florida Bar
+after filing this claim, or Mr.
+i, who filed
+similar claims, partner who sits in jail, I'd like
+to answer every single question. However, today,
+my attorneys told me that if I do so, choose to do
+so, I risk waiving my rights and risk losing their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Mr. Epstein, Jane Doe 5 told you when she was
+in your home that she did not want you to touch her
+body, isn't that true?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would very much like to answer
+every question regarding Jane Doe 5's claims, but
+today my attorneys have informed me that I may not
+answer, and must assert my rights under the Sixth,
+Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. So, though I would
+like to answer those questions, -- my attorneys
+46 (Pages 181 to 184)
+
+
+1
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+Page 185
+have informed me that if I choose to do so, which
+is my preference, I would risk losing their
+representation and waiving my rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Mr. Epstein, you made sexual contact with Jane
+Doe 5 after she indicated to you that she did not want
+to be touched by you, isn't that right?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each and every
+one of your questions regarding Miss Jane Doe 5's
+claims. However, my attorneys have advised me that
+today at least, I may not answer those claims, and
+must assert my rights under the Fourteenth
+Amendment, Sixth Amendment and Fifth Amendment
+And, though as you might imagine, I would like
+to answer those claims with -- questions with
+specificity, my counsel has told me that if I
+choose to do so, I waive -- I might risk losing
+their representation and waive -- waiving some of
+my rights
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Did you try to persuade Jane Doe 5 that it was
+okay for you to touch her breasts and genitals while she
+was still a child?
+(Videotaped deposition continued in Volume II.)
+Page 186
+STATE OF FLORIDA )
+COUNTY OF BROWARD )
+1, the undersigned authority, certify that
+Jeffrey Edward Epstein personally appeared before me anc
+was duly sworn.
+WITNESS my hand and official seal this 22nd day
+of March, 2010.
+Vicki L. Lima, Court Reporter
+Notary Public - State of Florida
+Commission No: DD 882608
+Expiration Date: May 26, 2013
+Job #92076-A
+Filed 06/20/16
+Page 187
+CERTIFICATE
+9
+10
+11
+STATE OF FLORIDA )
+COUNTY OF BROWARD )
+I, Vicki L, Lima, Cout Reporter, Notary Public
+in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby
+certily that the aforementioned witness was by me first
+duly sworn to testify to the whole truth; that I was
+authorized to and did report said deposition in
+stenotype; and that the foregoing pages are a true and
+correct transcription of my sborthand notes of said
+deposition.
+12
+I fartber certify that the said deposition was
+taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and
+that the taking of said deposition was commenced and
+completed as hercinabove set out.
+13
+14
+15
+I further certify that I am not an attorney or
+counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
+empioyce of any attorney or counsel of any party
+connected with this action, nor am I interested in the
+action
+16
+17
+18
+19
+The foregoing certification of this transcript
+does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any
+means unless under the direct control and/or direction
+of the certifying reporter.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunio set my hand
+this 22nd day of March, 2010.
+20
+21
+22
+23
+Vicki L. Lima, Court Reporter
+Notary Public - State of Florida
+Commission No: DD 882608
+Expiration Date: May 26, 2013
+Job #92076-A
+24
+25
+Page 188
+UNIVERSAL. LEGAL REPORTINO
+ESS EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD, SUITE S08
+FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301
+March 22, 2010 Job#92076-A Volume]
+Jelley Edward Epstein, witness
+Michael J. Pike, Esquire
+303 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 400
+Weat Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+RE: Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeflicy Epoicin
+CASE NO: 08CV-80119-MARRA
+Dear Mr. Epstein:
+Please take notice that on March 8, 2008, you
+gave your deposition in the above-referred matter. Al
+that time, you did not waive your signature. It is som
+11 necessary dat you sign your deposition.
+As previously agreed to, the transcrips will be
+12
+fumished so you through your counsel. Pleass road the
+following instructiens:
+13
+14
+At Page 189, you will find an errata sheet. As
+you read your deposition, any changes or corroctions
+that you wish to maice should be noted on the crrata
+beet, citing page and line number of said chanpe. DO
+15
+NOT write on the transcripe itself, Once you have read
+the transcript and noted any changes, be sure to sign
+16
+and date the errata sheet and return these poges to us
+at the address listed above. You need not return the
+17
+enlire transcript.
+If you do not read and sign the deposition
+18
+within thirty (30) days, the original, which bas already
+ben Forwarded to the ordering attorney, may be filed
+19
+with the Clerk of the Court. If you wish to waive your
+signature, sign your name in the blank at the bottom of
+20
+21
+this letter and return it to us.
+Very truly yours,
+Universal Legal Reporting,
+22
+23
+Vicki L. Lima
+Court Reporter - Notary Public
+24
+I do hereby waive my signature.
+25
+47 (Pages 185 to 188)
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 30
+Page 189
+ERRATA
+SHEET
+IN RE: Jane Doe No. 2 vs. Jeffrey Edward Epstein
+DEPOSITION OF: Jeffrey Edward Epstein, Volume I
+TAKEN:
+March 8, 2010
+DO NOT WRITE ON TRANSCRIPT - ENTER CHANGES HERE
+PAGE # LINE# CHANGE
+REASON
+17
+20
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Please forward the original signod errata sheet to this
+office so that copies may be distributed to all parties.
+Under penalty of perjury, I declare that 1 have read my
+deposition and that it is true and corroct subject to
+any changos in forn or suhstance entered here.
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT
+Job #92076-A
+48 (Page 189)
+
+
+2
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16
+
+Page 190
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+1
+2
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRAL
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant,
+on u
+Related Cases:
+08-80232, 08-80380,08-80381,08-80994,
+08-80993, 08-80811,08-80893,09-80469,
+09-80591,09-80656,09-80802,09-81092.
+7
+VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN
+VOLUME II
+(Pages 190 - 335)
+111
+12
+13
+14
+Monday, March 8, 2010
+301 Clematis Street
+Suite 3000
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+10:05 a.m. - 6:17 р.m.
+Reported By:
+Vicki L. Lima, Court Reporter
+Notary Public, State of Florida
+Universal Legal Reporting
+Phone - (954) 712-2600
+Job #92076-B
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+123
+24
+25
+Page 191
+APPEARANCES:
+On behalf of the Plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2 through 8:
+ADAM HOROWITZ, ESQUIRE
+JESSICA D. ARBOUR, ESQUIRE
+MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A.
+18205 Biscayne Boulevard
+Suite 2218
+Miami, Fiorida 33160
+On behalf ofthe Plaintiffs, Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W.:
+BRAD
+*, ESQUIRE
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+I, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+On behalf of the Plaintiff, Jane Doe 103:
+KATHERINE W. EZELI., ESQUIRE
+PODHURST ORSECK
+City National Bank Building
+25 West Flagler Street
+Suite 800
+Miami, Florida 33130
+On behalf of the Defendant and Witness:
+MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQUIRE
+BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTER & COLEMAN
+303 Banyan Boulevard
+Suite 400
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+JACK A GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE
+ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
+One Clearlake Centre
+250 Australian Avenue South
+Suite 1400
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+ALSO PRESENT:
+Alex Avala, Videonrapher.
+9
+110
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+116
+17
+118
+19
+20
+121
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 192
+VOLUME II
+(Pages 190 - 335)
+EXAMINATION INDEX
+JEFFREY EDWARD EPSTEIN
+CONTINUED DIRECT BY MR. HOROWITZ.
+* 193
+
+MAR
+
+1 VEHICLE AND VESSEL INFORMATION
+330
+Page 193
+(Beginning of Volume II.)
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Id like to answer every question
+that you posed here today, Mr. Horowitz, regarding
+any of your clients, and especially Miss Jane Doe
+5's claims. However, my attorneys have advised me
+that at least today, I must assert my rights under
+the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment, or risk
+losing those rights or the -- and/or their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you tell Jane Doe 5 "to relax" and quote,
+just let it -- let it happen, end quote, when she
+resisted your sexual advances?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: It would give me great pleasure
+to be able to answer Jane Doe 5's claims. However,
+my attorneys have advised me today, at least today,
+that I must assert my rights under the Sixth -
+excuse me -- Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment. And,
+though Id very much like to answer those
+questions, that question, and the other questions
+you've posed here today, I am going to have to
+assert those rights and respectfully decline.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+1 (Pages 190 to 193)
+(954) 712-2600 (877) 291-DEPO (3376)
+
+
+2
+3
+4
+5
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 30
+Page 194
+Q Did you instruct S.K. to take Jane Doe 5's
+telephone number so you can call Jane Doe 5 to come to
+your home for more sexual activity?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+your questions, these claims made by Jane Doe 5.
+However, today at least, my attorneys have advised
+me that I may not answer any questions that may be
+relevant to any of the lawsuits brought by you,
+your partner who's been suspended after he filed
+Miss Jane Doe 5's claim. He was suspended for
+improper behavior by the Florida Bar. I may not
+answer the questions of Mr.
+regarding his
+- or his partner, Mr. Scott Rothstein, who was
+accused of the largest fraud by fabricating cases
+of a sexual nature of against people, me and
+others, in order to steal millions of dollars from
+unsuspecting people. So, although I would like to
+answer those questions, my attorneys have advised
+me that if I do so, I risk losing their
+representation and waiving my rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q After Jane Doe 5 visited your home, did you
+instruct S.K. to call Jane Doe 5 on the telephone to
+arrange for her to come back for more sexual activity?
+Page 195
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+Miss Jane Doe 5's claims. I'd like to answer each
+one with specificity. However, my attorneys have
+advised me today, that I must assert my rights
+under the Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifth Amendment.
+And if I choose to answer, which is my preference,
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+I risk losing their representation and waiving
+those specific rights.
+9
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+10
+Q Isn't it true, sir, that you sexually abused
+11
+Jane Doe 5 when she was a child?
+12
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+13
+THE WITNESS: Id very much like to answer that
+14
+question, as I'd like to answer some of the others,
+15
+that question in particular, it's been clear that
+16
+your firm, your partner who's been suspended after
+17
+filing such a claim of sexual abuse, Mr.
+18
+partner who's in jail for probably the rest of his
+19
+life, probably the rest of his life for filing just
+20
+those types of claims, sexual abuse claims, and
+21
+sexual claims of -- claims of a sexual nature
+22
+against people, me and others, to steal money, just
+23
+-- It's about money from people in South Florida,
+24
+so l'd like to answer those questions today.
+25
+Page 196
+However, my attorneys have counseled me that I may
+not. And if I choose to do so, contrary to their
+advice, I risk losing their representation and
+waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay. With respect to Jane Doe 5 and the
+questions that you have asserted your Fifth Amendment
+privilege, have you been asserting your Fifth Amendment
+privilege to protect your innocence, or to conceal your
+guilt?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: That's a question obviously
+designed to try to embarrass me. It -- what -- Id
+like to answer that question. However, my counsel
+has advised me that since your firm, your partner
+who was suspended for improper behavior since he
+filed this claim, Mr.
+' partner who sits in
+jail, the Supreme Court has said that people can
+claim the Fifth Amendment, and should claim the
+Fifth Amendment who are innocent. I respectfully
+decline to answer, based on my counsel's advice,
+because they've told me if I choose to answer, I
+may waive those rights, but I'd like to answer.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+_ 2 Sir, is there any reason you can think of as to
+Page 197
+why the jury should not infer from your testimony today
+that you did, in fact, sexually abuse Jane Doe 5 when
+she was a child?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I believe the ury will be able
+to see what your firm, Mr.
+'firm, and what
+the newspapers have referred to as part of the
+largest fraud in South Florida's history by
+crafling cases of a sexual nature against people
+like me and others, simply to get money. His
+partner sits in jail. Your partner has been
+suspended. I'd rather -- the jury will make its
+own decision.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Great. The next individual I'd like to talk to
+you about is Jane Doe 6, and if you either write that
+down, or get that name in your head so that you remember
+it when I ask you some questions about her, I would
+appreciate it, okay -
+THE WITNESS: Mr. Pike -
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q - Jane Doe 6, okay?
+MR. PIKE: Proceed.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q All right. You don't deny that Jane Doe 6 came
+2 (Pages 194 to 197)
+
+
+1
+2
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 30
+Page 198
+to your home in Palm Beach County in August 2004, do
+you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would very much like to answer
+every claim made by your client, Jane Doe 6.
+However, today, my attorneys have advised that 1
+may not. I must assert my rights under the Sixth,
+Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Now, Jane Doe 6 was only 13 years old when she
+came to your home; is that right?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again, it would -- I would prefer
+to answer every single one of your client's -- Jane
+Doe 6's claims regarding this case, your claim
+against me. However, my attorneys have advised me
+I may not do so today. I must assert my rights
+under the Fourteenth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment.
+Though I would like to answer cach one of your
+questions, Mr. Horowitz, today, I must respectfully
+decline to do so.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Mr. Epstein, you paid for a taxi to bring
+13-year-old Jane Doe 6 to your home in 2004; isn't that
+right?
+Page 199
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'm sure, Mr. Horowitz, you're
+aware that I'd like to answer these questions with
+specificity. I'm sure you're aware that I would
+like to answer each one of these sexually charged
+questions, questions similar to the ones you've
+asked before. I have to respond in a similar way,
+which unfortunately, my counsel has advised me I
+9
+10
+11
+12
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+must take their advice, which is to claim the
+Sixth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights,
+because by not doing so, I may waive those rights,
+or risk losing their representation.
+13 BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q In 2004 did you receive a phone call from a
+girl named E. W. in which she told she was bringing Jane
+Doe 6 to your home for a massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: E.W.? I believe E.W. is
+represented by the man sitting next to you,
+Mr.
+. though Mr.
+I partner, the one
+who's in jail for bringing cases of a sexual
+nature, sexually charged nature against people like
+me and others, so, though I'd like to answer all
+your questions regarding E. W., and like Miss Jane
+Doe 6 and her -- and their claims, my attorneys
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 200
+today have told me I may not, and must assert my
+rights, or waive -- potentially waive them, or risk
+losing their representation --
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay.
+A - so, unfortunately, I must respectfully
+decline to answer that question.
+• Did you instruct S.K. to communicate by
+telephone with E. W. For the purpose of arranging for
+underage girls to come to your home to give you a
+massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+your claims here today with specificity. E.W.
+represented by Mr.
+• sitting next to you,
+represented by the man who's currently sitting in
+jail for the perpetrating of the largest fraud in
+Florida's history, for creating fictitious,
+malicious cases of a sexual nature against wealthy
+people in order to steal money, steal money. The
+U.S. Attorney called E. W.'s attorneys a criminal
+enterprise. So, though I'd like to answer that
+question, as all your other questions here today,
+my attorneys have instructed me I may not do so.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Page 201
+Q Mr. Epstein, you paid E. W. to bring underage
+girls to your home so you could engage in sexual
+activity with these girls; isn't that right?
+MR. PIKE: Forn.
+THE WITNESS: Again, E. W. represented by
+Mr.
+i firm, and former -- her former
+attorney, Mr. Scott Rothstein, sits in a county
+jail probably for the rest - well, at least a
+federal jail for the rest of his life for
+fabricating cases of a sexual nature against
+wealthy people in South Florida in order to steal
+money from unsuspecting investors. It would give
+me pleasure to be answer -- to be able to answer
+your questions today with specificity. However, my
+attomeys have counseled me that at least today, I
+may not do so -- excuse me -- without waiving my
+rights and risking their representation -- risk
+losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Mr. Epstein, in 2004 did you instruct S.K. to
+make contact with E. W. by telephone so that arrangements
+could be made for Jane Doe 6 to come to your home for
+your sexual gratification?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Okay. I would like to answer the
+3 (Pages 198 to 201)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+5
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+1B
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 30
+Page 202
+claims of Jane Doe 6. I would very much like to
+answer the claims of your - Mr.
+S'E.W. It
+would be nicer if Mr. - or I would appreciate it
+- unfortunately -- but Mr.
+F partner who
+represented E. W. along with him is in jail for
+misrepresenting -- or the U.S. Attorney has called
+his firm a criminal enterprise, the one
+representing -- previously representing E.W. You
+represent Jane Doe 6. I'd like to answer her
+claims, but today my attorneys have counseled me
+that I must respectfully decline and assert my
+rights under the Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifth
+Amendment.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Did you inform S.K. that the massage that Jane
+Doe 6 was to give you would be sexual in nature?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Unfortunately, I am going to have!
+to respond to that question the way I've responded
+to most of your questions and claims here today
+regarding Jane Doe 6 and some of your other clients
+that you filed suits for, post filing the suit your
+partner was suspended by the Florida Bar, post
+filing the suit Mr.
+' partner finds himself
+in jail.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 203
+So, though I'd very much like to answer those
+questions, my attorneys have counseled me today
+that I cannot answer, at least today, any questions
+relevant to these lawsuits. And if I decide or
+choose to answer the questions, I risk losing their
+representation and waiving those rights. Excuse
+me, Adam, five?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+THE WITNESS: Yeah, if you need it.
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time off the record 3:02.
+9
+(Thereupon, a short break was taken.)
+10
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+11
+Q Did you --
+12
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time on the record 3:12.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+13
+14
+Q Mr. Epstein, we're still talking about Jane Doe
+15
+6, okay?
+16
+A Yes.
+17
+• Mr. Epstein, did you observe S.K. speaking with
+18
+E.W. by telephone and making arrangements for Jane Doe 6
+19
+to come to your home to give you a massage?
+20
+A I'd like to answer that question. I'd like to
+21
+answer all your questions here today. I believe Miss
+E. W. is represented by Mr.
+, who's partner is in
+22
+23
+jail for his wrongdoing, for creating cases of sexually
+24
+charged natures. You're asking me a question of Jane
+25
+Page 204
+Doe 6's claim, which I would like to answer, but today,
+under advice of counsel, they have instructed me that I
+may not, and I should claim my Sixth Amendment,
+Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Right.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you confirm with S.K. that she did, in
+fact, speak with E. W. by telephone to confirm a specific
+time that Jane Doe 6 would be at your house?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each and every
+one of your questions, Mr. Horowitz, regarding the
+claims of these -- of Jane Doe 6 and E. W. However,
+today, on advice of counsel, I am going to have to
+simply claim the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
+Amendment Right.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Was it your intent during the course of Jane
+Doe o's visit to your home that you would persuade,
+induce or entice her to engage in sexual activity?
+A I'd like to answer every question you've asked
+me here today, every single question, especially with
+respect to Jane Doe 6's claims. However, my attorneys
+have instructed me that I must assert my rights under
+the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment. Though these
+claims of a sexual nature are not that surprising since
+Page 205
+Mr.
+and -- who he represents E. W., who's partner
+sits in jail for perpetrating what the U.S. Attorney
+called the largest fraud in South Florida's history,
+stealing millions of dollars from unsuspecting local
+investors. I'd very much like to answer each and every
+one of your questions, but my attorney has told me that
+if I choose to do so, I risk waiving my rights and risk
+losing their representation.
+MR. PIKE: 1--
+THE WITNESS: Sorry.
+MR. PIKE: -- object to form to that question.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 6's visit to your
+home, did you succeed in persuading, inducing or
+enticing her to engage in sexual activity with you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I would very much like to answer
+every single question and claim of Jane Doe 6.
+However, today, my attomeys have advised me that I
+may not. I must assert my rights under the Sixth,
+Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment. Now, I prefer to
+answer. They've told me that if choose to do so, I
+risk losing their representation and waiving those
+rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+4 (Pages 202 to 205)
+
+
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 30
+Page 206
+Q All right. Did S.K. tell you that she spoke to
+anyone on the phone who arranged for Jane Doe 6 to comd
+to your house?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again? I'm sorry, Mr. Horowitz.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did S.K. tell you she spoke to anyone on the
+phone -- on the phone to make arrangements for Jane Doe
+6 to come to your home?
+MR. PIKE: Same objection.
+THE WITNESS: I'd very much like to answer
+every question regarding these claims here today.
+However, my attorneys have advised me that at least
+today, I must assert my rights under the
+Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifth Amendment. And though
+I prefer to answer the question, if I choose to do
+so, I risk losing those rights and their
+representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Okay. You asked Jane Doe 6 how old she was
+when she came to your home; is that right?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again, like the other questions
+you've asked me regarding your claims of Jane Doe
+6, I'd like to answer each one. However, today, my
+Page 207
+attorneys have advised me that I may not. I must
+assert my rights under the Sixth, Fourteenth and
+Fifth Amendment. Though I prefer to answer that
+question, I prefer to answer that question directly
+to the -- your partner that brought this claim, but
+I guess he's been suspended or disbarred by the
+Florida Bar, or I'd like to answer it to
+Mr.
+' partner who sits in a jail for
+crafting, fabricating malicious claims simply to
+get money. I'd very - as you probably recognize,
+I'd like to answer those questions today, but I --
+under the instructions of counsel, I must
+respectfully decline.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sir, there was never a point in time when Jane
+Doe 6 told you that she was 18 years old or older, isn't
+that right?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Like all your other questions
+regarding Jane Doe 6 and her claims, I'd very much
+like to answer each and every one. However, today,
+my counsel has advised me that I may not, and must
+assert my rights under the Fourteenth, Fifth and
+Sixth Amendment. And if I choose to answer, 1 risk
+losing their counsel and waiving those rights.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 208
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sir, when Jane Doe 6 came to your home in 2004
+when she was 13 years old, you didn't, in your own mind,
+believe her to be 18 years old or older, did you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please?
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Sure. When you looked at Jane Doe 6 at age 13
+and she was in your home, you didn't believe her to be
+18 years old or older, did you?
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+your --
+MR. PIKE: Same objection.
+THE WITNESS: -- excuse me. I'd like to answer
+each one of your claims today. However, my
+attorneys have counseled me that I may not. They
+have instructed me to assert my rights under the
+Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifth Amendment.
+Though I'd like to answer each one of those
+questions, I'd like to answer that question
+directly to your partner, Jeffrey Herman, that in
+fact brought this claim, but he has been suspended
+by the Florida Bar, or the claims directly to
+Mr.
+' partner who sits in jail for
+fabricating cases of a sexual nature against
+Page 209
+wealthy people in South Florida.
+I'd very much like to answer, but according to
+my counsel I may not answer those, or I may waive
+my rights or risk losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 6's visit to your
+home in 2004, were you nude in her presence?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd very much would like to
+answer each and every question regarding Jane Doe
+6's claims. However, my attorneys have told me
+today that I may not. I must assert my rights
+under the Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifth Amendment.
+Though I prefer to answer, I'm told that if I
+choose to do so, I risk losing their representation
+and waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 6's visit to your
+home in 2004, did you instruct Jane Doe 6 to remove her
+clothing?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each and every
+one of your questions here today and the claims of
+Jane Doe 6. However, my attorneys have advised me,
+at least today, that I must assert my rights under
+5 (Pages 206 to 209)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+1B
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+B
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 30
+Page 210 j
+the Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifteenth -- and Fifth
+Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Though I
+prefer to answer, they've instructed me that if I
+choose to do so, I risk waiving those rights and
+losing their representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 6's visit to your
+home in 2004, did you instruct Jane Doe 6 to pinch your
+nipples and rub your chest?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: As I've answered most of your
+other questions here today, Mr. Horowitz, it would
+give me great pleasure to be able to answer these
+claims of Jane Doe 6. However, my attorneys have
+instructed me that I may not, and that I must
+assert my rights under the Fourteenth, Sixth and
+Fifth Amendment because they told me that if I do
+so, I risk losing their representation and waiving
+those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q During the course of Jane Doe 6's visit to your
+home in 2004, did you ask Jane Doe 6 about her sexual
+experience and preferences?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: It would give me great pleasure
+Page 211
+to answer each one of your questions and Jane Doe
+6's claims. However, my attorneys have instructed
+me today that I may not, and that I must assert my
+rights under the Sixth -- excuse me --Fifth and
+Fourteenth Amendment. Though I would prefer to
+choose to answer those questions, my attorneys have
+advised me that if I do so, I risk losing their
+representation and waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q In 2004 did you touch Jane Doe 6's breasts?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Like many of your other questions
+here today, there be -- I'd very much prefer to
+answer that question, as your other questions with
+specificity. However, my counsel has advised me
+that I may not. I must assert my rights under the
+Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifth amendment. So though I
+choose -- would choose to answer that, my attorneys
+told me that if I do, I risk losing their
+representation and potentially waiving those
+rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you touch Jane Doe 6's breasts even after
+she made attempts to walk away from you during her visit|
+in 2004?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 212
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd very much like to answer each
+and every one of Jane Doe 6's claims. However, my
+attorneys today have instructed me that I may not
+answer today, and that I must assert my rights
+under the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment.
+Though I'd like to answer the question, they've
+instructed me that if I do, I risk losing their
+representation and waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q In 2004 did you rub Jane Doe 6's vagina?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: That question, like most of your
+other questions here today, I would prefer to
+answer. I'd like to answer. I'd like to answer
+directly to your partner who is no longer here
+because he's been suspended after he filed this
+claim, suspended by the Florida Bar for filing -
+not for filing, but after he filed the claim. I
+prefer to answer directly to Mr.
+partner
+who sits in jail for the rest of his life, for the
+rest of his life, for filing and misleading --
+filing malicious claims, make -- fabricating claims
+against people like me and others in South Florida,
+stealing money -- millions of dollars from
+Page 213
+investors. So I would like to answer each one of
+your questions with specificity. However, my
+attorneys have advised me today that I may not.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q. In 2004 -- in 2004 did you masturbate by
+stroking your penis in front of Jane Doe 6?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+your questions regarding Jane Doe 6's claims.
+However, my attorneys have advised me that today I
+may not. And though your partner has been
+suspended after he filed this claim, Mr.
+partner sits in jail, my attorneys have advised me
+still that I must assert my rights under the
+Fourteenth, Sixth and Fifth Amendment. And if I
+choose to answer, which is my preference, that I
+risk losing their representation and/or waiving
+those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q In 2004 did you ejaculate after stroking the
+shaft of your penis in front of Jane Doe 6?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer each one of
+Jane Doe 6's claims, and all the questions -- each
+and every question you've asked me here today. I'd
+6 (Pages 210 to 213)
+
+
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 27 of 30
+Page 214
+like to answer it directly to your partner.
+However, he's been suspended by the Florida Bar
+after he filed this claim. Id like to answer it
+directly to Mr.
+' partner who sits in jail
+for fabricating cases of a sexual nature against
+wealthy people in South Florida, in jail
+potentially for the rest of his life. So though
+I'd like to answer those questions, my attomeys
+have counseled that I may not. I must assert those
+rights or risk losing their representation and/or
+waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q In 2004 did you walk across the room naked and
+enter a shower in front of Jane Doe 6?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Again, as I've answered most off
+your questions here today, it would give me great
+pleasure, in fact, to answer the claims of Jane Doe
+6. However, my attorneys have advised me that I
+may not, and must assert my rights under the Sixth,
+Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment. Though I prefer to
+answer those questions, my attorneys have told me
+that if I choose to do so, I risk losing their
+representation. And I would prefer to tell your
+partner directly who filed this claim, who's
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 215
+subsequently suspended by the Florida Bar. I would
+1
+prefer to tell Mr.
+partners, but he's in
+2
+jail with now -- I guess most of his other -- many
+3
+of his other partners are on their way for filing
+4
+malicious claims. So though I'd like to answer
+5
+that question, Mr. Horowitz, here today, I must
+6
+respectfully decline to do so.
+7
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+8
+Q Did you have sexual contact with Jane Doe 6 at
+9
+your Palm Beach home in 2004?
+10
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+11
+THE WITNESS: I would like to answer cach and;
+12
+every claim of Jane Doe 6 and all your other
+13
+clients. It would be -- give me pleasure to be
+14
+able to answer those questions directly to your
+15
+partner, but he's been suspended after he filed
+16
+these claims. I must assert those rights, even
+17
+though I would prefer to answer the question, or
+18
+risk losing the representation of my counsel and
+19
+inadvertently waiving those rights.
+20
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+21
+Q Did you pay $200 to Jane Doe 6 after having had:
+22
+sexual activity with her?
+23
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+24
+THE WITNESS: Td like to answer that question,
+25
+Page 216
+as well as every other question you've asked me
+here today, but I'm going to have to respond in a
+similar manner to the other questions, which is
+though I'd like to answer the question, my counsel
+here has advised me that I may not, and must assert
+the rights under the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth
+Amendment; otherwise, risk losing their
+representation and/or waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Did you ever ask Jane Doe 6 for permission to
+touch her breasts?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: These claims of Jane Doe 6 would
+give me great pleasure to answer, especially with
+specificity with Jane Doe 6, your client. It's
+unfortunate that your partner couldn't be here to
+hear some of these responses since he's been
+disbarred -- no, not disbarred -- you've corrected
+me - he's only been suspended by the Florida Bar
+for improner behavior after he filed this case.
+Mr.
+partner sits in jail. Though I'd
+like to answer -- as you might imagine, I'd like to
+answer these questions. My counsel has advised me
+that if I do so, I risk losing his representation.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Page 217
+Q Isn't it true, sir, that Jane Doe 6 indicated
+to you that she did not want you to touch her body?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: It would give me great pleasure
+to answer each question and claim of Jane Doe 6 and
+your client. However -- excuse me -- however, my
+counselors advised me today that I may not, and
+must assert my rights under Sixth, Fourteenth and
+Fifth Amendment.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Isn't it true, sir, that you touched Jane Doe
+6's breasts after she indicated to you that you did not
+- that she not want you to touch her?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+MR. HOROWITZ: I am going to clean up that
+question. I probably didn't ask it right.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Isn't it true, sir, that you touched Jane Doe
+6's breast after she indicated she did not want you to
+touch her?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer that question,
+like every other question you've asked me here
+today, mostly every question. It's unfortunate I
+can't make that answer directly to your partner who
+7 (Pages 214 to 217)
+
+
+1
+2
+6
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 28 of 30
+Page 218
+was suspended by the Florida Bar, or Mr. H
+partner who sits in jail. But though I'd like to
+answer those questions, my counsel has advised me I
+must assert my rights under the Sixth, Fourteenth
+and Fifth amendment. So though I'd like to answer;
+it would be my preference to answer. He's told me
+that if I do so, I risk losing his representation
+and/or waiving those rights.
+9 BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Mr. Epstein, did you try to persuade 13-yearold Jane Doe 6 that it was okay for you to touch her
+breast and masturbate by stroking your penis in front of
+her?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Mr. Horowitz, it would give me
+great pleasure to answer every one of Jane Doc 6's
+claims, every one. However, my counsel has advised
+me I may not do so today, and that I must assert
+those rights. I would much prefer to answer it to
+your partner who filed this claim, Mr. Jeffrey
+Herman, but he's been suspended by the Florida Bar
+after he filed this claim for improper behavior, or
+Mr.
+partner who sits in jail after he
+filed their claims. So though I'd prefer -- I
+would like to answer, my counsel has advised me
+Page 219
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+that if I choose to do so, I risk losing his
+representation and/or waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Okay. Sir, you don't deny that you sexually
+abused Jane Doe 6 when she was a child, do you?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: The question about sexually
+abusing, which was in fact one of the cases that
+Mr. Rothstein's -- I mean, Scott Rothstein's --
+Mr.
+sits there -- Mr. Rothstein sits in
+jail for his accusing people of sexual harassment,
+sexual abuse, and in order to steal money from
+local Florida investors. I'd like to answer every
+question about Jane Doe 6's claim of sexual abuse.
+However, my counsel today has informed me that I
+I may not answer today. And though as you might
+guess, I'd like to answer those questions, he's
+informed me if I choose to do so, I risk losing his
+representation and/or waiving those rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+• Sir, did you pay E. W. for bringing Jane Doe 6
+to your home in 2004?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I - if E.W. - so I'm clear, I
+believe E. W. has filed a claim as an admitted
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 220
+prostitute, and an admitted prostitute of
+Mr. | who sits there while his partner stays
+in jail -- yes, he finds it, I guess, very funny.
+I don't find it that funny.
+Well, I'd like to answer each one of the
+questions about Miss E. W. and Miss Jane Doe 6.
+However, my attorneys have told me today that I may
+not, and that I must assert my rights under the
+Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment. So, though
+Id like to answer all the questions regarding ways
+that these girls are trying to get money, be it
+from me, or from Mr. Rothstein's other victims, I
+must assert those rights, or, in fact, according to
+my counsel, lose -- risk losing his representation
+and waiving those rights.
+MR. PIKE: All right. Now, that -- now, that
+Mr. Epstein is done answering that particular
+question and responding, do we -- do we need a
+break, because I'm -- I'm not comfortable with the
+way in which the laughing is going forward and
+things of that sort?
+MR.
+Okay. Well, 1 -- I found that
+answer pretty funny, and I want to make sure that I
+understand the answer so that I know if I have to
+take any legal action whatsoever. What I
+Page 221
+understand the answer to be was that Mr. Epstein is
+making the accusation now that E. W. is my
+prostitute. That's --
+THE WITNESS:
+no, that's not correct.
+MR.
+- that's what I heard, right?
+That's what everybody in the room heard.
+MS. EZELL: That's -- that's -- that's what I
+heard.
+MR. PIKE: Okay. First of all --
+MR. HOROWITZ: That's what I heard.
+MR.
+That is not true.
+MR. PIKE: - III tell you what, we're going
+to take a break -- we're going to take a break
+now. That is not the way that I interpreted the
+response. The response was that she made a --
+she's an admitted prostitute, and that she was a
+client of yours. If we're going to be playing
+games with semantics, then we will do that at
+another date by motion practice, but we're not
+going to -- this is not the form in which to do
+this, laughing, playing games with words.
+Everybody in this room knew exactly what the
+response was. And remember something, this is --
+MR.
+: Right, it is -
+MR. PIKE: Remember something, this is a case,
+8 (Pages 218 to 221)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 234-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 29 of 30
+Page 222
+and you represent someone, and as a result, no
+matter which way you interpret some response, there
+are various privileges that attach to litigation.
+If you want to threaten legal action here in
+this form, then you can go ahead and do so on
+record. So is that what you were doing?
+MR.
+5: Well --
+MR. PIKE: Were you threatening -- were you
+threatening - I want to be clear --
+MR.
+S: If -
+MR. PIKE: -- in this deposition right now,
+were -
+MR.
+1, Til be very clear.
+MR. PIKE: -- were with threatening Mr. Epstein
+with legal action?
+MR.
+5: If the accusation is that E. W. is
+a prostitute of mine, then I want to know that that
+is the -- the allegation, and that is clearly his
+position, so that if legal action is to be taken,
+it can be, but I was giving him a chance to clarify
+that or correct that, if that was not the correct
+interpretation, but that's what everybody in the
+room heard. That's what's going to be very clear
+on the record. Ms. Ezeil is nodding her head.
+Everybody heard --
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 223
+MR. PIKE: Listen --
+MR
+- that statement or sentence.
+MR. PIKE: -- this --
+MR. HOROWITZ: Can we -- can we move on?
+MR. PIKE: No, we can't. Once again --
+MR. HOROWITZ: It's not your deposition.
+THE REPORTER: Wait a second.
+MR. PIKE: Once again, this is not --
+MR.
+: Let's read it back.
+MR. PIKE: No, we're not going to reread it.
+We're not going to go back and reread it.
+Mr. Epstein not only answered the question, but
+then he also corrected you and said that was not
+the appropriate response.
+MR. HOROWITZ: Okay.
+MR. PIKE: Now, if you would --
+MR. HOROWITZ: That's fine.
+MR. PIKE: Now, if you would, you can rephrase
+your response briefly to --
+THE WITNESS: Mr.
+represents an
+admitted prostitute, E.W. These claims are made by
+admitted prostitutes. They filed claims under a
+section of the Florida's law of admitted
+prostitutes. So the claims here that -- it was his
+client as opposed to his prostitute, and 1 - if I
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 224
+-- ifI misspoke, 1 apologize. Your client is an
+admitted prostitute, and that's what I meant to
+say.
+MR. HOROWITZ: Okay. Move to strike. Okay. I
+MR. PIKE: Wait, wait. Hold on one second.
+MR. HOROWITZ: - I know you want to take a
+break, but --
+MR. PIKE: No, I -- I -- I don't want to take a
+-- you just moved to strike something that we just
+spent seven minutes going back and forth with
+pursuant to Mr.
+' request. Do you want to
+withdraw that?
+MR. HOROWITZ: No. But if you want to -- no.
+MR. PIKE: Okay. All right. Next question.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Mr. Epstein, we've been -- we've been talking
+about Jane Doe 6 a bit, and you've mentioned names like
+Jeffrey Herman and Scott Rothstein. Are you suggesting
+that in any way her allegations of sexual abuse were
+fabricated or embellished by virtue of her attorney or
+- or somehow through Mr. Rothstein's dealings?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: It's been validly reported that
+Mr. Rothstein crafted, fabricated malicious
+Page 225
+lawsuits of a sexual nature in order to steal
+millions of dollars from local Florida investors.
+With respect to any question with -- that may be
+relevant to this lawsuit. However, my attorneys
+have advised me today that I must respond by taking
+the Sixth, Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment.
+Though I choose to -- I would prefer to answer
+the questions, Mr. Horowitz, that you've asked me
+regarding your claims - your client's claims, my
+attorneys have told me that if I choose to do so, I
+risk losing their representation and waiving those
+rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q All right. Are -- I want to be clear about
+this one. Are you --
+A Okay.
+Q - suggesting that Miss Jane Doe 6 in any way
+fabricated or embellished her claim after retaining an
+attorney?
+MR. PIKE: Form, asked and answered.
+THE WITNESS: The partner of -- your partner
+has been suspended from the practice of - Florida
+Bar practice after he filed Jane Doe 6's claim.
+Mr.
+' partner, Scott Rothstein, sits in
+jail probably for the rest of his life for
+9 (Pages 222 to 225)
+
+
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 30 of 30
+Page 226 i
+Page 228
+fabricating malicious claims of a sexual nature
+1
+privilege as anything but the rights of an
+against wealthy people in South Florida.
+2
+American, to assert rights under the Constitution,
+I'd like to answer your questions with more
+3
+specificity. However, my attorneys have counseled
+4
+I find disturbing. I find it disturbing that your
+partner who's been suspended, the claims of your
+me that I may not today; I must assert my rights
+5
+clients, Mr. | client -- whose partner and
+under the Fourteenth, Sixth, Fifth Amendment. And
+his law firm -- his partner in jail and his law
+I - though I choose -- prefer to answer those
+7
+questions, Mr. Horowitz, my attorney said that if I
+B
+firm that's been called by the U.S. Attorney as the
+choose to do so, I risk losing their representation
+9
+largest criminal enterprise, or the largest fraud
+in South Florida's history. I -- I find it
+and waiving those rights.
+10
+disturbing that you'd question the reasons I would
+BY MR HOROWITZ:
+11
+Q Given that you have asserted your Fifth
+12
+assert my Constitutional rights.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Amendment privilege, is there any reason a jury should
+13
+Q Okay. And you're - but you're -- you're
+not infer from your testimony that you did in fact
+14
+refusing to tell us why you're asserting the Fifth
+sexually abuse Jane Doe 6 when she was just a 13-year-
+15
+Amendment; is that right?
+old girl?
+16
+A I've answered your question.
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+17
+MR. PIKE: It's attorney-client work product.
+THE WITNESS: The Fifth Amendment, of my
+18
+MR. HOROWITZ: How much time left on the tape?
+understanding, is to be used as well to protect
+19
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Nine minutes on this tape
+innocent people from claims, from malicious claims,
+20
+MR. HOROWITZ: Nine minutes. Do you want to
+from malicious false claims, including those made
+21
+change tapes?
+by Mr.
+partner, Scott Rothstein, who sits
+22
+MR. PIKE: Yes.
+in jail at the moment probably for the rest of his
+23
+MR. HOROWITZ: Let's change tapes because --
+life for crafting these malicious false claims.
+The U.S Attorney called his firm one of the largest
+24
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time off the record 3:4l.
+25
+MR. HOROWITZ: Great.
+Page 227
+Page 229
+criminal enterprises in South Florida's history. I
+will be -- my - I would prefer to answer your
+2
+questions with specificity, but my counsel today
+3
+has told me that I may not, and I must -- excuse me
+4
+-- assert my rights under the Sixth, Fourteenth and
+5
+Fifth Amendment. Though I prefer to answer those
+6
+questions, he's advised me that if I choose to do
+7
+so, I risk losing those rights and losing his
+8
+representation.
+9
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+10
+• In this case are you asserting the Fifth
+Amendment in order to protect your innocence or to
+11
+12
+conceal your guilt?
+13
+MR. PIKE: I am going to instruct him not to
+14
+answer that question. It's attorney-client work
+15
+product.
+16
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+17
+Q Isn't it true, sir, that you're asserting the
+18
+Fifth Amendment privilege here to conceal your own
+19
+wrongdoing?
+20
+MR. PIKE: Same objection.
+21
+THE WITNESS: May I answer?
+22
+MR. PIKE: This one, yeah.
+23
+THE WITNESS: I think -- I -- Mr. Horowitz, to
+24
+assume simply that I'm asserting my Fifth Amendmen, 25
+(Thereupon, a short break was taken.)
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time on the record 3:47.
+This is Tape 5.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Mr. Epstein, my next series of questions
+involves a -- one of our clients by the name of Jane Doe
+7. You may know her as Jane Doe 7 as well. So if you
+can either write that name down or keep it in your mind
+so we're on the same page as to who -- who we're talking
+about, I would appreciate it, okay?
+A (Witness complying).
+• Isn't it true that a girl named Jane Doe 7 came
+to your home on multiple occasions between 2003 and T
+of 2005?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer your -- those
+questions -- excuse me -- Mr. Horowitz, but today
+my attorney has counseled me that I must assert my
+Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth
+Amendment Right.
+BY MR. HOROWITZ:
+Q Prior to May of 2005 did you receive a phone
+call from a girl named H.R. advising you that she was
+bringing Jane Doe 7 to your home to give you a massage?
+MR. PIKE: Form.
+10 (Pages 226 to 229)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1a3cafc8e13b6662dc512b15d44cdb9b462a8b23e974e1aa1deb5d2fc47dd60.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1a3cafc8e13b6662dc512b15d44cdb9b462a8b23e974e1aa1deb5d2fc47dd60.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0eed7f9c8b963de46b22b77cf6fd75e00dbd7444
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1a3cafc8e13b6662dc512b15d44cdb9b462a8b23e974e1aa1deb5d2fc47dd60.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -3030,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f1a3cafc8e13b6662dc512b15d44cdb9b462a8b23e974e1aa1deb5d2fc47dd60",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 38,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "d26400afd4c7353fa626a439a836fc5c9aae6db5228cc25f2fada25570c8f7cf",
+  "output_sha256": "025f20a4c5dd410d53eaf50f23affa870373344fe73e25004aaa6ebdf9bb6e17",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1bb630e3173513ab01e62cfce3b7a4375301e3083f487a3ec23f044ecd45bbd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1bb630e3173513ab01e62cfce3b7a4375301e3083f487a3ec23f044ecd45bbd.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1a2f928c07e2cbfef5a0c28debad3e24404633d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1bb630e3173513ab01e62cfce3b7a4375301e3083f487a3ec23f044ecd45bbd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 381-6 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1bb630e3173513ab01e62cfce3b7a4375301e3083f487a3ec23f044ecd45bbd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1bb630e3173513ab01e62cfce3b7a4375301e3083f487a3ec23f044ecd45bbd.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7b8b8705c6427c0a2689146c84a2d5cde9d4d25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1bb630e3173513ab01e62cfce3b7a4375301e3083f487a3ec23f044ecd45bbd.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f1bb630e3173513ab01e62cfce3b7a4375301e3083f487a3ec23f044ecd45bbd",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5c7a4a07b76925269374fbe6725a8af2e6344575e9440dd3feeacdfd8325e485",
+  "output_sha256": "c538e3dfed74ac848e745580396cf7c991ad03734eeee7b387de747202d477b0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1cd96d93d77676d7e9ab63a4b4fc52866d5654d5bbbcf9a6e673d39c4e8a227.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1cd96d93d77676d7e9ab63a4b4fc52866d5654d5bbbcf9a6e673d39c4e8a227.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb0608e548c8e3b079f0948c53f8f9e7eb01830a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1cd96d93d77676d7e9ab63a4b4fc52866d5654d5bbbcf9a6e673d39c4e8a227.md
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-3 Filed 09/15/16 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+Case I.15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-3
+Filed 09/15/16
+
+IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
+SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
+IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY,
+FLORIDA
+CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072
+et al.,
+Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants,
+V.
+DERSHOWITZ,
+Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff.
+/
+AFFIDAVIT OF JUAN P. ALESSI
+REGARDING KNOWLEDGE OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
+A. Introduction
+1. My name is Juan P. Alessi. I make this declaration voluntarily and without
+compensation on personal knowledge concerning Alan Dershowitz and his visits at
+my former employer Jeffrey Epstein's home in Palm Beach, Florida.
+2. I worked for Mr. Epstein from January 1991 to December 2002 as a full-time
+employee performing maintenance services and then also became the manager for the
+home on 358 El Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Florida.
+3. Since Mr. Epstein was investigated and arrested, I have spoken with police,
+investigators, and attorneys concerning my time working for Mr. Epstein.
+4. On September 8, 2009, I gave a deposition in the case captioned Jane Doe No. 2 v.
+Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80119 in which I truthfully answered the questions
+posed by the attorneys. I also gave a sworn statement on November 21, 2005 to
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-3 Filed 09/15/16 Page 3 of 6
+Detective
+Recarey of the Palm Beach P.D. during their investigation of Mr.
+Epstein.
+5. I have reviewed the statements that
+and Paul Cassell attribute to me
+in their papers in the cases against the Government and against Mr. Dershowitz.
+Because I do not believe they accurately reflect the statements I previously made, I
+submit this affidavit to have my statements accurately reflected and made clear on the
+record.
+B. Summary of My Knowledge of Massages at Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach Home
+6. As I stated in my deposition, a massage was like a treat for all the guests at Mr.
+Epstein's home. Mr. Epstein usually received his massages in his private suite, but
+guests would also be given massages in their respective rooms or by the pool area.
+7. There were between fifty (50) to one hundred (100) masseuses - mostly women but
+also some men - who would come to give massages during this time. I provided
+names of masseuses in my deposition.
+8. As I stated in my deposition, I was unaware of any masseuses being under the age of
+18. I believed that the females' age ranged from overage to maybe mid-forties. As I
+stated in my deposition, I received as a gift a massage from a male masseuse at Mr.
+Epstein's home in Palm Beach.
+9. In my deposition, I was asked about cleaning up after massages. I stated that when I
+cleaned Mr. Epstein's bedroom suite, which included the bathroom of Ms. Maxwell,
+after massages, I would, on occasion, find vibrators and sex toys. I have specific
+recollection of finding these items in the sink of Ms. Maxwell's bathroom. I did not
+state or imply that vibrators or sex toys were found after massages in other rooms
+used by guests because that was not the case. Guests having massages did not have
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-3 Filed 09/15/16 Page 4 of 6
+massages in Mr. Epstein's private bedroom suite. This area was private and off-limits
+to guests, which I explained to the lawyers during my deposition. As I said in my
+deposition, massage tables were located in almost every room, including guest rooms
+and by the pool. I never found, and never heard anyone in the house finding, a
+vibrator or a sex toy in the same room where any guest, including Alan Dershowitz,
+had a massage.
+10. The following statement made byL
+attorneys in a filing on January
+21, 2015 is not accurate and is a misrepresentation of what I said in my deposition:
+"The private, upstairs room where Dershowitz got his "massages' was one that
+contained a lot of vibrators - Maxwell had 'a laundry basket ... full of those toys' in
+that room."
+C. Summary of My Interaction with Alan M. Dershowitz
+11. During the approximate thirteen years I worked for Mr. Epstein, I believe I saw Mr.
+Dershowitz visit Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home approximately four or five times a
+year. I recall driving him to the airport on multiple occasions.
+12. At the time, I understood that Mr. Dershowitz was a famous lawyer. His visits to the
+house would typically involve a group of intellectuals or business men in social, but
+professional type gatherings.
+13. I can recall that Mr. Dershowitz had a massage on at least one occasion during a visit
+to Mr. Epstein's home in Palm Beach (although I cannot recall that Mr. Dershowitz
+received a massage on more than one occasion). I do not recall Mr. Dershowitz being
+massaged by anyone who I thought was less than 18 years old. I have no reason to
+doubt Mr. Dershowitz's statement that this massage was done by a woman named
+Olga who was in her forties. In fact, I do remember a masseuse named Olga that
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-3 Filed 09/15/16 Page 5 of 6
+lived in Palm Beach, though I do not know her last name. As I have said, I never saw
+Mr. Dershowitz around young girls. I have also explained that there were masseuses,
+both male and female, that were in their mid-forties.
+14. I never saw Mr. Dershowitz do anything improper or be present while anyone else
+was being improper.
+15. Before asking me about Jeffrey Epstein speaking to celebrities at the house, the
+attorney for "Jane Doe 102" asked me about Jean Luc Brunel, Mark Epstein, Daniel
+Estes, Matt Groening, and Leslie Wexner. I then listed Senator Mitchell, Prince
+Andrew, Princess Sarah
+_. Miss Yugoslavia, Miss Germany, Alan
+Dershowitz, Princess Diana's secretary with her children, Mr. Trump, Mr. Robert
+Kennedy, Jr., Frederik Fekkai, and a couple Noble prize winners as celebrities that I
+had seen while working for Mr. Epstein. I also mentioned a reunion of Nobel prize
+winners that was held at the house, and that I met President Clinton at Mr. Epstein's
+plane the last month that I was working for Mr. Epstein.
+C. Summary of My Interaction with
+16. The first time I saw
+was at Mar-a-Lago where I believed she
+worked in the spa. I only recall seeing
+come to Mr. Epstein's house
+during the last year that I worked for Mr. Epstein. During this time, I believe she
+visited Mr. Epstein's home in Palm Beach two or three times a week.
+17. 1 never saw any photographs of
+shown a photo of|
+] in Mr. Epstein's house. I was
+during my deposition, and I recognized the woman
+in the photo as
+18. As I stated in my deposition, I am not sure whether
+house when Prince Andrew was there.
+came to the
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 435-3 Filed 09/15/16 Page 6 of 6
+19.1 was never asked by any attorneys if
+came to the house when Mr.
+Dershowitz was there. If I had been asked, I would have answered that I never saw
+at the house when Mr. Dershowitz was there.
+20. The following statement made by
+attorneys and their own attorney
+in a filing on December 4, 2015 is not accurate and is a misrepresentation of what I
+said in my deposition: "Alessi was able to identify a photograph of
+someone who was at the mansion as the same time as Dershowitz."
+as
+21. As far as I can recall, since I gave my deposition in 2009, I have never been asked by
+Brad
+or Paul Cassell about my knowledge regarding
+or
+Alan Dershowitz or about my 2009 deposition testimony.
+I understand that I am swearing or affirming under oath to the truthfulness of the
+claims made in this affidavit and that the punishment for knowingly making a false
+statement includes fines and/or imprisonment.
+Dated: January 13, 2016
+STATE OF _
+FLORIDA
+COUNTY OF PALM BEALH
+Sworn to or affirmed and signed before me on
+IANUAn
+JUAM PAIRICIO, who provided
+license.
+ALESSI
+Tie 5. Cl
+NOTARY PUBLIC or DEPUTY CLERK
+LIMPA S. COHEn
+[Print, type, or stamp commissioned name of
+notary or clerk.]
+2016
+his drinen's
+LINDA S. COHEN
+MY COMMESSION #F022305
+EXPRES: SEP 23, 2017
+Bonded Brough 1at Sale Inace
+5
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1cd96d93d77676d7e9ab63a4b4fc52866d5654d5bbbcf9a6e673d39c4e8a227.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1cd96d93d77676d7e9ab63a4b4fc52866d5654d5bbbcf9a6e673d39c4e8a227.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fd45db415bd561fa072ee9ee0a2266b5cd2c36b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1cd96d93d77676d7e9ab63a4b4fc52866d5654d5bbbcf9a6e673d39c4e8a227.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -92,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f1cd96d93d77676d7e9ab63a4b4fc52866d5654d5bbbcf9a6e673d39c4e8a227",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8ac272315a20a163ab9f05359684fbe497226f24ef89744cb7ea9b7b53378a55",
+  "output_sha256": "d47ba9fd2c65a8250ba53feff71a29a4f157fbd18b0c2217cfa723cd0dec10d9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1e244f8f9b160a39f0eb293507ba242ce091825bb864774f0f290b7459666ec.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1e244f8f9b160a39f0eb293507ba242ce091825bb864774f0f290b7459666ec.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ef965b93963493c0c35daa6c9f93de9915e58bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1e244f8f9b160a39f0eb293507ba242ce091825bb864774f0f290b7459666ec.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 645
+Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in Support of Defendant's Response
+in Opposition to Plaintiff
+Motion to Present Testimony from
+Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference
+1, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows:
+1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a
+member of the law firm Haddon,
+P.C., counsel of record for Defendant
+Ghislaine Maxwell in this action. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of
+Ms. Maxwell's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff
+Motion to Present Testimony from
+Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference.
+2. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 645 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 3
+3. Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of
+4. Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal)) is a true and correct copy of
+5. Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy |
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Executed on February 24, 2017.
+s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 645 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on February 24, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration of Laura A.
+Menninger in Support of Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintifi
+'s Motion to
+Present Testimony from Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an Adverse Inference via ECI
+on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Is/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1e244f8f9b160a39f0eb293507ba242ce091825bb864774f0f290b7459666ec.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1e244f8f9b160a39f0eb293507ba242ce091825bb864774f0f290b7459666ec.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e796c0a897ca195a3da46d4e4fe528babbcf5344
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1e244f8f9b160a39f0eb293507ba242ce091825bb864774f0f290b7459666ec.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f1e244f8f9b160a39f0eb293507ba242ce091825bb864774f0f290b7459666ec",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "45e9ef615e8c6283c2bdef030bef9f3b72dd8b9c1a3c7b09da71d8e9147f84eb",
+  "output_sha256": "f1788e36cbcb330d481585fa108b8cc0045983ec231e58dee7ddcce3d8345093",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1f3bf2996e84478b19c6dae380c67941c127664a2fdd85de16d62d66d842743.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1f3bf2996e84478b19c6dae380c67941c127664a2fdd85de16d62d66d842743.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9db3e05a31d7e85acb4b73e9a59b63b61b1030ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1f3bf2996e84478b19c6dae380c67941c127664a2fdd85de16d62d66d842743.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 144-1 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+REDACTED
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1f3bf2996e84478b19c6dae380c67941c127664a2fdd85de16d62d66d842743.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1f3bf2996e84478b19c6dae380c67941c127664a2fdd85de16d62d66d842743.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8ea7ee814b188da2e1af0a2af0505c58c08d339
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f1f3bf2996e84478b19c6dae380c67941c127664a2fdd85de16d62d66d842743.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f1f3bf2996e84478b19c6dae380c67941c127664a2fdd85de16d62d66d842743",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f78372b72a3888733fbc19d8ae9b75b56636b8956016d7d9b40b0a2972fb44bc",
+  "output_sha256": "ff0715e76e693a2b4b0a85e98acf39e9e57146911d1dbd02638e008ef4948f0e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20126126274e8e8448b0e40c1103dc5f4fe62841a9a7463560fba2dff1ea6e4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20126126274e8e8448b0e40c1103dc5f4fe62841a9a7463560fba2dff1ea6e4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f63c5d5d1196dff0eec2acdd6d0cb9688dad3536
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20126126274e8e8448b0e40c1103dc5f4fe62841a9a7463560fba2dff1ea6e4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 547 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 2
+LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+212-243-1100 • Main
+917-912-9698 • Cell
+888-587-4737 • Fax
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+bcsternheim@mac.com
+December 15, 2021
+Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Judge
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The government's limitation on Dr. Loftus's testimony is a desperate attempt to restrict relevant
+testimony. Accusers were asked suggestive questions during interviews and prep sessions with the
+government. We anticipate that Agent Young will be testifying about the form of questions asked
+during such interviews and prep sessions. A review of the 3500 material and Jane's testimony exemplify
+the type of questioning the government posited during their investigation.
+By way of example, during cross examination, Jane was asked about the government's repeated
+questioning regarding whether sexual abuse occurred in New Mexico, during two separate interviews
+and, during one of those interviews, three separate times. TR 512-516. Also, the government challenged
+Jane's recollection that she had seen The Lion |
+Lon Broadway during her first trip to New York at
+age 14, outright suggesting that she saw the movie instead. When Jane's counsel confirmed that she had
+seen the Broadway show, not the movie, AUSA Rossmiller told her lawyer that the government would
+just "assume" that The Lion
+trip was not her first trip to New York, even though that is what Jane
+had reported to them. TR. 503-511; see 3509-010. True to form, at her very next call with the
+government a few weeks later, she followed their lead and "remembered" that the Lion
+trip had not
+been her first trip to New York. See 3509-011.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 547 Filed 12/15/21 Page 2 of 2
+With regard to "response pressure," Professor Loftus may discuss the many different forms that
+suggestive processes can have on a witness's memory. Dr. Rocchio testified, e.g., about "parental
+factors" that have no foundation in the record of this case. She discussed "violence between parents,"
+"the extent that the parents themselves have experienced any form of abuse in their own backgrounds,"
+and the presence of a step-father in the home as all placing a child at a higher risk. TR. 732. She went
+on to discuss "family factors," including "families where there are other children in the home that are
+being abused or have been abused" being placed "at higher risk. " Id. The government's attempt to limit
+expert testimony in the fashion they suggest is directly contrary to the information they elicited from
+their own expert on direct examination.
+Professor Loftus' testimony on the effect of suggestive post-event information and "response
+pressure" is relevant and within her area of expertise. Suggestion can come from a variety of sources
+and there is no reason to restrict to expert testimony on the science of memory and factors that impact
+memory. The government puts forth no legal basis for its position and attempts to raise a baseless and
+untimely Daubert challenge. The government's extreme efforts to restrict Ms. Maxwell's right to put
+on a defense should not be countenanced by the Court.
+Very truly yours,
+Is/
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+cc: All counsel of record
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20126126274e8e8448b0e40c1103dc5f4fe62841a9a7463560fba2dff1ea6e4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20126126274e8e8448b0e40c1103dc5f4fe62841a9a7463560fba2dff1ea6e4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58c5b284e84cc57fa44b9e68accf0bd25331328f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20126126274e8e8448b0e40c1103dc5f4fe62841a9a7463560fba2dff1ea6e4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f20126126274e8e8448b0e40c1103dc5f4fe62841a9a7463560fba2dff1ea6e4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a60a685b8e10abed50f8d8b2540530815163b12a1b6f2877c0365df2f554ef6a",
+  "output_sha256": "73ce53c1571821afb5dad85eaf57f4f0d680439deaa0a47ecf6a7a90b6592f44",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20e9a8f8da3ec684780c0804cb7abf4bee0e794d0f8434bedc3b4e851da6a4a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20e9a8f8da3ec684780c0804cb7abf4bee0e794d0f8434bedc3b4e851da6a4a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d56738bb7f16a92d7c37cfd2fce2d2ee7da3c49c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20e9a8f8da3ec684780c0804cb7abf4bee0e794d0f8434bedc3b4e851da6a4a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 331 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF MEREDITH
+IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR LETTER ROGATORY
+I, Meredith L.
+declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+1.
+I am a associate with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's March 28, 2016
+Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Letter
+Rogatory.
+3.
+Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of June 12,
+2016 and June 14, 2016, Correspondence to Gow.
+4.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a Request for Service
+Abroad of Judicial or Extrajudicial Documents.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of July 1, 2016, London,
+Senior Courts of England and Wales Foreign Process Section, Transmitting Agency Reference:
+Acknowledgment of Receipt, Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000.
+Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 4 are true and correct copies of July 12,
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 331 Filed 08/03/16 Page 2 of 4
+2016 and July 13, 2016, Correspondence to and from Philip Barden.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Cesar Agusto's
+Affidavit.
+8.
+Correspondence from Philip Barden.
+9.
+Letter Rogatory.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of July 14, 2016,
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of August 2, 2016
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Meredith L.
+Meredith L.
+, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 331 Filed 08/03/16
+
+Dated: August 3, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+Jniversity of Utah
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 331 Filed 08/03/16 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3 day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jetfrey Pagluca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith L.
+Meredith L.
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20e9a8f8da3ec684780c0804cb7abf4bee0e794d0f8434bedc3b4e851da6a4a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20e9a8f8da3ec684780c0804cb7abf4bee0e794d0f8434bedc3b4e851da6a4a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd289d878823bfda38e3f7121403c15393489a6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f20e9a8f8da3ec684780c0804cb7abf4bee0e794d0f8434bedc3b4e851da6a4a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -59,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f20e9a8f8da3ec684780c0804cb7abf4bee0e794d0f8434bedc3b4e851da6a4a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4cd4bf14f7143fbf570f7f31230dc9adfba51e11153ed6966c8bb595c6647875",
+  "output_sha256": "8a12b6298fd515b9c7cd5d7764a372ec43774833cbb2c93a4ed6cb1645a99357",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f21b079400494924b982bb06a5cc6fec4df315b83dbc25cc2cb9448f8687c849.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f21b079400494924b982bb06a5cc6fec4df315b83dbc25cc2cb9448f8687c849.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c308623aaccbd6cbe9ba1bcd7c888e704fab327
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f21b079400494924b982bb06a5cc6fec4df315b83dbc25cc2cb9448f8687c849.md
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 745-2 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 745-2 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 3
+1
+H2G8GIUC
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+15 Cv. 7433 (RWS)
+Defendant.
+X
+February 16, 2017
+12:45 p.m.
+Before:
+HON. ROBERT W. SWEET
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+BY: SIGRID S. MCCAWLEY
+MEREDITH L. I
+PAUL G. CASSELL
+s.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
+HADDON •
+• AND •
+•. P.C.
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA
+LAURA A. MENNINGER
+TY GEE
+RANDAZZA LEGAL GROUP, PLIC
+Attorneys for Intervenor Cernovich Media
+BY: JAY M. WOLMAN
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
+(212) 805-0300
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 745-2 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 3
+41
+H2G8GIUC
+client when she was a minor. A plethora. We don't have to
+prove hundreds of allegations. All we have to prove is that my
+client was abused and trafficked by Maxwell. The statement
+comes out two days after the CVRA filing where my client says
+she was abused and trafficked by Maxwell, and that statement is
+released and calls her allegations, plural, untrue, obvious
+lies,
+etc.
+So let's just look at what we have. I am not going to
+repeat it because it's in your binder, but in there you will
+see -- and, also, because it's confidential right now -- you
+will see a number of witnesses who corroborate the story that
+they were similarly abused by both Maxwell and Epstein. You
+will see eyewitnesses at the time back in 2000 who defendant
+asked to assist in this process with. You will see the flight
+log showing over 23 flights when my client was a minor flying
+with Maxwell and Epstein. You are going to see a number of
+witnesses taking the Fifth when asked about Maxwell. You're
+going to see the house staff talking about how these things
+occurred, that there was evidence of sexual trafficking and
+abuse.
+More importantly, your Honor, you're going to see the
+hard copy documents. As my partner, David Boies, often says,
+the documents don't lie, and in this case they prove the case.
+It needs to go to the jury. You will see that there are
+pictures from early 2000. Nothing produced by Maxwell, mind
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
+(212) 805-0300
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f21b079400494924b982bb06a5cc6fec4df315b83dbc25cc2cb9448f8687c849.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f21b079400494924b982bb06a5cc6fec4df315b83dbc25cc2cb9448f8687c849.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a8c5aeb4e43c8568da198efb8d9e12b3ae385a2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f21b079400494924b982bb06a5cc6fec4df315b83dbc25cc2cb9448f8687c849.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f21b079400494924b982bb06a5cc6fec4df315b83dbc25cc2cb9448f8687c849",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3b7cd8b417033209e063947074f43e38a81e5fc7079942ab6838bc3405002729",
+  "output_sha256": "3448a56e366971ae62f75e151c15ab925ad18c74941c601170c9fc6c1f965614",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f23c3adba208f3f06ee780e4efb9f427715bdb87eff3593772f0111607a00aa5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f23c3adba208f3f06ee780e4efb9f427715bdb87eff3593772f0111607a00aa5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a165fb61df13ee8f8f9805071dbb3e3905744fe9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f23c3adba208f3f06ee780e4efb9f427715bdb87eff3593772f0111607a00aa5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 369-12 Filed 08/12/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f23c3adba208f3f06ee780e4efb9f427715bdb87eff3593772f0111607a00aa5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f23c3adba208f3f06ee780e4efb9f427715bdb87eff3593772f0111607a00aa5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98f5ee3e729e6d5e73b92e0e53dba5469d1f6f5f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f23c3adba208f3f06ee780e4efb9f427715bdb87eff3593772f0111607a00aa5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f23c3adba208f3f06ee780e4efb9f427715bdb87eff3593772f0111607a00aa5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5ada2ba0fe2ce7fdd931167fe4474dd0563f7fcad848393f15626d17e228557b",
+  "output_sha256": "bac530f0f12fa582133d49ae28f7571c33863e3f3aa6adb6bbcbf3b75cb19f85",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f259c9793cae3851885c88fbb4b6b208b542e745b77b5bee2cadc2c61d1f0bbb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f259c9793cae3851885c88fbb4b6b208b542e745b77b5bee2cadc2c61d1f0bbb.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..864848ed7d77d97d95295ce56213d271e91e6dcf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f259c9793cae3851885c88fbb4b6b208b542e745b77b5bee2cadc2c61d1f0bbb.md
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 249-9 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 5
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 249-9 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 5
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 249-9 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 5
+Sigrid McCawley
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Sigrid McCawley
+Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:56 AM
+'Reinhart, Bruce'
+RE: Service on S
+Hello Bruce,
+We received the Court's sealed Order yesterday and I informed you of it as soon as we received it. As you know, !
+provided you with a copy of the subpoena we were attempting to serve on your client, s
+Hi on May 23, which
+contained the requested deposition date of June 22, 2016. I was not trying to put you in a position where you would
+have to file an emergency motion and I am happy to agree to move the date and provide you with time to respond,
+however, I am presently still limited by the discovery deadline of July 1" unless the Court on Thursday provides for an
+extension to that deadline. I can agree to wait until Thursday to let you know what the Court rules with respect to our
+requested extension and I will inform the Court that you are on vacation from June 23" through July 4'' so f
+will not be available for deposition until thereafter. Defendant's counsel has opposed our requested extension of the
+discovery deadline so I cannot tell you what position they will take, but your client has a relationship with the Defendant
+so l assume she knows her position.
+I would hope that given your conflict with the dates remaining in June, the Court will allow us more time in early July to
+complete your client's deposition. I can agree not to proceed with the deposition tomorrow due to the time constraints,
+without prejudice to noticing another date in June if the Court fails to grant our requested extension on Thursday. We
+do not agree to proceed by written question.
+I disagree with the remaining representations in your e-mail below regarding your client's residence and business
+transactions in New York, that said, if the Court allows us additional time, we are happy to work with you on a
+convenient time and location for your client's deposition subject to the fact that I cannot control any objections
+Defendant may raise to a location other than New York.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From: Reinhart, Bruce [mailto:breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 10:13 AM
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Subject: RE: Service on
+Sigrid,
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 249-9 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 5
+i received your email last evening at 5:30 pm attaching a subpoena for my client to appear for
+deposition in Manhattan tomorrow morning at 9:00.
+First, as my client does not reside within 100 miles of Manhattan, is not employed within 100 miles of
+Manhattan, nor regularly transacts business within 100 miles of Manhattan, the deposition is not
+properly venued there. As we previously discussed, the proper venue for any deposition of my client
+is the Southern District of Florida. Second, putting the improper venue aside, 39.5 hours notice is not
+"a reasonable time to comply" as required by Rule 45(d) (3)(A)i).
+I understand that you have a discovery cut-off date looming and that there is a motion pending to
+extend that date. I also understand from the docket sheet that Mr. Epstein has raised certain legal
+objections that might apply to my client and therefore could affect the timing and scope of my client's
+deposition. I have a pre-planned, pre-paid family vacation in California from June 23 through July
+4. Assuming that the Court's rulings allow my client's deposition to proceed, I am happy to work with
+you to find a mutually convenient date shortly after I return from my vacation.
+As I previously informed you, my client will invoke her 5'h amendment privilege as to all substantive
+questions, as she did in her prior deposition in the Florida litigation. To accommodate everyone's
+interests, and to avoid the inconvenience and expense of having to retain local counsel in New York
+and filing an emergency motion to quash today, I renew my proposal that you depose my client using
+written questions. If you are not amenable to that proposal, please let me know if you and counsel for
+Ms. Maxwell realistically intend to proceed with the deposition tomorrow. If it's not really happening,
+I'd prefer to avoid a last-minute rush today.
+Bruce E. Reinhart
+Member
+McDonald
+Hopkins
+A business odvisory and advococy law firm?
+Business Advocate
+T: 561-472-2970
+reinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.con
+www.mcdonaldhopkins.cor
+McDonald
+$ LLC
+Flagler Center Tower
+505 South Flagler Drive
+Suite 300
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+Chicago • Cleveland • Columbus • Detroit • Miami • West Palm Beach
+From: Sigrid McCawley [mailto:Smccawley@BSFLLP.com]
+Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 5:32 PM
+To: Reinhart, Bruce
+Subject: FW: Service on
+Hello Bruce - we just received a sealed order from Judge Sweet today granting our motion for alternative service on
+The Court has labelled the Order confidential until the parties confer regarding which sections can be
+unsealed. I will be conferring with Ms. Menninger, Maxwell's counsel to unseal the portion relating to the Court's ruling
+as to
+and will get that paragraph of the order to you as soon as she agrees to release it.
+In the interim, as
+subpoena is now effective and her date for deposition per the subpoena is scheduled for
+, I am writing to confer with you regarding whether you and
+Lare available on June 22°° for a
+deposition or whether you can provide me for alternative dates when you and your client are available so that I can
+provide those alternate dates to opposing counsel and we can set a date that is agreeable. Presently the Court has set
+the discovery close for July 1' so if June 22"° does not work I would appreciate dates prior to July 1". We have filed a
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 249-9 Filed 06/22/16 Page 5 of 5
+motion for additional time to complete discovery however, Maxwell's counsel has opposed that motion and the issue
+will be heard by the Court this Thursday. If the Court grants us additional time, I would appreciate you also providing
+dates in early July when you and your client are available for a deposition.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:37 AM
+To: breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com
+Cc: Meredith
+Subject: Service on
+Dear Bruce,
+As you are aware we initially reached out to you back on March 31, 2016 to inquire as to whether you would accept
+service on your client,
+|||| | Vicker's behalf. You did not agree to accept service so we proceeded with
+numerous service attempts on
+. I am attaching above the latest subpoena that we have been
+attempting service of. Please confirm whether you will accept service of this subpoena on behalf of T
+or whether we will be required to seek court intervention for alternative service. As I mentioned previously, if
+you accept service, we can work with you and your client on a the date and location of the deposition to make it
+convenient for the parties.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+The information contained in this electronic measage is confidential intonation intended only for the use of the named racipients) and may contain information
+that, among other prescions, is the sutect of atiomey-client privilege, Homey work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable lav. If the mader of this
+electronic message is not the nomed rocipient, or the employce or agent responsiblo to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any
+dissemination, distribution, copylng or other use ofthis communicatian is strictly probibited and no privilege is walved. I'you have roceived this communication in
+orror, please immediately nolfy the sender by raplying to this elecironic inessage and then doleting this cloctronic message from your computer. (v.1]
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f259c9793cae3851885c88fbb4b6b208b542e745b77b5bee2cadc2c61d1f0bbb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f259c9793cae3851885c88fbb4b6b208b542e745b77b5bee2cadc2c61d1f0bbb.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1edaa6dd7d4de89d03c6eef23d06b39cc8b8e99a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f259c9793cae3851885c88fbb4b6b208b542e745b77b5bee2cadc2c61d1f0bbb.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -78,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f259c9793cae3851885c88fbb4b6b208b542e745b77b5bee2cadc2c61d1f0bbb",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2548cc9936dbd579cfc4be0d43549bb3a26122501c0fe1ffd0d7e2b9abebdeda",
+  "output_sha256": "1649f1617ccd8ee4b09c097670d641f7fb91a5f66fc1c033be26bbe7e4fe4841",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f281158328eeaf37130e623fc78f6e892db25c4b0e93fd14c65854f196b13eca.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f281158328eeaf37130e623fc78f6e892db25c4b0e93fd14c65854f196b13eca.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc44ec8084a86b4a3e90f9ed0485e54e6560b348
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f281158328eeaf37130e623fc78f6e892db25c4b0e93fd14c65854f196b13eca.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF.
+Document 51 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 1
+Florida Office
+*0+
+Seth M. Lehrman *+
+Brittany N.
+Matthew D. Weissing **
+*0
+POTTINGER LLC
+425 North Andrews Avenue
+Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
+Telephone (954)524-2820
+Fax (954)524-2822
+New York Office
+J. Stanley Pottinger ‡
+† Admitted in Califomia
+° Admitted in District of Columbia
+* Admitted in Florida
+‡ Admitted in New York
+* Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer
+January 10, 2020
+FILED VIA ECE
+Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman
+Daniel
+Moynihan
+United States Courthouse
+500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+VE v. Nine East 7ls/Street et al., No. 19-cv-07625 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.)
+Katlyn Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-07771 (S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.)
+Pricilla Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al.., No. 19-cv-07772 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.)
+Lisa Doe v. Darren K. Indyke et al., No. 19-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.)
+Anastasia Doe v. Darren K. Indyke, et al., No. 19-cv-11869 (S.D.N.Y.) (Nathan, J.)
+Dear Judge Freeman:
+We represent the five Plaintiffs referenced above whose cases have all been assigned to Your Honor. While
+we agree with Defendants' assertion that our discussions with the designers and administrator of the Epstein
+Victims' Compensation Program have been positive and productive, in our view, it remains important to
+every aspect of the process that our cases are not stayed and that they proceed accordingly.
+As we explained during the Case Management Conference that was held on November 21, 2019, our clients
+have varying views of the process, and while each will maintain an open mind about potential alternative
+resolution, those who have filed lawsuits do not wish to delay the expeditious litigation of their claims.
+plan by February 6, 2020.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+die
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+954.524.2820 office
+954.524.2822 fax
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f281158328eeaf37130e623fc78f6e892db25c4b0e93fd14c65854f196b13eca.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f281158328eeaf37130e623fc78f6e892db25c4b0e93fd14c65854f196b13eca.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7e5c832da44741d67ce9bf795dbfc1cfffa9f900
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f281158328eeaf37130e623fc78f6e892db25c4b0e93fd14c65854f196b13eca.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f281158328eeaf37130e623fc78f6e892db25c4b0e93fd14c65854f196b13eca",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e2766e8f87497b1baf8df377eb76920df9cca224717bd46eb2c68a39978ca8c9",
+  "output_sha256": "069ba123a078d28522ff69780157b93c2b5e4f2407f9d589e1baa3708fae91ed",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f289eafcd7a3629d8912533dfd36c388efd1c672d04ac4c0dd77188424eb4f84.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f289eafcd7a3629d8912533dfd36c388efd1c672d04ac4c0dd77188424eb4f84.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7477bf0df83824278b3e06a02a283d3160c57cbc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f289eafcd7a3629d8912533dfd36c388efd1c672d04ac4c0dd77188424eb4f84.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 377
+Filed 10/27/21 Page 1 of 1
+HADDON
+N
+N
+Haddon,
+and
+P.C
+Jeffrey Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver. Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+www.hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+October 27, 2021
+VIA ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+Attached is Ms. Maxwell's motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412. Subsection
+(2)(c) of the Rule requires this motion to be sealed unless this Court orders otherwise.
+Accordingly, unless instructed by the Court, Ms. Maxwell will not file this motion on the public
+docket.
+The Rule also requires Ms. Maxwell to notify the alleged victims whose behavior is at
+issue in the motion. Accordingly, unless otherwise directed, we will serve a redacted copy of this
+motion tailored to each alleged victim addressed in the motion on their counsel of record and
+provide proof of service to the Court when it is accomplished.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+CC: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f289eafcd7a3629d8912533dfd36c388efd1c672d04ac4c0dd77188424eb4f84.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f289eafcd7a3629d8912533dfd36c388efd1c672d04ac4c0dd77188424eb4f84.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..004f432048d8ae7565c6d361ca100112499af95e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f289eafcd7a3629d8912533dfd36c388efd1c672d04ac4c0dd77188424eb4f84.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f289eafcd7a3629d8912533dfd36c388efd1c672d04ac4c0dd77188424eb4f84",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9aecc421b2da8037830a15a65fef94cbff98c84e4bf42ce3eb77a39edca27282",
+  "output_sha256": "bd6b120174f5db8a4a94a9c237c227c47c09fe4cc662b36df273b4df0c75d8d7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f293a85a6d671d71cfe7eea8d1723fc3d3a9f1381093acbf2626836ca60c7557.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f293a85a6d671d71cfe7eea8d1723fc3d3a9f1381093acbf2626836ca60c7557.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..98d5e2ebc05d12d851ca98aab262e3f8ed19c1a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f293a85a6d671d71cfe7eea8d1723fc3d3a9f1381093acbf2626836ca60c7557.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453-4 Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f293a85a6d671d71cfe7eea8d1723fc3d3a9f1381093acbf2626836ca60c7557.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f293a85a6d671d71cfe7eea8d1723fc3d3a9f1381093acbf2626836ca60c7557.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61fc2234b4f02d1dd5223fa67165b2facda784f6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f293a85a6d671d71cfe7eea8d1723fc3d3a9f1381093acbf2626836ca60c7557.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f293a85a6d671d71cfe7eea8d1723fc3d3a9f1381093acbf2626836ca60c7557",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "294689a4c2e4d52a0a16fe63f778942782f2ffb7c349d5c639a2df8f3acf01dc",
+  "output_sha256": "063d7dba063777a634471969d77f6c7d435b6077254bf2ebce5880fe61af9bd3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29546fb558af4f84115753efcc8bfbe44fa32822f2c6eefdfe5b8906012feab.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29546fb558af4f84115753efcc8bfbe44fa32822f2c6eefdfe5b8906012feab.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..01ab8b3d05a0eb801484425274b961000da852c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29546fb558af4f84115753efcc8bfbe44fa32822f2c6eefdfe5b8906012feab.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1326 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 24
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+LB1TMAXI
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 24
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- X
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+20 CR 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+• x
+New York, N.I.
+November 1, 2021
+11:05 a.m.
+Before:
+HON. ALISON J. NATHAN,
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+ALISON MOE
+MAURENE COMEY
+ANDREW ROHRBACH
+LARA POMERANTZ
+Assistant United States Attorney
+& GRESSER
+Attorneys for Defendant
+CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
+HADDON |
+Attorneys for Defendant
+JEFFREY PAGLIUCA
+LAURA MENNINGER
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+Attorney for Defendant
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+LB1TMAXI
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 24
+15
+to rehabilitate a witness attacked on another ground. It's
+801 (d) (1) (B) (ii).
+For example, the statement could be admitted
+to explain what would otherwise appear to be an inconsistency
+in the witness's statement and rebut a charge of faulty memory.
+United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, (2d Cir. 2020).
+If it becomes relevant, the government may offer prior
+statements before the witness testifies if the defense attacks
+the credibility in opening statements and it's clear that the
+witness will be subject to cross-examination. United States v.
+Flores, 945 F.3d 687, (2d Cir. 2019). That's restating the
+applicable law here that the parties appear to agree to in the
+briefs. The government doesn't anticipate any such effort to
+offer such statements at this time and won't mention any in
+opening beyond that.
+Is there anything specific to flag or discuss here,
+from the government's perspective?
+MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you.
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim?
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, Laura Menninger. None for
+the defense at this time. Thank you.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+The government's 3 and 4, which I'm going to group,
+the government seeks to preclude evidence and arguments by the
+defense, (1) about the investigation in Florida, including the
+non-prosecution agreement, (2) that Ms. Maxwell was not charged
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+LB1TMAXI
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 24
+16
+by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of
+Florida, (3) about the scope and timeline of investigation in
+New York, and (4) other evidence that demonstrates the
+government's motives for investigating Ms. Maxwell.
+The Court's analysis here is guided by four principles
+set by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court.
+First, because the government has no duty to employ,
+in the course of a single investigation, any particular
+investigative technique, the failure to utilize some particular
+technique does not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty
+of the crime of which he's been charged and is therefore
+irrelevant. United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, (2d
+Cir. 2000). That's the first legal principle that frames the
+discussion here.
+Second, arguments that the government had an improper
+motive generally must be directed to the Court rather than the
+jury. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, (2d Cir. 1997);
+see also, United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.
+2011).
+Third legal principle: There is no per se bar on
+admitting evidence of the government's charging decisions.
+Rather, the Court must -- I will quote here -- "inquire into
+its relevance and probative value to the respective case."
+United States V.
+1, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012); see also,
+United States v. Ngono, 801 F.App'x. 19 (2d Cir. 2020).
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+LB1TMAX1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 24
+17
+Fourth, the confrontation clause of the Sixth
+Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to
+meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses at trial.
+United States v.
+• 548 F.3d 222, (2d Cir. 2008).
+Indeed, cross-examination is the principal means by which the
+believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are
+tested.
+v. Alaska, 415 U.s. 308, 316, (1974).
+With this legal framework in mind, and in light of the
+parties' extensive briefing on these issues, I think the
+admissibility of some of the proposed evidence can be
+determined now, but the admissibility of other evidence will
+require additional facts and the context of trial to decide,
+but I think it's important for me to give guidance.
+Based on the papers before me, I provide the following
+guidance: First, the Court will preclude affirmative evidence
+by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the
+investigation. Although evidence that goes to the thoroughness
+of the government's investigation can in some cases be relevant
+and may in some cases be admissible, it's not relevant or
+admissible if not probative of the defendant's guilt of the
+crimes charged.
+In its briefing, the defense relies heavily on Kyles
+v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 4 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held
+that an informant's statements to police were material for
+purposes of Brady disclosures because the statements could be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+LB1TMAXI
+Document 549-1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 24
+18
+used to "attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the
+investigation."
+That holding has only limited relevance here. First,
+the statement at issue in Kyles was probative because it
+suggested the defendant's innocence, not because it was
+evidence of the reasons for the charging decision or the
+investigation's timeline.
+Second, the Second Circuit in
+V.
+narrowly construed the holding in Kyles by clarifying that it
+"addresses only the prosecution's obligations to disclose Brady
+material" and "provides no guidance about what evidence must be
+admitted at trial or what lines of questioning must be
+permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine
+adverse witnesses."
+V.
+,, 640 F.3d 501, 512, n. 11
+(2d Cir. 2011).
+Now the Second Circuit's decision in
+does,
+however, suggest that some arguments about the thoroughness of
+the investigation are probative of guilt in some circumstances.
+In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that the
+defendant was innocent because another individual shot the
+victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of
+the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative
+because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had
+prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it
+failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+LB1TMAXI
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 7 of 24
+19
+the other individual.
+1, 640 F.3d, 511-12.
+Other courts in this Circuit have described challenges
+to the thoroughness of the investigation as a "common method of
+undermining a prosecution" by, for example, cross-examining
+officers on which leads they followed and which they did not.
+See, for example, Gray v. Ercole -- I don't have that full
+quote -- 2011 WL 5082868 (E.D.N.Y 2008). Or defense counsel
+may, on cross, examine investigating officers if they
+considered alternative suspects. United States v. Birbal, 92
+CR 98, 1996 WL 192924 at *7, that's the District of the
+Vermont, 1996. That was affirmed by the Second Circuit at 113
+F.3d 1230. And I will quote here, "The length of the
+investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact
+that the defendant was not initially a target of the
+investigation are all irrelevant pursuant to" the principle
+that the government's failure to use particular investigative
+techniques does not tend to show that the defendant is not
+guilty. See, for example, United States v. Duncan, No. 18 CR
+289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); see also, United States
+V. Aleynikov, 785 F.Supp.2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .
+The other two cases the defense cites, neither of
+which is binding on the Court, don't suggest anything different
+than the law I just referred to. In Bowen v. Maynard, the 10th
+Circuit held that Brady evidence in the government's possession
+was material because it suggested that another likely suspect
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+LB1TMAXI
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 8 of 24
+20
+did not have an alibi and suggested that a photo lineup was
+unduly suggestive. 799 F.2d 593, (10th Cir. 1986). The court
+stated that, if disclosed, "the defense could have
+cross-examined the detectives about their decision to use the
+photographs" that they did as well about their failure to
+corroborate the other suspect's alibi.
+And the defense cites another Brady violation in
+Lindsey v.
+where the Fifth Circuit found that a police
+report was material under Brady because it showed key witnesses
+to a murder had changed their story, which on cross-examination
+would have meant the destruction of the witness's
+identification and the discrediting in some degree of the
+police methods employed in assembling the case against the
+defendant. Lindsey v.
+1, 769 F.2d 1034, (5th Cir. 1985).
+These two examples of focused cross-examination to
+impeach a witness that testified to the defendant's guilt and
+thereby throw the product of the government's investigation
+into doubt are far afield from the specifics of what the
+defense proposed here. In its brief, the defense seeks to
+affirmatively -- and I will quote from their brief -- "call FBI
+case agents as witnesses" to ask who they talked to, what
+documents they subpoenaed, and when. See, defense's response
+at 40. But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga, the
+government's use or non-use of certain investigative techniques
+does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of the charges.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+LB1TMAXI
+Document 549-1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 24
+21
+The defense also seeks to elicit evidence of the
+public outcry and scrutiny that preceded the decision to charge
+the defendant. The defense refers to public statements made by
+assistant United States attorneys -- not those appearing in the
+case -- to suggest that Ms. Maxwell was charged for improper
+reasons.
+The Court finds that this specific proffered evidence
+is irrelevant to the charged conduct and, therefore,
+inadmissible.
+To the extent that the defense's affirmative evidence
+in this regard would have some marginal probative value, it is
+substantially outweighed by 403 prejudice. See, for example,
+United States v.
+• 12 CR 214, 2014 WL 198813 (E.D.N.Y.
+2014), affirmed by the Second Circuit, 658 Fed. Appx. 600.
+Here's the reason for that 403 analysis:
+First, investigative details are likely to confuse the
+jury about the proper standard for determining Ms. Maxwell's
+guilt by suggesting that the government's choices of
+investigative techniques are relevant to whether guilt is
+proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I will instruct
+jurors, as is standard, to the effect that the government is
+not on trial. And that standard charge can be found in many
+cases. Admitting testimony on the investigation would confuse
+the jury once it's received that instruction.
+Second, these lines of argument are likely to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 24
+22
+LB1TMAXI
+substantially confuse and delay the trial. The evidence
+outlined
+in the defense's papers,
+including who was interviewed
+and when, what documents were subpoenaed and other details of
+investigations in two different states and different time
+periods would substantially expand the scope of the trial.
+Exactly what steps investigators took is not a simple question,
+of course.
+The government would likely present a contrary
+account of events, leading to trials within trials on what law
+enforcement did over the course of years. This prejudice would
+substantially outweigh any minimum probative value that might
+be gained from such a far-flung endeavor.
+Third, as to prejudice, the evidence would be
+cumulative, demonstrating that an investigation was "hasty" and
+not thorough is at best repetitive of the defense's arguments
+that the government collected insufficient evidence of guilt.
+That point is made most clearly and directly by focusing on the
+evidence or lack of evidence and credibility or lack of
+credibility of the witnesses presented at trial.
+The second piece of guidance I can provide now is that
+the Court will exclude much of the evidence outlined in the
+defense's papers of the government's alleged motives for
+investigating and charging Ms. Maxwell. This evidence includes
+but is not limited to the Miami Herald article, statements from
+Attorney General William Barr and the like.
+The evidence presented by the government in this trial
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 11 of 24
+23
+LB1TMAXI
+is the relevant basis for the jury's determination of guilt or
+innocence.
+Why and when the government conducted the
+investigation is not relevant. If the defense believes the
+government has a legally improper motive for prosecuting
+Ms. Maxwell or somehow fabricating evidence or suborning
+perjury or the like, the Second Circuit has made clear that the
+proper
+remedy is to file a motion for the Court to consider.
+See, Regan, 103 F.3d 1082. Absent that, the law is clear that
+for purposes of the jury, "the government is not on trial."
+United States v. Knox, 687 F.App'x 51, (2d Cir. 2017).
+Moreover, evidence of motive would be highly
+prejudicial. For the reasons I explained a moment ago, it
+would confuse jurors as to the proper standard of guilt to be
+applied in the case. Indeed, the defense's outlined evidence
+of improper motives is strongly suggestive of jury
+nullification because it suggests a vindictive or political
+prosecution which is rightly a matter reserved to the Court.
+Calling witnesses to testify to the government's
+motive would substantially expand the scope of trial, rely
+likely on hearsay and other inadmissible evidence. So what
+motivated a particular investigative step or charging decision
+of course doesn't have a black or
+answer, and the defense
+would have one story and the government another, neither of
+which would assist of the jury in deciding Ms. Maxwell's guilt
+or innocence of the charges here based on of the government's
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 24
+24
+LB1TMAXI
+ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
+Third piece of guidance: The Court will exclude from
+evidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and
+its particular terms. The defense argues the NPA is relevant
+to the bias and financial interest of two witnesses. One
+anticipated witness received immunity from criminal prosecution
+under the NPA. Additionally, under the NPA, Epstein agreed to
+pay for a lawyer for an alleged victim who was anticipated to
+testify and agreed not to contest her civil suit against him.
+The civil suit ended in a settlement with respect to an alleged
+victim.
+Of course, defendants are always able to cross-examine
+witnesses about relevant bias. For example, cross-examination
+about civil litigation or civil claims against Epstein or
+others and related financial incentive are fair grounds.
+Moreover, cooperating witnesses are commonly cross-examined
+about how testimony may affect the sentence that they receive.
+And if it were the case that any witness were to receive
+testimonial immunity in this case, the defense may
+cross-examine about that. But the defense has not explained
+any bias or incentive to fabricate that results from or relates
+to the NPA. Regardless of how the witness covered by the NPA
+might testify, that witness will remain protected under the NPA
+in the Southern District of Florida, and as I already ruled,
+the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 13 of 24
+LB1TMAXI
+New York.
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Similarly, no matter how a witness who has a
+settlement or financial incentive testifies, those benefits are
+not received under the NPA, so I don't see any theory of bias
+that would be relevant that the defense has articulated with
+respect to the NPA.
+Moreover, even if there were some relevance, it would
+be substantially outweighed by a significant risk of 403
+prejudice from introducing the NPA. The jury would need to be
+instructed on what the non-prosecution agreement is, and would
+need to have its terms explained. In particular, NPA, of
+course, is controversial and complicated and has a complicated
+background. There's a risk of undue delay, juror confusion,
+and improper suggestions of sympathy or nullification made to
+the jury on the basis of the NPA.
+I will be clear, it's not clear to me the NPA could
+never be admitted, but the rationale now provided by the
+defense in its papers does not justify admission based on the
+balancing of 401 and 403 factors.
+Fourth guidance: The government's charging decisions
+are likely not relevant and therefore inadmissible. The
+government didn't indict Ms. Maxwell by the end of the Florida
+investigation, and the government didn't indict Ms. Maxwell
+when it indicted Jeffrey Epstein originally in New York. As
+the Second Circuit stated in
+1, charging decisions can be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 24
+26
+LB1TMAXI
+admissible under the usual rules of relevance. In
+., the
+court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible
+because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that
+testified at the defendant's trial.
+As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale
+doesn't apply here.
+For example, according to the defense, an
+alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not
+implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today
+does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and
+assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of
+reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided
+to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision
+could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the
+government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt,
+but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number
+of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little
+probative value that the Court can see as to this case.
+Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of
+reasons. Irying to sort through those reasons would be
+prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require
+significant time to explore and because juror confusion would
+be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions
+would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible
+evidence. More importantly, unlike in
+those officials'
+assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 24
+27
+LB1TMAXI
+to the jury's decision now, which is whether there is evidence
+of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the
+government will put its case to the jury.
+Now there is a difference between admitting a witness'
+prior statements for impeachment purposes, which is protected
+by the confrontation clause, and admitting prior charging
+decisions.
+In a case analogous to this one on this issue,
+United States v. Borrero, another district court judge held
+that a defendant could permissibly cross-examine a witness
+about their prior statement to law enforcement in which they
+accused a different individual of the crime for which the
+defendant was later charged. 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
+That case docket is 13 CR 58. But the court there did not
+admit the charging decision that the early investigation had
+ended in a nolle, because it would confuse jurors, require
+extended factual disputes, and was, at best, cumulative of the
+witness's statement. As I have explained, the same would
+appear to be true here.
+Fifth piece of guidance: In contrast to what I
+indicated may not come in, the Court will permit relevant
+cross-examination of the government's witnesses. Defense seeks
+to impeach the credibility of some witnesses by admitting those
+witnesses' prior statements to the government that purportedly
+did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. This use of cross-examination
+to impeach a witness that has allegedly changed her story to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 16 of 24
+28
+LB1TMAXI
+law enforcement is exactly the kind of attack on the
+thoroughness of the government's investigation that the Fifth
+Circuit approved in Lindsey v.
+Provided that the rules
+for admitting prior inconsistent statements are satisfied, the
+Court concludes that this line of evidence is relevant and
+admissible.
+The defense may also cross-examine about witnesses'
+motives or biases for testifying, including, for example, the
+witnesses' motives for implicating Ms. Maxwell after Jeffrey
+Epstein's death. Admitting prior statements on
+cross-examination may require providing the jury some
+background information about the prior investigations so that
+the prior statements are understood in the proper context and
+the jury is provided necessary background to understand that
+evidence.
+(Continued on next page)
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LB15MAX2
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 17 of 24
+29
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: (Continuing)
+I imagine this can be done through cross-examination
+questions if the witness has personal knowledge. I would also
+encourage the parties to discuss stipulations in this regard to
+provide the jury any necessary and non-prejudicial context or
+background, or other proposals for permitting the jury to
+understand the background or context without crossing over into
+the 403 prejudice line.
+I also would permit the defense to cross-examine law
+enforcement officers about the investigative steps that were
+taken if the government puts the thoroughness of the
+investigation into issue as this, too, would be permissible
+impeachment and cross.
+These articulated lines of cross-examination of
+government witnesses would be relevant to impeach a witness by
+suggesting bias or otherwise implicating their credibility.
+Moreover, denying Ms. Maxwell these lines of questioning would
+have implications under the confrontation clause. The Court
+expects that the probative value would not be substantially
+outweighed by 403 prejudice if done along the lines of what I
+have indicated, especially if accompanied by a limiting
+instruction by the Court that, for example, prior inconsistent
+statements are to be considered for their impeachment value and
+the like.
+Similarly, the Court may instruct the jury that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 18 of 24
+LB15MAX2
+30
+counsel made only a good faith -- actually, I will retract that
+last sentence.
+At base, the Court encourages the parties to confer on
+appropriate process for putting background information in front
+of the jury, as necessary, to allow the kinds of
+cross-examination that would be permissible and required under
+the relevant law.
+Let me pause and ask counsel if they have any
+questions with respect to the guidance I have offered at this
+time. Obviously there may be issues we will need to take up as
+we go.
+Ms. Moe? i
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank
+you.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, Christian Everdell.
+Not at this time, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+No. 6, evidence that goes to consent issues.
+The government requests to exclude evidence or
+argument regarding consent. Now let me ask counsel, it seems
+to me the issues implicated in this motion overlap, at least
+potentially, to the issues raised and to be discussed in the
+412 motion and I am wondering if we should at least begin by
+taking it up at that time, as necessary.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government agrees that makes
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 19 of 24
+31
+LB15MAX2
+sense to address this issue at the same time.
+MS. STERNHEIM: We agree.
+THE COURT: So we will defer on that. In light of the
+overlap on the 412 issues we will take that up at the 412
+hearing.
+Government's 7. The government argues that before
+offering evidence or argument of Ms. Maxwell's failure to
+commit other bad acts it should require the defense to proffer
+the basis and the relevance of such evidence. Let me hear from
+the government what the specific concern is here and then I
+will speak to the defense.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+The concern here is what the defense has flagged in
+its opening papers relating to statements by other victims who
+were interviewed during the course of the government's
+investigation. Evidence along those lines, if proffered in an
+opening statement, or if asked about in cross-examination of a
+law enforcement officer, would be inappropriate and hearsay.
+Such evidence could only come in at trial, if at all, if the
+defense called, as defense witnesses, victims who were not at
+issue in this case. And so, for that reason, your Honor, the
+defense should be precluded from opening on this issue unless
+and until they proffer which victims these statements would
+come through, who they would anticipate calling as defense
+witnesses at trial so the Court can assess whether that is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 20 of 24
+32
+LB15MAX2
+relevant at all.
+As the government set forth in its moving papers, the
+defendant is not charged with trafficking certain victims and
+so whether or not the defendant is guilty of those crimes is
+irrelevant before this jury.
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, any mention on opening with
+respect to this line of --
+We will ask everyone please make sure your masks are
+on -- counsel, fully on -- unless you are at the podium.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I just want to say that we are
+honoring your one counsel rule but we have designated various
+topics.
+THE COURT: Appreciate it.
+MS. STERNHEIM: So if you will allow us?
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I don't believe that we
+will be opening on these issues but I think the government is
+understating what is charged in the indictment. They have put
+forth an indictment that does not just allege the four main
+accusers, rather they have set forth a conspiracy that they
+claim involves a number of other unnamed individuals, and I
+believe they have proffered an intent to put other evidence
+about unnamed individuals in their exhibits, in their trial
+testimony. For example, there are a number of exhibits that
+they've set forth that come from a time period outside of the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LB15MAX2
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 21 of 24
+33
+conspiracy and so forth. So it is our position that if they
+open
+the door to evidence about anyone other than these four
+then we would, likewise, be able to talk about the fact that
+those other individuals were interviewed by the government and
+said that Ms. Maxwell is not involved, was not there, and was
+not a part of the activities that they're talking about. None
+of the cases that the government cited had to do with a
+co-conspirator. The evidence was just because a defendant did
+not act in conformity with the charged conduct on a separate
+occasion, couldn't be set forth by the defense.
+THE COURT: Do you agree with that principle?
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. If it is good
+character evidence, generally I understand the rules of
+evidence wouldn't apply, but what we have here is a 10-year
+charged conspiracy with an intent by the government to allude
+to other individuals. To the extent they try to put on
+evidence in the form of message pads or other types of evidence
+that refer to other people, then I think we have the ability to
+confront that evidence with the fact that Ms. Maxwell was
+reported by those individuals not to have been involved.
+THE COURT: Ms. Moe?
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+The government agrees that this issue can be deferred
+until trial unless and until this becomes an issue, provided
+the defense counsel doesn't intend to open on this issue.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 549-1
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 22 of 24
+34
+LB15MAX2
+However, even if this became an issue at the trial, the remedy
+would be to permit the defense to call these relevant witnesses
+to talk about whether the defendant was or was not involved in
+their sex trafficking. The remedy would not be to permit
+defense from cross-examining law enforcement agents about
+hearsay statements that other individuals provided to them. It
+would be extremely confusing for the jury to be hearing,
+through law enforcement agents, the statements of these
+individuals to assess whether or not those individuals
+implicated the defendant or simply said nothing about the
+defendant. And so, the government submits that the only way
+that this could come in at trial would be if the defense called
+those witnesses themselves and, of course, it is difficult to
+determine the potential relevance, if any, of testimony along
+those lines, and so the government respectfully submits that
+none of this should be offered at trial unless and until there
+is an offer of proof along those lines.
+THE COURT: Ms. Menninger?
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, whether someone said no
+one else involved or didn't implicate our client is not
+hearsay, it is the absence of a statement. So I don't
+understand the government's position that if an investigator --
+THE COURT: It is not the absence of the statement,
+right? If you are trying to put in an out-of-court statement
+from someone who said that Ms. Maxwell wasn't involved, it is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 23 of 24
+35
+LB15MAX2
+an out-of-court statement you are putting on for the truth, it
+is hearsay.
+MS. MENNINGER: Slightly different, your Honor.
+If a witness says they interviewed -- if a law
+enforcement says they interviewed another accuser and that
+accuser never said that Ms. Maxwell was involved, that's not a
+hearsay statement. They just didn't mention her, it is the
+absence of a statement. And as your Honor just ruled in terms
+of the thoroughness of the investigation, if there is evidence
+that the government puts on about these other accusers I think
+that's what opens the door. It is not us opening the door, it
+would be them submitting evidence that other people were
+victims without putting those people on, putting on message
+pads that had their names on it, and then precluding us from
+introducing evidence that none of those individuals implicated
+Ms. Maxwell.
+THE COURT: Right. So, if the government does that
+you are not precluded from putting other evidence on. The
+question is what evidence would it be and would it be
+admissible under the relevant rules of evidence. I am not sure
+I can resolve that in the abstract. It sounds like neither
+side intends to open with respect to this issue and I think we
+largely agree on the legal principles. Tell me if you need
+more guidance for purposes of opening or preparing your case.
+Ms . Menninger?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LB15MAX2
+Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 24 of 24
+36
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. I think it depends on
+the trial testimony.
+THE COURT: Ms. Moe?
+MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: It sounds like the government does need to
+think about its opening and whether reference to non-testifying
+alleged victims would open the door, potentially, to the issue.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And it remains the
+government's position that, to the extent the defense is
+offering anything along these lines, it would be for the truth
+and, therefore, hearsay. But given the fact that the parties
+don't intend to open on this issue, we don't believe our
+opening statements would open the door to this issue either, we
+are happy to raise this issue at the appropriate time.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: OK. Thank you.
+Next is government 8 which are prior statements of
+Ms. Maxwell. I think I come away from the papers agreeing with
+the defense that this one may be premature but, Ms. Moe, what
+is the specific concern? What are prior statements that you
+are worried about here?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+For example, the government has produced to the
+defense in discovery a large volume of electronically-stored
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29546fb558af4f84115753efcc8bfbe44fa32822f2c6eefdfe5b8906012feab.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29546fb558af4f84115753efcc8bfbe44fa32822f2c6eefdfe5b8906012feab.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b9255ca1b4a9e96cfbfeead9bc81357e05c3399
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29546fb558af4f84115753efcc8bfbe44fa32822f2c6eefdfe5b8906012feab.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1425,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f29546fb558af4f84115753efcc8bfbe44fa32822f2c6eefdfe5b8906012feab",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 26,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b2c52aa4c0b16c5855c7dfddf07fcdbde6f9d7bbb3550b18b95aa98bc709a892",
+  "output_sha256": "e1d8fda5230d4799306e7ce95e003f152c1a1479aef5f2a92b70393f2d7f8351",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29a0a840bb5dd5cabe851251b60070ca3a6a58cd21f6f7ac15b927e47949d6c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29a0a840bb5dd5cabe851251b60070ca3a6a58cd21f6f7ac15b927e47949d6c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d0d9098590986f72dc4d62f56a312f699c58ac4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29a0a840bb5dd5cabe851251b60070ca3a6a58cd21f6f7ac15b927e47949d6c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 518
+Filed 01/03/17
+
+DDON
+Haddon,
+and
+. P.C
+Laura A. Menninger
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364 x 303.832.2628
+www.himflaw.co
+nenninger@hmflaw.co
+December 19, 2016
+Via Email
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+United States District Judge
+United States District Court
+Daniel
+Moynihan Courthouse
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street, Room 1940
+New York, New York 10007-1312
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-R WS
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+DECEIVE
+| DEC 2C20
+JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS
+Respectfully Submitted,
+HADDoN,
+AND
+I P.C.
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUN- NT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE RILED: 1317
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger
+So ordaded
+suretiso
+12/24/16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 518
+Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 2
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+December 19, 2016
+Page 2
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on December 19, 2016, I electronically served this LETTER TO
+"HE COURT via ELECTRONIC MAIL on the following
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsflip.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+L JAFFE, WEISSING, I
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+125 North Andrews Ave., Ste. .
+t. Lauderdale. FL 3330
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 1059
+tanPottinger@aol.con
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29a0a840bb5dd5cabe851251b60070ca3a6a58cd21f6f7ac15b927e47949d6c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29a0a840bb5dd5cabe851251b60070ca3a6a58cd21f6f7ac15b927e47949d6c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69539819564abe063a77692a702bdccddabd9a27
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f29a0a840bb5dd5cabe851251b60070ca3a6a58cd21f6f7ac15b927e47949d6c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f29a0a840bb5dd5cabe851251b60070ca3a6a58cd21f6f7ac15b927e47949d6c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4aac34bf97b083af3703ca9bea559923f8a5aa69d15c04dc7f529e4799ee98d6",
+  "output_sha256": "68a69d530ec2b4e3b85b78a3a4cbc668a8f6c5c136723884c4c60929062f4f72",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2a3f681f9ed69ce85a724f1b7fbc33b55968f531dc320c52a317049a1e9e9dd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2a3f681f9ed69ce85a724f1b7fbc33b55968f531dc320c52a317049a1e9e9dd.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..002848cdb6fa2e0b660b4ece4f1f3b0edaff2ca6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2a3f681f9ed69ce85a724f1b7fbc33b55968f531dc320c52a317049a1e9e9dd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 19
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
+TO AUDE BEERE BAREN ONE AN DROPOSES GOODNEMIE
+AND SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
+Sigrid McCawley
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 19
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT …
+Page
+.... il
+... 1
+CONCLUSION.
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE …
+... 14
+... 15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 19
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Page
+Cases
+Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC,
+784 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
+Barklay v. New York,
+602 Fed. Appx. 7 (2d Cir. 2015)
+Clover-
+Spring Dairies, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board,
+298 F.3d 201 (3rd Cir. 2002)
+Crawford v. Washington,
+541 U.S.
+. 36 (2004)..
+Jane Does v. United States,
+No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2014)
+v. Ethan
+Inc.,
+115 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 1997)
+Ramirez Rodriguez v. Boehringer Ingelheim,
+425 F.3d 67 (Ist Cir. 2005)
+United States v.
+176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999).
+United States v. Dupree,
+706 F.3d 131 (2d. Cir. 2013).
+United States v.
+618 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1980)
+United States v. Gilan,
+967 F.2d 776 (2d Cir. 1992)
+United States v. Gotti,
+457 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)..
+United States v. Ozsusamlar,
+428 F. Supp. 2d 161 (S.D.N.Y.2006)
+United States v.
+702 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2012).
+..9
+10
+10
+.. 11
+.. 2
+.12
+10
+13
+.. 9
+.12
+.14
+.9
+.12
+.. 13
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 19
+United States v. Roldan-Zapata,
+916 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1990).
+United States v. Serang,
+156 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 1998) ..
+.13
+.. 13
+Rules
+Fed. R. Evid. 403
+Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).
+12
+.. 9
+Statutes
+18 U.S.C. § 371
+18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)
+18 U.S.C. § 2255
+18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
+18 U.S.C. 2423(b).
+18 U.S.C. § 2423(e)
+3,4
+... 4
+.. 4,5
+.. 4
+.. 4
+3,4
+iii
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 19
+Plaintiff,
+respectfully submits this memorandum of law in
+response and opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and
+Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender Registration.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 6 of 19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 7 of 19
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 8 of 19
+J
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 9 of 19
+
+
+
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 11 of 19
+7
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 12 of 19
+
+
+
+9
+
+
+
+10
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 15 of 19
+11
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 16 of 19
+12
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 17 of 19
+13
+
+
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 18 of 19
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301|
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 740 Filed 03/17/17 Page 19 of 19
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52023
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 17th day of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Series Pagina, sa.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+,, P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+3 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended
+to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+15
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2a3f681f9ed69ce85a724f1b7fbc33b55968f531dc320c52a317049a1e9e9dd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2a3f681f9ed69ce85a724f1b7fbc33b55968f531dc320c52a317049a1e9e9dd.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..942839847bd228a4e5b4c92df08544db969dac72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2a3f681f9ed69ce85a724f1b7fbc33b55968f531dc320c52a317049a1e9e9dd.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -637,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f2a3f681f9ed69ce85a724f1b7fbc33b55968f531dc320c52a317049a1e9e9dd",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 23,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3fbddecc20c01207c9d23db52a706c91b9ef7e99f6d223c6f8ae3faab00a8d40",
+  "output_sha256": "5b619afcb031fdd637df3d732898b30d87a2b4ef6d227ad52b489fb37e81e2fe",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2aabe1b64509f4cf6750a3c4726128728e05041ecd2e709f3dae2a3eadced9d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2aabe1b64509f4cf6750a3c4726128728e05041ecd2e709f3dae2a3eadced9d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db084297903c82a5dfe535f8ebae85dd70fb3704
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2aabe1b64509f4cf6750a3c4726128728e05041ecd2e709f3dae2a3eadced9d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2232 @@
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-1, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page1 of 2
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+ROBERT A. KATZMANN
+CHIEF JUDGE
+Date: July 23, 2019
+Docket #: 19-2221
+Short Title: United States of America v. Epstein
+CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE
+CLERK OF COURT
+DC Docket #: 1:19-cr-490-1
+DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
+CITY)
+DC Judge: Berman
+DOCKETING NOTICE
+An appeal in the above-referenced case has been docketed under number: 19-2221. This number
+must appear on all documents related to this case that are filed in this Court. Appellate counsel of
+record either represented the appellant before the district court, filed the notice of appeal, or
+acted as counsel for appellee in the district court. For pro se parties the docket sheet with the
+caption page, and an Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form are enclosed. Ir
+ounseled cases the docket sheet is available on PACER. Counsel must access the
+Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form from this Court's website
+http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.
+The form must be completed and returned within 14 days of the date of this notice. The form
+requires the following information:
+YOUR CORRECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Review the party information on the docket
+sheet and note any incorrect information in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
+Appearance Form.
+The Court will contact one counsel per party or group of collectively represented parties when
+serving notice or issuing our order. Counsel must designate on the Acknowledgment and Notice
+of Appearance a lead attorney to accept all notices from this Court who, in turn will, be
+responsible for notifying any associated counsel.
+CHANGE IN CONTACT INFORMATION: An attorney or pro se party who does not
+immediately notify the Court when contact information changes will not receive notices,
+documents and orders filed in the case.
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-1, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page2 of 2
+An attorney and any pro se party who is permitted to file documents electronically in CM/ECF
+must notify the Court of a change to the user's mailing address, business address, telephone
+number, or e-mail. To update contact information, a Filing User must access PACER's Manage
+My Appellate Filer Account, https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgi-bin/cmecf/ea-login.pl. The Court's
+records will be updated within 1 business day of a user entering the change in PACER.
+A pro se party who is not permitted to file documents electronically must notify the Court of a
+change in mailing address or telephone number by filing a letter with the Clerk of Court.
+CAPTION: In an appeal, the Court uses the district court caption pursuant to FRAP 12(a), 32(a).
+For a petition for review or original proceeding the Court uses a caption pursuant to FRAP 15(a)
+or 21(a), respectively. Please review the caption carefully and promptly advise this Court of any
+improper or inaccurate designations in writing on the Acknowledgment and Notice of
+Appearance form. If a party has been terminated from the case the caption may reflect that
+change only if the district court judge ordered that the caption be amended.
+APPELLATE DESIGNATIONS: Please review whether petitioner is listed correctly on the party
+sting page of the docket sheet and in the caption. If there is an error, please note on th
+cknowledgment and Notice of Appearance Form. Timely submission of the Acknowledgme
+and Notice of Appearance Form will constitute compliance with the requirement to file a
+Representation Statement required by FRAP 12(b).
+For additional information consult the Court's instructions posted on the website.
+Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8528.
+
+
+1/22/19
+
+Ca§eª‡91§ºРЭÔ49Б+?МBеФđcủmẻń₴З40ґЯеđ®££71ºэøağeº17of 1
+Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A
+FILED
+U.S. DISTRICT COURT
+2019 JUL 22 PM 4:47
+S.D. OF N.Y.
+Southern
+NOTICE OF APPEAL
+United States District Court
+District of New York
+Caption:
+United States
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Docket No.: 19-Cr-00490 (RMB)
+Hon. Richard M. Berman
+(District Court Judge)
+appeals to the United States Court of
+.. otheri Decision & Order Remanding Defendant
+(specify)
+Notice is hereby given that Defendant Jeffrey Epstein
+Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment
+entered in this action on July 18, 2019
+(date)
+This appeal concerns: Conviction only L
+Sentence only L
+Defendant found guilty by plea |
+trial
+Offense occurred after November 1,19872 Yes V
+No l
+NA V
+Date of sentence: _
+Bail/Jail Disposition: Committed L
+Not committed |
+Conviction & Sentence L
+_ Other LY
+N/A |
+N/A |
+Appellant is represented by counsel? Yes V INDI
+Defendant's Counsel:
+Counsel's Address:
+Counsel's Phone:
+Assistant U.S. Attorney:
+AUSA's Address:
+AUSA's Phone:
+Reid Weingarten
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+(212) 506-3900
+Alex Rossmiller
+1 Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+(212) 637-2415
+If yes, provide the following information:
+Thad Vingents
+Signature
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-2, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page2 of 7
+APPEAL,ECF
+U.S. District Court
+Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
+CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:19-cr-Ò049Ó-RMB All Defendants
+Case title: USA v. Epstein
+Assigned to: Judge Richard M.
+Berman
+Date Filed: 07/02/2019
+Defendant (1)
+Jeffrey Epstein
+also known as
+Sealed Defendant 1
+represented by Septoe. Brachi, LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+Email: ibrochin@ brochinlawpllc.col
+LEAD ATTORNE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEI
+Designation: Retaine
+Mare Allan Fernich
+Law Office of Marc Fernich
+810 Seveth Ave
+Suite 620
+New York, NY 10019
+(212) 446-2346
+Fax: (212) 446 2330
+EEAD ATFORNEiChlaw.com
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Gary Weinber
+G. Weinberg, PC
+20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
+Boston,
+02116
+617-227-3700
+Fax: 617-338-9538
+Email: owlmgw@att.n
+LEAD ATTORNE)
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Michael Campion
+Steptoe &
+LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+(212) 506-3900
+Fax: (212) 506-3950
+Email: mmiller@steptoc.com
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Michael Gerard Scavelli
+Steptoe &
+| LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+212-378-7538
+Fax: 212-506-3950
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-2, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page3 of 7
+Email: mscavelli@steptoc.com
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Reid Weingarten
+Steptoe &
+_ LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+(202)-506-3900
+Fax: (212)-506-3950
+Email: rweingarten@steptoe.com
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Disposition
+Pending Counts
+18:371.F SEX TRAFFICKING
+CONSPIRACY
+(1)
+18:1591.F SEX TRAFFICKING
+OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE,
+FRAUD OR COERCION
+(2)
+Highest Offense Level
+(Opening)
+Felony
+Terminated Counts
+None
+Highest Offense Level
+(Terminated)
+None
+Complaints
+None
+Disposition
+Disposition
+Plaintiff
+USA
+represented by Alex Rossmiller
+U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of
+New York
+1 St. Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+(212)-637-2415
+Email: alexander.rossmiller@ usdoj.gov
+PRO HAC VICE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Assistant US Attorney
+Alison Gainfort Moe
+United States Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+(212)-637-2225
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-2, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page4 of 7
+Email: alison.moe(@usdoj.gov
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Assistant US Attorney
+Maurene Ryan Comey
+United States Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+(212)-637-2324
+Email: maurene.comey @usdoj.gov
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Assistant US Attorney
+Date Filed
+07/02/2019
+07/03/2019
+#
+2
+Docket Text
+SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) counts) 1, 2. (jm) (Entered:
+07/08/2019)
+1
+SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
+3
+Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge
+Henry B. Pitman on 7/8/19)(jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Jeffrey Epstein. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Case Designated ECF as to Jeffrey Epstein. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Case as to Jeffrey Epstein ASSIGNED to Judge Richard M. Berman. (jm) (Entered:
+07/08/2019)
+Attorney update in case as to Jetfrey Epstein. Attorney Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Ryan
+Comey,Alison Gainfort Moe for USA added. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. (Actual arrest date is 7/6/19 - Defendant arrested while
+matter under seal) (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman:Initial
+Appearance as to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/8/2019. Defendant is present with attorney
+Weinberg; AUSA Rossmiller is also present. Defendant id detained until
+continuation of detention hearing which is scheduled for 7/11/19 at 2:00 PM. (jm)
+(Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: As to
+Jeffrey Epstein Detention Hearing set for 7/11/2019 at 02:00 PM before Judge Richard
+M. Berman. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman:
+Defendant is present with attorney
+Weinberg: AUSA Rossmiller is also
+present. Arraignment as to Jeffrey Epstein (1) Count 1,2 Jetfrey Epstein (1) Count 1,2
+held on 7/8/2019., Plea entered by Jeffrey Epstein (1) Count 1,2 Jeffrey Epstein (1)
+Count 1,2 Not Guilty. Conference before USDJ on 7/8/19. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Statu:
+Conference as to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/8/2019. AUSAs Alex Rossmiller, Mauren‹
+Comey and Alison Moe present; Also present is Special Agent Amanda Young an
+Task Force Officer Paul Byrne; Defendant present with attorneys
+Weinberg,
+Reid Weingarten and Marc Fernich; US Pretrial Officers Keyana Pompey and Lea
+Harmon present; initial conference held; defense bail submission is due on 7/11/19 at
+12:00 noon; government reply by 7/12/19 at 5:00 pm; Bail hearing is scheduled for
+7/15/19 at 10:00 am; See transcript of proceedings held for a complete record; Speedy
+trial time is excluded for the reasons set forth on the record from 7/8/19 to 7/15/19
+pursuant to 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). (Bond Hearing set for 7/15/2019 at 10:00
+AM before Judge Richard M. Berman) (Court Reporter Tom |
+D (ap) (Entered:
+07/08/2019)
+
+
+07/11/2019
+07/11/2019
+07/11/2019
+07/11/2019
+07/12/2019
+07/12/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-2, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page5 of 7
+1
+8
+2
+10
+12
+13
+14
+Attorney update in case as to Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney
+R. Weinberg, Reid
+Weingarten, Mare Allan Fernich for Jeffrey Epstein added. (ap) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Attorney update in case as to Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney
+Gary Weinberg for
+Jeffrey Epstein added. (bw) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
+LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten
+dated July 11, 2019 re: Pretrial Release. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Weingarten, Reid) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
+MOTION to Seal Document. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Weingarten, Reid)
+(Entered: 07/11/2019)
+LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Alex Rossmiller dated July 11, 2019 re: 1 MOTION to Seal
+Document .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
+ORDER granting 1 Motion to Seal Document as to Jeffrey Epstein (I). Defense
+motion granted. Materials to be hand delivered to
+(and opposing counsel) by
+9:00 AM, July 12, 2019. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/11/2019) (clt)
+(Entered: 07/12/2019)
+MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Jeffrey Epstein on re: & Response to Motion filed by
+USA. ENDORSEMENT: Application for extension of time denied. (Hard to imagine it
+would take the Govt extra time to review submission.) (Signed by Judge Richard M.
+Berman on 7/12/2019)(clt) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
+LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Alex Rossmiller dated July 12, 2019 re: 6 LETTER
+MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten dated July
+11, 2019 re: Pretrial Release .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
+3)(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for
+G.
+Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
+ANYSDC-17240904. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
+Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1.
+Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit 2. Proposed Text Order) (Weinberg,
+Modified on 7/15/2019 (wb). (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+›>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC
+VICE. Notice as to Jeffrey Epstein to RE-FILE Document No. 12 MOTION for
+G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
+ANYSDC-17240904. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
+Office staff... The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): Pursuant to Rule
+1.3. the Attorney Affidavit missing the language of disciplinary.;. Re-file the
+motion as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF -
+select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing
+issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered:
+07/15/2019)
+MOTION for
+G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion and supporting
+papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit 2. Pronosed
+Text Order, # 3 Exhibit 3. Affidavit of |
+G. Weinberg)(Weinberg,
+(Entered: 07/15/2019)
+>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document
+| G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion and
+supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been
+reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+ORDER as to Jeffrey Epstein. The Clerk is respectfully requested to docket the
+enclosed documents which were discussed at today's bail hearing. (Signed by Judge
+Richard M. Berman on 7/15/19)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman:Bail Hearing as
+to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/15/2019. AUSA Rossmiller, AUSA Moe, and AUSA
+
+
+07/15/2019
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-2, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page6 of 7
+Comey present;Also present is FBI Special Agent Amanda Young and NYPD
+Detective Paul Byrne present;Defendant present with attorneys
+Weinberg, Reid
+Weingarten, Marc Fernich, James Brochin; and
+Jaffe; USPO Pretrial Services
+Officers Francesca Tessier-]
+• Bernisa Mejia and Dennis Khilkevich present; Also
+present Court Reporter Kelly Surina present; supplemental submission(s) to be filed by
+7/16/19 5:00 pm; ruling on bail hearing scheduled for 7/18/19 at 9:30 am. (jw)
+(Entered: 07/15/2019)
+15
+LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Alex Rossmiller
+dated July 15, 2019 re: speedy trial time exclusion. Document filed by USA as to
+Jeffrey Epstein. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+16
+MEMO ENDORSED granting 15 LETTER MOTION speedy trial time exclusion as to
+Jeffrey Epstein (I)...ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed
+by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/16/19) (jbo) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+17
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 13 Motion for
+Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jeffrey Epstein (1). IT IS HEREBY
+G.
+ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hae Vice in the
+above-captioned matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
+New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of
+this Court, including the rules governing discipline of attorneys. (Signed by Judge
+Richard M. Berman on 7/16/19) (jbo) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+18
+TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Jeffrey Epstein re: Conference held on 7/8/19
+before Judge Richard M. Berman. Court Reporter/Transcriber:
+- (212)
+805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through
+the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript
+Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due
+8/6/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2019. Release of Transcript
+Restriction set for 10/15/2019. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+12
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Jeffrey Epstein. Notice is
+hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/8/19 has
+been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The partie:
+have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Reques
+Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made
+remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar
+days.... (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+20
+TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Jeffrey Epstein re: Conference held on 7/8/19
+before Judge Richard M. Berman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante,
+(212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased
+8/6/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2019. Release of Transcript
+Restriction set for 10/15/2019. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+21 | NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Jeffrey Epstein. Notice is
+22
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - RESPONSE in Support of
+Motion by Jeffrey Epstein re: 6 LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M
+erman from Reid Weingarten dated July 11, 2019 re: Pretrial Release .. Lette
+Supplementing Bail Motion (Fernich, Marc) Modified on 7/17/2019 (ka). (Entered:
+23
+. LETTER by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from
+Document Mie day SA. tachmens: # Exhibit A Dee Alison Entered
+17/16/2019
+
+
+07/18/2019
+07/18/2019
+07/18/2019
+Case 19-2221, Document 1-2, 07/23/2019, 2614667, Page7 of 7
+24
+LETTER RESPONSE in Support of Motion by Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Mare Fernich dated 7/16/2019 re: 6 LETTER MOTION
+addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten dated July 11, 2019 re:
+Pretrial Release .. Corrected Letter Supplementing Bail Motion (Fixes Formatting &
+Typographical Errors) (Fernich, Marc) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+25
+LETTER by Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid
+Weingarten dated July 17, 2019 re: Supplemental Bail Submission (Attachments: #1
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Weingarten, Reid) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+26
+ORDER as to Jeffrey Epstein. The conference in this matter is rescheduled from 9:30
+am on July 18, 2019 to 11:30 am on July 18, 2019. (Signed by Judge Richard M.
+Berman on 7/17/19)(jbo) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+Set/Reset Hearings as to Jeffrey Epstein: Bond Hearing set for 7/18/2019 at 11:30 AM
+before Judge Richard M. Berman. (jbo) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+21
+NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Michael Campion
+appearing for
+Jeffrey Epstein. Appearance Type: Retained.
+Michael) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+28
+NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: James L. Brochin appearing for Jeffrey
+Epstein. Appearance Type: Retained. (Brochin, James) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+22
+NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Michael Gerard Scavelli appearing for
+Jeffrey Epstein. Appearance Type: Retained. (Scavelli, Michael) (Entered:
+07/17/2019)
+30
+LETTER by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from
+Alison Moe dated July 17, 2019 re: the defendant's foreign passport. Document filed
+by USA. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+31
+- LETTER RESPONSE in Support of Motion by Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Marc Fernich dated 7/18/2019 re: 6 LETTER MOTION
+addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten dated July 11, 2019 re:
+Pretrial Release .. (Fernich, Marc) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Bond Hearing as
+to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/18/2019. AUSA Rossmiller, AUSA Moe and AUSA
+Comey present; Also present is FBI Special Agent Amanda Young and NYPD
+Detective Paul Byrne present; Defendant present with attorney:
+Weinberg.
+Marc Fernich, James Brochin and Michae
+_ present: USPO Pretrial Services
+Officer John Moscato present; Court Reporter Tom
+present; Court denies bail;
+Written order to follow; next conference is scheduled for July 31, 2019 at 11:00 am;
+speedy trial time is excluded for the reasons set forth on the record from 7/18/19 to
+7/31/19 pursuant to 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). (jbo) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
+32 | DECISION & ORDER REMANDING DEFENDANT as to Jeffrey Epstein. Based
+07/22/2019
+07/22/2019
+07/23/2019
+07/23/2019
+33
+SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (rz) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
+34
+S05.0, receipt number 4654012405p ind)E ered: 07032 Order..
+Filing fee
+ransmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Jeffr
+Appeals re: 34 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 07/23/201
+peal lie coles as to else petre: Noice or Append were transmited to
+S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 07/23/201
+
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+Government,
+- against -
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FIED: 7/18/19
+19 CR. 490 (RMB)
+DECISION & ORDER
+REMANDING DEFENDANT
+Defendant.
+-X
+A. Background
+This ruling follows the Court's bail hearing held on July 15, 2019. The issue before the
+Court is whether the Defendant should continue to be remanded (incarcerated) pending trial or
+whether he should be granted release while the case proceeds. No matter the answer to this
+question and no matter what has been said in Court in analyzing the matter, this is a criminal
+case and the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, is innocent of the Federal charges alleged against him
+now and until such time, if it comes, that a jury or the Court finds (after fair and thorough
+consideration of the facts and the law) that he is guilty. See Transcript, dated July 8, 2019
+("7/8/19 Tr."), at 2-3; Transcript, dated July 15, 2019 ("7/15/19 Tr."), at 40. It should also be
+borne in mind that the Court has not (yet) been presented with a motion to dismiss the
+Indictment.
+This is a federal as opposed to a state case. We proceed under federal law and federal
+rules. The key federal statute that applies here is 18 U.S.C. § 1591 which sets forth the crime of
+sex trafficking with which Mr. Epstein is charged. Mr. Epstein is also charged with conspiring
+with others to commit sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
+With respect to the issue of remand versus release, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 applies. It sets forth
+a presumption in favor of remand, an exception to the presumption in most cases which favors
+
+
+pretrial release. § 3142 states that: "if there is probable cause to believe that the person
+committed
+... an offense involving a minor victim under section ... 1591," then "it shall be
+presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
+appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community." 18 U.S.C. §
+3142(e)(3)(E) (emphasis added); see United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir.
+1986). The Indictment in this case was returned by a grand jury thus establishing probable cause
+that the defendant committed the crimes of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy. See
+United States v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 55 (2d Cir. 1985) ("[A]n indictment returned by a duly
+constituted grand jury conclusively establishes the existence of probable cause for the purpose of
+triggering the rebuttable presumptions set forth in § 3142(e)"). In most federal cases the
+rebuttable presumption that applies favors pretrial release, not remand.
+There is another very important issue to be considered in this case. It has to do with
+"victims" of the crimes charged in the Indictment. Victims refer to the "minor" girls who are
+alleged to have been sexually trafficked by the Defendant. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, victims are
+entitled to be heard in court, including on the question of whether the defendant is to be released
+or remanded. Victims have, among other things, been given the opportunity to testify at the bail
+hearing.
+B. Counsels' Submissions
+The Government's letter application, dated July 8, 2019, requests that the Court remand
+Mr. Epstein. It argues that Mr. Epstein "poses [] an acute danger to the community" and,
+grounded in past experience with this Defendant, that "if [Mr. Epstein is] allowed to remain out
+on bail, the defendant could attempt to pressure and intimidate witnesses and potential witnesses
+in this case, including victims and their families, and otherwise attempt to obstruct justice." Dkt.
+2
+
+
+11, Ex. 1 at 1. The Government also contends that "li]n light of the strength of the Government's
+evidence and the substantial incarceratory term the defendant would face upon conviction [45
+years], there is an extraordinary risk of flight, particularly given the defendant's exorbitant
+wealth, his ownership of and access to private planes capable of international travel, and his
+significant international ties." Id.
+The Government also provides the following background information: "In or about 2005,
+the defendant was investigated by local police in Palm Beach, Florida, in connection with
+allegations that he had committed similar sex offenses against minor girls. The investigation
+ultimately also involved federal authorities, namely the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
+District of Florida and the FBI's Miami Office, and included interviews with victims based in the
+Palm Beach area, including some of the alleged victims relevant to Count One of the instant
+Indictment. In the fall of 2007, the Defendant entered into a non-prosecution agreement ("NPA")
+with the Southern District of Florida in connection with the conduct at issue in that investigation,
+which the non-prosecution agreement identified as including investigations into the defendant's
+abuse of minor girls in the Palm Beach area." Id. at 3. "In June 2008, the defendant pled guilty in
+[Florida] state court to one count of procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution, a
+felony, and one count of solicitation of prostitution, [also] a felony. As a result, the defendant
+was designated as a sex offender with registration requirements under the national Sex Offender
+Registration and Notification Act." Id.
+The Defense moved on July 11, 2019, for pretrial release of Mr. Epstein, arguing that
+"Mr. Epstein's strict compliance with the various monitoring requirements associated with his
+sex-offender registration actually decrease[s] any danger that he might otherwise pose" and also
+that "Mr. Epstein has never once attempted to flee the United States." Dkt. 6 at 1, 12. The
+3
+
+
+Defense proposes what they describe as "a stringent set of [14] conditions that will effectively
+guarantee [Mr. Epstein's] appearance and abate any conceivable danger he's claimed to present."
+Id. at 1. The 14 conditions do not include private security guards 24/7. The 14 conditions do
+include: (1) "Home detention in Mr. Epstein's Manhattan residence, with permission to leave
+only for medical appointments as approved by Pretrial Services, including (at the Court's
+discretion) the installation of surveillance cameras at the front and rear entrances to ensure
+compliance"; (2) "Electronic monitoring with a Global Positioning System"; (3) "An agreement
+not to seek or obtain any new passport during the pendency of this matter"; (4) "Consent to U.S.
+extradition from any country and waiver of all rights against such [e]xtradition"; (5) "A
+substantial [unspecified] personal recognizance bond in an amount set by the Court after
+reviewing additional information regarding Mr. Epstein's finances ...."; (6) "The bond shall be
+secured by a mortgage on the Manhattan residence, valued at roughly $77 million. Mr. Epstein's
+private jet can be pledged as further collateral"; (7) "Mr. Epstein's brother Mark will serve as a
+co-surety of the bond, which shall be further secured by a mortgage on Mark's home in West
+Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Epstein's friend David Mitchell will also serve as a co-surety and
+pledge his investment interests in two properties to secure the bond"; (8) "Mr. Epstein shall
+deregister or otherwise ground his private jet"; (9) Mr. Epstein "shall demobilize, ground, and/or
+deregister all vehicles or any other means of transportation in the New York area, providing
+particularized information as to each vehicle's location;" (10) "Mr. Epstein will provide Pretrial
+Services and/or the government random access to his residence"; (11) "No person shall enter the
+residence, other than Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, without prior approval from Pretrial Services
+and/or the Court"; (12) "Mr. Epstein will report daily by telephone to Pretrial Services (or on any
+other schedule the Court deems appropriate)"; (13) "A Trustee or Trustees will be appointed to
+4
+
+
+live in Mr. Epstein's residence and report any violation to Pretrial Services and/or the Court";
+(14) "Any other condition the Court deems necessary to reasonably assure Mr. Epstein's
+appearance." Id. at 3-4. The Defense also proposes as a "fallback" "round-the-clock, privately
+funded security guards [which] will virtually guarantee - not just reasonably assure - Mr.
+Epstein's presence in the circumstances of this case." Id. at 10. The bail package originally was
+not accompanied by a financial statement reflecting Mr. Epstein's finances. However, on July
+12, 2019, the Defense filed a one-page document which includes five groups of assets owned by
+Mr. Epstein totaling $559,120,954. Dkt. 14 at 18.
+The Government responded to the Defense motion on July 12, 2019, arguing, among
+other things, that Mr. Epstein "has a history of obstruction and manipulation of witnesses,
+including ... as recently as within the past year, when media reports about his conduct [in
+Florida] reemerged." Dkt. 11 at 1. The Government filing was made against a "backdrop of
+significant-and rapidly-expanding-evidence, serious charges, and the prospect of a lengthy
+prison sentence." Id. It contends that the defendant's proposed conditions of release are
+"woefully inadequate." Id.
+The Court also received a letter from the Government, dated July 16, 2019, providing,
+among other things, details about allegedly suspicious payments made by the Defendant in 2018;
+a Palm Beach, Florida police report; Mr. Epstein's expired Austrian passport in another name but
+with Mr. Epstein's photo; and a pile of cash and diamonds found in Mr. Epstein's safe. For
+example, the Government says: "[RJecords from Institution-1 show that on or about November
+30, 2018, or two days after the series in the Miami Herald began, the defendant wired $100,000
+from a trust account he controlled to .., an individual named as a potential co-conspirator."
+Dkt. 23 at 1. And, "on or about December 3, 2018, the defendant wired $250,000 from the same
+5
+
+
+trust account to ..., [an individual] who was also named as a potential co-conspirator." Id. at 1-
+2. According to the Government, the second individual is also one of the employees identified
+in the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the
+defendant's trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling their
+sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida."
+Id. at 2.
+By letter, dated July 16, 2019, Defense counsel states, among other things, that the Court
+should reject the idea that "there's literally nothing a person of Epstein's means could say, do or
+pledge to rebut the operative presumption and make himself eligible for release." Dkt. 24 at 2.
+"Epstein contends that § 1591 and the concomitant remand presumption do not contemplate or
+cover the core conduct at issue here: performing sexual massages for money." Id. at 1-2 n.l.
+Defense counsel also states that "Epstein certainly recognizes the Court's request for further
+transparency and is committed to providing a complete and accurate disclosure. Accordingly,
+we propose that the Court preliminarily accept the initial [financial] disclosure proffered last
+Friday and, if intending to grant bail, include a release condition directing Epstein to tender a
+comprehensive forensic accounting of his finances as expeditiously as practicable." Id. at 4. By
+letters, dated July 16 and July 17, 2019, Defense counsel also submitted information regarding
+Epstein's New Mexico sex offender registration status. Defense counsel also stated that Epstein
+traveled extensively over the last eight months and "invariably returned to the to the United
+States. That inescapable reality emphatically proves he won't flee and entitles him to release -
+on any and all conditions the Court deems appropriate." Id. at 8.
+
+
+C. Indictment
+A grand jury voted to indict Mr. Epstein on or about July 2, 2019. The Indictment
+charges Mr. Epstein with two felonies involving minor girls some as young as 14. Count I
+includes conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minor girls, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and
+Count Il includes sex trafficking of minor girls, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. It states:
+"[F]rom at least in or about 2002, up to and including at least in or about 2005, Jeffrey Epstein, .
+.. enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, minor girls to visit his mansion
+in Manhattan, New York ... and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida, ... to engage in sex acts with
+him, after which he would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash." Indictment, dated July
+2, 2019 ("Indictment"), 1 2. "Moreover, and in order to maintain, and increase his supply of
+victims, Epstein also paid certain of his victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused
+by Epstein. In this way, Epstein created a vast network of underage victims for him to sexually
+exploit in locations including New York and Palm Beach." Id.
+The Indictment also charges that "the victims ... were as young as 14 years old at the
+time they were abused by [Mr. Epstein] ... and were, for various reasons, often particularly
+vulnerable to exploitation." Id. 1 3. "Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out minors and knew that
+many of his victims were in fact under the age of 18, [] because, in some instances, minor
+victims expressly told him their age." Id.
+Following his arrest, on Monday, July 8, 2019, Mr. Epstein was arraigned and presented
+with the Indictment by Magistrate Judge Henry Pittman.
+D. Legal Principles Governing Release Versus Remand
+Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, a Court can order a defendant's detention
+if it determines that the defendant is either (1) a danger to the community or (2) a risk of flight.
+7
+
+
+18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A Court does not need to find both bases are proven to order a defendant's
+detention. See id.; United States v.
+_. 570 F. App'x 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2014). Dangerousness
+means that the defendant is a "danger to the safety of any other person or the community." 18
+U.S.C. § 3142. A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
+See, e.g., United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995). "Where there is a strong
+probability that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the
+community becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate." United
+States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). "[E]ven a single incident of witness
+tampering ... [may be] sufficient to revoke bail." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134.
+To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of
+the evidence that "that no conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's presence at trial."
+See, e.g., United States v.
+823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 3142. "IT]he
+constitutional limits on a detention period based on dangerousness to the community may be
+looser than the limits on a detention period based solely on risk of flight. In the former case,
+release risks injury to others, while in the latter case, release risks only the loss of a conviction."
+United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Orena, 986
+F.2d 628, 631 (2d Cir. 1993)). A bail package that "may reasonably assure the appearance of [the
+defendant] at trial will not [necessarily] assure the safety of the community." United States v.
+Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1991).
+The Bail Reform Act sets forth the following four factors to be considered in the
+release/remand analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crime(s) charged; (2) the weight
+of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including
+the person's character and financial resources; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the
+8
+
+
+defendant's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). "The weight afforded to each factor under section
+3142(g) is within the 'special province' of the district court." United States v. Paulino, 335 F.
+Supp. 3d 600, 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 196 (2d Cir.
+1987)).
+"The rules concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the
+presentation and consideration of information at the [release/remand] hearing." 18 U.S.C. §
+3142(f)(2) (emphasis added). For example, the Government is entitled to present evidence
+supporting remand by way of proffer, among other means. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2); see also
+United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000) ("bail hearings are typically
+informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery"). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B)
+expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply at bail hearings; thus, courts
+often base detention decisions on hearsay evidence. United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309,
+321 n. 7 (2d Cir. 2004) "District courts [are afforded] wide discretion regarding the scope of such
+hearings …..." United States v. Bartok, 472 F. App'x 25, 27 (2d Cir. 2012).
+E. The Presumption of Remand in 18 U.S.C. § 1591 Cases
+A 18 U.S.C. § 1591 case involving sexual victimization of a minor is unusual in that it
+includes a presumption in favor of pretrial detention, reflecting the significant harm caused by
+such a crime. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). The presumption is that no condition or combination of
+conditions will reasonably assure against flight or danger to the community. United States v.
+English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E)). Mr. Epstein may
+rebut the presumption by "coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the
+community or a risk of flight." United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001). The
+Government retains the "ultimate burden of persuasion" that Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the
+9
+
+
+community (by clear and convincing evidence) and that Mr. Epstein presents a risk of flight (by
+a preponderance of the evidence). Id. Even if rebuttal evidence is presented, "the presumption
+favoring detention does not disappear entirely." Id. at 436. "[lt] remains a factor to be considered
+among those weighed by the district court." Id.
+F. Mr. Epstein Poses a Danger To Others And To the Community
+The Court begins with "dangerousness" because that concept is at the heart of this case. It
+finds that the Government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Epstein
+threatens the safety of another person and of the community, as follows on pages 10-21:
+• Victims Have Advised The Court That They Would Fear For Their Safety If Mr.
+Epstein Were Released
+Victims have "specifically conveyed" to the Government that any form of release of the
+Defendant, including home detention with full-time private guards, could "result in [their]
+harassment and abuse." Dkt. 11 at 4. At the bail hearing on July 15, 2019, two victims movingly
+testified about their past sexual encounters with Mr. Epstein when they were minors aged 14 and
+16, respectively. 7/15/19 Tr. at 72; see also S. REP. 108-191 ("CVRA Legislative History"), at
+22 (In enacting the CVRA, Congress stated that "[V]ictims deserve the right to be heard at
+specific points in the criminal justice process," including bail hearings. "Giving victims a voice
+not only improves the quality of the process but can also be expected to often provide important
+benefits to victims.").
+was introduced by her counsel, David Boies, and stated
+that she was 16 years old when she "had the misfortune of meeting Jeffrey Epstein [in] New
+York." 7/15/19 Tr. at 72.
+said that Mr. Epstein "flew [her] to New Mexico" and was
+"inappropriate" with her. Id. She was reluctant to go into details about her experience with Mr.
+Epstein. Id. at 73.
+opposes Mr. Epstein's pretrial release because she believes other
+10
+
+
+Epstein victims would "continu[e] to be victimized" and that Mr. Epstein's wealth and privilege
+and notoriety would make it difficult for "[other] victims to come forward." Id. at 72.
+was introduced by her counsel, Brad
+and said she was
+"sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein starting at the age of 14." Id. at 73-74. She asked the Court
+to "keep [Mr. Epstein] in detention [] for the safety of any other girls out there that are going
+through what [she's] going through." Id. at 74. |
+said that Mr. Epstein is a "scary person
+to have walking the streets." Id.
+• Mr. Epstein Poses A Threat to Additional Young Girls If He Is Released
+At the remand/release hearing on Monday, July 15, 2019, as noted, the Court heard
+poignant testimony from two of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims about their fears and anxiety over
+his potential release, even if under strict conditions of home confinement. The Court is also
+concerned for new victims.
+Mr. Epstein's alleged excessive attraction to sexual conduct with or in the presence of
+minor girls - which is said to include his soliciting and receiving massages from young girls and
+young women perhaps as many as four times a day - appears likely to be uncontrollable. See
+United States v. Minnici, 128 F. App'x 827, 829-30 (2d Cir. 2005) (defendant's alleged sex
+crimes were "of an addictive sexual nature that cannot be suppressed simply by a restrictive set
+of bail conditions"). Accordingly, Mr. Epstein's past sexual conduct is not likely to have abated
+or been successfully suppressed by fierce determination, as his Defense Counsel suggests.
+Defense Counsel contends that: "[H]e wasn't a predator that couldn't control his conduct. He
+disciplined himself." 7/15/19 Tr. at 31-32. Defense Counsel also argues that "appreciating the
+gravity of these charges ... putting aside the age of these witnesses and putting the consent issue
+aside, it's not like [Epstein is] an out-of-control rapist." 7/15/19 Tr. at 36. It seems fair to say that
+11
+
+
+Mr. Epstein's future behavior will be consistent with past behavior, including the trove of "lewd
+photographs of young-looking women or girls," which were recently uncovered during the July
+6-7, 2019, search of Mr. Epstein's East 71st Street mansion. See Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 9. The search
+results suggest the "possibility that defendant could target another vulnerable victim." See
+United States v. Baker, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1135 (D.N.M. 2018) (where the defendant was
+alleged to specifically target "vulnerable women" and where he attempted to contact an alleged
+victim, the court was persuaded that the defendant "would be a danger to society if released").
+Despite having been convicted of the above mentioned (two) Florida sex crimes (in 2008)
+involving an underage girl, Mr. Epstein, as noted, maintained at his New York residence a "vast
+trove" of sexually suggestive photographs of nude underage and adult girls. Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 9.
+That is, during the July 6-7, 2019 authorized search of Mr. Epstein's NYC residence, the FBI
+found a "substantial collection of photographic trophies of his victims and other young females."
+Dkt. 11 at 10. This evidence includes compact discs labeled "Young [Redacted Name] +
+[Redacted Name]." "Mise nudes 1," and Girl pics nude." Id. The Government contends that this
+evidence includes hundreds or perhaps thousands of "sexually suggestive photographs" of nude
+underage girls and women, and that it is corroborative in nature. Id. And, it is consistent with
+victim recollections of the inside of Mr. Epstein's residence. Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 9. This newly
+discovered evidence also suggests that Mr. Epstein poses "ongoing and forward-looking danger."
+See Dkt. 11 at 10; see also Baker, 349 F. Supp. 3d at 1135; United States v. Goodwin, 2015 WL
+6386568, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2015).
+• The § 1591 Presumption Of Pretrial Remand Reflects The Seriousness Of Mr.
+Epstein's Alleged Crimes
+The significant harms and dangers of sex crimes involving minors "animated [] Congress
+to create the statutory presumption of detention." United States v. Hardy, 2019 WL 2211210, at
+12
+
+
+*10 (D.D.C. May 22, 2019). The presumption of remand reflects Congress's substantive
+judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial." United
+States v.
+608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). Other serious offenses that are accompanied
+by the presumption of remand are: Kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201); Aggravated Sexual Abuse
+(18 U.S.C. § 2241); Sexual Abuse (18 U.S.C. § 2242); Offenses Resulting in Death (18 U.S.C. §
+2245); Sexual Exploitation of Children (18 U.S.C. § 2251); Selling or Buying of Children (18
+U.S.C. § 2251); Production of Sexually Explicit Depictions of a Minor for importation into the
+United States (18 U.S.C. § 2260); Coercion and Enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422); Transport of
+Minors (18 U.S.C. § 2423); Use of Interstate Facilities to Transmit Information About a Minor
+(18 U.S.C. § 2425). 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E).
+The presumption of remand does not disappear even when rebutted. Martir, 782 F.2d at
+1144. If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or
+flee the jurisdiction, the presumption "is not erased." See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d
+702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). "Rather, the presumption remains in the case as an evidentiary finding
+militating against release, to be weighted along with other evidence." United States v. Hir, 517
+F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144 ("The concern underlying the
+presumption applies to the general class of defendants charged with one of the specified
+offensesnot merely to defendants who fail to produce rebuttal evidence. Were the presumption
+... to vanish upon any showing ..., courts would be giving too little deference to Congress'
+findings regarding this class) (emphasis in original).
+• The U.S. Pretrial Services Department Recommends To The Court That Mr.
+Epstein Continue to Be Remanded
+The Pretrial Services report, dated July 8, 2019, concludes, following Pretrial Services'
+interview of Mr. Epstein, that "It]here is no condition or combination of conditions that [can]
+13
+
+
+reasonably assure ... the safety of the community" if Mr. Epstein is released. Pretrial Services
+Report, dated July 8, 2019, at 4. Pretrial Services also concluded that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk
+and recommends that he be detained for that reason as well. Id.
+In support of its assessment of Mr. Epstein's dangerousness, Pretrial Services cites the
+following: the "Nature of [Mr. Epstein's currently charged] Instant Offence," i.e., sex trafficking
+and conspiracy involving minor girls; Mr. Epstein's "Prior Arrests," e.g., in Florida in 2006; Mr.
+Epstein's "History [and] Conviction Involving [a] Sex [Offense]," which principally refers to
+Defendant's 2008 conviction(s) for procuring a person under the age of 18 for prostitution (a
+felony) and for solicitation of prostitution (also a felony); Mr. Epstein's status as a registered sex
+offender in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands; and Mr. Epstein's "Pattern of Similar
+Criminal Activity History." Id.
+• The Seriousness Of The Crimes That Mr. Epstein Has Been Charged With Is Also
+Reflected In The Fact That The Crimes Involve Minor Children
+Mr. Epstein is said by the Government to be "a serial sexual predator" who allegedly
+victimized dozens (or more) of minor girls, including a 14 year old.' He was involved in and
+undertook the alleged sexual activity in several locations, including, his mansion in Manhattan
+and his estate in Palm Beach, Florida. Indictment 9 2. By "actively encourage[ing] certain of his
+[minor] victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly sexually abused," Mr. Epstein is said to
+have "created a vast network of underage victims for him to exploit." Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 2.
+The Government alleges that Mr. Epstein "intentionally sought out-and knew that he
+was abusing-
+-minors. Indeed, in some instances, his victims expressly told him they were
+' Mr. Epstein is reported to have remarked that: "I'm not a 'sexual predator,' I'm an 'offender'
+.. It's the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel." Amber Southerland,
+Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I'm a sex offender, not a predator, New York Post, Feb. 25, 2011.
+14
+
+
+underage before or during the period in which he abused them." Id. The crimes with which Mr.
+Epstein is charged carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of incarceration. Id. at 5. "[T]he
+deprivation of liberty imposed by imprisonment makes that penalty the best indicator of whether
+the legislature considered an offense to be ... "serious."" United States v. Dugan, 667 F.3d 84,
+86 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting |
+v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 326 (1996)).
+And, the crimes Mr. Epstein has been charged with are among the most heinous in the
+law principally, in the Court's view, because they involve minor girls. 18 U.S.C. § 3142
+(e)(3)(E); see also Roger Przybylski, Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism, Sex Offender
+Management Assessment and Planning Initiative ("[RJesearchers widely agree that observed
+recidivism rates are underestimates of the true reoffense rates of sex offenders. Hidden
+offending presents significant challenges for professionals working in sex offender management
+as it is difficult to know whether offenders who appear to be nonrecidivists based on official
+records are truly offense free.") (emphasis in original).
+• Mr. Epstein Or His Representatives Have Intimidated, Threatened, And/Or Made
+Payments To Potential Witnesses
+The Government's evidence includes: (i) Florida police reports describing harassment
+and intimidation of witnesses involved in the Florida state criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein
+in 2006, and (ii) emails, dated September 13, 2007 and September 19, 2007 (attached hereto),
+from Mr. Epstein's former counsel to Federal prosecutors in Florida discussing the "option" of
+Mr. Epstein pleading guilty to witness tampering, harassment, and/or obstruction of justice.
+A Palm Beach Police Incident Report, dated July 19, 2006, states that one of Mr.
+Epstein's victims reported that Mr. Epstein's representative said to her: "Those who help [Mr.
+Epstein] will be compensated and those who hurt [Mr. Epstein] will be dealt with." Dkt. 11,
+Ex. 3 at 2 (emphasis added.) The Report also states: "[Mr. Epstein's representative] assured [the
+15
+
+
+victim that] she would receive monetary compensation for her assistance in not cooperating with
+law enforcement." Id. Another (undated) Palm Beach Police Incident Report states that the
+parent of one of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims contacted the Palm Beach Police to report that Mr.
+Epstein's private investigator had aggressively driven the parent's car off the road. Dkt. 11, Ex. 2
+at 1. This same Report states that the parent of another victim reported being "followed
+aggressively" by Mr. Epstein's private investigator. Id.
+The Government contends that these reports together "suggest that an associate of
+Epstein's was offering to buy victims' silence during the course of the prior investigation," and
+demonstrate Mr. Epstein's "willingness to use intimidation and aggressive tactics in connection
+with a criminal investigation." Dkt. 11 at 11.
+The Government also submits e-mail evidence (attached to this Order as Exhibit 1) of
+plea discussions in 2007 between Florida federal prosecutors and Mr. Epstein's attorneys that
+confirm that Mr. Epstein considered pleading guilty to witness tampering, harassment and/or
+obstruction of justice in a case involving alleged sex crimes with minor girls. On September 13,
+2007, prosecutors wrote to Mr. Epstein's counsel that they have been "spending some quality
+time ... looking for misdemeanors [that Mr. Epstein could plead guilty to]," including 18 U.S.C.
+§ 1512(d), a Federal witness tampering statute (a felony) and 18 U.S.C. § 403, a Federal statute
+criminalizing the violation of the privacy protection of child victims and child witnesses (a
+misdemeanor). Doe v. United States, 08 Civ. 80756, (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. 361-11. Epstein's counsel
+replied: "Already thinking about the same statutes." Id. On September 18, 2007, a Federal
+prosecutor told Mr. Epstein's counsel that if Mr. Epstein pled guilty to obstruction of justice, the
+factual proffer "could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private investigators followed [a
+victim's] father, forcing [him] off the road." Id., Dkt. 361-10; see also supra p. 15. On September
+16
+
+
+19, 2007, Mr. Epstein's counsel proposed that Mr. Epstein admit that he verbally harassed
+victims or the family of victims in connection with his "attempt to delay their voluntary receipt
+of process" in a civil action against Mr. Epstein, in violation of a Federal witness tampering
+statute. Doe, Dkt. 361-9.
+And, the Government has recently contended that, on November 28, 2018 and on
+December 3, 2018 - very soon after the publication of a 3-part investigative report in the Miami
+Herald (authored by Julie K.
+relating to Mr. Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution
+Agreement, dated September 24, 2007 - Mr. Epstein paid $100,000 to "a company founded and
+run by [Individual I]." and he paid $250,000 to [Individual II]. Dkt. 23 at 1. The Government
+states that Individual I was "a potential co-conspirator—[] for whom Epstein obtained protection
+in [] the NPA." Id. Individual I was named and featured prominently in the Miami Herald. See,
+e.g., Julie K.
+"Even From Jail, Sex Abuser Manipulated The System. His Victims Were
+Kept in The Dark, Miami Herald, Nov. 28, 2018.
+The Government states that Individual II was also "a potential co-conspirator—I] for
+whom Epstein also obtained protection in [] the NPA." Dkt. 23 at 2. She is "one of the
+employees identified in the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified
+employees facilitated the defendant's trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting
+victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan
+and Palm Beach, Florida." Id. at 2. Individual II was also named and featured prominently in the
+Miami Herald report.
+The Government states there is good reason to infer that Mr. Epstein was attempting to
+"influence [these two] individuals who were close to him during the time period charged in this
+case and who might be witnesses against him at a trial." Dkt. 11 at 11. "Neither of these
+17
+
+
+payments appears to be recurring or repeating during the approximately five years of bank
+records presently available to the Government. This course of action, and in particular its timing,
+suggests the defendant was attempting to further influence co-conspirators who might provide
+information against him in light of the recently re-emerging allegations." Id.
+A court may order detention if there is a serious risk that the defendant will attempt to
+threaten, injure, or intimidate a prospective witness or juror. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B). Even a
+single incident of witness tampering has been a "traditional ground for pretrial detention by the
+courts." LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 132-34 (affirming then-U.S. District Judge Michael B.
+Mukasey's denial of bail to a defendant who had met with a prospective witness in an effort to
+persuade the witness to give untruthful testimony and where there was "no evidence of influence,
+harassment or intimidation"); see also United States v. Singh, 2012 WL 3260232, at *3
+(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2012).
+• Mr. Epstein Has Not Always Been Compliant With His Legal Obligations As A
+Registered Sex Offender
+Defense counsel has contended that Mr. Epstein has been "scrupulously fulfill[ing] his
+obligations in every jurisdiction in which he was required to register [as a sex offender]," since
+his 2008 Florida convictions. Counsel argues that this shows that he "is no longer a danger to
+anyone and will faithfully obey all conditions of release if ordered." Dkt. 6 at 3.
+The record shows that Mr. Epstein has challenged his sex offender "level" in at least one
+jurisdiction since 2008 in an effort to minimize his reporting obligations. And, one recent press
+account states that Epstein is not in compliance in New York State. See Elizabeth Rosner, Tina
+Moore, Larry Celona, and Bruce Golding, NYPD let convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein skip
+judge-ordered check-in, New York Post, July 10, 2019 ("July 10, 2019 NY Post Article")
+18
+
+
+("Jeffrey Epstein never once checked in with City cops in eight-plus years since a Manhattan
+judge ordered him to do so every 90 days").
+Mr. Epstein is a Level III sex offender in New York State which is the highest category
+of risk to reoffend. This designation requires that Mr. Epstein report his presence in New York to
+law enforcement authorities every 90 days. As discussed at the July 15, 2019 bail hearing,
+counsel for Mr. Epstein made an application in New York State Supreme Court in 2011 to
+reduce Epstein's sex offender registration status from Level Ill to Level I. If granted, this
+reduction would have allowed Mr. Epstein to avoid his reporting obligations. In a Sex Offender
+Registration Act Hearing on January 11, 2018, held before the Honorable Ruth Pickholz, Mr.
+Epstein's application was (firmly) denied, principally because it had been established by the
+Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders. See People v. Epstein, Indict. #30129/2010, (N.Y. Sup.
+Ct.), SORA Hearing Transcript, dated Jan. 18, 2011.
+At the hearing, New York County Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Gaffney joined in
+Defense Counsel's appeal to review and overturn the decision of the Board of Examiners of Sex
+Offenders and achieve a downward modification of Mr. Epstein's sex offender status. Id. at 2-15.
+Judge Pickholz appeared to be stunned by the joint Defense Counsel/District Attorney
+application, stating: "I am just a little overwhelmed that the People are making this application..
+.. I have done many SORAs much less troubling than this one where the People would never
+make a downward [adjustment] argument like this. ... I have never seen the prosecutor's office
+do this. I have to tell you, I am shocked." Id. at 4-5. Judge Pickholz also ordered Mr. Epstein to
+report as a Level III sex offender every 90 days in New York. Id. at 12. "I am sorry [Mr. Epstein]
+may have to come here every 90 days. He can give up his New York home [on East 71st. St.] if
+he does not want to come every 90 days." Id. Epstein appealed but Judge Pickholz's decision
+19
+
+
+was unanimously affirmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate
+Division of the New York State Supreme Court. People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d
+239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).
+Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz's order, according to a July 10, 2019 investigative report
+by the New York Post, as noted, Mr. Epstein has never reported as a sex offender to New York
+law enforcement. See July 10, 2019 NY Post Article. "The NYPD cop assigned to monitor
+Epstein has repeatedly complained to [the New York County District Attorney's] Sex Crimes
+Unit that Epstein wasn't in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter." Id. Mr.
+Epstein's alleged failure to comply with his New York sex offender obligations would appear to
+undermine defense counsel's premise that Mr. Epstein's "perfect compliance" and "meticulous
+obedience," Dkt. 6 at 1, 5, to his sex offender registration obligations should lead to his release.
+See LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 135 n.6 (where the Court ordered detention noting that the
+defendant "had previously disregarded court orders").
+The Court has also read the story in the July 17, 2019, New York Post in which attorney
+Brad
+contends that while Epstein was serving his Florida state sentence (after pleading
+guilty to procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution), Epstein was
+allowed to leave the jail on work release. While on work release "[h]e was having ... female
+visitors ... and continuing to engage in ... [sexual] conduct ... while he was in "jail'." Mr.
+is counsel to one of Mr. Epstein's victims. See Reuven Fenton and Kate Sheehy, Jeffrey
+Epstein had sex den while serving time: lawyer, New York Post, July 16, 2019. The Court is also
+aware of an article published by Palm Beach CBS local news which reports that the Palm Beach
+County Sherriff's Office "disputes [the] claim that Jeffrey Epstein had sex on work release." A
+spokeswoman for the sheriff's office is quoted as saying "If he violated any conditions of his
+20
+
+
+release he would have been brought back to the Stockade and work release would have been
+terminated." Chuck
+PBSO disputes claim that Jeffrey Epstein had sex on work release,
+CBS 12 News, July 17, 2019.
+• New Mexico, Florida And The Virgin Islands
+With respect to Mr. Epstein's sex offender status in New Mexico, Defense Counsel has
+submitted a letter, dated August 19, 2010, from Regina Chacon, Assistant Bureau Chief, Law
+Enforcement Record Bureau of the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, which states that
+Mr. Epstein "is not required to register [as a sex offender] with the State of New Mexico at this
+time for [his] 2008 Florida conviction of Procuring [a] Person Under 18 for Prostitution." Dkt.
+25, Ex. A. The Court requested from the Defense all application materials that Mr. Epstein may
+have submitted to the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, believing that the Department
+would not initiate the waiver of Mr. Epstein's sex offense registration on its own. No such
+materials have been received by the Court as of this date.
+The Court understands that Mr. Epstein is also registered as a sex offender in the Virgin
+Islands (Level I) and in Florida (Level I). It has received no materials from the Defense
+regarding sex offender applications or proceedings in those two jurisdictions.
+In sum, based upon all of the proffers and evidence set forth at pp. 10-21 above, the Court
+finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Epstein poses a danger to other persons and to
+the community.
+G. Mr. Epstein Also Poses A Risk Of Flight
+In the section that follows, the Court considers "risk of flight" even though it has already
+determined that Mr. Epstein presents a danger to the community. "[A] finding of either danger
+to the community or risk of flight will be sufficient to detain the defendant pending trial."
+21
+
+
+United States v.
+, 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Portes, 786
+F.2d 765 (7th Cir. 1985)). The Court finds that the Government has shown by a preponderance
+of the evidence that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk.
+The factors to be considered in analyzing risk of flight are the same factors that apply
+when analyzing dangerousness. They are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes
+charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics
+of the defendant, including the person's character and financial resources; and (4) "the
+seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's release." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). "The weight
+afforded to each factor under section 3142(g) is within the "special province' of the district
+court." Paulino, 335 F. Supp. at 610.
+At the outset, it should be noted that the Pretrial Services Report, dated July 12, 2019,
+concludes that: "The defendant poses a risk of nonappearance for the following reasons:
+1. [Mr. Epstein's] Extensive foreign travel and possession of travel documents
+2. [Mr. Epstein's] Residential and Financial Ties outside this District and Country
+3. [Mr. Epstein's] Employment ties outside this country
+4. [Mr. Epstein's] Unexplained assets
+5. [Mr. Epstein's] Criminal History including [his] conviction for a [] sex offense [with
+minors in Florida in 2008]." Pretrial Services Report, dated July 12, 2019 at 4.
+• The Crimes Charged Against Mr. Epstein
+Mr. Epstein has been charged with among the most serious crimes recognized by U.S.
+Federal law. The Government has alleged that Mr. Epstein intentionally sought out and sexually
+abused minor girls, including those "particularly vulnerable to exploitation." Dkt. 11, Ex. 1, at 2.
+He did this in multiple locations, including New York and Palm Beach. Id. And, Mr. Epstein
+allegedly "worked and conspired with others, including employees and associates who facilitated
+22
+
+
+his [unlawful] conduct, by ... contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters."
+Indictment † 4. These crimes, as already noted, carry a maximum sentence of 45 years of
+incarceration and give rise to a presumption of pre-trial remand. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e)(3)(E); see
+United States v. Hardy, 2019 WL 2211210, at *10 (D.D.C. May 22, 2019) ("The significant
+harms and dangers of these crimes animated the Congress to create the statutory presumption of
+detention."). The nature and circumstances of the crimes charged and the severity of the potential
+punishment support a finding that Defendant poses "a serious flight risk and that no conditions
+can be set to reasonably assure his appearance for trial." United States v. Cilins, 2013 WL
+3802012, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013).
+• Weight Of The Evidence
+The Government's evidence against Mr. Epstein appears strong. The evidence includes
+testimony of victims, some of whom were minor girls when they were allegedly sexually abused
+by Mr. Epstein; other witnesses, including potential coconspirators; physical evidence, including
+passports reflecting extensive foreign travel; sexually suggestive photographs of nude underage
+girls; plea discussions; and police reports describing witness tampering and intimidation. See.
+e.g., United States v. Fama, 2013 WL 2467985, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2013) ("the Court
+recognizes the difficulty inherent in assessing the Government's case before trial, and is mindful
+not to reach any conclusions about [the Defendant's] guilt or innocence. Indeed, some courts
+have described the weight of the evidence factor as the least important' of the § 3142(g) factors
+for these reasons."); see also Hir, 517 F.3d at 1090.
+• History And Characteristics Of The Defendant Including His Financial Resources
+Mr. Epstein pled guilty to two state felonies involving minor girls in Florida. He also
+held plea discussions regarding witness tampering in Florida in 2008. He is a registered Level III
+23
+
+
+sex offender in New York and a registered sex offender in Florida (Level I) and the Virgin
+Islands (Level I). Mr. Epstein is 66 and is reported to be a self made multi-millionaire. He did
+not graduate from college. Mr. Epstein's vast wealth, including substantial liquid assets, multiple
+residences, private plane(s), a $8,672,823 residence in Paris, France, and relatively limited
+family ties to the United States in the sense that he is single with no children and his parents are
+deceased. He has a brother who Defense counsel asserts has offered to serve as a guarantor for
+Mr. Epstein by pledging his home in West Palm Beach, Florida. (The Court notes that the
+Pretrial Services Report, dated July 12, 2019, states that "[t)he defendant stated he maintains
+minimal contact with his brother, Mark Epstein, and that his exact location is unknown at this
+time." Pretrial Services Report at 2.)
+Mr. Epstein engages in extensive overseas travel often relying on his own plane(s). The
+Government argues persuasively that "there is an extraordinary risk of flight, particularly given
+the defendant's exorbitant wealth, his ownership of and access to private planes capable of
+international travel, and his significant international ties. Indeed, the arrest of the defendant
+occurred when he arrived in the United States on his private jet after having returned from a
+multi-week stay abroad." Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 1. "I)n the past 18 months alone, the defendant has
+traveled abroad, via private jet, either into or out of the country on approximately more than 20
+occasions." Id. at 3.
+In a recent search of Defendant's New York City home, law enforcement seized an
+expired Austrian passport bearing Mr. Epstein's photo but not his name. (The passport is in
+another name.) The Austrian passport lists residence in Saudi Arabia. According to the
+Government, Defense counsel declined to respond when asked by the Government if the
+24
+
+
+"Defendant is currently, or has been in the past, a citizen or legal permanent resident of a country
+other than the United States." Dkt. 23 at 2.
+Defense counsel contends that Defendant has one active passport that was surrendered
+and that "Mr. Epstein has no foreign passports." Dkt. 6 at 3 n. 3. With regard to the Austrian
+passport, the Defense explains that "Epstein ... acquired the passport in the 1980s, when
+hijackings were prevalent, in connection to Middle East travel. The passport was for personal
+protection in the event of travel to dangerous areas, only to be presented to potential kidnapers,
+hijackers or terrorists should violent episodes occur." Dkt. 24 at 8. Details about how the
+passport was procured by Mr. Epstein in the name of another individual were not provided and
+are not known to the Government. See Dkt. 23 at 2 ("The Government is attempting to obtain
+additional information about the Foreign Passport, including how it was obtained and whether
+the passport is genuine or fabricated. But the defendant's possession of what purports to be a
+foreign passport issued under an alias gives rise to the inference the defendant knows how to
+obtain false travel documents and/or assume other, foreign identities. This adds to the serious
+risk of flight posed by the defendant."). The Government also argues that "the passport contains
+numerous ingress and egress stamps, including stamps that reflect use of the passport to enter
+France, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia in the 1980s." Dkt. 30. By submission
+dated July 18, 2019, the Defense explains: "Epstein was given the passport at issue by a friend ..
+. He never used the document to travel internationally and never presented it to any immigration
+or customs authority. The passport stamps, predating his receipt of the document, do not reflect
+Mr. Epstein's entries or exits." Dkt. 31.
+Defense counsel has submitted a one page document called "Asset Summary - June 30,
+2019." It indicates that Epstein has cash in the amount of $56,547,773; fixed income valued at
+25
+
+
+$14,304,679; equities valued at $112,679,138; hedge funds and private equity valued at
+$194,986,301; properties located at 9 East 71st Street, NY, NY 10021 valued at $55,931,000, 49
+Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico 87056 valued at $17,246,208, 358 EI Brillo Way, Palm
+Beach, Florida 33480 valued at $12,380,209, 22 Avenue Foch, Paris France 75116 valued at
+$8,672,823, Great St. James Island No. 6A USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C) valued at
+$22,498,600 and Little St. James Island No. 6B USVI 00802 (parcels A, B, and C). Dkt. 14 at
+18. The Court has advised Defense counsel that this "cursory" asset statement is insufficient to
+support a bail package for the reasons, among others, that it is not verified and does not show
+expenses, indebtedness, or liabilities.
+Law enforcement has informed the Government that a safe in the Defendant's New York
+home very recently contained "more than $70,000 in cash ... 48 loose diamond stones, ranging
+in size from approximately 1 carat to 2.38 carats, as well as a large diamond ring. The
+Government is currently unaware of whether the Defendant maintains similar [amounts] of cash
+and/or jewels at his multiple properties, or in other locations. Such ready cash and loose
+diamonds are consistent with the capability to leave the jurisdiction at a moment's notice." Dkt.
+23 at 3.
+The Defendant's vast wealth and influential contacts have provided him with the means
+to pay individuals to assist him in unlawful endeavors, including potentially fleeing the
+jurisdiction. In the past, "the Defendant worked with others, including employees and associates
+who facilitated his exploitation of minors, by among other things, contacting victims and
+scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant, both in New York and in Florida." Dkt.
+11, Ex. 1 at 2.
+26
+
+
+David Boies, who, as noted, represents identified victims in this case, advised the Court
+that while a civil case was proceeding against the Defendant "we had situations in which we had
+witnesses who were cooperating with us and then were contacted by either Mr. Epstein or his
+lawyers and who then stopped cooperating with us." 7/15/19 Tr. at 71; see also United States v.
+Boustani, 356 F.Supp.3d 246 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (*[T]he combination of Defendant's alleged
+deceptive actions, access to substantial financial resources, frequent international travel,
+complete lack of ties to the United States, and extensive ties to foreign countries without
+extradition demonstrates Defendant poses a serious risk of flight."); United States v. Epstein,
+155 F.Supp.2d 323, 326 (E.D. Penn. 2001) ("The crucial factor, however, is defendant's lack of
+ties to the United States and his extensive ties to Brazil with which no extradition treaty exists.
+In our view, his forfeiture of $1 million worth of assets in the United States would not deter him
+from flight when in Brazil he has significant wealth, a lucrative job, the presence of his family,
+and insulation from ever being forced to stand trial.").
+Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Government has shown
+by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant is a serious risk of flight and that no
+conditions can be set that will reasonably assure his appearance at trial. "While other judges in
+this district have found that an armed security guard may be sufficient to assure a defendant's
+appearance, even when he is a serious risk of flight ... this Court does not believe that that
+condition, even coupled with the additional conditions proposed, would be sufficient." United
+Cilins, 2013 WL 3802012, at *3.
+• The Danger Posed By The Defendant's Release
+As demonstrated infra, Mr. Epstein's dangerousness is considerable and includes sex
+crimes with minor girls and tampering with potential witnesses. The discussion at pp 10-21 is
+27
+
+
+incorporated here by reference. See Minnici, 128 F. App'x at 829-30 ("the alleged activities
+[we|re of an addictive sexual nature that cannot be suppressed simply by a restrictive set of bail
+conditions"); see also Millan, 4 F.3d at 1049 (*[T]he protection of the community can be assured
+only by continued detention.").
+The Court has carefully considered the issue of Defendant's ability and motivation for
+fleeing U.S. jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Government has proven by a preponderance of
+the evidence that, among other things, the Defendant's limited family ties to the United States,
+his residence in Paris, his extensive overseas travel, his significant wealth and his substantial
+resources (including private planes), and the potential 45 year term of imprisonment that may be
+imposed should there be a conviction in this case, provide incentive, motive and wherewithal to
+flee. Indeed, these factors render him a "classic" flight risk. Sec, c.g., United States v. Abdullahu,
+488 F.Supp.2d 433, 445 (D.N.J. 2007) ("After reviewing the totality of the evidence, the Court
+has reached the inescapable conclusion that the government has proved by a preponderance of
+the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions exist that will reasonably assure the
+defendant's appearance at trial. The defendant faces serious criminal charges ... The defendant
+faces a potential ten year prison sentence and involuntary deportation. The defendant does not
+have permanent and longstanding ties to this area, he has the means and incentive to flee and he
+has family ties and a place to live in an overseas country that will not extradite him to the United
+States.").
+H. Defendant's Proposed Bail Package
+Having determined that Mr. Epstein is a flight risk (and also a danger to the community),
+the Court next examines the Defendant's proposed bail package. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b)-(f)(2).
+28
+
+
+The Court finds that the Defendant's proposed bail package is inadequate. Among its
+deficiencies are these:
+(1) The bail package is not accompanied or supported by audited or certified financial
+statements, including details of income and expenses and debt obligations. There is no affidavit
+from Mr. Epstein. As noted, Defense counsel submitted a cursory one page "Asset Summary -
+June 30, 2019" on Mr. Epstein's behalf in which he discloses several categories of assets totaling
+$559,120,954. The Defense states that it "would be impossible for Epstein - given, among other
+impediments, his detention, inability to quickly access pertinent records, and inability to quickly
+make a precise valuation of particular assets - to provide a sufficient financial statement by the
+Court's 5 pm deadline." Dkt. 23 at 4.
+The absence of accurate and comprehensive financials, sworn to by the Defendant, does
+not allow the Court meaningfully to assess Defendants' own proposed bail package nor would it
+enable the Court to fashion a bail package on its own. The Court would not be able to determine
+what level of bail - in relation to Epstein's finances - would reasonably assure the Defendant's
+appearance. Defense counsel proposed at the bail hearing on July 15, 2019 that it would take a
+few days to prepare accurate financials for Mr. Epstein. He also suggested that he would do so
+(only) if the Court were agreeable to granting bail. This "offer" appears disingenuous for a
+person as wealthy and experienced in financial matters as Mr. Epstein. See Tr. 7/15/19 at 50
+(Court: "There needs to be a fuller financial picture to know what would be appropriate."
+Defense Counsel: "Let me be blunt. It was our first effort ...."). That Mr. Epstein does not have
+a financial statement, including liabilities and expenses, readily available is difficult to
+understand.
+29
+
+
+(2) The defense bail package proposes excessive involvement of the Court in routine
+aspects of Mr. Epstein's proposed home confinement. This is not the Court's function. See
+United States v. Zarrab, 2016 WL 3681423, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) ("The [bail
+package] ... proposed by the defense is not reasonable because, in too many respects, it
+substitutes judicial oversight and management for (more appropriate) reliance upon trained,
+experienced, and qualified professionals from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals
+Service."). The Defense package components would embroil the Court in issues, among others,
+relating to the level of force that may be used to secure the Defendant, who may enter the
+residence, daily reporting by Mr. Epstein, and reporting by so-called Trustee(s) designated to live
+with and supervise Mr. Epstein. See United States v. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d 283, 295 (E.D.N.Y.
+2014) ("The questions about the legal authorization for the private security firm to use force
+against defendant should he violate the terms of his release, and the questions over whether the
+guards can or should be armed, underscore the legal and practical uncertainties - indeed, the
+imperfections - of the private jail-like concept envisioned by defendant, as compared to the more
+secure option of an actual jail.").
+(3) The Defense proposal to give advance consent to extradition and waiver of extradition
+rights is, in the Court's view, an empty gesture. And, it comes into pay only after Mr. Epstein has
+fled the Court's jurisdiction. According to the Government, "The Department of Justice's Office
+of International Affairs is unaware of any country anywhere in the world that would consider an
+anticipatory extradition waiver binding. And, of course, the defendant could choose to flee to a
+jurisdiction with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty." Dkt. 11 at 7.
+(4) Although the Defense has stated that Mr. Epstein would be agreeable to putting up
+"any amount" of collateral or signing "any bond" the Court would require, there has, to date,
+30
+
+
+been no concrete pledge of any real assets or any concrete proposal to turnover deeds to real
+property, or to provide a specific amount of cash. See 7/15/19 Tr. at 50 (*1 am authorized to say
+to the Court that whatever bond you want Mr. Epstein to sign, whether it's $100 million or an
+amount close to the amount of the assets that we have provided, Mr. Epstein is prepared to sign
+it.").
+The Court, as noted, has no detailed information regarding the extent of the Defendant's
+assets, including the nature, value and location of all of his assets. There is no mention of any
+expenses, liabilities, or indebtedness. And, there has been no persuasive Defense counter to the
+Government's argument that "even were the defendant to sacrifice literally all of his current
+assets, there is every indication that he would immediately be able to resume making millions or
+tens of millions of dollars per year outside of the United States. He already earns at least
+$10,000,000 per year, according to records from Institution-1, while living in the U.S. Virgin
+Islands, traveling extensively abroad, and residing in part in Paris, France; there would be little to
+stop the defendant from fleeing, transferring his unknown assets abroad, and then continuing to
+do whatever it is he does to earn his vast wealth from a computer terminal beyond the reach of
+extradition." Dkt. 11 at 5 (emphasis omitted). The Defendant, it should also be noted, is already
+at risk of losing some of his real property because the Indictment contains a forfeiture allegation
+regarding any property that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the sex
+trafficking offenses and that includes, but it is not limited to, the property located at 9 East 71st
+Street, New York, New York.
+(5) The appointment and role of "trustees" who will presumably live with Mr. Epstein
+and monitor his compliance with bail conditions are unacceptably vague. They do not, for
+example, address the conflict that is created by the salary the "trustees" are earning from the
+31
+
+
+Defendant and their purported role as independent monitors. (The same problem arises in
+relation to private 24/7 security guards.) This is especially problematic where, as here, it is
+alleged that employees of the Defendant may have engaged in unlawful acts with and on behalf
+of the Defendant. According to the Government, "the defendant worked with others, including
+employees and associates who facilitated his exploitation of minors, by among other things,
+contacting victims and scheduling their sexual encounters with the defendant, both in New York
+and in Florida." Dkt. I1, Ex. 1 at 2
+(6) "As a fallback," the Defense suggests the utilization of and the funding of a private
+security guard agency to "virtually guarantee" Mr. Epstein's presence in court and, presumably,
+also to supervise his behavior. This contingency plan is not a part of Mr. Epstein's 14 point
+proposal. Nevertheless, the Court is asked by the defense to "revisit" its legal viewpoint as
+expressed in an earlier decision concerning 24/7 private home security guards.
+Each bail package in each case is considered and evaluated on its individual merits by the
+Court. And, in view of the Court's finding of dangerousness, a new bail proposal likely would be
+futile. See, e.g., United Ferranti, 66 F.3d at 544 ("No conceivable conditions could ensure the
+safety of the community."); Orena, 986 F.2d at 632 ("We do not agree that the bail conditions set
+by the district court eliminate the danger to the community or are superior to detention for
+purposes of the Bail Reform Act."); United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 1985)
+(*These conditions are clearly inadequate to protect the public from one found for bail purposes
+to be a danger to the community.").
+
+
+Conclusion & Order
+Based upon the forgoing, the Government's motion for remand (detention) is granted and
+the Defense motion for pretrial release is denied.
+Dated: New York, New York
+July 18, 2019
+RMIS
+RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J.
+33
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-1, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page1 of 1
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+ROBERT A. KATZMANN
+CHIEF JUDGE
+Date: July 23, 2019
+Docket #: 19-2221
+Short Title: United States of America v. Epstein
+ATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLF
+LERK OF COUR
+DC Docket #: 1:19-cr-490-1|
+DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
+CITY) ฿
+DC Judge: Berman
+NOTICE OF RECORD ON APPEAL FILED
+In the above referenced case the document indicated below has been filed in the Court.
+Record on Appeal - Certified List
+Record on Appeal - CD ROM
+Record on Appeal - Paper Documents
+_X
+Record on Appeal - Electronic Index
+Record on Appeal - Paper Index
+Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8528.
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page1 of 8
+CA02db Intake
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+NYSD_ECF_Pool@nysd.uscourts.gov
+Tuesday, July 23, 2019 9:05 AM
+NYSD CourtMail
+Activity in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB USA v. Epstein Appeal Record Sent to USCA - Electronic File
+This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail
+because the mail box is unattended.
+***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and
+parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if
+receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges,
+download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the
+free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
+U.S. District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Notice of Electronic Filing
+The following transaction was entered on 7/23/2019 at 9:04 AM EDT and filed on 7/23/2019
+Case Name:
+Case Number:
+Filer:
+USA v. Epstein
+1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document Number: No document attached
+Docket Text:
+Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic
+Files as to Jeffrey Epstein re: [34] Notice of Appeal were transmitted to the U.S. Court of
+Appeals. (nd)
+1:19-cr-00490-RMB-1 Notice has been electronically mailed to:
+James L. Brochin jbrochin@brochinlawpllc.com
+Marc Allan Fernich
+maf@fernichlaw.com,ggraham@fernichlaw.com
+Michael Campion
+ocorn@Steptoe.com
+mmiller@steptoe.com, bhamerschlag@steptoe.com, ehartman@steptoe.com,
+Reid Weingarten
+rweingarten@steptoe.com
+Gary Weinberg
+owlmgw@att.net, owlmcb@att.net
+Alison Gainfort Moe
+alison.moe@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
+Michael Gerard Scavelli mscavelli@steptoe.com, ehartman@steptoe.com, ocorn@steptoe.com
+1
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page2 of 8
+Alex Rossmiller
+alexander.rossmiller@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
+Maurene Ryan Comey
+maurene.comey@usdoj.gov, CaseView.ECF@usdoj.gov, USANYS.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
+1:19-cr-00490-RMB-1 Notice has been delivered by other means to:
+2
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page3 of 8
+APPEAL,ECF
+U.S. District Court
+Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
+CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:19-cr-Ò049Ó-RMB All Defendants
+Case title: USA v. Epstein
+Date Filed: 07/02/2019
+Assigned to: Judge Richard M.
+Berman
+Defendant (1)
+Jeffrey Epsteir
+also known as
+Sealed Defendant 1
+represented by Septoe. Brachi, LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+Email: brochin @ brochinlawpile col
+LEAD ATTORNE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEI
+Designation: Retaine
+Mare Allan Fernich
+Law Office of Marc Fernich
+810 Seveth Ave
+Suite 620
+New York, NY 10019
+(212) 446-2346
+Fax: (212) 446 2330
+mail: mat@ternichlaw.co
+EAD ATTORNE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Gary Weinber
+J. Weinberg. P(
+20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
+Boston,
+02116
+617-227-3700
+Fax: 617-338-9538
+Email: owlmgw@att.n
+LEAD ATTORNE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Michael Campion
+Steptoe &
+LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+(212) 506-3900
+Fax: (212) 506-3950
+Email: mmiller@steptoc.com
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Michael Gerard Scavelli
+Steptoe &
+| LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+212-378-7538
+Fax: 212-506-3950
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page4 of 8
+Email: mscavelli@steptoc.com
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Reid Weingarten
+Steptoe &
+1. LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+(202)-506-3900
+Fax: (212)-506-3950
+Email: rweingarten@steptoe.com
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Retained
+Disposition
+Pending Counts
+18:371.F SEX TRAFFICKING
+CONSPIRACY
+(1)
+18:1591.F SEX TRAFFICKING
+OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE,
+FRAUD OR COERCION
+(2)
+Highest Offense Level
+(Opening)
+Felony
+Terminated Counts
+None
+Highest Offense Level
+(Terminated)
+None
+Complaints
+None
+Disposition
+Disposition
+Plaintiff
+USA
+represented by Alex Rossmiller
+U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of
+New York
+1 St. Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+(212)-637-2415
+Email: alexander. rossmiller@ usdoj.gov
+PRO HAC VICE
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Assistant US Attorney
+Alison Gainfort Moe
+United States Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+(212)-637-2225
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page5 of 8
+Email: alison.moe(@usdoj.gov
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Assistant US Attorney
+Maurene Ryan Comey
+United States Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+(212)-637-2324
+Email: maurene.comey @usdoj.gov
+ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
+Designation: Assistant US Attorney
+Date Filed
+07/02/2019
+07/03/2019
+#
+2
+Docket Text
+SEALED INDICTMENT as to Sealed Defendant 1 (1) counts) 1, 2. (jm) (Entered:
+07/08/2019)
+1
+SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (mhe) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
+3
+Order to Unseal Indictment as to Sealed Defendant 1. (Signed by Magistrate Judge
+Henry B. Pitman on 7/8/19)(jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+INDICTMENT UNSEALED as to Jeffrey Epstein. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Case Designated ECF as to Jeffrey Epstein. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Case as to Jeffrey Epstein ASSIGNED to Judge Richard M. Berman. (jm) (Entered:
+07/08/2019)
+Attorney update in case as to Jetfrey Epstein. Attorney Alex Rossmiller, Maurene Ryan
+Comey,Alison Gainfort Moe for USA added. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. (Actual arrest date is 7/6/19 - Defendant arrested while
+matter under seal) (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman:Initial
+Appearance as to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/8/2019. Defendant is present with attorney
+Weinberg; AUSA Rossmiller is also present. Defendant id detained until
+continuation of detention hearing which is scheduled for 7/11/19 at 2:00 PM. (jm)
+(Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: As to
+Jeffrey Epstein Detention Hearing set for 7/11/2019 at 02:00 PM before Judge Richard
+M. Berman. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman:
+Defendant is present with attorney
+Weinberg: AUSA Rossmiller is also
+present. Arraignment as to Jeffrey Epstein (1) Count 1,2 Jeffrey Epstein (1) Count 1,2
+held on 7/8/2019., Plea entered by Jeffrey Epstein (1) Count 1,2 Jeffrey Epstein (1)
+Count 1,2 Not Guilty. Conference before USDJ on 7/8/19. (jm) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Statu:
+Conference as to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/8/2019. AUSAs Alex Rossmiller, Mauren‹
+Comey and Alison Moe present; Also present is Special Agent Amanda Young an
+Task Force Officer Paul Byrne; Defendant present with attorneys
+Weinberg,
+Reid Weingarten and Marc Fernich; US Pretrial Officers Keyana Pompey and Lea
+Harmon present; initial conference held; defense bail submission is due on 7/11/19 at
+12:00 noon; government reply by 7/12/19 at 5:00 pm; Bail hearing is scheduled for
+7/15/19 at 10:00 am; See transcript of proceedings held for a complete record; Speedy
+trial time is excluded for the reasons set forth on the record from 7/8/19 to 7/15/19
+pursuant to 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). (Bond Hearing set for 7/15/2019 at 10:00
+AM before Judge Richard M. Berman) (Court Reporter Tom |
+D (ap) (Entered:
+07/08/2019)
+
+
+07/11/2019
+07/11/2019
+07/11/2019
+07/11/2019
+07/12/2019
+07/12/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+07/15/2019
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page6 of 8
+1
+8
+2
+10
+Ц
+12
+13
+Attorney update in case as to Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney
+R. Weinberg, Reid
+Weingarten, Mare Allan Fernich for Jeffrey Epstein added. (ap) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
+Attorney update in case as to Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney
+Gary Weinberg for
+Jeffrey Epstein added. (bw) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
+LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten
+dated July 11, 2019 re: Pretrial Release. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Weingarten, Reid) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
+MOTION to Seal Document. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Weingarten, Reid)
+(Entered: 07/11/2019)
+LETTER RESPONSE to Motion by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Alex Rossmiller dated July 11, 2019 re: 1 MOTION to Seal
+Document .. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
+ORDER granting 1 Motion to Seal Document as to Jeffrey Epstein (I). Defense
+motion granted. Materials to be hand delivered to
+(and opposing counsel) by
+9:00 AM, July 12, 2019. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/11/2019) (clt)
+(Entered: 07/12/2019)
+MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Jeffrey Epstein on re: & Response to Motion filed by
+USA. ENDORSEMENT: Application for extension of time denied. (Hard to imagine it
+would take the Govt extra time to review submission.) (Signed by Judge Richard M.
+Berman on 7/12/2019)(clt) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
+LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Alex Rossmiller dated July 12, 2019 re: 6 LETTER
+MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten dated July
+11, 2019 re: Pretrial Release .. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit
+3)(Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - MOTION for
+G.
+Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
+ANYSDC-17240904. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
+Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1.
+Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit 2. Proposed Text Order) (Weinberg,
+Modified on 7/15/2019 (wb). (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+›>>NOTICE REGARDING DEFICIENT MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC
+VICE. Notice as to Jeffrey Epstein to RE-FILE Document No. 12 MOTION for
+G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number
+ANYSDC-17240904. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's
+Office staff... The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): Pursuant to Rule
+1.3. the Attorney Affidavit missing the language of disciplinary.;. Re-file the
+motion as a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice - attach the correct signed PDF -
+select the correct named filer/filers - attach valid Certificates of Good Standing
+issued within the past 30 days - attach Proposed Order.. (wb) (Entered:
+07/15/2019)
+MOTION for
+G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion and supporting
+papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit 2. Pronosed
+Text Order, # 3 Exhibit 3. Affidavit of |
+G. Weinberg)(Weinberg,
+(Entered: 07/15/2019)
+>>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document
+| G. Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion and
+supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been
+reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (wb) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+ORDER as to Jeffrey Epstein. The Clerk is respectfully requested to docket the
+enclosed documents which were discussed at today's bail hearing. (Signed by Judge
+Richard M. Berman on 7/15/19)(jw) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman:Bail Hearing as
+to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/15/2019. AUSA Rossmiller, AUSA Moe, and AUSA
+
+
+07/15/2019
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page7 of 8
+Comey present;Also present is FBI Special Agent Amanda Young and NYPD
+Detective Paul Byrne present;Defendant present with attorneys
+Weinberg, Reid
+Weingarten, Marc Fernich, James Brochin; and
+Jaffe; USPO Pretrial Services
+Officers Francesca Tessier-]
+• Bernisa Mejia and Dennis Khilkevich present; Also
+present Court Reporter Kelly Surina present; supplemental submission(s) to be filed by
+7/16/19 5:00 pm; ruling on bail hearing scheduled for 7/18/19 at 9:30 am. (jw)
+(Entered: 07/15/2019)
+15
+LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Alex Rossmiller
+dated July 15, 2019 re: speedy trial time exclusion. Document filed by USA as to
+Jeffrey Epstein. (Rossmiller, Alex) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
+16
+MEMO ENDORSED granting 15 LETTER MOTION speedy trial time exclusion as to
+Jeffrey Epstein (I)...ENDORSEMENT: Application Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed
+by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/16/19) (jbo) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+17
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 13 Motion for
+Weinberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jeffrey Epstein (1). IT IS HEREBY
+G.
+ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hae Vice in the
+above-captioned matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
+New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of
+this Court, including the rules governing discipline of attorneys. (Signed by Judge
+Richard M. Berman on 7/16/19) (jbo) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+18
+TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Jeffrey Epstein re: Conference held on 7/8/19
+before Judge Richard M. Berman. Court Reporter/Transcriber:
+- (212)
+805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through
+the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript
+Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due
+8/6/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2019. Release of Transcript
+Restriction set for 10/15/2019. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+12
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Jeffrey Epstein. Notice is
+hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/8/19 has
+been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties
+have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request
+Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made
+remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar
+days.... (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+20
+TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Jeffrey Epstein re: Conference held on 7/8/19
+before Judge Richard M. Berman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Kristen Carannante,
+(212) 805-0300, Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased
+8/6/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/16/2019. Release of Transcript
+Restriction set for 10/15/2019. (McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+21 | NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT as to Jeffrey Epstein. Notice is
+22
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY - RESPONSE in Support of
+Motion by Jeffrey Epstein re: Q LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Richard M
+erman from Reid Weingarten dated July 11, 2019 re: Pretrial Release .. Lette
+Supplementing Bail Motion (Fernich, Marc) Modified on 7/17/2019 (ka). (Entered:
+23
+. LETTER by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from
+Document Mie day SA. tachmens: # Exhibit A Dee Alison Entered
+17/16/2019
+
+
+07/18/2019
+07/18/2019
+07/18/2019
+Case 19-2221, Document 4-2, 07/23/2019, 2614681, Page8 of 8
+24
+LETTER RESPONSE in Support of Motion by Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Mare Fernich dated 7/16/2019 re: 6 LETTER MOTION
+addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten dated July 11, 2019 re:
+Pretrial Release... Corrected Letter Supplementing Bail Motion (Fixes Formatting &
+Typographical Errors) (Fernich, Marc) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
+25
+LETTER by Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid
+Weingarten dated July 17, 2019 re: Supplemental Bail Submission (Attachments: #1
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Weingarten, Reid) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+26
+ORDER as to Jeffrey Epstein. The conference in this matter is rescheduled from 9:30
+am on July 18, 2019 to 11:30 am on July 18, 2019. (Signed by Judge Richard M.
+Berman on 7/17/19)(jbo) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+Set/Reset Hearings as to Jeffrey Epstein: Bond Hearing set for 7/18/2019 at 11:30 AM
+before Judge Richard M. Berman. (jbo) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+21
+NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Michael Campion
+appearing for
+Jeffrey Epstein. Appearance Type: Retained.
+Michael) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+28
+NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: James L. Brochin appearing for Jeffrey
+Epstein. Appearance Type: Retained. (Brochin, James) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+22
+NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Michael Gerard Scavelli appearing for
+Jeffrey Epstein. Appearance Type: Retained. (Scavelli, Michael) (Entered:
+07/17/2019)
+30
+LETTER by USA as to Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from
+Alison Moe dated July 17, 2019 re: the defendant's foreign passport. Document filed
+by USA. (Moe, Alison) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
+31
+- LETTER RESPONSE in Support of Motion by Jeffrey Epstein addressed to Judge
+Richard M. Berman from Marc Fernich dated 7/18/2019 re: 6 LETTER MOTION
+addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Reid Weingarten dated July 11, 2019 re:
+Pretrial Release .. (Fernich, Marc) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
+Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Bond Hearing as
+to Jeffrey Epstein held on 7/18/2019. AUSA Rossmiller, AUSA Moe and AUSA
+Comey present; Also present is FBI Special Agent Amanda Young and NYPD
+Detective Paul Byrne present; Defendant present with attorney:
+Weinberg.
+Marc Fernich, James Brochin and Michael
+_ present: USPO Pretrial Services
+Officer John Moscato present; Court Reporter Tom
+present; Court denies bail;
+Written order to follow; next conference is scheduled for July 31, 2019 at 11:00 am;
+speedy trial time is excluded for the reasons set forth on the record from 7/18/19 to
+7/31/19 pursuant to 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). (jbo) (Entered: 07/18/2019)
+32 | DECISION & ORDER REMANDING DEFENDANT as to Jeffrey Epstein. Based
+07/22/2019
+07/22/2019
+07/23/2019
+07/23/2019
+33
+SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault. (rz) (Entered: 07/22/2019)
+34
+S05.0, receipt number 4654012405p ind) ered: 07032 Order..
+Filing fee
+ransmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet as to Jeffr
+Appeals re: 34 Notice of Appeal. (nd) (Entered: 07/23/201
+peal lie cries as to else petre: Noice or Appen were transmited to
+S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 07/23/201
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 5, 07/24/2019, 2616528, Page1 of 1
+NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL
+Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel's Contact Information is as follows:
+Name: Maurene Comey
+Firm: United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
+Address: One St. Andrew's Plaza
+Telephone: (212) 637-2324
+Fax: (212) 637-2387
+E-mail: maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Appearance for: United States of America/Appellee
+(party/designation)
+Select One:
+Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel:
+Docket No.: 19-2221
+(name/firm)
+Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel:
+(name/firm)
+Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Sarah K. Eddy/U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
+(name/firm)
+Amicus (in support of :
+(party/ designation)
+CERTIFICATION
+I certify that:
+[VI am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed
+my admission on N/A
+I applied for admission on
+Signature of Counsel: /S/Maurene Comey
+Type or Print Name: Maurene Comey
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 6, 07/24/2019, 2616568, Page1 of 1
+NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL
+Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel's Contact Information is as follows:
+Name: Alison G. Moe
+Firm: United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
+Address: One St. Andrew's Plaza
+Telephone: (212) 637-2225
+Fax:
+E-mail: alison.moe@usdoj.gov
+Appearance for: United States of America/Appellee
+(party/designation)
+Select One:
+Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel:
+Docket No.: 19-2221
+(name/firm)
+Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel:
+(name/firm)
+Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Sarah K. Eddy/U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
+(name/firm)
+Amicus (in support of :
+(party/ designation)
+CERTIFICATION
+I certify that:
+[VI am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed
+my admission on
+I applied for admission on
+Signature of Counsel: /S/ Alison G. Moe
+Type or Print Name: Alison G. Moe
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 9, 08/05/2019, 2624202, Page1 of 1
+ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
+Docket No.: 19-2221
+ILLP
+Short Title: United States of America v. Epstein
+Lead Counsel of Record (name/firm) or Pro se Party (name): Reid Weingarten / Steptoe &
+Appearance for (party/designation): Defendant - Appellant Jeffrey Epstein
+DOCKET SHEET ACKNOWLEDGMENT/AMENDMENTS
+Caption as indicated is:
+V Correct
+Incorrect. See attached caption page with corrections.
+Appellate Designation is:
+V Correct
+L Incorrect. The following parties do not wish to participate in this appeal:
+Parties:
+Incorrect.
+Please change the following parties' designations:
+Party
+Correct Designation
+Contact Information for Lead Counsel/Pro Se Party is:
+V Correct
+Incorrect or Incomplete.
+As an e-filer, I have updated my contact information in the PACER "Manage My Account" screen.
+Name:
+Firm:
+Address:
+Telephone:
+Email:
+Fax:
+RELATED CASES
+• This case has not been before this Court previously.
+This case has been before this Court previously. The short title, docket number, and citation are:
+• Matters related to this appeal or involving the same issue have been or presently are before this Court. The short titles,
+docket numbers, and citations are: .
+CERTIFICATION
+I certify that (L2) 1 am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by LR 46.1(a)(2), have renewed my admission on
+OR that L I applied for admission on
+or renewal on
+Signature of Lead Counsel of Record: /S/ Reid Weingarten
+other. bie eid einiad me or proved my renewal, have completed Addendum A.
+Type or Print Name: Reid Weingarten
+Signature of pro se litigant:
+Type or Print Name:_
+→ I am a pro se litigant who is not an attorney.
+• I am an incarcerated pro se litigant.
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 10, 08/05/2019, 2624204, Page1 of 1
+UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
+CRIMINAL APPEAL TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION - FORM B
+TO BE COMPLETED BY ATTORNEY:
+CASE NAME:
+United States of America
+Jeffrey Epstein
+DOCKET NUMBER:
+19-2221
+COUNSEL'S NAME:
+Reid Weingarten
+COUNSEL'S ADDRESS:
+Steptoe &
+LLP
+1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
+COUNSEL'S PHONE:
+212-506-3900
+- V.
+QUESTIONNAIRE
+I am ordering a transcript.
+V I am not ordering a transcript. Reason:
+TRANSCRIPT ORDER
+Daily copy available
+U.S. Atty. placed order
+Other (attach explanation)
+Prepare transcript of
+Pre-trial proceedings:_
+(Description & Dates)
+Trial:
+(Description & Dates)
+Sentencing:
+(Description & Dates)
+Post-trial proceedings:
+(Description & Dates)
+_ hereby certify that I will make satisfactory arrangements with
+(counsel's name)
+the court reporter for payment of the costs of the transcript in accordance with FRAP 10(b).
+Method of payment:
+Funds
+CJA Form 24
+Counsel's Signature
+Date
+TO BE COMPLETED BY COURT REPORTER AND FORWARDED TO COURT OF APPEALS:
+ACKNOWLEDGMENT
+Estimated Number of Pages:
+Date order received:
+Estimated completion date:
+Court Reporter's Signature
+Date
+Attorney(s): Send completed form to the U.S. District Court as that court may require and send copies to the
+Court of Appeals, U.S. Attorney's Office, and Court Reporter.
+Court Reporter(s): Send completed acknowledgement to the Court of Appeals Clerk.
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 12, 08/05/2019, 2624335, Page1 of 2
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+ROBERT A. KATZMANN
+CHIEF JUDGE
+Date: August 05, 2019
+Docket #: 19-2221
+Short Title: United States of America v. Epstein
+CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE
+CLERK OF COURT
+DC Docket #: 1:19-cr-490-1
+DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
+CITY)
+DC Judge: Berman
+NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE FILING
+On August 5, 2019 the notice of additional counsel, on behalf of the appellant, was submitted it
+he above referenced case. The document does not comply with the FRAP or the Court's Loca
+Rules for the following reason(s):
+Failure to submit acknowledgment and notice of appearance (Local Rule 12.3)
+Failure to file the Record on Appeal (FRAP 10, FRAP 11)
+Missing motion information statement (T-1080 - Local Rule 27.1)
+Missing supporting papers for motion (e.g, affidavit/affirmation/declaration) (FRAP 27)
+Insufficient number of copies (Local Rules: 21.1, 27.1, 30.1, 31.1)
+Improper proof of service (FRAP 25)
+Missing proof of service
+Served to an incorrect address
+Incomplete service (Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967))
+Failure to submit document in digital format (Local Rule 25.1)
+_X_
+_ Not Text-Searchable (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2), click here
+for instructions on how to make PDFs text searchable
+Failure to file appendix on CD-ROM (Local Rule 25.1, Local Rules 25.2)
+Failure to file special appendix (Local Rule 32.1)
+Defective cover (FRAP 32)
+Incorrect caption (FRAP 32)
+Wrong color cover (FRAP 32)
+Docket number font too small (Local Rule 32.1)
+Incorrect pagination, click here for instructions on how to paginate PDFs
+(Local Rule 32.1)
+Incorrect font (FRAP 32)
+Oversized filing (FRAP 27 (motion), FRAP 32 (brief))
+Missing Amicus Curiae filing or motion (Local Rule 29.1)
+Untimely filing
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 12, 08/05/2019, 2624335, Page2 of 2
+Incorrect Filing Event
+Other:
+Please cure the defects) and resubmit the document, with the required copies if
+necessary, no later than August 7, 2019. The resubmitted documents, if compliant with FRAP
+and the Local Rules, will be deemed timely filed.
+Failure to cure the defect(s) by the date set forth above will result in the document being
+stricken. An appellant's failure to cure a defective filing may result in the dismissal of the appeal.
+Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8528.
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 13, 08/05/2019, 2624379, Page1 of 1
+NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL
+Short Title:
+. United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein
+Docket No. 19-2221
+Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel's Contact Information is as follows:
+Name:
+G. Weinberg
+Firm:
+G. Weinberg, P.C.
+Address: 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000, Boston,
+02116
+Telephone:
+(617) 227-3700
+E-mail: owlmgw@att.net
+Appearance for: Jeffrey Epstein / Defendant-Appellant
+(party/designation)
+Fax: (617) 338-9538
+Select One:
+Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel:
+(name/firm)
+Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel:
+(name/firm)
+/ Additional counsel (cocounsel with: Reid Weingarten / Steptoe &
+(name/firm)
+LLP
+Amicus (in support of:
+(party/designation)
+CERTIFICATION
+I certify that:
+V I am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed
+my admission on 07/29/2019
+applied for admission on
+Signature of Counsel: S/
+G. Weinberg
+Type or Print Name:
+G. Weinberg
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 16, 08/05/2019, 2624675, Page1 of 1
+NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADDITIONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL
+Substitute, Additional, or Amicus Counsel's Contact Information is as follows:
+Name: Alex Rossmiller
+Firm: United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
+Address: One St. Andrew's Plaza
+Telephone: (212) 637-2415
+Fax: (212) 637-2443
+E-mail: Alexander.Rossmiller@usdoj.gov
+Appearance for: United States of America/Appellee
+(party/designation)
+Select One:
+Substitute counsel (replacing lead counsel:
+Docket No.: 19-2221
+(name/firm)
+Substitute counsel (replacing other counsel:
+(name/firm)
+Additional counsel (co-counsel with: Sarah K. Eddy/U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York
+(name/firm)
+Amicus (in support of :
+(party/ designation)
+CERTIFICATION
+I certify that:
+[VI am admitted to practice in this Court and, if required by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2), have renewed
+my admission on
+I applied for admission on
+Signature of Counsel: IS/ Alex Rossmiller
+Type or Print Name: Alex Rossmiller
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 18, 08/20/2019, 2637473, Page1 of 1
+FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+Plaintiff-Appellee,
+)
+Appeal No. 19-2221-cr
+v.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Defendant-Appellant
+)
+-
+)
+IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by counsel for Jeffery Epstein, Defendant-
+Appellant, and the United States of America, Appellee, that, pursuant to Federal
+Rule of Appellate Procedure 42, this appeal shall be dismissed with prejudice. The
+parties understand and agree that, once dismissed, the appeal may not be reinstated.
+IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that neither party shall be entitled to
+recover costs, expenses or fees from the other party.
+EXECUTED on August 20, 2019.
+/s/ Reid Weingarten
+Reid Weingarten
+]G. Weinberg
+Counsel to Defendant- Appellant
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Alex Rossmiller
+Counsel to Appellee
+United States of America
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 22, 08/21/2019, 2637824, Page1 of 1
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+OBERT A. KATZMANI
+HIEF JUDGI
+Date: August 21, 2019
+Docket #: 19-2221cr
+Short Title: United States of America v. Epstein
+CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE
+CLERK OF COURT
+DC Docket #: 1:19-cr-490-1
+DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK
+CITY)
+DC Judge: Berman
+NOTICE OF CASE MANAGER CHANGE
+The case manager assigned to this matter has been changed.
+Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to 212-857-8534.
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 23, 08/21/2019, 2637827, Page1 of 1
+FOR THE
+SECOND CIRCUIT
+At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
+the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on
+the 21" day of August, two thousand and nineteen,
+United States of America,
+Appellee,
+ORDER
+Docket No. 19-2221
+V.
+Jeffrey Epstein, AKA Sealed defendant 1,
+Defendant - Appellant.
+The parties in the above-referenced case have filed a stipulation withdrawing this appeal
+pursuant to FRAP 42.
+The stipulation is hereby "So Ordered".
+For The Court:
+Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe,
+Clerk of Court
+TED STO
+Catherie
+
+
+Case 19-2221, Document 24, 08/21/2019, 2637838, Page1 of 1
+MANDATE
+FOR THE
+SECOND CIRCUIT
+At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
+the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on
+the 21" day of August, two thousand and nineteen,
+United States of America,
+Appellee,
+ORDER
+Docket No. 19-2221
+V.
+Jeffrey Epstein, AKA Sealed defendant 1,
+Defendant - Appellant.
+The parties in the above-referenced case have filed a stipulation withdrawing this appeal
+pursuant to FRAP 42.
+The stipulation is hereby "So Ordered".
+For The Court:
+Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe,
+Clerk of Court
+paulialfe
+A True Copy
+Catherine O Hagan WilB sflerk
+United States Court SAlia, Second Circuit
+Catherine Stanlolfe
+MANDATE ISSUED ON 08/21/2019
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2aabe1b64509f4cf6750a3c4726128728e05041ecd2e709f3dae2a3eadced9d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2aabe1b64509f4cf6750a3c4726128728e05041ecd2e709f3dae2a3eadced9d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93147f245e027b7fbcc8fb040526d734d0a08b88
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2aabe1b64509f4cf6750a3c4726128728e05041ecd2e709f3dae2a3eadced9d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2153,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f2aabe1b64509f4cf6750a3c4726128728e05041ecd2e709f3dae2a3eadced9d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 66,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "4c209c1619b0b97d0fd7fcf9bae002ab4a04aad8a865a2d086558728167fdcf0",
+  "output_sha256": "c4dedc7ae52450a1ceb80f48e093d2bc8bf8cc11033834b464c0b335818e8014",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2c8e4ae7a939ae141b41221120ed3de49d0f56f5fe01160c7139b03379785d3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2c8e4ae7a939ae141b41221120ed3de49d0f56f5fe01160c7139b03379785d3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa9200ee6afe4082d5e85957e6bdf47c50a08b5b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2c8e4ae7a939ae141b41221120ed3de49d0f56f5fe01160c7139b03379785d3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 597 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 5
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 2/11/22
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court's
+received the attached letter via email from counsel for the National
+Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) seeking leave to file an amicus brief
+regarding the Defendant's motion for a new trial. The Court issues this Order in response.
+If any party wishes to file an amicus brief concerning the Defendant's motion for a new
+trial, it may submit to the Court via email a motion for leave to do so on or before February 18,
+2022. The Court will only consider such a motion if:
+1) It is timely submitted by February 18, 2022;
+2) It is submitted by counsel admitted to practice in the Southern District of New
+York;
+3) It indicates whether the Government and the Defendant each either consents to or
+opposes the motion; and
+4) States the interest of the potential amicus and why the additional memorandum of
+law would aid this Court's evaluation of the Defendant's new trial motion.
+If the motion for leave to file meets those requirements, the Court will docket the motion and
+rule on it. Any motion that does not meet those requirements will not be considered by the Court
+nor docketed. If any motion for leave to file an amicus brief is granted, the party will be
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 597 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 5
+permitted to file an amicus brief not exceeding 10 double-spaced pages. Any authorized amicus
+brief must be emailed to the Court for docketing within one week of the Court's granting of the
+motion for leave to file.
+The Court provides one note of caution regarding timing. As of Wednesday, February 9,
+2022, the Defendant's motion for a new trial became fully briefed. Although the timing of the
+Court's ruling on the motion cannot be predicted at this time, the Court will rule as expeditiously
+as possible. The Court will not delay issuing a ruling if ready to do so simply because an
+authorized amicus brief is forthcoming.
+If NACDL still seeks leave to file an amicus brief, it may submit a renewed motion
+consistent with this Order.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: February 11, 2022
+New York, New York
+Alia So Nator
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 597
+Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 5
+WINSTON
+& STRAWN
+LLP
+North America Europe Asia
+1901 L Street, NW
+Washington, DC 20036
+T +1202 282 5000
+F +1 202 282 5100
+February 9, 2022
+VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
+Hon. Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square, Room 2102
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We write on behalf of our client, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL),
+regarding the above-referenced action pending before you. We respectfully request leave from the Court
+to file a brief amicus curiae on the issue of the impact of the post-trial revelations and admissions from
+Juror # 50 on whether the Defendant in this case received the guaranteed right to a fair trial and what relief
+is required. Specifically, NACDL would address the increased importance of written or oral voir dire in
+high-profile criminal cases and/or those with sensitive issues central to a case that could reflect a juror's
+bias or potential for extraneous issues being brought into jury deliberations, the impact of inaccurate
+answers to questions asked to expose potential bias for further questioning and the exercise of strikes,
+whether and when a court should consider the deliberateness in a potential juror providing inaccurate
+information and the process by which such issues should be explored once they have been disclosed.
+In support of this request to file a brief amicus curiae, proposed amici state the following:
+NACDL is a nonprofit voluntary professional bar association made up of and working on
+behalf of criminal defense attorneys to ensure justice and due process for those accused of crime or
+misconduct.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 597 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 5
+WINSTON
+& STRAWN
+LLP
+February 9, 2022
+Page 2
+2. NACDL was founded in 1958. It has a nationwide membership of approximately 10,000
+direct members in 28 countries, and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling
+approximately 40,000 attorneys. NACDL's members include private criminal defense lawyers, public
+defenders, military defense counsel, law professors, and judges.
+3.
+NACDL files numerous amicus briefs each year in the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit
+Court of Appeals, and other courts, seeking to provide amicus assistance in cases that present issues of
+broad importance to criminal defendants, criminal defense lawyers, and the criminal justice system as a
+whole.
+4.
+"Federal courts have discretion to permit participation of amici where such participation
+will not prejudice any party and may be of assistance to the court." Strougo v. Scudder, Stevens & Clark,
+Inc., 1997 WL 473566 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1997) (citing Vulcan Soc'y of NYC Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Civil
+Serv. Comm'n, 490 F.2d 387, 391 (2d Cir. 1973)); see also Auto Club of NY, Inc. v Port Auth. Of New
+York, 2011 WL 5865296, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2011) ("The usual rationale for amicus curiae
+submissions is that they are of aid to the court and offer insights not available from the parties.")
+We, therefore, respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file a brief amicus curiae on
+these important constitutional questions. Counsel for Defendant consent to the filing of this amicus brief.
+Counsel for the DOJ was called and emailed for its position on February 9, 2022 but has not yet responded.
+Because the motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct is currently under seal, amici proposes that
+the Court allow for such brief to be filed within two weeks from the time the Court rules on and provides
+whatever filings or parts of filings that will become public. If the Court does not unseal any additional
+information, amici will file a brief using information that is available in the public record
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 597 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 5
+WINSTON
+& STRAWN
+LLP
+February 9, 2022
+Page 3
+Respectfully,
+/s/ Abbe David Lowell
+Abbe David Lowell (NY Bar # 2981744)
+(Admitted to SDNY on 04/17/2001 # AL2981)
+Winston & Strawn LLP
+1901 L Street NW
+Washington, DC 20036
+ADLowell@winston.com
+(202) 282-5875
+D. Man (Not admitted to NY State Bar)
+Winston & Strawn LLP
+1901 L Street NW
+Washington, DC 20036
+CMan@winston.com
+(202) 282-5622
+Joel B. Rudin (NY Bar # 1068618)
+(Admitted to SDNY on 05/21/1979 #JR5645)
+Vice Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee, National
+Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
+Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, P.C. 600 Fifth
+Avenue, 10" Floor
+New York, New York 10020
+jbrudin@rudinlaw.com
+(212) 752-7600
+cc: counsel for all parties (via email)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2c8e4ae7a939ae141b41221120ed3de49d0f56f5fe01160c7139b03379785d3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2c8e4ae7a939ae141b41221120ed3de49d0f56f5fe01160c7139b03379785d3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5000d0f9620b5292867313deab7a44ffef379372
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2c8e4ae7a939ae141b41221120ed3de49d0f56f5fe01160c7139b03379785d3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -60,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f2c8e4ae7a939ae141b41221120ed3de49d0f56f5fe01160c7139b03379785d3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "84246c26162a5e9f3a5d0d677988008f8b23730bd971ac891ec15927af96a8f1",
+  "output_sha256": "e304e5f42802464b003c924e5a9682a00ccbaa391aca758fa00e6db91c1569d3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2e9b58f4c720b7eba7b02f8ff24c351ad46ed00d9f28113d4d2d289865f1540.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2e9b58f4c720b7eba7b02f8ff24c351ad46ed00d9f28113d4d2d289865f1540.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88d4dc64718e6565765d4498927e8a0c7c353f47
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2e9b58f4c720b7eba7b02f8ff24c351ad46ed00d9f28113d4d2d289865f1540.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 251
+Filed 06/23/16
+Page 1 ot 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- X
+(USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED: 62316
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+- -X
+Sweet, D.J.
+The Clerk of Court is directed to place the above entitled
+docket under seal.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+June Z3, 2016
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2e9b58f4c720b7eba7b02f8ff24c351ad46ed00d9f28113d4d2d289865f1540.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2e9b58f4c720b7eba7b02f8ff24c351ad46ed00d9f28113d4d2d289865f1540.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3222ebfef9dc90461fa59de8d69cfb797f0abba1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f2e9b58f4c720b7eba7b02f8ff24c351ad46ed00d9f28113d4d2d289865f1540.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f2e9b58f4c720b7eba7b02f8ff24c351ad46ed00d9f28113d4d2d289865f1540",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5eb4ededd3d675685bdae6864544a4c885f96a85b8b2befbe3dc94173adb315e",
+  "output_sha256": "5a1267d8c9d00c37dc75df7d38dce676f1ed6574df6bfae3997a9cd4ea213427",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f38771f93ced7622cfc2b3e48334fb82283f48c352f8e16dae34cbb05ecae836.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f38771f93ced7622cfc2b3e48334fb82283f48c352f8e16dae34cbb05ecae836.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a459dcf0ae0b7624c82d6e9a5db603d695fcf7e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f38771f93ced7622cfc2b3e48334fb82283f48c352f8e16dae34cbb05ecae836.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 534
+Filed 12/09/21 Page 1 of 2
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+December 9, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully seeks redactions to its letter motion for admission of
+Government Exhibit 52 (Dkt. No. 533), sealing of Exhibit A to that letter, and redactions to Exhibit
+B to that letter. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test
+articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.
+2006). Although the Government's letter and exhibits are judicial documents subject to the
+common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions and sealing are narrowly
+tailored to protect the privacy interests of the Minor Victims and witnesses, including individuals
+who are subjects of the Court's pseudonym order, as well as third parties. The Government also
+notes that the redactions to Exhibit B conform to redactions of that document in
+v. Maxwell,
+15 Civ. 7433 (LAP).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 534 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 2
+Page 2
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By:.
+S/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f38771f93ced7622cfc2b3e48334fb82283f48c352f8e16dae34cbb05ecae836.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f38771f93ced7622cfc2b3e48334fb82283f48c352f8e16dae34cbb05ecae836.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a2ea1d64abc65cf13b3fb7f389aa3a6ddcb6f60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f38771f93ced7622cfc2b3e48334fb82283f48c352f8e16dae34cbb05ecae836.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f38771f93ced7622cfc2b3e48334fb82283f48c352f8e16dae34cbb05ecae836",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7d71ca640113840c3228dab9c05765f1aa688d7c2da18f25b381d6f7effae4b8",
+  "output_sha256": "281e62ad8cd1562ef05e79df49b6ca03bf077e0386527ff47b8530bd7adb491d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3abe2aa6e55077906d78e4525dd74a3018aafa3d5c32556fe9e14ac9b535128.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3abe2aa6e55077906d78e4525dd74a3018aafa3d5c32556fe9e14ac9b535128.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c3f8d1dfda508333d2b5613d908d65b28eca20f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3abe2aa6e55077906d78e4525dd74a3018aafa3d5c32556fe9e14ac9b535128.md
@@ -0,0 +1,327 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 10
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24
+
+IN RE:
+INVESTIGATION OF
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT
+IT APPEARING that the City of Palm Beach Police Department and the State
+Attorney's Office for the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (hereinafter,
+the "State Attorney's Office") have conducted an investigation into the conduct of Jeffrey
+Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein");
+IT APPEARING that the State Attorney's Office has charged Epstein by indictment
+with solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.07;
+IT APPEARING that the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of
+Investigation have conducted their own investigation into Epstein's background and any
+offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or
+around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including:
+(1)
+knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to
+commit an offense against the United States, that is, to use a facility or means
+of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice
+minor females to engage in prostitution, in violation of Title 18, United States
+Code, Section 2422(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
+371;
+(2)
+knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel
+in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, as
+defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females, in violation of Title 18,
+United States Code, Section 2423(b); all in violation of Title 18, United States
+Code, Section 2423(e);
+(3)
+using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly
+persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution; in
+violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2;
+(4)
+traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual
+conduct, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f), with minor females; in violation
+
+GIUFFRE007597
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 10
+of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(b); and
+(p)
+knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting,
+enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had
+not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a
+commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(cX1); in violation of Title
+18, United States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2; and
+IT APPEARING that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal
+liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits
+provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain
+actions with the State Attorney's Office;
+IT APPEARING, after an investigation of the offenses and Epstein's background by
+both State and Federal law enforcement agencies, and after due consultation with the State
+Attorney's Office, that the interests of the United States, the State of Florida, and the
+Defendant will be served by the following procedure;
+THEREFORE, on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for
+the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be
+deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the
+following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
+If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that,
+during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this
+Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the
+expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely
+notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that be has violated, and shall initiate its
+prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days' of giving notice of the violation. Any
+notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the
+United States Iearning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of
+the Agreement.
+After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution
+for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have
+een the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and thi
+United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jur
+investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will b
+dismissed.
+
+GIUFFRE007598
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10
+Terms of the Agreement:
+1.
+2.
+3.
+4.
+5.
+6.
+Epstein shall plead guilty (not nolo contendere) to the Indictment as
+currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for
+Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging
+one (I) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of FL. Stat. §
+796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information Illed
+by the State Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that
+requires him to register as a sex offender, that is, the solicitation of
+minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section
+796.03;
+Epstein shall make a binding recommendation that the Court impose a
+thirty (30) month sentence to be divided as follows:
+(a) Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12)
+months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without
+any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and
+without probation or community control in lieu of
+imprisonment; and
+(b)
+Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of
+community control consecutive to his two terms in county jail
+as described in Term 2(a), supra.
+This agreement is contingent upon a Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit
+accepting and executing the sentence agreed upon between the State
+Attorney's Office and Epstein, the details of which are set forth in this
+agreement.
+The terms contained in paragraphs 1 and 2, supra, do not foreciose
+Epstein and the State Attorney's Office from agreeing to recommend
+any additional chargo(s) or any additional term(3) of probation and/or
+incarceration.
+Epstein shall waive all challenges to the Information filed by the State
+Attorney's Office and shall waive the right to appeal his conviction and
+sentence, except a sentence that exceeds what is set forth in paragraph
+(2), supra.
+Epstein shall provide to the U.S. Attorney's Office copies of all
+
+GIUFFRE007599
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 10
+7.
+8.
+9.
+10.
+proposed agreements with the State Attorney's Office prior to entering
+into those agreements.
+The United States shall provide Epstein's attormeys with a list of
+individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
+§ 2255, after Epstein has signed this agreement and been sentenced.
+Upon the execution of this agreement, the United States, in consultation
+with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall
+select an attorney representative for these persons, who shall be paid for
+by Epstein. Epstein's counsel may contact the identified individuals
+through that representative.
+If any of the individuals referred to in paragraph (7), supra, elects to
+file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, Epstein will not contest the
+jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District
+of Florida over his person and/or the subject matter, and Epatein waives
+his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages
+up to an amount as agreed to between the identified individual and
+Epstein, so long as the identified individual elects to proceed
+exclusively under 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and agrees to waive any other
+claim for damages, whether pursuant to state, federal, or common law.
+Notwithstanding this waiver, as to those individuals whose names
+appear on the list provided by the United States, Epstein's signature on
+this agreement, his waivers and failures to contest liability and such
+damages in any suit are not to be construed as an admission of any
+criminal or civil liability.
+Epstein's signature on this agreement also is not to be construed as an
+admission of civil or criminal liability or a waiver of any jurisdictional
+or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the
+list provided by the United States.
+Except as to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under
+18 U.S.C. § 2255, as set forth in paragraph (8), rupra, neither Epstein's
+11.
+Epstein shall use his best efforts to enter his guilty plea and be
+
+GIUFFRE007600
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 10
+12.
+sentenced not later than October 26, 2007. The United States has no
+objection to Epstein self-reporting to begin serving his sentence not
+Iater than January 4, 2008.
+Epstein agrees that he will not be afforded any benefits with respect to
+gain time, other than the rights, opportunities, and benefits as any other
+inmate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit
+based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of
+Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an
+accounting of the gain time he cared during his period of
+incarceration.
+13.
+The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any
+public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information
+Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of
+the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that
+disclosure.
+Epstein understands that the United States Attorney has no authority to require the
+State Attorney's Office to abide by any terms of this agreement. Epstein understands that
+it is his obligation to undertake discussions with the State Attorney's Office and to use his
+best efforts to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necossary
+to satiafy the United States' interest. Epstein also understands that it is his obligation to use
+his best efforts to convince the Judge of the 15th Judicial Circuit to accept Epstein's binding
+recommendation regarding the sentence to be imposed, and understands that the failure to
+do so will be a breach of the agreement.
+In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation
+in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions
+of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges
+azpinst any potential co-conspirator of Fostein including but not limited to
+Lesley Groff, or
+Further, upon execution of this
+agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury
+investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held
+in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement. The
+including certain computer equipment, inviolate until all of the terms of this agreement have
+been satisfied. Upon the successful completion of the terms of this agreement, all
+
+GIUFFRE007601
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 10
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that each of these terms is
+material to this agreement and is supported by independent consideration and that a breach
+of any one of these conditions allows the United States to elect to terminate the agreement
+and to investigate and prosccute Epstein and any other individual or entity for any and all
+federal offenses.
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that he is aware of the fact that
+the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that in all criminal
+prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a spcody and public trial. Epstein further
+is aware that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court
+may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint for unnecessary delay in presenting
+a charge to the Grand Jury, filing an information, or in bringing a defendant to trial. Epstein
+hereby requests that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida defer such
+prosecution. Epstein agrees and consents that any delay from the date of this Agreement to
+the date of initiation of prosecution, as provided for in the terms expressed herein, shall be
+deered to be a necessary delay at his own request, and he hereby waives any defense to such
+prosecution on the ground that such delay operated to deny him rights under Rule 48(b) of
+the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the
+United States to a speedy trial or to bar the prosecution by reason of the running of the statute
+of limitations for a period of months equal to the period between the signing of this
+agreement and the breach of this agreement as to those offenses that were the subject of the
+grand jury's investigation. Epstein further asserts and certifies that he understands that the
+Fifth Amendment and Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that all
+felonies must be charged in an indictment presented to a grand jury. Epstein hereby agreos
+and consents that, if a prosecution against him is instituted for any offense that was the
+subject of the grand jury's investigation, it may be by way of an Information signed and filed
+by the United States Attorney, and hereby waives his right to be indicted by a grand jury as
+to any such offense.
+11/
+
+GIUFFRE007602
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6 Filed 01/05/24
+
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+Dant 1/24107
+By:
+VILLAFANA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+GERALD LEPCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+LILLY ANN
+BSQ
+ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY BPSTEIN
+"
+Pago 7 of 7
+GIUFFRE007603
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6
+Filed 01/05/24
+
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein hereby states that he understanda the conditions of this Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agrees to comply with them.
+R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+Dated:
+By:
+I VILLAFANA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Datod:
+Dated: 9/24/07
+JEFFREY EPSTEI
+Peal fan
+IRT/ESQ
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Datod:
+LILLY ANN
+_ ESQ.
+ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Pago 7 of 7
+GIUFFRE007604
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-6
+Filed 01/05/24
+
+By signing this agreement, Epstein asserts and certifies that the above has been read
+and explained to him. Epstein beroby states that he understands the conditions of this Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and agroce to comply with them.
+L ALEXANDER ACOSTA
+NITED STATES ATTORNE
+Dated:
+By:
+A
+VILLAPAÑA
+ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
+Dated: _
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated:
+GERALD LEPCOURT, ESQ.
+COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Dated: 924-07
+CIELY
+ANNSA
+, ESQ
+ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+
+GIUFFRE007605
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3abe2aa6e55077906d78e4525dd74a3018aafa3d5c32556fe9e14ac9b535128.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3abe2aa6e55077906d78e4525dd74a3018aafa3d5c32556fe9e14ac9b535128.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c25c5efd593c88bcad9032874e340345d95b558
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3abe2aa6e55077906d78e4525dd74a3018aafa3d5c32556fe9e14ac9b535128.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -363,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f3abe2aa6e55077906d78e4525dd74a3018aafa3d5c32556fe9e14ac9b535128",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 31,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "06fcda9d60b654073cb67164938b9d32fa9bbd389c421017dd5e78867ae58872",
+  "output_sha256": "f864475d46fdae70fe74b2b9267eb2f6d1eeabd7ff12d39fe0d09acf4ce4f3ae",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3c3abfa098ac24b0ba146410e7b2b83aca570bb49fe7a52a65740c1d596fcb7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3c3abfa098ac24b0ba146410e7b2b83aca570bb49fe7a52a65740c1d596fcb7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a73613dbbd9abc26d8a56e43c728ca82bed2d25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3c3abfa098ac24b0ba146410e7b2b83aca570bb49fe7a52a65740c1d596fcb7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-12 Filed 06/20/16
+
+HADDON
+N
+N
+Haddon,
+and
+. P.C
+Laura A. Menninger
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver. Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364 x 303.832.2628
+www.hmflaw.com
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+April 25, 2016
+VIA EMAIL
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-ev-07433-RWS
+Sigrid,
+Based on the Court's rulings on April 21", and your client's deposition on May 3'd
+please provide the following documents on or before April 27", 2016.
+• All documents withheld on the basis of the "public interest privilege," other
+than Plaintiff's actual statements to any law enforcement agency, which are to
+be submitted for in camera review forthwith. See Resp. to RFPs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9,
+10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 27, 28, 35, 36, 37; Plaintiff's Amended Privilege Log.
+• All fee agreements, retainer agreements, and letters of engagement for any
+attorney listed on Plaintiff's privilege log and "Identification Information from
+Privilege Log for Plaintiff's First Production." See Resp. to RFP 4.
+•
+] deposition testimony in the Cassell & |
+v. Dershowitz,
+enrata See Rep: to and 27, ransmission correspondence concerning any such
+• All of Plaintiff's medical records for the period 1999-present. See Interrog.
+12, Ex A; Resp. to RFP 1, 26.
+• All of Plaintiff's tax returns for the period 1999 - present. See Resp. to RFP
+14.
+• All of Plaintiff's school records from 1998 - present. See Resp. to RFP 15.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-12 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 3
+Sigrid MeCawley
+April 25, 2016
+Page 2
+• All of Plaintiff's employment records from 1996 - present. See Resp. to RFP
+1, 2, 10, 12, 24.
+Likewise, please provide no later than April 29'*h
+following interrogatories, as directed by the Court:
+responses to the
+• Plaintiff's residences, with actual dates of residency. Interrog. 1.
+• Plaintiff's attorneys, the dates of their representations, and the nature of their
+representations. Interrog. 3.
+• Plaintiff and her attorneys' communications with law enforcement, including
+the dates of the communications and the parties to the communication.
+Interrog. 4.
+• Plaintiff's employment from 1996 - present, including the dates of the
+employment, the address and telephone number for the employers, job titles
+and income from such employer. Interrog. 9.
+• Plaintiff's health care providers from 1999 - present, including their name,
+address, telephone number, and dates of any treatment. Interrog. 12. As that
+interrogatory directs, please provide releases for any such health care
+provider.
+As you know, we originally requested the records concerning Plaintiff's employment,
+education, income, tax returns and medical records on February 12, 2016, and to date,
+you have provided almost none. Last week, I asked you to have your client sign
+releases for these records and you have not. In Court, you also seemed to be unaware
+of many of Plaintiff's health care providers, and therefore, I am skeptical that you
+have actually obtained releases from your client and forwarded them to the
+appropriate entities for copies of their records.
+Therefore, to be clear, we are entitled to records from at least the following entities:
+1. U.S. IRS - tax returns from 1999-present.
+2. Australian taxing authorities - tax returns from 1999-present.
+3. Employment records:
+a.
+Mar-A-Lago Resort and Spa
+b. Roadhouse Grill
+Manpower Logisti
+Employment Training and Recruitment Austral
+e. Indigo Bar & Grill
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-12 Filed 06/20/16
+
+Sigrid MeCawley
+April 25, 2016
+Page 3
+f. Gemma Catering / Wedding Receptions
+g. Mannway Logistics
+h. Calmao Flamenco Bar & Restaurant
+4. Education records:
+a.
+Crestwood Middle School
+b.
+| Palm Beach Community High School
+c. Forest
+High School
+d. Survivors Charter School
+5. Medical records:
+a. Dr. Karen Kutikoff
+6. Mona Den Iran Associates, PA
+. Growing Together
+As to each entity, and any others that you identify, please provide proof that you have
+submitted a release, including proof of the date on which such request was made.
+Alternatively, provide a signed release from your client by Friday, April 29, 2016 to
+us so that we may obtain the records independently.
+Sincerely,
+HADDON,|
+AND
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger
+.. P.C.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3c3abfa098ac24b0ba146410e7b2b83aca570bb49fe7a52a65740c1d596fcb7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3c3abfa098ac24b0ba146410e7b2b83aca570bb49fe7a52a65740c1d596fcb7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1156831a309cc9aad4e1aa528fbeb8649c8586c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3c3abfa098ac24b0ba146410e7b2b83aca570bb49fe7a52a65740c1d596fcb7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -58,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f3c3abfa098ac24b0ba146410e7b2b83aca570bb49fe7a52a65740c1d596fcb7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e0fd9b1f2747a511b443eb38b5178b8705220ffb240e4bdb44f8c0f6e3d705dc",
+  "output_sha256": "a92810f4cafd90c2cecffb18f6fdde893b1fe39259e7ee4dc0a6ef767106ee80",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d30ce817271b04c0864cda26871eda60189e5c6ea0a46962793c07911fac0c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d30ce817271b04c0864cda26871eda60189e5c6ea0a46962793c07911fac0c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3e4e72db9d66110dfb3bca4a854b8bd7fcf5c770
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d30ce817271b04c0864cda26871eda60189e5c6ea0a46962793c07911fac0c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,613 @@
+Case 1:19-Cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 16
+Steptoe
+STEPTOE &
+LLP
+Reid Weingarten
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+212 506 3900 main
+212 506 3955 direct
+www.steptoe.com
+rweingarten@steptoe.com
+July 11, 2019
+VIA ECE
+The Honorable Richard M. Berman
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+(212) 805-6715
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+RE: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, Criminal No. 19-490
+Dear Judge Berman:
+We write to outline the grounds entitling Jeffrey Epstein to pretrial release, proposing a
+stringent set of conditions that will effectively guarantee his appearance and abate any
+conceivable danger he's claimed to present.
+In essence, the government seeks to remand a self-made New York native and lifelong
+American resident based on dated allegations for which he was already convicted and punished -
+conduct the relitigation of which is barred by a prior federal nonprosecution agreement (the
+"NPA"). The government makes this drastic demand even though Mr. Epstein has never once
+attempted to flee the United States - despite a Florida federal judge's stated belief that he could
+void the NPA in appropriate circumstances, possibly threatening new charges there, and
+notwithstanding legally erroneous government assertions in ancillary litigation that Mr. Epstein
+was subject to potential prosecution in other federal judicial districts, including this one
+pecifically. Indeed, Mr. Epstein feared the toxic political climate might tempt the government t
+ry and end-run the NPA - yet continually returned home from travel abroad, fully prepared t
+across multiple jurisdictions over a 10-year period
+1
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 2 of 16
+Nonetheless, it is fundamental that pretrial detention is reserved for "a small but
+identifiable group of particularly dangerous defendants as to whom neither the imposition of
+stri[ct] release conditions nor the prospect of revocation of release can reasonably assure the
+safety of the community or other persons." S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 6-7 (1984), reprinted in 1984
+U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3189. And that's true no matter how much rhetoric and hyperbole the
+government and media pile on a presumptively innocent citizen. Popular condemnation aside,
+compelling legal issues stand between Mr. Epstein and any possible conviction on the allegations
+of conduct from 14 to 17 years ago pressed in the indictment. Importantly, the Bail Reform Act,
+18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq., authorizes release for even wealthy defendants facing serious charges
+who travel and own property abroad.
+The government's indictment labels this a "Sex Trafficking" case. Yes, the government
+may have witnesses who will testify to participating in sexual massages - most over 18; some
+under; some who told the police they lied about their age to gain admission to Mr. Epstein's
+residence; some who will testify that Mr. Epstein knew they were not yet 18.! But their
+anticipated testimony only punctuates the alleged offenses' purely local nature. (All occurred
+within a single New York residence or, if the Florida conduct is ultimately ruled admissible
+despite the NPA, then within two residences.) There are no allegations in the indictment that Mr.
+Epstein trafficked anybody for commercial profit; that he forced, coerced, defrauded, or enslaved
+anybody; or that he engaged in any of the other paradigmatic sex trafficking activity that 18
+U.S.C. § 1591 aims to eradicate. No one seeks to minimize the gravity of the alleged conduct,
+but it is clear that the conduct falls within the heartland of classic state or local sex offenses -
+and at or outside the margins of federal criminal law.
+Mr. Epstein, 66, is a U.S. citizen who's lived his entire life in this country. Born and bred
+in Coney Island, he worked his way up from humble origins - his father was a New York City
+municipal employee in the
+Department - and earned every penny he's made with nothing
+more than a high school diploma. He speaks only English and knows no other languages. He
+owns no foreign businesses and holds no foreign bank accounts. Five of the six residences he
+maintains are located here in America. His brother, niece, and nephew all live here too.
+Until his arrest in this case, Mr. Epstein's only notable brush with the law resulted in the
+2007 NPA (Exhibit I) and a 2008 state-court guilty plea required by the NPA for conduct
+in custody, 12 months on probation and, as a condition of the NPA and his state sentence, was
+required to register as a sex offender in the locations of his residences. He is currently registered
+' New York's age of consent was 17 at the time of the alleged conduct and remains so today.
+See N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 3 of 16
+in the U.S. Virgin Islands, his principal residence, Florida, and New York. Mr. Epstein has
+scrupulously fulfilled his obligations in every jurisdiction in which he was required to register
+throughout the 10-year hiatus between his release and present arrest. All of his travel has been
+meticulously reported to the registration authorities so that they have been aware of his precise
+location every single day for the past 10 years. Better still, the pending charges date back 14-17
+years, from 2002 to 2005. Yet, tellingly, they allege no recurrence of the conduct underlying the
+NPA and Florida state conviction at any time in the ensuing decade and a half (2005-2019).
+Together, these unique factors are powerful indicia that Mr. Epstein is no longer a danger to
+anyone and will faithfully obey all conditions of release if ordered.
+In sum, Mr. Epstein has substantial grounds to challenge the allegations charged by the
+government in its indictment, and he has every intention of doing so in a lawful, professional,
+and principled manner. He intends to fight the current charges on their merits and, more, to
+contest their legality given the inextricable intertwining of the current investigation and his NPA
+which promised him immunity and a global settlement for offenses including those brought
+under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Any perception that Mr. Epstein poses any conceivable danger or flight
+risk may be readily dispelled by a slate of highly restrictive conditions, which amply suffice to
+secure his release:
+1. Home detention in Mr. Epstein's Manhattan residence, with permission to leave only for
+medical appointments as approved by Pretrial Services, including (at the Court's
+discretion) the installation of surveillance cameras at the front and rear entrances to
+ensure compliance.
+2. Electronic monitoring with a Global Positioning System.?
+3. An agreement not to seek or obtain any new passport during the pendency of this matter.?
+2 "A radio frequency ('RF') bracelet is the more conventional 'ankle bracelet' that has been used
+over time. GPS monitoring is a more recent phenomenon that is distinct from RF monitoring.
+While both units are placed on the ankle, the former tracks an offender's movements in real time,
+while the latter is contingent upon proximity to a base unit connected to a landline at an
+offender's home. Statistically, GPS monitoring is more effective than RF monitoring at
+preventing recidivism." United States v. Paulino, 335 F. Supp. 3d 600, 617 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
+(citations omitted).
+3 Mr. Epstein has only one active passport permitting current travel - not three, as the
+government fancies. That one active U.S. passport has now been surrendered. Mr. Epstein has no
+foreign passports.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 4 of 16
+4. Consent to U.S. extradition from any country and waiver of all rights against such
+extradition.4
+5. A substantial personal recognizance bond in an amount set by the Court after reviewing
+additional information regarding Mr. Epstein's finances, which Mr. Epstein will seek the
+Court's permission to provide via sealed supplemental disclosure.
+6. The bond shall be secured by a mortgage on the Manhattan residence, valued at roughly
+$77 million. Mr. Epstein's private jet can be pledged as further collateral.
+7. Mr. Epstein's brother Mark will serve as a co-surety of the bond, which shall be further
+secured by a mortgage on Mark's home in West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Epstein's
+friend David Mitchell will also serve as a co-surety and pledge his investment interests in
+two properties to secure the bond.
+8. Mr. Epstein shall deregister or otherwise ground his private jet.
+9. He shall demobilize, ground, and/or deregister all vehicles or any other means of
+transportation in the New York area, providing particularized information as to each
+vehicle's location.
+10. Mr. Epstein will provide Pretrial Services and/or the government random access to his
+residence.
+11. No person shall enter the residence, other than Mr. Epstein and his attorneys, without
+prior approval from Pretrial Services and/or the Court.
+12. Mr. Epstein will report daily by telephone to Pretrial Services (or on any other schedule
+the Court deems appropriate).
+13. A Trustee or Trustees will be appointed to live in Mr. Epstein's residence and report any
+violation to Pretrial Services and/or the Court.
+14. Any other condition the Court deems necessary to reasonably assure Mr. Epstein's
+appearance.
+1.
+Applicable law
+Echoing and reinforcing the presumption of innocence, our justice system's bedrock,
+there is a "strong presumption against [pretrial] detention." United States v. Hanson, 613 F.
+Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). A person facing trial generally must be released so long as some
+"condition, or combination of conditions ... [can] reasonably assure the appearance of the
+person as required and the safety of any other person and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c).
+"Only in rare circumstances should release be denied." United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d
+1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985). Any doubts as to the propriety of release are resolved in the
+defendant's favor. See United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1207 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
+4 Mr. Epstein's lone foreign residence is in Paris; France has an extradition treaty with the United
+› Mr. Epstein owns one private jet. He sold the other jet in June 2019.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 5 of 16
+Though the Bail Reform Act contains a rebuttable presumption in favor of detention
+based on the crimes charged, the presumption shifts only the burden of production, not
+persuasion. See United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the
+statutory demand on defendants "is fairly easily met." United States v. Conway, No. 4-11-70756,
+2011 WL 3421321, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011). To rebut the presumption, a defendant need
+only "show that the specific nature of the crimes charged, or that something about their
+individual circumstances, suggests that "what is true in general is not true in the particular
+case ...
+'' United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States
+v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (Ist Cir. 1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut the
+presumption is not high." United States v. Thompson, No. 16-CR-00019, 2018 WL 447331, at *2
+(M.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2018) (citation omitted). "Any evidence favorable to a defendant that comes
+within a category listed in § 3142(g) can affect the operation of [the presumption], including
+evidence of their marital, family and employment status, ties to and role in the community, clean
+criminal record and other types of evidence encompassed in § 3142(g)(3)." Dominguez, 783 F.2d
+at 707 (clean record plus socioeconomic stability sufficed to rebut presumption).
+In short, evidence that the defendant is unlikely to flee or commit crimes rebuts the
+presumption, forcing the government to persuade the court that detention is warranted. See
+Conway, 2011 WL 3421321, at *5 (§ 1591 defendant released pending trial). While not
+disappearing entirely, the presumption thus recedes to one factor among many in determining
+whether there are sufficient conditions to "reasonably assure" both presence and safety. See
+Martir, 782 F.2d at 1144; see also United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir. 1985)
+defendant presents a danger to the community," and by a "preponderance" that he poses a flight
+"risk." United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation
+marks omitted).
+II. Mr. Epstein's 14-year record of law-abiding behavior rebuts any presumption in
+favor of pretrial detention
+In this case, any danger presumption attending the § 1591 charges evaporates against Mr.
+Epstein's meticulous obedience, from 2005 to date, to both the law's commands and his rigorous
+registration and reporting obligations as a convicted sex offender. The indictment does not allege
+that Mr. Epstein committed any crime in the 14-year interval between the end of the alleged
+conduct and the initiation of this case. The dangerousness prong of the Bail Reform Act is
+predictive, asking whether it's likely that Mr. Epstein will reoffend if released. A spotless 14-
+year record of walking the straight and narrow, complemented by an exemplary 10-year history
+of diligent sex offender registration and reporting, is compelling proof he was able, once the
+prior investigation commenced, to conform his conduct to the law's dictates. The time lag
+between the offenses charged and today is particularly compelling in terms of a prediction of
+5
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 6 of 16
+future danger when viewed in the context of the unparalleled global media attention the case has
+garnered, including the creation of a website by the government requesting witnesses claiming
+abuse to come forward. Accordingly, any danger that Mr. Epstein may have once posed to the
+community has long since abated. At the very least, this enormous gap in time precludes a
+finding by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the
+community's safety.®
+The rebuttable presumption of a risk of flight is negated by the evidence that the
+government had stated it believed it could prosecute Mr. Epstein for the very same conduct for
+which he was immunized, albeit in a second jurisdiction, despite the protections conferred upon
+him under the NPA. Mr. Epstein's continuous presence in the United States even while he had a
+residence out of the country reinforces the point. As detailed below, Mr. Epstein understood the
+NPA as a global resolution of any charges arising from the alleged conduct at issue here,
+including conduct in New York. Indeed, the government, in a Southern District of Florida filing
+" The government vastly overreaches in painting Mr. Epstein as dangerous based on musty plea
+discussions. The government's argument that Mr. Epstein's release would risk obstructive
+behavior, at pages 8-9 of its submission, rests primarily upon statements made between Mr.
+Epstein's prior counsel and an Assistant U.S. Attorney while they searched for a federal offense,
+at the government's behest, with a one-year statutory maximum or guideline during the give-andtake of those of plea negotiations. The communication from prior counsel about a potential
+proffer for a federal charge was met with the response that there was no sufficient evidence to
+charge such an offense. These purported facts were mere allegations that did not ultimately
+manifest themselves in any agreement by Mr. Epstein - nor in any agreement that probable cause
+existed to support any obstruction or assault charge. And the documents from the Southern
+District of Florida litigation referenced by the government in support of its argument on this
+point expressly acknowledge this lack of substantiation. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v.
+United States, 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. 361-10 (prosecutor stating, "[o]n the obstruction
+charges, many of the facts that I included in that first proffer were hypothesized based upon our
+discussions and the agents' observations of [redacted]. We will need to interview her to confirm
+the accuracy of those facts. ..."), Dkt. 361-11 (prosecutor stating, "I know that someone
+mentioned there being activity on an airplane, I just wanted to make sure that there is factual
+basis for the plea that the agents can confirm"), Dkt. 361-9 (prosecutor stating, "I don't know the
+factual basis for the alleged [redacted] because we have no independent evidence of' that"). In
+short, these were suggested hypotheses not facts, and the government itself ultimately did not
+believe there was factual support for the allegations. They do not provide a sufficiently reliable
+factual basis for any finding by clear and convincing evidence. As to the suggestion by the
+prosecutor that a charge could be predicated on a prior incident where it was alleged that an
+investigator forced a family member of a witness off the road, the defense is without knowledge
+as to the basis for this allegation and the conduct, if it occurred, was not attributable to or
+authorized by Mr. Epstein.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 7 of 16
+that was unsealed and became publie in July 2013, specifically noted that "a number of districts
+outside the Southern District of Florida (e.g., the Southern District of New York and the District
+of New Jersey) share jurisdiction and venue with the Southern District of Florida over potential
+federal criminal charges based on the alleged sexual acts committed by Epstein against the
+Petitioners. Epstein is thus subject to potential prosecution for such acts in those districts."
+Exhibit 2, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla. July 5, 2013),
+Dkt. 205-2, at 9. The government went so far as to invite the alleged victims "to contact the
+United States Attorney's Office in those districts and seek to confer with government attorneys
+in those offices about investigating and potentially prosecuting Epstein based on the alleged
+federal crimes committed against them." Id. at 10. The Florida U.S. Attorney's Office even
+offered to share the evidence gathered in its investigation with prosecutors and grand juries in the
+other relevant jurisdictions. See id. at 10 n.9.
+The defense strongly disagrees with the premise that the government can offer and
+execute an immunity or nonprosecution agreement with a citizen in the location of one of two
+venues where an interstate telephone call (or flight or any form of wire or mail communication)
+occurs and then circumvent the consequences of that immunity grant by having the very same
+prosecution office promote and motivate a prosecution by another office at the second venue of
+what in fact was a single criminal transaction. What is significant for bail purposes is that
+notwithstanding this notice of the government's illegal position, and his knowledge of the
+substantial penalties that he would face if charged and convicted, Mr. Epstein made no attempt to
+flee in the approximately six years preceding his arrest. During that time, as noted by the
+government, he engaged in substantial international travel, always returning to his residences in
+the United States. Mr. Epstein never sought to obtain dual citizenship or took any other steps
+indicative of an intent to flee. This fact significantly undermines the government's contentions
+regarding risk of flight and indicates Mr. Epstein's good-faith intent to contest the charges
+pending against him.
+On September 24, 2007, after a year-long investigation, the Department of Justice,
+through the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), entered
+into the NPA with Mr. Epstein. The NPA immunized Mr. Epstein from five distinct potential
+federal charges that "may have been committed by Epstein ... from in or around 2001 through
+in or around September 2007." Exhibit 1, NPA, at 1-2. One of the federal charges was 18
+U.S.C. § 1591, the statute charged in this SDNY case. The time period covered by the NPA
+subsumes the entire time period charged in this SDNY case. The USAO-SDFL acknowledged in
+the NPA that the very premise for Mr. Epstein to enter into it was "to resolve globally his state
+and federal criminal liability ... " Id. at 2 (emphasis added). Senior officials at the Department
+of Justice reviewed the NPA and either authorized or helped negotiate the resolution of the
+matter. See, e.g., United States' Second Supplemental Privilege Log filed as Dkt. 329-1 in Jane
+Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "CVRA litigation")
+(illustrating the number of prosecutors involved in the decision-making over the NPA).
+7
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 8 of 16
+The NPA required Mr. Epstein to plead guilty to a state felony charge (Fla. Stat.
+§ 796.07), then pending in the State of Florida and to an additional state felony charge (not
+previously charged or required by the State) of violating Fla. Stat. § 796.03 (Case No. 2008-CF-
+9381AXX), a charge requiring registration as a sex offender. Mr. Epstein complied with all of
+his obligations under the NPA.
+Contrary to the government's argument, the NPA was not limited to a "list of several
+dozen victims identified in the prior investigation ...." Gov't Bail Letter at 6-7. Indeed, the
+NPA contains no "list of several dozen victims" and regardless, the NPA immunized Mr. Epstein
+from prosecution "for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement," allegedly
+committed between 2001-07, as well as "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury
+investigation." NPA at 2 (emphasis added). Moreover, the government's interpretation that the
+NPA "pertained exclusively to the SDFL investigation" and "did not purport to bind any other
+Office or District" will be the subject of a major dispute in this case. This is especially so
+because Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct at his Palm Beach residence features prominently in the
+conspiracy count (Count 1, 911 14-19, 1 22.a, d, f) and is incorporated by reference in the
+substantive charge (Count 2, 1 23).
+Beyond that, Mr. Epstein intends to raise and litigate significant due process issues about
+the Department of Justice's conduct in this case. Namely, there is irrefutable evidence from the
+pending CVRA litigation in the Southern District of Florida that, after Mr. Epstein had fully
+complied with his obligations under the NPA, the USAO-SDFL affirmatively encouraged
+alleged victims to pursue prosecution of Mr. Epstein in other districts, in violation of the DOJ's
+commitment to a "global" resolution. See Exhibit 2, at 8-12. The United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of Florida, along with supervisory and line prosecutors from the USAO-SDFL,
+corresponded on multiple occasions with, and personally conferred with, alleged victims and
+their lawyers to entertain discussions about the alleged victims' desire to have Mr. Epstein
+prosecuted on federal charges. See id. at 9. Further, the Southern District of New York is likely
+relying upon physical evidence seized in connection with the prior investigation, see Gov't Bail
+Letter at 6 (discussing "corroborating evidence," including "contemporaneous notes, messages ..
+•, and call records"). In short, there will be evidence that the current New York case is not truly
+independent of the prior immunized conduct. The evidence will show that Mr. Epstein's
+reasonable expectation that the NPA would "resolve globally [Mr. Epstein's] state and federal
+riminal liabilitv
+government's efforts to minimize the potential consequences of a CVRA conferral violation (one
+nat neither the government nor defense believes occurred but that was found to have occurred i
+ne CVRA litigation which is pending a decision on remedies) by returning an inextricabl
+intertwined second federal prosecution just as the District Court in Florida is receiving
+submissions on remedy.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 9 of 16
+Finally, the government fails to consider the doctrine of pre-indictment delay, inasmuch
+as the statute of limitations does not fully define a defendant's rights with respect to delays that
+occurred prior to the indictment. See generally United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971).
+Here, the delays of 14 years from the last alleged act and 12 years since Mr. Epstein signed the
+NPA are extraordinary. If the government is correct that the NPA does not, and never did,
+preclude a prosecution in this district, then the government will have to explain why it
+purposefully delayed a prosecution of someone like Mr. Epstein, who registered as a sex
+offender 10 years ago and was certainly no stranger to law enforcement. There is no legitimate
+explanation for the delay.
+II. The government fails to meet its burden of proving that no combination of
+conditions will assure Mr. Epstein's appearance and public safety
+An analysis of the relevant statutory factors and case law supports pretrial release. Even
+should the Court conclude, despite substantial evidence to the contrary, that the defendant
+presents a risk of flight, the foregoing combination of conditions virtually guarantees his
+appearance as required. Crucially, while it is always possible to hypothesize risks, the statutory
+standard requires only a reasonable assurance that the defendant, if released, will appear. The
+conditions proposed above, including electronic GPS monitoring, surrender of Mr. Epstein's
+passport, deregistration and/or grounding of Mr. Epstein's private plane, and a substantial
+personal bond (including posting of personal residence(s) and/or private jet as security to
+guarantee appearance) would extinguish any plausible risks. Mr. Epstein's current notoriety
+minimizes any conceivable risk of flight even further. The location where he could be detained -
+his residence on East 71" Street in New York has entrances (one on the street, one in the back)
+that can be easily monitored by video. With all of his financial resources in the United States
+(other than his Paris residence) and with his New York residence at risk due to the government's
+forfeiture allegation, Mr. Epstein would be sacrificing virtually everything he has worked for -
+including any collateral the Court requires he post to secure his appearance - if he were to flee
+and to disentitle himself to the defense of his property whether it would be at risk to forfeiture or
+for a bail violation.
+To the extent there is any doubt regarding the proposed conditions, there is tremendous
+moral suasion provided by the posting of real and personal property of Mr. Epstein's brother, and
+his close personal friend of decades, who have offered to co-sign a surety bond to ensure Mr.
+Epstein's appearance in Court as required. Indeed, Mr. Epstein's brother has agreed to pledge
+his family home, that he shares half the year with his 14-year-old daughter and 17-year-old son,
+in order to secure the bond. It is particularly telling that Mr. Epstein's brother, his only living
+immediate family member, as well as his close personal friend, are both willing to guarantee his
+appearance, notwithstanding the widespread negative publicity of Mr. Epstein that has
+dominated the news cycle since his arrest.
+9
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 10 of 16
+To reiterate, the Bail Reform Act requires pretrial release on the "least restrictive"
+conditions that will assure both appearance and public safety. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)
+(emphasis added). Home confinement monitored by 24-hour private security guards - a lesser
+restriction than pretrial detention - has proven effective in meeting those goals in many
+prominent cases prosecuted in our Circuit, including cases against defendants as infamous as
+Bernie Madoff, Mare Dreier and David |
+To be clear, defense counsel are fully confident Mr. Epstein will appear as required
+without resort to this measure. And we understand and appreciate Your Honor's opposition to it.
+See United States v. Zarrab, No. 15-CR-867, 2016 WL 3681423 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016). Still,
+Mr. Epstein stands ready and willing to pay for 24-hour armed guards should the Court deem it
+necessary or appropriate.
+More precisely, we realize that Your Honor objects to the measure as more akin to
+custody than release, finding it inequitable for wealthier defendants to "buy their way out" of jail
+pending trial. Id. at *2, *9-10, *13 (citation omitted). Nonetheless, a band of other courts in our
+area have endorsed the procedure, and the Second Circuit has affirmed its use.®
+For reasons explained elsewhere, round-the-clock, privately funded security guards will
+virtually guarantee - not just reasonably assure - Mr. Epstein's presence in the circumstances of
+this case. Accordingly, and given the division of authority surrounding the practice, we
+respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the
+reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely
+held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to release on the
+least restrictive conditions in the circumstances presented - an inherently individualized
+determination - based largely on socioeconomic status, a suspect if not invidious classification.
+Avoiding "inequity and unequal treatment" rooted in such dubious socioeconomic distinctions -
+doing "equal right to the poor" and "rich" alike - are imperatives that run both ways. Id. (bolding
+deleted) (citation, footnote and internal quotation marks omitted).
+' See, e.g., United States v.
+1. 354 F. Supp. 3d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); United States v.
+309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); United States v. Seng, No. 15-CR-706, 2017 WL
+2693625 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y
+2009); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel.
+No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denied, 2008
+WL 11339654 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008).
+8 See United States v.
+F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007).
+749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Sabhnani, 493
+10
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 11 of 16
+Other than his 2008 guilty plea predicated on conduct substantially overlapping the same
+conduct charged here, Mr. Epstein has no criminal history. Congress specifically listed these
+factors as considerations for the Court, and their absence therefore should weigh in favor of Mr.
+Epstein's pretrial release. Mr. Epstein comes from a stable and humble family background. All
+of his remaining family members, his brother, niece, and nephew, reside in the United States.
+Through his business and the five residences he maintains in the United States, Mr. Epstein
+employs people, many of whom have been with him for more than a decade, and feels personally
+responsible for their livelihoods. Mr. Epstein is admittedly wealthy with all of his financial
+resources (other than his Paris residence) in the United States (including the U.S. Virgin Islands)
+and will provide the Court with more specific information regarding his assets in a sealed
+supplemental disclosure prior to the upcoming bail hearing if the Court grants leave to file such a
+sealed supplement. Mr. Epstein has, to this point, not provided a complete financial disclosure
+on advice of counsel, motivated by a desire to ensure the accuracy of the information provided to
+the Court. During the years since his release from incarceration in connection with his Florida
+guilty plea, Mr. Epstein has been a law-abiding citizen without a single allegation of criminal
+misconduct during that period and has focused his efforts on business and philanthropy. At the
+Court's request, Mr. Epstein will provide a sealed list of his philanthropic donations.
+Crucially, the government has failed to proffer any evidence that Mr. Epstein has ever
+indicated an intent to flee from this investigation or any other criminal matter, which several
+courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See
+Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 ("In this case, ... there is no strong circumstantial evidence
+indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States"); United States v. Vortis. 785 F.2d
+327 (D.C. Cir. (serious (serious intent to flee is an important factor); United States v.
+1, 715 F.
+Supp. 677, 679 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (defendant told undercover agents he would flee if arrested). In
+fact, Mr. Epstein has displayed long-term, consistent compliance with Court orders and other
+legal requirements. As a result of his 2008 guilty plea and corresponding sex-offender
+designation, Mr. Epstein is required to (1) register for life as a sex offender; (2) regularly verify
+his address with Virgin Islands, Florida, and New York authorities; (3) annually update his
+registry photograph; and (4) provide registration authorities with detailed itineraries for all travel
+(both domestic and international) in which he engages. Mr. Epstein has strictly complied with
+these requirements, without exception, for approximately ten years.
+The Court inquired about the relationship of the New York State registration
+classification and the requirements of the Bail Reform Act. And while it is true that the New
+York Appellate Division held that Mr. Epstein was appropriately classified as a level-three sex
+offender, this inquiry was entirely backward-looking and based on the allegations contained in a
+Florida probable cause affidavit describing conduct ending in 2005 that were neither admitted-to
+nor within the scope of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea. See People v. Epstein, 89 A.D. 3d 570, 571
+(N.Y. App. Div. 2011). While Mr. Epstein has made no subsequent attempt to challenge the
+continuing nature of his designation, his law-abiding behavior for the ensuing decade plus
+11
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 12 of 16
+significantly undercuts any suggestion of current dangerousness based on any regulatory
+classification. Moreover, as discussed above, Mr. Epstein's strict compliance with the various
+monitoring requirements associated with his sex-offender registration actually decrease any
+danger that he might otherwise pose. It is also worth noting that Mr. Epstein is classified as a
+tier-one sex offender, the lowest classification available, in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he
+maintains his primary residence. The defense respectfully suggests that Mr. Epstein's Virgin
+Islands designation is more consistent with the circumstances of the actual offenses for which he
+was convicted, and certainly more consistent with the predictive factor of whether there is a
+danger of recidivism which the defense contends there is not.
+Mr. Epstein's financial means and past international travel do not extinguish this Court's
+congressional mandate to order pretrial release in every case where reasonable conditions can
+assure the appearance of the defendant as required." Indeed, numerous courts have rejected
+government requests for detention, and instead ordered pretrial release, in cases where the
+charged defendant was either a non-citizen (unlike Mr. Epstein) or a naturalized citizen with
+substantial if not weightier contacts with foreign jurisdictions, including the following decisions:
+• United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (reversing district court order of
+detention of defendants, who were natives of Indonesia, and ordering release despite
+defendants' "strong motive to flee" because of serious charges and "strong" evidence of
+guilt, despite finding that defendants faced "lengthy term of incarceration" if convicted,
+despite finding defendants possessed "ample means to finance flight," despite finding that
+defendants "maintained strong family ties to their native countries as well as personal and
+professional ties to various locations in Europe and the Middle East," and despite finding
+that defendants "could, with relatively little disruption, continue to operate their highly
+lucrative business from any number of overseas locations");
+• United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court order
+of pretrial release of defendant, a resident and citizen of Denmark-from where defendant
+could not be extradited-charged with bulk cash smuggling and forfeiture, noting that the
+" This Court's opinion in Zarrab stands only for the proposition that wealthy defendants should
+not be provided an unfair advantage. It does not, of course, suggest that wealthy defendants
+should bear a special disadvantage. The facts supporting the Court's ruling of pretrial detention
+1 Zarrab are easily distinguishable. The present case does not have national securit
+mplications, Mr. Epstein is a United States citizen (and does not possess any dual citizenship)
+the only foreign country in which Mr. Epstein maintains a residence (France) has an extradition
+treaty with the United States, Mr. Epstein's assets are almost all located in the United States
+(with the exception of his Paris residence), and Mr. Epstein has provided only truthful
+information to Pretrial Services.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 13 of 16
+"bail statute does not ... require that foreign defendants be detained simply because their
+return cannot be guaranteed through extradition");
+• United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) (ordering release of
+defendant, an Israeli national who had resided in South Africa for the 18 years preceding
+his arrest when he landed in Colorado for a family ski trip based on allegations he
+violated the Export Administration Act and the International Economic Emergency
+Powers Act by acquiring products capable of triggering nuclear weapons and exported
+them to Pakistan, despite defendant's lack of any ties to the United States, despite finding
+that defendant had "no ties to the United States or the Washington, D.C. area," despite
+finding that "no evidence [was] presented establishing that Defendant has ever lived in
+this country, owned property here, or that he has any family or community ties in the
+United States," despite finding that defendant "was only in this country in order to
+participate in a ski vacation with his wife and daughter," and despite finding that "the
+weight of the evidence against Defendant is substantial");
+• United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009) (ordering release of
+defendant, a naturalized citizen of the United States, despite finding defendant "has
+strong ties to [her home country of] China," finding that the defendant owned property in
+China, that the defendant spent almost all of her ten years of marriage living abroad with
+her husband, that during 2008 the defendant spent only 22 days in the United States, that
+the charges against the defendant (violations of International Emergency Economic
+Powers Act and the Export Administration Regulations) "were serious and carried a
+potential for a significant period of incarceration" and that the "government has strong
+evidence against" the defendant including her own statement to investigators that she
+smuggled the UA V autopilot components out of the United States and knew there were
+licensing requirements for such items").
+The fact that the government will potentially seek a significant sentence if Mr. Epstein is
+convicted on all counts similarly does not preclude pretrial release in this case - several courts
+have ordered pretrial release despite finding that the defendant faced serious charges carrying
+significant potential sentences. See, e.g., Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (reversing district court order of
+detention despite finding that defendants, natives of Indonesia, faced "lengthy term of
+incarceration" and "strong" evidence of guilt existed); Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (ordering
+release of defendant, an Israeli national who had resided in South Africa for the 18 years
+preceding his arrest, despite finding that "the weight of the evidence against Defendant is
+substantial'"); Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (noting that charges "were serious and carried a
+potential for a significant period of incarceration" and that the "government has strong evidence
+against" the defendant "including her own statement to investigators that she smuggled the UAV
+autopilot components out of the United States and knew there were licensing requirements for
+such items"). As the government concedes, the increases in sentencing exposure enacted after
+13
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 14 of 16
+the alleged conduct at issue here do not apply retroactively to Mr. Epstein's case (including a
+maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years). Mr.
+Epstein would, moreover, be subject to prosecution if he fled, which he now knows carries a
+maximum penalty of up to 10 additional years of imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 3146(b)(L)(A)(l),
+and/or the real risk of an enhanced sentence by the Court in this matter if not acquitted.
+It must further be emphasized that the allegations outlined within the indictment are just
+that - allegations - and the defendant anticipates substantial factual and legal challenges to the
+government case. For one thing, Epstein has potent legal defenses to prosecution under 18
+U.S.C. § 1591, the sex trafficking statute driving the pending indictment. We front and briefly
+outline one of those defenses for the limited purpose of seeking bail. We will amplify it later,
+along with various other arguments, in full-blown dismissal motions.
+Section 1591 was passed as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
+("TVPA"), Pub. L. No. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 (October 28, 2000). In enacting the TVPA,
+Congress recognized that human trafficking, particularly of women and children in the sex
+industry, "is a modern form of slavery, and it is the largest manifestation of slavery today." 22
+U.S.C. § 7101(b)(I); see also id. at § 7101(b)(2), (4). "The TVPA criminalizes and attempts to
+prevent slavery, involuntary servitude, and human trafficking for commercial gain." United
+States v.
+1. 476 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2007). Importantly, "the entire language and
+design of the statute as a whole indicates that it is meant to punish those who are the providers or
+pimps of children, not the purchasers or the johns." Fierro v. Taylor, No. 11-CV8573, 2012 WL
+13042630, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2012) (quoting United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11-CR-40016,
+2012 WL 13704, at *4 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012)) (emphasis added). In Fierro, the district court
+found § 1591 inapplicable to consumers or purchasers of sex acts. Here, the principal conduct
+underlying the indictment is Mr. Epstein's payment of money for massages that purportedly
+escalated to alleged sex acts. Mr. Epstein's conduct, however, is akin to consumer or purchaser
+behavior and should be outside the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. See Fierro, 2012 WL 13042630,
+at *4 ("[T]he TVPA is inapplicable to individual purchasers of sex from trafficking
+victims...").'°
+1° While Fiero represents the law in this district, Mr. Epstein notes that there is a division of
+authority on the scope of § 1591. See United States v. Jungers, 702 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir.
+2013). The defense respectfully submits that the Fiero court's approach to this issue is mor
+persuasive and more consistent with the Congressional purpose to target commercial se:
+trafficking.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 15 of 16
+IV. Sixth Amendment
+Finally, in a case such as this one, which will likely involve voluminous discovery and is
+predicated on events allegedly occurring 14 or more years ago, it is critical to counsel's ability to
+provide effective assistance, as well as the defendant's ability to meaningfully contribute to his
+defense, that Mr. Epstein be permitted pretrial release. The Sixth Amendment "does not provide
+merely that a defense shall be made for the accused; it grants to the accused personally the right
+to make his defense. It is the accused, not counsel, who must be 'informed of the nature and
+cause of the accusation,' and who must be confronted with the witnesses against him,' and who
+must be accorded 'compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor."" Faretta v.
+California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975). Given the unique circumstances of this case, Mr.
+Epstein's exercise of these important Constitutional rights would be materially impaired by his
+pretrial detention.
+V. Conclusion
+Wherefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Epstein respectfully submits that his conduct
+over the past 14 years proves that he poses no risk of flight or threat to the safety of the
+community. Even if the Court should have concerns to the contrary, there clearly exist a
+combination of conditions that would be sufficient to assure his presence as required and/or the
+safety of the community, including but not limited to some or all of the conditions proposed
+supra, or any other conditions the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
+Yours truly,
+Reid Weingarten
+Steptoe &
+, LLP (NYC)
+1114 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10036
+(202)-506-3900
+Fax: (212)-506-3950
+rweingarten@steptoe.com
+Boston,
+02116
+(617) 227-3700
+Fax: (617) 338-9538
+owlmgw@att.net
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 16 of 16
+Marc Allan Fernich
+Law Office of Marc Fernich
+810 Seventh Ave
+Suite 620
+New York, NY 10019
+(212) 446-2346
+Fax: (212) 446 2330
+maf@fernichlaw.com
+16
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d30ce817271b04c0864cda26871eda60189e5c6ea0a46962793c07911fac0c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d30ce817271b04c0864cda26871eda60189e5c6ea0a46962793c07911fac0c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4d8f6ab1336079613770dde470fb97a3af74555
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d30ce817271b04c0864cda26871eda60189e5c6ea0a46962793c07911fac0c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -194,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f3d30ce817271b04c0864cda26871eda60189e5c6ea0a46962793c07911fac0c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 17,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "25c597c193ae4531c75f38f78ea189fae03ee46c3b2d61202982957a6e232b4f",
+  "output_sha256": "45be744fa2d4cb2508ddf63a27716f962db0a87c08b02d8cd47e9c6e6448f8ed",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d3130f8c3a4166cf0fff26439b11416cb4c291541515ec397d19330c041c8e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d3130f8c3a4166cf0fff26439b11416cb4c291541515ec397d19330c041c8e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d5d528bc04afa558ad627b0d2d1e019f986283ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d3130f8c3a4166cf0fff26439b11416cb4c291541515ec397d19330c041c8e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 6
+P. 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+for the
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff
+v.
+Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant
+Civil Action No. 15-CV-07433-RWS
+AFFIDAVIT
+Douglas G. Mercer, being duly sworn deposes and states:
+I am employed as the Chief Investigator by Alpha Group Investigations, an
+investigative and security services company. I supervised the service of subpoenas
+upon Jeffrey Epstein,
+and
+2. On Monday, April 25",
+', 2016 Alpha Group's Researchi Coordinator Enza|
+Costucted research to determine cument reported addresses in New York tor Jeffrey
+Epstein,
+determined the
+following:
+Jeffrey Epstein:
+457 Madison Avenue, Apt 4, New York, New York 10022
+9 E. 71ª Street, New York, New York 10021
+301 E. 66" Street, Apt 10F, New York, New York 10065
+92
+Street, Front 2, New York, New York 10012
+9 E. 71" Street, New York, New York, 10012
+301 E. 66" Street, Apt 14G, New York, New York 10065
+301 E. 66" Street, Apt 11E/10N, New York, New York 10065
+3. On Tuesday, April 2e",
+", at12:21pm, Alpha Group Investigator Kevin
+arived at
+Sireet, New York. New York to attempt to serve a subpoena on
+Investigator
+was advised by a doorman that
+resides at the location, in Penthouse 2, but had not been staying at the
+location due to construction.
+4. On Tuesday, April 26°
+, 2016 at 1:44 pm, Investigator Kevin
+| arrived at 457
+Madison Avenue, New York. New York to attempt to serve a subpoena on Jeffrey
+Epstein. Investigator
+observed that the location was called the Trunk Club,
+which was a private clothing retailer, not a residence.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-4
+Filed 05/25/16
+MAY. 24. 2016 4:50PK
+
+NO. 980'*
+P. 2
+5. On Tuesday, April 26"
+', 2016, at 2:16 pm, Investigator Kevin
+arrived at 301E.
+66" Street New York, New Yalk fo altemi to serve subpoenas a wasterormetiny
+was informed by a
+dooman that the ronorman had chserved
+earlier in the day. The
+doorman called
+a apartment, but no one answerad the
+The doorman did not recognize the names of Jeffrey Epstein, or
+6. On Tuesday. April 26", 2016, at 2:34 pm, Investigator Kevin
+arrived at 9 E
+71% Street. New York. New York to atternt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
+and
+• Investigator
+knocked on the door and rang the bell
+and he finally spoke to an Asian Male, 40-45 years of ago, 55"-5igEtall 150 pounds,
+who told the investigator that neither Jeffrey Epstein, nor
+were
+at the residence.
+7. On Thursday, April 28°, 2016, at 6:00 pm, Investigator Kevin
+y arrived at 301 E
+66" Street New York, New York to aftemotto serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
+Tand
+*. A doorman at the location called
+apartment 14G for
+t no one answered the phone. The
+doorman would not supply Investigator
+with any additional information.
+8. On Thursday, April 28°, 2016 at 6:17 pm, Investigator Kevin
+arrived at 9 E
+71ª Street. New York. New York to attemot to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
+and
+Investigator
+i was advised by an unknown female
+on the intercom that Jeffrey Epstein was not home, but would return to the residence
+sometime on Monday, May 2°0.
+2016.
+9. On Thursday, April 28",
+', 2016 at 6:56 pm, Investigator Kevin
+arrived at 92
+Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve a subpoena on
+A doorman at the building called several shona numbar ta contact
+a and after amparently sneakina to
+i, the doorman
+advised Investigator
+y that
+was not home.
+10. On Saturday, April 30°
+", 2016, at 2:11 pm, Investigator Kevin
+arrived at 301 E.
+68* Street New York, New York to allerant east top anas on. Jeffrey Epstein,
+i was informed by a
+doorman that the doorman had seen
+earlier in the day at the
+building. The investigator was informed by the doorman that the doorman believed
+that
+uses an office and an apartment at the building. The
+investigator was informed by the doorman that no one answered the phone in
+apartment. The doorman could not provide any further information
+regarding Jeffrey Epstein, or
+11. On Saturday, April 30%
+, 2016, at 2:20 pm Investigator Kevin
+i arrived at 9 E.
+1" Street New York. New York to attemnt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epsteir
+and
+rang the doorbell and knocked on the
+door. An unknown female responded to Investigator
+on the intercom and the
+female advised that Jeffrey Epstein was not home, but would retum to the location
+sometime on Monday, May 2l
+, 2016.
+12. On Saturday, April 30*,
+, 2016 at 3:17 pm, Investigator Kevin
+arrived at 02
+Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve a subpoena on
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16
+
+P. 3
+The investigator was informed by a doorman that no one was staying in
+Penthouse 2 due to construction. Investigator
+was advised that the doorman
+had not seen:
+for several weeks.
+13. On Tuesday, May 35,
+, 2016, at 7:40 am, Investigator,
+Dorilio arrived at 9E.
+71* Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
+and
+Investigator Dorilio knocked on the door and rang the
+doorbell several times, but no one from within the residence responded. Investigator
+Dorifio served subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein and
+by taping the
+subpoenas to the front door.
+14. On Tuesday, May 3°, 2016, at 8:05 am, Investigator
+Dorilio arrived at 301 E.
+66" Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
+and
+Investigator Dorilio was advised by a
+supervisor named Andrew, to leave the subpoenas with the doorman, rather than
+taping them to the front door. Investigator Dorilio then served subpoenas for Jeffrey
+Epstein,
+and
+by leaving them with the
+doorman at the location.
+15. On Tuesday, May 3°, 2016 at 8:45 am, Investigator
+Dorilio arrived at 92
+Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve a subpoena on
+Investigator Dorilio was informed by a doorman that
+had not been at the location for several months due to construction. Investigator
+Dorilio then served a subpoena for
+to the doorman, Mike, who
+advised that he would contact
+and give her the subpoena.
+16. On Tuesday, May 3°, 2016, the deponent mailed copies of subpoenas to the
+following:
+Jeffrey Epstein:
+9 E. 71% Street, New York, New York 10021
+301 E. 66° Street, Apt 10F, New York, New York 10065
+92 L
+Street, Front 2, New York, New York 10012
+g E. 7T" Sireet, New York, New York, 10012
+301 E. 66" Street, Apt 14G, New York, New York 10065
+301 E. 66* Street, Apt 11E/10N, New York, New York 10065
+A witness fee check in the amount of $82.80 was attached to the subpoena for
+17. On Saturday, May 144*,
+, 2016 at 6:45 am, Investigator Anna intriago arrived at 301 E.
+e* Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epsteir
+Investigator Intriago set up a
+survertance position outside of the building, but did not observe Jeffrey Epstein
+At 9:00 am Investigator Intriago entered
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 6
+P. 4
+the building at 301 E. 66° Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve the
+subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, S
+and i
+The
+doorman would not provide any information about the three subjects.
+18. On Saturday, May 14°, 2016 at 9:10 am, Investigator Anna Intriago arrived at 9 E
+715 Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein
+and:
+investigator Intriago rang the bell and knocked on the
+door, but no one responded.
+19. On Monday, May 16",
+2016 at 6:30 am Investigator Anna Intriago arrived at 301 E.
+68" Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
+and
+Investigator Intriago spoke to a doorman
+who advised that i
+resided within the building, but travels a lot. The
+doorman advised Investigator Intriago that
+was not in the building
+at that time. The doorman advised Investigator Intago that Jeffrey Epstein does not
+reside in the building, but owns apartments. The doorman advised Investigator
+Intriago that
+no longers resides within the building; that
+moved about two years ago.
+20. On Monday, May 18"
+', 2016 at 11:25 am Investigator Anna Intriago arrived at 9 E. 71*
+Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein and
+Investigator Intriago rang the doorbell and knocked on the door.
+An unknown male responded on the intercom and advised that neither Jeffrey
+Epstein, nor
+were at the residence. The unknown male would
+not tell Investigator Intriago when Jeffrey Epstein and
+expected to return to the residence.
+were
+21. On Monday, May 16'
+' 2016 at 12:00 pm Investigator Anna Intriago returned to 301 E
+66° Street, New York, New York to ascertain if Nadia Marcinkova had retured to the
+residence. Investigator Intriago was advised by the doorman that !
+had not retured to the residence. The doorman advised Investigator Intago that no
+one was permitted to enter the building unless permission was given by a resident.
+22. On Tuesday, May 17°
+' 2016, at 4:06 pm Investigator Anna Intriago arrived at 301 E
+66° Street, New York, New York to attempt to serve subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein,
+and
+At 5:00pm, after Investigator Intriago did
+not observe Jettrey Epstein,
+enter or
+leave the building, Investigator Intriago entered the building and spoke to a doorman.
+The doorman would not provide any information about any resident.
+23. On Tuesday, May 17", 2016, shortly after 5:00 pm Investigator Anna Intriago
+subpoenas on Jeffrey Epstein and
+responded on e.71 pete any York, New York to atteme investigator did not
+observe Jeffrey Epstein, or HI
+enter or leave the residence.
+24. On Tuesday, May 17°
+', 2016 at 6:21 pm, at 301 E. 66" Street, New York, New York
+Investigator Anna Intriago served subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein,
+and
+301 E. 68" Street, New York, New York.
+by delivering the subpoenas to Jose Pepin, a doorman arthe
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-4 Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 6
+MAY. 24.2016 4:51PM
+25. On Tuesday, May 17"
+', 2016 at 6:39 pm, at 9 E. 71* Street, New York, New York
+Investigator Anne Intriago had attempted to serve subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein and
+by ringing the doorbell and knocking on the door. An unknown
+remale answered on the intercom and advised investigator Intriago that neither Jeffrey
+Epstein, nor
+were at the residence. The unknown female
+advised that she could not accept the subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, or
+Investigator Intriago then served the subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein and
+by taping the subpoenas to the front door.
+26. On Wednesday, May 18°, 2016 the deponent mailed copies of subpoenas to the
+following:
+Jeffrey Epstein:
+9 E. 71# Street, New York, New York 10021
+301 E. 66" Street, Apt 10F, New York, New York 10065
+A witness fee check in the amount of $41.10 was attached to the subpoena for Jeffrey
+9 E. 71" Street, New York, New York, 10012
+301 E. 66" Street, Apt 14G, New York, New York 10065
+A witness fee check in the amount of $41.10 was attached to the subpoena for
+301 E. 66** Street, Apt 11E/10N, New York, New York 10065
+A witness fee check in the amount of $41.10 was attached to the subpoena for
+Sworn to before me this
+24%h Day of May, 2016.
+fountane
+Enza Miter ROSANNE GiESE
+Notary Public
+ROSANNE GIESE
+Notary Public, State of New Yor
+. 01GI4819808, Suffolk Coyu
+em Expires February 28, 2 0/
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d3130f8c3a4166cf0fff26439b11416cb4c291541515ec397d19330c041c8e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d3130f8c3a4166cf0fff26439b11416cb4c291541515ec397d19330c041c8e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2da840c9d3d0bd7f2eb9d152e6f12c6251928e5a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3d3130f8c3a4166cf0fff26439b11416cb4c291541515ec397d19330c041c8e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -199,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f3d3130f8c3a4166cf0fff26439b11416cb4c291541515ec397d19330c041c8e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f69386ea66dbb04ebd2111d58839747585447507e43881556a7b1c4ca204e943",
+  "output_sha256": "ac3de91e94a1f42dcc4a422d814ffdbca64b43612a8c58b365941b86a4b5b9a1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f0db56778f613aa7725dd0d723734b6de2c8f9cf9a8d2ad475f0e8bb56a608.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f0db56778f613aa7725dd0d723734b6de2c8f9cf9a8d2ad475f0e8bb56a608.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e87ab26c9111b3d653035e930ad6d1002af4057
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f0db56778f613aa7725dd0d723734b6de2c8f9cf9a8d2ad475f0e8bb56a608.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 60 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 1
+Troutman Sanders LLP
+875 Third Avenue
+New York, New York 10022
+troutman"
+sanders
+troutman.com
+Bennet J. Moskowitz
+bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com
+April 28, 2020
+Via ELECTRONIC COURT FILING
+Hon. Alison J. Nathan
+Thurgood Marshall
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN) (DCF)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We represent Defendants Darren _. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of
+Jeffrey E. Epstein (together, the "Co-Executors"), in the above-referenced action. We write to
+supplement the Co-Executors' pending motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. 36) with the enclosed copy
+of the Opinion & Order entered today by The Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer in another personal
+injury action against the Co-Executors (Mary Doe v. Darren Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, as
+executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein, and |
+, 19-civ-10758 (PAE) (DCF)). In
+His Honor's Opinion & Order, Judge Engelmayer grants the Co-Executors' motion to dismiss the
+plaintiff's punitive damages claim against them as a matter of law on grounds applicable to
+Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in this action.
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/Bennet J. Moskowitz
+Bennet J. Moskowitz
+cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f0db56778f613aa7725dd0d723734b6de2c8f9cf9a8d2ad475f0e8bb56a608.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f0db56778f613aa7725dd0d723734b6de2c8f9cf9a8d2ad475f0e8bb56a608.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb503129325ee4e34804ad9e440fb36c84696646
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f0db56778f613aa7725dd0d723734b6de2c8f9cf9a8d2ad475f0e8bb56a608.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f3f0db56778f613aa7725dd0d723734b6de2c8f9cf9a8d2ad475f0e8bb56a608",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b674d14c8a4ce1db6474b8e7a347b315f83cc3e3c1fdf1d06c5bfe99e4dd6b75",
+  "output_sha256": "9dd9dce41af97c111df9a4948fdd1de55fe87f7ce8278da186c28511ceaffb7a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f784585dcc6762b8c454a3527e7046fe916e808c8b5a36bfccfa7df6499563.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f784585dcc6762b8c454a3527e7046fe916e808c8b5a36bfccfa7df6499563.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86f24bbab3e3294a11110ef5f1de7f1a0d5c4681
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f784585dcc6762b8c454a3527e7046fe916e808c8b5a36bfccfa7df6499563.md
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 750 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+DECLARATION OF MEREDITH
+IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
+RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
+TO EXCLUDE POLICE REPORTS
+. declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+1, Meredith
+knowledge as follows:
+1. I am a Counsel with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly licensed to
+practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my Application
+to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2. I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to
+Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Police Reports.
+3. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+4. Attached here to as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
+5. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 are true and correct copy of
+6. Attached here to as Sealed Composite Exhibit 4 are true and correct copies of
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 750 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 4
+7. Attached here to as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of
+8. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of
+9. Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7 is Excerpts of
+10. Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 8 are true and correct copies of |
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Is/ Meredith
+Meredith
+, Esq.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 750 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 4
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith Schulz
+Sigrid S. McCawley(Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+| (Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+J. Quinney College of La
+niversity of Uti
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 750 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 17th day of March, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+Esq.
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f784585dcc6762b8c454a3527e7046fe916e808c8b5a36bfccfa7df6499563.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f784585dcc6762b8c454a3527e7046fe916e808c8b5a36bfccfa7df6499563.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb0ce3d28227ed7a3a546c2c2f35e3e5ce740b7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f3f784585dcc6762b8c454a3527e7046fe916e808c8b5a36bfccfa7df6499563.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f3f784585dcc6762b8c454a3527e7046fe916e808c8b5a36bfccfa7df6499563",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5f84371ca9c0ef59c6d933b30ec7f8511e182157e19446ba5fb36a367bfe9944",
+  "output_sha256": "f6cb8d40618eb85f8801e8413c1ad55f887f5962b112a213b897df50f8057165",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f40876b16c1cfd2765095674fd125cd797112397d5ecedad6c8bf26e3ca136b9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f40876b16c1cfd2765095674fd125cd797112397d5ecedad6c8bf26e3ca136b9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29a3ded6df8f6c0f7e716b7fd03660ed35f0a148
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f40876b16c1cfd2765095674fd125cd797112397d5ecedad6c8bf26e3ca136b9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 329
+Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 8/25/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+Defendant submitted a letter on August 18 informing the Court about disruptions of
+attorney-client video teleconferences. Dkt. No. 319. After conferring with MDC Legal, the
+Government responded on August 23. Dkt. No. 326. According to the Government and MDC
+Legal, the Defendant's difficulties in communicating with her counsel via video teleconference
+have been resolved, and the Government's letter sufficiently addresses her other requests. The
+Court finds MDC Legal's assurance that Defendant's communications have not been interfered
+with, recorded, or listened to sufficient. No further application for relief was made in
+Defendant's August 24 reply. Dkt. No. 327. The Court remains confident that Ms. Maxwell is
+fully able to communicate with her defense counsel and to prepare for trial. If Defendant
+experiences further issues in communicating with her counsel, she should promptly notify the
+Court after conferring in good faith with the Government and MDC Legal.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: August 25, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia A Nator
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f40876b16c1cfd2765095674fd125cd797112397d5ecedad6c8bf26e3ca136b9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f40876b16c1cfd2765095674fd125cd797112397d5ecedad6c8bf26e3ca136b9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7666d1fa2db1e0afc6304f5284a967e2fb8eb0aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f40876b16c1cfd2765095674fd125cd797112397d5ecedad6c8bf26e3ca136b9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f40876b16c1cfd2765095674fd125cd797112397d5ecedad6c8bf26e3ca136b9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0ca1af55da02757a8d859646064e00781848a6f0106e30f419278519772ff521",
+  "output_sha256": "22946f41d68c79b86277b7433d1a92807dfb83acdd0bad97f3231564251ce1ed",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4155d4c738523be6eaa58b1e64460893401f3e2dbc81e4322cb34a88ab51fc6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4155d4c738523be6eaa58b1e64460893401f3e2dbc81e4322cb34a88ab51fc6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff2b2dd34733441423e399631db784ca4634a904
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4155d4c738523be6eaa58b1e64460893401f3e2dbc81e4322cb34a88ab51fc6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 389
+Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
+PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING FINANCIAL INFORMATION
+I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Response in
+Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Financial Information.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 389 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 4
+7.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of
+9.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of EI
+10.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of l
+11.
+Attached here to as Sealed Composite Exhibit 9 are true copies
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley.
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 389 |
+Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: August 22, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+t. Lauderdale, FL 3330
+954) 356-001
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 389 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 22°° day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4155d4c738523be6eaa58b1e64460893401f3e2dbc81e4322cb34a88ab51fc6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4155d4c738523be6eaa58b1e64460893401f3e2dbc81e4322cb34a88ab51fc6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3b6d495658a5452420ff8329fcc2a681088389e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4155d4c738523be6eaa58b1e64460893401f3e2dbc81e4322cb34a88ab51fc6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f4155d4c738523be6eaa58b1e64460893401f3e2dbc81e4322cb34a88ab51fc6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "641883eb0e6d7c34d1a8f98362a9e570b93b88a86e971b0e3da5b207d9986773",
+  "output_sha256": "5191864c2b9b2007a7cfcb52017609bb2f9fe1dde2eb0b881ad620a7e5fa7b52",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f423550334b361ed8b5a28bc76ae5c48d87c3d97d8a25bce649becba54f3c518.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f423550334b361ed8b5a28bc76ae5c48d87c3d97d8a25bce649becba54f3c518.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a21e023df8a9f0fdd3ebec9dbc1fc217ff37589e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f423550334b361ed8b5a28bc76ae5c48d87c3d97d8a25bce649becba54f3c518.md
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 384 |
+Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in Support of
+Defendant's Response to Motion to Compel
+1, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows:
+1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a
+member of the law firm Haddon,
+1&
+P.C., counsel of record for Defendant
+Ghislaine Maxwell in this action. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of
+Ms. Maxwell's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
+2. As counsel for Ms. Maxwell, I and other attorneys of my law firm have an attorneyclient relationship with Ms. Maxwell and have created attorney work product as part of our
+representation of her.
+3. Since no later than April 2015, Ms. Maxwell has had a
+in anticipation of litigation.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 384 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3
+4. Ms. Maxwell shares a
+In her story about "sexual trafficking," Plaintiff has accused
+of playing
+some role in victimizing her as part of the same "sexual trafficking" scheme. Since before 2015
+Plaintiff deliberately and widely publicized her allegations
+Moreover, Plaintiff
+and her attorneys have been involved in litigation
+Depending on the factual or
+legal issue,
+have
+exchanged information subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
+work product doctrine, or both. At least one of the principal purposes of exchanging this
+information was to pursue and consider pursuing an ongoing common enterprise as to which all
+the information-exchanging participants have a common intent to further that enterprise.
+have exchanged in emails and
+telephone calls information containing our mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and
+theories concerning issues relating to ongoing legal matters, including this action.
+6.
+have exchanged in emails and
+telephone calls information containing our mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and
+theories concerning issues relating to ongoing legal matters, including this action.
+7. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of Ms. Maxwell's
+privilege log.
+8. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Ms. Maxwell's Response to
+Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 384 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3
+9. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the article, "Alleged "sex slave' of
+Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew accused 2 men of rape in 1998, but was found not credible", New
+York Daily News, Feb. 23, 2015.
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Executed on August 19, 2016.
+s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on August 19, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration of Laura A. Menninger
+in Support of Defendant's Response to Motion To Compel Production Of Documents via ECF or
+the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+& LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+FISTOS
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+Bout salem NOSe
+stanPottinger@aol.cor
+Is/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f423550334b361ed8b5a28bc76ae5c48d87c3d97d8a25bce649becba54f3c518.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f423550334b361ed8b5a28bc76ae5c48d87c3d97d8a25bce649becba54f3c518.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9d71b05a9a2222ebd4b6ebb31e74a8ea85283bea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f423550334b361ed8b5a28bc76ae5c48d87c3d97d8a25bce649becba54f3c518.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -38,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f423550334b361ed8b5a28bc76ae5c48d87c3d97d8a25bce649becba54f3c518",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5c70d98ea0cf8f3f8df9346d0053017f8fac3fa15bd0edda83f2411fcfd1a29e",
+  "output_sha256": "ba4cce5013553fbf8c4e3da252d524eae5ca56857e524e98137f94e45f5dbcb2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f463c37cc951999d46b4d4dcfc93e85562ff44fa62daf43fba179e1800976275.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f463c37cc951999d46b4d4dcfc93e85562ff44fa62daf43fba179e1800976275.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..413c5732630cadce70c36def33bf53dd04435ee7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f463c37cc951999d46b4d4dcfc93e85562ff44fa62daf43fba179e1800976275.md
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 205 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 7
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE
+SUBPOENA TO APPLE, INC. SEEKING PRODUCTION
+SENT AND RECEIVED EMAILS AND RELATED DATA
+OF ALL OF
+Plaintiff
+, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+motion for a protective order, barring enforcement of a defense subpoena submitted to Apple,
+Inc. for all of the records associated with her "iCloud" email account. Counsel for
+has already reviewed
+account for responsive records. Defendant is not entitled to
+all emails that
+have ever sent or received at any time. Accordingly, the Court
+should enter a protective order and bar enforcement of the subpoena.
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+Defendant has issued a subpoena for the production of all
+documents
+associate with her iCloud email account and all emails associated with the account, sent or
+received, with the attendant metadata. Previously, however, Defendant had already requested
+that
+materials that were responsive to Defendant's Requests for
+Production.
+counsel has collected the data from this account, run search terms,
+produced the responsive documents, and produced a privilege log accounting for the privileged
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 205 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 7
+documents. See
+Decl., Exhibit 1, June 10, 2016, letter ("This production consists solely
+of all data that is responsive to Defendant's various requests for production from
+iCloud account.").
+On June 8, 2016, Defendant served Notice of Service of Rule 45 Subpoena Upon Apple,
+Inc. See
+Decl., Exhibit. 2, Notice of Service of Rule 45 Subpoena Upon Apple, Inc.
+Among the materials located on the iCloud account are confidential, attorney-client
+communications.
+DISCUSSION
+moves for a protective order forbidding defense counsel from enforcing a
+subpoena served on Apple, with whom she maintains an email account. The Court's authority to
+issue such a protective order is well established. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(I)(A) &
+(D) states that "[a] party ... may move for a protective order in the court where the action is
+pending ... [and] [t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person
+from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including ...
+forbidding the disclosure or discovery ... [or] forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting
+the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." While Defendant has chosen to serve
+her subpoena on Apple, Inc., the subpoena is plainly for
+records. A party has
+standing to file a motion to quash a subpoena served on a third party when the party has a
+personal right or privilege regarding the subject matter of the subpoena. See, e.g., Estate of
+Ungar v. Palestinian Authority, 332 Fed. Appx. 643, 645 (2d Cir.2009) (movant had standing to
+challenge subpoena to itself and its attorneys because it claimed privilege in the material sought).
+Here, the Court clearly should grant a protective order barring disclosure of all of
+emails maintained by Apple, including records relating to the iCloud. Defendant
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 205 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 7
+cannot possibly make a case for disclosure of all emails that
+has ever written or
+received that are maintained in her account, regardless of whether they were written to or from
+her attorney or to and from other personal friends or acquaintances who have nothing to do with
+this lawsuit. The subpoena is hopelessly overbroad.
+In addition, the subpoena calls upon Apple to do something that is illegal to disclose
+customer records. Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.,
+an internet service provider (such as Apple) is not permitted to disclose such records based up a
+mere civil subpoena, precisely because of the gross invasion of privacy that would be involved.
+See In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606, 611 (E.D. Va. 2008)
+("'Applying the clear and unambiguous language of § 2702 to this case, AOL, a corporation that
+provides electronic communication services to the public, may not divulge the contents of the
+Rigsbys' electronic communications ... because the statutory language of the Privacy Act does
+not include an exception for the disclosure of electronic communications pursuant to civil
+discovery subpoenas."). A protective order should be entered for this reason as well.
+Moreover, it is also illegal under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §
+2701 et seq. This Act protects individuals' privacy in their email, and "reflects Congress's
+judgment that users have a legitimate interest in the confidentiality of communications in
+electronic storage at a communications facility ... the Act protects users whose electronic
+communications are in electronic storage with an ISP or other electronic communications
+facility." Theofel v. Farey-
+359 F.3d 1066, 1072-73 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the Stored
+Communications Act, a civil discovery subpoena is not sufficient to overcome its protection.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 205 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 7
+"The contents of e-mail communications may be released by an ISP' only under the specifically
+enumerated exceptions found in §$ 2702 and 2703 of the Privacy Act. Those exceptions require
+a search warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or a subpoena issued in
+the course of a criminal investigation." In re Toft, 453 B.R. 186, 197 (Bkrtcy. S.D.N.Y. 2011),
+citing F.T. C. v. Netscape Comme'n Corp., 196 F.R.D. 559 (N.D.Cal.2000) (discovery of e-mails
+from ISP not available under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45). "Indeed, one court has held that the disclosure
+procedures under the Privacy Act are unconstitutional to the extent they permit warrantless
+searches of e-mails, because a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and e-mails are subject to
+the Fourth Amendment's protection from warrantless searches and seizures." See United States v.
+Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 288 (6th Cir.2010)." In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 197.
+Indeed, courts have taken a dim view of such sweeping subpoenas. A good illustration
+comes from Theofel v. Farey-
+, which condemned a subpoena that sought production of
+emails that that was not limited to the subject matter of the litigation or emails sent during a
+relevant time period. The Court allowed a civil suit to proceed against an attorney who had
+propounded the subpoena, explaining that "[tJhe subpoena's falsity transformed the access from
+a bona fide state-sanctioned inspection into private snooping." Id. at 611.
+It is important to understand that Defendant's subpoena to Apple seeks not mere
+identifying information about an email subscriber, but all of the communications sent or received
+byl
+Cf. Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 12-MC-80237 CRB (NC), 2013 WL
+4536808, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (upholding, in part, subpoenas that did "not seek the
+' The SCA "protects users whose electronic communications are in electronic storage with an ISP
+or other electronic communications facility." Theofel v. Farey|
+1, 341 F.3d at 982 (emphasis
+added).
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 205 Filed 06/13/16 Page 5 of 7
+contents of any subscriber's emails" but rather only "identifying information associated with the
+subscriber as well as the usage information of each account for certain time periods.").
+This subpoena should also be quashed because all relevant materials have already been
+produced by counsel for
+from this iCloud account. To the extent that this subpoena
+will, as part of its sweeping reach, touch on documents that have already been produced, the
+subpoena is duplicative and should not be enforced. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
+In sum, the Federal Rules (and other authority cited herein) do not countenance
+Defendant's brazen attempt to procure all emails ever sent or received by
+on these
+accounts, as well as other data. The subpoena at issue is an abuse of civil discovery.
+Accordingly,
+seeks attorneys' fees for the motion practice associated with this
+subpoena.
+CONCLUSION
+The Court should issue a Protective Order quashing this subpoena issued to Apple, Inc. in
+its entirety for the reasons stated above, and award fees for the motion practice associated with
+this subpoena.
+Dated: June 13, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLI
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120(
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 205 Filed 06/13/16 Page 6 of 7
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+• FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52022
+" This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 205 Filed 06/13/16 Page 7 of 7
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+THEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+7
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f463c37cc951999d46b4d4dcfc93e85562ff44fa62daf43fba179e1800976275.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f463c37cc951999d46b4d4dcfc93e85562ff44fa62daf43fba179e1800976275.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4ff71e7a9b43804051920982440dd1a8be5eb361
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f463c37cc951999d46b4d4dcfc93e85562ff44fa62daf43fba179e1800976275.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -84,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f463c37cc951999d46b4d4dcfc93e85562ff44fa62daf43fba179e1800976275",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "48b950df0273c253fbb462791ac8594e5f2572eda50d63829f939bebeabbcf4d",
+  "output_sha256": "ebca29b5f71146beb54f73c1c724e1504fbdb2c521ede6eaf57a127659c114fc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4688966732106ccf58d67514bcee4c197aeff6c574844b7c146b53aebc1fa16.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4688966732106ccf58d67514bcee4c197aeff6c574844b7c146b53aebc1fa16.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de227e6dcee2eeb0407e31033822447e89c11bc1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4688966732106ccf58d67514bcee4c197aeff6c574844b7c146b53aebc1fa16.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 409
+Filed 08/30/16
+
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+CASE NO. 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+/
+MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
+Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern
+and Eastern Districts of New York, I, JACK A. GOLDBERGER, hereby move this Court for
+an Order for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to appear for Jeffrey Epstein in the above
+captioned action.
+I am in good standing for the bar of the State of Florida and there are no pending
+disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court.
+s/ Jack A. Goldberger
+JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ.
+Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 140(
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+(561) 835-8691 (fax)
+igoldberger@agwpa.com
+Florida Bar No. 262013
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 30th day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF.
+I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of
+record via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+s/Jack A. Goldberger
+ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4688966732106ccf58d67514bcee4c197aeff6c574844b7c146b53aebc1fa16.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4688966732106ccf58d67514bcee4c197aeff6c574844b7c146b53aebc1fa16.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..40ce350990c2380102e0618e7caf22856fed6a0b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4688966732106ccf58d67514bcee4c197aeff6c574844b7c146b53aebc1fa16.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f4688966732106ccf58d67514bcee4c197aeff6c574844b7c146b53aebc1fa16",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "78da286c3f921b51c5cbcb97dd92bd8dc7621548e3e7ec6ab24f21f9e3a27e58",
+  "output_sha256": "ae5eb1bcf3a166e548d8993390cb4a9a62c5717dafbf9db03393df2b6213fa1d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f473a267a64860c8ea22742f473da3e0be04b857e9642da175d648dd51cb70ca.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f473a267a64860c8ea22742f473da3e0be04b857e9642da175d648dd51cb70ca.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9f04338316f78d4e48b54b03f1f09fe61ce007d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f473a267a64860c8ea22742f473da3e0be04b857e9642da175d648dd51cb70ca.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 70
+Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+- V. -
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+AFFIDAVIT OF CERTIFICATION
+PURSUANT TO LOCAL
+CRIMINAL RULE 16.1
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+------- X
+)
+STATE OF NEW YORK
+COUNTY OF NEW YORK
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK )
+SS.:
+MAURENE COMEY, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, hereby
+affirms under penalty of perjury:
+I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office of Audrey Strauss,
+Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. I am one of the Assistants
+who represents the Government in these proceedings.
+I certify pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 16.1 that the Government has conferred
+in good faith with counsel to the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, regarding the Government's
+request to extend the deadline for the production of documents extracted from electronic devices
+seized from Jeffrey Epstein (the "Production") from November 9, 2020 to November 23, 2020,
+and that the parties have been unable to reach agreement.
+In particular, on November 4, 2020, the Government asked defense counsel
+whether they would consent to a two-week extension to allow adequate time for an outside vendor
+to finish
+stamping and downloading the Production. On the morning of November 6, 2020,
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 70 Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 2
+defense counsel indicated that they would consent to the requested extension on four conditions.
+First, the defense asked that the motion deadlines in this case be extended by three weeks. Second,
+the defense asked that the Government provide the defendant with a laptop on which to review her
+discovery at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Third, the defense asked that the Government
+provide the defense with the names of the three Minor Victims listed in the Indictment by
+November 23, 2020. Fourth, the defense asked that the Government provide the defense with all
+Jencks Act material by November 23, 2020. In response, the Government agreed to the first two
+conditions, but did not agree to the second two conditions. Accordingly, the parties have been
+unable to reach agreement on the requested two-week extension of the deadline for the Production.
+4.
+I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true.
+Dated: New York, New York
+November 6, 2020
+Maurene Comey
+Assistant United States Attorney
+Telephone: (212) 637-2324
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f473a267a64860c8ea22742f473da3e0be04b857e9642da175d648dd51cb70ca.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f473a267a64860c8ea22742f473da3e0be04b857e9642da175d648dd51cb70ca.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8c294b7dfcb129022a0af4abdbe5850cd451683
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f473a267a64860c8ea22742f473da3e0be04b857e9642da175d648dd51cb70ca.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f473a267a64860c8ea22742f473da3e0be04b857e9642da175d648dd51cb70ca",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "692d1f251d72d7c7735c9ef53b4d91975a4b02465487fddd1d4ebf39abba5bbf",
+  "output_sha256": "ee441cd1d173a403f944cd027068771f00f519a3ab97b0695f609159166ef548",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f479b1d63cdde0e5964e7f8e3c9cf374f29d95d6a8c4d5b980e38c65a8327cfd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f479b1d63cdde0e5964e7f8e3c9cf374f29d95d6a8c4d5b980e38c65a8327cfd.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c5ef49c608c15cbe884940d1f6e0ebb1d44115c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f479b1d63cdde0e5964e7f8e3c9cf374f29d95d6a8c4d5b980e38c65a8327cfd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 476 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 1
+Tremaine LLP
+21st Floor
+1251 Avenue of the Americas
+New York, NY 10020-1104
+Erie J. Feder
+212.603.6483 tel
+212.379.5279 fax
+cricfeder@dwt.com
+October 20, 2016
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+U.S. District Court
+for the Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, New York
+Re:
+v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-7433 - Subpoena to Sharon Churcher
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+This firm represents non-party Sharon Churcher, who was subpoenaed in the abovereferenced case. On September 1, 2016, the Court granted Churcher's motion to quash the
+subpoena (Dkt. No. 215) (the "Motion") in a Sealed Opinion (the "Decision"), which the Court's
+Deputy provided to the parties via email. The Decision instructed the parties to submit a
+proposed redacted version of the Decision consistent with the Protective Order. On September
+20, 2016, we filed a proposed redacted version of the Decision on behalf of all the parties. (See
+Dkt. No. 440 Ex. 1.)
+We write now to respectfully request that the Court formally issue the redacted version of
+the Decision as its Opinion resolving the Motion, so that the Decision can be cited in future cases
+and, as appropriate, included in legal reporters and online databases of court decisions.
+We thank Your Honor for your time and attention to this request, and are prepared to
+submit or discuss anything further if it would be helpful to the Court.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+Tremaine LLP
+/s/ Eric J. Feder
+Cc:
+Parties' counsel (via CM/ECF)
+Anchorage
+Bellevue
+Los Angeles
+New York
+Portland
+San Francisco
+Seattle
+Shanghai
+Washington, D.C.
+www.dwt.com
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f479b1d63cdde0e5964e7f8e3c9cf374f29d95d6a8c4d5b980e38c65a8327cfd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f479b1d63cdde0e5964e7f8e3c9cf374f29d95d6a8c4d5b980e38c65a8327cfd.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e37e7caeb684517776c6af4a59d6961b75210cbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f479b1d63cdde0e5964e7f8e3c9cf374f29d95d6a8c4d5b980e38c65a8327cfd.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f479b1d63cdde0e5964e7f8e3c9cf374f29d95d6a8c4d5b980e38c65a8327cfd",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "69650ecfbfff3d19ce9da7208a67ec25beed9bdf26d5da96cd6c0e723219b343",
+  "output_sha256": "ca91a0cd93f30379c538e6c4592a6d9e039bb940c5eff68a2c84a6805854e3f0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f48ef3484f2214800a92f127ec2dc90f5c6bb66b4c6cd91ed8cc56d2af8a70f9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f48ef3484f2214800a92f127ec2dc90f5c6bb66b4c6cd91ed8cc56d2af8a70f9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12fefbc65d40e9d9106884c33e853fa3584e7716
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f48ef3484f2214800a92f127ec2dc90f5c6bb66b4c6cd91ed8cc56d2af8a70f9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 553
+HADDON
+AN
+N
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 3
+Haddon,
+and
+, P.C
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364
+FX 303.832.2628
+www.hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+December 16, 2021
+VIA Email
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan,
+I write in response to this Court's order.
+As to the first question, federal law is clear. "No longer, when a lawyer asks a witness
+whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required (as he was at common
+law, see Note of Advisory Committee to Fed .R. Evid. 613(a)) to show the statement or disclose
+its contents to the witness, though he must upon request show it to opposing counsel." United
+States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.).
+As to the second question a statement provable by extrinsic evidence even though the
+witness affirms that the 3500 material contains the inconsistent statement and also expresses
+disagreement with the substance. By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically
+and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement).
+Thus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has "under any rational theory it
+might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from
+anything the witness said." United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 2002)
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 553 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+December 15, 2021
+Page 2
+(Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 613.04[1] (2d ed. 2001)). To be sure, every time Jane denied
+making a statement but agreed the 3500 material reflected the statement, she denied its substance
+to the jury; the prior statement is therefore provable by extrinsic evidence because Jane's trial
+testimony—I did not make the prior statement, or I don't remember making the prior statement,
+the FBI agent made a typo—would lead to a relevant conclusion different from any other
+relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said. See id. And referring Jane to the
+3500 material, which was not admitted into evidence, is not sufficient to protect Ms. Maxwell's
+right under Rule 613 to prove the statement by extrinsic evidence.
+Extrinsic evidence is disallowed only when the witness admits making the prior
+inconsistent statement. United States v.
+, 578 F.2d 1332, 1340 (10th Cir. 1978) ("The
+principle is that where it is sought to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent
+statement and the witness admits the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is thereby
+impeached and further testimony is not necessary."). Where the witness admits the 3500 material
+contains the statement, but denies making the statement or remembering making the statement,
+the witness has not "admitted the statement" within the meaning of Rule 613. Cf. id.
+Due to the press of time, Ms. Maxwell's counsel was not able to indicate each disputed
+prior inconsistent statement that was read into the record by the deadline of 10:15 p.m.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 553
+Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+December 15, 2021
+Page 3
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Marwell
+P.C.
+cc: Counsel of record (via email)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f48ef3484f2214800a92f127ec2dc90f5c6bb66b4c6cd91ed8cc56d2af8a70f9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f48ef3484f2214800a92f127ec2dc90f5c6bb66b4c6cd91ed8cc56d2af8a70f9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..72cedc36cd82483b32376e906e75ba19ddafc260
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f48ef3484f2214800a92f127ec2dc90f5c6bb66b4c6cd91ed8cc56d2af8a70f9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f48ef3484f2214800a92f127ec2dc90f5c6bb66b4c6cd91ed8cc56d2af8a70f9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b836d1f57cb9d00352f3bf7f1da5a74e8ff195f68d6c642dff43e02b8f191ff1",
+  "output_sha256": "4e41aaa3006787159f0e6da172894ac733cc4926efda2f0f931e7f0ffcdbda82",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4a0ccda9b1f434a56843c9a1c9f90909629c3f273d0688ac3a7dccc130bf2f5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4a0ccda9b1f434a56843c9a1c9f90909629c3f273d0688ac3a7dccc130bf2f5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ad2027f517dfae8b79059b3ae9ddd3d9be65be0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4a0ccda9b1f434a56843c9a1c9f90909629c3f273d0688ac3a7dccc130bf2f5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,429 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155
+Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 15
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+---X
+DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDON,
+East 10* Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+1. AND
+,. P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 15
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Motion to Compel Non-
+Privileged Documents contained on Plaintiff's Privilege Log.
+CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL
+Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), undersigned counsel certifies that
+she conferred with opposing counsel regarding the issues contained herein and attempted to
+reach resolution on these issues without need for Court intervention. The parties have been
+unable to reach resolution on these issues.
+INTRODUCTION
+Plaintiff asserts improper claims of attorney-client and work product privilege in her
+privilege log and wrongfully withheld documents based on these unsubstantiated claims. See
+Declaration of Laura Menninger ("Menninger Decl.") at Ex. A, Plaintiff's Privilege Log.
+Documents are also were improperly withheld on the basis of joint defense and/or common
+interest privileges. Id. The categories of improperly withheld documents include: 1)
+communications regarding media advice; 2) pre-existing documents transmitted to an attorney;
+3) documents shared with or communicated to unidentified third parties, waiving any privilege;
+4) documents primarily for the purpose of providing business advice; and 5) documents allegedly
+subject to an unidentified common interest or joint defense protection. In addition, Plaintiff has
+failed to furnish an adequate privilege log, making it impossible for Plaintiff to assess the
+propriety of certain privilege claims. This alone provides grounds for rejecting her asserted
+privileges. S.E.C. v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 152, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).
+ARGUMENT
+I.
+The Attorney-Client and Work Product Privilege Standards and Limitations
+a. The Attorney-Client Privilege
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 15
+"The attorney-client privilege protects communications (1) between a client and his or
+her attorney (2) that are intended to be, and in fact were, kept confidential (3) for the purpose of
+obtaining or providing legal advice." United States v. Mejia, 655 F.3d 126, 132 (2d Cir. 2011).
+The purpose of the privilege "is to encourage full and
+communication between attorneys
+and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and
+administration of justice." Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). 'In order to
+balance this protection of confidentiality with the competing value of public disclosure, however,
+courts apply the privilege only where necessary to achieve its purpose and construe the privilege
+narrowly because it renders relevant information undiscoverable." Mejia, 655 F.3d at 132
+(quotation marks and alterations omitted). Because the privilege "stands in derogation of the
+search for truth so essential to the effective operation of any system for justice ... the privilege
+must be narrowly construed." Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Wachner, 198 F.R.D. 53, 55
+(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710 (1974)). "The party asserting
+the privilege ... bears the burden of establishing its essential elements." Mejia, 655 F.3d at 132.
+"The party invoking the privilege also has the burden to show that the privilege has not been
+waived." Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 304 F.R.D. 384, 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
+b. Work Product Privilege
+The work-product privilege protects documents created by counsel or per counsel's
+directive, in anticipation of litigation. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 19, 2002 &
+August 2, 2002, 318 F.3d 379, 383 (2d Cir. 2003). The attorney work-product privilege "shelters
+the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and
+prepare his client's case." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). Again, the party
+asserting the work-product privilege "bears the heavy burden of establishing its applicability." In
+re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005, 510 F.3d 180, 183 (2d Cir. 2007).
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 15
+II. Attorney-Client Communications Regarding Public Relations are Not Privileged
+a. Attorney communications relating primarily to public relations advice are not
+privileged, as already determined by this Court
+Plaintiff's privilege log contains 28 entries of documents withheld "re media
+communications" or "media issues" asserting privilege based on "AC Privilege and Work
+Product/joint defense/common interest." Menninger Decl., Ex. B.' Plaintiff's refusal to disclose
+these communications is paradoxical in light of Plaintiff's previous position in this case.
+Plaintiff argued to this Court on February 26, 2016 that communications with attorneys
+concerning public relations advice are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. As stated
+by Plaintiff:
+As this Court is aware, not all communications with an attorney are privileged.
+The attorney-client privilege only encompasses confidential communications
+necessary to obtain informed legal advice and advocacy. See In re Grand Jury
+Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Shargel, 742 F.2d 61, 62 (2d Cir. 1984).
+Indeed, "[a] communication which has no direct relevance to the legal advice to
+be given, unlike a communication which relates to the subject matter of the
+attorney's professional employment, is a collateral matter, which is not
+privileged." Sarfati v. Bertino, 24 Misc. 3d 133(A), 890 N.Y.S.2d 371 (App.
+Term 2009).
+The attorney-client privilege is also narrowly interpreted: "Is]ince the privilege
+prevents disclosure of relevant evidence and thus impedes the quest for truth, ... it
+must "be strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the
+logic of its principle."' See In re Shargel, 742 F.2d at 62 . (quoting 8 J.
+WIGMORE, EVIDENCE $ 2291 (McNaughton rev. ed.1961)).
+The attorney-client privilege "does not extend to business advice, even if provided
+by an attorney." Stenovich v. Wachtell, Lipton,
+& Katz, 195 Misc. 2d 99,
+106-07, 756 N. Y.S.2d 367, 376 (Sup. Ct. 2003), citing Fine v. Facet Aerospace
+Prod. Co., 133 F.R.D. 439, 444 (S.D.N.Y.1990). By the same principle, public
+relations advice, even if given by an attorney, is not privileged.
+' For the Court's convenience, Plaintiff's privilege log has been converted from a PDF file to and Excel file so that
+theistined be raini log. For phat red ino die con ise og is poormat provided by Plainid is included in
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 15
+Plaintiff.
+Motion To Compel The Production Of Documents Subject To
+Improper Claim Of Privilege, Docket Entry ("DE") 33, at 10-11 (emphasis supplied).
+On April 15, 2016, this Court entered an Order adopting Plaintiff's position and
+compelling the production of certain attorney-client communications related to public relations
+issues. The Court found "Not all communications between an attorney and client are privileged,
+and one who seeks out an attorney for business or personal advice may not assert a privilege as
+to those communications."" (citing In Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co. Inc., 62 N.Y.2d 324,
+329 (1984)). This Court noted, "Alone, it would be difficult to deem communications that
+predominantly address a press statement as legal advice."? Id. at 20. It is apparent from the
+documents logged by Plaintiff that communications contained in her emails "amounts to public
+relations, not legal, advice." Id. at 27. The Court has determined advice of this nature "is
+something between business and personal advice, neither of which are privileged even when
+coming from counsel." Id. This is the law of the case and Plaintiff should be required to
+produce the 28 documents identified in the privilege log related to "media issues." Menninger
+Decl., Ex. B
+b. Communications for the purposes of disseminating information to the press and
+other third parties are not privileged
+The logged communications relating to "media issues" also coincide with Plaintiff's
+various press statements, interviews and published articles. Where communications between an
+attorney and client are made for the purpose of disclosing that information to third parties or the
+public, no privilege attaches.
+jurisdictions in the United States, consulted with her American counsel to obtain advice regarding the
+fair comment laws of the UK.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 6 of 15
+"Whenever the matters communicated to the attorney are intended by the client to be
+made public or revealed to third persons, ... the element of confidentiality is wanting." 5
+McCormick on Evidence § 91 at 408 (Kenneth S. Broun, 6th ed. 2006). "[C]ommunications
+between client and attorney intended for publication or communication to third-parties, are not
+intended to be confidential when made in order to obtain legal assistance and therefore are not
+within the privilege." Robbins & Myers, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 274 F.R.D. 63, 83-84
+(W.D.N.Y. 2011); In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 102 (2d Cir. 1987) ("conversations not intended
+to be confidential, but .. meant to be passed on to third parties" are not privileged) (citing United
+States v. Tellier, 255 F.2d 441, 447 (2d Cir.1958)); see also Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.
+Wachner, 124 F.Supp.2d 207, 209-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (proposed press release relating to
+possible acquisition and memorandum requesting comments of potential seller's attorneys not
+confidential communication for the purpose of obtaining legal advice).
+In light of Plaintiff's extensive media campaign and the timing of these purportedly
+privileged communications compared to statements made in the press by Plaintiff and her
+counsel, the information being conveyed appears to be for the purpose of conveying Plaintiff's
+story to the world. There can be no expectation of confidentiality when the intent is to pass
+information to the press, and courts (like Plaintiff's counsel) routinely have recognized that "[a]
+media campaign is not a litigation strategy." Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. 421, 431
+(S.D.N.Y. 2013). No privilege attaches to these communications because the information
+conveyed was clearly intended to be published broadly as part of Plaintiff's ongoing media
+campaign.
+c. Stan Pottinger's engagement appears to be for the purpose of public relations,
+not legal, advice
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 7 of 15
+Included on the privilege log are 29 entries including Stan Pottinger as a person within
+the distribution chain. See Menninger Decl., Ex. D. Pottinger is an attorney. According to
+public records, he is licensed to practice in the States of New York and California. In more
+recent years, however, it appears that Pottinger's primary occupation is as a novelist. See
+Menninger Decl., Ex. D.
+It is entirely unclear what Pottinger's role is vis-a-vis Plaintiff, this litigation, or any
+matter on which he has communicated with Plaintiff. Based on this Court's Order, Plaintiff has
+produced an "engagement" letter between herself and Pottinger. See Menninger Decl., Ex. E.
+The Letter is dated
+but does not state the actual creation or execution date.
+Id. The complete content of the letter is:
+Id.
+What remains unclear is the nature of the engagement between Pottinger and Plaintiff. In
+what capacity is he representing her on
+Pottinger has never appeared as counsel in any litigation in which Plaintiff is a party
+or a witness. He has never signed a pleading. He has never attended a hearing or deposition.
+The only thing that is obvious is that of the 263 specifically logged communications including
+Pottinger, 12 of them relate to "media issues" and one relates to advice regarding "potential
+public statements." Menninger Decl., Ex C, Items 20-23, 25, 49, 56, 69, 99, 140-142 and 149.
+In light of Pottinger's primary occupation in the most recent years as a novelist, there is ample
+reason to suspect his primary role relates to communications with the media or Plaintiff's widely
+" Pottinger is also included among the authors or recipients of the categorically logged communications
+related to various cases.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 8 of 15
+publicized desire to publish a book regarding the alleged
+If this is
+the case, then like the other media and public relations communications, there is simply no
+attorney-client privilege. Ms. Maxwell requests that all communications including Pottinger be
+submitted to the Court for in camera review to determine if the nature of the relationship and/or
+communications are in his capacity as an attorney and the primary purpose of the communication
+was the provision of legal, as opposed to media, book publication or public relations advice.
+Ill.
+Documents do not Become Privileged Simply Because they are Transmitted to
+an Attorney
+Plaintiff has also logged a number of documents "providing information sought by
+attorneys to provide legal advice, with attachment" or "conveying requested information to assist
+in providing legal advice." See Menninger Decl., Ex. F. In some cases, the attachments are
+logged; in others they are not.4 At this point, Ms. Maxell does not contest that the
+communications (i.e. the actual email or letter) appear to be between certain attorneys and
+Plaintiff. The documents attached or transmitted in response to the communications, however,
+are not automatically privileged just because they were transmitted to Plaintiff's attorneys. This
+is the only basis on which the documents are being withheld. See e.g., Menninger Decl., Ex. F,
+Item 108 ("Attached Information sought by attorneys to provide legal advice"). If these are, as it
+seems, pre-existing documents, they do not become "privileged" simply because they were
+provided to counsel. Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir. 1962) (Insofar as the
+papers include pre-existing documents and financial records not prepared by [the party] for the
+purpose of communicating with their lawyers in confidence, their contents have acquired no
+special protection from the simple fact of being turned over to an attorney."); Astra Aktiebolag v.
+* Plaintiff concedes that the items logged at number 92 and 93 are not privileged, but claims they include
+i notice provision requiring notice to a third party prior to their production. Plaintiff is providing th
+otice, and claims she will produce the documents if no objection is made
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 9 of 15
+Andrx Pharm., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92, 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (**Attachments which do not, by their
+content, fall within the realm of the privilege cannot become privileged by merely attaching them
+to a communication with an attorney.") (quoting Sneider v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 91 F.R.D. 1,
+4 (N.D.III. 1980)).
+Similarly, and as set out more fully above, "communications between client and attorney
+intended for publication or communication to third-parties, are not intended to be confidential
+when made in order to obtain legal assistance and therefore are not within the privilege."
+Robbins & Myers, Inc. v. J.M. Huber Corp., 274 F.R.D. 63, 83-84 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting
+cases). If and to the extent that the "attachments" are not pre-existing documents, but rather facts
+or other information intended for communication to third parties, there is no privilege in such
+factual statements.
+IV.
+Plaintiff's failure to Disclose the "Professionals Retained by Attorneys to Aid in
+the Rendition of Legal Advice" Results in a Waiver of any Privilege Claim
+Plaintiff has chosen to "categorically" log thousands of documents relating to various
+litigations, including CVRA Case, Maxwell Case, Dershowitz Case, Epstein Case and a "catch
+all" generally describing what might be attorney-client communications or work product
+regarding "potential litigations." Menninger Decl., Ex. G. The "categorically logged" documents
+include unidentified communications with or transmissions to "Professionals retained by
+attorneys to aid in the rendition of legal advice." Id. These are not paralegals or other legal staff,
+who are listed separately. These are un-identified third parties with whom information was
+shared that is now being withheld as privileged
+The log is completely deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii), which requires that
+a party withholding documents on the basis of privilege "describe the nature of the documents,
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 10 of 15
+communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner that,
+without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess
+the claim." (emphasis supplied). The Local Rules are even more specific, and require a party
+withholding a document to identify "(i) the type of document, e.g., letter or memorandum; (ii)
+the general subject matter of the document; (iii) the date of the document; and (iv) the author of
+the document, the addressees of the document, and any other recipients, and, where not apparent,
+the relationship of the author, addressees, and recipients to each other." S.D.N.Y. LCiv.R
+26.2(A). Plaintiff fails to meet this standard.
+The Rules provide that a privilege log containing the information required in Fed. R. Civ.
+P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) and S.D.N.Y. LCiv.R 26.2(A) must be served at the time objections are filed,
+and failure to do so may result in waiver of the privilege claims. See S.E.C. v. Yorkville
+Advisors, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 152, 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (failure to provide adequate descriptions of
+the subject matter, authors and recipients of the withheld documents resulted in waiver of
+privilege); see also In re Chevron Corp., 749 F. Supp. 2d 170, 181 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom.
+Lago Agrio Plaintiffs v. Chevron Corp., 409 F. App'x 393 (2d Cir. 2010).
+Here, Plaintiff completely fails to comply with the required disclosures. She attempts to
+invoke privilege over information conveyed to third parties without any identification of who
+these "professionals" are, what their role is, or how they were necessary to aid in the retention of
+legal advice. Ms. Maxwell requests that Plaintiff be compelled to produce the documents which
+" The law is clear that the attorney-client privilege is waived when otherwise protected communications
+are transmitted to third parties. Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir.2015). ("A party that
+shares otherwise privileged communications with an outsider is deemed to waive the privilege by
+disabling itself from claiming that the communications were intended to be confidential."). While there
+are limited exceptions to the waiver rule, the party asserting the privilege must establish that disclosure to
+a third party "was necessary for the client to obtain informed legal advice," which "requires that the
+involvement of the third party be nearly indispensable or serve some specialized purpose in facilitating
+the attorney-client communication" I
+v. Beer, No. 06 Civ. 4156 (KMW)(JCF), 2010 WL 3422723, at
+*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2010).
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 11 of 15
+were shared with these third party individuals and a ruling that any privilege over these
+communications has been waived by the failure to provide a proper log under Fed. R. Civ. P.
+26(b)(5)(A)(ii) and S.D.N.Y. LCiv.R 26.2(A).
+Business Advice Regarding Victims Refuse Silence is Not Privileged
+Plaintiff also has logged 28 documents relating to the entity Victims Refuse Silence
+("VRS") Menninger Decl., Ex. H. This is an organization set up in December of 2014,
+purportedly for the purpose of helping victims of sexual abuse or sexual trafficking. The Articles
+of Incorporation were filed by
+(Plaintiff's counsel) mere days prior to the filing
+of the Joinder Motion in the CVRA Case in which various allegations were made about Ms.
+Maxwell, Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew. Menninger Decl., Ex. I. Brad
+is the
+registered Agent and a Director of VRS. Id.
+First, at least three of the logged entries are obviously not privileged. They are simply
+communications "re: VRS communications." See Menninger Decl., Ex G, Items 132, 133 and
+146. In other words, they are communications about what to say publically about VRS. They do
+not even purport to be related to legal advice, or necessary for the purpose of seeking legal
+advice.
+Second, while many of the entries claim they are "re legal advice related to VRS," the
+claim is highly dubious. VRS has done pretty much nothing since its inception in 2014,
+according to Plaintiff. See Menninger Decl., Ex. J at 317:25-318:10. What type of legal advice
+does it need? It is not involved in any litigation, and it has already completed its corporate
+filings. What seem more probable is that the communications are related to purely business
+matters, such as setting up websites in an attempt to portray public proof that the organization is
+actually real, as opposed to a shell created for the purpose of concocting a damages theory for
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 12 of 15
+Plaintiff's contemplated litigations. The attorney-client privilege "does not extend to business
+advice, even if provided by an attorney." Stenovich, 756 N.Y.S.2d at 376.
+Third, to the extent that the communications are with
+1, there is every reason to
+believe that they relate to his status as a Director of VRS, acting in a business capacity and
+giving business advice. In order to claim privilege, the attorney receiving or providing
+privileged communication must be acting as an attorney and not as a business advisor. 8|
+Federal Practice and Procedure § 2017, at 136 (1970). "When a corporate officer
+also acts as general counsel, wearing "two hats,' the nature of his communications must be
+closely scrutinized to separate business communications from legal communications, as the
+attorney-client privilege is narrow." Fares Pawn, LLC v. Indiana, No. 3:11-CV-136-RLY-
+WGH, 2012 WL 3580068, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 17, 2012). Again, where the privilege log does
+not permit evaluation of whether the matter at issue was advice on merely business matters as
+opposed to legal advice, the party asserting the privilege waives the right to claim privilege. See
+Yorkville Advisors, LLC, 300 F.R.D. at 162; see also In re Rospatch Sec. Litig., No. 1:90-CV-
+805, 1991 WL 574963, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 1991) (privilege waived where information
+on log was insufficient to show if attorney, who was also a board member, was providing legal
+or business advice).
+Simply put, in light of the business nature of the relationship between VRS and
+the entries are deficient in providing the information necessary to evaluate the claim of
+privileged. As discussed above, this should result in a waiver.
+VI.
+Plaintiff Fails to Establish the Elements for Invoking the Common Interest and
+Joint Defense Doctrines
+"The common interest rule is an extension of the attorney-client privilege and not an
+independent basis for privilege." Pem-Am., Inc. v. Sunham Home Fashions, LLC, No. 03 CIV.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 13 of 15
+1377JFKRLE, 2007 WL 3226156, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2007). "IT]he so-called joint
+defense privilege or common interest rule ... serves to protect the confidentiality of
+communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense
+effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective
+counsel." Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 296 F.R.D. 168, 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation
+marks omitted). "A party asserting it first must establish that the documents purportedly subject
+to the rule are in fact attorney-client communications subject to the attorney-client privilege." Id.
+Once the party claiming common interest privilege has established that the documents in
+question are subject to the attorney-client privilege, it must further show that (1) it shares a
+common legal interest with the party with whom the documents or information were shared, and
+(2) the statements for which protection is sought were designed to further that interest. Id.
+(internal quotes omitted).
+"The common interest rule does not apply merely because two parties share the same
+attorney or because one party has an interest in a litigation involving another party. Rather,
+*[t]here must be a substantial showing by parties attempting to invoke the protections of the
+privilege of the need for a common defense as opposed to the mere existence of a common
+problem.' Finkelman v. Klaus, 2007 WL 4303538, at *4 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Nov. 28, 2007)."
+Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 290 F.R.D. at 434.
+Plaintiff has included "common interest/joint defense" as a basis for withholding each
+and every document included in the privilege log. Yet, Plaintiff fails to identify who she has a
+common interest with or why there is a need for a common defense. There is no indication of
+when the alleged joint defense arose, the subject matter of the defense, the common interest
+involved or the persons with whom she claims a common interest. Plaintiff's failure to provide
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 14 of 15
+adequate descriptions of the subject matter, authors and recipients of the withheld documents
+resulted in waiver of privilege. See S.E.C. v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 152, 162
+(S.D.N.Y. 2014).
+CONCLUSION
+WHEREFORE, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court Compel the production of 1) the
+items identified in Plaintiff's privilege log ID 2, 7, 9, 12-14, 19-28, 30-32, 34-41, 47, 49-51, 56-
+58, 61-73, 81-82, 84-85, 30-93, 98-99, 104, 106-109, 131-144, 146-151 and 153 (Menninger
+Decl., Exs. B, C, F and H); 2) any items "categorically" logged in items 125-128 &152 including
+either Stan Pottinger or any other "professional;" and 3) all documents withheld on the basis of
+the common interest/joint defense rules.
+Dated: May 20, 2016.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+HADDON, I
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+L, P.C.
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 155 Filed 05/20/16 Page 15 of 15
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on May 20, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant's Motion To
+Compel Non-Privilege Documents via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meridith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+SAFE WESSING IN
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of
+Utah
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+14
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4a0ccda9b1f434a56843c9a1c9f90909629c3f273d0688ac3a7dccc130bf2f5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4a0ccda9b1f434a56843c9a1c9f90909629c3f273d0688ac3a7dccc130bf2f5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6d13dff594eda74a557435bcfee3df623d4ed57a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4a0ccda9b1f434a56843c9a1c9f90909629c3f273d0688ac3a7dccc130bf2f5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -180,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f4a0ccda9b1f434a56843c9a1c9f90909629c3f273d0688ac3a7dccc130bf2f5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c373072a58fc0a3b493580ba414639fb72d9ed17bfc0ec5f84fe6dbd3391b94b",
+  "output_sha256": "c72c995e3a4cdc3185060ad55f54747cf04d2a541e532de9d596efc37c899e25",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4e08c8f3e9fc0a1903012bb1721c0d9d8e8b39d0aa1e9765ce1dc5f967184ca.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4e08c8f3e9fc0a1903012bb1721c0d9d8e8b39d0aa1e9765ce1dc5f967184ca.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fb20466d469031d019df8983a2d0a56eb6b9a457
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4e08c8f3e9fc0a1903012bb1721c0d9d8e8b39d0aa1e9765ce1dc5f967184ca.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 401-3 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4e08c8f3e9fc0a1903012bb1721c0d9d8e8b39d0aa1e9765ce1dc5f967184ca.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4e08c8f3e9fc0a1903012bb1721c0d9d8e8b39d0aa1e9765ce1dc5f967184ca.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83d644a914971cd7cb4b59986d04d738039d88aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4e08c8f3e9fc0a1903012bb1721c0d9d8e8b39d0aa1e9765ce1dc5f967184ca.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f4e08c8f3e9fc0a1903012bb1721c0d9d8e8b39d0aa1e9765ce1dc5f967184ca",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "64191adca56ff762b9972beffd2baa0931a21f196d24ecab7c9005bc8265cbfc",
+  "output_sha256": "c06d9295703313d2bb0759b1452c17e6b283dc501f2724b653ecf6bba8cf14c5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4f5ff9121b1a04b6a92f8c055eac8592508b30d5070ec1939de7e124cf04c70.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4f5ff9121b1a04b6a92f8c055eac8592508b30d5070ec1939de7e124cf04c70.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4fcc47707adaf6072097934b6e468f76212b8acc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4f5ff9121b1a04b6a92f8c055eac8592508b30d5070ec1939de7e124cf04c70.md
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 307-6 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 307-6 Filed 07/25/16 Page 2 of 3
+BOLES.
+SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+Ji SASTLAS OLAS ECULEVARD- -
+PITE 1200• CORT LAUDERDALE. FL 3330-221 - PH. 854.356.0C| - FAX 954.353.0022
+Meredith L. S
+IEsg.
+mschultz@lbstllp.com
+July 14, 2016
+Via Email
+Philip Barden, Esq.
+Devonshires Solicitors
+30 Finsbury Circle
+London, EC2M 7DT
+Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Dear Sir:
+You have confirmed that you act for Mr. Gow.
+In accordance with the Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, our client is entitled to
+procure evidence in the torm of depositions from Mr. Gow, a resident in England, in support of
+legal proceedings in the U.S. Our client has a subpoena issued with the power of a United States
+District Court, and seeks to procure Mr. Gow's evidence without recourse to the English courts,
+if at all possible.
+To that end, our client has taken the following steps to procure service of the subpoena.
+1. On 17 June 2016, our client commenced service of process pursuant to The Hague
+Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, to
+which both the U.S. and the U.K. are parties. The date for deposition was identified
+therein as 29 June 2016. A copy of the subpoena is attached.
+2. On 1 July 2016, our client commenced separate service of process pursuant to The
+Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial
+Matters, notifying Mr. Gow that the date for deposition is now 20 July 2016, at Boies,
+Schiller & Flexner, 25 Old Broad Street, London EC2N 1HQ. Please confirm
+whether this subpoena has been received. A copy of the subpoena is attached.
+3. On 12 July 2016 (to ensure that costs remain proportionate in this matter, and that
+your client received the new date of deposition (20 July 2016) at the earliest
+opportunity), an updated copy of the subpoena was served to you, detailing the new
+date for deposition as 20 July 2016. A copy of the subpoena is attached.
+WWW.BSFLLP.COM
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 307-6 Filed 07/25/16 Page 3 of 3
+BOIES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+Philip Barden, Esq.
+July 14, 2016
+Page 2
+To date, our client has not separately invoked the Evidence (Proceedings in Other
+Jurisdictions) Act 1975. It hopes this will be unnecessary on the basis that Mr. Gow will
+cooperate and sit for his deposition following receipt of the above subpoena, or voluntarily.
+If you do not confirm before 18 July 2016 that this is in fact the case, we will be forced
+to: (1) consider our clients options with regard to the subpoena in the U.S. courts; (2) and/or seek
+an English court order pursuant to the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act
+1975. In both instances, we will seck recovery of the cost of doing so from Mr. Gow.
+Our strong preference is to proceed in a sensible and efficient manner for all
+concerned. If a new date or location is preferred, we would be prepared to consider this. Please
+advise how you would like to proceed in this matter.
+To the extent that you consider service has been defective, please confirm whether you
+vaive service of process and accept service of the subpoena on Mr. Gow's behalf. To the exten
+hat you consider Mr. Gow has not yet received notice of the updated date for the deposition, w
+For the avoidance of any doubt, we strongly reject any assertions that we are harassing
+our client. Additionally, as it is now known that he is represented by counsel in this matter,
+vill direct all communications regarding this matter to you
+Sincerely,
+the Parath
+Meredith L. IM
+MIS:dk
+Enclosures
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4f5ff9121b1a04b6a92f8c055eac8592508b30d5070ec1939de7e124cf04c70.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4f5ff9121b1a04b6a92f8c055eac8592508b30d5070ec1939de7e124cf04c70.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ee6af3ddf2a760169140d830cbab9ddea0794599
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f4f5ff9121b1a04b6a92f8c055eac8592508b30d5070ec1939de7e124cf04c70.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f4f5ff9121b1a04b6a92f8c055eac8592508b30d5070ec1939de7e124cf04c70",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "10f8590ae66559e683464278db2bcc69ef030c20a238c8208a93180c4a9cfc2f",
+  "output_sha256": "e6fc0df9b1ba54c3e8fe4d6a11bb73459a3abf867eab6c32ec8376cadab9d87e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5013c3277e65f6429b80492dd0a570a726deed71446bcd174d48514fb111064.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5013c3277e65f6429b80492dd0a570a726deed71446bcd174d48514fb111064.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0af009af535254f1754524f30def5c2f941121d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5013c3277e65f6429b80492dd0a570a726deed71446bcd174d48514fb111064.md
@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 207 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 7
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE
+SUBPOENA TO MICROSOFT CORPORATION SEEKING PRODUCTION
+OF ALL OF
+SENT AND RECEIVED EMAILS AND RELATED DATA
+Plaintiff
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+motion for a protective order, barring enforcement of a defense subpoena submitted to Microsoft
+Corporation for all of the records associated with
+live.com email account and
+Hotmail.com account. Defendant is not entitled to all emails that
+have ever
+sent or received at any time from those accounts. Accordingly, the Court should enter a
+protective order and bar enforcement of the subpoena.
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+Defendant has issued a subpoena for the production of all
+documents
+associate with her live.com email account, Hotmail.com email account, and all emails associated
+with the accounts, sent or received, with the attendant metadata. Previously, however, Plaintiff's
+counsel communicated that that it appears that Microsoft deleted the live.com email account for
+inactivity, and that
+has lost access to her Hotmail.com account (multiple password
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 207 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 7
+recovery attempts failed due to the aged, non-recoverable information required for such
+attempts). See l
+Decl., Exhibit 1, May 17, 2016, letter.
+On June 8, 2016, Defendant served Notice of Service of Rule 45 Subpoena Upon
+Microsoft Corporation. See
+|Decl., Exhibit. 2, Notice of Service of Rule 45 Subpoena
+Upon Microsoft Corporation.
+It is likely that data in the Hotmail.com account and the live.com account (if any data
+exists) contain confidential, attorney-client communications.
+DISCUSSION
+moves for a protective order forbidding defense counsel from enforcing a
+subpoena served on Microsoft, with whom she maintains an email account. The Court's
+authority to issue such a protective order is well established. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+26(c)(I)(A) & (D) states that "[a] party ... may move for a protective order in the court where
+the action is pending ... [and] [t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party
+or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including ..
+. forbidding the disclosure or discovery ... [or] forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or
+limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters." While Defendant has chosen to
+serve her subpoena on Microsoft Corporation, the subpoena is plainly for
+records.
+A party has standing to file a motion to quash a subpoena served on a third party when the party
+has a personal right or privilege regarding the subject matter of the subpoena. See, e.g., Estate of
+Ungar v. Palestinian Authority, 332 Fed. Appx. 643, 645 (2d Cir.2009) (movant had standing to
+challenge subpoena to itself and its attorneys because it claimed privilege in the material sought).
+Here, the Court clearly should grant a protective order barring disclosure of all of
+emails maintained by Microsoft. Defendant cannot possibly make a case for disclosure
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 207 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 7
+of all emails that
+has ever written or received that are maintained in her accounts,
+regardless of whether they were written to or from her attorney or to and from other personal
+friends or acquaintances who have nothing to do with this lawsuit. The subpoena is hopelessly
+overbroad.
+In addition, the subpoena calls upon Microsoft to do something that is illegal to disclose
+customer records. Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.,
+an internet service provider (such as Microsoft) is not permitted to disclose such records based
+up a mere civil subpoena, precisely because of the gross invasion of privacy that would be
+involved. See In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606, 611 (E.D. Va.
+2008) ("Applying the clear and unambiguous language of § 2702 to this case, AOL, a
+corporation that provides electronic communication services to the public, may not divulge the
+contents of the Rigsbys' electronic communications ... because the statutory language of the
+Privacy Act does not include an exception for the disclosure of electronic communications
+pursuant to civil discovery subpoenas."). A protective order should be entered for this reason as
+well.
+Moreover, it is also illegal under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §
+2701 et seq. This Act protects individuals' privacy in their email, and "reflects Congress's
+judgment that users have a legitimate interest in the confidentiality of communications in
+electronic storage at a communications facility ... the Act protects users whose electronic
+communications are in electronic storage with an ISP or other electronic communications
+facility." Theofel v. Farey
+359 F.3d 1066, 1072-73 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the Stored
+Communications Act, a civil discovery subpoena is not sufficient to overcome its protection.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 207 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 7
+"The contents of e-mail communications may be released by an ISP' only under the specifically
+enumerated exceptions found in §$ 2702 and 2703 of the Privacy Act. Those exceptions require
+a search warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or a subpoena issued in
+the course of a criminal investigation." In re Toft, 453 B.R. 186, 197 (Bkrtcy. S.D.N.Y. 2011),
+citing F.T. C. v. Netscape Comme'n Corp., 196 F.R.D. 559 (N.D.Cal.2000) (discovery of e-mails
+from ISP not available under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45). "Indeed, one court has held that the disclosure
+procedures under the Privacy Act are unconstitutional to the extent they permit warrantless
+searches of e-mails, because a reasonable expectation of privacy exists and e-mails are subject to
+the Fourth Amendment's protection from warrantless searches and seizures." See United States v.
+Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 288 (6th Cir.2010)." In re Toft, 453 B.R. at 197.
+Indeed, courts have taken a dim view of such sweeping subpoenas. A good illustration
+comes from Theofel v. Farey-
+, which condemned a subpoena that sought production of
+emails that that was not limited to the subject matter of the litigation or emails sent during a
+relevant time period. The Court allowed a civil suit to proceed against an attorney who had
+propounded the subpoena, explaining that "[t]he subpoena's falsity transformed the access from
+a bona fide state-sanctioned inspection into private snooping." Id. at 611.
+It is important to understand that Defendant's subpoena to Microsoft seeks not mere
+identifying information about an email subscriber, but all of the communications sent or received
+by
+for both of her inactive accounts. Cf. Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 12-MC-
+80237 CRB (NC), 2013 WL 4536808, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2013) (upholding, in part,
+subpoenas that did "not seek the contents of any subscriber's emails" but rather only "identifying
+' The SCA "protects users whose electronic communications are in electronic storage with an ISP
+or other electronic communications facility." Theofel v. Farey-
+1, 341 F.3d at 982 (emphasis
+added).
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 207 Filed 06/13/16 Page 5 of 7
+information associated with the subscriber as well as the usage information of each account for
+certain time periods."). Such a request is inappropriate.
+Finally, to the extent that this subpoena will, as part of its sweeping reach, touch on
+documents that have already been produced (and, indeed, emails from these accounts have been
+produced as some were embedded in the data in
+accessible email account that were
+captured and searched by
+counsel), the subpoena is duplicative and should not be
+enforced. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
+In sum, the Federal Rules (and other authority cited herein) do not countenance
+Defendant's brazen attempt to procure all emails ever sent or received by
+on these
+accounts, as well as other data. The subpoena at issue is an abuse of civil discovery.
+Accordingly,
+seeks attorneys' fees for the motion practice associated with this
+subpoena.
+CONCLUSION
+The Court should issue a Protective Order quashing this subpoena issued to Microsoft
+Corporation in its entirety for the reasons stated above, and award fees for the motion practice
+associated with this subpoena.
+Dated: June 13, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith I
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 207 Filed 06/13/16 Page 6 of 7
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52022
+2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 207 Filed 06/13/16 Page 7 of 7
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+THEREBY CERTIFY that on the 13th day of June, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+7
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5013c3277e65f6429b80492dd0a570a726deed71446bcd174d48514fb111064.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5013c3277e65f6429b80492dd0a570a726deed71446bcd174d48514fb111064.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f63a6186234a6bbf4fa525740546b18e1a014cd0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5013c3277e65f6429b80492dd0a570a726deed71446bcd174d48514fb111064.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -84,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f5013c3277e65f6429b80492dd0a570a726deed71446bcd174d48514fb111064",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6ebf60786f915cd095a0b1fc98c0b40d1f9b7a4cafa57619ac39dc2664a401b4",
+  "output_sha256": "80b29d7272e558cd3b9e8872ec301084433eb6d5929d3d3d49f7173d67dc2f08",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50520335af5c0d15a190cac53e330a4528a011cf0ae5425b3c523dc5c3d457e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50520335af5c0d15a190cac53e330a4528a011cf0ae5425b3c523dc5c3d457e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c3c4322dcfbb03b81d3c9c9013d3f1849d057a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50520335af5c0d15a190cac53e330a4528a011cf0ae5425b3c523dc5c3d457e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 660-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50520335af5c0d15a190cac53e330a4528a011cf0ae5425b3c523dc5c3d457e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50520335af5c0d15a190cac53e330a4528a011cf0ae5425b3c523dc5c3d457e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..153651f96062ab1bc103041c926f02f370fec687
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50520335af5c0d15a190cac53e330a4528a011cf0ae5425b3c523dc5c3d457e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f50520335af5c0d15a190cac53e330a4528a011cf0ae5425b3c523dc5c3d457e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "aa61b35c77ec950caa0f9412504794a54a4e4c00b8b11353e4a6296bfd869861",
+  "output_sha256": "1ce954bd57e92887410e61fdabeb99d61293c3cded157d6b12ec4c41b52a55ee",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50afc3ff83dc67157ecbd388df0655a9381391ce6534dbc1f4edf39e76d914d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50afc3ff83dc67157ecbd388df0655a9381391ce6534dbc1f4edf39e76d914d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63341fdc396a877de1a20381a5bf978d6817c0d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50afc3ff83dc67157ecbd388df0655a9381391ce6534dbc1f4edf39e76d914d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,497 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+-----
+DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
+DATA FROM DEFENDANT'S (NON-EXISTENT) UNDISCLOSED EMAIL
+ACCOUNT AND FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+, AND
+, P.C.
+i
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24
+
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+INTRODUCTION
+ARGUMENT.
+I.
+PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CONFER UNDER RULE 37(A)(1) OR THIS COURT'S
+ORDER
+II. MS. MAXWELL HAS DISCLOSED AND SEARCHED ALL EMAIL ACCOUNTS
+1
+1
+... 3
+SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. MAXWELL NOT WARRANTED, RATHER COSTS
+OUGHT TO BE AWARDED TO HER
+CONCLUSION
+..7
+.. 13
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+... 15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 17
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell") files this Response to Plaintiff's Motion
+To Compel Data From Defendant's (Non-Existent) Undisclosed Email Account and For an
+Adverse Inference Instruction and states as follow:
+INTRODUCTION
+Plaintiff continues in her course of re-litigating issues, multiplying these proceedings and
+misstating the record. In what amounts to the fourth Motion on forensic examination of Ms.
+Maxwell's computers and email accounts, Plaintiff now trumps up a claim that some unidentified
+and "undisclosed" email account should have been searched and was not. To the contrary, Ms.
+Maxwell has spent thousands of dollars to forensically image all of her devices, searching every
+account to which she has access, conducting extremely broad and over-reaching searches for the
+search terms Plaintiff requested and in complying with this Court's Orders. The result of these
+exercises proved, as Ms. Maxwell has always maintained, that all non-privileged relevant and
+responsive documents in her possession, custody and control had already been searched for and
+produced prior to the excessive and redundant briefing on these issues, resulting in no additional
+production. Plaintiff's Motion must be denied because no "undisclosed" email account exists
+and Ms. Maxwell has fully complied with this Court's Orders.
+ARGUMENT
+PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CONFER UNDER RULE 37(A)(1) OR THIS
+COURT'S ORDER
+Despite the clear requirements of Rule 37(a)(1) requiring a certificate of conferral prior to
+filing any motion to compel, and this Court's standing order regarding conferral on all discovery
+issues prior to Motions practice, the sum total of Plaintiff's stated conferral attempt is a footnote
+stating that a letter was sent on September 23, 2016 "inquiring about the undisclosed account" -
+a letter not included in the exhibits to the Motion. Ms. Maxwell has been clear that she has
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 17
+searched all accounts that she can access. Had Plaintiff bothered to follow up on this alleged
+communication, Ms. Maxwell would have reaffirmed that there is no "undisclosed" email
+account.
+. Instead, Plaintiff filed this frivolous and vexatious motion to waste both the Court and
+Ms. Maxwell's time and needlessly multiply these proceedings.
+Courts in this district routinely deny motions based on failure to confer prior to the
+motion when such conferral is required by the Rules or Court Order. Prescient Partners, L.P. v.
+Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 7590 (DAB) JCF, 1998 WL 67672, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
+("Under ordinary circumstances,.., the failure to meet and confer mandates denial of a motion to
+compel."); Excess Ins. Co. v. Rochdale Ins. Co., No. 05 CIV. 10174, 2007 WL 2900217, at *1
+(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2007) (Sweet, J.) (denying motion and cross motion based on failure to confer,
+noting "[m]ere correspondence, absent exigent circumstances not present here, does not satisfy
+the requirement"); Myers v. Andzel, No. 06 CIV. 14420 (RWS), 2007 WL 3256865, at *1
+(Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007) (denying motion based on failure to confer).
+The Court has been abundantly clear on the necessity for conferral prior to motions
+practice. In the March 17, 2016 hearing, the Court ordered that prior to motions practice, the
+parties were to set an agenda on the disputed issue in writing and have a meeting of substance
+prior to filing a motion. "So I would say exchange writing as to what it's going to be and have a
+meeting. It doesn't have to be in person, but it certainly has to be a significant meeting; it can't
+be just one ten-minute telephone call. So that's how I feel about the meet and confer." Tr. p. 3.
+As shown in the Plaintiff's motion, no such call has occurred.
+Based on Plaintiff's failure to confer as required by both the Federal Rules and this
+Court's standing order, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Motion be denied and attorneys' fees and
+costs of responding be awarded to Ms. Maxwell.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 17
+IlMS. MAXWELL HAS DISCLOSED AND SEARCHED ALL EMAIL ACCOUNTS
+a. All Devices Have Been Forensically Searched for Responsive Emails
+As requested by Plaintiff and Ordered by the Court, Ms. Maxwell's computer and all of
+her electronic devices have been forensically imaged, searched for the search terms requested by
+Plaintiff, and all responsive documents produced. This expensive, costly and time consuming
+exercise in futility simply confirmed that all responsive documents, including all responsive
+emails, were produced in March and April 2016.
+Most significantly, the devices were searched for all emails whether saved or deleted -
+and irrespective of which account they came from; not a single responsive email was located
+from any Mindspring account and no emails were located from Earthlink or any other secret,
+hidden, "undisclosed" email account, as Plaintiff speculates must exist.
+b. The MindSpring account
+The first two accounts discussed in the Motion have already been fully discussed in prior
+briefings and at length in conferral conferences.' See DE 320. In addition to the search of Ms.
+Maxwell's computer and devices, the first account,
+was forensically
+searched on its server using the search terms proposed by Defendants and as required by the
+Court. The search uncovered no responsive documents from any time period. See DE 320. This
+included both emails in the account, deleted emails, and any other information relating to the
+account retained on the MindSpring server. There can simply be no claim for an adverse
+inference where Plaintiff has already received exactly what she requested - a forensic search of
+the account for her own defined terms. It resulted in nothing.
+' Plaintiff conveniently omits the fact that the EarthLink and MindSpring accounts were in an address book
+purportedly recovered from Mr. Epstein's home by the Palm Beach Police in 2005. Thus, there is no indication or
+inference that either of these accounts were created or used in the 2000 to 2002 time frame as Plaintiff claims.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 17
+c. The EarthLink account
+The second account,
+is, as Ms. Maxwell has repeatedly explained
+to Plaintiff's counsel, an account that she does not recognize, that she does not recall having ever
+logged onto, and for which she has no password. See DE 320. Ms. Maxwell tried every avenue
+available online through EarthLink to reset the password or otherwise access the account. In
+fact, when one attempts to recover a password for that account, the system states "The email
+address you entered is not an EarthLink email address or ID." According to Plaintiff, such a
+message means the account has been permanently deleted by the host company. Plaintiff's
+counsel, Meredith Shultz, wrote on May 17, 2016, regarding an account of Plaintiff's (that she
+claims she cannot access but for which relevant and responsive emails were located on her
+computer):
+"Regarding her live.com address, it appears that the account has been
+permanently deleted by the host Company. One method of telling if an account
+still exists for live.com (and for most web mail systems) is to perform an
+account password recovery. When you enter the e-mail address and enter the
+captca code and hit Next, the website states that it does not recognize the email
+address. This means that the account has been permanently deleted from
+live.com's system."
+Menninger Decl., Ex. A
+Plaintiff does not, and cannot, explain why she thinks that her own live.com email
+address has been permanently deleted by the host company, yet based on the exact same set of
+data, she thinks that an email account that Ms. Maxwell does not recall ever using (and from
+which no documents exist on her devices) from Earthlink still remains on its system. If there is
+some way to access the account, Plaintiff hasn't said what it is. Ms. Maxwell simply has no way
+to access this account and has no information, save Plaintiff's rank speculation.?
+2 Plaintiff has an account from which actual documents have been produced - proving she did use the
+account (unlike Ms. Maxwell's EarthLink account) and it contains relevant information. Yet Plaintiff claims she
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 17
+Because Plaintiff claimed she cannot access her Microsoft account, Ms. Maxwell
+subpoenaed Microsoft for the documents. Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena to obtain the
+information contained in the account and has refused to sign the release provided to her that
+would allow the production of that information under the terms of a subpoena issued to
+Microsoft. Menninger Decl,. Ex. B. Tellingly, Plaintiff did not issue a subpoena to EarthLink
+regarding this account to see if it existed, has content or could be accessed. Instead, she seeks
+the drastic and improper sanction of an adverse inference knowing that it is far more beneficial to
+her than actually receiving information from EarthLink which would reveal nothing exists.
+d. There is no "Undisclosed" Account
+Plaintiff next argues that she is entitled to an adverse inference based on the failure to
+search a phantom e-mail account that she presumes (without support and based on pure
+speculation) must have existed, which she has never asked about in discovery, claiming that such
+an account was improperly "undisclosed" and not searched. Plaintiff bases her absurd argument
+on statistics suggesting that someone like Ms. Maxwell "likely" had an email account in the 2000
+to 2002 timeframe and a specious claim that Ms. Maxwell has never denied having an email
+account from 2000 to 2002. Motion at 2. Notably absent from the Motion is a single
+interrogatory, request for admission, or deposition question in which Ms. Maxwell was asked to
+provide all email addresses she has used or asked if she ever had an email account in 2000 to
+2002. No such question was ever posed to Ms. Maxwell on this issue.? How could she possibly
+deny the existence of an account when she was never asked the question?
+cannot access her Microsoft account because she does not remember the password and does not have sufficient
+personal information to provide to gain access to the account. DE 207; DE 441. This is not dissimilar to Ms.
+Maxwell who does not even remember the account let alone the password.
+3 By contrast, Ms. Maxwell requested that Plaintiff identify all email and social media accounts which she
+had used since 1998. Plaintiff provided false information, and purposefully omitted accounts that have since been
+discovered, one of which Plaintiff still has failed to forensically search and disclose its responsive documents.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 17
+Plaintiff asks this Court to infer the existence of an undisclosed "email" account for Ms.
+Maxwell in the 2000-2002 timeframe based on witness accounts that Jeffrey Epstein had a
+"messaging system" on a private server. Of course, there is a big difference between having a
+private email account (gmail, aol, yahoo, etc.) and communicating through a private messaging
+system on an employer's sever, as described by Mr. Alessi ('It was a server. I think it was --the
+office would have, like, a message system between him, the houses, the employees, his friends.
+They would write a message on the computer. There was no email at that time.").* To the
+extent there was a private messaging system used by Mr. Epstein's household employees
+maintained on a private server by Mr. Epstein, information from that system is not available to
+Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell has not been employed by Mr. Epstein for over 10 years and has not
+had any access to Mr. Epstein's server through Citrix or otherwise since at least the end of her
+employment with him.
+"Whether a party subject to a document request can be compelled to comply depends on
+two preliminary questions: (1) assuming the requested documents exist, does the party have
+possession, custody or control over them, and (2) if the party has such possession, custody or
+control, can the party be compelled to conduct a reasonable search for and, if found, to produce
+the documents." Gross v. Lunduski, 304 F.R.D. 136, 142 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). Ms. Maxwell is not
+in the possession, custody or control of the server or any information it may contain. "Where
+* It appears this is what was also being described by Mr. Banasiak in the deposition from another case, a
+full copy of which has never been produced in this litigation. Indeed, Mr. Banasiak has not been identified as a
+person with relevant or discoverable information in any of the last three of Plaintiff's Rule 26 Disclosures. In the
+cited testimony, Mr. Banasiak appears to have discussed accessing a private messaging system maintained on Mr.
+Epstein's private server using Citrix, a program that allows such access to authorized users. Because Plaintiff has
+failed to disclose the transcript being quoted, Ms. Maxwell cannot fully decipher the obviously edited testimony
+quoted in the Motion, does not know what timeframe Mr. Banasiak was referring to regarding the computers or
+using Citrix, and cannot respond to the claims made regarding the nature of any inference that could be drawn from
+Mr. Banasiak's selected testimony. The entire argument and reference to the transcript must be ignored and stricken
+based on Plaintiff's failure to produce in discovery the transcript she relies on.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 17
+control is contested, the party seeking production of documents bears the burden of establishing
+the opposing party's control over those documents." Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc.,
+No. 12 CIV. 6608 (PKC) (JCF), 2014 WL 61472, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2014). Plaintiff has
+made no showing that Ms. Maxwell has any control over the hypothetical documents she
+suspects may be on Mr. Epstein's private server. As has been made clear by Mr. Epstein's
+refusal to produce any documents in this matter or provide any testimony, instead invoking his
+Fifth Amendment privilege, there is no manner in which Ms. Maxwell could require Mr. Epstein
+to provide any information on Mr. Epstein's private server. Notably, no such "messages" were
+located on any of Ms. Maxwell's devices or within her email accounts.
+Simply put, there are no emails from any accounts, systems or electronic storage devices
+over which Ms. Maxwell has possession, custody or control that have not been searched and
+from which responsive non-privileged documents produced.
+SANCTIONS AGAINST MS. MAXWELL NOT WARRANTED, RATHER COSTS
+OUGHT TO BE AWARDED TO HER
+Plaintiff completely fails to identify which, if any, of the Rules of Civil Procedure she
+relies on to claim any right to request sanctions, let alone to receive an adverse inference
+instruction. The argument appears premised on a claim that Ms. Maxwell has not complied with
+the Court's Order - a completely inaccurate claim:
+On June 20, 2016, this Court ordered:
+Defendant is ordered to collect all ESI by imaging her computers and collecting all email
+and text messages on any devices in Defendant's possession or to which she has access
+that Defendant used between the period of 2002 to present. Defendant is further directed
+to run mutually- agreed upon search terms related to Plaintiff's requests for production
+over the aforementioned ESI and produce responsive documents within 21 days of
+distribution of this opinion.
+This was done. Plaintiff then expanded her request, imposed additional search terms, and
+added conditions concerning the manner in which she wanted devices searched. On August 9,
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 17
+2016, the Court entered an Order adopting Plaintiff's expanded request and methodology. All
+accessible email accounts and devices, including deleted files and emails, were searched - again
+- at significant expense. Again, no additional non-privileged responsive documents were
+located. There is no non-compliance and no basis for any sanctions, let alone the draconian
+sanction of an adverse inference.
+a. Plaintiff Fails to Identify or Prove the Factors Required for Sanctions
+Based on Alleged Violation of a Court Order
+Absent from Plaintiff's motion is the actual legal standard required for imposition of
+sanctions, and certainly no argument or citation exist in this case to carry the burden of
+establishing the factors. In light of the fact that Ms. Maxwell has complied, Plaintiff has failed to
+demonstrate the minimum hurdle for any sanction. Thus, the factors are not addressed here, nor
+can they be addressed on Reply. What is clear is that the sanction of an adverse inference is not
+identified as a sanction that should or could be considered under the rules concerning the failure
+to comply with a Court Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A).
+b. Controlling Law Prohibits an Adverse Inference Instruction
+An adverse inference instruction is considered an "extreme sanction" that "should not be
+given lightly." Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). More
+importantly Plaintiff completely ignores the 2015 changes to Fed. R. Civ. P 37(e)(2), which now
+permits an adverse inference instruction only when the court finds that a spoliating party
+purposefully and willfully destroys evidence and that party "acted with the intent to deprive
+another party of the information's use in the litigation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2). The new Rule
+37 "rejects cases such as Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 17
+(2d Cir. 2002)', that authorize the giving of adverse-inference instructions on a finding of
+negligence or gross negligence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2) Advisory Committee's Note to 2015
+Amendment; see also
+v. Butkiewicus, No. 3:13-CV-747 (JCH), 2016 WL 1718368, at *7
+(D. Conn. Apr. 29, 2016) (recognizing abrogation of Residential Funding). There is no claim of
+spoliation - no information has been lost or destroyed since the threat or initiation of litigation
+when there would have been a duty to preserve. There is no bad faith. Ms. Maxwell has
+completely complied with all Court Orders and there are no accessible accounts or electronic
+devices that have not been searched.
+i. The cases cited by Plaintiff are not the controlling standards, and Plaintiff
+fails to establish the elements required for an adverse inference
+Plaintiff relies heavily on her previously briefed motion requesting an adverse inference
+relying on factors in a single case, Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306
+F.3d 99, 108 (2nd Cir. 2002). This case sets forth the standard for an adverse inference based on
+the inherent powers of the Court (not under Rule 37(b)) where the party failed to produce
+relevant documents prior to the commencement of trial. Id. ("where, as here, an adverse
+inference instruction is sought on the basis that the evidence was not produced in time for use
+at trial, the party seeking the instruction must show (1) that the party having control over the
+evidence had an obligation to timely produce it; (2) that the party that failed to timely produce
+the evidence had "a culpable state of mind"; and (3) that the missing evidence is "relevant" to the
+party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of fact could find that it would support that
+claim or defense"). By contrast, however, courts have repeatedly noted that an adverse
+inference, and application of the Residential Funding test, are not appropriate for a mere delay in
+production, especially when all documents are produced prior to depositions and trial. See
+" This is the primary case relied on by Plaintiff in support of both of her Motions for an adverse inference.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 17
+Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11CV01416, 2012 WL 3601087 (S.D.N.Y. June 22,
+2012) (refusing to grant adverse inference instruction where Plaintiff did not confer to obtain
+requested discovery, and noting "Plaintiff does not cite to a single case where an adverse
+inference instruction was ordered based on the late production of a document").' Here, there was
+no delay in production - there was and is nothing additional to produce. All documents were
+produced well in advance of trial, prohibiting an adverse inference.
+Even if the Residential Funding factors were applicable, Plaintiff fails to carry her burden
+of proving those factors are present in this case. Defendant does not contest that she is obligated
+to comply with this Court's Orders. She has done so. She has collected all of her electronically
+stored information, and run all agreed upon search terms - and then re-run the searches when
+Plaintiff further expanded her demands. The result of the application of these search terms is
+proof that she has been compliant with her discovery obligations all along. No new nonprivileged documents were captured through utilization of the process demanded by Plaintiff. As
+Ms. Maxwell previously stated in response to the Motion for forensic examination, she had run
+comprehensive search terms, thoroughly reviewed her records and previously produced all
+responsive documents in her possession.?
+The second factor, that "the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had 'a
+culpable state of mind'" is likewise lacking. There is no claim of Defendant acting with a
+" See also Phoenix Four, Inc., No. 05 CIV. 4837(HB), 2006 WL 1409413, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006)
+(holding that a sanction as severe as an adverse inference was not warranted where defendants came forward with
+the evidence, even though it was after the close of discovery); |
+v. Saint-Gobain Corp., No. 00 Civ. 502,
+2002 WL 1477618, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2002) (holding that no basis for adverse inference instruction existed
+where defendant failed to produce emails until the eve of trial and there was no evidence of bad faith); In re A & M
+Florida Properties II, LIC, No. 09-15173 (AJG), 2010 WL 1418861, at *6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2010)
+(declining to impose adverse inference instruction where documents were belatedly produced, but there was no bad
+faith). 1 Plaintiff's argument that she has been or will be prejudiced is illogical given that there are no documents
+that have not been produced, and there never have been any responsive documents missing from production.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 17
+culpable state of mind, nor is any argued. How can one have a culpable state of mind where
+there are no additional accounts to search or documents to be produced?
+Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Plaintiff fails to provide a shred of evidence that
+"the missing evidence is "relevant' to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable trier of
+fact could find that it would support that claim or defense." Residential Funding Corp., 306 F.3d
+at 108. As discussed, completion of the multiple levels of forensic searches resulted in no
+responsive non-privileged documents. The hypothetical "undisclosed" email account does not
+exist. There can simply be no claim that there are any "missing" documents, let alone that they
+are relevant to Plaintiff's claims or defenses. Giarrizzo v. Holder, No. 07-CV-0801 MAD/GHL,
+2012 WL 716189, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2012) (refusing request for adverse inference where
+Plaintiff failed to demonstrate relevance prong stating "Plaintiff only identifies the alleged
+missing documents and speculates, without proof, that the documents support his claim. Indeed,
+plaintiff has not proven that the aforementioned documents exist"); Sovulj v. United States, No.
+98 CV 5550FBRML, 2005 WL 2290495, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2005) (plaintiff could not
+meet the requirements for obtaining an adverse inference because assertion that missing evidence
+was relevant was pure speculation); see also Orbit One Comme'ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 271
+F.R.D. 429, 439 (S.D.N. Y. 2010) (collecting spoliation cases holding that an adverse inference is
+inappropriate without proof beyond mere speculation allegedly lost information was relevant).
+"Without proof that defendant's actions, "created an unfair evidentiary imbalance, an adverse
+inference charge is not warranted."" Giarrizzo, 2012 WL 716189, at *2 (citing Richard
+(Fine Paintings) v. McClendon, 262 F.R.D. 284, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). Here, Plaintiff cannot
+demonstrate that there is any missing or non-produced information. She hypothecates a nonexistent email account and speculates that it must have discoverable relevant evidence. She has
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 17
+made no attempt to provide any proof or even proffer of relevance beyond mere speculation.
+Thus, an adverse inference is impermissible.
+ii. Ms. Maxwell has never deleted any relevant emails
+Ms. Maxwell has never "admitted" to deleting any emails that 1) might have any
+relevance to this case, or 2) after she was under a preservation obligation.8 Rather, she has a
+regular practice of deleting
+emails, as do most people. Specifically, she testified:
+A. I have not deleted anything that you have asked me for in discovery. I have given
+you everything that I have.
+* By contrast, Plaintiff admits that in 2013 while she was in the process of trying to implead herself into the
+CVRA case and under a preservation obligation, she and her husband had a bonfire and purposefully burned her
+journal that she had kept for years containing relevant information. Specifically, she testified;
+Q. The booklet that you gave pages from to Ms. Churcher where is that booklet?
+A. Burned.
+Q. When did you burn it?
+A. In, I think it was 2013. Me and my husband had a bonfire.
+Q. What did you put in the bonfire?
+A. Any kind of memories that I had written down about all the stuff going on.
+Q. Had you written anything about Professor Dershowitz?
+A. He could have been there, yes.
+Q. And you burned that?
+A. I wanted to burn my memories. I wanted to get rid of it. It was very painful stuff.
+Q. Other than what you had written down did you burn anything else? I don't mean the
+when you
+talk about burning your memories, what were you burning?
+A. I was burning like memories, thoughts, dreams that I had, just everything that was kind of 1 affiliated
+with the abuse I endured, and there was a lot of it in there. My husband is pretty spiritual so he said the
+best thing to do would be burn them.
+Q. Is there anything you decided to keep and not burn?
+A. Just the photographs.
+Q. Anything else that you can think of?
+A. Photographs, that's it.
+Q. Did you ever look to see if you had any personal notes in your writing that pertain to Professor
+Dershowitz?
+A. Like from my old journal, the one that I burned?
+Q. From anywhere. Did you ever make an effort to look?
+A. Dershowitz could have been in my journal, he could have been. We're talking about an 85 page, if not
+more, you know, things that I had written to get my story out of my head and into pages; and yes,
+Dershowitz could have been in there, but that's up in the clouds now, bonfire.
+Q. That's what you call your journals, what you burned, right?
+A. Yes.
+Q. And you wrote that journal in order to collect your thoughts?
+A. To get everything out of here and on to paper.
+Menninger Decl., Ex. D at 64-65; 194-21.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 17
+Q. That is not my question, my question is, did you ever delete emails in January of
+2015?
+A. In the normal course of my work, there are emails from |
+that I delete. That is the
+type of email I've deleted. Anything that is material to what you want, I have not
+deleted.
+Q. How do you know that?
+A. Well, anybody that's to do with Jeffrey or Alan or women or anything of which I
+know you were interested in, of which I have anything I would not have done because
+I don't want to subject myself to... [cut off by Plaintiff's counsel]
+Menninger Decl., Ex. C at 370.
+This Court permitted the forensic examination of all on Ms. Maxwell's electronic devices
+to ensure that there were no deleted emails or files that might contain relevant information. In
+that forensic examination, the entire devices and accounts were searched, including all deleted
+emails and files. Again, as stated, no relevant non-privileged documents resulted from this
+extensive and exhaustive examination. Plaintiff received the relief that she requested - a
+forensic examination - to ensure that no information had been lost or destroyed. It has not.
+Plaintiff cannot now claim that the non-existent hypothetical emails she suspected existed can
+form the basis for the severe and improper sanction of an adverse inference.
+CONCLUSION
+Plaintiff has now litigated this issue on four separate occasions, received a complete and
+exhaustive forensic examination, and the result is exactly what Ms. Maxwell has always
+contended - there is no relevant non-privileged information that was not originally produced.
+Having failed to find the smoking gun - because there is none - Plaintiff now weaves a
+convoluted argument attempting to get an adverse inference instruction because she cannot prove
+her case based on the actual law and facts. Such an inference is contrary to law, the rules of
+evidence, and the very notion of a fair trial. It is impermissible and must be denied.
+WHEREFORE, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell request that this Court 1) DENY
+Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Data From Defendant's Undisclosed Email Account and For an
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 17
+Adverse Inference Instruction, and 2) for attorneys' fees and costs associated with responding to
+this Motion pursuant to 37(a)(5)(B), and such other and further relief as this Court deems just.
+Dated: October 24, 2016
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+HADDON, L
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 17 of 17
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on October 24, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant's Response to
+Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Data from Defendant's (Non-Existent) Undisclosed Email Account
+and for an Adverse Inference Instruction via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad @pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+15
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50afc3ff83dc67157ecbd388df0655a9381391ce6534dbc1f4edf39e76d914d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50afc3ff83dc67157ecbd388df0655a9381391ce6534dbc1f4edf39e76d914d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..caeb9243d2b2e55acd074a19b82ac312981bfb3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50afc3ff83dc67157ecbd388df0655a9381391ce6534dbc1f4edf39e76d914d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -232,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f50afc3ff83dc67157ecbd388df0655a9381391ce6534dbc1f4edf39e76d914d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 21,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5b069dd51b5a9d9eb47ffc451ac29a3fed6015d800c84ee3cdfd1c7d5faddcd9",
+  "output_sha256": "d26102fb68d4e87a430b21ee4a0a8b1cdb03b9519600169fdb1a165ec6b48779",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50b61f9d1168f8e20020d3a33f7e48d2c8ed71269212218382c01877401b742.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50b61f9d1168f8e20020d3a33f7e48d2c8ed71269212218382c01877401b742.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d3b20e2831a1642e2f506668c317bfad14648024
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50b61f9d1168f8e20020d3a33f7e48d2c8ed71269212218382c01877401b742.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 421
+Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 11/8/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+A conference is scheduled for November 10, 2021 to address the Defendant's motion
+under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude
+under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
+U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two
+motions as discussed at the November 1, 2021 conference. Dkt. No. 409.
+The parties are ORDERED to confirm by 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, November 9, 2021, that
+the alleged victims referenced in the Defendant's Rule 412 Motion have been notified of the
+November 10 hearing and of their right to attend
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 8, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia O. Mattor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50b61f9d1168f8e20020d3a33f7e48d2c8ed71269212218382c01877401b742.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50b61f9d1168f8e20020d3a33f7e48d2c8ed71269212218382c01877401b742.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74efd8d24507a7677f0d715f165f63c29f37a320
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f50b61f9d1168f8e20020d3a33f7e48d2c8ed71269212218382c01877401b742.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f50b61f9d1168f8e20020d3a33f7e48d2c8ed71269212218382c01877401b742",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3c18fd3208215f592e27217a4436006ae4db731ef4e8eed84f3d0302d253b379",
+  "output_sha256": "43fba9c7414584939ad2ffacfed3868d802942068cfa5aab483549e7d3fafe68",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f51ff4ce771e6f4b151f54aab5723a7a12a4906aae8fe9d73d1e06d4d2bff508.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f51ff4ce771e6f4b151f54aab5723a7a12a4906aae8fe9d73d1e06d4d2bff508.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc69e2f6bfcec471c3d28c621dd6aa610a5bd1bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f51ff4ce771e6f4b151f54aab5723a7a12a4906aae8fe9d73d1e06d4d2bff508.md
@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+AUG-01-2016CAGR J47Fr9/n97AD33NABREMARocument 329
+FAX A 03/93 01 age 1 0f2
+HADDON
+AN
+FOREMAN
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECIRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED:
+08/02/14
+Hoddon_
+h, P.C
+Laura A. Menninger
+150 Easi lOth Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364 Fx 303.832.2628
+www.hmtiaw.co
+nenninger@hmliaw.com
+P. 02
+August 1, 2016
+Via Facsimile (212) 805-7925
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+United States District Judge
+United States District Court
+Daniel
+, Moynihan Courthouse
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street, Room 1940
+New York, New York 10007-1312
+Re:
+ly. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+DECEIVE
+AUG 012016
+JUDGE SWEET
+Protective Order (Doc. # 62).
+The Protective Order states:
+Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (Doc. # 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. The Submission
+and exhibits contain content designated as Confidential by the parties pursuant to the
+Protective Order.
+Ms. Maxwell therefore requests permission to file the Submission and exhibits under
+seal.
+Sz-1s
+
+
+AUG-01-2016 REFf 344P/CYP HABitBREM Rocument 329
+FA*988030ı5age 2 012
+P. 03
+Hon. Robert W. Sweet
+August 1, 2016
+Page 2
+Sincerely,
+HADDoN,
+AND
+,, P.C.
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+via PLECTRi he MA gust 206 electronically served this LETTER MOTION
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LIP
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Takes Rd.
+,. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+South Salem, NY 10590
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f51ff4ce771e6f4b151f54aab5723a7a12a4906aae8fe9d73d1e06d4d2bff508.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f51ff4ce771e6f4b151f54aab5723a7a12a4906aae8fe9d73d1e06d4d2bff508.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0e7052cde85141fc08ce077104b05bad3b3ab884
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f51ff4ce771e6f4b151f54aab5723a7a12a4906aae8fe9d73d1e06d4d2bff508.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f51ff4ce771e6f4b151f54aab5723a7a12a4906aae8fe9d73d1e06d4d2bff508",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2ee20e36c9422578114d146c5209690134d5061a59f4e1890d4853bf88012fa7",
+  "output_sha256": "e1355243cea4248db33b30a4683603d23134738928199dc5ba7b3a2138a5f9d5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f52580e737a0076ac00cc0177500d7189eaa19191343090b36cf62ad8be2aff8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f52580e737a0076ac00cc0177500d7189eaa19191343090b36cf62ad8be2aff8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd175d1f2d1f23c97f691211c0a3f61bf828c1b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f52580e737a0076ac00cc0177500d7189eaa19191343090b36cf62ad8be2aff8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1341
+Filed 01/17/24
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff,
+- against-
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-LAP
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+NOTICE OF APPEAL
+NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Intervenors Julie |
+and the Miami Herald
+("Intervenors") appeal the following orders from the district court to the United States Court of
+Appeals for the Second Circuit :
+• The order and opinion entered on January 13, 2020 (Dkt. 1016 and 1018);
+• The order entered on April 19, 2022 (Dkt. 1254);
+• The order entered on November 18, 2022 (Dkt. 1273 and 1283);
+• The order entered on December 18, 2023 (Dkt 1315); and
+• The order entered on January 5, 2024 (Dkt. 1329).
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1341 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 3
+Dated: January 17, 2024
+HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
+By: /s/ Christine Walz
+Christine N. Walz
+31 West 52nd Street
+New York, NY 10019
+Telephone: (212) 513-3200
+Fax: (212) 385-9010
+Christine. Walz@hklaw.com
+Attorney for Intervenors Julie
+Miami Herald
+and the
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1341 Filed 01/17/24
+
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I hereby certify that on January 17, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of
+Appeal with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notification of such
+filing to all ECF participants in connection with this matter.
+By: Is/ Christine Walz
+Christine N. Walz
+31 West 52nd Street
+New York, NY 10019
+Telephone: (212) 513-3200
+Fax: (212) 385-9010
+Christine. Walz@hklaw.com
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f52580e737a0076ac00cc0177500d7189eaa19191343090b36cf62ad8be2aff8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f52580e737a0076ac00cc0177500d7189eaa19191343090b36cf62ad8be2aff8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..538d4ff417dfd876f2f097ac3f671e7f59c5c1c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f52580e737a0076ac00cc0177500d7189eaa19191343090b36cf62ad8be2aff8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -58,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f52580e737a0076ac00cc0177500d7189eaa19191343090b36cf62ad8be2aff8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "fa70e9456eb6ea13d4b5c8505c82ca7b9f8525c881db04851d8e28ce5a1c1c6f",
+  "output_sha256": "17846aae7431df374bab2fa0c4967975584473783be0021fd40210ecd052bda7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f54f95a7f902f0426048d65044a73c580c80d9b1d822c80653d526a94f9650e6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f54f95a7f902f0426048d65044a73c580c80d9b1d822c80653d526a94f9650e6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bde7e531dcc49c322d23af0ee43d0794c810da2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f54f95a7f902f0426048d65044a73c580c80d9b1d822c80653d526a94f9650e6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4881 @@
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 45
+
+
+
+1) Check for updates
+Review Manuscript
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 45
+Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual
+Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research
+Update (2000-2016)
+TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
+2019, Vol. 20(2) 260-283
+© The Authors) 2017
+Article reuse guidelines:
+sagepub.com/joumals-permissions
+DOl: 10.1177/1524838017697312
+journals.sagepub.com/home/tva
+SSAGE
+Ramona Alaggia', Delphine Collin-Vézina?
+, and Rusan Lateef'
+Abstract
+Identifying and understanding factors that promote or inhibit child sexual abuse (CSA) disclosures has the potential to facilitate
+earlier disclosures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and prevent further sexual victimization. Timely access to
+therapeutic services can mitigate risk to the mental health of survivors of all ages. This review of the research focuses on CSA
+disclosures with children, youth, and adults across the life course. Using Kiteley and Stogdon's literature review framework, 33
+studies since 2000 were identified and analyzed to extrapolate the most convincing findings to be considered for practice and
+future research. The centering question asked: What is the state of CA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to
+practice and future research? Using Braun and Clarke's guidelines for thematic analysis, five themes emerged: (I) Disclosure is an
+iterative, interactive process rather than a discrete event best done within a relational context; (2) contemporary disclosure
+models reflect a social ecological, person-in-environment orientation for understanding the complex interplay of individual,
+familial, contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure; (3) age and gender significantly influence disclosure; (4) there
+is a lack of a life-course perspective; and (5) barriers to disclosure continue to outweigh facilitators. Although solid strides have
+been made in understanding CSA disclosures, the current state of knowledge does not fully capture a cohesive picture of disclosure processes and pathways over the life course. More research is needed on environmental, contextual, and cultural factors.
+Barriers continue to be identified more frequently than facilitators, although dialogical forums are emerging as important facilitators of CSA disclosure. Implications for practice in facilitating CSA disclosures are discussed with recommendations for future
+research.
+Keywords
+sexual abuse, child abuse, cultural contexts
+Introduction
+Timely access to supportive and therapeutic resources for child
+sexual abuse (CSA) survivors can mitigate risk to the health
+and mental health well-being of children, youth, and adults.
+Identifying and understanding factors that promote or inhibit
+CSA disclosures have the potential to facilitate earlier disclosures, assist survivors to receive services without delay, and
+potentially prevent further sexual victimization. Increased
+knowledge on both the factors and the processes involved in
+CSA disclosures is timely when research continues to show
+high rates of delayed disclosures (Collin-Vézina, Sablonni,
+Palmer, & Milne, 2015; Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito,
+2004; Easton, 2013; Goodman-
+. Edelstein, Goodman,
+, &
+1. 2003; Hershkowitz, Lanes, & Lamb; 2007;
+Jonzon & Lindblad, 2004; McElvaney, 2015;
+et al.,
+2000).
+Incidence studies in the United States and Canada report
+decreasing CSA rates (
+Let al., 2015; Finkelhor, Shattuck,
+Tumer, & Hamby, 2014; Trocme et al., 2005, 2008), while at
+the same time global trends from systematic reviews and metaanalyses have found concerning rates of CSA, with averages of
+18-20% for females and of 8-10% for males (Pereda, Guilera,
+Foms, & Gómez-Benito, 2009). The highest rates found for
+girls is in Australia (21.5%) and for boys in Africa (19.3%),
+with the lowest rates for both girls (11.3%) and boys (4.1%)
+reported in Asia (Stoltenborgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, &
+Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2011). These findings point to the
+incongruence between the low number of official reports of
+Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto,
+Ontario, Canada
+" Centre for Research on Children and Families, School of Social Work, McGill
+University, Montreal, Qubec, Canada
+Corresponding Author:
+Ramona Alaggia, Factor-Inwentash Chair in Children's Mental Health, Factor-
+Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor St. West,
+Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4KIWI.
+Email: ramona.alaggia@utoronto.ca
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 45
+CSA to authorities and the high rates reported in prevalence
+studies. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Stoltenborgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, and Bakermans-Kranenburg
+(2011) combining estimations of CSA in 217 studies published
+between 1980 and 2008 revealed rates of CSA to be more than
+30 times greater in studies relying on self-reports (127 in 1,000)
+than in official report inquiries, such as those based on data
+from child protection services and the police (4 in 1,000) (Jillian, Cotter, & Perreault, 2014; Statistics Canada 2013). In
+other words, while 1 out of 8 people retrospectively report
+having experienced CSA, official incidence estimates indicate
+only 1 per 250 children. In a survey of Swiss child services,
+Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Landholt, Schnyder, and Jud (2013) further found 2.68 cases per 1,000 of CSA disclosures, while in a
+recent comprehensive review McElvaney (2015) details the
+high prevalence of delayed, partial, and nondisclosures in
+childhood indicating a persistent trend toward withholding
+CSA disclosure.
+It is our view that incidence statistics are likely an underestimation of CSA disclosures, and this drives the rationale for
+the current review. Given the persistence of delayed disclosures
+with research showing a large number of survivors only disclosing in adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013;
+Hunter, 2011; McElvaney, 2015;
+et al., 2000), these
+issues should be a concern for practitioners, policy makers, and
+the general public (McElvaney, 2015). The longer disclosures
+are delayed, the longer individuals potentially live with serious
+negative effects and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, trauma disorders, and addictions, without receiving necessary treatment. This also increases the likelihood of
+more victims falling prey to undetected offenders. Learning
+more about CSA disclosure factors and processes to help
+advance our knowledge base may help professionals to facilitate carlier disclosures.
+Previous literature reviews examining factors influencing
+CSA disclosure have served the field well but are no longer
+current. Important contributions on CSA disclosures include
+Paine and Hansen's (2002) original review covering the literature largely from the premillennium era, followed by London,
+Bruck, Ceci, and Shuman's (2005) subsequent review, which
+may not have captured publications affected by "lag to print"
+delays so common in peer-reviewed journals. These reviews
+are now dated and therefore do not take into account the
+plethora of research that has been accumulated over the past
+15 years. Other recent reviews exist but with distinet contribu-
+26l
+disclosure research, through various mixed methods, to highlight the most convincing findings that should be considered for
+future research, practice, and program planning. This review
+centered on the question: What is the state of CSA disclosure
+research and what can be learned to apply to future research
+and practice? By way of clarification, the term systematic
+refers to a methodologically sound strategy for searching literature on studies for knowledge construction, in this case the
+CSA disclosure literature, rather than intervention studies. The
+years spanned for searching the literature were 2000-2016,
+building on previous reviews without a great deal of overlap.
+Retrieval of relevant research was done by searching international electronic databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Educational Resources Information Center, Canadian Rescarch
+Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts, and Applied Social
+Science Index and Abstracts. This review searched peerreviewed studies. A search of the gray literature (unpublished
+literature such as internal agency documents, government
+reports, etc.) was beyond the scope of this review because
+unpublished studies are not subjected to a peer-review process.
+Keyword search terms used were child sexual abuse, childhood
+sexual abuse, disclosure, and telling.
+A search of the 9 databases produced 322 peer-reviewed
+articles. Selected search terms yielded 200 English publications, 1
+study, and 1 Portuguese review. The search was
+further refined by excluding studies focusing on forensic investigations, as these studies constitute a specialized legal focus on
+interview approaches and techniques. As well, papers that
+focused exclusively on rates and responses to CSA disclosure
+were excluded, as these are substantial areas unto themselves,
+exceeding the aims of the review question. Review articles
+were also excluded. Once the exclusion criteria were applied,
+the search results yielded 33 articles. These studies were subjected to a thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke
+(2006). This entailed (1) multiple readings by the three authors;
+(2) identifying patterns across studies by coding and charting
+specific features; (3) examining disclosure definitions used,
+sample characteristics, and measures utilized; and (4) major
+findings were extrapolated. Reading of the articles was initially
+conducted by the authors to identify general trends in a first
+level of analyses and then subsequently to identify themes
+through a deeper second-level analyses. A table of studies was
+generated and was continuously revised as the selection of
+studies was refined (see Table 1).
+1. 2015), and delayed disclosures in childhood (McEl-
+vaney, 2015). This literature review differs by focusing on CSA
+disclosures in children, youth, and adults from childhood and
+into adulthood—over the life course.
+Key Findings
+First-level analysis of the studies identified key study characteristics. Trends emerged around definitions of CSA disclosure,
+study designs, and sampling issues. First, in regard to defini-
+Method
+tions, the term "telling" is most frequently used in place of the
+term disclosure. In the absence of standardized questionnaires
+Kiteley and Stogdon's (2014) systematic review framework
+or disclosure instruments, telling emerges as a practical term
+was utilized to establish what has been investigated in CSA more readily understood by study participants. Several
+
+
+
+Table I. Ch d Sexua Abuse (CSA) D sc osure Stud es: 2000-2016.
+Gagn er and Co n-
+Véz na (2016)
+To exp ore d sc asure
+Des gn
+Phenomeno og ca
+processes for e
+v ct ms of CSA
+sury vors. The Long
+Interv ew Method
+(LIM) gu ded data
+co ect on and
+ana yses.
+Braze ton (2015)
+To exp ore the mean ng
+Afr can Amer can
+Co ect ve case study
+des gn w th us ng
+women make of ther
+narrat ve trad ton
+What asperences
+(storyboard) for data
+they d sc osed across
+co ect on and ana ys s.
+Qua tat ve
+the fe course
+ntery ew ng
+Co n-Véz na, Sab onn.
+Pa mer, and M ne
+(2015)
+To prov de a mapp ng of Qua tat ve des gn us ng
+factors that prevent
+CSA dsc osures
+through an eco og ca
+ens from a samp e of
+CSA adu t surv vors.
+Lec erc and Wort ey
+(2015)
+Study object ves
+nvest gated the
+factors that fac tate
+CSA d sc osures
+Adur ech d sexua
+offenders were
+ntery ewed to
+exam ne pred ctors of
+Samp e
+17 men ranged nage
+from 19 to 67-
+average age 47.
+Purpos ve samp ng
+strategy was used
+17 Afr can Amer can
+women n md- fe
+between 40 and 63
+who exper enced
+ntrafam a CSA.
+Purpos ve, snowba ng
+Fndngs
+The major ty of the men n the study wa ted
+unt adu thood to d sc ose the r abuse.
+wth negat ve stereotypes contr but ng
+to the r de ayed d sc osures. Negat ve
+stereotypes contr buted to de ayed
+dsc osure wth try ng to forget. Break ng
+so at on was c ted as a mot vator to
+d sc osure a ong wth the a d of var ous
+forms of med a on d sc osure. Important
+contextua ssues such as negat ve
+stereotyp ng of es, sexua ty, and
+vct ms were noted. Soc a med a was
+seen as a fac tator of d sc osures
+CSA onset was arge y between the ages 5
+and 9. No one ever ta ked to them about
+sex, so they d dn't have anguage to
+dscose. Barr ers: fear of fam y
+breakdown and remova, not want ng to
+tarn sh the fam y's name, and fear of
+retr but on by fam y members f they
+d sc osed. Pattern of st fed and
+d sm ssed d sc osures dent fed over the
+fe course. A 17 part c pants dent fed
+sp r tua ty as a pr mary source of
+strength throughout the fe course
+67 • e and fema e CSA
+Three broad categor es were dent fed as
+adut surv vors (76%
+barr ers to CSA d sc osure: Barr ers
+dent fed as fema e and
+from wth n-nterna zed vet m bamng.
+24% as e). Age
+mechan sms to protect onese f, and
+ranges from 19 to 69
+mmature deve opment at t me of abuse;
+years (M = 449).
+barr ers n re at on to others—y o ence
+Purpos ve samp ng
+and dysfunct on n the fam y. power
+dynam es, awareness of the mpact of
+te ng, and frag e soc a network;
+barr ers n re at on to the soc a word
+abe ng, taboo of sexua ty, ack of
+serv ces ava abe, and cu ture or tme
+369 adut es who had Dscosure ncreased wth the age of the
+been conv cted of a
+vct m: f penetrat on had occurred, f the
+sexua offense aga nst a
+vct m was re ated to the offender, f the
+ch d aged between I
+vct m was not vng wth the offender at
+Summary
+part c pants had d sc osed and
+rece ved serv ces before
+part c pat ng n the study. Member
+check ng cou d not be done w th
+the part c pants to check themes.
+Sma but suff c ent s ze for a
+qua tat ve nqu ry. Otherw se,
+hgh eve of rgor n estab shng
+trustworth ness of the data and
+ana ys s. Retrospect ve study
+cou d mp y reca
+exc us ve y on Afr can Amer can
+women. Sma but suff c ent s ze
+for a qua tat ve nqu ry. Important
+cu tura and contextua
+were brought forward.
+Retrospect ve study that may
+have been affected by reca ssues.
+Use of a fe-course perspect ve as
+a theoret ca ens for
+understand ng CSA n the m dd e
+to ater years of fe that shou d be
+cons dered n further
+Haf of the part c pants had not
+d sc osed the r CSA exper ences
+before the age of 19.
+Retrospect ve aspect of the study
+cond mpy reca
+part c pants had d sc osed and
+rece ved counse ng at some
+before part c pat ng n the study.
+Hgh eve of rgor n estab shng
+trustworth ness of the data and
+Offender generated data through
+se f-reports cou d be subject to
+cogn t ve d stort ons-
+m n m zat on or exaggerat ons.
+(continued)
+
+
+
+McE vaney and Cu hane
+(2015)
+Dura. BoMes aerschmet,
+Rey-Sa mon (2014)
+Easton, Sa tzman, and
+W s (2014)
+To nvest gate the
+feas b ty of us ng ch d
+assessments as data
+sources of nforma
+CSA dsc osure. To
+assess f these reports
+prov de substant ve
+data on d sc osures
+Ths study a med to
+exp ore how the
+re at onsh p between
+the perpetrator and
+the vetm, espec a y
+whether these
+re at ons are
+ntrafam a or
+Study focus was on
+dent f cat on of
+barr ers to CSA
+dsc osure wth le
+sury vors
+Des gn
+vctm dsc osure.
+Sem structured
+nterv ews based on
+the QID
+quest onna re.
+F e reports of ch dren
+seen for assessment n
+a ch d sexua abuse
+unt nach dren's
+hosp ta were
+rev ewed
+Fe reports of ch dren
+seen for assessment n
+a ch d sexua abuse
+unt nach dren's
+hosp ta were
+rev ewed
+Usng qua tat ve content
+ana ys s, researchers
+conducted a secondary
+ana ys s of on ne
+survey data, the 2010
+Heath and We -Be ng
+Survey, that nc uded
+men with se f-reported
+CSA h stor es with an
+open-ended tem on
+d sc osure barr ers
+Samp e
+and 17 years od.
+Major ty were Wh te,
+uneducated, a most
+haf unemp oyed
+before the r arrest
+Content ana ys s was
+comp eted on 39 f es
+(32 fema es and 7
+•es) based on a
+cod ng framework.
+Parents were asked to
+consent to have the r
+ch d's e rev ewed for
+the study. Vctms
+assessed were 12-18
+years of age
+220 m nor v ct ms-
+78.2% fema e vet ms,
+41.8% aged between
+14 and 18 (most
+preva ent age range).
+and 48.2% were
+abused by a fam y
+member
+460 men wth CSA
+h stores competed an
+anonymous, Internetbased survey.
+Recru ted from
+surv vors
+organ zat ons. Age
+range of 18-84 years.
+Two thrds of
+respondents reported
+cergy-re ated abuse.
+Major ty of
+respondents were
+Whte
+Endngs
+the t me of the abuse, or f the vet m
+res sted dur ng the offense. Ma e vet ms
+and v ct ms from dysfunct ona
+backgrounds were ess key to dsc ose
+Major ty of ch dren to d the r mothers
+(43%) and peers (33%) f rst. Three major
+themes were dent fed as nfuenc ng the
+d sc osure process: (1) fee ng d stressed,
+(2) opportun ty to te, and (3) fears for
+se f. Add tona themes of be ng be eved,
+shame/se f-b ame, and peer nfuence
+were a so dent fed
+D sc osure processes were more comp ex
+when t concerned sexua abuse
+commtted by ntrafam a perpetrator:
+60% of the v ct ms revea the facts
+severa years after, and most often to
+nd v dua s outs de the fam y (78.6% of
+the d sc osures done at schoo): on the
+contrary, extrafam a d sc osures take
+pace more spontaneous y and guck y:
+80% of the vct ms revea the facts a few
+days after, most often to the r mother or
+Vast major ty of part c pants (94.6%) were
+sexua y abused by another
+Durat on of sexua abuse broke down
+nto: 30.2% ess than 6 months, 32.3% 6
+months to 3 years, and 34.3% more than
+3 years. Ten years o d was average age of
+CSA onset. Ten categor es of barr ers
+were c assfed nto three doma ns: (1)
+soc opo t ca: mascu nty, m ted
+resources; (2) nterpersona: m strust of
+others, fear of be ng abe ed "gay," safety
+and protect on ssues, past responses;
+and (3) persona: nterna emot ons,
+see ng the exper ence as sexua abuse,
+and sexua or entat on.
+Summary
+Perspect ves of offenders on
+vu nerab ty of vctms nreaton
+to d sc osure cou d be mportant
+nformat on to nform
+ntervent ons
+The samp e sze s sma but w
+contr bute to a arge muts te
+study n Ire and. Serves as an
+mportant exp oratory p ot
+br ng ng forward d sc osure
+themes for cons derat on
+The re at onsh p wth the
+perpetrator has a s gn f cant
+mpact on both tm ng and
+rec pent of d sc osure, w th
+ntrafam a abuses ess key to
+be d sc osed prompt y and w th n
+the fam y system
+At t me of the study, th s was the
+argest qua tat ve data set to have
+been ana yzed wth an exp c t
+percept ons of barr ers to CSA
+d sc osure. Because the samp e
+was mted n terms of the ow
+percentage of rac a m nortes
+(9.3%), d sc osure d fferences
+based on race or ethn c ty were
+not d scerned. The major ty of
+abuse reported was by c ergy
+wh ch m ght present a un que set
+of barr ers to d sc osure
+
+
+
+Easton (2013)
+McE vaney. I
+Hogan (2012)
+and
+Schonbucher, Der,
+Moh er-Kuo, Schnyder,
+and Lando t (2012)
+Study purpose was to
+descr be e CSA
+d sc osure processes
+usnga fe span
+approach exam n ng
+d fferences based on
+age. A so, to expore
+re at onsh ps between
+d sc osure attr butes
+and men's menta
+hea th
+Qua tat ve study asked
+the centra research
+quest on: "How do
+ch dren te ?'
+Object ve was to
+deve op theory of how
+ch dren te of ther
+CSA d sc osure
+exper ences. Parents
+were nterv ewed.
+To nvest gate the
+process of CSA
+d sc osure wth
+ado escents from the
+genera popu at on
+who had exper enced
+CSA. How many
+d sc osed, who dd
+Des gn
+Cross-sect ona survey
+desgn. Egbe
+part c pants were
+screened and
+competed an
+anonymous, Internetbased survey dur ng
+2010. Measures used:
+Genera Menta Heath
+D stress Sca e and
+Genera Assessment of
+Ind v dua Needs.
+Quest ons re ated to
+CSA d sc osure and
+supports were
+nc uded
+Grounded theory
+method study.
+Intery ews were
+conducted. Lne-byne open and axa
+cod ng was conducted
+on verbat m
+transer pts
+Data co ect on was
+through face-to-face
+qua tat ve ntery ews.
+Standard zed quest ons
+and measures were
+adm n stered on fam y
+s tuat on,
+soc odemograph c
+Samp e
+Purpos ve samp ng of
+487 men from three
+nat ona organ zat ons
+devoted to rasng
+awareness of CSA
+among men. Age
+range: 19-84 years.
+Mean age for onset of
+CSA was 10.3 years
+Samp e of 22 young
+peop e: 16 gr s and 6
+boys: age range: 8-18
+years; 22 nterv ewed
+n tota between the
+ages of 8 and I8. M xed
+samp e of some
+endur ng ntrafam a
+CSA, some
+extrafam a CSA, and
+two endured both
+forms
+Conven ence samp e of
+26 sexua y vet m zed
+ado escents. 23 gr s
+and 3 boys. Age range:
+15-18 years. On ne
+advert sements and
+fyers were used to
+recrut youth from
+End ngs
+O der age and be ng abused by a fam y
+member were both re ated to de ays n
+d sc osure. Most part c pants who to d
+someone dur ng ch dhood dd not
+rece ve emot ona y support ve or
+protect ve responses and the he pfu ness
+of responses across the fe span was
+m xed. De ays n te ng were s gnf cant
+per ods of t me (over 20 years).
+Approx mate y one haf of the
+part c pants frst to d about the sexua
+abuse to a spouse/partner (27%) or a
+menta hea th profess ona (20%); 42% of
+part c pants reported that the r most
+he pfu d scuss on was w th a menta
+hea th profess ona. However, unhe pfu
+responses caused most menta d stress.
+C nca recommendat ons nc uded
+more of a fe-course perspect ve be
+adopted, understand ng mpact of
+unhe pfu responses and the mportance
+of expand ng networks for De
+sury vors
+A theoret ca mode was deve oped that
+conceptua zes the process of CSA
+d sc osure as one of conta n ng the
+secret: (1) the act ve w thho d ng of the
+secret on the part of the ch d; (2) the
+exper ence of a "pressure cooker effect"
+ref ect ng a conf ct between the w sh to
+te and the w sh to keep the secret; and
+(3) the confd ng tse f wh ch often
+occurs n the context of a trusted
+re at onsh p. These were der ved from
+e even categor es that were deve oped
+through open and ax a codng
+Less than one th rd of part c pants
+mmed ate y d sc osed CSA to another
+person. In most cases, rec p ents of both
+mmed ate and de ayed d sc osure were
+to peers. More than one th rd of
+part c pants had never d sc osed the
+abuse to a parent. Part c pants reported
+re uctance to d sc ose to parents so as
+Summary
+Purpos ve samp ng of men from
+awareness ra s ng organ zat ons
+may have attracted part cu ar
+part c pants who had a ready
+d sc osed and rece ved he p.
+Part c pants needed to have
+access to Internet wh ch wou d
+have e m nated men n ower SES
+groups and requ red prof c ency n
+Eng sh wh ch wou d e m nate
+certa n cu tura groups. However,
+the samp ng strategy ga ned
+access to a predom nant y h dden
+popu at on. Important c n ca
+recommendat ons are made w th
+an emphas s on a fe-course focus
+Modest but suff c ent samp e for an
+exp oratory qua tat ve nqu ry.
+Hgh eve of trustworth ness
+r gor. A subsamp e of random y
+se ected transor pts was
+ndependent y coded. Very young
+ch dren and young adu ts were
+not captured n th s samp e.
+Transferab ty of f nd ngs can on y
+be made to the age range samp ed
+n the context of Ire and
+Two th rds of the samp e d d not
+d sc ose r ght away. Strengthen ng
+parent-ch d re at onsh ps may be
+one of the most mportant ways
+to ncrease d sc osure to parents.
+D sc osure to peers has been
+found a common trend n other
+(continued)
+
+
+
+265
+Hunter (2011)
+Schaeffer, Leventha, and
+Asnes (2011) I
+they d sc ose to, and
+mares order ong
+Des gn
+v ct m zat on, genera.
+and menta heath.
+Sexua Assaut Modu e
+of the Juven e
+Quest onna re was
+Am of th s study was to Narrat ve nqu ry
+deve op a fu er
+methodo ogy. Face-tounderstand ng of CSA
+d sc osures
+nterv ews were
+conducted w th
+part c pants. Data
+were ana yzed us ng
+Rosentha and F scher-
+Rosentha 's (2004)
+Samp e
+commun ty and
+counse ng serv ces
+Purpos ve samp ng was
+emp oyed. Samp e
+cons sted of 22
+part c pants aged 25-
+70 years; 13 women
+and 9 men. Part c pants
+were sexua y abused
+at 15 years or under
+wth someone over
+Ths study a med to: (1)
+(2) determ ne f
+ch dren w dscuss
+process that ed them
+tote; and (3) descr be
+factors that ch dren
+dent fy that ed them
+to te about or caused
+them to de ay CSA
+Study sought to f nd out f 191 nterv ews of CSA
+process ssues of
+vct ms aged 3-18 over
+d sc osure cou d be
+a I-year per od were
+dent fed n the
+used for the study.
+context of forens c
+Inc us on er ter a
+ntery ews. Forens c
+nc uded ch dren who
+nterv ewers were
+made a statement
+asked to corporate
+about CSA pror to
+quest ons about
+referra, reasons for
+"te ng" nto an
+te ngor watng to
+ex st ng forens c
+te, and those who
+ntery ew protoco.
+Intery ew content
+spoke Eng sh.
+Part c pants were
+re ated to the
+ch dren who were
+ch dren's reasons for
+nterv ewed at a ch d
+te ng or watng was
+sexua abuse c nc.
+extracted, transer bed,
+74% were fema e and
+and ana yzed us ng
+51% were Caucas an
+grounded theory
+method of ana ys s
+Fndngs
+not to burden them. Ear er d sc osures
+were re ated to extrafam a CSA, s ng e
+occurrence CSA, age of v et m at abuse
+onset, and parents who were vng
+together. Higher eves of reported gu t
+and shame were re ated to de ayed
+d sc osures. Peers were v ewed by th s
+samp e as more re ab e conf dants
+Ony 5 out of 22 part c pants to d anyone
+about the r ear y sexua exper ences as
+ch dren. Fear, shame, and se f-b ame
+were the man nh b tors to d sc osure.
+These factors are further deta ed
+through subthemes. Te ngasach dand
+as an adu t was further expanded upon
+us ng A agga's (2004) framework
+ver fy ng behav ora nd rect attempts to
+te and purposefu d sc osure as
+categor es. Themat c ana ys s supported
+that CSA d sc osure shou d be
+conceptua zed and y ewed as a comp ex
+and fe ong process
+Reasons the ch dren dent fed for te ng
+were cass fed nto three doma ns: (1)
+d sc osure as a resu t of nterna st mu
+(e.g. the ch d had n ghtmares): (2)
+d sc osure fac tated by outs de
+nfuences (eg. the ch d was
+quest oned); and (3) d sc osure due to
+d rect ev dence of abuse (eg. the ch d's
+abuse was w tressed). The barr ers to
+d sc osure dent fed fe nto fve groups:
+(1) threats made by the perpetrator
+(eg. the ch d was to d she or he woud
+get n troub e f she or he to d). (2) fears
+(e.g., the ch d was afra d someth ng bad
+wou d happen f she or he to d). (3) ack
+of opportun ty (eg., the ch d fet the
+opportun ty to d sc ose never
+presented). (4) ack of understand ng
+(eg, the ch d fa ed to recogn ze abus ve
+behav or as unacceptab e), and (5)
+re at onsh p w th the perpetrator (e.g..
+the ch d thought the perpetrator was a
+Summary
+De ayed d sc osure was common n
+th s qua tat ve samp e. Most
+part c pants d d not make a
+adu thood. These f nd ngs support
+A agg a's (2004) mode of
+d sc osure but a so hgh ghts the
+mportance of fe stage. Modest
+but suff c ent samp e s ze for a
+qua tat ve nqu ry. We -des gned
+study wth deta ed ana ys s for
+transferab ty of fnd ngs
+An nnovat ve study to try to assess
+f forma nvest gat ve ntery ews
+can fac tate d sc osures of CSA.
+Data were based on a arge
+number of nterv ews. Deta ed
+ana ys s produced deta ed
+fnd ngs support ng other study
+fnd ngs on CSA d sc osure
+(continued)
+
+
+
+A agg a (2010)
+The study a med to
+dent fy factors
+mped ng or promot ng
+CSA d sc osures.
+Overarch ng research
+quest on: What
+nd y dua.
+ene romena, and
+contextua nfuences
+mpede or promote
+CSA d sc osures.
+Des gn
+A qua tat ve
+phenomeno og ca
+des gn, LIM, was used
+to nterv ew adu t CSA
+sury vors about the r
+d sc osure exper ences
+to prov de
+retrospect ve accounts
+of CSA d sc osure and
+mean ng-mak ng of
+these exper ences.
+Themat c ana ys s was
+done through a socaeco og ca ens.
+Samp e
+Purpos ve samp ng was
+emp oyed. Snowba
+samp ng was a so used
+to recrut more e
+sury vors. 40 adut
+sury vors of CSA were
+nterv ewed: 36% men
+and 64% women. Age
+range of 18-65 w th a
+mean age of 40.1 years.
+Average age of abuse
+onset was 5.3 years
+od. 36% of the samp e
+was non-Wh te.
+D verse
+soc econom c
+backgrounds
+Fontes and Pummer
+(2010)
+Th s exam nat on of CA Usngpub shed terature Data cons sted of
+dsc osure exp ored
+wth c n ca data, ths
+pub shed terature on
+the ways cu ture
+art ce conducted an
+affects processes of
+ana ys s to prov de a
+d se osure and cu ture
+that was tr angu ated
+CSA d sc osure and
+cu tura y competent
+framework for CSA
+wth c nca case
+mater a
+d sc osure quest on ng
+nternat ona y
+Ugar Bane: Tutty, and
+Fa rho m. (2009a)
+Th s study exp ored
+d sc osure strateg es
+of tournators name
+Forms were competed
+by youth fo owng
+part c pat on n abuse
+prevent on
+Exam nat on of resu ts
+from a nat ona sampe
+of 1,621 eva uat on
+forms where youth
+Endngs
+Themes fe nto four doma ns: (1)
+nd v dua and deve opmenta factors,
+deve opmenta factors as to whether
+they comprehended what was
+happen ng. persona ty tra ts a so had
+some bearng on the rab ty to te, and
+ant c pat ng not be ng be eved; (2)
+dsc osure nb ted by fam y
+character st cs such as rg dy fxed
+gender ro es w th dom nat ng fathers,
+chaos and aggress on, other forms of
+ch d abuse, domest c v o ence,
+dysfunct ona commun cat on, and soc a
+so at on; (3) ne ghborhood and
+commun ty context, that s, ack of
+nterest from ne ghbors and teachers not
+pursu ng troub ng behav or; and (4)
+cu tura and soc eta att tudes, med a
+messages and soc eta att tudes, fee ng
+unheard as k ds, gender soc a zat on for
+•es, and cu tura att tudes nfuenc ng
+parent's react ons. Purposefu d sc osure
+shgher than reported n other stud es
+because of the samp ng attempts to
+purposefu y ocate d sc osers
+Cutura and structura factors affecting
+CSA d sc osure are dentfed n n-depth
+deta. Recommendat ons made no ude
+(1) dsc osure nterv ew ng shou d be
+ta ored to the ch d's cu tura context,
+(2) quest on ng shou d a so take nto
+cons derat on age and gender factors.
+and (3) cu ture stands as an mportant
+factor n a cases n whch ch dren are
+cons der ng d scos ng or be ng asked to
+dscose, and not so ey n cases n whch
+ch dren are from not ceab e m nor ty
+groups. Presents a comprehens ve
+nterv ew framework ntegrat ng cu tura
+cons derat ons
+Youth who have been abused or w tnesses
+to abuse emp oy f ve d sc osure
+strateg es: us ng se f-harm ng behav ors
+to s gna the abuse to others; not taking
+Summary
+The study presents a comprehens ve
+soc a -eco og ca ana ys s to CSA
+d sc osure hgh ght ng the
+mu t faceted nfuences. Of note,
+42% had d sc osed the abuse
+dur ng ch dhood; 26% had not
+d sc osed because they had
+repressed the memory, or the
+abuse had occurred n preschoo
+years and they had d ff cuty w th
+reca . The rema nder had
+attempted some form of
+d sc osure n nd rect ways dur ng
+ch dhood. A retrospect ve
+approach that cou d be affected by
+reca ssues
+One of the few works that adds
+know edge to cu tura y
+contextua d sc osure
+ntery ew ng. Un que comb nat on
+of terature f nd ngs wth c n ca
+mater a . Anecdota accounts may
+prec ude transferab ty of
+f nd ngs. Overa adds to an
+mpover shed area of CSA
+d sc osure nformat on
+Th s study hgh ghts that d sc osure
+s an nteract ve ongo ng process.
+Fnd ngs end support to stud es
+that have dent fed sm ary
+(continued)
+
+
+
+Ungar, Tutty, McConne,
+Barter, and Fa rhom
+(2009b)
+267
+(1) What are the
+h dden exper ences of
+abuse among Canad an
+youth? (2) What
+mpact does
+part c pat on n abuse
+prevent on programs
+have on youth to
+express the r abuse
+exper ences? (3) What
+dsc osure barr ers do
+youth face? (4) What
+are young peop e's
+d sc osure patterns?
+and (5) Who do they
+tel
+Th's study expored
+abuse d sc osure
+strateg es wth a
+part c pated nvo ence
+prevent on
+programmng. One of
+the goa s of the study
+was to document not
+prev ous y dent fed
+exper ences of abuse
+Des gn
+programm ng by the
+Canad an Red Cross
+(RespectED).
+A ser es of focus groups
+and observat ons of
+the workshops were
+used to hep
+contextua ze the
+Samp e
+anonymous y d sc osed
+abuse exper ences.
+Respondent's ages: 13
+and under (27%). 14
+15 (37%), 16-17 (25%).
+18 and o der (4%), and
+unknown (7%)
+f nd ngs. Eva uat on
+forms were ana yzed
+from two vo ence
+prevent on programs:
+(1) It's not your faut
+and (2) What's ove
+got to do wth It?
+Exp oratory des gn wth a Purposefu samp e of
+nonrepresentat ve
+1,099 eva uat on forms
+samp es. Qua tat ve
+comp eted fo ow ng
+ana ys s of 1,099
+Red Cross RespectED
+eva uat on forms
+vo ence prevent on
+comp eted fo owng
+programm ng
+Red Cross RespectED
+de vered between
+y o ence prevent on
+2000 and 2003
+programm ng
+do wand boys Forms
+of anonymous abuse
+dsc osures by youth
+part c pants of neg ect,
+emot ona, phys ca,
+and sexua abuse.
+Twer eve and focus
+groups were a so done
+to understand
+contex you sues and
+program fac tators n
+the nterpretat on of
+fnd ngs. A cod ng
+structure was
+deve oped for ana ys s
+to synthes ze themes
+across data sources
+Endngs
+at a about the abuse to prevent
+ntrus ve ntervent ons by others;
+seek ng he p from peers; seek ng he p
+from nforma adut supports; and
+seek ng he p from mandated serv ce
+prov ders (soc a workers and po ce).
+Resu ts suggest d sc osure s an
+nteract ve process, w th expectat ons
+regard ng consequences to d sc osure.
+Patterns of ncrementa y shar ng abuse
+exper ences are shaped by young
+peop e's nteract ons w th peers,
+educators, and careg vers. About threequarters of fema es prev ous y d sc osed;
+sgnfcanty ess
+es d sc osed
+End ngs suggest high rates of h dden abuse,
+wth ess than one quarter of youth
+report ng a d sc osure. 244 of the 1,099
+youth who d sc osed abuse on the r
+eva uat on forms dent fed specfc
+nd v dua s they to d about the r abuse.
+D sc osure patterns vary wth boys,
+youth aged 14-15, vet ms of phys ca
+abuse, and those abused by a fam y
+preme a grose kee decord to
+d sc osures were d rected toward
+prah, were anded towar 5 prent
+parents, and others. Part c pants were
+most key to d sc ose sexua abuse to
+Out of a 1,099 part c pants, 225 es and
+779 ferna es nd cated that they had been
+es and 180
+abuses. Ou at that they had dad 580
+the abuse. Of those who had d sc osed.
+on y a port on of es and fema es
+spec fed who they had d sc osed the
+abuse to ("Whe e eva uat ons w th
+d sc osure statements were ana yzed,
+on y 22% made ment on of peop e to
+Summary
+nteract ve mode s of d sc osure
+such as those deta ed by A agga
+(2004) and Sta er and Ne son-
+Garde (2005). Th s m xed samp e
+of youth who exper enced
+d fferent forms of abuse and
+v o ence exposure were
+part c pants—not m ted to CSA
+sury vors
+Innovat ve des gn of th s study
+prov des ns ght nto young
+peop e's percept ons of d sc osure
+exper ences. Hgh eve of r gor
+wth trustworth ness of the data
+ana ys s ensured through use of
+youth focus groups, ntery ews,
+and observat ona data. The study
+resu ts are somewhat m ted n
+the th ckness of the descr pt ons t
+can offer because most of the data
+are survey based. Reg ona
+d fferences may not have been
+pcked up. Scope of the study s
+broad and approach s creat ve
+(continued)
+
+
+
+Prebe and Sved n (2008)
+Ths study a med to
+nvest gate d sc osure
+rates and d sc osure
+patterns and exam ne
+pred ctors of
+nond sc osure na
+samp e of Re and
+fema e ado escents
+wth se f-reported
+exper ences of sexua
+abuse
+Sorso , Ka-Keatng, and
+Study focused on
+Grossman (2008)
+dsc osure cha enges
+for e sury vors of
+CSA to understand
+three ssues: (1) To
+Des gn
+Part c pants competed
+65- tem quest onna re
+that no uded quest ons
+about background,
+consensua sex, sexua
+abuse exper ences
+(noncontact, contact
+or penetrat ng abuse,
+ne ud ng peer abuse).
+dsc osure of CSA,
+own sexua abus ve
+behav or, sexua
+att tudes, and
+exper ences w th
+pornography and
+sexua exp o tat on.
+The quest onna re
+ne uded 6 modfed
+tems from the SCL-90
+and 9 of 25 tems from
+the Parenta Bond ng
+Instrument. The data
+for grs and boys were
+ana yzed separate y
+Ma e sury vors of CSA
+were ntery ewed
+about the r d sc osure
+exper ences. Ana yt c
+techn ques ne uded
+Samp e
+Endngs
+whom d sc osures occurred.") More
+fema es specfed who they dsc osed to
+compare to es. The data show
+percept ons among youth of negat ve
+consequences fo ow ng d sc osure
+The samp e cons sted of
+4,339 h gh schoo
+students n Sweden
+(2,324 g r s and 2,015
+boys). The mean age of
+the part c pants was
+18.15 years. Th s study
+used a subsamp e of
+1,962 part c pants who
+reported CA and
+who answered
+d se osure quest ons
+Of the samp e, 1,505 g r s (65%) and 457
+boys (23%) reported CSA. The
+d sc osure rate was 81% (g r s) and 69%
+(boys). Grs and boys d sc osed most
+often to a fr end of the r own age. Few
+had d sc osed to profess ona s, and even
+fewer had reported to the author tes.
+There were h gher rates of d sc osure to
+a profess ona wth more severe abuse
+(contact abuse w th or w thout
+penetrat on) for grs, but ower rates for
+boys The more severe the sexua abuse
+was, the ess key both grs and boys
+had ta ked to the r mother, father, or a
+s b ng. Grs were ess key to d scose f
+they had exper enced contact sexua
+abuse w th or w thout penetrat on, ess
+frequent abuse, abuse by a fam y
+member, or f they had perce ved the r
+parents as ess car ng and ess
+overprotect ve and hgh y
+overprotect ve. Boys were ess key to
+d sc ose fa fam y member abused them,
+they were study ng a vocat ona program
+(vs. an academ c program), ved wth
+both parents or had perce ved the r
+parents as ess car ng and not
+overprotect ve.
+Ado escents who reported CSA perce ved
+the r menta heath as poorer compared
+to ado escents w thout CSA
+Nond sc osers reported more
+symptoms on the Menta Heath Sca e
+The samp e cons sted of
+than those who had d sc osed
+Barr ers to d sc osure were found to be
+16 e surv vors of
+operant n three nterre ated doma ns:
+ch dhood sexua
+(I) persona (e.g.. ack of cogn t ve
+abuse; I| Caucas an, 2
+awareness, ntent ona avo dance,
+Afr can Amer can, 1
+emot ona read ness, and shame); (2)
+Summary
+Th s study hgh ghted that sexua
+abuse s arge y h dden from adu t
+soc ety, espec a y from
+profess ona s and the ega system.
+However, t me apsed to
+d sc osure was not reported.
+Snce fr ends appeared to be the
+n rec pents of sexua abuse
+d sc osures, pract ce mp cat ons
+of ths cou d be to f nd ways to
+& ve young peop e better
+nformat on and gu dance about
+how to support a sexua y abused
+peer. A qua tat ve component to
+the study wou d have prov ded a
+broader understand ng of
+d sc osure processes. Study
+m tat ons nc ude a s gn f cant
+amount of boys who d d not
+comp ete the quest ons regard ng
+d sc osure on; the t m ng of
+d sc osures (whether they were
+de ayed or not) was not
+measured; poss b ty of reca bas
+w th retrospect ve stud es based
+on se f-reports; and youth
+part c pants may not have
+understood a the quest ons
+S nce the vast major ty of men n the
+samp e had not d sc osed n
+ch dhood, they may have been
+pred sposed to dent fy ng
+barr ers to d sc osure more
+(continued)
+
+
+
+whom and n what
+contexts have they
+d sc osed these
+exper ences? (2) What
+do they have to say
+about the r d sc osure
+exper ences? and (3)
+What are the r
+percept ons of pos t ve
+and negat ve aspects of
+the r d sc osure,
+nc ud ng ncent ves
+and barr ers?
+Des gn
+grounded theory
+method of ana ys s for
+codng and
+deve opment of
+conceptua y custered
+matr ces. Part c pants
+competed two n-
+depth, sem - structured
+ntery ews, ast ng
+between 2 and 3hr
+each tak ng pace
+approx mate y a week
+apart
+Hershkow tz, Lanes, and
+Lamb (2007)
+The goa of the present
+A eged vet ms of sexua
+abuse and the r
+parents were
+ntery ewed. Ch dren
+were nterv ewed
+usng the NICHD
+Invest gat ve Intery ew
+Protoco by
+exper enced youth
+nvest gators.
+Informat on on
+dsc osure processes
+was obta ned n the
+frst forma ntervew.
+before any po ce
+nivest gat on or ch d
+we fare ntervent on
+269
+Samp e
+Puerto R can, I part
+Nat ve Amer can, 1
+Afr can Cuban: age
+range of 24 6l years; 9
+dent fed themse ves
+as heterosexua, 5 as
+homosexua, and 2 as
+b sexua
+Th rty a eged vet ms of
+CSA: 18 boys and 12
+grs. Ch d samp e was
+7- to 12-year-o ds w th
+an average age of 9.2
+years. Twenty mothers
+and 10 fathers were
+a so ntery ewed for a
+tota of 30 parent
+ntery ews. A content
+ana ys s was conducted
+on ch d and parent
+nterv ews
+Endngs
+re at ona (eg, fears about negat ve
+repercuss ons, so at on); and (3)
+soc ocu tura (e.g., ack of acceptance for
+men to exper ence or acknow edge
+v ct m zat on).
+Ony I of the 16 men n ths samp e
+d sc osed the fu extent of hs sexua
+abuse exper ences wh e he was st a
+ch d. The other men reported that they
+had not d scosed, a though some
+reported attempts to te that were
+nd rect or ncomp ete. Severa other
+men d sc osed certa n exper ences or
+e ements of the r abuse, but concea ed
+others. By the t me of the study, many of
+these men had d sc osed the r past
+exper ences n a var ety of re at onsh ps.
+nc ud ng those wth fam y members,
+partners, therap sts, and frequent y
+fr ends. Severa had on y mted
+d scuss ons of the r sexua abuse
+D sc osure categor es were dent fed as
+fo ows: (I) de ayed 53% of the ch dren
+de ayed d sc osure for between I week
+and 2 years; (2) rec p ent of d sc osure:
+47% of ch dren f rst d sc osed to sb ngs
+or fr ends, 43% frst d sc osed to the r
+parents, and 10% frst d sc osed to
+another adu t. 57% of the ch dren
+spontaneous y d sc osed abuse, but 43%
+disc osed on y after they were
+prompted. 50% of the ch dren reported
+fee ng afrad or ashamed of the r
+parents' responses. Parents' react ons:
+support ve (37%) and unsupport ve
+(63%). There was a strong corre at on
+between pred cted and actua parenta
+react ons suggest ng ch dren ant c pated
+the r parents" key react ons accurate y.
+D sc osure processes var ed depend ng
+on the ch dren's ages (eg. younger
+ch dren d sc osed to parents), sever ty
+and frequency of abuse, parents'
+expected react ons, suspects' dent t es,
+and strateg es used to
+secrecy
+Summary
+read y. Retrospect ve accounts
+are subject to reca ssues.
+Invest gators made s gn f cant
+efforts to gather a d verse samp e.
+Hgh eve of r gor was executed
+n the dependab ty of the data
+and terat ve process of the
+nterpretat on off nd ngs was
+conducted
+Innovat ve des gn to gather
+d sc osure data from young
+ch dren. Focus s on extrafam a
+CSA wh ch may d ffer than
+d sc osure patterns of ntrafam a
+CSA. Two th rds of the parents
+reg stered unsupport ve
+responses whch shgh
+(continued)
+
+
+
+A agg a and Krshenbaum
+The object ves of the
+(2005)
+current study were to
+dent fy a broad range
+of factors, ne ud ng
+fam y dynam es that
+contr bute to or
+hnder ach d's ab ty
+to d sc ose CSA.
+A agga (2005)
+Congs, Grff ths, and
+Kuma o (2005).
+Des gn
+phenomeno og ca
+des gn-LIM was
+fac tators and
+barr ers; and re evant
+c rcumstances.
+Intery ews were
+transer bed verbat m.
+L ne-by- ne open
+codng was conducted
+to capture fam y- eve
+factors. Ax a and
+se ect ve cod ng
+dent f cat on of
+The study purpose was
+to qua tat ve y exp ore
+dynam cs that mpede
+or promote d sc osure
+by examn ng a range of
+factors nc ud ng
+gender as a dynam c-
+how dsc osures of
+fema es and es are
+sm ar and d fferent,
+and n what ways
+Sendes affects (SA
+Surv vors of CSA were
+ntery ewed about
+the r d sc osure
+exper ences us ng LIM.
+Ana ys s of 30
+part c pant narrat ves
+was used for theme
+deve opment regard ng
+mpact of gender on
+d sc osure. Intery ews
+were transer bed
+verbat m for open,
+ax a, and se ect ve
+cod ng. Categor es and
+subcategor es were
+co apsed and refn ng
+nto theme areas
+Study exam ned patterns F e rev ews of a soca
+of d sc osure n a arge
+work and med ca case
+representat ve samp e
+f es for CSA v ct ms
+of South Afr can CSA
+seen at the crss
+vet ms. Two study
+object ves to: (1)
+center where a cases
+of CSA reported to
+exam ne how and
+the North Durban
+Samp e
+Purpos ve samp ng was
+emp oyed to recrut 20
+adu t sury vors
+between the ages of 18
+and 65 who were
+sexua y abused by a
+fam y member.
+Average age of
+part c pants was 40.1
+years; 60% of
+part c pants were
+fema e and 40% De.
+Average age of onset
+of abuse was 6.7 years.
+Mxed c nca and
+nonc n ca samp e. The
+major ty had rece ved
+treatment for CSA at
+some pont n the r
+Purpos ve samp ng of
+women and men, a ong
+d sc osed dur ng the
+abuse and those who
+dd not. 19 fema es and
+es: 18-65 (mean
+40.1) years who were
+sexua y abused by a
+fam y member or a
+trusted adu t. Average
+age of abuse onset was
+5.3 years, 36% were
+nonwh te, and 58% had
+not d sc osed dur ng
+1,737 cases of CSA
+reported n the North
+Durban area of
+KwaZu u-Nata, South
+Afr ca, dur ng January
+200| to December
+2003. 1.614 gr s and
+Fnd ngs
+Four major themes emerged suggest ng
+that CSA d sc osure can be s gn f cant y
+comprom sed when certa n fam y
+cond tons ex st: (1) rg dy fxed, gender
+ro es based on a patr archy-based fam y
+structure: (2) presence of fam y
+v o ence; (3) cosed, nd rect fam y
+commun cat on patterns; and (4) soc a
+so at on of the fam y as a who e, or
+specfc members, payed a part n CSA
+v ct ms fee ng they had no one safe to
+te. Fam y systems formu at ons through
+a fem nst ens are mportant n
+understand ng ch dren and fam es at
+rsk of d sc osure barr ers
+Three themes emerged for men that
+nh b ted or prec p tated d se osure for
+reasons re ated to gender: (1) fear of
+be ng v ewed as homosexua: (2)
+profound fee ngs of st gmat zat on or
+so at on because of the be ef that boys
+are rare y v ct m zed; and (3) fear of
+becom ng an abuser, wh ch acted as a
+prec p tant for d sc osure. Two
+predom nant themes w th fema e
+part c pants re ated to d ff cut es
+dscosng: (I) they fet more conf cted
+about who was respons b e for the abuse
+and (2) they more strong y ant c pated
+be ng b amed and/or not be eved
+Content ana ys s dent fed two broad
+d mens ons of d sc osure: (1) agency:
+ch d-n tated d sc osure versus
+detect on by a th rd party and (2)
+tempora durat on: an event versus a
+process. These d sc osure d mens ons
+def ned four d screte categor es of
+Summary
+Over ha f the part c pants had not
+d sc osed the abuse dur ng
+ch dhood. Of the nond sc os ng
+part c pants, s x d d not d sc ose
+because they had repressed or
+forgotten the memory. A most
+one th rd w thhe d d sc osure
+ntent ona y. More data are
+needed on ear y d sc osures to
+garner more nformat on on
+fac tators of d sc osure.
+Retrospect ve approach mp es
+reca ssues. Hgh eve of
+trustworth ness of the data and
+nterpretat ons were ach eved
+through cred b ty, dependab ty.
+and conf rmab ty through d rect
+quotes
+One n a dearth of stud es that
+conduct gender ana ys s.
+Comparat ve ana ys s draws out
+mportant pract ce mp cat ons.
+Retrospect ve des gn of the study
+wh ch mp es poss be reca
+ssues. Hgh eve of
+trustworth ness of the data and
+nterpretat ons were ach eved
+through cred b ty, dependab ty.
+and conf rmab ty through d rect
+quotes
+These resu ts ft nto A agg a's (2004)
+d sc osure framework. Through
+data ana ys s two raters coded
+d sc osure categor es us ng
+author's d sc osure framework,
+wh ch proved to be both
+exhaust ve and mutua y exc us ve
+(continued)
+
+
+Hershkow tz, Horow tz,
+and Lamb (2005).
+Jensen, Gu brandsen,
+ge, Re chet, and
+Tjers and (2005)
+when CSA vet ms
+d sc ose the r abuse
+and (2) Ident fy factors
+assocated w th
+d fferent patterns of
+dsc osure
+Ths study a med to
+deuspecter the sees
+abuse v ct ms that are
+assoc ated wth
+dsc osure and
+nond sc osure durng
+forma nvest gat ons
+Ths study nvest gated
+report ther ch d
+sexua abuse
+exper ences; the r
+vews as to what made
+t d ff cut to ta k about
+abuse; what he ped
+them n the dscong
+process; and the r
+parent's percept ons of
+the r d sc osure
+processes
+Des gn
+po ong area were
+referred dur ng the
+per od of January 2001
+to December 2003
+Large database of
+suspected cases of
+phys ca and sexua
+abuse nvest gated n
+Israe between 1998
+and 2002 was ana yzed.
+conducted us ng
+standard zed NICHD
+Invest gat ve Interv ew
+Protoco. Arch va data
+were ana yzed
+Qua tat ve approach to
+data co ect on and
+ana ys s was used.
+Therapeut c ntery ews
+o the ch dren and
+most y the r mothers
+were ana yzed through
+a qua tat ve approach.
+Fo ow-up ntery ews
+were hed 1 year ater
+Samp e
+123 boys; average age
+of vetmzed ch dren
+was 9.9 years. 47%
+reports were made
+wth n 72 hr of the
+abuse, 31% from 72 hr
+to I month, and 22%
+more than a month
+after the abuse
+Endngs
+dsc osure: (1) purposefu d sc osure
+(30% of cases), (2) nd rect d sc osure
+(9% of cases), (3) eyew tness detect on
+(18% of cases), and (4) acc denta
+detect on (43% of cases). D sc osure
+ndependent y pred cted by v ct m's age,
+nature of the vet m-perpetrator
+re at onsh p, offender's age, frequency of
+abuse, and report ng atency. Mean age of
+purposefu d sc osures (10.67) was
+h gher than the mean age of nd rect
+d sc osures (5.84). Exp ct forms of
+dsc osure were ess key when the
+offender was a fam y member. Shorter
+report ng atency was more key wth
+repeated abuse
+The samp e was
+Overa, 65% of the 26,446 ch dren made
+compr sed of 26.446 of
+3- to 14-year-o d
+a seasons were greate ford. Run a buse
+a eged v ct ms of
+(71%) over phys ca abuse (61%).
+sexua and phys ca
+Ch dren of a ages were ess key to
+abuse nterv ewed n
+d sc ose/a ege abuse when a parent was
+Israe n the 5-year
+the suspected perpetrator. D sc osure
+per od from 1998 to
+rates ncreased as ch dren grew o der:
+2002. 140 exper enced
+50% w th 3- to 6-year-o ds, 67% of the 7-
+tra ned youth
+to 10-year-o ds, and 74% of the Il- to
+nivest gators
+14-year-o ds d sc osed abuse when
+conducted nterv ews
+20 fam es wth a tota of None of the ch dren to d of abuse
+mmed ate y after t occurred. Ch dren
+part c pated. A
+exposed to repet t ve abuse kept th sas a
+ch dren had to d about
+secret for up to severa years; 17 to d
+exper ences that
+the r mothers frst, 3 frst to d a fr end, 1
+created concerns for
+to d the r father, and I the r unc e.
+care-g vers about CSA.
+Major ty of remarks that ed to the
+Ch dren's ages ranged
+susp c on of CSA were made n
+between 3 and 16
+s tuat ons where someone engaged the
+years (average age 7.5
+ch d n a da ogue about what was
+years); 15 grs and 7
+bother ng them, resu t ng n a referra.
+boys. Sexua y abused
+The ch dren fet t was dffcut to fnd
+by someone n the
+s tuat ons conta n ng enough pr vacy and
+fam y or a cose
+prompts that they cou d share the r
+person to the fam y
+exper ences. When the ch dren d d
+Summary
+wth the percentage of nterrater
+agreement at 98%.
+Genera zab ty of th s study s
+m ted to ch d c ents rece v ng a
+cr s s assessment referred
+through a po ce report
+Overa fndngs nd cated that rates
+of d sc osure var ed systemat ca y
+depend ng on the nature of the
+a eged offences, the re at onsh p
+between a eged y ct ms and
+suspected perpetrators, and the
+age of the suspected v ct ms.
+Ana yses on y nvo ved cases that
+had come to the attent on of
+off ca agenc es, mak ng tdff cut
+to determ ne how many of abuse
+take pace w thout ever tr gger ng
+any knd of off c a nvest gat on
+Ev dence for de ayed d sc osures.
+The resu ts nd cate that
+d sc osure s a fundamenta y
+da og ca process that becomes
+ess d ffcut f ch dren perce ve
+that there s an opportun ty to
+ta k, a purpose for speak ng and a
+connect on has been estab shed
+to what they are ta k ng about.
+Strengthen ng parent-ch d
+re at onsh ps s an mportant
+pract ce mp cat on
+(continued)
+Page 13
+3 of 45
+
+
+Des gn
+Sta er and Ne son-
+Garde (2005)
+The purpose of th s study Secondary ana ys s of
+was to understand the
+fu process of CSA
+qua tat ve focus group
+data. Or gna project
+dsc osure and how
+cons sted of four focus
+ths unfo ded for
+groups conducted
+preado escent and
+ado escent grs.
+wth n the context of
+ongo ng therapy for
+Exam ned what
+gr s who had
+fac tated and
+exper enced CSA.
+h ndered d sc osure
+Secondary ana ys s
+and subsequent
+cons sted of wr tten
+consequences
+narrat ve summar es of
+each sess on group ng
+these conceptua y.
+and exam ning the r
+nterconnectedness
+Aagga (2004)
+The study sought to
+exam ne nfuences
+that nh be or promote
+ch dren's d sc osure of
+CSA to address gaps n
+know edge about how,
+when, and under what
+e rcumstances vet ms
+of CSA d sc ose
+The study emp oyed
+LIM a
+phenomeno og ca
+des gn. Intens ve
+ntery ew ng that were
+2 hr ong on average
+generated data for a
+themat c ana ys s. The
+nterv ew gu de was
+Sampe
+Endngs
+dsc ose they dd t ns tuat ons where
+the top c of ch d sexua abuse was n
+some form addressed or act vated,
+where someone recogn zed the ch d's
+cues and probed further. They a so were
+sens t ve to others react ons, and
+whether the r d sc osures wou d be
+m s nterpreted. Severa of the ch dren
+perce ved negat ve consequences as
+major factors contr but ng to de ay ng
+d sc osure. They were pr mar y
+concerned about negat ve effects for the
+mother. The mothers sa d they were
+a so sens t ve to the ch dren's fee ngs. If
+the r ch dren showed s gns of d stress
+and dd not want to ta k, the mothers
+the ud change the subject or not pursue
+Samp e cons sted of 34
+part c pants from four
+groups. Sess ons
+between 60 and 90 m n
+ong: aud otaped and
+ater transer bed for
+content ana ys s
+Fod ngs are reported n three major
+doma ns: (I) se f-phase: where ch dren
+come to understand v ct m zat on
+nterna y: (2) conf dant se ect onreact on phase: where they se ect a t me,
+pace, and person to te and then
+whether that person's react on was
+support ve or host e; and (3)
+consequences phase: good and bad that
+cont nued to nform the r ongo ng
+strateg es of te ng. The act ons and
+react ons of adu ts were 5 gn f cant and
+nformed the grs' dec sons. The
+consequences phase was further
+subd v ded nto four aspects: (1)
+goss ping and news networks, (2)
+chang ng re at onsh ps. (3) nst tut ona
+responses and the after fe of te ng, and
+(4) ns der and outs der commun t es
+Usng purpos ve samp ng Through ana ys s of the nterv ew new
+24 adu t sury vors of
+categor es of d sc osure were dent fed
+ntrafam a abuse
+to add to ex sting types. Three
+between ages of 18
+prev ous y dent fed were conf rmed n
+and 65 (average age
+41.2) were recru ted
+these data: acc denta, purposefu, and
+prompted/e c ted accounted for 42% of
+from agenc es and one
+d sc osure patterns n the study samp e.
+un vers ty: 57%
+Over ha f the d sc osure patterns descr bed
+and 43% ferna e:
+by the study samp e dd not ft these
+Summary
+Ths study prov ded a contextua
+exam nat on of the ent re
+d sc osure process, c oser to the
+po nt n t me when the abuse and
+d sc osure occurred. Sma groups
+of preado escent and ado escent
+grs who had sury ved sexua
+abuse a so served as consu tants
+and were encouraged to share
+the r know edge for the beneft of
+profess ona pract toners
+Ths study expanded types of CSA
+d sc osures to more fu y
+understand how ch dren and
+adu ts d sc ose. And under what
+c rcumstances. Ask ng peop e to
+recount events that occurred n
+ch dhood s suscept b e to
+memory fa ure, espec a y when
+memor es were forgotten,
+(continued)
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+
+
+
+273
+Cr sma, Basce, Pac, and The In goas of ths
+Rom to (2004)
+study were to
+understand
+mped ments that
+Preme sa do gets
+and seek ng he p from
+the r soc a network
+and/or the serv ces
+Jonzon and Lndbad
+(2004)
+Study purpose was to
+exp ore how abuse
+tra ts, openness,
+react ons to CSA
+dscosure, and soca
+support were re ated.
+D fferences based on
+seven a of auromes
+of dsc osure, soc a
+support, and
+pred ct ng factors of
+post ve and negat ve
+react ons were probed
+Des gn
+deve oped to probe
+for ndy dua.
+nterpersona. (
+env ronmenta, and
+cu tura factors
+nfuene ng CSA
+d sc osure
+In-depth te ephone
+(anonymous)
+nterv ews were
+conducted after
+nformed consent was
+exp a ned and
+obta ned. Three
+nvest gators
+exper enced n
+counse ng CSA
+counse ng conducted
+the nterv ews wh ch
+were recorded w th
+perm ss on. Three
+researchers
+ndependent y scored
+the ntery ews
+accord ng to a codng
+framework
+Adu t women report ng
+CSA by someone cose
+were ntery ewed
+us ng sem-structured
+gu des together w th
+quest onna res. Data
+on v ct m zat on and
+current soc a support
+were retr eved
+through the
+quest onna res, and
+data on d sc osure and
+react ons were
+gathered through the
+ntery ews w th
+part c pants
+Samp e
+average age of abuse
+onset was 6.5 years;
+42% of the part c pants
+had d sc osed the
+abuse durng i
+ch dhood; 58%
+d sc osed as adu ts
+The samp e was
+compr sed of 36 young
+peop e who
+exper enced sexua
+abuse n ado escence;
+35 fema es and 1 De:
+aged 12-17. Some of
+the samp e
+exper enced sexua
+vo ence na dang
+re at onsh p
+Fnd ngs
+prev ous y estab shed categor es. Three
+add tona d sc osure categor es
+emerged: behav ora and nd rect verba
+attempts, d sc osures ntent ona y
+w thhe d, and d sc osures tr ggered by
+recovered memor es
+Then mped ments to d sc ose to a
+fam y member were: fear of not beng
+be eved, shame, and fear of caus ng
+troub e to the fam y. The n
+mped ments for not seek ng sery ces
+were: unaware of appropr ate serv ces,
+wsh to keep the secret, ack of
+awareness of be ng abused, m strust of
+adu ts and profess onas, and fear of the
+consequences of d sc os ng sexua abuse.
+When they d d d sc ose to profess ona s.
+teens rece ved very m ted support as
+many profess ona s were not tra ned on
+sexua abuse and coud not offer
+appropr ate ntervent ons to v ct ms
+122 adu t women
+between 20 and 60
+years o d (average age
+of 41 years) report ng
+exposure to ch d
+sexua abuse by
+someone c ose before
+the age of 18 and had
+to d someone about at
+east one abuse event
+90% were Swed sh
+subjects. Purpos ve
+samp ng strategy was
+used
+Abuse character st cs: abuse by mutpe
+perpetrators was more common than by
+a s nge perpetrator. Age of onset was
+often before age of 7, w th an average
+durat on of 7 years. Severe y abused
+women had ta ked to more of the r
+soc a network, espec a y to
+profess ona s. D sc osures: 32%
+d sc osed dur ng ch dhood (before the
+age of 18) wth an average of 21 years
+de ay. Women who had d sc osed n
+ch dhood reported more nstances of
+phys ca abuse, mut pe perpetrators,
+use of vo ence, and were more key to
+have confronted a perpetrator, and had
+rece ved a negat ve f rst react on. Factors
+Summary
+de ayed, or repressed and ater
+recovered. D stort on and
+rev s on of events are a so
+potent a prob ems n reca. Hgh
+degree of trustworth ness of the
+data was ach eved and quotes
+prov ded supported the
+Th s study represented the f nd ngs
+of a m xed samp e of sury vors of
+ch d sexua abuse and nt mate
+partner yo ence. The study was
+conducted n Itay and t s not
+c ear what sexua abuse response
+tran ng s ava abe. There may
+have been a se ect on b as as the
+most d ssat sf ed sury vors
+responded to the research ca
+68% de ayed d sc osure unt
+adu thood. At the t me of the
+study, t was one of the frst
+stud es to focus on the nterp ay
+between soc a support networks
+and d sc osure of ch d sexua
+abuse. The study resu ts are
+somewhat m ted by an
+overrepresentat on of severe y
+abused women. Retrospect ve
+study and se f-report of
+nformat on cou d mp y reca
+ssues and thus m ts the accuracy
+of the nformat on obta ned on
+abuse and d sc osure
+character st cs. Cross-sect ona
+(continued)
+
+
+
+Kogan (2004)
+Goodman-T
+Ede sten, Goodman,
+• and •
+(2003)
+The purpose of th s study Data were gathered from
+A subsamp e of 263
+was to dent fy factors
+a subsamp e of fema e
+ado escent fema es
+that nfuence the
+ado escents that
+between 12 and 17
+d sc osures made by
+part c pated n the
+years o d, mean age of
+fema e sury vors of
+NSA, wh ch cons sted
+15.2 years od, who
+USE nch dhood and
+of structured phone
+reported at east one
+ado escence. The
+nterv ews. USEs
+exper ence of
+pred ctors of both the
+reported n the NSA
+t m ng of d sc osure
+unwanted sexua
+were assessed us ng a
+contact n the NSA.
+and sure pert of the
+modf ed vers on of the Part c pant
+Inc dent Cassf cat on
+character st cs, USE
+Interv ew. They were
+character st cs, and
+then asked a ser es of
+fam y contextua
+quest ons about each
+attr butes were
+ep sode of unwanted
+ne ud ng event
+character st cs and
+perpetrator
+character st cs
+The purpose of th s study Case f e rev ews of data
+was to nvest gate
+obta ned from
+var ab es assocated
+prosecut on f es, as
+wth de ay of
+d sc osure of CSA and
+structured nterv ews
+rectors that if wence
+wth the ch dren's
+Doese see abuse
+observat ons of ch d
+ntery ews. Tra ned
+graduate students and
+one v ct m advocate
+comp eted the Sexua
+Assau t Prof e
+Samp e cons sted of 218
+ch dren referred to
+prosecutors' off ces
+for a eged CSA. A
+ch dren n the samp e
+had d sc osed the r
+abuse n some manner.
+Ch dren ranged nage
+from 2 to 16 years at
+the beg nn ng of abuse;
+3-16 years at the end
+of the abuse, and 4-16
+years at the t me of the
+Fndngs
+sgnf canty pred et ng de ay were
+younger age at f rst event and no use of
+vo ence. D sc osure outcomes: of the 26
+women who to d nch dhood dur ng a
+per od w th ongo ng abuse, 15 women
+were cont nuous y abused after
+Ch dren under the age of 7 were at a
+h gher r sk for de ayed d sc osures.
+Part c pants whose USE occurred
+between the ages of 7 and 13 were most
+ke y to te an adut. Ado escents (14
+17) were more key to te on y peers
+than ch dren aged 7-10 years. Ch dren
+under I1 were more key to te an
+adut, but were at rsk for de ay ng
+d sc osure beyond a month. Ch dren
+aged |1-13 tended to d sc ose wth na
+month. Coser re at onsh p to the
+perpetrator or a fam y member was
+assoc ated w th de ayed d sc osure.
+Immed ate d sc osure was more key
+w th stranger perpetrat on. Fear for
+one's fe dur ng and penetrat on were
+assoc ated w th d sc osure to adu ts.
+Fam y factors nked to d sc osure were
+(I) drug abus ng househo d member,
+wh ch made surv vors more key to
+d sc ose more prompt y and (2) never
+vng wth both parents was assoc ated
+wth nond sc osure
+64% d sc osed wth n a month and 29%
+wth n 6 months. Fve var ab es for the
+mode were tested. (I) age: ch dren who
+were o der took onger to d sc ose and
+o der ch dren feared more negat ve
+consequences to others than younger
+ch dren; (2) type of abuse: v ct ms of
+ntrafam a fam es took onger to
+dscose vetms of ntrafam a abuse
+feared greater negat ve consequences to
+others compared to vet ms of
+extrafam a abuse: (3) fear of negat ve
+consequences: ch dren who feared
+des gn does not a ow for def n te
+conc us ons of cause and effect on
+the re at onsh ps found
+Th s study exam ned factors
+nc ud ng d sc osures of USEs n
+ch dhood and ado escence n a
+nat ona y representat ve samp e
+of fema e ado escents who
+part c pated n the NSA. Surveys
+for nvest gat ons of v ct m zat on
+exper ences may be based due to
+underreport ng. Ado escents who
+refused to report or d scuss an
+USE may represent a source of
+systemat c b as and wou d make
+the resu ts genera zab e on y to
+ado escents who are w ng to
+d sc ose USE va survey. A though
+data may be retrospect ve, reca
+bas may have been mn m zed n
+th s study s nce part c pants were
+ado escents, and so the t me ag
+nterv ew were presumab y
+shorter than a study of adu t
+part c pants reca ng CSA
+Th s study represents a h gher rate
+of d sc osers w th n a month.
+These cases had been reported to
+author t es and were n process of
+prosecut on wh ch may exp a n
+h gher rate of ear y d sc osures.
+Lega samp e wth h gher rate of
+extrafam a abuse (52%) may a so
+account for ear er d sc osures.
+Mode suggests that o der
+ch dren, v ct ms of ntrafam a
+abuse; fe t greater respons b ty
+for the abuse, and perce v ng
+i of 45
+
+
+Des gn
+quest onna re for ch d
+character st cs, the
+abuse and the r
+dsc osure. Ch dren's
+percept on of
+respons b ty and fear
+of negat ve
+consequences were
+probed.
+Samp e
+nta po ce report;
+77% fema e, 70%
+Caucas an, 17%
+Hspan c, and 11%
+Afr can Amer can.
+Predom nanty mdd e
+to oW SES.
+Approx mate y 47%
+ntrafam a abuse
+Corre at ona ana yses
+were conducted w th
+path ana yses to test
+the hypothes zed
+causa reat ons among
+var ab es
+Sm th, Letourneau,
+Saunders, K patr ck,
+Resnck, and Best
+(2000)
+The study focus was to
+gather data from a
+arge samp e of women
+about the ength of
+t me women who
+were raped before age
+18 de ayed d sc osure
+who they dsc osed to,
+and var ab es that
+pred cted d sc osure
+wth n 1 month
+Structured te ephone
+nterv ews that asted
+approx mate y 35 mn
+were used to co ect
+data us ng a computerass sted te ephone
+ntery ew system. A
+te ephone ntery ews
+were conducted w th
+each quest on on a
+computer screen. The
+survey cons sted of
+severa measures
+des gned to e ct
+demograph c
+nformat on,
+psych atr e symptoms,
+substance use, and
+vct m zat on h story.
+The present study
+reports on data from
+the demograph c and
+Fndngs
+negat ve consequences of d sc osure
+took onger to d scose, ch dren who
+be eved that the rd sc osure woud
+br ng harm to others took onger to
+d sc ose, fear of negat ve consequences
+to the sef or the perpetrator was
+unre ated to t me of d sc osure, and grs
+more than boys feared negat ve
+consequences to others; (4) Perce ved
+respons b ty: ch dren who fet greater
+respons b ty for the abuse took onger
+to d sc ose and o der ch dren fet more
+respons b ty for the abuse; and (5)
+gender was not s gn f cant y corre ated
+wth t me to d sc osure
+Two probab ty samp es. 288 (9%) reported exper enc ng at east
+Wave I was a random
+one event that met the study's def nt on
+samp e of 2,009
+of ch dhood rape. The average age at the
+respondents se ected
+t me of the frst rape was 10.9 years. Of
+from strat fed samp es
+the 288 women who reported a ch d
+of def ned
+rape, 28% stated that they had never to d
+jur sd ct ons.
+anyone about ths sexua assaut unt
+Random dgta da ng
+specfca y quer ed by the ntery ewer
+was used to so ct
+for th s study. 58% did not d sc ose for
+househo ds for sted
+over 1 year and up to 5 years post-rape.
+and un sted te ephone
+27% d sc osed w th n a month. Among
+numbers. Second
+women who d sc osed pror to the r
+random samp e of
+NWS ntery ew cose fr ends were the
+2,000 women between
+most common person to whom y et ms
+the ages of 18 and 34
+made d sc osures, fo owed by mothers
+was se ected. Both
+and other mmed ate fam y members.
+Wave 1 and Wave 2
+data were we ghted to
+Fewer than 10% of v ct ms reported
+mak ng the r nta d sc osure to soc a
+conform to the 1989
+workers or aw enforcement personne.
+Census stat st cs
+Ony 12% of ch d rape vet ms stated
+that the r assau ts were reported to
+author t es at some po nt
+Summary
+negat ve consequences to
+d sc os ng took onger to d sc ose.
+We -des gned study w th hgh
+eve of r gor. Produced a v ab e
+mode of d sc osure for further
+nvest gat ons. However,
+researchers were not ab e to
+nterv ew ch dren d rect y
+The t me frame of ths survey may
+have had contextua mp cat ons.
+The major ty of ch d rapes
+reported by th s samp e occurred
+pr or to the arge-sca e ch d
+assau t prevent on educat on
+programs that were begun n the
+1980s that teach ch dren that
+assau ts (nc ud ng CSA) are
+wrong and shou d be d sc osed to
+respons b e adu ts. Th s
+nformat on may have nfuenced
+(and may current y be nf uenc ng)
+young women's d sc osure
+patterns. For Wave I, compar son
+of these data w th the popu at on
+parameters obta ned from the
+U.S. Census Bureau nd cated that
+the samp e cose y matched the
+demograph c attr butes of the
+popu at on of U.S. women
+ch d rape v ct m zat on
+quest ons
+Note. SCL-90 = Symptom Check List-90; SES = socioeconomic status: L M = ong interview method; CSA = chi d sexua abuse; N CHD = Nationa nstitute of Chid Heath and Human Deve opment; USE = unwanted
+sexua experiences: NSA = Nationa Survey of Ado escents: NWS = Nationa Women's Study: Q DS = Questionnaire informattsé sur es dé inquants sexeu s.
+275
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 18 of 45
+276
+TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20(2)
+examples of this usage were found in the research questions,
+interview guides, and surveys examined: "How and when do
+people decide to tell others about their early sexual experiences
+with adults?" (Hunter, 2011, p. 161); "Some men take many
+years to tell someone that they were sexually abused. Please
+describe why it may be difficult for men to tell about/discuss
+the sexual abuse" (Easton, Saltzman, & Willis, 2014, p. 462).
+"Participants were asked a series of open-ended questions to
+elicit a narrative regarding their experiences of telling..."
+(McElvaney, |
+1. & Hogan, 2012, p. 1160). *Who was the
+first person you told?" (Schaeffer, Leventhal, & Anes, 2011, p.
+346).
+There was sound consistency between studies, defining disclosure in multifaceted ways with uniform use of categories of
+prompted, purposeful, withheld, accidental, direct, and indirect. However, defining the period of time that would delineate
+a disclosure as delayed varied widely across studies, wherein
+some studies viewed 1 week or 1 month as a delayed disclosure
+(i.e., Hershkowitz et al., 2007; Kogan, 2004; Schönbucher,
+Maier, Moher-Kuo, Schnyder, & Lamdolt, 2012). Other studies
+simply reported average years of delay sometimes as long as
+from 20 to 46 years (Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad, 2004;
+et al., 2000).
+Second, the number of qualitative studies has increased significantly over the last 15 years. This rise is in response to a
+previous dearth of qualitative studies. Based on
+observation that disclosure factors and outcomes had been well
+documented through quantitative methods; in a widely read
+editorial, he recommended "Qualitative studies which are able
+to track the individual experiences of children and their perception of the influences upon them which led to their disclosure of
+information are needed to complement..." (p. 270).
+Third, although a few studies strived to obtain representative
+samples in quantitative investigations (Hershkowitz, Horowitz,
+& Lamb, 2005; Kogan, 2004;
+et al., 2000), sampling was
+for the most part convenience based, relying on voluntary participation in surveys and consent-based participation in file
+reviews (Collings,
+& Kumalo, 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar, Barter, McConnell,
+Tutty, & Fairholm, 2009a). Therefore, generalizability of findings is understandably limited. The qualitative studies used
+purposive sampling as is deemed appropriate for transferability
+of findings to similar populations. Some of those samples contained unique characteristics, since they were sought through
+counseling centers or sexual advocacy groups. These would be
+considered clinical samples producing results based on disclosures that may have been delayed or problematic. This might
+presumably produce data skewed toward barriers and bring
+forward less information on disclosure facilitators.
+Through an in-depth, second-level analysis, this review
+identified five distinct themes and subthemes beyond the general trends as noted earlier.
+being facilitated within a dialogical and relational context is
+being more clearly delineated.
+Theme 2: Contemporary disclosure models reflect a
+social ecological, person-in-environment perspective to
+understand the complex interplay of individual, familial,
+contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure.
+Subthemes include new categories of disclosure and a growing focus on previously missing cultural and contextual
+factors.
+Theme 3: Age and gender are strong predictors for delaying
+disclosure or withholding disclosure with trends showing
+fewer disclosures by younger children and boys. One subtheme emerged that intrafamilial abuse/family-like relationship of perpetrator has a bearing on disclosure delays or
+withholding.
+Theme 4: There is a lack of a cohesive life-course perspective. One subtheme includes the lack of data within the 18-
+to 24-year-old emerging adult population.
+Theme 5: Significantly more information is available on
+barriers than on facilitators of CSA disclosure. Subthemes
+of shame, self-blame, and fear are uniformly identified as
+disclosure deterrents.
+Disclosure as an ongoing process: Iterative and interactive in nature.
+Disclosure is now generally accepted as a complex and lifelong
+process, with current trends showing that CSA disclosures are
+too often delayed until adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015;
+Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011). Knowledge building about CSA
+disclosure has moved in the direction of understanding this as
+an iterative and interactive process rather than a discrete, onetime event. Since the new millennium, disclosure is being
+viewed as a dynamic, rather than static, process and described
+"not as a single event but rather a carefully measured process"
+(Alaggia, 2005, p. 455). The catalyst for this view originates
+from Summit (1983) who initially conceptualized CSA disclosures as process based, although this notion was not fully
+explored until several years later. Examinations of Summit's
+(1983) groundbreaking proposition of the CSA accommodation
+(CSAA) model produced varying results as to whether his five
+stages of secrecy, helplessness, entrapment and accommodation, delayed, conflicted, and unconvincing disclosures, and
+retraction or recantation, hold validity (for a review, see London, Bruck, Ceci, & Shuman, 2005). However, the idea of
+disclosure as a process has been carried over into contemporary
+thinking.
+Recently, McElvaney,
+and Hogan (2012) detailed a
+process model of disclosure wherein they describe an interaction of internal factors with external motivators which they
+liken to a "pressure cooker" effect, preceded by a period of
+containment of the secret. Moreover, this and other studies
+strongly suggest disclosures are more likely to occur within a
+dialogical context—activated by discussions of abuse or pre-
+Theme 1: Disclosure is viewed as an ongoing process as
+vention forums providing information about sexual abuse
+opposed to a discrete event-iterative and interactive in
+(Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige,
+nature. A subtheme was identified regarding disclosure as Reichelt, & Tjersland, 2005; Ungar et al., 2009a). The term
+
+
+
+dialogical simply means to participate in dialogue. Key dialogical vehicles identified in these studies were providing sexual
+abuse information through prevention programs, being asked
+about sexual abuse, and being prompted to tell (McElvaney
+et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009a).
+277
+Contemporary models of SA disclosure reflect a social-ecological
+perspective. Knowledge on CSA disclosure has been steadily
+advancing toward a holistic understanding of the complex
+interplay of individual, familial, contextual, and cultural factors (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Brazelton, 2015; Fontes
+& Plummer, 2010). Where at one time factors examined and
+identified were predominantly of intrapersonal factors of child
+victims, knowledge construction has shifted to fuller socialecological, person-in-environment explanations (Alaggia,
+2010; Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Easton et al., 2014; Hunter,
+2011; Ungar, Tutty, McConnell, Barter, & Fairholm, 2009b).
+Social-ecological explanations open up more opportunities to
+intervene in facilitating earlier disclosures. Alaggia (2010) proposes an ecological mapping of what individual, interpersonal,
+environmental, and contextual influences impede or promote
+CSA disclosures based on analysis of in-depth interview data of
+40 adult survivors. Subsequently, based on a sample of 67 adult
+survivors, Collin-Vezina, Sablonni, Palmer, and Milne (2015)
+identified three broad categories, closely aligned with an ecological framework that impede CSA disclosure: (1) barriers
+from within, (2) barriers in relation to others, and (3) barriers
+in relation to the social world which can be aligned to intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors.
+A summary of knowledge building using a social ecological framework follows. Knowledge gained in the intrapersonal
+domain includes expanded conceptualization of disclosure by
+building on previous categories of accidental, purposeful, and
+prompted disclosure to also include behavioral and indirect
+attempts to tell, intentionally withheld disclosure, and triggered
+and recovered memories (Alaggia, 2004). Categories of indirect behavioral disclosure patterns have been further verified in
+follow-up research by Hunter (2011), and through an extensive
+file review that used Alaggia's (2004) disclosure framework to
+analyze their data (Collings et al., 2005) for verification.
+Interpersonal factors have also emerged in regard to certain
+family characteristics as disclosure barriers. Families with
+rigidly fixed gender roles, patriarchal attitudes, power imbalances, other forms of child abuse and domestic violence, chaotie family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social
+isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia &
+Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Fontes &
+Plummer, 2010). In addition, relationship with perpetrator is
+a factor whereby research indicates that disclosure is made
+more difficult when the perpetrator is a family member or close
+to the family (Dumont, Messerschmitt, Vila, Bohu, & Rey-
+Salmon, 2014;Easton, 2013; Goodmanet al., 2003;
+Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schönbucher
+et al., 2012). This is especially a barrier when the perpetrator
+lives with the victim (LeClerc & Wortley, 2015).
+In terms of environmental factors, one study revealed that
+neighborhood/community conditions can hinder disclosure
+when there is lack of school involvement in providing a supportive environment, such as in following up on troubling student behavior (Alaggia, 2010). Additionally, a child victim's
+anticipation of a negative response to disclosure, especially that
+they may not be believed by others outside their family such as
+neighbors or other community members, has shown to deter
+disclosure (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015).
+Cultural factors influencing CSA disclosure have been studied to a much lesser degree. Despite this, a few important
+studies examining critical sociocultural factors now exist for
+better understanding CSA disclosure within a cultural context
+(Brazelton, 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Among these
+important contributions, Brazelton's (2015) research has delineated CSA disclosure processes as "shaped by relational,
+racial, socio-cultural, historical, and developmental factors"
+(p. 182). In a unique study using culturally focused research
+literature as data triangulated with clinical case material, culturally based belief systems in many cultures have been found
+to
+family climates that can silence children from disclosing abuse (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). Taboos about sexuality,
+patriarchal attitudes, and devaluation of women are among
+some of the cultural barriers that inhibit disclosure (Fontes &
+Plummer, 2010).
+Clearly, disclosure conceptualizations are being integrated
+into a social ecological model of individual and developmental
+factors, family dynamics, neighborhood, and community context as well as cultural and societal attitudes toward better
+understanding disclosure barriers and facilitators (Alaggia,
+2010), although more data are needed on cultural and contex-
+Age and gender as predictors of disclosure
+Age. Age is consistently found to be an influential factor in
+CSA disclosure, making the life stage of the victim/survivor a
+critical consideration. Studies draw distinctions in age-groups
+falling into either under or over 18 years of age. Eighteen years
+of age was the common age cutoff point that investigators chose
+in order to distinguish child/youth populations from adult
+ples. Sixteen of the studies drew on samples of children and
+youth, while the other 15 studies sampled adults over the age
+of 18, and a further two studies used mixed age-groups (refer to
+Table 1). Among the child and youth samples, the age ranges
+spanned from preschool to late adolescence (3-17 years of age),
+with varying methodological approaches implemented across
+age cohorts. For younger cohorts, file reviews and secondary
+data analyses of CSA reports were typically undertaken. Adolescents were most often given surveys. Sometimes children and
+youth were interviewed as part of administering a survey or as a
+follow-up (Crisma et al., 2004; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Ungar
+et al., 2009b). In the majority of child and adolescent samples,
+sexual abuse concerns were already flagged to investigative
+authorities. However, the work of Ungar, Barter, McConnell,
+Tutty, and Fairholm (2009a, 2009b) is one exception, whereby
+their survey elicited new disclosures.
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 20 of 45
+278
+TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20(2)
+Adult studies typically had a mean age between 40 and 50 for the abuse, resulting in no disclosure. Male participants in a
+years. Interviews were the main data collection method with a
+subsequent study also relayed that gender norms and stereotypes
+few exceptions using survey designs (i.e., Easton, 2013; Kogan,
+contributed to them concealing the abuse because they were
+2004;
+et al., 2000) and case file reviews (i.e., Collings
+abused by a woman (Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). In the one
+et al., 2005; Goodman-
+Let al., 2003). Results show a clear
+study that compared male and female disclosures, investigator
+trend toward increased likelihood of disclosure in older youth,
+found that men's fears of being viewed as homosexual; profound
+and findings from adult samples showing a preponderance of
+feelings of stigmatization or isolation because of the belief that
+disclosures in adulthood, with the large majority of participants
+boys are rarely victimized; and fear of becoming an abuser acted
+of adults reporting never having had a sexual abuse complaint
+as disclosure barriers. Whereas females felt more conflicted about
+filed with investigative authorities as a child or an adolescent
+who was responsible for the abuse and more strongly anticipated
+(i.e., Hunter, 2011; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016; Sorsoli,
+being blamed and not believed (Alaggia, 2005).
+Kia-Keating, & Grossman, 2008; Ungar et al., 2009b).
+With children and youth under the ages of 18 distinct
+Lack of a life-course perspective. Given that the study of CSA
+patterns emerged. First, accidental detection, rather than
+disclosure draws on age-groups ranging from samples of very
+purposeful disclosure, is more likely to occur with younger
+young children to retrospective studies of adult survivors, with
+children. For example, in one large-scale study of over
+significant developmental considerations, this area of study
+1,737 file reviews, over half of the CSA-related cases were
+lacks an intentional cohesive life-course perspective. Most data
+identified through accidental and eyewitness detection (61%),
+are derived from either cross-sectional or retrospective designs,
+while less than one third were purposeful disclosures initiated
+with few longitudinal studies. There are a series of sound, yet
+by the child victim (Collings et al., 2005). A second pattern
+disconnected, studies focusing on specific age-groups of chilwhich emerged is that rates of disclosure increase with age,
+dren and adolescents, along with adult retrospective studies.
+especially into adulthood, which is supported by persistent
+Thus, the available knowledge base does not allow for a cohefindings of high rates of delayed disclosure reported later
+sive picture of CSA disclosure processes and pathways over the
+in the life course by adult survivors (Collings et al., 2005;
+life course to emerge.
+Collin-Vézina et al., 2015 ; Easton, 2013; Jonzon & Linblad,
+The life-course perspective has long been recommended as
+2004; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Sorsoli et al.,
+a critical lens for the study of child abuse (Browning & Lau-
+2008). While gender and relationship with the perpetrator are
+1997;
+, 2003). For example, a life-course perconsiderable factors in CSA disclosure, age is consistently a
+spective has been utilized to understand the immediate- and
+stronger predictor of disclosure (or nondisclosure) (Hershkolong-term effects of CSA on the developing child victim
+witz et al., 2005; Leelere & Wortley, 2015). Third, younger
+(Browning & Laumann, 1997). Further, a life-course perspecchildren who disclose are more likely to do so in an interview
+tive is important in terms of examining age of onset of CSA to
+situation or other environment that provides prompts or
+explain the differential effects of sexual victimization and
+questions about sexual abuse (Hershkowitz et al., 2005;
+developmental impacts in terms of understanding their ability
+McElvaney,
+, & Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al.,
+to disclose effects that need to be understood within a devel-
+2011), but this trend can also be seen in older youth (Ungar
+opmental context, especially for designing appropriate interet al., 2009a, 2009b).
+ventions for disclosure at critical transitions from early
+childhood through to adolescence and into adulthood. In addi-
+Gender. A number of studies have recently focused on CSA
+tion, important "turning points" in life may facilitate disclodisclosures with male victims, since males have been an undersures. For example, entry into adulthood given that delayed
+studied population (Alaggia, 2005; Easton, 2013; Easton et al.,
+disclosure occurs more often in adulthood. Alaggia (2004,
+2014; Gagnier & Collin-Vézina, 2016). Most investigations
+2005) found that being in a committed relationship or the birth
+that sampled both sexes show females outweighing male partiof children acted as facilitators for some survivors to disclose,
+cipants. Although women are at double the risk of being subespecially to their spouses. These significant life events, as
+jected to CSA, the ratio of women to men in most disclosure
+contributing to disclosures, bear further examination.
+studies has not been representative. This finding may be indicative of male victims more likely delaying disclosing their
+Summary of barriers and facilitators. Research over the past 15
+CSA experiences, leaving male disclosure in child and youth
+years continues to uncover barriers to CSA disclosure at a
+samples underrepresented (Hébert, Tourigny, Cyr, MeDuff, &
+higher frequency than that of facilitators. As stated previously,
+Joly, 2009; Ungar et al., 2009b).
+Easton, Saltzman, and Willis (2014) have been developing
+this might be the result of sampling methods whereby particigender-specific modeling of disclosure examining male disclopants who volunteer for disclosure research may have had more
+negative disclosure experiences, especially since many report
+sures. Their proposed model groups male disclosures into barrier
+categories as determined by individual factors, interpersonal
+delays in disclosure. The following section outlines the major
+trends in both barriers and facilitators (see Table 2).
+issues, and factors that are sociopolitical in nature. These authors
+suggest that predominant gender norms around masculinity rein-
+Barriers. Age and gender were found to contribute to barriers
+force the tendency for male victims of CSA to blame themselves as covered in Theme 3. Disclosures generally increase with age
+
+
+Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 21 of 45
+279
+Table 2. Factors Influencing Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures.
+Barriers
+Facilitators
+Age: The younger the child victim, the less likely they will purposefully Age: Disclosures increase with age, especially in adulthood.
+disclose.
+Gender: Males may be less likely to disclose in childhood/adolescence, Gender: Slight trend toward females who are older (adolescent) to
+fear of being seen as homosexual and as a victim, females experience
+disclose before adulthood
+more self blame and anticipation of being blamed and/or not
+Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is a family member or in Relationship to perpetrator: If the perpetrator is not living with the
+a family like role, disclosure is less likely to happen
+victim, disclosure rates increase
+Internal: Shame, self blame, and fear are psychological barriers. In
+Dialogical context: Opportunities to disclose through discussion,
+addition, fear of negative consequences on the family and for self
+therapeutic relationship, information sessions on sexuality, and
+sexual abuse prevention programs
+Family relations: Families with a patriarchal structure, rigidly fixed
+Family relations: Supportive parent-child relationship
+gender roles, dysfunctional communication, other forms of abuse
+Involvement of others: Eyewitnesses coming forward and reporting;
+(i.e., domestic violence), and isolation inhibit disclosure
+detection through community members, professionals
+Environmental and cultural context: Lack of discussion about sexuality; Environmental and cultural context: Promotion of open discussion of
+passive acceptance that unwanted sexual experiences are inevitable;
+sexuality, community member involvement
+not wanting to bring shame to the family by admitting sexual abuse;
+lack of involvement from neighbors, school personnel; and stigma
+perpetuated by societal perceptions
+as children gain more developmental capacity, understanding
+of sexual abuse as victimization, and increased independence.
+Males are somewhat less likely to disclose, but this is often in
+interaction with other factors in the environment such as societal attitudes that promote hypermasculinity as desirable, attitudes that perpetuate negative views of boys and men who are
+victims, and homophobic attitudes (Alaggia, 2010; Easton
+et al., 2014; Gagnier & Collin-Vezina, 2016).
+Victims of intrafamilial abuse when the offender is a parent,
+caregiver, significant family member, or someone in a familylike role are less likely to disclose immediately or at all in
+childhood/adolescence because of obvious power differentials
+and dependency needs (Collings et al., 2005; Dumont et al.,
+2014; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Kogan, 2004; Leclerc & Wortley, 2015; Paine & Hansen, 2002; Schaeffer et al., 2011).
+Further, the perpetrator residing with their victim(s)
+increases the likelihood of no disclosure (Leclere & Wortley,
+Internalized victim-blaming, mechanisms to protect oneself
+(such as minimizing the impact of the abuse), and developmental immaturity at the onset of abuse constituted internal barriers. Further, shame, self-blame, and fear have been identified
+as significant factors deterring disclosure (Collin-Vézina et al.,
+2015; Crisma et al., 2004; Goodman-L
+et al., 2003; Hunter, 2011; Kogan, 2004; McElvaney & Culhane, 2015; MeEl-
+vaney et al., 2014). However, aspects of shame, self-blame and
+fear, and have not been fully explored in research. Since these
+are strong predictors of disclosure suppression, they bear further examination in future research to understand more fully
+how they operate in disclosure processes.
+In terms of interpersonal and environmental factors, family
+dynamics can play a part in deterring disclosure. As previously
+mentioned, families characterized by rigidly defined gender
+roles, patriarchal attitudes that perpetuate power imbalances
+between men and women, parents and children, presence of
+other forms of child abuse and/or domestic violence, chaotic
+family structure, dysfunctional communication, and social isolation have been found to suppress disclosure (Alaggia & Kirshenbaum, 2005; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Fontes &
+Plummer, 2010). In regard to broader environmental factors,
+disclosure can be hindered when involved and supportive community members are not available, or not trained in sensitive
+responses, or when child victims anticipate not being believed
+by neighbors and other people outside the family (Alaggia,
+2010; Collin-Vézina et al., 2015). Further, barriers in relation
+to the social world were identified as stigmatization, the negative labeling of sexual abuse victims, and taboos surrounding
+sexuality and talking about sex as driven by cultural norms
+(Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Fontes & Plummer, 2010).
+Identification of cultural barriers is important recent contribution to understanding disclosure processes—and in particular
+to the obstacles. Findings related to cultural barriers included
+themes of children's voices not being heard leading to silencing, the normalization of the sexualization and objectification
+of girls and women, and the perpetuation of hypermasculinity
+in men—all acting as barriers in terms of stigma to disclosure
+(Alaggia, 2005, 2010; Easton et al., 2014). Brazelton (2015)
+similarly found that lack of discussions about sex, young age at
+the onset of sexual abuse, therefore not having the language to
+express what was happening to them, and preserving the family
+good name by not talking about abuse in the family were also
+barriers to disclosure.
+Finally, it may be the case that more barriers continue to be
+identified over facilitators of CSA disclosure perhaps because
+of the methods employed in studies particularly those drawing on adult populations who delayed disclosure. These
+ples may not be representative of the overall population of CSA
+victims, since they may have had more negative disclosure
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 22 of 45
+280
+experiences, consequently more readily identifying barriers.
+On the other hand, these findings may speak to the actual
+imbalance between facilitating factors and barriers for disclosure, the latter carrying more weight in the victims/survivors'
+experiences, thus, explaining the high rates of disclosures
+delayed until adulthood.
+Facilitators. Although fewer disclosure facilitators are identified in this review, very important facilitators were nonetheless
+uncovered-ones that should be noted for professionals in this
+field of practice. Internal factors that facilitate disclosures
+include symptoms that become unbearable, getting older with
+increased developmental efficacy, and realizing that an offence
+was committed (Collin-Vezina et al., 2015; Crisma et al., 2004;
+Easton, 2013; Hershkowitz et al. 2007; McElavaney, L
+& Hogan, 2014; Schaeffer et al., 2011). Circumstantial facilitators are those where the child discloses because there has
+been evidence provided, eye-witnessing has occurred, and a
+report has been made. Environmental factors include settings
+that provide opportunities such as counseling, interviews,
+information sessions and educational forums/workshops, and
+prevention programs for children and youth to disclose.
+To elaborate, dialogical contexts about CSA for children
+and youth can provide opportunities for discussion that may
+facilitate disclosures (Jensen et al., 2005). The research shows
+creating open dialogue in relationship contexts, to offset the
+power and influence of the perpetrator, can facilitate earlier
+disclosure. Among disclosure facilitators is being asked about
+abuse and given the opportunity to "tell" (MeElavaney et al.,
+2014); workshops on abuse and sexual abuse, in particular, can
+facilitate disclosures (Ungar et al., 2009b); and using culturally
+sensitive probes and questions (Fontes & Plummer, 2010). In
+Gagnier and Collin-Vézina's (2016) study, positive disclosure
+experiences were described by participants as those where they
+felt that they had been listened to, were safe, were believed, and
+were not judged by the person they disclosed to. Further, family
+members and friends (peers) of the child vietim can act as key
+supports to creating an open relational context and fostering
+positive responses (Jensen et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008;
+Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b). In particular, as
+children grow older, they are more likely to disclose to a peer,
+as shown in a number of studies, and this is an important reality
+for counselors and educators to be aware of (Dumont et al.,
+2014; Kogan, 2004; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al.,
+Discussion
+Through examination of 33 studies published since the year
+2000, this review identified five distinet themes regarding CSA
+disclosure: (1) Disclosure is best viewed as an iterative,
+interactive process rather than a discrete event done within
+a relational context; (2) contemporary models reflect a
+social-ecological, person-in-environment framework for
+understanding the complex interplay of individual, familial,
+contextual, and cultural factors involved in CSA disclosure;
+TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20(2)
+(3) age and gender are significant disclosure factors; (4) there
+is a lack of a life-course perspective; and (5) barriers to disclosure continue to outweigh facilitators. Based on these themes, a
+number of conclusions are drawn from this review. First, disclosure as a process is emphasized throughout contemporary
+research. Advances have been made in understanding these
+complex processes. However, the disclosure process over
+timefor example, how the first detection of CSA or attempts
+to disclose in childhood impact later disclosures—are not well
+understood. This is the result of the absence of a cohesive lifecourse perspective in investigations, although age consistently
+surfaces as significantly influencing CSA disclosure. Using a
+life-course perspective through the use of longitudinal studies
+The use of varied methodological designs, depending on the
+developmental stage of the victims/survivors, influences the
+data generated and subsequent findings. For example, most
+studies on children and youth are based on file reviews of cases
+that have been brought to the attention of authorities, or surveys, with only a few studies using interviewing of younger
+children. Therefore, there is less information available on process issues with children and youth. In contrast, research on
+adult populations largely favors the use of qualitative interview
+methods for retrospective inquiry producing important process
+findings. In addition, investigations have not yet captured the
+disclosure experiences of adults in the "emerging adult" stage
+given that adult studies have failed to recognized that the age
+range of 18-24, which is now considered a developmental
+phase defined by neurobiological developmental uniqueness.
+As well, late adulthood has not been given attention as shown
+by the absence of participants representing this age-group in
+current research (70+). With a swelling geriatric population in
+North America, issues of historic CSA can be expected to
+surface and, with that, new disclosures. This trend is also anticipated due to attitudinal shifts that have presumably occurred
+over the last two generations about revealing such traumas and
+changing views about discussing sexual victimization.
+Interview guides used in a number of studies intentionally
+probed for facilitators, producing notable findings. For example, one such finding focuses on the importance of creating a
+contextually supportive environment to promote disclosure
+across the life course. These include developing therapeutic
+relational contexts for disclosure by providing information
+about sexuality, sexual abuse, prevention programming, and
+by asking directly. Disclosures to professionals are positive
+outcomes of how therapeutic contexts work; however, for forensic purposes prompting such disclosures would be viewed as
+problematic in legal settings, seriously compromising testimonies for trial proceedings. This is one example that speaks to the
+structural barriers victims and survivors run up against time and
+time again. Facilitators that show evidence to promote disclosure in one domain (therapeutic) are seen to work against CSA
+survivors in another domain— such as legal settings when perpetrators face prosecution. Defense attorneys will use this as
+evidence that the disclosure was prompted, and therefore the
+disclosure is potentially seen as not credible. Broadcasting of
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 23 of 45
+the frequency of acquitted cases or rulings in favor of the
+perpetrator through media outlets, often sensationalized,
+become a further compounding barrier. Given the review findings, we conclude that barriers and facilitators to CSA disclosures are nuanced and clearly embedded within intrapersonal,
+interpersonal, environmental, contextual, and cultural
+domains often interlocked in complex ways.
+Limitations
+Although comprehensive in nature with its life-course coverage, this review may be limited by its qualitative, thematic
+focus rather than providing an evaluative, quantitative accounting of CSA disclosures. However, because of the recent focus
+on disclosure processes, the authors chose a suitably compatible approach-qualitative in nature. As well, a traditional
+checklist approach in rating the studies was not employed for
+interrater reliability, since two of the authors hold expertise in
+CSA disclosure research and are well versed with the literature.
+This expertise,
+and through closely following a systematic
+review framework (Kiteley & Stogdon, 2014), assures that a
+thorough adjudication of the research literature was completed.
+Implications for Research and Practice
+These review findings have implications that can be useful in
+guiding future research and practice:
+281
+survivors continue to be systemically and structurally
+disadvantaged in legal proceedings.
+• Health-care practitioners (i.e., child abuse pediatricians,
+family practice doctors, clinical nurse specialists, and
+public health nurses) should be made aware of the evidence in the CSA disclosure literature to create environments for facilitating therapeutic disclosures.
+• Given that age is a stable predictor of disclosure of CSA,
+more studies are needed that make use of a life-course
+perspective. More longitudinal studies are needed to
+better identify trends over different life stages.
+• The emerging young adult as a developmental age group
+needs specific investigation. Neuroscience research has
+established that ages 18-24 is a distinct developmental
+phase. Late adulthood is another life stage that deserves
+to be researched.
+• Gender needs to be more fully investigated in relation to
+impact on disclosure. Awareness that boys and girls
+have unique challenges and barriers in disclosing CSA
+should be paramount for practitioners.
+• Intervention planning should take note that disclosures
+increase when perpetrators no longer reside with victims, and this finding should be heeded by policy and
+law makers.
+• Shame, self-blame, and fear are intrapersonal factors
+that persistently emerge as barriers to CSA disclosures
+and warrant more research to understand how to redress
+these barriers for earlier disclosures.
+• Solid strides are being made in the use of a social-eco-
+Conclusion
+logical framework to underpin investigations in the CSA
+disclosure investigations. Research efforts and practice
+There are still a substantial number of children and youth
+considerations should continue in this vein. Investigatwho are subjected to sexual abuse, despite preventative
+ing environmental factors and contextual and cultural
+efforts. Just as concerning is the fact that many victims
+forces is understudied, necessitating more research in
+continue to suffer in silence as evidenced by the high numthese areas to more fully fill out understanding of CSA
+bers of delayed disclosure. These hidden cases should not be
+disclosure from a social ecological perspective.
+overlooked, and these victims should not be forgotten.
+• There is good evidence that CSA disclosures are more
+Despite significant progress in bringing the issue of CSA
+likely to occur in a dialogical context-formal helping
+to the forefront, improving facilitation of disclosure and
+relationships but as well as other relationships such as
+increasing positive influences on disclosure processes are
+peers and trusted adults. Providing information and edustill critical in order to protect current and future generacation on topics of sexuality in general, and sexual abuse
+tions of children and youth from the grave effects of sexual
+specifically, can help children and youth to disclose.
+violence. Further, the focus should not be simply on
+Raising awareness and prevention programs can prostrengthening and shoring up intrapersonal resources of vicmote disclosures of sexual violence committed against
+tims to disclose but rather to change environmental condichildren and youth.
+tions to create a more supportive and safer context for CSA
+• Goals of therapeutically supported disclosures (i.e.,
+victims and survivors to disclose.
+through therapy) may need to take precedence over forensic approaches, if well-being of child victims and
+Declaration of Conflicting Interests
+adult survivors is to be made paramount. Legal pro-
+The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
+cesses may act to facilitate disclosures but can also act
+respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
+as barriers because of the negative outcomes experienced in the court process.
+• Practitioners need to keep in mind that the legal system
+Funding
+is lagging far behind in knowledge uptake of recent
+The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author
+evidence on CSA disclosures so that victims and ship, and/or publication of this article.
+
+
+282
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 24 of 45
+TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 20(2)
+References
+Alaggia, R. (2004). Many ways of telling: Expanding conceptualiza
+tions of child sexual abuse disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28,
+1213 1227.
+Alaggia, R. (2005). Disclosing the trauma of child sexual abuse: A
+gender analysis. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 10, 453 470.
+Alaggia, R. (2010). An ecological analysis of child sexual abuse dis
+closure: Considerations for child and adolescent mental health.
+Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy
+chiatry Journal De l'Académie Canadienne De Psychiatrie De
+l'Enfant Er De l'Adolescent, 19, 32 39.
+Alaggia, R., & Kirshenbaum, S. (2005). Speaking the unspeakable:
+Exploring the impact of family dynamics on child sexual abuse
+disclosures. Families in Society, 86, 227 234.
+Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.
+Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 93. doi:10.1191/
+1478088706qp063oa
+Brazelton, J. F. (2015). The secret storm: Exploring the disclosure
+process of African American women survivors of child sexual
+abuse across the life course. Traumatology: An International Jour
+nal, 21, 181 187.
+Browning, C. R., & Laumann, E. O. (1997). Sexual contact between
+children and adults: A life course perspective. American Socio
+logical Review, 62, 540 560.
+Collings, S. J.,
+, S., & Kumalo, M. (2005). Patterns of disclo
+sure in child sexual abuse. South African Journal of Psychology,
+35, 270 285.
+Collin Vezina, D., Sablonni, D. L., Palmer, A. M., & Milne, L. (2015).
+A preliminary mapping of individual, relational, and social factors
+that impede disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse &
+Neglect, 43, 123 134. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu. 2015.03.010
+Crisma, M., Bascelli, E., Paci, D., & Romito, P. (2004). Adolescents
+who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to
+disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1035 1048.
+Dumont, M., Messerschmitt, P., Vila, G., Bohu, D., & Rey Salmon, C.
+(2014). Le processus de révélation dans les agressions sexuelles
+intrafamiliales et extrafamiliales sur mineurs. Annales Medico
+Psychologiques, /72, 426 431. doi: 10.1016/j amp.2012.06.024
+Easton, S. D. (2013). Disclosure of child sexual abuse among adult
+male survivors. Clinical Social Work Journal, 41, 344 355. doi: 10.
+1007/s10615 012 0420 3
+Easton, S. D., Saltzman, L. Y., & Willis, D. G. (2014). "Would you tell
+under circumstances like that?: Barriers to disclosure of child
+sexual abuse for men. Psychology of Men d Masculinity, 15,
+460 469.
+•. B., Van Wert, M., Trocme, N., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V.,
+Lefebvre, R., ... Goel, S. (2015). Ontario Incidence Study of
+Reported Child Abuse and Neglect 2013 (OIS 2013). Toronto,
+ON: Child Welfare Research Portal.
+Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014).
+Trends in children's exposure to violence, 2003 to 2011. JAMA
+Pediatrics, 168, 540 546. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.5296
+Fontes, L. A., & Plummer, C. (2010). Cultural issues in disclosures
+of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19,
+491 518.
+Gagnier, C., & Collin Vezina, D. (2016). The disclosure experiences
+of male child sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Child Sexual
+Abuse, 25, 221 241.
+Goodman
+_ T. B., Edelstein, R. S., Goodman, G. S., L
+D., &
+. D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of
+children's disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect,
+27, 525 540.
+Hebert, M., Tourigny, M., Cyr, M., McDuff, P., & Joly, J. (2009).
+Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse and timing of disclosure in a
+representative sample of adults from Quebec. Canadian Journal of
+Psychiatry, 54, 631 636. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
+com/docview/222860811 accountid=14771
+Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Lamb, M. E. (2005). Trends in
+children's disclosure of abuse in Israel: A national study. Child
+Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1203 1214.
+Hershkowitz, I., Lanes, O., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Exploring the
+disclosure of child sexual abuse with alleged victims and their
+parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 111 123.
+Hunter, S. V. (2011). Disclosure of child sexual abuse as a life long
+process: Implications for health professionals. The Australian and
+New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 159 172.
+Jensen, T. K., Gulbrandsen, W., Mossige, S., Reichelt, S., & Tjersland,
+O. A. (2005). Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study
+on children's perspectives and the context for disclosure. Child
+Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1395 1413.
+Jillian, B., Cotter, A., & Perreault, S. (2014). Police reported crime
+statistics in Canada, 2013 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Ottawa,
+ON: Statistics Canada.
+D. P. H. (2000). Editorial: Disclosure of child sexual abuse.
+Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 269 271.
+Jonzon, E., & Lindbald, F. (2004). Disclosure, reactions, and social
+support: Findings from a sample of adult victims of child sexual
+abuse. Child Maltreatmenr, 9, 190 200.
+Kiteley, R., & Stogdon, C. (2014). Literature reviews in social work.
+London, England: Sage.
+Kogan, S. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results
+from a national sample of adolescent women. Child Abuse &
+Neglect, 28, 147 165.
+Leelere, B., & Wortley, R. (2015). Predictors of victim disclosure in
+child sexual abuse: Additional evidence from a sample of incar
+cerated adult sex offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 43, 104 111.
+London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclo
+sure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the
+ways that children tell? Psychology. Public Policy, and Law, 11,
+194 226.
+McElvaney, R. (2015). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Delays,
+non disclosure and partial Disclosure. What the research tells
+us and implications for practice. Child Abuse Review, 24,
+159 169.
+McElvaney, R., & Culhane, M. (2015). A retrospective analysis of
+children's assessment reports: What helps children tell? Child
+Abuse Review. doi:10.1002/car.2390.
+McElvaney, R.,
+_. S., & Hogan, D. (2012). Containing the secret
+of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27,
+1155 1175.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21Page 25 of 45
+283
+McElvaney, R.,
+. S., & Hogan, D. (2014). To tell or not to tell? Stoltenborgh, M., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans
+Factors influencing young people's informal disclosures of child
+Kranenburg, M. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual
+sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 928 947.
+abuse: Meta analysis of prevalence around the world. Child Mal
+Maier, T., Mohler Kuo, M., Landholt, M. A., Schnyder, U., & Jud, A.
+treatment, 16, 79 101. doi:10.1177/1077559511403920
+(2013). The tip of the iceberg. Incidence of disclosed cases of child
+Summit, R. C. (1983). The sexual abuse accommodation syndrome.
+sexual abuse in Switzerland: Results from a Nationwide Agency
+Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 177 193.
+Survey. International Journal of Public Health, 58, 875 883.
+Tener, D., &
+1. S. (2015). Adult disclosure of child sexual
+Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children to
+abuse. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16, 391 400.
+self disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22,
+Troemé, N.,
+]. B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black,
+271 295. doi:10.1016/S0272 7358(01)00091 5
+T.,... Cloutier, R. (2005). Canadian incidence study of reported
+Pereda, N., Guilera, G., Foms, M., & Gómez Benito, J. (2009). The
+child abuse and neglect 2003: Major findings. Ottawa: Minister
+international epidemiology of child sexual abuse: A continuation
+of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
+of Finkelhor (1994). Child Abuse d Neglect, 33, 331. Retrieved
+Trocme, N.,
+•. B., MacLaurin, B., Sinha, V., Black, T., Fast,
+from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2301583157
+E..... Holroyd, J. (2008). Characteristies of substantiated
+accountid=14771
+maltreatment. Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse
+Priebe, G., & Svedin, C. G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely
+and neglect: Major findings (Chapter 4). Retrieved from http://
+hidden from the adult society: An epidemiological study of ado
+www.phacaspc.gc.ca/cm vee/public eng.php
+lescents disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 1095 1108.
+ngar, M., Barter, K., McConnell, S. M., Tutty, L. M., & Fairholm,
+Reitsema, A. M., & Grietens, H. (2015). Is anybody listening? The
+009a). Patterns of abuse disclosure among youth. Qualitati
+literature on the dialogical process of child sexual abuse disclosure
+Social Work, 8, 341 356.
+reviewed. Trauma Violence Abuse. doi:10.1177/152483801
+Ungar, M., Tutty, L. M., McConnell, S., Barter, K., & Fairholm, J.
+(2009b). What Canadian youth tell us about disclosing abuse.
+Rosenthal, G., & Fisher Rosenthal, W. (2004). The analysis of narra
+Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 699 708.
+tive biographical interviews in U Flick. In E. von Kardorff & 1.
+_. L. M. (2003). Understanding child abuse and violence
+Steinke (Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp.
+against women: A life course perspective. Journal of Interpersonal
+259 265). London, UK: Sage.
+Violence, 18, 441 451.
+Schaeffer, P., Leventhal, J. M., & Asnes, A. G. (2011). Children's
+disclosures of sexual abuse: Learning from direct inquiry. Child
+Abuse & Neglect, 35, 343 352. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.014
+Schönbucher, V., Maier, T., Mohler Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., & Land
+Author Biographies
+olt, M. A. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents:
+Ramona Alaggia, MSW, PhD, is an associate professor in social work
+A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
+and the Factor Inwentash Chair in Children's Mental Health at the
+27, 3486 3513. doi:10.1177/0886260512445380
+University of Toronto. Her teaching and research focuses on gender
+D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G.,
+and violence, sexual abuse disclosures, domestic violence exposure,
+Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of child
+and resilience processes.
+hood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect,
+Delphine Collin-Vézina, PhD, is an associate professor for School of
+24,273 287. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
+Social Work, McGill University and director for Centre for Research
+70933344?accountid=14771
+on Children and Families. She holds the Nicolas Steinmetz and
+Sorsoli, L., Kia Keating, M., & Grossman, F. K. (2008). "I keep that
+Julien Chair in Social Pediatrics in Community and the Canada
+hush hush": Male survivors of sexual abuse and the challenges of
+Research Chair (Tier II) in Child Welfare. Her work focuses on
+disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 333 345. doi:
+research and clinical topics related to child maltreatment, child sexual
+10.1037/0022 0167.55.3.333
+abuse, and trauma.
+Staller, K. M., & Nelson Gardell, D. (2005). "A burden in your heart":
+Rusan Lateef, MSW, is a social worker employed in the criminal
+Lessons of disclosure from female preadolescent and adolescent justice system with adult male offenders in Ontario, Canada. She
+survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1415 1432.
+specializes in the intersection of health and mental health, child sexual
+Statistics Canada. (2013). Police reported crime statistics in Canada, |
+abuse disclosures, and she is a rescarcher on the "Make Resilience
+2012 (Catalogue number 85 002 X). Retrieved from the Statistics
+Matter" project examining childhood exposure to domestic violence
+Canada website http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85 002 x/2013001/
+with Dr. Alaggia at the Factor Inwentash Faculty of Social Work,
+article/11854 eng.htm#n2
+University of Toronto.
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 26 of 45
+Child Abuse Review Vol. 24: 159-169 (2015)
+Published online 9 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library
+(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/car.2280
+Disclosure of Child
+Sexual Abuse: Delays,
+Non-disclosure and
+Partial Disclosure. What
+the Research Tells Us and
+Implications for Practice
+his paper reviews the research on disclosure of child sexual abuse with specific referenc
+to delays in disclosing, non-disclosure and partial disclosure of experiences of child sexua
+Rosaleen McElvaney
+School of Nursing and Human
+Sciences, Dublin City University,
+Dublin, Ireland
+"The importance of
+understanding the
+dynamics of
+disclosure'
+KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGES:
+• Children typically delay disclosing experiences of abuse.
+• Asking children questions about their wellbeing gives them the opportunity to tell
+when they are ready.
+• The challenge is to find the right questions at the right time.
+• Peers can be the right people to ask these questions.
+• Adolescents need to know about how to ask and what to do if someone tells.
+KEY Words: child sex abuse; disclosure; research to practice
+'Adolescents need to
+know about how to
+ask and what to do if
+someone tells'
+sexual abuse, given the implications for child protection, social justice and
+*Correspondence to: Rosaleen McElvaney, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University
+Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland. E-mail: rosaleen.mcelvaney(@)dcu.ic
+Accepted: 17 February 2013
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 27 of 45
+160
+McElvaney
+'This paper reviews
+the research on
+disclosure patterns of
+childhood sexual
+abuse'
+mental health outcomes. This paper reviews the research on disclosure patterns
+of childhood sexual abuse, specifically delays in disclosure, non-disclosure
+(as evident through adult retrospective studies) and partial disclosures, and
+discusses implications for practice. Literature searches of the online databases
+PSYCINFO and Social Sciences Citation Index, in addition to manual searches
+of texts published since 2000, were conducted using the search terms 'child
+sexual abuse', "sex abuse' and 'disclosure'.
+The research to date on disclosure patterns is based on two sampling
+methodologies - studies of adults reporting retrospective experiences and
+studies of children. The former group of studies has the benefit of drawing
+on large-scale national probability samples which can be considered to be
+representative of the general population. The latter group with some small
+exceptions (predominantly adolescent studies) uses samples of young people
+who have disclosed sexual abuse but would not be considered as representative
+of all children who have been abused:
+*children who decide to tell someone about being sexually abused and whose
+cases therefore come to court are not representative of sexually abused children in general"
+(Olafson and Lederman, 2006, p. 29).
+Patterns of Disclosure: Delays and Non-disclosure
+'Most people who
+experience sexual
+abuse in childhood do
+not disclose this
+abuse until adulthood'
+There is consensus in the research literature that most people who experience
+sexual abuse in childhood do not disclose this abuse until adulthood, and when
+disclosure does occur in childhood, significant delays are common. Table 1
+summarises two large-scale studies to highlight the extent of delays in disclosure
+and the percentage of those who did not disclose to anyone prior to the study.
+Kogan (2004) examined the timing of disclosure of unwanted sexual
+experiences in childhood or adolescence in a sub-sample (n = 263 adolescent
+women, aged 12 to 17) of the National Survey of Adolescents (Kilpatrick and
+Saunders, 1995) in the USA - a nationally representative study. Kogan's
+results can be summarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within 1 month)
+43 per cent, delayed disclosure (less than 1 year) 31 per cent and non-disclosure
+(disclosed only during the survey) 26 per cent.
+and colleagues (2000)
+examined a sub-sample (n = 288) of the National Women's Study in the
+USA (Resnick et al., 1993, cited in
+et al., 2000) who had reported a
+hildhood rape prior to the age of 18
+el al.'s findings can be
+ummarised as follows: immediate disclosure (within 1 month) 27 per cent
+delayed disclosure (more than a year) 58 per cent and non-disclosure (survey
+only) 28 per cent. Those who had never disclosed prior to the survey constitute
+comparable proportions in these two studies while the rates for immediate
+Table 1. Patterns of disclosure delay and non-disclosure
+old within 24 hor
+old within 1 mor
+Told within 1 year
+Dele delicion one than 1 yea
+Kogan (2004)
+(n 263 adolescents)
+24%
+19%
+12%
+19%
+26%
+Let al. (2000)
+(n
+288 adults)
+18%
+9%
+11%
+47%
+28%
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 28 of 45
+161
+disclosure are higher in the adolescent study than in the adult study, a
+'The rates for
+reassuring finding given the increased awareness of sexual abuse in society
+during the past 20 years.
+immediate disclosure
+Goodmanand colleagues (2003) examined USA district attorney
+are lower in the
+files of 218 children. Their categories were slightly different from the previous
+adolescent study than
+two studies but in summary, immediate disclosers (within 1 month) constituted
+64 per cent of the sample while 29 per cent disclosed within six months.
+in the adult study'
+This study is unusual insofar as the sample studied had reported their
+experience of abuse to the authorities and a prosecution was in progress.
+Goodmanstudy were more likely to represent those children who experienced abuse by
+someone outside the family. Research has found that delays in disclosure are
+longer for those abused within the family (
+and Lindblad, 2002;
+Goodman-
+_ et al., 2003; Kogan, 2004; Hershkowitz et al., 2005).
+Therefore, children who disclose more promptly may be overrepresented in
+legal samples.
+In Sweden, Priebe and Svedin (2008) conducted a national survey of 4339
+adolescents, of whom 1962 reported some form of sexual abuse (65% of girls
+rod 23% of boy»). Details of the time lapse in disclosing were not available
+rom this study. However.
+'Children who disclose
+more promptly may be
+overrepresented in
+legal samples'
+questions on disclosure (n = 1493), 59.5 per cent had told no-one of their
+experiences prior to the survey. Of those who did disclose, 80.5 per cent
+mentioned a 'friend of my own age' as the only person who they had told. In
+this study, 6.8 per cent had reported their experiences to the social authorities
+or police. A further Swedish study of 122 women who had experienced
+childhood sexual abuse (Jonson and Lindblad, 2004) found that 32 per cent
+disclosed during childhood (before the age of 18) while the majority told in
+adulthood (68%). The delay was up to 49 years, with an average of 21 years
+(SD = 12.9). Of those who told in childhood, 59 per cent told only one person.
+In Ireland, the SAVI study (n = 3118,
+Let al., 2002) found that 47 per
+cent of those respondents who had experienced some form of sexual assault
+prior to age 17 had told no-one of this experience until the survey. McElvaney
+(2002) investigated delay in a legal sample of ten adults who had made formal
+complaints of childhood sexual abuse in Ireland and found delays ranging from
+20 years to 50 years.
+Studies of children in the context of forensic/investigative interviews
+where children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the
+"Delays ranging from
+20 years to 50 years'
+child has been sexually abused also point to high non-disclosure rates,
+particularly striking in cases where there is corroborative evidence that
+abuse has occurred - medical evidence (Lyon, 2007), or confessions from
+the abuser or videotaped evidence/witness reports (
+2002). Lyon (2007) reported his findings from a review of studies
+children have denied abuse when interviewed by the police (
+Lindblad, 2002).
+In summary, significant numbers of children do not disclose experiences of
+sexual abuse until adulthood and adult survey results suggest that significant
+
+
+Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 29 of 45
+162
+'High numbers of
+respondents
+disclosing to
+researchers for the
+first time'
+'They found that
+interviewers behaved
+differently with the
+two groups'
+'A parent described
+how her teenage son
+told her over a period of
+days'
+McElvaney
+proportions of adults have never disclosed such abuse, as evidenced by the
+high numbers of respondents disclosing to researchers for the first time.
+Patterns of Disclosure - Partial Disclosure
+Information on how children disclose over time can be obtained from studies
+of children who participated in forensic/investigative interviews where
+children are interviewed by professionals due to concerns that the child has
+been sexually abused. The issue of partial disclosures was highlighted by
+earlier studies such as those by DeVoe and Faller (1999) of five- to ten-year
+olds (i.e. making detailed informal disclosures that were not replicated in
+formal interviews) and Elliott and Briere (1994) of children aged eight to
+15 years (i.e. disclosing only partial information until confronted with external
+evidence that led to more complete disclosures).
+More recently, investigators have examined the role of the interviewer and
+questioning styles in the forensic interview and how this impacts on children's
+disclosures and the level of detail provided in interview. Hershkowitz et al
+(2006) compared tapes of interviews with children who disclosed sexual abuse
+and those who did not (but about whom there was "substantial' reason to
+believe that they had been abused). They found that interviewers behaved
+differently with the two groups, using different types of prompts with children
+who presented as somewhat uncooperative, offered fewer details and gave
+more uninformative responses at the beginning of the interview. It would
+appear that interviewers responded to less communicative children by
+increasing the proportion of closed questions which in turn led to children
+being less forthcoming. Lamb et al. (2002) have found that the use of a
+protocol that emphasises the use of prompts that elicit free narrative (e.g. "tell
+me about that') as compared with closed questions (those requiring a yes/no
+response) has resulted in more detail and more accuracy in children's
+Although few studies exist that examine the phenomenon of disclosure in
+informal settings (when disclosure is made to a friend or family member),
+some qualitative studies have described this process. McElvaney (2008) quoted
+one teenage girl who described hinting to her mother prior to disclosing the
+experience: 'I didn't tell her what happened but I was saying things that made
+her think it made her think that it happened but I didn't tell her' (p. 127). A
+parent described how her teenage son told her over a period of days, keeping
+the most difficult parts of the story until last:
+'He came out with like it came out over two or three days so you know. he'd say well
+I've something else to tell you... the bad stuff last... what hurt him most and what he's
+saying what hurt him most' (p. 92)
+And finally, one young person described how she told her social worker:
+'I couldn't tell her most things but I just gave things to her to read... I told her at first I tol
+ler bits of it and em then just the others. I finished writing and then I gave them to her. .. latc
+I told her that it was the father as well! (p. 93)
+Whom young perain had been abused by both a father and son in a family with
+
+
+In reviewing the literature on this subject, London and colleagues (2005)
+noted, 'when children do disclose, it often takes them a long time to do so'
+(p. 204).
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 30 of 45
+163
+"When children do
+disclose, it often takes
+them a long time to do
+SO"
+Reasons for Patterns of Delay, Partial Disclosure and Non-disclosure
+There are many influences on disclosure that have been identified in the
+research literature to help explain why it is that children delay disclosure, are
+reluctant to disclose, provide details of their experiences over time or do not
+disclose at all. Age has been identified as a significant predictor of disclosure
+in that younger children are less likely to disclose than older children. Children
+who are abused by a family member are less likely to disclose and more likely
+et al., 2000; Goodman-l
+_ et al., 2003; Kogan, 2004). Children who do
+disclose during forensic interviews compared to children who do not disclose
+in such contexts (yet concerns remain that they have been abused) are more
+likely to have parents (particularly mothers) who are more supportive (Lawson
+and Chaffin, 1992). In Priebe and Svedin's (2008) study of young people,
+parental bonding (positive relationship with parent who was not overprotective)
+was identified as the most significant predictor of disclosure for both boys and
+girls. However, close relationships can also act as an inhibitor to disclosure.
+McElvaney (2008) found that many young people in her study were reluctant
+to disclose due to concerns of upsetting their parents while others were concerned
+about the consequences for others of their disclosure. One 13-year-old girl
+described her concern that if she told, her uncle would go to jail and her small
+cousins would be left without a father:
+"I didn't want them to grow up with no Dad and just looking at ... their other little friends
+having their Dad holding their hand I felt like I was taking their Dad away from them' (p. 130)
+Gender has been found to influence disclosure in that boys appear to be
+more reluctant to disclose than girls (Goodmanet al., 2003;
+Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Ungar et al., 2009a). Mental health difficulties on
+the pan or perchid disorio be sy found to or reler poparimlaty shes
+symptomatology (Priebe and Svedin, 2008).
+Some studies have found that the severity of abuse (e.g. penetrative abuse)
+predicts earlier disclosure while other studies have found no relationship
+between different types of abuse and disclosure timing. Similarly, the relationship
+between the duration of abuse - one-off incidents of abuse compared with abuse
+that takes place over a significant period of time - and timely disclosure has been
+investigated with mixed findings. Fear of the consequences of disclosure has been
+identified as a predictor of delayed disclosure and this in turn is associated with
+the age of the child (Goodmanet al., 2003). Older children are more
+cognitively competent in terms of being able to reflect on and anticipate possible
+reactions to their disclosure. This can act then as an inhibitor to disclosure,
+although as noted above, most studies have found that older children are more
+likely to disclose than younger children. Fears of not being believed have been
+described by young people as inhibiting their disclosure and these fears are often
+'Younger children are
+less likely to disclose
+than older children'
+'Many young people
+in her study were
+reluctant to disclose
+due to concerns of
+upsetting their
+parents'
+'Fear of the
+consequences of
+disclosure has been
+identified as a
+predictor of delayed
+disclosure'
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 31 of 45
+164
+'Investigating the
+precise
+circumstances that
+led to disclosures for
+children'
+'Significant
+proportions of
+disclosure have been
+prompted by
+questions by
+caregivers, friends or
+others'
+McElvaney
+justified. Hershkowitz et al. (2007) interviewed children about their initial
+disclosures prior to formal interview and 50 per cent of the sample (n = 30)
+reported feeling afraid or ashamed of their parents' reaction. The authors reported
+that parents did show a tendency to blame their children and react angrily to
+the disclosure.
+Recent research has highlighted the need for children to be asked direct
+questions to facilitate their disclosure. Of those children who did disclose,
+significant proportions disclosed following prompts rather than it being
+initiated by the child (Kogan, 2004). Qualitative studies drawing on interviews
+with children that focus on the disclosure process are important in
+investigating the precise circumstances that led to disclosures for children.
+McElvaney (2008) found that parents' questioning of children was prompted
+by their concern about the young person's emotional distress. On occasion,
+young people were communicating that something was not right in their world
+but were not able to articulate this verbally. Signs of psychological distress
+vere, however, evident and questions targeted at the reasons for this distres
+vere identified by McElvaney as a factor that helped voung people to tel
+Thus, many children may not have told about their experiences of abuse
+because they were not asked.
+Let al. (2002) followed up a sample of
+their respondents who had disclosed childhood abuse for the first time in their
+survey. When asked why they had not disclosed prior to the survey, many
+respondents noted that it was because they had not been asked. Increasingly,
+research studies are finding that significant proportions of disclosure have
+been prompted by questions by caregivers, friends or others in the child's
+educational and social milieu that in themselves provide an opportunity for
+the young person to tell (Jensen et al., 2005; Hershkowitz et al., 2007;
+McElvaney et al., 2012).
+Finally, some children need time to tell. Mudaly and Goddard (2006) quote
+a 13-year-old girl: "she (mother) helped by not making me, not rushing me
+to get it out, which, um, I think it's a really stupid idea to make kids get it
+out A.S.A.P.' (p. 91).
+'The implications of
+these findings can be
+considered in
+interrelated contexts'
+Implications for Practice
+The consensus in the research literature at the present time is that disclosure is
+multi-determined, influenced by a complex range of factors that may influence
+each child in a different way. Large-scale national probability studies confirm
+that non-disclosure and delays in disclosure are significant problems facing
+ciety and in particular for those protessionals tasked with sateguarding t
+ellbeing of children. Children's fears and anxieties in relation to telling nei
+to be understood and contained by those in their environment so that early
+The implications of these findings can be considered in interrelated
+contexts: the legal context where action can only be taken if the child is able
+to give a clear, credible account of his/her experiences; child protection and
+therapeutic contexts where a comprehensive account is required to enable child
+rotection professionals to intervene and where the psychological sequelae ca
+e addressed to minimise the long-term impact of the experiences: and fami
+and community contexts where early disclosure needs to be encouraged, and
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 32 of 45
+other family issues addressed in the aftermath of disclosure and where peers
+play an important role.
+Studies have confirmed the importance of professionals asking children and
+young people in a sensitive, open manner about possible experiences of abuse
+using non-leading questioning styles to minimise inaccurate accounts or
+contaminate children's narratives. It is clearly important for professionals to
+remain open to the possibility of abuse and further disclosure. It is equally
+important for professionals to be able to avoid persisting with questioning
+those children who are "reluctant disclosers'. Similarly, professionals engaged
+with children in therapeutic work need to be open to the possibility of both
+initial and further disclosures.
+Contradiction in witness statements is a well-known feature of false statements
+and giving additional detail to original formal statements can be interpreted
+within child protection, therapeutic and legal contexts as a contradiction of an
+earlier account. Listening to children's accounts of their experiences of disclosure
+helps us understand why it is that disclosure can be delayed and that when they do
+feel ready to tell this is not an 'all or nothing' decision. As one young person in
+Staller and Nelson-Gardell's (2005) study noted, 'it's never finished, never' p.
+1426. This understanding in turn helps us identify those circumstances and
+reactions that may encourage the child to disclose.
+The importance of asking children questions, thus giving them an
+opportunity to tell, has been identified. While parents, teachers and those in
+daily contact with children are often reluctant to question children, it is clear
+that many children do not disclose unless given this opportunity. Education
+and increased awareness are needed on how to question children in an
+appropriate manner. McElvaney (2008) noted that questions did not need to
+be about sexual abuse per se, but rather questions prompted by the young
+person's psychological distress, asking after the young people's wellbeing.
+This questioning in effect acted as an external pressure for the young person
+to tell his/her secret (McElvaney et al.., 2012). In Ungar et al.'s (2009a) study
+of Canadian youth, they found that young people used a range of disclosure
+strategies ranging from less direct strategies (such as risk-taking behaviours,
+not talking about the abuse) to direct strategies (such as seeking support from
+peers, turning to non-professional adult supports, disclosing to formal service
+providers), representing a process that relied heavily on others to 'build the
+between the youth and formal care providers' (p. 352).
+The tendency to delay disclosing and the partial nature of many disclosures
+165
+'Contradiction in
+witness statements is
+a well-known feature
+of false statements'
+'Education and
+increased awareness
+are needed on how to
+question children in
+an appropriate
+manner'
+this system. The disproportionately high "immediate disclosure' rate found
+in Goodmanet al. s (2003) legal sample compared to Kogan's
+(2004) community sample raises the question of the representation of delayed
+disclosers in the legal system. Are children who delay in disclosing less likely
+to engage with the legal system? Are delays in disclosing contributing to
+decisions not to prosecute child sexual abuse crimes? In Ireland, the 1990s
+'Are children who
+delay in disclosing
+less likely to engage
+with the legal system?'
+whether the cases could proceed without prejudicing the accused given the
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 33 of 45
+166
+'Concerns that
+engagement with the
+legal system will lead
+to further
+psychological trauma
+need to be considered'
+'Many young people
+who delayed
+disclosure to an adult
+had told a friend'
+'An adaptive strategy
+on the part of the
+young person to
+contain the experience'
+McElvaney
+delay in the complaint being made and giving due regard to the accused's right
+to a speedy trial. Psychological expert testimony was sought as part of these
+proceedings to explain the delay in disclosure in each individual case to enable
+the courts to adjudicate on whether the delay in reporting was reasonable (see
+McElvaney, 2002). This legal mechanism provided an opportunity to enhance
+the knowledge base within the legal profession as to the complexities involved
+in disclosing and formally reporting experiences of childhood sexual abuse for
+adults. While one might expect that the legal system would be more
+sympathetic to children's difficulties in making disclosures, it may also be
+the case that the belief that 'if the child was really sexually abused, why would
+they not tell?', as articulated by Summit (1983), still prevails.
+In addition, concerns that engagement with the legal system will lead to further
+psychological trauma need to be considered. A prospective longitudinal study
+conducted by Quas et al. (2005) indicated that the consequences of legal
+involvement change over the course of development and as a function of the
+child's reactions to and experiences during the legal case. The associations
+between legal involvement and outcomes varied with age. The authors
+suggested that although younger children may be at increased risk for some
+adverse outcomes such as mental health problems, older children may be at
+increased risk for other undesirable sequelae such as the negative attitudes
+of others toward them. Quas and Goodman's (2011) recent review notes that
+older children are more at risk in developing poor mental health outcomes.
+Thus, as noted earlier, young people's fears of the consequences of disclosure
+may well be Justified. Raised awareness of both the prevalence of non-disclosure
+of sexual abuse and the importance of supporting children to disclose may
+go some way to addressing children's fears.
+One interesting finding in recent studies is that many young people who
+delayed disclosure to an adult had told a friend. McElvaney (2008) and Ungar
+et al. (2009b) identified peer influence as significant in encouraging disclosure
+among adolescents. There is some suggestion from the research that regardless
+of the age at the time of abuse, adolescence may be a 'critical period' for
+disclosure. It may be that targeting adolescents in general (rather than those
+at risk of abuse) may be a powerful prevention tool in encouraging early
+disclosure. Evaluations of child abuse prevention programmes have shown
+sign fan peple me in love wire as child use in chiden
+increasing trend towards peer disclosure is a by-product of such educational
+and awareness-raising programmes. There is evidence that public awareness
+campaigns when implemented as part of a multi-dimensional strategy that
+involves targeting children, parents and communities (see Lalor and McElvaney,
+2010, for a review of child abuse prevention programmes) are an effective tool in
+the prevention of child abuse.
+McElvaney et al. (2012) describe the importance for young people of
+containing the secret of abuse and their need for confidentiality following
+disclosure as representing an adaptive strategy on the part of the young person
+to contain the experience and his/her emotional reaction to it. The conflict
+between wanting/needing to keep the secret and wanting/needing to tell is
+mediated by what they term the "pressure cooker effect". Young people in their
+study described influences from within and without that led to a build up of
+pressure, ultimately leading to disclosure. They suggest that building up the
+
+
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 34 of 45
+pressure for young people by providing opportunities to tell may be needed to
+help young people tell more promptly. However, the lack of control that young
+people experience following disclosure remains an issue (Ungar et al., 2009b;
+Quayle et al., 2012). This highlights the need for dissemination of information
+directly to young people about the legal process, the possible consequences of
+disclosure, as well as ongoing developments in legal proceedings when young
+people and their families interface with the legal system.
+The more recent focus on investigating those strategies that children use in
+making disclosures rather than solely on identifying barriers to disclosure is
+perhaps more helpful in informing awareness-raising campaigns and
+professional interventions. The author is involved in a large-scale review of
+children's files in an assessment service to ascertain those factors that helped
+children tell about their experiences of sexual abuse. A pilot study has
+suggested that this is an appropriate methodology for gathering data on
+children's experiences of informal disclosure, acknowledging the limitations
+of such an approach. Ungar et al. (2009a) describe the optimal conditions for
+disclosure as follows: being directly asked about experiences of abuse; having
+access to someone who will listen, believe and respond appropriately; having
+knowledge and language about what constitutes abuse and how to access help;
+having a sense of control over the process of disclosure both in terms of their
+anonymity (not being identified until they are ready for this) and confidentiality
+(the right to control who knows); and effective responses by adults both in
+informal and formal contexts.
+Ungar et al. (2009b) support recent developments in prevention programmes
+that target supportive formal and informal caregivers in being better able to
+detect the possibility of abuse and support disclosures rather than focusing
+on empowering children themselves in making disclosures. Their findings in
+relation to the importance of bridge building for young people to access formal
+supports are supported by Jensen et al's (2005) emphasis on the dialogical
+nature of disclosure, and the important role that trusted adults and peers play
+in the disclosure process through noticing signs of psychological distress and
+asking young people about their psychological wellbeing (Collings et al.,
+2005; Jensen et al., 2005; McElvaney et al., 2012). More emphasis is therefore
+needed on providing opportunities for children and young people to disclose.
+The challenge for professionals and those who care for children is how to do
+this in a way that protects children and promotes their wellbeing.
+'More recent focus on
+investigating those
+strategies that
+children use in
+making disclosures'
+'Having a sense of
+control over the
+process of disclosure
+both in terms of their
+anonymity and
+confidentiality'
+References
+Collings SJ. L
+S, Kumalo M. 2005. Patterns of disclosure in child sexual abuse. South
+African Journal of Psychology 35(2): 270 285.
+DeVoe ER, Faller KC. 1999.The characteristics of disclosure among children who may have
+been sexually abused. Child Maltreatment 4: 217 227.
+Elliott DM, Briere J. 1994. Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and
+symptomatology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 12: 261 277.
+Goodman TB, Edelstein RS, Goodman GS, [
+DPH. DS. 2003. Why children
+tell: A model of children's disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 27: 525 540.
+Hershkowitz I, Horowitz D, Lamb ME. 2005. Trends in children's disclosure of abuse in Israel:
+A national study. Child Abuse & Neglect 29(11): 1203 1214.
+Hershkowitz 1, Orbach Y, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Horowitz D. 2006. Dynamics of forensic
+interviews with suspected abuse victims who do not disclose. Child Abuse & Neglect 30: 753 765
+167
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 35 of 45
+168
+McElvaney
+Hershkowitz I, Lanes O, Lamb ME. 2007. Exploring the disclosure of child sexual abuse with
+alleged victims and their parents. Child Abuse & Neglect 31: 111 123.
+Jensen TK, Gulbrandsen W, Mossige S, Reichelt S, Tjersland OA. 2005. Reporting possible
+sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children's perspectives and the context for disclosure.
+Child Abuse & Neglect 29(12): 1395 1413.
+Jonson E, Lindblad F. 2004. Disclosure, reactions and social support: Findings from a sample of
+adult victims of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment 9(2): 190 200.
+Kilpatrick DG, Saunders BE. 1995. The National Survey of Adolescents in the United States
+[Computer File]. Medical University of South Carolina [producer], 1999. Inter university
+Consortium for Political and Social Rescarch [distributor], 2000: Ann Arbor, MI.
+Kogan SM. 2004. Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences: Results from a national sample of
+adolescent women. Child Abuse & Neglect 28: 147 165.
+Lalor K, McElvaney R. 2010. Child sexual abuse, links to later sexual exploitation/high risk
+sexual behavior, and prevention/treatment programs. Trauma, Violence d Abuse 11(4):
+159 177. DOI: 10.1177/1524838010378299
+Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW, Hershkowitz I. 2002.The effects of forensic
+interview practices on the quality of information provided by alleged victims of child abuse. In
+Children's Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practice, Westcott
+GM, Bull R (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, England; 131 145.
+Lawson L, Chaffin, M. 1992. False negatives in sexual abuse disclosure interviews: Incidence
+and influence of caretaker's belief in abuse in cases of accidental abuse discovery by diagnosis
+of STD. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7(4): 532 542.
+London K, Bruck M, Ceci SJ, Shuman D. 2005. Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the
+research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11(1):
+194 226.
+Lyon TD. 2007. False denials: Overcoming methodological biases in abuse disclosure research.
+In Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, delay and denial, M Pipe, M Lamb, Y Orbach, AC
+Cederborg (eds). |
+Erlbaum Associates: London; 41 62.
+McElvaney R. 2002. Delays in reporting childhood sexual abuse and implications for legal
+proceedings. In Sex and Violence: The Psychology of Crime and Risk Assessment, Farrington
+DP, Hollin CR, McMurran M (eds). Routledge: London; 138 153.
+McElvaney R. 2008. How children tell: containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Unpublished
+doctoral dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin.
+McElvaney R,
+S, Hogan D. 2012. Containing the secret of child sexual abuse. Journal of
+Interpersonal Violence 27(6):1155 1175. DOI: 10.1177/0886260511424503
+H, Garavan R, deBarra M, Byrne J, Conroy R. 2002. The SAVI Report: Sexual Abuse
+and Violence in Ireland. The Liffey Press: Dublin.
+Mudaly N, Goddard C. 2006. The truth is longer than a lie: Children's experiences of abuse and
+professional interventions. Jessica Kingsley Publishers: London.
+Olafson E, Lederman CS. 2006. The state of the debate about children's disclosure patterns in
+child sexual abuse cases. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 57(1): 27 40.
+Priebe G, Svedin CG. 2008. Child sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society: An
+epidemiological study of adolescents' disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect 32: 1095 1108.
+Quas JA, Goodman GS. 2011. Consequences of criminal court involvement for child victims.
+Psychology: Public Policy and Law 18, 392 414 10.1037/a0026146
+Quas JA, Goodman GS, Ghetti SA, Kristen W, Edelstein RR, Allison D, Cordon IM, /
+DPH. 2005. Childhood sexual assault victims: Long term outcomes after testifying in criminal
+court: VII. General discussion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
+70(2): 104 117.
+Quayle E, Jonsson L, Lööf L. 2012. Online Behaviour related to Child Sexual Abuse: Preliminary
+Version. ROBERT Project. Available: http://www.innocenceindanger.de/filcadmin/user upload/
+Downloads/ROBERT/Interview analysis PRELIMINARY.pdf [18 June 2012].
+Resnick HS., Kilpatrick DG., Dansky BS, Saunders BE, & Best CL. 1993. Prevalence of civilian
+trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in representative national sample of women. Journal
+of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 984 991.
+Rispers J, Aleman A, Goudena PP. 1997. Prevention of child sexual abuse victimization: A
+meta analysis of school programs. Child Abuse & Neglect 21: 975 987.
+RL, Lindblad F. 2002.Limited disclosure of sexual abuse in children whose experiences
+were documented by videotape. The American Journal of Psychiatry 159: 312 314.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 36 of 45
+DW, Letourneau EJ, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG, Resnick, HS, Best CL. 2000. Delay
+in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect
+Staller KM, Nelson Gardell D. 2005. "A burden in your heart": Lessons of disclosure from
+female preadolescent and adolescent survivors of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect
+29: 1415 1432.
+Summit R. 1983. The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect 7(2):
+Ungar M, Barter K, McConnell S, Tutty L, Fairholm J. 2009a. Patterns of disclosure among
+youth. Qualitative Social Work 8(3): 341 356. DOI: 10.1177/1473325009337842.
+Ungar M, Tutty LM, McConnell S, Barter K, Fairholm J. 2009b. What Canadian youth tell us
+about disclosing abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33: 699 708.
+Zwi KJ, Woolfenden SR, Wheeler DM,
+TA, Tait P,
+KW. 2007. School based
+education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse (Review). Cochrane Database
+of Systematic Review 3: CD004380.
+169
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 37 of 45
+EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF
+PSYCHOTRAUMATOLOGY
+¿Etion
+PUBLISHING
+CLINICAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
+Predictors of delayed disclosure of rape in female
+adolescents and young adults
+Iva A. E. Bicanic'*,
+, Lieve M. Hehenkamp', Elise M. van de Putte?
+Arjen J. van Wijk3
+and Ad de Jongh ,4
+'National Psychotraumacenter for Children and Youth, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht
+The Netherlands; Department of Paediatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands;
+-Department of Behavioral Sciences, ACTA, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam,
+The Netherlands; School of Health Sciences, Salford University, Manchester, United Kingdom
+Background: Delayed disclosure of rape has been associated with impaired mental health; it is, therefore, important
+to understand which factors are associated with disclosure latency. The purpose of this study was to compare
+various demographics, post rape characteristics, and psychological functioning of early and delayed disclosers
+(i.e., more than 1 week post rape) among rape victims, and to determine predictors for delayed disclosure.
+Methods: Data were collected using a structured interview and validated questionnaires in a sample of 323
+help seeking female adolescents and young adults (12 25 years), who were victimized by rape, but had no
+reported prior chronic child sexual abuse.
+Results: In 59% of the cases, disclosure occurred within 1 week. Delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical
+services and to report to the police than early disclosers. No significant differences were found between delayed
+and early disclosers in psychological functioning and time to seck professional help. The combination of
+age category 12 17 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, confidence intervals (CI) 1.13 3.73], penetration (OR 2.36,
+CI 1.25 4.46), and closeness to assailant (OR 2.64, CI 1.52 4.60) contributed significantly to the prediction
+of delayed disclosure.
+Conclusion: The results point to the need of targeted interventions that specifically encourage rape victims to
+disclose carly, thereby increasing options for access to health and police services.
+Keywords: Adolescents; young adults; rape, sexual assault; disclosure; latency to disclosure, posttraumatic stress disorder
+Responsible Editor: Rita Rosner, KU Eichstaett Ingolstadt, Germany.
+*Correspondence to: Iva A. E. Bicanic, National Psychotrauma Center for Children and Youth,
+University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85090, NL 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands,
+Email: i.a.e.bicanic@umcutrecht.nl
+For the abstract or full text in other languages, please see Supplementary files under 'Article Tools"
+Received: 31 August 2014; Revised: 30 March 2015; Accepted: 13 April 2015; Published: 11 May 2015
+revious studies have shown that disclosure of rape
+groups (De Haas, Van Berlo, Bakker, & Vanwesenbeeck,
+•to formal agencies, such as police or mental health
+2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006), may not receive targeted
+services, is uncommon (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner,
+mental health care and may not report the crime to the
+2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), especially when the
+police (Ruch, Coyne, & Perrone, 2000).
+rape has been committed on a date or by an acquaintance
+For reasons of mental health and public safety, it is
+and involves the victim's use of drugs and/or alcohol
+important to understand the potential factors that are
+(Resnick et al., 2000; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). There is
+related to disclosure. Timing of disclosure may be a crucial
+evidence to suggest that victims believe that professionals
+factor, as early disclosers are more likely to utilize approwill not be helpful to them because their rape experience
+priate medical care and report to the police than delayed
+does not match stereotypical conceptions of rape, such
+disclosers (Ahrens, Stansell, & Jennings, 2010; Ullman &
+as involving a stranger, a weapon, and severe injury
+Filipas, 2001). In contrast, adults who wait longer than
+(Patterson, Greeson, &
+, 2009; Resnick et al.,
+1 month to disclose the rape are more likely to suffer
+2000). Accordingly, adolescents and young adults, who
+from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depresare more at risk to be victimized by rape than other age
+sion compared to early disclosers (Ruggiero et al., 2004).
+European Joural of Psychotraumatology 2015. © 2015 va A. E. Bicanic et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 1
+Attribution 4.0 Intemational License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and
+to remix, transform, and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that appropriate credit is given, that a link to the license is provided,
+and that you indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
+Citation: European Joumal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+(page number not for citation purpose)
+
+
+Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 38 of 45
+In addition, adolescents who disclose their rape experience
+at least 1 month after the incident took place are found
+to be at higher risk for major depressive disorder and
+delinquency (Broman-Fulks et al., 2007) compared to those
+who disclosed within 1 month.
+Victim-assailant relationship is crucial in disclosure
+latency, with victims being at higher risk for delayed disclosure if there is a close relation with the assailant (Kogan,
+2004; Koss, 1988; Rickert, Wiemann, & Vaughan, 2005).
+In contrast, delayed disclosure is less common in victims
+of a stereotypical rape, i.e., rape by a stranger including a
+weapon and injury (
+et al., 2000). Victims of prior
+sexual trauma are more likely to postpone disclosure of a
+subsequent assault than those without prior victimization
+et al., 2000; Ullman, 1996). This is in contrast with
+the findings of Ahrens et al. (2010), who report no difference in rates of prior sexual trauma between early and
+delayed disclosers. In addition, the victim's age appears
+to be an important variable in predicting disclosure.
+Evidence suggests that young children are at higher risk
+for delayed disclosure than adolescents (Kogan, 2004;
+Schönbucher, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Schnyder, & Landolt,
+2012). Thus, various rape and victim-related characteristics have been found to be associated with timing of
+disclosure.
+The majority of the aforementioned studies included
+college and adult female rape victims. It is important to
+examine rape disclosure latency in an age and sex group
+that is most at risk for rape victimization. There is only
+one prior quantitative study in adolescents (those aged
+12-17 years) that identified factors that might influence
+disclosure latency (Kogan, 2004). He found that identity
+of the assailant, a familial relationship with the assailant,
+and a history of drug abuse in the household were related
+to the timing of disclosure. The results suggested that
+a familial relationship with the assailant will postpone
+disclosure, whereas a history of drug abuse in the household, albeit this seems counterintuitive, makes prompt
+disclosure more likely. This study had some limitations,
+including the fact that the interviews were conducted by
+telephone and that the description of the relationship with
+the assailant was limited. Therefore, in the present study,
+we investigated a sample of female adolescent and young
+adult victims of rape who were admitted to a specialized
+mental health centre for victims of sexual assault. The first
+aim of this study was to compare demographics, post-rape
+characteristics, and psychological functioning between
+early and delayed disclosers in this group. The second aim,
+based on the exploratory findings of Kogan (2004), was to
+determine the predictors for delayed disclosure in adolescents and young adults, including age, prior trauma, and
+victim-assailant
+relationship using logistic regression
+analyses. Insight into the predictors for delayed disclosure
+for adolescents and young adults may reveal not only
+potential causal mechanisms but also possible targets for
+interventions that increase victims' opportunities to
+receive timely post-rape services.
+Methods
+Subjects and data collection
+Rape was defined as "an event that occurred without the
+victim's consent that involved the use or threat of force in
+vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse" (Tjaden & Thoennes,
+2006). The definition includes both attempted and completed rape; the term "completed" referring to vaginal,
+oral, anal, or multiple penetrations. Victims who disclosed
+within 1 week were defined as "early disclosers," whereas
+those who disclosed at least after 1 week were defined as
+"delayed disclosers." This dichotomization of the variable
+"disclosure latency" was based on the study of Ahrens
+et al. (2010) and the national standard criteria for admission to a Rape Centre in the Netherlands, i.e., a maximum
+of 7 days post-rape.
+The study was conducted in the Dutch National
+Psychotrauma Centre, which provides psychological services for rape victims aged 12-25 years and their parents.
+Between May 2005 and December 2011, the centre received 621 phone calls concerning alleged rape victims
+from police authorities, mental health services, and selfreferrals. In 178 cases, the phone call did not result in
+admission at the centre because of age limitations, or
+motivational reasons. In 108 cases, referrals were made to
+other institutions because the index trauma was chronic
+childhood sexual abuse rather than rape in adolescence/
+young adulthood. Of the 335 cases admitted to the centre,
+12 were not included in this study because of male gender,
+resulting in a final sample of 323 females with the index
+trauma being single rape. Referral sources for this final
+sample included the police (33.7%), mental health services
+(40.7%), and self-referrals, i.e., victims or parents (25.6%).
+Procedure
+During admission, all patients underwent a psychological
+assessment, consisting of 1) a structured interview for
+obtaining demographic and post-rape characteristics and
+2) self-report questionnaires to obtain information about
+mental health functioning. Information from the interview was transcribed onto a form designed for this
+purpose. The following variables were obtained and
+dichotomized or categorized for the purpose of the study:
+Demographic and victim characteristics
+We asked patients about their current age, educational
+level (lower, middle, or higher), and whether they were of
+Dutch origin (i.e., in case of having parents born in the
+Netherlands). Those between 12 and 17 years of age were
+defined as adolescents and those between 18 and 25 years
+of age as young adults. We also asked whether the patient
+was living with their parents) (yes/no), and whether the
+Ze number not for chatan purpose
+Citation: European Joumal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 39 of 45
+family structure was complete, i.e., whether the biological
+parents were living together (yes/no). Patients were then
+asked to confirm the presence of prior negative sexual
+experiences (yes/no), and whether they had a current
+sexual relationship (yes/no).
+Rape characteristics
+Information about date and time of the rape was obtained to calculate the time since rape at admission. Next,
+patients were requested to describe the rape. Their response was categorized into use of penetration (yes/no),
+group rape (yes/no), use of physical violence (yes/no), and
+use of threats verbally and/or with a weapon (yes/no).
+Also, information regarding the victim's relationship to
+the assailant was obtained. The assailant was defined as
+a stranger when the victim had never been in contact
+with the assailant before the rape. Responses were used
+to form a closeness category (yes in case of family, (boy)
+friend, or mentor). Patients were also asked about the
+(estimated) age of the assailant (categorized into 12-17
+years or >18 years), and whether the victim had used
+alcohol prior to the rape (yes/no).
+Post-rape characteristics
+Patients were asked when they first talked about the rape.
+The response was used to calculate the disclosure time
+and the help-seeking time. At the end of the interview,
+patients were asked whether they had reported to the
+police after the incident (yes/no), and whether they had
+received any medical care after the incident (yes/no).
+The study was performed in accordance with the
+precepts and regulations for research as stated in the
+Declaration of Helsinki, and the Dutch Medical Research
+involving Humans Subjects Act concerning scientific
+research. According to the Ethical Medical Committee
+of the University Medical Centre Utrecht, this act was not
+applicable to the present study. Written informed consent
+was obtained from both patients and parents.
+Measures
+Posttraumatic stress
+The Children's Responses to Trauma Inventory (CRTI;
+Alisic, Eland, & Kleber, 2006) was used for participants
+aged 12-18 years. This is a 34-item questionnaire assessing severity of PTSD symptoms according to DSM-IV.
+Patients are asked to indicate to what extent a reaction
+to a traumatic event was present during the past week.
+Scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating
+more symptomatology. The four subscales: Intrusion,
+Avoidance, Arousal, and Other Child-Specific Reactions
+consist of 7, 11, 6, and 10 items, respectively. The reliability of this instrument is good to excellent (Cronbach's
+• 0.92 for total score, 0.79 for Intrusion, 0.77 for
+Avoidance, 0.71 for Arousal; Alisic & Kleber, 2010).
+For the purpose of the study, only the total score was
+analysed.
+Depression
+Children Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992;
+Timbremont & Braet, 2002) was used for participants
+aged 12-17 years of age. The CDI is a 27-item questionnaire, assessing cognitive, affective, and behavioural
+symptoms of depression. The Dutch CDI has a satisfactory internal consistency, with Cronbach's o ranging
+between 0.71 and 0.89 (Timbremont & Braet, 2002).
+Behavioural problems
+The Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach & Rescorla,
+2001) was used for participants aged 12-18 years. This
+questionnaire evaluates the teenager's perception of behavioural and emotional problems. YSR has shown to
+be internally reliable (Cronbach's o's ranging from 0.71
+to 0.95), and convergent and discriminant validity is
+reported to be satistactory (Berube & Achenbach, 2006).
+The YSR includes four broadband scales and nine
+narrow-band scales to assess behaviour problems. For
+the purpose of the study, only the total score on behaviour
+problems was included in the analyses.
+General psychopathology
+The Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R; Arrindell &
+Ettema, 1986) was used for participants aged 12-25 years.
+This is a 90-item self-report inventory to assess psychosocial distress. Patients were instructed to indicate the
+amount they were bothered by each of the distress
+symptoms during the preceding week. Patients rated 90
+distress symptoms on a five-point Likert scale with 1
+being "not at all" and 5 being "extremely." The statements are assigned to eight dimensions, reflecting various
+types of psychopathology: anxiety, agoraphobia, depression, somatization, insufficiency, sensitivity, hostility, and
+insomnia. The Global Severity Index (GSI) can be used
+as a summary of the test and reflects the severity of all
+answered statements as a global measure of distress.
+Cronbach's a has been found to range from 0.73 to 0.97.
+For the purpose of the study, only the GSI was analysed.
+Data analyses
+To compare demographic and post-rape characteristics
+between the early and delayed disclosers, chi-square tests
+were used. To compare multiple continuous psychological
+scores, MANCOVA was used with "time since trauma" as
+a covariate to correct for the potential influence of time
+since trauma.
+Delayed disclosure was used as a dependent variable.
+The strength of the univariate associations between each
+potential risk factor and delayed disclosure was estimated
+by calculating the odds ratio (OR) along with 95%
+confidence intervals (95% CI). To determine the strongest
+risk factors for delayed disclosure, each potential risk
+Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21
+
+factor identified in the univariate analyses with a significant OR (p <0.05) was entered as a predictor variable
+into the multivariable model, using a stepwise forward
+logistic regression (LR) analysis with delayed disclosure
+as the outcome variable. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodnessof-fit chi-square was used to calculate how well the
+data fit the model. For all statistical analyses, a p-value
+of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
+All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS
+(IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0, IBM
+Corp., Armonk, NY).
+Results
+Socio-demographic characteristics
+Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. Victims" age ranged from 12 to 25
+years, with a mean age of 16.7 years (SD = 2.7) and a
+median age of 16.1 years. Victims' mean age at time of
+rape was 14.3 years (SD =2.7) and a median age of 13.9
+years. Penetration occurred in 79.6% of the cases. None
+of the victims reported prior chronic child sexual abuse.
+Data about victim-assailant relationship are presented in
+Table 2. Victims first disclosed after a mean 20.8 weeks
+(SD = 56.8, range 1-624 weeks), although 58.5% of the
+cases told within 1 week. First disclosure was to a friend
+(45.8%), parents) (17.1%), (ex) boy-friend (9.4%), family
+member (6.8%), professional (5.8%), or other adult
+(15.2%). With regard to post-rape services, 53.8% of all
+victims consulted a doctor for medical care and 51.4%
+reported to the police. On average, victims were admitted
+to the centre 59.8 weeks post-rape (SD =93.7, range
+1-676). The mean GSI of the rape victims on the SCL-90-
+R (M = 209.7, SD = 61.8) was comparable with previously
+reported data of psychiatric populations [M =203.55,
+SD = 61.60; (269) = 1.629, p = 0.104] and was substantially
+Table 1. Demographic characteristics of rape victims
+(N =323) in valid percentages
+Table 2. Victim assailant relationship (N=323) in valid
+percentages
+Dutch origin"
+Education level°
+Low
+Medium
+High
+Parents divorced
+Lives at parental home
+Current relationship
+Prior negative sex
+N
+274
+182
+76
+56
+102
+273
+81
+46
+(lage number not for chain purposes)
+%
+84.8
+58.0
+24.2
+17.8
+31.9
+85.3
+26.5
+14.8
+Stranger
+(Ex-Boyfriend
+Friend
+Acquaintance
+Person met during nightlife
+Second-degree relative
+Person seen only once
+Person from school
+Person met on the internet
+Colleague
+Mentor
+N
+94
+32
+33
+61
+30
+15
+15
+14
+12
+10
+3
+%
+29.5
+10.0
+10.3
+19.1
+9.4
+4.7
+4.7
+4.4
+3.8
+3.1
+1.0
+higher [/(269) = 24.297, p < 0.001] compared to the general population (M = 118.28, SD =32.38; Arrindell &
+Ettema, 1986). For the CDI, mean scores were in the
+clinical range (M = 17.2, SD =4.6) and rape victims
+had significantly higher mean scores (1(230) = 15,923,
+p<0.001), in comparison to previously reported data of
+the general population of adolescent girls (Timbremont,
+Bract, & Roelofs, 2008; M =9.01, SD = 6.45).
+Differences between early and delayed disclosers
+Fifty-nine percent of the sample consisted of early disclosers (disclosure within 1 week). No significant differences in demographic characteristics were found between
+carly and delayed disclosers, except that there were
+more delayed disclosers in the age category 12-17 years
+compared to the early disclosers group (2° (1) = 6.96;
+p=0.008). For rape characteristics, significant differences
+between groups were found for the use of penetration,
+with more victims of penetration in the delayed disclosers
+group compared to the early disclosers group (2° (1) =
+5.37; p =0.02). Also, the delayed disclosers group presented more victims of verbal and/or weapon threats
+than the early disclosers group (2? (1) = 5.35; p = 0.02).
+Furthermore, among the delayed disclosers more victims
+identified the assailant as a close person compared to the
+early disclosers (x° (1) = 10.84; p =0.001). Alcohol was
+used more often in the early disclosers group compared
+to the delayed disclosers group (2? (1) = 20.24; p <0.001).
+With respect to post-rape characteristics, a significantly
+smaller proportion of the delayed disclosers (15.9%)
+utilized medical services following the rape compared
+to the early disclosers (30.3%, 2? (1) = 5.32; p =0.02).
+Similarly, a significantly smaller proportion of the delayed
+disclosers (14.6%) compared to the early disclosers
+(34.3%) reported the rape to the police (2? (1) = 16.15;
+p <0.001). The time since trauma at admission was significantly lower for early disclosers (M =41.1 weeks,
+SD =79.4) than for delayed disclosers (M = 82.9 weeks,
+Citation: European Joural of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+
+
+Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 41 of 45
+SD = 103.3; /(314) = 4.06, p <0.001). Mean and median
+time to seek help were 37.7 and 12.0 weeks, respectively.
+Mean time to seek help did not differ between groups
+(1(309) = 2.54, p <0.48). Excluding outliers (M ‡3 SD,
+N = 11) did not change the outcome of this analysis. Both
+early and delayed disclosers scored in the highest level
+of psychological distress when compared to previously
+reported norm scores (CRTI, Alisic, Eland, Huijbregts,
+& Kleber, 2012; CDI, Timbremont et al., 2008; YSR,
+Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001; SCL-90, Arrindell &
+Ettema, 1986), but the MANCOVA results showed that
+when comparing multiple continuous psychological
+scores, the overall psychological functioning (posttraumatic stress, depression, behavioural problems, and general psychopathology) did not differ significantly between
+early and delayed disclosers (F(6,198) = 0.88, p =0.51).
+Table 3 shows the ORs with 95% Cls for the associations between potential risk factors and delayed disclosure.
+Delayed disclosers, when compared to early disclosers,
+were significantly more likely to be in the age category
+of 12-17 years (OR =2.10), to have experienced rape by
+a close person (OR =2.35), to have been threatened
+verbally and/or with a weapon (OR =1.75), and to have
+experienced penetration (OR =1.99). Delayed disclosers
+were also found less likely to have used alcohol prior to
+the rape (OR =0.22). None of the other factors were
+found to be significant risk factors for delayed disclosure.
+Predicting delayed disclosure
+A stepwise forward LR analysis was conducted to predict
+delayed disclosure, using "age category," "close assailant,"
+"use of threats," and "penetration" as predictors. Victims'
+alcohol use was not entered in the analysis because of
+missing values for 33.4% of the cases. The use of threats
+was not a significant predictor in the model. A test of the
+full model against a constant-only model was statistically
+significant, indicating that the predictors (i.e., age category 12-17 years, close assailant, penetration) reliably
+distinguished between early and delayed disclosers (x?
+(3) = 23.09, p <0.000). There were no significant interactions between the predictors. Nagelkerke's R° of 10.5%
+suggests only a modest association between the predictors and delayed disclosure, although the model did show
+an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer-Lemeshow 2° (4) =
+2.77, p <0.60). In total, 62% of the respondents were
+categorized correctly, when using the three predictors
+that contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed
+disclosure: age category 12-17 years (OR 2.05, CI 1.13-
+3.73), penetration (OR 2.36, CI 1.25-4.46), and closeness
+to the assailant (OR 2.64, Cl 1.52-4.60).
+Discussion
+The results of this study show that, although no differences were found between delayed and early disclosers
+in psychological functioning and time to seek help,
+delayed disclosers were less likely to use medical services
+and to report to the police than carly disclosers.
+Furthermore, this study identified a number of factors
+related to the timing of rape disclosure, showing that
+delayed disclosers represented significantly more adolescents than young adults, significantly more victims of
+penetration than assault, significantly more victims who
+were threatened than not threatened, and significantly
+more victims who were close with the assailant.
+The finding that delayed disclosers are less likely to
+utilize medical services and report to the police than early
+disclosers is in line with previous studies in adult women
+(Ahrens et al., 2010; Ullman, 1996; Ullman & Filipas,
+2001). It suggests that disclosure latency is important for
+public health and safety, as delayed disclosure may not
+only impede reception of proper medical care, such as
+treating anogenital injuries and preventing the onset of
+STDs and unwanted pregnancy (Linden, 2011), but also
+impede the forensic investigation and apprehension of the
+assailant (Lacy & Stark, 2013).
+Three variables were identified that successfully predicted delayed disclosure: age category 12-17 years,
+penetration, and the assailant being a close person. The
+finding that the victim's age significantly predicts disclosure latency is in line with previous research showing that
+adolescents are at a greater risk for delayed disclosure
+when compared to their older counterparts (Kogan, 2004;
+et al., 2000). Adolescents may be less able to overcome the barriers to disclose, including factors such as
+assailant tactics for maintaining secrecy, stigma that often
+accompanies rape, and fear that their parents would
+consequently limit their freedom (Crisma, Bascelli, Paci,
+& Romito, 2004). Also, as victims approach adulthood,
+they may possess more information about their rights and
+options after victimization, and have more possibilities for
+whom to disclose. In our study, most adolescents disclosed
+the rape event to peers, in line with prior research (Crisma
+et al., 2004; Priebe & Svedin, 2008).
+The use of penetration was found to make victims
+more likely to postpone disclosure, opposite to the results
+from Priebe and Svedin (2008), but in line with an older
+study by Arata (1998), who found that more severe forms
+of sexual abuse were associated with less disclosure.
+Penetration may influence disclosure latency through
+a variety of mechanisms. It could be argued that more
+severe rape, indicated by the use of penetration, is more
+likely to be accompanied by extensive coercive use of
+tactics to maintain the victim's silence, with fear of reprisal possibly contributing to the finding of delayed disclosure (Kogan, 2004). Also, adolescents may think that
+social reactions in response to disclosure are more negative in case of completed rape compared to assault.
+Another factor that seems to make immediate disclosure of rape less likely is closeness to the assailant,
+as indicated by the assailant being a (boy)friend, family
+Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+5
+
+
+
+Table 3. Demographic and (post )rape characteristics by disclosure time (early vs. delayed disclosers) and odds ratios for
+delayed disclosure
+Early disclosure
+(N=185)
+Delayed disclosure
+(i.e., > 1-week post-rape), N= 131
+N
+%
+Demographic and (post-)rape characteristics
+N
+%
+OR
+95% CI
+Age category (years)
+18 25
+12 17
+Dutch origin
+No
+Yes
+130
+27
+158
+17.4
+41.1
+22
+109
+7.0
+34.5
+2.10
+1.20 3.65*
+8.5
+50.0
+22
+109
+7.0
+34.5
+0.85
+0.46 1.56
+Living with parents)
+No
+Yes
+29
+155
+9.2
+49.2
+16
+115
+5.1
+36.5
+1.35
+0.70 2.59
+Complete family structure
+No
+Yes
+Current sexual relationship
+No
+Yes
+58
+127
+127
+53
+18.4
+40.3
+42
+88
+13.3
+27.9
+0.96
+0.59 1.55
+41.8
+17.4
+97
+27
+31.9
+8.9
+0.67
+0.39 1.14
+Prior negative sexual experience(s)
+No
+Yes
+152
+32
+Known assailant
+No
+Yes
+56
+129
+49.4
+10.4
+17.7
+40.8
+110
+14
+35.7
+4.5
+0.61
+0.31 1.19
+36
+95
+Close to assailant
+No
+Yes
+150
+35
+47.6
+11.1
+84
+46
+11.4
+30.1
+26.7
+14.6
+1.15
+0.70 1.88
+2.35
+1.40 3.93
+Group rape
+No
+Yes
+160
+24
+50.8
+7.6
+116
+15
+Age of assailant (years)
+12 17
+> 18
+63
+117
+20.6
+38.2
+54
+72
+36.8
+4.8
+17.6
+23.5
+0.86
+0.43 1.71
+0.72
+0.45 1.14
+Use of penetration
+No
+Yes
+46
+136
+14.7
+43.5
+19
+112
+6.1
+35.8
+1.99
+1.10 3.60
+Use of threats
+No
+Yes
+Use of physical violence
+No
+Yes
+90
+76
+130
+51
+31.6
+26.7
+48
+71
+16.8
+24.9
+1.75
+1.09 2.82°
+42.6
+16.7
+82
+42
+26.9
+13.8
+Victim's alcohol use
+1.31
+0.80 2.14
+No
+72
+Yes
+33.5
+61
+28.4
+69
+13
+32.1
+6.0
+0.22
+0.11 0.44°
+"even participants were dropped from analyses due to missing disclosure time data.
+member, or mentor. This finding is consistent with prewoman was to report this victimization to anyone (Koss,
+vious studies showing that the closer the relationship
+1988; Rickert et al., 2005; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011).
+between the victim and assailant, the less likely the young
+The dynamies of intrafamilial abuse is often proposed as
+(ope numer not or chain purpose,)
+Citation: European Joumal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6. 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/eipt.v6.25883
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 43 of 45
+the explanation for delayed or non-disclosure (Kogan,
+2004;
+et al., 2000). In the present study, however,
+only 5% of the assailants were identified as a family
+member. Most close relationships referred to (boyfriends,
+suggesting that a significant percentage of the sample
+experienced peer-to-peer victimization. This type of victimization is most likely to occur during adolescence, as
+compared to childhood or young adulthood, and greatly
+increases the risk of revictimization (Humphrey &
+2000). Hence, victims of rape by peers may be a target
+group for interventions promoting early disclosure.
+Clearly, there are many variables working in tandem to
+affect the timing of victim's disclosure. A closer look at
+the final model, which identified three unique variables that
+contributed significantly to the prediction of delayed disclosure, can help us to better understand the phenomenon
+of initial disclosure in adolescents and young adults.
+Younger adolescent victims who are raped by a close person are more likely to delay disclosure than older victims
+of attempted rape by a stranger or acquaintance. Perhaps,
+they struggle with the notion that someone close to them
+performed such a violent act against them, which confuses them about what might happen in terms of safety
+if they would disclose (or not). This finding is especially
+important in the light of the fact that approximately 80%
+of victims had some sort of relationship with their perpetrator prior to the assault (Basile, Chen, Black, &
+Saltzman, 2007). With regard to rape types, it would
+intuitively seem that less severe forms of sexual assault
+are associated with delayed disclosure and that completed
+rape would be easier to identify as clearly inappropriate
+and wrong. Vietims of completed rape, however, may be
+more likely to experience negative psychological reactions, e.g., self-blame and avoidance coping. It is conceivable that they delay their disclosure as a result of
+rape-induced psychological distress (Starzynski, Ullman,
+Filipas, & Townsend, 2005), not necessarily the severity
+of the assault.
+Although the final model showed acceptable goodness
+of fit, the percentage of explained variance of delayed
+disclosure was modest. Thus, there must be other variables
+predictive of delayed disclosure, such as the assailant's
+use of alcohol or weaker support systems, that we did not
+assess in this study. Besides this limitation, there are other
+drawbacks of this study that should be mentioned. First,
+a clinical sample was used with patients reporting high
+mean levels of psychological distress. This ceiling effect
+may explain why no differences were found between
+carly and delayed disclosers on psychological functioning, contrary to prior studies (Broman-Fulks et al., 2007;
+Ruggiero et al., 2004). Second, posttraumatic stress was
+only assessed for children up to 18 years, and for young
+adults additional suitable measures were not used. Third,
+information could have been lost due to dichotomizing
+the variable disclosure latency. Fourth, results may not be
+generalizable to all rape victims, because the percentage
+of victims that consulted a medical professional and
+reported to the police was higher in our sample than in
+most studies (Hanson et al., 2003; Resnick et al., 2000;
+Zinzow, Resnick, Barr, Danielson, & Kilpatrick, 2012).
+Perhaps, these differences could, at least partially, be
+explained by the fact that stranger rape, representing 30%
+of our sample, leads to higher likelihood of help-seeking
+and police reporting because of its association with higher
+acknowledgment of victim status (Resnick et al., 2000;
+et al., 2000). The fact that this is a help-seeking
+sample is critical for the reasons cited in the discussion,
+but also because the generalizability of these data to rape
+victims who never tell anyone perhaps the group most
+at risksimply cannot be known. Besides these limitations, several strengths of the current study need to be
+noted. One strength is the unique set of adolescents and
+young adults who presented at a mental health care
+centre after a single rape event, but who reported no prior
+chronic sexual abuse in childhood. For 85% of the
+sample, the index trauma was a first time rape. Moreover,
+data were collected at a designated referral centre for
+victims of rape and, therefore, the sample is likely to
+represent the clinical population of Dutch victims in the
+age group of 12-25 years.
+The findings of the current study, suggesting that
+delayed disclosers are less able to benefit from emergency
+medical care and evidence collection, have a number of
+practical implications. One of the strategies to enhance
+victims' willingness to disclose within the first week postrape may be sexual education campaigns in school and
+media, as being uninformed is one of the reasons for them
+not to disclose (Crisma et al., 2004). Education may
+include medical information on rape-related pregnancy
+and STDs, as well as the need for timely emergency
+contraception and prophylaxis, given that these concerns
+appear to be facilitators of seeking medical help (Zinzow
+et al., 2012). Also, practical information about DNA evidence and how to best protect it, e.g., related to showering, clothing, eating, and drinking, may increase the
+awareness of opportunities in the early-phase post-rape.
+Moreover, facts about the potential psychological impact
+of rape, such as PTSD and revictimization, but also information about evidence-based treatments (Elwood et al.,
+2011; Littleton & Ullman, 2013; McLaughlin et al., 2013),
+may increase help-seeking behaviour in an early stage.
+Furthermore, efforts to encourage carly disclosure must
+consider peer-to-peer victimization as a primary factor,
+as most participants in this study experienced this type
+of victimization, and may initially not have defined or
+acknowledged the incident as rape because they rationalize
+such experiences as normal (Hlavka, 2014), leading to the
+finding of delayed disclosure.
+In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest
+that adolescent victims of rape with penetration by
+Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 44 of 45
+someone close are at increased risk for delayed disclosure,
+and that delayed disclosers are less likely to use medical
+services and to report to the police. These findings may
+assist clinicians and policymakers in understanding rape
+and help to develop interventions (Unterhitzenberger &
+Rosner, 2014), specifically targeted to support adolescents and young adults to disclose in an carly-phase postrape. Although the vast majority of the participants was
+living at their parental home, many of the sample did
+not first disclose to their parents. Therefore, it could be
+argued that in prevention programs specific attention
+should be given to the strengthening of the child-parent
+relationship, to facilitate disclosure to parents (Schönbucher
+et al., 2012). Next, as victims tend to disclose mostly to
+peers, prevention programmes may need to aim at teaching adolescents how they can help a peer victim if they
+become a recipient of disclosure (Schönbucher et al.,
+2012). In addition, education may increase victims'
+willingness to disclose early, thereby increasing opportunities for access to health and police services. It is more
+likely to reach adolescents with direct, active, and online
+outreach programs via communication channels that are
+frequently used by adolescents and young adults particularly social media (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube,
+ete.), forums, and mobile apps. Such programmes, wherein adolescents and young adults are being treated as
+agents and decision makers (Hlavka, 2014), should focus
+on information concerning what rape actually is not
+only the stereotypical idea of rape and what (not) to do in
+the aftermath of rape especially in the first week postrape. Another way to help improve the support of victims
+of rape is the implementation of multidisciplinary sexual
+assault centres (Bicanic, Snetselaar, De Jongh, & Van de
+Putte, 2014; Bramsen, Elklit, & Nielsen, 2009), as these
+may be the most suitable places to organize education
+campaigns and offer integrated post-rape services in one
+location. Future research should investigate whether the
+availability of such centres increases the prevalence of police
+reporting and use of medical care. Moreover, as discussed,
+previous research concerning the topic of disclosure has
+focused on the disclosure process, mainly the ellect of
+negative social reactions, and not the latency. In future
+research, social reactions in relation to disclosure (latency)
+should be assessed by using the Social Reactions Questionnaire, as well as the victim's perception of their own
+experience being defined as rape, as many girls and young
+women do not report or seck help because they regard
+sexual violence against them as normal (Hlavka, 2014).
+Conflict of interest and funding
+There is no conflict of interest in the present study for any
+of the authors.
+8
+References
+Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA
+school age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of
+Vermont, Research Centre for Children, Youth, and Families.
+Ahrens, C. E., Stansell, J., & Jennings, A. (2010). To tell or not
+to tell: The impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors"
+recovery. Violence and Victims, 25(5), 631 648.
+Alisic, E., Eland, J., Huijbregts, R. A. D., & Kleber, R. J. (2012).
+Schokverwerkingslijst voor kinderen [Children's responses to
+trauma inventory revised version]. Amsterdam: Boom test
+uitgevers.
+Alisic, E., Eland, J., & Kleber, R. J. (2006). Schokverwerkingslijst
+woor Kinderen herziene versie [Children's responses to trauma
+inventory revised version]. Utrecht: Institute for Psychotrauma
+in collaboration with Clinical Psychology (University of
+Utrecht) and Psychotrauma Centre for Children and Youth
+(University Medical Centre Utrecht).
+Alisic, E., & Kleber, R. J. (2010). Measuring posttraumatic stress
+responses to trauma inventory. Journal of Child & Adolescent
+Trauma, 3(3), 192 204.
+Arata, C. M. (1998). To tell or not to tell: Current functioning of
+child sexual abuse survivors who disclosed their victimization.
+Child Maltreatment, 3(1), 63 71.
+Arrindell, W. A., & Ettema, J. H. M. (1986). SCL 90: Handleiding
+bij een multidimensionele psychopathologie indicator [SCL 90:
+manual for a multidimensional measure of psychopathology].
+Lisse: Swets Test.
+Basile, K. C., Chen, J., Black, M. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2007).
+Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence victimization
+among U.S. adults Violence & Victims, 22, 437 448.
+Bérubé, R. L., & Achenbach, T. M. (2006). Bibliography of published
+studies using ASEBA: 2006 edition. Burlington, VT: University
+of Vermont,
+Research Centre for Children, Youth and
+Families.
+Bicanic, I., Snetselaar, H., De Jongh, A., & Van de Putte, E. (2014).
+Victims' use of professional services in a Dutch sexual assault
+centre. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, 23645, doi:
+http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.23645
+Bramsen, R. H., Elklit, A., & Nielsen, L. H. (2009). A Danish
+model for treating victims of rape and sexual assault: The
+multidisciplinary public approach,
+Journal of Aggression.
+Maltreatment & Trauna, /8(8), 886 905.
+Broman Fulks, J. J., Ruggiero, K. J., Hanson, R. F.,
+D. W.
+Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, D. G., et al. (2007). Sexual assault
+disclosure in relation to adolescent mental health: Results from
+the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child
+and Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), 260 266.
+Crisma, M., Bascelli, E., Paci, D., & Romito, P. (2004). Adolescents
+who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments
+to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(10), 1035 1048.
+De Haas, S., Van Berlo, W., Bakker, F., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2012).
+Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence in the
+Netherlands, the risk of revictimization and pregnancy: Results
+from a national population survey. Violence and Victins, 27(4),
+592 608.
+Elwood. L. S.,
+D. W., Resnick, H. S., Gudmundsdottir, B.,
+Amstadter, A. B., Hanson, R. F., et al. (2011). Predictors of
+rape: Findings from the National Survey of Adolescents.
+Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(2), 166 173.
+Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. Gi. (2000). The sexual
+victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart
+ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Bureau of
+Justice Statistics.
+Citation: European Joumal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+(page number not for citation purpose)
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 45
+Hanson, R. F., Kievit, L. W., Saunders, B. E.,
+D. W.,
+Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., et al. (2003). Correlates
+of adolescent reports of sexual assault: Findings from the
+national survey of adolescents. Child Maltreatment, 8(4),
+261 272.
+Hlavka, H. R. (2014). Normalizing sexual violence: young women
+account for harassment and abuse. Gender & Society, doi:
+10.1177/0891243214526468.
+Humphrey, J. A., &
+Adolescent Health, 27(6), 419 424.
+Kogan, S. M. (2004). Disclosing unwanted sexual experiences:
+Results from a national sample of adolescent women. Child
+Abuse and Neglect, 28, 147 165.
+Koss, M. P. (1988). Criminal victimization among women: Impact on
+0038). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
+Kovacs, M. (1992). Children depression inventory CDI: Manual.
+New York: Multi Health Systems
+Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory:
+14(9), 649 658.
+Linden, J. A. (2011). Care of the adult patient after sexual assault.
+New England Joural of Medicine, 365(9), 834 841.
+Littleton, H., & Ullman, S. E. (2013). PTSD symptomatology and
+hazardous drinking as risk factors for sexual assault revicti
+mization: Examination in European American and African
+American women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(3), 345 353.
+McLaughlin, K. A., Koenen, K. C.,
+E. D., Petukhova, M.,
+Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., et al. (2013). Trauma
+exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in a national
+sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of
+Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52(8), 815 830.
+Patterson, D., Greeson, M., &
+_ R. (2009). Understanding
+rape survivors' decisions not to seck help from formal social
+systems. Health & Social Work, 34(2), 127 136.
+Priebe, G., & Svedin, C. G. (2008). Child sexual abuse is largely
+hidden from the adult society. An epidemiological study of
+adolescents' disclosures. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 1095 1108.
+Resnick, H. S.,
+M. M., Kilpatrick, D. G., Clum, G.,
+Acierno, R., Best, C. L., et al. (2000). Predictors of post rape
+medical care in a national sample of women. American Journal
+of Preventive Medicine, 19(4), 214 219.
+Rickert, V. I., Wiemann, '
+C. M., & Vaughan, R. D. (2005).
+Disclosure of date/acquaintance rape: Who reports and when.
+Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 18(1), 17 24.
+Kuch, L.. R., Coyne, B. J., & Perrone, P. A. (2000). Reporting sexual
+assault to the police in Hawaii (NCJ 188264, National Criminal
+Justice Reference Service). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
+of Justice.
+Ruggiero, K. J.,
+D. W., Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S.,
+Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., et al. (2004). Is disclosure of
+childhood rape associated with mental health outcome?
+Results from the National Women's Study. Child Maltreatment,
+9(1), 62 77.
+Schonbucher, V., Maier, T., Mohler Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., &
+Landolt, M. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by
+adolescents: A qualitative in depth study. Journal of Interper
+sonal Violence, 27, 3486 3513. doi: 10.1177/0886260512445380,
+_ D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G.,
+Resnick, H. S., & Best, C. L. (2000). Delay in disclosure of
+childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse d
+Neglect, 24(2). 273 287.
+Starzynski, L. L.., Ullman, S. E., Filipas, H. H., & Townsend, S. M.
+(2005). Correlates of women's sexual assault disclosure to
+informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims, 20,
+417 432.
+Timbremont, B., & Bract, C. (2002). Children's depression inventory:
+Dutch version]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
+Timbremont, B., Braet, C., & Roelofs, J. (2008). Handleiding
+Children's Depression Inventory [Children's Depression Inven
+tory: Dutch version]. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and
+Information B.V.
+Tjaden, P. G.,
+& Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature, and
+consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National
+Violence against Women Survey: Washington, DC: U.S.
+Department of Justice.
+Uman S. disgosure folates and consequences of eul exal.
+554 571.
+Ullman, S. E., & Filipas, H. H. (2001). Correlates of formal and
+informal support secking in sexual assault victims. Journal of
+Interpersonal Violence, 16(10), 1028 1047.
+Unterhitzenberger, J., & Rosner, R. (2014). Lessons from writing
+sessions: A school based randomized trial with adolescent
+orphans in Rwanda. European Journal of Psychotraumatology;
+5, 24917, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.24917
+Wolitzky Taylor, K. B., Resnick, H. S., Amstadter, A. B., McCauley.
+J. L., Ruggiero, K. J., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2011). Reporting
+rape in a national sample of college women. Journal of
+American College Health, 59(7), 582 587.
+Zinzow, H. M., Resnick, H. S., Barr, S. C., Danielson, C. K., &
+Kilpatrick, D. G. (2012). Receipt of post rape medical care
+in a national sample of female victims. American Journal of
+Preventive Medicine, 43(2), 183 187.
+Citation: European Joumal of Psychotraumatology 2015, 6: 25883 http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v6.25883
+(rage member not for lation purpo
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f54f95a7f902f0426048d65044a73c580c80d9b1d822c80653d526a94f9650e6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f54f95a7f902f0426048d65044a73c580c80d9b1d822c80653d526a94f9650e6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7b02417788c1d41ae5b6ac6b2e5c65e03225cc2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f54f95a7f902f0426048d65044a73c580c80d9b1d822c80653d526a94f9650e6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -4726,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f54f95a7f902f0426048d65044a73c580c80d9b1d822c80653d526a94f9650e6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 263,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "eac640b032aead3333de1f1ce490ec339d4e4ed7fbd1ae3b2313430e6d6ba6e2",
+  "output_sha256": "e9b0354e682acf95442371616ad6c6de5f10c9d87b660d5d6831dd0728fa0009",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5672813333d559ebe0c038ab462c658c8037544c2aad2042fcecb5c5c0cdb65.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5672813333d559ebe0c038ab462c658c8037544c2aad2042fcecb5c5c0cdb65.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e8ad1e2ec13ee257c13a40722aab54495a425f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5672813333d559ebe0c038ab462c658c8037544c2aad2042fcecb5c5c0cdb65.md
@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 9
+PuSkinner
+Brad Edwards
+Stan Pottinger
+A-Krame. (nutes)
+BE- rep. Virginian Robert
+SP - rep. Virgina
+Long histry, of iitigation
+E
+2/29/16
+Irgania Robat
+aho now lies is
+- Atter
+other vitoms. mother compbine t, nudva PA,
+Entered into a non prus ul gutty plea to state ct. to
+2001-2007
+- proceny menar
+te prost. I immune
+- pras. to su comes commu H
+Leteart, Jay Letkowitz, Ken Star, Roy Back, Eatin
+Damn Winberg alm
+consel
+- SOfL Aler Acosta Us Aity.
+- Limited to PL in pins.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21
+
+2
+pay eat under tak pa 150.
+- Nanted
+At Least 12
+Ghislaine Marwell- daughter of Mober Marwellhead reciter
+- Edence = 20 tipita robes - her case cinnan
+- NO END:
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE • Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21
+
+Virginia Robert
+- vizhmied summer ano Cage 16 (
+-abut
+to turn 17
+- taken to Nt fr tang by marwell Epstein -how to
+sence men
+- in Cin Case, got recards com. her an hit plane
+- She ques to povate island Little st. James -USuI
+- few nies off st. Am.
+corpus
+othes.
+- Prised edic. is mager. ther
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 9
+- @18 told by Epsters too old
+- Of 9 went Thala tired get were n
++ Flea to
+- filed cunt luwsut in 2015 - defamatin sut.
+against Maxwell
+-
+She ant pula cat declare no est
+Pl sut - pro benogait USAD 6/s they didat (atenica
+Virgin libert mad to pain those wits
+- in Joll a Batish repater andher t intendend he
+abut Prince Andrew. Also Said met
+-Said was Epstein ser save
+L0ll was tist aty of her.
+- FBI went t interiewed Virgin -H FRL-
+302. FBI FI want to pursue inu.
+Agents Jasan Richards -Nesbit Kirkendas
+Virgina
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 9
+- 2010 - civil depos. A Epsten Armen htter
+Up?
+Ded to carp. agak -475
+was sell.
+- triedto sell bake explaned hau it all untes
+in recarded mts. 131 Agent intuin
+- Notravez didi dile
+- Agent ild altadaut in abstuce car.
+- Enstein's lawyers sacd hia property
+1997-2005 flight logs + manifess.
+CP - Virgina
+- Have ban told Epsters had photos in hase, in PB-MY-
+USVI
+- I photo pa to hi wall artic - paced
+genitals
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 9
+Photos of naked garls on marvell's cony.
+* SW executed an PB hase. Collage, of phores incholed
+nude gils inc. client. Epstein topped off. All Compter
+were gane.
+Vanana says camene all over Nf house. She believe
+they were used tir exam or bin by Epstein. When lal
+ant to other men hadto repat budl
+Videas recard.
+a bathan. recade
+Maxwell +
+ruk sexily explicit plain i
+Maxwell gave phets to Epstein fo boday@ age ller
+- Phets hid in are if the homes
+Saved as consters.
+USM
+-Subp. issued tr. Computers
+Registered as sex offende in L
+Level 3
+lansered in N7
+WatY
+by prate jet
+Exacts an planes =
+Manhattan
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21 Page 7 of 9
+Vinia wants prosecatim
+lal oblige to de
+She has eusit against Moralfo delainatin. Tuth.
+She wants settlement vog, into non, noft to help girt
+in same situation
+and awa
+Od FBI search his planes? Did thy fred hidder
+cameras?
+Cancern actare pedophile.
+litch to other prosecutors? nu
+Bark deal? not naw
+- 20/20 intanew last snain > ABC kixed it - lawyers pulled it
+-Have pubins of diang
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 204-5 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 9
+- They will send me at louts departin
+- Hard, part. ste rshape
+Wanted to have bady if he?
+-
+same mo if one other uztim - 1yr. old -emads wher
+-As yung as 12 but yanger the better.
+Virania emailed Epstein
+harand- am chare
+Jane - unter by Mor well
++ handuntten note w/ nancof
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-5
+Filed 04/16/21
+Page 9 of g
+Brad
+Trial Attorney
+1, Jaffe, Weissing.
+Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
+Mass Torts
+Class Action
+Personal Injury
+Wrongful Death
+Whistleblower Cases
+WWW.PATHTOJUSTICE.COM
+STAN POTTINgER
+J. STANLEY PoTTiNgeR PLLC
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5672813333d559ebe0c038ab462c658c8037544c2aad2042fcecb5c5c0cdb65.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5672813333d559ebe0c038ab462c658c8037544c2aad2042fcecb5c5c0cdb65.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4a92e183641b142e43129f6bcda59cb8f551747f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5672813333d559ebe0c038ab462c658c8037544c2aad2042fcecb5c5c0cdb65.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -134,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f5672813333d559ebe0c038ab462c658c8037544c2aad2042fcecb5c5c0cdb65",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 13,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "066d5cf1cbb6e0aaff4f9a3c1dd567a251b239c0edf3d5ee397e615a97afbe90",
+  "output_sha256": "7a3c0751242e0352b2d0d5637ea094babdb6199f7c4ae60cedf5c9041084aca8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5791cc411507f461fdb506b3b3a25e96df758ebc12cbb1ca595222b889d7e73.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5791cc411507f461fdb506b3b3a25e96df758ebc12cbb1ca595222b889d7e73.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..22931afd4f634d162109c9c1bff94935fe1c185c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5791cc411507f461fdb506b3b3a25e96df758ebc12cbb1ca595222b889d7e73.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 282
+Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 1
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 278
+Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 1
+Meredith Esq.
+Email: mschultz@hsfllp.com
+July 13, 2016
+Via CM/ECF
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICAT! Y FILED
+DOC #: _
+DATE PILED: 7/15/16
+Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
+Dear Judge Sweet,
+This is a letter motion to file
+Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction
+Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and certain accompanying exhibits under
+seal pursuant to this Court's Protective Order (DE 62).
+The Protective Order states:
+Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing
+CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be
+accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case
+Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4.
+Numerous materials have been marked as confidential in this case. As
+Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
+and certain accompanying exhibits contain material that the parties have designated as
+confidential, she seeks leave to file it under seal.
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith |
+cc: Laura Menninger and Jeffrey Pagliuca via CM/ECF
+, Esq.
+Sweet
+OSDT
+7.15-16
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5791cc411507f461fdb506b3b3a25e96df758ebc12cbb1ca595222b889d7e73.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5791cc411507f461fdb506b3b3a25e96df758ebc12cbb1ca595222b889d7e73.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..466c74a739209939855eee9de678e26ff532b870
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5791cc411507f461fdb506b3b3a25e96df758ebc12cbb1ca595222b889d7e73.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f5791cc411507f461fdb506b3b3a25e96df758ebc12cbb1ca595222b889d7e73",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f520b77d3c60d7bc978347e8cff983ae237ae0257987f1108e38bb420b38a4b0",
+  "output_sha256": "5b4d8e1d9f7ef6b9e05190123510b8bec24b0a44bdf556cb6a0e0f4a4fd32633",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f58e8d41fccbe64d90577d6ea31300ebd20872ac93082b66558e571f24b41de1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f58e8d41fccbe64d90577d6ea31300ebd20872ac93082b66558e571f24b41de1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7fafb316c06f39ec9607ce41e6c37d356d321ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f58e8d41fccbe64d90577d6ea31300ebd20872ac93082b66558e571f24b41de1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1767 @@
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 69
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+- X
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S
+OMNIBUS MOTIONS IN LIMINE
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON.
+1&1
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Jenver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New
+York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+P.C.
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 69
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine...
+B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here
+1
+1
+2
+C. The Court Should Reject the Government's Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or
+Cross Examination.
+4
+I.
+THE GOVERNMENT'S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE,
+AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE
+4
+A.
+1.
+2.
+5
+...5
+10
+12
+B. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to
+Use Fake Names..
+C.
+15
+Defeats the Proffered Purpose for Using Fake Names.....
+17
+1.
+2.
+D.
+F.
+E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present .
+18
+19
+19
+Has No Nexus to Ms. Maxwell and Any
+Reference to Her Should Be Excluded -- Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other
+Artifice
+20
+G.
+1, Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses
+Serves No Legitimate Purpose....
+20
+H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell
+20
+I SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED
+SECOND CIRCUIT LAW
+23
+II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON "PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS" INAPPROPRIATE 23
+A. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent
+Statements May Be Admitted ...........
+B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements
+. 24
+25
+i
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 3 of 69
+III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE
+COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE
+A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of
+28
+29
+B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of
+Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New
+York Investigation..
+32
+1. Applicable Law.
+32
+2. Discussion ..
+32
+C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by the
+USAO-SDFL Is Relevant to l
+1. Applicable Law
+2. Discussion ..
+36
+36
+37
+D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of Prior
+Investigations Is Admissible ...
+40
+E. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary and
+Unwarranted
+41
+IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT
+ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND
+MERITLESS
+.. 42
+V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-
+TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY
+...43
+VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO
+SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE
+46
+VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD
+ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED
+49
+A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such Evidence... 50
+B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse --
+Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation - May Be Relevant to Existence of
+Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives.
+51
+VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS.
+MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS
+TIME....
+....54
+IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF
+EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY
+NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT
+X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED
+..55
+. 56
+
+
+Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 4 of 69
+IMS. MAXWELL WAS THE PREVAILING
+PARTY IN CIVIL LITIGATION BASED ON THE SAME FACTS AS THIS CRIMINAL
+TRIAL, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO MS. MAXWELL'S DEFENSE
+CONCLUSION.
+59
+iii
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 69
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 (1931).
+20,29
+Application of Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) ...
+Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., 1998 WL 665138 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998)...... 2
+Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir. 1986).
+Boyce v.
+,. 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WL 2821154 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021)
+Campanella v. O'Flynn, No. 10-CV-6236L, 2012 WL 2194556 (W.D.N. Y. June 14, 2012).
+Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, 680 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2012).
+v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973).
+.. 23
+32, 35, 41,42
+53
+. 19
+...3
+28
+CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Properties, Inc., 48 F.3d 618 (1st Cir.1995) ..
+Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986)......
+Crowe v. Bolduc, 334 F.3d 124 (Ist Cir. 2003).
+Curto v. Med. World Comme'ns, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ..
+Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986).
+Doe v.
+Cty., Illinois, No. 1:20-CV-5832, 2021 WL 2258313 (N.D. III. June 3, 2021)
+19
+36
+30
+19
+21
+16
+Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
+Doe v. Weinstein, 484 F. Supp. 3d 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
+Esquival-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017).
+Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d 545 (7th Cir.) ...
+16
+16
+46
+54
+In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1965) ..
+.. 16
+In re Refco Cap. Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008
+WL 4962985 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008)...
+Knaust v. City of Kingston, 157 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1998)
+Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)....
+Lindsey v.
+769 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1985) ..
+Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984)....
+M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 233 (D. Conn. 2008)
+..3
+.. 19
+.. passim
+32, 35, 41, 43
+1
+..3
+iv
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 |
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 69
+Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. L.E. Myers Co. Group et al., 937 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
+Palmieri v. Defaria et al., 88 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1996)...
+Palocioz v. Hannigan, 962 F.2d 17 (10th Cir. 1992)..
+People v. Harvey Weinstein, 02335/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
+People v. Harvey Weinstein, 2673/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
+Rapp v.
+1. No. 20-CV-9586 (LAK), 2021 WL 1738349 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2021).
+Seymour v. Bache & Co., 502 F. Supp. 115 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)..
+...2
+1
+19
+16
+16
+16
+3
+Spencer v. City of New York, No. 06 Civ. 2852 (KMW), 2011 WL 13257640 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 5,
+2011)...
+31
+State v. Ryan Odom 2011CF012120AMB...
+18
+Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995).
+25,26,27
+TVT Recs. v. Island Def Jam Music Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)..
+2
+United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, No. 14-CV-5903 (JGK), 2019 WL 5285043
+(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019)...
+United States ex rel. Annunziato v. Manson, 425 F. Supp. 1272 (D. Conn. 1977).
+United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008).
+United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)..
+2
+29
+36
+42
+United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013)... 37,
+39
+United States v. Boyle, No. 08 Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009) .....
+37
+United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1969)...
+..3
+United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) ..
+27
+United States v. Carneglia, No. 08 Cr. 76 (JBW), 2009 WL 185725 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2009). 37
+United States v.
+1. 553 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1977).
+17
+United States v.
+800 F. App'x 43 (2d. Cir. 2020) ..
+52
+United States v. Corley, No. 13-CR-48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2016) .... 17
+United States v. Crisona, 416 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1969) ..
+..3
+United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559 (2d Cir. 1991).
+42
+United States v. Dan Zhong, No. 16-CR-614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26,
+2018)..
+United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d (2d Cir. 2021) .
+United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 1994) ..
+United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019). 41
+United States v. Evanchik, 413 F.2d 950 (2d Cir. 1969) .
+17
+52
+30
+3
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 7 of 69
+United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011).
+United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687 (2d. Cir. 2019)..
+United States v. Fratello, 44 F.R.D. 444 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)..
+United States v. Gangi, 1 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
+United States v. Gardner, No. 16-cr-20135, 2016 WL 5404207 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2016).... 56
+United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2001)..
+United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19-CR-490 (RMB)...
+United States. v. Karl Roye, Crim. No. 3:15-cr-29 (JBA), 2016 WL 4147133 at (D. Conn. Aug.
+4, 2016)...
+United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1957) ..
+United States v.
+1, 175 F. App'x 370 (2d Cir. 2006)..
+United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263 (2d Cir. 1970)
+United States v.
+1. No. 04 Cr. 1106 MCA, 2005 WL 8163890 (D.N.M. Apr. 11, 2005)..... 31
+United States v. Morel, 751 F. Supp. 2d 423 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ..
+United States v. Morris, No. 14-CR-399 (ENV), 2018 WL 2088301 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2018).. 17
+United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19 (2d Cir. 2020) ..
+United States v. Overton, No. 15-CR-9S, 2017 WL 6347084 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017)
+United States v. Paris, No. CR. 3:06-CR-64CFD, 2007 WL 1484974 (D. Conn. May 18, 2007)17
+United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4** 158 (2d Cir. 2021)
+United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1986)..
+United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997)
+42
+25
+...4
+19
+23
+11
+.. 26
+30
+41
+17
+..2
+41
+.... 2
+28
+24, 25, 26
+42
+United States v.
+, No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015) 53,
+54
+United States v. Rounds, No. 10-CR-239S (1)(2)(3), 2015 WL 5918372 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015)
+United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2000).
+United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711 (2d Cir. 2000) .
+United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d. Cir. 1990)..
+United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)...
+United States v.
+, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012)..
+Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 9194 CM, 2010 WL 11043081 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25,
+2010).
+v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
+41
+42
+, 52
+17
+36
+...54
+.. 4
+vi
+
+
+
+Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Int'l PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010-CJCMGLX,
+2008 WL 11342955 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008).
+3
+Statutes
+Fla Stat. § 796.07 ..
+Fla. Stat. § 794.05(1).
+New York State Penal Law § 130.55
+NM Stat. Ann. § 30-9-13(A)(1)
+NY Penal Law Ann. § 130.03(3)(a).
+Other Authorities
+1 McCormick On Evid. § 47 (7th ed.) ..
+ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b)..
+France Penal Code, Article 227-25
+&
+30B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid.(2021 ed.)..
+47,48
+46
+47
+46
+46
+Rules
+Fed. R. Evid. 401
+Fed. R. Evid. 403
+Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
+Fed. R. Evid. 801 ...
+Fed. R. Evid. 802
+Fed. R. Evid. 803
+26
+51
+46
+26,27
+27,36
+35,36
+50,51
+.. passim
+..54
+54
+vii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 9 of 69
+Ghislaine Maxwell herby submits her response to the Government's Omnibus Motions in
+Limine.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+The government's self-described "Motions in Limine" are an ill-founded attempt to:
+(1) improperly obtain advisory rulings from the Court on an undeveloped factual record;
+(2) prematurely, and unconstitutionally, force Ms. Maxwell to reveal defense theories, strategies,
+and cross-examination; (3) improperly limit Ms. Maxwell's defenses; and (4) inappropriately
+enlist the Court in vouching for the credibility of the accusers by the use of pseudonyms and
+other artifices.
+For the most part, the issues raised by the government cannot, and should not, be
+addressed pretrial because the Court lacks the necessary facts to make intelligent rulings. The
+issues raised under headings II-XI should be denied on this basis alone. The arguments related to
+the use of pseudonyms and other artifices fails because
+the limitations suggested by the government will: (1) unconstitutionally
+restrict Ms. Maxwell's confrontation rights; (2) run afoul of both her right to a public trial and
+the First Amendment right to public access, and (3) are simply unworkable as a practical matter
+inviting a mistrial.
+A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine
+The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on
+the admissibility of certain forecasted evidence. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2
+(1984) (explaining that the motion in limine is used to "to exclude anticipated prejudicial
+evidence before the evidence is actually offered"); see also Palmieri v. Defaria et al., 88 F.3d
+136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) ("The purpose of an in limine motion is to aid the trial process by
+enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 10 of 69
+to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial."
+(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. L.E. Myers Co.
+Group et al., 937 F. Supp. 276, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (same). Evidence should be excluded on a
+motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. See
+Baxter Diagnostics, Inc. v. Novatek Med., Inc., 1998 WL 665138, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25,
+1998); Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 937 F. Supp. at 287.
+The way the government has raised its purported "in limine" motions is disfavored. Like
+the government's motions here, where a party "endeavor[s] to strike in shotgun fashion at whole
+topics and sources of prospective evidence, out of context and before any specific objection
+against its proper backdrop is raised...." the strategy is "impermissible" and the motions should
+be denied. TVT Recs. v. Island Def Jam Music Grp., 250 F. Supp. 2d 341, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
+Where the in limine motion seeks to preclude evidence or argument regarding various
+defenses it "is plainly improper." United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser, No. 14-CV-5903
+(JGK), 2019 WL 5285043, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019); see also United States v. Overton, No.
+15-CR-9S, 2017 WL 6347084, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2017); United States v. Morel, 751 F.
+Supp. 2d 423, 427-28 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
+B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here
+Out of context, the government attempts to preclude whole categories of potential
+defenses, argument, and cross examination before one witness has testified. See Sections III, IV,
+IX ("The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument"), V (The Court Should Preclude
+Challenges), VII ("the Court Should Require the Defense"), VIII ("The Court should not
+Permit"), X ("The Court Should Preclude the Defense"), and XI ("The Defendant Should be
+Precluded").
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 11 of 69
+These arguments are about things that have not occurred and
+Maxwell's counsel understand the rules of evidence and the law. Much of what may or may not
+happen in this trial will depend on the evidence produced by the government. Ms. Maxwell has
+no burden of proof and is not required to respond to hypothetical demands or provide previews
+about how she intends to cross examine witnesses. Consistent with prudent judicial practices, the
+Court should decline to rule on these hypothetical complaints. See Seymour v. Bache & Co., 502
+F. Supp. 115, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ("In light of the uncertainties surrounding these legal issues, a
+potentially unnecessary, and thus merely advisory, ruling should be avoided."); In re Refco Cap.
+Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008 WL 4962985, at *5
+(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, 680 F.3d 214
+(2d Cir. 2012) ("However, this request amounts to a demand for an advisory ruling as to the
+effect of an entirely hypothetical future pleading that might be asserted given the occurrence of
+contingent future events."); M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 233, 242 (D. Conn.
+2008) ("The Court again declines to provide an advisory ruling on a matter that is not yet ripe.");
+and Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Int'l PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010-
+CJCMGLX, 2008 WL 11342955, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) ("The Court will not issue an
+advisory ruling on a theoretical affirmative defense that may not actually be asserted.").
+The government's overreaching extends to areas that cannot be anticipated prior to
+witness testimony, and the trial court's power to limit (or not limit) cross-examination is often
+best exercised after hearing the direct testimony of the witnesses. United States v. Evanchik, 413
+F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Crisona, 416 F.2d 107, 117 (2d Cir. 1969), cert.
+denied, 397 U.S. 961 (1970); United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231, 234 (2d Cir. 1969).
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 12 of 69
+C. The Court Should Reject the Government's Attempts to Preview any Defense
+Case or Cross Examination
+Unless and until the prosecution has established its prima facie case, the defendant "is not
+called upon to determine whether to produce documents and material normally privileged. It
+imposes a price on the exercise of a constitutional right to require a pre-trial decision of the trial
+tactics which are normally determined by a defense lawyer following the completion of the
+prima facie case." United States v. Fratello, 44 F.R.D. 444, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). Moreover, the
+decision to prosecute someone criminally carries with it certain consequences:
+Under our constitutional system, a criminal defendant—need not do anything at all
+remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to: "Prove it!"
+United States v. Wilkerson, 388 F. Supp. 3d 969, 972 (E.D. Tenn. 2019) (quoting
+V.
+Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 112 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting)).
+Much of the government's argument is directed at causing the defense to provide a
+preview of its strategy and the substance of defense cross examination which should be rejected
+by the Court.
+I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY,
+UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE
+The government proposes various false or partial names for some of the accusers and
+witnesses. The request is not supported by any factual declaration. No evidence exists suggesting
+that any witness has been or would be threatened by Ms. Maxwell. None of the witnesses are
+minors.
+4
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 13 of 69
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 14 of 69
+6
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 15 of 69
+7
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 16 of 69
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 17 of 69
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 18 of 69
+10
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 19 of 69
+11
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 20 of 69
+12
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 21 of 69
+13
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 22 of 69
+14
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 23 of 69
+B. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary
+Need to Use Fake Names
+The government's motion to use false names and suppress evidence from the public falls
+short in both evidence and analysis. Other than conclusory arguments by lawyers, the motion
+contains no facts supporting any of the claims related to future reputational harm or
+embarrassment. As the proponent of this extraordinary measure, the government cannot simply
+hypothesize that, as to adult women
+, the
+use of false names here will "protect [their] well-being, prevent undue embarrassment and other
+adverse consequences, including loss of employment, and prevent the victims from being
+harassed by the press and others." Mot. at 10. It is the government's burden to establish that,
+- some reason exists to proceed by pseudonym. That "burden is not, of course, discharged by
+mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions, for any such rule would foreclose meaningful inquiry"
+into the issue. In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 24 of 69
+The movant bears the burden of proof to show factors that outweigh the ordinary
+presumption of judicial openness. Doe v. L
+Cty., Illinois, No. 1:20-CV-5832, 2021 WL
+2258313, at *3 (N.D. III. June 3, 2021). And, in the context of maintaining an alleged victim's
+anonymity for the types of reasons proffered by the government, "conclusory statements are of
+limited utility." Rapp v.
+, No. 20-CV-9586 (LAK), 2021 WL 1738349, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
+May 3, 2021). Even if the government's motion was supported by any evidence, "claims of
+public humiliation and embarrassment" due to "significant media attention... are not sufficient
+grounds for allowing" an accuser to proceed anonymously. " Doe v. Shakur, 164 F.R.D. 359,
+361-62 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying motion to proceed by pseudonym brought by woman who
+alleged that rapper Tupac Shakur assaulted her despite the media attention the case likely was to
+attract); see also Doe v. Weinstein, 484 F. Supp. 3d 90, 95 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying motion to
+proceed by pseudonym brought by woman who alleged that movie producer Harvey Weinstein
+assaulted her despite that Weinstein's infamy was likely to cause significant media attention); see
+also People v. Harvey Weinstein, Indictment Nos. 02335/2018 and 2673/19 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)
+With no analysis relating to the facts of this case, the government has cobbled together a
+variety of cases holding that under certain limited circumstances the identity of alleged sex
+assault victims may be publicly suppressed. Generally, these cases fall into a few overlapping
+categories:
+16
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 25 of 69
+' (2) alleged minor victims who are truly
+minors at the time of their testimony!; and (3) alleged victims who demonstrated legitimate
+safety concerns."
+18 Mot. at 7 United States v. Corley, No. 13-CR-48 (AJN), 2016 WL 9022508, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15,
+2016) (minor victim after trial).
+1º Mot. at 5, United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1265 (2d Cir. 1970)(The government claims this case
+involved the identity of the witness, which is not true. The only issue was the address of the witness,
+"Pelletier" identified in the opinion: "Since counsel could not insure that Pelletier or his family would not
+be harassed, it was perhaps not unreasonable for them to view as too costly the court's condition on
+allowing Pelletier to answer." Id.); United States v. Urena, 8 F. Supp. 3d 568 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)(allegations
+of racketeering, murder, and narcotics trafficking identity of officers suppressed; United States v.
+1. 553 F.2d 300, 304 (2d Cir. 1977)(kidnapping, witness was threatened and was in witness
+protection program-only address of witness, not identity was restricted); Mot. at 7, United States v. Dan
+Zhong, No. 16-CR-614 (DLI), 2018 WL 6173430, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018)(victims of the alleged
+forced labor conspiracy-concerns for safety)
+17
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 26 of 69
+18
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 27 of 69
+D.
+The events that are the subject matter of the S2 Indictment are alleged to have occurred
+decades ago. Thus, the witnesses are adults with established lives and careers.
+Accordingly, cases involving actual minors and the reasons for shielding their names in sex
+assault cases are not present here.
+E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present
+Another reason that some courts have agreed to allow the use of false names is where the
+witness has a legitimate safety concern. None has been articulated here. Ms. Maxwell has never
+interacted with these witnesses, nor has she threatened them.
+19
+
+
+Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 28 of 69
+and
+Any Reference to Her Should Be Excluded -- Eliminating the Need for a
+Pseudonym or Other Artifice
+Apparently, the government contends that
+perform sexual acts by
+was induced to
+•who has never met, spoken to, or
+identified Ms. Maxwell. Because this potential witness was only recently disclosed, investigation
+into her background is ongoing and Ms. Maxwell will need to supplement this response.
+However, the government has not made any compelling factual showing about why secrecy is
+necessary here.
+G.
+1, Hiding Their Identities and Those of
+Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose
+The government also requests that the identities of various witnesses, |
+, also be shielded form the public because, according to the government, revealing the
+identity of the witness will reveal the identity of the accuser. As noted supra,
+1 Given these facts, pseudonyms for the
+witnesses is a futile gesture.
+H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell
+"Cross-examination of a witness is a matter of right." Permissible purposes of crossexamination are that the witness may be identified in her community so that independent
+testimony may be sought and offered of her reputation for veracity in her own neighborhood, that
+the jury may interpret the testimony by knowledge of the witness's environment, and that facts
+may be brought out tending to discredit the witness by showing that her testimony was untrue or
+biased. Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 691-92 (1931). The Confrontation Clause of the
+20
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 29 of 69
+Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted
+with the witnesses against her. The right to confront means more than being allowed to confront
+the witness physically. The main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the
+opponent the opportunity of cross-examination. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678
+(1986).
+Here, the government seeks to strip Ms. Maxwell of her right to confront the witnesses.
+The identity, occupations, and backgrounds of the accusers is material and relevant to the
+defense of this case for many reasons. First,
+should be able to evaluate the testimony knowing that l
+A jury
+including when the allegations may or may not
+have occurred, whether any action attributed to Ms. Maxwell could be considered "grooming,"
+and the resources available to the accusers at any point in time.
+Each of these items of cross-examination will further expose the identities of the
+witness.
+background and circumstances are also relevant. [
+Being part of the government's case here obviated any need for actual proof to the fund.
+21
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 30 of 69
+The identity of the lawyers for the accusers may also be the subject of cross examination.
+The lawyers for the accusers have cooperated and shared information with each other and the
+government for years.
+Substantial impeachment evidence exists as tol
+under her real name, not a
+pseudonym. Ms. Maxwell should not be forced to compromise the full effect of this evidence by
+use of a first name only.
+The government's proposal also creates substantial possibility for confusion.
+Given the age of the allegations and the potential for confusion by the witnesses the
+use of first names or fake names is untenable.
+Should the Court grant the government's request it will also be confusing, and impossible
+to neutrally explain to the jury why some accusers are publicly identified by their real names
+while others are not. Any explanation will be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell.
+here is no legitimate
+reason for fake names. The request by the government is tactical. Having the court instruct the
+jury that, as a result of "privacy" or "safety" concerns, certain accusers or witnesses are being
+shielded affords the witness Court-sanctioned sympathy and credibility at Ms. Maxwell's
+expense. To be clear, any accuser who testifies that Ms. Maxwell participated in sex abuse or sex
+trafficking is not telling the truth. Anonymizing false statements allows additional freedom to
+fabricate and impede potential witnesses from coming forward with countervailing testimony.
+22
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 31 of 69
+I. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-
+ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW
+At this point, everyone associated with this litigation knows the definition of a "judicial
+document." In this Circuit, "there is a presumption in favor of public inspection and copying of
+any item entered into evidence at a public session of a trial." Application of Nat'l Broad. Co.,
+Inc., 635 F.2d 945, 952 (2d Cir. 1980). Moreover, after "the evidence has become known to the
+members of the public, including representatives of the press, through their attendance at a public
+session of court, it would take the most extraordinary circumstances to justify restrictions on the
+opportunity of those not physically in attendance at the courtroom to see and hear the evidence,
+when it is in a form that readily permits sight and sound reproduction." Id. Where the requested
+documents were introduced at trial, the strong weight to be accorded the public right of access to
+judicial documents was largely derived from the role those documents played in determining
+litigants' substantive rights -- conduct at the heart of Article III -- and from the need for public
+monitoring of that conduct. United States v. Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 151 (2d Cir. 2001).
+Suppression of any exhibit that contains an accuser's name in this case is doubly
+problematic -- many of the anticipated exhibits are "judicial documents" from other proceedings
+that have previously been made public or documents already accessible by the public. There is
+nothing confidential about the exhibits and neither the exhibits nor the names of the witnesses
+should be redacted or suppressed.
+II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON "PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS"
+INAPPROPRIATE
+The government seeks a pre-trial ruling that certain unspecified "prior consistent
+statements" of the accusers will be admissible at trial if the defense "challenges the credibility of
+the testimony" of the accusers in some unspecified way. Mot. at 17. Under the government's
+apparent view, any credibility challenge will permit any prior statement of the government's
+23
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 32 of 69
+choosing to be admitted, in any quantity or as to any topic. That's not the law. Because a
+number of foundational prerequisites must be satisfied prior to determining that any given "prior
+statement" is admissible, the government's request for a pre-trial ruling on prior consistent
+statements calls for an inappropriate advisory opinion. Not one of the cases cited by the
+government in its Motion concerned a pretrial ruling as to the admissibility of a prior consistent
+statement, and with good reason. If the government had wanted the Court to rule pretrial on the
+admissibility of prior consistent statements, it could have told the Court exactly which statements
+they will seek to admit, the circumstances of those prior statements, whether they are in fact
+consistent with specific anticipated trial testimony, and whether the other foundational
+prerequisites, including Rule 403, will be satisfied and how. Having failed to provide the Court
+with these particulars, the government's motion in limine should be denied.
+A. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior
+Consistent Statements May Be Admitted
+First, the 2014 Amendments were not nearly as ground-breaking as the Motion suggests.
+The Amendments did not, contrary to the government's implication, change the grounds for
+admissibility of prior consistent statements. See Mot. at 17-18. According to the Advisory
+Committee Notes:
+"The [2014] amendment does not change the traditional and well-accepted limits
+on bringing prior consistent |
+purposes. It does not allow impermissible bolstering of a witness.... The amendment
+does not make any consistent statement admissible that was not admissible
+previously — the only difference is that prior consistent statements otherwise
+admissible for rehabilitation are now admissible substantively as well."
+As the government correctly notes, prior to 2014 the Second Circuit, like many other
+circuits, admitted prior consistent statements "outside of the context of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) in
+order to rehabilitate a witness after certain attacks on credibility." Mot. at 18 (citing United
+States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d Cir. 1986)). The effect of the 2014 Amendment then, as
+24
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 33 of 69
+the Second Court explained, was to allow for such statements to be admitted "substantively as
+well," rather than as non-substantive rehabilitation. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687,
+705-06 (2d. Cir. 2019) (amendment "extend|s] substantive effect to consistent statements that
+rebut other attacks on a witness - such as the charges of inconsistency or faulty memory")
+(emphasis in original). Thus, consistent with Pierre and other pre-2014 cases, prior consistent
+statements may be admissible to rehabilitate a witness or to explain a faulty memory, and any
+such evidence will now be admitted substantively, but the limits on those prior methods of
+admitting prior consistent statements for rehabilitation remain applicable post-2014.
+B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements
+The question at trial will be which of the supposedly prior consistent statements are
+admissible and for what purpose. On that question, the government is silent. See Mot. at 19
+(government "intends to call a number of witnesses to introduce certain of the Minor Victims'
+prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein")
+(emphasis added). By not specifying in their Motion which statements they seek to introduce or
+the specific purposes for which they will move for admission, the government has deprived the
+defense of an opportunity to challenge the statements' admissibility or for the Court to rule on the
+admissibility pre-trial. Rule 801(d)(1)(B)'s amendment in 2014 did not alter the landscape so
+much that any attack on the accusers' credibility will allow any prior consistent statement.
+Important limits remain on the admissibility of prior consistent statements.
+If the government moves to admit particular statements to rebut a charge of recent
+fabrication or improper motive under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i), as the Motion suggests they will, the
+evidentiary hurdles established by Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995), still apply.
+In particular, the government must show proof that the motive for fabrication or improper
+purpose arose after the purported statement. In Tome, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
+25
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 34 of 69
+motive to fabricate arose immediately after the supposed child-abuse, and thus statements made
+to others, months or years later, were inadmissible under now-Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i). The same is
+true here. The improper influence and motive to fabricate occurred, in several instances, many
+years ago, shortly after the purported abuse occurred, and before the recently-disclosed
+"consistent" statements.
+. 30B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6753 Consistent
+Premotive Statements (2021 ed.) ("As in Tome, prior consistent statements will frequently be
+tainted by the same alleged motive to lie that is claimed to impugn the witness' trial testimony. If
+so, Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i) does not permit their introduction. This result has favorable policy
+implications. As Tome stresses, the general exclusion of prior consistent statements ensures that
+'the whole emphasis of the trial' does not "shift to the out-of-court statements" as opposed to 'the
+in-court ones.").
+If the government instead offers prior consistent statements to rehabilitate their accusers
+or explain their faulty memory under Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(ii), the "offered prior consistent
+statement must serve to rehabilitate the witness's credibility on the same ground upon which the
+witness's credibility was attacked." United States. v. Karl Roye, Crim. No. 3:15-cr-29 (JBA),
+2016 WL 4147133 at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 4, 2016) (citing 1 McCormick On Evid. § 47 (7th ed.)
+("The general test of admissibility is whether evidence of the witness's ... consistent statements
+is logically relevant to explain the impeaching fact. The rehabilitating facts must meet the
+impeachment with relative directness. The wall, attacked at one point, may not be fortified at
+another, distinct point.")). As was the case prior to the 2014 Amendments, "a prior consistent
+statement may only be used for rehabilitation "when the statement has a probative force bearing
+on credibility beyond merely showing repetition." United States v. Pierre, 781 F.2d 329, 333 (2d.
+Cir. 1986).
+26
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 35 of 69
+Finally, admissibility of the number and type of prior consistent statements still is guided
+by Rules 401 and 403, including whether the prior consistent statements are reliable, cumulative,
+or unfairly prejudicial; the Court may choose to exclude prior consistent statements when the
+quantity and type of prior consistent statements form the bulk of the government's case rather
+than the trial testimony of the witnesses. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 165 (1995) ('If
+the Rule were to permit the introduction of prior statements as substantive evidence to rebut
+every implicit charge that a witness' in-court testimony results from recent fabrication or
+improper influence or motive, the whole emphasis of the trial could shift to the out-of-court
+statements, not the in-court ones.");
+supra, § 6754 ("The danger of substantive
+use of the prior statement remains on the unfair prejudice side of the ledger."). "One thing the
+courts all agree on is that there is 'no rule admitting all prior consistent statements simply to
+bolster the credibility of a witness." Id. (emphasis supplied).
+As to introduction of these prior consistent statements through other witnesses, the
+Second Circuit is clear that "where the declarant has already testified and the prior consistent
+statement is proffered through the testimony of another witness, the Rule's 'subject to crossexamination' requirement is satisfied if the opposing party is not denied the opportunity to recall
+the declarant to the stand for cross-examination concerning the statement." United States v.
+Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30, 39 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus, if the government elicits prior consistent
+statements from third-party witnesses, then they will be obliged to make the declarant-Accuser
+available for recall to be subjected to cross examination concerning those statements.
+In sum, the Court's rulings regarding admissibility of prior consistent statements can only
+come at the time the government proffers them, explains the purpose for which they are offered
+(whether under subpart (i) or (ii) of Rule 801(d)(1)(B)) and clears the other evidentiary hurdles
+27
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 36 of 69
+for admissibility. To the extent the government seeks a pretrial ruling that all prior consistent
+statements may be admitted after any attack on the accusers' credibility, this Court should deny
+such a request.
+III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND
+THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE
+"The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is
+a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth
+Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by the Due
+Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir.
+2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "The right of an accused in a criminal
+trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's
+accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's
+own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process."
+v. Mississippi,
+410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973).
+The government seeks to cripple Ms. Maxwell's ability to present a meaningful defense
+to the charges by trying to preclude evidence and argument that is relevant and admissible and
+central to Ms. Maxwell's defense. The government argues that Ms. Maxwell should be
+precluded from offering evidence and argument concerning the following facts: (1) the United
+States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") entered into a
+Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with Jeffrey Epstein, which resolved the USAO-
+SDFL/Palm Beach FBI investigation into Epstein (the "Florida Investigation") in 2008; (2) the
+USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell in its proposed indictment and did not immunize her
+by name in the NPA; and (3) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
+New York ("USAO-SDNY") charged only Epstein in the first indictment in this case, and did
+28
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 37 of 69
+not charge Ms. Maxwell until later in its investigation (the "New York Investigation"). See Mot.
+at 24. Contrary to the government's assertion, this evidence is directly relevant to, and probative
+of, issues of consequence in this case and is therefore admissible on several grounds. Indeed, the
+government's motion seems more calculated to preclude evidence that may be embarrassing or
+reflect badly on the government, rather than evidence that may be inadmissible.
+A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of |
+The government has missed a straightforward reason why the NPA is itself admissible:
+the terms of the NPA apply tol
+-and it may therefore be used to show their bias and interest.
+Like any witness subject to a cooperation agreement or immunity agreement, the
+defense is entitled to cross-examine
+The NPA also applies to l
+and can be used to show her financial interest.
+Under the terms of the NPA, Epstein was required to pay for a lawyer for all the individuals
+29
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 38 of 69
+whom the government identified as a victim of his offenses so that they could sue him for
+damages in civil lawsuits. See NPA at 4_
+Iwas one of those individuals. The
+NPA further stipulated that Epstein could not contest his liability in those lawsuits and could not
+contest the amount of money damages as long as it was agreed upon by the parties. See id
+sued Epstein under this provision of the NPA and eventually settled with him for
+Accordingly, the NPA is relevant and
+admissible, and the defense is entitled to use it to cross-examin
+about her
+financial interest. See United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 1957) (*it is
+permissible to show [on cross-examination] that the witness is financially interested in the
+outcome of the litigation); Crowe v. Bolduc, 334 F.3d 124, 132 (Ist Cir. 2003) (evidence that a
+trial witness has a financial incentive in the outcome of the trial is "classic evidence of bias,
+which is routinely permitted on cross-examination"); United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838, 844
+(9th Cir. 1994) (the question of whether witness had financial interest in outcome of trial is
+"critical" to the jury's determination of credibility).
+There is also little risk that the jury will be confused by the introduction of the NPA. The
+Florida Investigation, which the NPA concluded, will already be a significant part of the
+government's case-in-chief. It is clear from the government's witness list and exhibit list that it
+intends to call at least two members of the Palm Beach Police Department,
+, to introduce various items of evidence that were recovered from the search
+of Epstein's Palm Beach residence in October 2005. These include numerous message pad slips
+as well as photographs and video of the exterior and interior of the Palm Beach residence. See
+GX-1-A through GX-1-P; GX-2-A through GX-2-W; GX-3-A through GX-3-KK; GX-4-A
+through GX-4-K.; GX-201 through GX-296.
+30
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 39 of 69
+Accordingly, the Florida Investigation will already be a central part of the case presented
+to the jury. It will not be confusing or distracting to elicit evidence of how that investigation
+concluded, as the government contends. See Mot. at 27. In fact, the opposite is true. Without
+that evidence, the jury will be left to speculate how and when the Florida Investigation ended,
+and whether Ms. Maxwell was charged in connection with that investigation. Accordingly,
+eliciting evidence of how the Florida Investigation ended, including who was (and was not)
+charged in the proposed indictment, and who was (and was not) immunized in the NPA, will be
+necessary to avoid jury confusion and speculation, as well as prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.
+The government also suggests that introducing the NPA would require an extended "trial
+within a trial" concerning the history of its creation, which was the subject of the 290-page report
+from the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (the "OPR Report"). Mot.
+at 27-28. Not so. The defense has no interest in probing the minutiae of the circumstances
+surrounding the creation of the NPA. It seems even less likely that the government would do so,
+given that the OPR Report found that the NPA was "flawed" and was extremely critical of how
+the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, handled the resolution
+of the investigation. OPR Report at 284. The risk of delay or juror confusion by putting the
+NPA at issue in the trial is therefore illusory. It should not be excluded under Rule 403.20
+20 The NPA is also not hearsay. It is an agreement that has independent legal significance and is a "verbal
+act" "containing legally operative language affecting the rights of the parties" that does not qualify as
+hearsay. Spencer v. City of New York, No. 06 Civ. 2852 (KMW), 2011 WL 13257640, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
+Jul. 5, 2011); United States v.
+_. No. 04 Cr. 1106 MCA, 2005 WL 8163890, at *5 (D.N.M. Apr. 11,
+2005); Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), committee notes, subdivision (c).
+31
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 40 of 69
+B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the
+Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and
+Good Faith of the New York Investigation
+1. Applicable Law
+The Supreme Court has recognized that it is entirely proper for the defense to explore and
+challenge "the thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." Kyles
+v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 445 (1995). For example, the defense may elicit evidence and argue
+that the government's disregard for inconsistencies in the evidence shows a willingness to accept
+allegations against the defendant without carefully and critically evaluating their veracity or
+seeking other corroborating evidence, which calls into question the integrity of the investigation.
+Id. at 445, 448 (the police's acceptance of main witness' statements, which were "replete with
+inconsistencies," revealed a "remarkably uncritical attitude" on the part of the police which
+"undermine[d] the ... integrity of the investigation"). Similarly, the defense may attack the
+government's investigation for its poor quality and lack of thoroughness, including its failure to
+corroborate key witness testimony. See Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 613 (10" Cir. 1986).
+For all of these reasons and others, the defense may "attack|] the reliability of the investigation"
+and even "the decision to charge the defendant." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446; see also id. (citing
+Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 ("A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of
+the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant[.J") and Lindsey v.
+. 769 F.2d 1034,
+1042 (5th Cir. 1985) (exculpatory evidence "carried within it the potential... for the ...
+discrediting ... of the police methods employed in assembling the case")).
+2. Discussion
+Here, the NPA, the government's prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey
+Epstein are all relevant and admissible to allow Ms. Maxwell to challenge the "thoroughness"
+32
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 41 of 69
+and "good faith" of the New York investigation leading to the charges against her. Kyles, 514
+U.S. at 445.
+It is clear from the documents produced by the government that the NPA was the reason
+why the New York Investigation was opened in late 2018. On a telephone call with the
+prosecutors on February 11, 2021, former AUSAL
+confirmed that she met with
+attorneys for some of Epstein's accusers on February 29, 2016, when she was the Project Safe
+Childhood Coordinator at the USAO-SDNY, but ultimately did not open an investigation at that
+time. See Ex. G at SDNY_GM_02742887-91. In late November 2018, however, Julie K.
+published a series of articles in the Miami Herald entitled "Perversion of Justice," which were
+sharply critical of the NPA and the perceived leniency that Epstein received to resolve the
+Florida Investigation.
+confirmed that she read the Miami Herald articles when they
+came out and "was very disturbed to read about how the case was resolved in SDFL, which was
+inconsistent with [her] assumptions when the case was presented by the attorneys in February
+2016." Id. at SDNY_GM_02742892.
+further stated that soon afterwards, she spoke
+to prosecutors in the Public Corruption Unit, including some of the prosecutors on this case, and
+discussed the Miami Herald articles and her February 29, 2016 meeting with the attorneys. See
+id. Shortly after that, the New York Investigation was opened.
+It is also clear from the documents produced by the government, that the government
+initially focused its investigation on Epstein and did not begin to investigate Ms. Maxwell until
+after Epstein died on August 10, 2019, roughly one month after he was arrested. To give just
+one example, the New York FBI did not speak to a single one of the four accusers in this case
+until after Epstein's death.
+33
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 42 of 69
+With Epstein dead, the
+media focus shifted immediately to Ms. Maxwell who was vilified as Epstein's principal
+accomplice. In addition, Epstein's accusers were extremely upset, having been denied the
+opportunity to see Epstein face the allegations against him in open court. Then-Attorney General
+William Barr publicly vowed that "[a]ny co-conspirators should not rest easy. The victims
+deserve justice, and we will ensure they get it."21 Thereafter, in announcing the arrest of
+Ghislaine Maxwell at a choreographed press conference on July 2, 2020, Acting United States
+Attorney Audrey Strauss boldly announced: "This case against Ghislaine Maxwell is the prequel
+to the earlier case we brought against Jeffrey Epstein." See https://youtu.be/hGAsZthBKCE.
+The defense is entitled to elicit this evidence, as well as evidence of the public outery and
+media scrutiny that followed the Miami Herald articles and Epstein's death, to argue that the
+government initially focused the New York investigation on Epstein and charged only him in the
+initial July 2, 2019 indictment in order to rectify the perceived injustice that the NPA was a
+"sweetheart deal" for Epstein. When Epstein died, however, the government had to scramble to
+quickly build a case against his purported co-conspirators, including Ms. Maxwell. The defense
+is further entitled to argue that the public pressure to charge Epstein's co-conspirators and the
+attendant focus on Ms. Maxwell caused the government to engage in a hasty and sloppy
+investigation in which they ignored inconsistencies in the evidence, accepted the witness'
+statements at face value without testing them or verifying them with corroborating evidence, and
+generally exhibited a "remarkably uncritical attitude" to the evidence against Ms. Maxwell.
+Kyles at 445, 448 (police's acceptance of main witness' statements, which were "replete with
+21 8/12/2019 Remarks of Attorney General William Barr to the Fraternal Order of Police (New Orleans,
+LA, Aug. 12, 2019) available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-
+barr-delivers-remarks-grand-lodge-fraternal-order-polices-64th.
+34
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 43 of 69
+inconsistencies," revealed a "remarkably uncritical attitude" on the part of the police which
+"undermined the ... integrity of the investigation"').
+Ms. Maxwell cannot pursue this legitimate line of argument without eliciting evidence of
+the NPA, the government's decision not to charge her in the initial 2019 indictment, and the
+death of Epstein. Accordingly, evidence and argument related to these topics is highly relevant
+and admissible. See id. at 445-49; Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. The
+probative value of this evidence is also not substantially outweighed by the danger of jury
+confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The story of how the New York investigation progressed from its
+opening due to the Miami Herald articles that criticized the Florida Investigation and the NPA, to
+the indictment of Epstein in July 2019 and his death in August 2019, and finally to the
+indictment of Ms. Maxwell in June 2020 is simple and straightforward. The government has a
+dim view of the average juror's intelligence if it does not think the jury can follow that there
+were two separate investigations—one in Florida that ended in 2008 with the NPA, and one in
+New York that led to charges against Epstein in 2019 and Ms. Maxwell in 2020. See Mot. at 27-
+28. That is not hard to follow." Accordingly, this evidence should not be excluded because of
+an unfounded concern about juror confusion.23
+22 It is particularly hypocritical of the government to argue that a discussion of the various investigations
+would create an "extensive side-show" because the investigations "reach[] back 20 years." Mot. at 27. If
+the government does not want a discussion about events that took place over 20 years ago, the solution is
+simple: don't charge a case where the alleged conduct is over 20 years old.
+23 The defense can also elicit this evidence without relying on hearsay. For example, the New York case
+agents could testify to the fact that Epstein alone was charged in the 2019 indictment, and the fact of his
+death, both of which are not hearsay. Moreover, we do not intend to ask the New York case agents why
+Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the 2019 indictment. It is premature, however, to litigate any hearsay
+issues at this stage. Those issues should await trial.
+35
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 44 of 69
+C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by
+the USAO-SDFL Is Relevant to
+Credibility
+1. Applicable Law
+The Second Circuit has rejected the position that evidence of government charging
+decisions is never admissible by a criminal defendant. United States v.
+1. 692 F.3d 235, 246
+(2d Cir. 2012) ("We hold ... that the government's charging decisions may be proper subjects for
+cross-examination and argument if otherwise admissible."). "Such an all or nothing approach
+undermines the longstanding principle that the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a
+meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." Id. (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476
+U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)). This is particularly true when the
+evidence "is central to the defendant's claim of innocence." Id. (categorical exclusion of
+government charging decisions "infringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused" and threatens
+"the right of the accused to require the prosecution's case to survive the crucible of meaningful
+adversarial testing" (internal citations omitted)).
+In determining the admissibility of such evidence, a court must evaluate its "relevance
+and probative value." Id. A court may not exclude evidence of government charging decisions
+if it is relevant, admissible, and its probative value satisfies Rule 403. Id. at 246-48. The
+standard for relevance is "very low." Id. (quoting United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139,
+176 (2d Cir. 2008)). Evidence is relevant when "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less
+probable than it would be without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the
+action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Moreover, Rule 403 "favors admissibility."
+692 F.3d at 247.
+36
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 45 of 69
+"[E]vidence is only excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
+prejudice of jury confusion." Id. (emphasis in original). 24
+2. Discussion
+After a roughly two-year investigation during which the Palm Beach FBI interviewed
+dozens of alleged victims of Epstein—-none of whom implicated Ms. Maxwell, including
+the USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell. Instead, the USAO-SDFL
+charged Epstein
+whom
+had accused of facilitating Epstein's
+alleged sex trafficking. The fact that
+first implicated
+and only later
+implicated Ms. Maxwell is directly relevant to the credibility of f
+and the
+government's acceptance of her later testimony against Ms. Maxwell in 2020, which forms the
+basis of the sex trafficking offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment. See
+United States v. Borrero, No. 13 Cr. 58 (KBF), 2013 WL 6020773, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1,
+2013) (government's decision to charge two different people for the same crime on two different
+occasions based on the testimony of the same cooperating witness is relevant "to the witness's
+credibility" and "the government's view of the [witness's] credibility").
+Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment charge Ms. Maxwell with conspiracy to
+commit sex trafficking and a substantive sex trafficking offense for allegedly recruiting or
+obtaining
+to engage in commercial sex acts with Epstein. See S2 Ind. (Dkt.
+187) 99 22-27. But in her first and only interview with the Palm Beach FBI on August 7, 2007,
+24 The government relegates its discussion of L
+to a footnote in its Applicable Law section, even
+though it is the controlling Second Circuit precedent on this issue. See Gov't Mot.at 23 n.8. Instead, the
+government cites several cases that were decided before |
+rejected the categorical approach to
+precluding evidence of prior charging decisions. See id. at 22-23 (citing United States v. Boyle, No. 08
+Cr. 523 (CM), 2009 WL 5178525 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2009); United States v. Rodriguez, 582 F. Supp. 2d
+486 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); and United States v. Carneglia, No. 08 Cr. 76 (JBW), 2009 WL 185725 (E.D.N.Y.
+Jan. 27, 2009). The Court should give these cases little or no weight.
+37
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 46 of 69
+never once mentioned Ms. Maxwell.?5 See 3505-005. Instead, she told Special
+Agent
+that (1)/
+would call her on the phone from
+New York to schedule the massages, (2)M
+• led her upstairs to the massage room and
+prepared the massage table, (3)[
+called her on one occasion to tell her that Epstein had
+bought her concert tickets, and (4)[
+• took nude photographs of her for Epstein when she
+was 16 years old. See 3505-005 at 2-4. On the basis of |
+testimony and other
+related documentary evidence, the USAO-SDFL charged Epstein|
+, and not Ms.
+Maxwell, with a substantive count of sex trafficking in a proposed indictment that Special Agent
+presented to the grand jury on March 18, 2008. See 3505-018 at 28 (Count Two of
+the proposed SDFL indictment alleged that "Jeffrey Epstein
+procured
+[Accuser-4] to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18").
+2007 testimony stands in stark contrast to her first interview with the
+New York FBI almost thirteen years later, on July 17, 2020, when she specifically recalled that
+on her first visit to the residence she was greeted at the door by "Ghislaine Maxwell" and
+recounted what Ms. Maxwell said to her. See 3505-068 at 1-2.
+further described
+seeing Ms. Maxwell multiple times at the residence and having "multiple conversations" with
+her about sexual topics, and claimed, among other things, that Ms. Maxwell called her to
+schedule massages, paid her for the massages on a few occasions, sent her gifts, and offered to
+help her get a passport so that she could travel with Epstein. See id. at 2-4. In subsequent
+25 г
+| made a passing reference to "an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent"
+whom she saw at the Palm Beach residence the first time she went. 3505-005 at 1. But even assuming.
+arguendo, that Accuser-4 was referring to Ms. Maxwell (which we do not concede), she did not implicate
+Ms. Maxwell in Epstein's alleged sex trafficking in any way.
+38
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 47 of 69
+interviews,
+went even further, claiming that Ms. Maxwell saw her naked several
+times and even fondled
+breasts on one occasion. See 3505-074 at 3.
+Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment is the same as Count Six of the S2
+Indictment and it is based on the exact same evidence that the government proposes to introduce
+to support Count Six; namely, the testimony of
+and related documentary evidence.
+See GX-1-A through GX-1-P; GX-2-A through GX-2-W; GX-3-A through GX-3-KK; GX-4-A
+through GX-4-K (message pad slips); GX-551
+phone records); GX-801-803
+(FedEx records). The only difference is that
+I changed her story and accused Ms.
+Maxwell thirteen years later when she was interviewed by the New York FBI. The fact that
+testimony led to two different charging decisions on two different occasions is
+relevant to her credibility and the government's acceptance of her differing testimony. The
+decision by the USAO-SDFL not to charge Ms. Maxwell in 2008 is therefore relevant and
+admissible. See Borrero, 2013 WL 6020773, at *2.
+This evidence could be elicited without hearsay. Special Agent
+had firsthand knowledge that Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the proposed SDFL indictment because
+she presented the indictment to the grand jury. See 3505-018 at 28:5-8. And it should not be
+excluded under Rule 403. The viability of Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment rise and fall
+on the credibility of
+Moreover, the government's decision to credit |
+2020 testimony, despite its obvious inconsistencies with her 2007 testimony, goes to
+the thoroughness and good faith of the New York investigation. The fact that Ms. Maxwell was
+not charged in 2008 is highly probative of both issues and is not substantially outweighed by the
+risk of juror confusion or speculation. It is therefore admissible.
+39
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 48 of 69
+D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of
+Prior Investigations Is Admissible
+The government's motion to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence about the
+investigative steps taken in the Florida Investigation and the New York Investigation, and the
+duration of those investigations (see Mot. at 29-32), is entirely off base and breathtaking in the
+scope of what it seeks to restrict. It is as if the government will not tolerate any questioning
+about its investigations at all. That is certainly not the law. For example, the decision to
+interview a witness is an investigative step. Does the government really mean to suggest that
+questioning the case agents about who they spoke to and when they spoke to them is irrelevant?
+Similarly, the decision to issue a subpoena for documents is an investigative step. Does the
+government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents about which documents they
+subpoenaed and when they subpoenaed them is irrelevant? Furthermore, the government will
+seek to offer numerous items of evidence collected in both the Florida and New York
+Investigations. Does the government really mean to suggest that questioning the case agents
+about when those investigations began and ended is irrelevant? Surely not. Such questions are
+entirely appropriate and will yield relevant, admissible evidence. The government cannot
+possibly try to prevent the defense from asking these types of valid questions or from calling the
+case agents as witnesses to answer them.
+The government seems to be conflating "investigative steps" with "investigative
+techniques," even though the defense's Touhy letter does not request testimony from the case
+agents about "investigative techniques." See Mot., Ex. A (requesting testimony "concerning the
+scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps
+taken by the agents"). The defense is aware of the rule that it may comment on the absence of
+proof in the record, but it is not permitted to argue that the government should have used any
+40
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 49 of 69
+particular "investigative technique" to prepare its case. See United States v. Saldarriaga, 204
+F.3d 50, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Ngono, 801 F. App'x 19, 24 (2d Cir. 2020)
+(summary order); United States v.
+1. 175 F. App'x 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary
+order); United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May
+22, 2019). We do not intend to violate that rule.
+Nevertheless, conducting a shoddy investigation is not an "investigative technique." As
+previously discussed, the defense is entitled to elicit evidence and argument challenging the
+"thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government's] investigation." Kyles, 514 U.S. at
+445; see also id. at 446 (citing Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 ("A common trial tactic of defense
+lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant[.J*)
+and Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042 (exculpatory evidence "carried within it the potential ... for the ...
+discrediting ... of the police methods employed in assembling the case")).
+As the people with the most knowledge of the scope and progress of the investigations,
+the case agents are the most appropriate witnesses for the defense to call to explore these topics.
+And because the government has assiduously avoided calling them in its case-in-chief, the
+defense must call them in its own case. It is meritless for the government, at this stage of the
+case, to try to preclude entire topics or areas of questioning, or to preclude the defense from
+calling the case agents at all. The Court should not permit this. If particular questions to the
+case agents are objectionable, those objections can be addressed at trial.
+E. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary
+and Unwarranted
+The government asserts that the defense should be precluded from calling the case agents
+as witnesses unless and until it provides a proffer identifying a "proper basis for their testimony."
+Gov't Mot. at 32-33. The defense already did so in its Touhy letter and the government has cited
+41
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 50 of 69
+no authority indicating that more is required. Indeed, the government's demand for a proffer is
+nothing more than an attempt to force the defense to spell out exactly what it plans to ask the
+case agents and reveal its defense strategy. The Court should reject this demand
+IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR
+ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS
+MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS
+The government moves to preclude the defense from eliciting evidence and argument
+"regarding the government's supposed motives for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell, including evidence
+of Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death and the timing of charges against the defendant." Mot. at 34.
+Once again, the government's motion reaches too far and should be denied.
+First, as the government points out, challenges to the prosecutors' motives are typically
+brought by raising claims of "vindictive prosecution," "selective prosecution," or "outrageous
+government conduct," which must be resolved by the court, not the jury. See United States v.
+Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, 1082 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 167 (2d Cir.
+2011). But the defense is not raising any of those claims. Simply arguing to the jury that the
+government substituted Ms. Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein after his death does not imply that the
+prosecution was the result of the government's "animus toward the defendant" (vindictive
+prosecution), or was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose" (selective prosecution), or was so
+outrageous that "due process considerations" must bar the prosecution (outrageous government
+conduct). See United States v. Avenatti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 552, 562-53 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); United
+States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d 711, 716-17 (2d Cir. 2000); United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559,
+565 (2d Cir. 1991).
+Second, for the reasons set forth above, the defense is entitled to elicit evidence of
+Epstein's death and the timing of the charges against Ms. Maxwell to challenge the thoroughness
+and reliability of the government's investigation. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 445-46; Bowen, 799 F.2d at
+42
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 51 of 69
+612-13; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. Accordingly, this evidence does not impermissibly question
+the government's motives and should not be precluded.
+V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-
+TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY
+The government again refrains from telling the Court exactly what evidence it expects at
+trial, yet asks the defense to preview its possible cross-examination or defense-case evidence, in
+order both to circumvent the Rules of Criminal Procedure's guidelines and this Court's orders as
+to when the defense must disclose certain evidence. What's more, the government gives only
+summary suggestions of what the evidence "might" be and then asks the Court to rule
+definitively that the defense is precluded from challenging that evidence via cross-examination
+or otherwise. Because this Court cannot rule on the admissibility of impeachment evidence of a
+non-testifying witness unless and until the government actually elicits testimony concerning such
+a witness, this motion should be denied or deferred until the appropriate time at trial.
+The government does a poor job of previewing exactly what statements it anticipates
+offering from others related to
+It says that "other witnesses are expected to testify about the activities" of
+those two non-testifying witnesses, "including [unspecified] statements by them," which
+statements according to the government "will not include any statements ... offered for the truth
+of the matter asserted or under one of the other exceptions listed under Rule 806." Mot. at 37-38.
+The government then gives two non-exclusive examples? but fails to elucidate what exactly the
+pertinent statements will be, to wit:
+26 The government does not give any examples pertaining to
+therefore it is wholly unclear what statements the government intends to elicit about her or for what
+purpose. See Mot. at 37-38.
+land
+43
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 52 of 69
+(Accuser 4) will testify that |
+(Accuser 5)
+"recruited" her. Mot. at 38. How? What will
+say that
+said to her?
+Is it,
+"I am here to 'recruit you' to a sex abuse ring founded by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine
+Maxwell, and Ghislaine Maxwell told me what to do, and I first went over there when I was
+under 18." Or will it simply be, "go over to Jeffrey Epstein's house and he will pay you $200 to
+give a massage." The answer to whether or not the "recruitment" statement is being offered for
+the truth of the matter asserted, or is simply offered for the effect on the listener, can only be
+determined at the time the statement is offered and depends very much on the content of the
+purported statement. At that time, the government either will or will not be successful in
+overcoming a hearsay objection and the grounds for the objection; if it is subsequently admitted
+under one of the exceptions listed under Rule 806, the credibility of the accuser-declarant will
+become an issue.
+2.
+will testify that she "personally observed the sexual abuse
+of"1
+]. Mot. at 38. According to the government, this testimony will not include
+any "hearsay statements" from
+But that assertion is suspect: "Sexual abuse" is a
+legal phrase. In this case, it is asserted that the sexual contact was "sexual abuse" because the
+participant (
+was underage at the time; indeed
+says that
+she saw
+engage in seemingly consensual intercourse with Jeffrey Epstein and
+outside the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell. So mere observation would not tell [
+what she saw was "sexual abuse" unless
+also said something about her age, and any
+statement by
+about her age at the time would be offered for the truth.
+was both below and above the age of consent during the period of the charged conspiracy; the
+dates on which
+supposedly observed anything will be hotly contested at trial.) The
+44
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 53 of 69
+government has provided "notice" tha
+was a "victim" in this case, and has disclosed
+a number of exhibits related to her - school records (GX 781-783); employment records (GX
+821-22), photo (GX 332).2 It is apparent that the government hopes to prove that
+was a "victim" in the sense that she was underage when she had sex with Jeffrey Epstein, without
+calling her as a witness in this case. Again, if the government offers evidence that the sexual
+contact observed byl
+between!
+and Mr. Epstein amounts to "sexual
+abuse" becausel
+was underage, then such testimony would open the door to the
+mountains of evidence that tends to impeach that assertion.
+Given the failure to specify the statements that will be elicited, the purposes for which
+those statements qualify as non-hearsay, depriving the defense of an opportunity to brief whether
+such statements open the door to credibility challenges of the accuser-declarants
+and
+, this Court should deny the motion.
+27 Tellingly, the government failed to provide an exhibit for l
+See GX 11-15.
+birth certificate, but did for
+45
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 54 of 69
+VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS
+CONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE.
+The government seeks blanket preclusion of evidence or argument that the accusers
+"consented to sexual abuse." It bears noting that the Indictment does not charge sexual abuse.
+The charged offenses allege "sexual activity" (Counts One through Four) and "sex trafficking"
+(Counts Five and Six).
+The age of consent for sexual contact purposes varies by jurisdiction. The offenses
+charged in the S2 Indictment allege sexual activity with minors and focus on age, rather than
+mental or physical incapacity. Accordingly, to qualify as sexual activity with a minor, the statute
+must prohibit sexual acts based at least on age of the purported victim. See Esquival-Quintana v.
+Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017). As the Supreme Court noted, "state criminal codes aid our
+interpretation of "sexual abuse of a minor" by offering useful context." Id. at 1577 n.3. For
+purposes of sexual activity alleged in this case, the definition of "minor" varies among states and
+nations: New York defines "minor" as a person under the age of 1728; Florida: under the age of
+182°; United Kingdom: under the age of 1630; France: under the age of 15.3' New Mexico does
+not have a specific age of consent statute but criminalizes all sexual contact of a minor under the
+age of 13 when no coercion or force is involved. In the context of the charged offense focusing
+28 NY Penal Law Ann. § 130.03(3)(a).
+29 Fla. Stat. § 794.05(I). At the time of the charged offenses in Counts Five and Six, individuals under
+the age of 18 could be charges with prostitution. In 2016, the law was changed, decriminalizing
+prostitution of by individuals under the age of 18.
+30 Sexual Offences Act, Chap. 44.
+3' Penal Code, Article 227-25.
+32 NM Stat. Ann. § 30-9-13(A)(1). New Mexico criminalizes sexual contact of minor on a child 13 to 18
+years old when coercion is involved. § 30-9-12(A)(2).
+46
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 55 of 69
+solely on the age of the participant, the generic federal definition of minor requires that the age
+of the alleged victim be the then-current age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sexual
+activity was intended or did occur.
+Where the ability or incapacity to consent to sexual activity is age-dependent, the proof
+must satisfy the elements governed by the statute in effect at time and place where the alleged
+sexual activity may occur. For each count in the Indictment, age is a predicate element which the
+government must prove to bar the defense of consent. Counts Two and Four specify violations of
+New York State Penal Law § 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with a person less than
+17 years old.33 For Count Two, the government must prove that Ms. Maxwell knew that
+was less than 17 years old.* For Count Four, the government must prove that
+was less than 17 years old during purported sexual activity.3 For Count Six, the government
+must prove that Ms. Maxwell knew that|
+was under age 18.36
+Counts One and Three charged conspiracies alleging conduct involving all four accusers
+identified in the Indictment and multi-jurisdictional locations with varying local state laws.
+Depending on the age of the accusers during the time frame of the conspiracy, consent may be an
+3 Section 130.55 - Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree - states in pertinent part:
+A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when her or she subjects another
+person to sexual contact without the latter's consent, except that in any prosecution under
+his section, it is an affirmative defense that (a) such other person's lack of consent wa
+lue solely to incapacity by reason of being less that seventeen years old
+Designated a B misdemeanor, the maximum penalty is "shall not exceed three months," (§70.15(2)), far
+less than the 16 months Maxwell has served in pretrial detention.
+34 See Government Proposed Request to Charge.
+35 See Government Proposed Request to Charge.
+36 See Government Proposed Request to Charge.
+47
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 56 of 69
+appropriate and viable defense. While the age of consent for Counts Five and Six is 18, at the
+time of the alleged offense, individuals under the age of 18 could be charged with commission of
+the crime of prostitution." At the time of the charged offenses.
+was a coconspirator who committed crimes of prostitution chargeable under Florida law. See Fla Stat.
+§ 796.07 ("Prohibiting prostitution and related acts").38 In connection with Counts Five and Six,
+it is appropriate to raise the defense of consent to engage in prosecution.
+An additional problem with the government's in limine request is that it conflates two
+very distinct and significant concepts: consent by an accuser as an affirmative defense to alleged
+unlawful sexual activity and consent to voluntary acts by an accuser. As noted above, the age of
+the alleged victim and the state in which any alleged act took place may implicate a consent
+defense. Separately, however, the voluntary acts of an accuser are relevant evidence that is
+3 In October 2016, the Florida State Senate enacted House Bill 545, which decriminalized prosecution of
+minors found to be engaging in prostitution. Since 2016, Florida considers minors involved in
+prostitution victims rather than culprits.
+38 Fla. Stat.§ 796.07(2) sets out all unlawful acts chargeable as prostitution:
+a. To own, establish, maintain, or operate any place, structure, building, or conveyance for
+the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution.
+b. To offer, or to offer or agree to secure, another for the purpose of prostitution or for
+any other lewd or indecent act.
+c. To receive, or to offer or agree to receive, any person into any place, structure, building, or
+conveyance for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation, or to permit any
+person to remain there for such purpose.
+d. To direct, take, or transport, or to offer or agree to direct, take, or transport, any person to
+any place, structure, or building, or to any other person, with knowledge or reasonable
+cause to believe that the purpose of such directing, taking, or transporting is prostitution,
+lewdness, or assignation.
+e. To offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
+f. To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or
+assignation.
+g. To reside in, enter, or remain in, any place, structure, or building, or to enter or remain in
+any conveyance, for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
+h. To aid, abet, or participate in any of the acts or things enumerated in this subsection.
+i. To purchase the services of any person engaged in prostitution.
+48
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 57 of 69
+admissible to demonstrate the lack of any intent or knowledge on the part of Ms. Maxwell. As
+with the other in limine requests, this evidence will need to be evaluated on a question by
+question basis and it is premature to issue blanket rulings as requested by the government.
+This case poses multi-jurisdictional issues that invite various defenses. The government
+has elected to prosecute, federally, conduct that is quintessentially state-based, and it is bound by
+its choice. It has charged offenses associated with coercion, force and violence, when such
+conduct did not occur in this case. It has alleged violation of a statute enacted to combat human
+trafficking, conduct that does not exist in this case. The government has manipulated federal
+statutes to fit alleged conduct that is not normally prosecuted federally and seeks to preclude
+defenses responsive to the allegations in the Indictment. It is premature to constrain Ms.
+Maxwell's defense before trial. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to present evidence and make
+argument on the issue of consent when and where appropriate.
+VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S
+GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED
+The government asks this Court to require that, before Ms. Maxwell refers to or offers
+evidence of her "absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's
+case-in-chief, ... [she] explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be
+admissible." Mot. at 44. According to the government, evidence that Ms. Maxwell was "absent"
+when Mr. Epstein allegedly abused certain individuals is actually inadmissible "good acts"
+evidence because the jury could use it only to conclude that Ms. Maxwell acted in conformity
+with the prior good acts. Id. The government's argument imagines a duty to provide notice
+where none exists, and it misunderstands what constitutes prior-act evidence and basic concepts
+of relevance in the context of a conspiracy where one actor denies knowledge of an illegal
+49
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 58 of 69
+purpose or agreement with any co-conspirator to facilitate an illegal objective. The ill-founded
+motion should be denied.
+A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such
+Evidence.
+At the outset, this Court can deny the government's motion for a simple reason: There is
+no authority requiring Ms. Maxwell to provide the government with notice of the evidence she
+intends to offer at trial. To the contrary, when such notice is required, the Rules of Evidence or
+Procedure make the requirement express. Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), for example,
+imposes a duty on Ms. Maxwell to make certain disclosures, particularly as they regard expert
+witnesses and opinions. But the Rule does not require her to identify evidence of her "absence
+when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's case-in-chief" and then
+"explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible."
+Nor does Rule of Evidence 404(b) require notice from the defendant. In fact, the
+government's invocation of Rule 404(b) actually undermines its motion. In a criminal case, that
+Rule imposes on the government a duty to provide advance notice of any other-acts evidence it
+desires to admit at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3).39 The Rule does not impose a similar obligation
+on a defendant.
+39 The Rule says:
+In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:
+(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so
+that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;
+(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the
+evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and
+(C) do so in writing before trial - or in any form during trial of the court, for good cause, excuses
+lack of pretrial notice.
+Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3) (emphasis added).
+50
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 59 of 69
+Because nothing requires Ms. Maxwell to advise the government in advance of the
+evidence she intends to admit at trial or why that evidence is relevant, this Court should deny the
+government's motion. If Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have a good-faith belief that evidence will be
+admissible, they can refer to that evidence in opening statement. ABA Criminal Justice
+Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b) Opening Statement at Trial ("Defense counsel's
+opening statement at trial should be confined to a fair statement of the case from defense
+counsel's perspective, and discussion of evidence that defense counsel reasonably believes in
+good faith will be available, offered, and admitted."). When the defense offers evidence, the
+government can make any objections it thinks are appropriate, and this Court can rule on the
+objections in context. See United States v. Rounds, No. 10-CR-239S (1)(2)(3), 2015 WL
+5918372, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015) ("Without hearing the evidence in context, this Court
+cannot enter a blanket pretrial ruling. The government's motion in limine is therefore denied as
+premature, without prejudice to the government raising this issue at an appropriate time during
+trial.").
+B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of
+Abuse - Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation - May Be
+Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives.
+The government seeks to exclude evidence that "many victims who were sexually abused
+by Epstein... did not have personal interactions or dealings with the defendant, including during
+the time period of the charged conspiracy." Mot. at 42. The government characterizes this
+evidence as "good acts" of Ms. Maxwell (id. at 41-42); they are neither "good," nor Ms.
+Maxwell's "acts." Rather, relying on inapposite cases, the government seeks to exclude as
+"propensity" evidence the fact that Mr. Epstein sexually abused minors (other than the specified
+Accusers) without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge and involvement. The government conveniently
+overlooks that:
+51
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 60 of 69
+• the Indictment charged a conspiracy between Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Maxwell during a
+discrete time period;
+• the charged conspiracy encompasses females other than the four specified Accusers;
+• the government's burden at trial will be to show both an agreement between Mr. Epstein
+and Ms. Maxwell to accomplish the specified illegal objectives;
+• the government's burden at trial will also encompass proof beyond a reasonable doubt
+that Ms. Maxwell had knowledge of the conspiracies' illegal objectives.
+Thus, evidence that Jeffrey Epstein acted alone, or with other co-conspirators, without the
+knowledge or participation of
+be admissible as direct evidence of Ms.
+Maxwell's lack of awareness of or participation in the charged conspiracies. For example, if the
+government attempts to prove up the conspiratorial agreement or the knowledge of the illegal
+objective based on a pattern and practice, then evidence that Epstein acted alone or without Ms.
+Maxwell's knowledge or participation may become relevant.
+Each of the cases cited by the government is readily distinguishable. First, all but one of
+the cases dealt with specific "good" propensity evidence of the defendant, not the absence of a
+co-conspirator during "bad" acts by the defendant. See United States v. Dawkins, 999 F.3d 767
+(2d Cir. 2021) (defendant - not a co-conspirator - proffered evidence that on other occasions he
+did not bribe other potential targets); United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1011 (2d. Cir. 1990)
+(absence of defendants' discussions about drugs on single occasion not admissible to "disprove
+government's theory that the defendants congregated ... to discuss the marijuana business");
+United States v.
+800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d. Cir. 2020) (summary order) (fact that
+defendant also ran a legitimate law practice not admissible to disprove he committed bad acts
+through illegal practice); Boyce v. I
+1. 19 Civ. 3825 (JMF), 2021 WL 2821154, at *8
+(S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021) (defendant's access to other potential victims without engaging in abuse
+not admissible to establish innocence). Moreover, each of these cases had to do with tendering
+52
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 61 of 69
+evidence during trial; none stands for the specific relief requested by the government: that
+"before the Court permits the defense to offer evidence or make argument regarding other crimes
+that did not involve the defendant, the Court should require the defense to proffer the basis and
+relevance of that evidence." For the reasons discussed supra in subsection (A), there is nothing
+in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that require the defense to disclose its argument or
+evidence pre-trial in the manner suggested by the government.
+Indeed, the only case cited by the government which dealt with a motion in limine, Judge
+Matusumoto's decision in United States v. L
+, No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991
+(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015), actually undercuts the government's position. See Mot. at 43.
+Although the Court excluded pre-trial evidence of "unrelated prior good conduct, i.e., charitable
+giving or cooperation with law enforcement," it held:
+To the extent that evidence of good conduct is relevant to the charged conduct (i.e.,
+to establish an alibi) or may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury, the court
+will consider its introduction at trial. The defendants are cautioned, however, that
+evidence of good conduct that does not refute evidence of the offense charged will
+not be admitted
+Id. at *2. Thus, the court properly excluded evidence - unrelated to the charged conspiracy - of
+the defendant's "good" propensity, and it also properly reserved for trial the admissibility of
+"evidence of good conduct ... relevant to the charged conduct" or as "may be necessary to
+prevent misleading the jury." Here, too, evidence that the purported conspiracies operated
+without the knowledge or participation of Ms. Maxwell during the period charged amounts to
+direct evidence that the conspiratorial agreement or knowledge of the objectives likewise did not
+exist. Only after the government has made its opening statements and put on its evidence will
+the defense even know, much less be in a position to argue, what contrary evidence will be
+offered. As with the Court in
+this Court should defer ruling on the admissibility of any
+such evidence until the time it is offered into evidence by the defense.
+53
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 62 of 69
+VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS.
+MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT
+THIS TIME
+Hearsay is a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current
+trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the
+statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Hearsay is not admissible unless allowed by a federal statute; the
+Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 802.
+"The hearsay rule is designed to prevent the admission of unreliable hearsay but to permit
+through its many exceptions the admission of reliable hearsay." Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d
+545, 547 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 988 (1990).
+Counsel for Ms. Maxwell understand the Federal Rules of Evidence and intend to follow
+them. Notably, there are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule, many of which
+could be applicable at any trial in this case, for example, those contained in Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)
+through 803(23). Ms. Maxwell has not moved in limine to admit any hearsay statement, and the
+government does not identify any statement made by Ms. Maxwell that it believes will be at
+issue in this trial. Basically, the government is asking the Court to enter an order directing the
+parties to follow the Rules of Evidence.
+The failure of the government to identify any statement or circumstance where a
+statement might be offered makes it impossible for the Court to rule on the admissibility of this
+unknown evidence. As noted by the court in Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 9194
+CM, 2010 WL 11043081, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010), the ""motion to exclude hearsay'... is
+yet another example of the improper use of in limine motions...." Denying the motion, the
+court directed the following solution: "If a witness is asked for hearsay testimony, an attorney...
+should stand up and object, and the Court will rule." Id.
+54
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 63 of 69
+The parties should follow the Rules. Ms. Maxwell intends to do so and will object to
+evidence she believes is inadmissible at trial.
+IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE
+RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR
+JURY NULLIFICATION - RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT
+This motion in limine, like most of the preceding ones, is another request that the parties,
+and the Court, abide by the Federal Rules of Evidence or that the Court offer an advisory opinion
+as to which types of evidence fall within the Rules. As described previously, supra at
+Preliminary Statement, these are inappropriate motions in limine. It is unclear if the
+government's real intent in filing the motion is to entice defense counsel to share her intended
+evidence or arguments for trial in advance of the deadlines set by this Court. In any event, Ms.
+Maxwell's defense and her evidence depends very much on what evidence the government elicits
+or argues at trial and in opening statements.
+There are certain longstanding and easily understood rules of evidence which apply to
+this case. Rule 404(a)(2) permits introduction at trial of a defendant's "pertinent trait," which, if
+offered, the government may rebut. Rule 405(a) permits evidence of a person's character or
+character trait by reputation or opinion, which, if offered, the opposing party may then inquire as
+to relevant specific instances of conduct. Rule 608(a) permits a witness's credibility to be
+attacked or supported by reputation testimony for truthfulness or untruthfulness. Ms. Maxwell
+and her counsel do not dispute that these rules of evidence apply nor that they all understand the
+prohibitions on encouraging jury nullification. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel will not argue to
+the jury that they may acquit if they do not like that law. See United States v. Gardner, No. 16-
+cr-20135, 2016 WL 5404207, at *6-*7 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2016) (denying motion in limine
+regarding jury nullification. because, "[a]t this point, it is unclear exactly what is included in the
+category of "evidence or argument that relates only to jury nullification. Although some
+55
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 64 of 69
+examples were given, the Court finds that this is too vague a category to grant the relief
+requested.").
+The government has not explained why they believe that counsel does not understand
+these rules or what evidence (beyond "charitable works" or "evidence of her family history") that
+they expect to be offered at trial. If the topic of "charitable works" comes up in the government's
+case, then topics of Ms. Maxwell's "charitable works" may become relevant. If the topic of Ms.
+Maxwell's family history is elicited or argued by the government, then topics of Ms. Maxwell's
+family history may become relevant. One wonders if the government is suggesting these topics
+because it intends to try to elicit some testimony on these topics and then preclude Ms. Maxwell
+from responding. If that were the case, then the government should have said so in their Motion.
+Regardless, there is no reason for the Court to enter any orders on this topic. Ms. Maxwell will
+tender evidence on cross examination and in her defense case that is relevant. The government is
+free to make any objections it deems appropriate at that time, with reference to any evidence the
+government has already elicited from the witnesses and in opening statements.
+X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED
+The government would like nothing better than for the Court to require defense counsel
+to have their hands tied behind their back and their mouths duct-taped while the accusers, and
+related witnesses, testify under anonymity, L
+If the government wants to preclude the interposing of
+defenses, it should dismiss the case.
+The government is not and should not be privy to the defenses
+interpose at trial, despite the claim that the government's "years-long investigation has not
+developed any evidence that the defendant was victimized in any way by Jeffrey Epstein" and
+defense counsel made not factual assertions regarding victimization. (Mot. at 49). Perhaps the
+56
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 65 of 69
+government should re-read the many thousands of pages of witness statements before asserting
+that it would be "baseless" to claim that Ms. Maxwell was a victim of Epstein. The defense has
+not provided notice under Rule 12.2, as would be required to interpose a defense based on Ms.
+Maxwell's mental condition and its bearing on culpability. Ms. Maxwell maintains her innocence
+and does not intent to assert any affirmative defense.
+The government has the burden of proving the charges in the Indictment beyond a
+reasonable doubt. The defense bears no burden and is not obligated to disclose defense theory or
+strategy unless required by statute. The government seems overly concerned that the jury will be
+confused, a reference it uses 24 times throughout its Motions in Limine, and that the government
+will be highly prejudiced. Any confusion will be the result of its own presentation of evidence,
+the lack of corroborating evidence, and the prejudice inflicted upon Ms. Maxwell.
+XI.
+MS. MAXWELL WAS THE
+PREVAILING PARTY IN CIVIL LITIGATION BASED ON THE SAME FACTS
+AS THIS CRIMINAL TRIAL, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO MS. MAXWELL'S
+DEFENSE
+"did not agree that" Ms. Maxwell was the
+prevailing party. Mot. at 51-52.
+There is nothing "inaccurate" or "confusing" about
+57
+
+
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 66 of 69
+58
+
+
+
+The same is true for
+The bias and motive for these witnesses to testify against Ms. Maxwell at the criminal
+trial must be explored on cross-examination and
+CONCLUSION
+For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the government's various motions in
+limine.
+Dated: October 25, 2021
+59
+
+
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Christian R. Everdell
+1 & GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+aw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternhein
+25 Broadway, Suite 71:
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+60
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 69 of 69
+Certificate of Service
+I hereby certify that on October 25, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine
+Maxwell's Response to Government's Omnibus Motions In Limine with the Clerk of Court using
+the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
+Alison Moe
+Maurene Comey
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Lara Pomerantz
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Alison.moe @usdoj.gov
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov
+Lara. Pomerantz @usdoj.gov
+s/ Nicole
+61
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f58e8d41fccbe64d90577d6ea31300ebd20872ac93082b66558e571f24b41de1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f58e8d41fccbe64d90577d6ea31300ebd20872ac93082b66558e571f24b41de1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8dd4702ea234f66a5b9294e28b069d08ac41da20
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f58e8d41fccbe64d90577d6ea31300ebd20872ac93082b66558e571f24b41de1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1800,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f58e8d41fccbe64d90577d6ea31300ebd20872ac93082b66558e571f24b41de1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 77,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8030d11b2c1ca690632a3bd2b42d03bcd557abc7bccfa5f87dd9b89ffe53f1c6",
+  "output_sha256": "c404ef1cd8681a1202f188e04e86b2a0883f766c7c4eccaa3deb957ea9bacb36",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5adc217a2ba4b2cb32d3802519084c393fbac2f599ea74ba170c98977b64e93.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5adc217a2ba4b2cb32d3802519084c393fbac2f599ea74ba170c98977b64e93.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8c5dd09631135c542c4ed5aabf56e1960e777b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5adc217a2ba4b2cb32d3802519084c393fbac2f599ea74ba170c98977b64e93.md
@@ -0,0 +1,8759 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 1 of 159
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499-2
+LBAAMAXIps
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 159 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+- X
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+20-cr-330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+Hearing
+-x
+New York, N.Y.
+November 10, 2021
+9:20 a.m.
+Before:
+HON. ALISON J. NATHAN
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+BY: MAURENE COMEY
+ALISON MOE
+LARA POMERANIZ
+ANDREW ROHRBACH
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+HADDON •
+• AND M
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA
+CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL
+LAURA A. MENNINGER
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Attorney for Defendant
+Also Present: Sarah Drescher
+Paralegal, U.S. Attorney's Office
+Paralega D, gado
+Haddon
+and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 159 2
+LBAAMAXIps
+(Case called)
+THE CLERK: Counsel, please state your name for the
+record, starting with the government.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Good morning, your Honor. Lara
+Pomerantz,
+Andrew Rohrbach, Alison Moe, and Maureen Comey for
+the government.
+THE COURT: Good morning.
+For the defendant.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Good morning, Judge. Bobbi C.
+Sternheim appearing with Ghislaine Maxwell at counsel table,
+along with Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Christian
+Everdell. And we're assisted by Camille Delgado.
+THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Thank you.
+Please be seated.
+All right. We are here for a number of things. Let
+me just get myself organized.
+This is a pretrial conference. Our jury selection
+process began on November 4th with the questionnaires, trial to
+commence on November 29th.
+Today, we will address the defendant's motion under
+Federal Rule of Evidence 412, the defendant's motion in limine
+to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, and
+the other outstanding issues that overlap with these motions,
+as we discussed at our last conference on November Ist.
+Just for clarity, I explained this in my order
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 4 of 159 3
+regarding public access yesterday: The 412 piece of these
+proceedings will be sealed, as is expressly required by Federal
+Rule of Evidence 412. That rule requires certain categories of
+evidence to be discussed at a sealed, in camera hearing. My
+plan is to hold that part of the hearing last, do what we need
+to do with respect to logistical issues and Daubert here first,
+and then
+seal the courtroom, having everyone who is a
+nonparticipant leave and shutting down the overflow access at
+that point, as required by law.
+Given this, I want to address a few logistical issues
+at the outset, and then we'll move into Daubert.
+I should say, to the extent we run into any overlap
+during the Daubert hearing on any 412 issues, we have arranged
+space to do the equivalent of a sealed sidebar in the jury
+IOOm, I believe. But, again, we can bifurcate.
+OK. Before I turn to the logistical issues, any
+matters I should take up with what I have indicated,
+Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim?
+MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you.
+THE COURT: OK. First, on logistics, as you know,
+counsel, we had a very successful return rate on the jury
+summons, and in the two days that the questionnaire has been
+filled out we had 565 prospective jurors fill it out. Given
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 5 of 159 4
+LBAAMAXIps
+that, my plan is to just do the morning session on Friday,
+which would give us about another hundred or so people filling
+out the questionnaire, which is what the target was in the 6 to
+7 hundred range, presumably about 650 or so. And that will
+give additional time for the parties to confer after they have
+reviewed and a
+fewer number of questionnaires to review, given
+that
+we got there
+sooner.
+Any concerns with that, Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No. Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim?
+MS. STERNHEIM: No.
+THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
+I did previously set a tentative hearing for November
+15th, which is Monday, at 9:30. So that's firm. We'll have
+that hearing, to the extent we need to, to go over any pre voir
+dire process resolution of disputed questionnaires and the like
+if we need to, and talk about that process more.
+I'll also use it to address any outstanding motions in
+limine if I can. In particular I think I will then have full
+briefing, and hopefully be able to address defense motion 1, on
+co-conspirator statements; defense motion 4, regarding alleged
+victim 3; and defense motion 7, on Exhibit 52.
+If I'm able to, I'll also address the government's
+motions regarding exclusion of at least some testimony of
+Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.
+
+
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 6 of 159 5
+LBAAMAXIps
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+And as I said, we'll discuss voir dire and take up
+questionnaire issues as needed.
+So that's Monday, November 15th.
+I would also like to just go ahead and schedule what
+will be our final pretrial conference for November 23rd, is
+what I propose, in the afternoon.
+I still need to work through
+the logistics and space and timing on that, use that to clear
+out any remaining issues or motions in advance of trial.
+Ms. Pomerantz, how does that sound to the government?
+MS. POMERANTZ: That all sounds fine. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim?
+MS. STERNHEIM: That sounds fine. I just have a
+question with regard to the commencement --
+THE COURT: Could you pull up the mike.
+Sorry.
+With regard to the commencement of voir dire, what
+time will we begin on the 16th?
+THE COURT: I believe 9, but I will confirm and see
+what time I believe -- what time we think the jurors will
+actually be ready to go, checked in and ready to go, and I'1l
+work backwards from that, give us time to get set up and
+address any preliminary issues.
+So let's assume 9 and I'11
+confer with the jury department.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+Just a moment.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 7 of 159 6
+Your Honor, Mr. Pagliuca has a hearing in Colorado.
+Would it be permissible for him not to appear at the final
+pretrial conference?
+Ms. Menninger, Mr. Everdell, and I will
+be present.
+THE COURT: That's fine with me.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+THE COURT: And I do plan to put out a logistics order
+after today that confirms the details of the conferences I've
+just discussed and rooms and the like.
+Do the parties have any other logistical matters or
+questions to raise before we return to the motions?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No, your Honor.
+MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you.
+THE COURT: OK. So we can proceed to the Daubert with
+respect to the government's proposed expert. Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. The government calls
+Dr. Lisa Rocchio.
+THE COURT: I didn't catch -- I have been saying row
+"Rodocchio" in my head, but it sounds like that's not right.
+Could you say the name again?
+MS. POMERANTZ: It's "ROCK-ee-l
+I. " your Honor.
+THE COURT: Rocchio.
+And I will ask everyone, please speak into the
+microphones, because that's the only way we can all hear you.
+Counsel can question from the podium and remove masks.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 8 of 159 7
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+And the witness can come into the witness box and remove her
+mask as well.
+Dr. Rocchio
+1. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+LISA ROCCHIO,
+called as a witness by the government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+THE COURT: And Dr. Rocchio, I know it's a little
+awkward; to the extent you can speak directly into the
+microphone, we can hear you. And I apologize if I have to
+remind you of that as we go, because the acoustics are
+challenging.
+THE WITNESS: OK.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And, Ms. Pomerantz, you need that mike in
+front of you.
+MS. POMERANIZ: Thank you.
+Is this all right, your Honor?
+THE COURT: Yes, but point it directly at you.
+MS. POMERANTZ: OK. Thank you.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+2. Good morning, Dr. Rocchio.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAXIps
+background.
+A. I have a
+psychology.
+A. I have a
+psychology.
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 9 of 159 8
+Rocchio - Direct
+Dr. Rocchio, can you please describe your educational
+degree and a doctoral degree in clinical
+THE COURT: I need you to speak up. Sorry.
+degree and a doctoral degree in clinical
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+l. And taking a step back, before your
+degree and
+your other, and your Ph.D., did you receive an undergraduate
+degree?
+A. I have a bachelor's degree with a dual major in psychology
+and English.
+e. Where did you receive your
+from?
+A. The University of Rhode Island.
+Q. And you mentioned your Ph.D. Where did you receive that
+from?
+A. That was also from the University of Rhode Island.
+Q. What is clinical psychology?
+A. Clinical psychology is the study of human thoughts and
+behaviors, both abnormal and normal. We also study
+psychopathology, treatment methods. But it's generally the
+study of human behavior.
+l. Can you describe your coursework and training in connection
+with your
+and Ph.D. degree.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 10 of 1599
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. Sure. So in a doctoral program such as the one I attended,
+it's the scientist-practitioner model. So I took about three
+to four years of coursework in a broad range of subject
+matters, such as assessment and treatment, psychopathology,
+ethics, professional practice, family systems, forensic
+psychology, tests and measurements, things like that, as well
+as specialty courses,
+electives, if you will, in areas of
+particular interest to me, which would have included at the
+time hostility and violence in the lives of women, psychology
+of poverty, forensic psychology.
+In addition to the structured coursework, we, during
+the graduate period, took courses in methods of practice, saw
+patients, and had clinical supervision, again in a variety of
+types of treatment. So individual therapy, marital couple
+therapy, for example.
+Q. During the course of your graduate studies at the
+University of Rhode Island, what if any topics in particular
+did you focus on?
+A. I focused in particular on areas related to social
+psychology, traumatic stress, interpersonal violence, and
+eating disorders.
+Q. What is traumatic stress?
+A. "Traumatic stress" refers to a stressor that overwhelms an
+individual's person -- ability to cope. In the DSM-V it's
+defined as a stressor that is severe enough, quite severe, and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE l
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 11 of 15910
+Rocchio - Direct
+involves witnessing or experiencing an event that involves
+actual or threatened harm, threatened death, or sex -- and/or
+sexual violence.
+Q. You also mentioned interpersonal violence. What is
+interpersonal violence?
+A. Violence that one person does to another person. It's a
+term in the field that refers to things such as rape and sexual
+assault, intimate-partner violence, sexual harassment, child
+sexual abuse. And although it's an umbrella term, using the
+term "interpersonal violence," it also refers to dynamics
+related to coercion and emotional abuse or child abuse that may
+not necessarily involve violence in a way that is commonly
+understood.
+l. And what is forensic psychology?
+A. Forensic psychology is the application of the science of
+psychology to a particular legal matter, so using -- using
+psychology to answer or to assist a court in answering a legal
+question.
+2. As part of your work in your connection with your
+and Ph.D. degrees, did you perform clinical work with patients?
+A. I did.
+Q. About how much time did you spend working with patients?
+A. So prior to doing -- while I was taking my coursework and
+taking the classes and treating patients, I would say a minimum
+of 500 to 1,000 hours of face-to-face clinical time, and then,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 12 of 15911
+Rocchio - Direct
+prior to receiving my degree, one of the requirements for my
+degree was a full-time one-year doctoral fellowship, which was
+roughly the equivalent of 1500 to 2,000 hours.
+Q. Approximately how many patients did you work with during
+your graduate studies?
+A. During my graduate studies, so that would have been over a
+period of about six years, hundreds.
+Q. What issues did you treat those patients for?
+A. A broad range. So issues related to eating disorders,
+grief, traumatic stress. I, during my internship, I also
+worked in both inpatient and partial hospital settings, so
+those individuals were dealing with sometimes major mental
+illness, issues pertaining to suicidality. A number of them
+had significant histories of traumatic stress and violence in
+their childhood and adult lives.
+l. You mentioned a predoctoral fellowship.
+l. Where did you do your predoctoral fellowship?
+A. At the Yale University School of Medicine.
+l. During the course of your predoctoral fellowship at Yale,
+what kind of work did you do?
+A. I spent six months working at Yale New Haven Hospital in a
+partial hospital program treating adults who needed a high
+level of care and on an outpatient basis. Again, they
+presented with a wide range of issues.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 13 of 15912
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+I then also spent another six months working at the
+Yale Psychiatric Institute on an inpatient and partial hospital
+unit, treating adolescents. In the course of that work, I also
+had some specialized training in the area of forensic
+psychology - psychiatry.
+Q. After you received your Ph.D., what did you do next in your
+career?
+A. I had a full-year equivalent of a postdoctoral fellowship.
+During that year I worked in a partial hospital program. I
+treated patients in an outpatient psychotherapy practice, and I
+taught courses at the college level in psychology.
+l. Where did you do your postdoctoral fellowship?
+A. It was in Rhode Island. I worked in a private practice
+setting in Rhode Island, as well as
+Hospital.
+Specifically I worked in a partial hospital program that
+utilized dialectical behavior therapy in the treatment of
+women.
+l. What issues did you focus on during your postdoctoral
+fellowship?
+A. So dialectical behavior therapy is the primary issue that I
+focused on, in terms of my training, and it's a treatment
+method that has been found -- there's a lot of evidence; it was
+developed and has been shown to be highly effective for a
+chronically suicidal and self-injurious population of women.
+It's since been generalized to a variety of populations. But
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 14 of 15913
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+that particular population is also known to have very high
+degrees of histories of childhood trauma of various kinds,
+including
+sexual abuse,
+neglect, physical abuse.
+I. During your postdoctoral fellowship, did you perform
+clinical work?
+A. I did.
+Q. During your postdoctoral fellowship, what if any research
+groups did you participate?
+A. I participated in an eating-disorder research group at
+Hospital. And then I also participated in an informal
+research group with a number of professionals from varying
+degrees. There was an attorney, there was a political science
+professor, and other practitioners, social worker,
+psychologist. And we would meet on a monthly basis to discuss
+issues relevant to the field of trauma psychology.
+l. After your fellowship, what did you do next in your career?
+A. I founded an independent practice in psychology.
+Q. What is your role in that practice?
+A. I currently am -- I'm the owner. I am responsible for
+hiring both clinical and administrative staff, providing
+supervision, setting policies and procedures, and then of
+course treating patients.
+And within that setting I also
+maintain an independent forensic practice.
+l. Approximately when did you start the practice?
+A. Upon becoming licensed, in -- just after becoming licensed,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 15 of 15914
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+so around January of 1998.
+Q. Do you supervise anyone in your practice?
+A. I supervise all of my employees, yes.
+Q. How many employees do you have?
+A. I have seven clinicians who are working for me at the
+present time.
+l. What are your responsibilities for supervising those
+employees?
+A. Providing them with education about the patients that
+they're seeing. They are all
+independently licensed
+themselves, but to the extent that they're treating patients
+on -- where issues come up that are particularly complex or
+involve some level of risk, they come to me and talk to me. I
+provide clinical and professional guidance on how to manage
+that.
+I also lead a weekly team meeting in which we discuss
+cases and review, review, review patient care.
+l. Can you briefly describe the work you do in connection with
+your practice.
+A. So, in terms of my clinical work, I treat individual adult
+patients currently, although I've treated adolescents in the
+past.
+The majority of my personal caseload are patients who
+have experienced some form of traumatic stress, largely
+interpersonal violence, but I also treat other forms of
+traumatic stress, such as first responders or individuals who
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 16 of 15915
+Rocchio - Direct
+have been involved in motor vehicle accidents or traumatic
+loss,
+for example. And then I also have a smaller number of
+patients
+who are presenting due to issues in their life. They
+might be going through a transition. It might be a college
+student who's struggling to adapt, someone going through a
+divorcement general life issues, anxiety, depression, coping
+with a health problem, that sort of thing.
+Q. You mentioned a forensic practice. In your forensic
+practice, what sort of work do you do?
+A. I provide expert consultation, psychological, forensic
+psychological evaluations, and expert witness testimony in
+civil and criminal cases, most typically where traumatic stress
+and/or interpersonal violence are somehow related to the matter
+at hand, although I've also done other types of forensic work.
+Q. How does your clinical -- excuse me -- your forensic
+practice compare to your clinical practice?
+A. My forensic practice is very different. As a clinician,
+I'm working with individuals in the clinical room providing
+evidence-based treatment for the problems that they're
+presenting to me and developing a relationship over time. As a
+forensic psychologist, I'm taking on more of an investigative
+role, and my work is to answer some particular psycho-legal
+question from an objective perspective, and it involves
+certainly never taking what someone has to say at face value
+but, rather, a fairly well-established process of multiple
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE l
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 17 of 15916
+Rocchio - Direct
+techniques to arrive at the -- my professional opinion.
+Q. What if any licenses do you have?
+A. I'm licensed to practice psychology currently in the states
+of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York.
+Q. In your career, for approximately how many years --
+THE COURT: Sorry. May I ask, Dr. Rocchio, that point
+you made about not taking what someone says at face value, you
+distinguish that as part of your forensic practice?
+THE WITNESS: Yes.
+THE COURT: And what about in your clinical practice?
+THE WITNESS: In my clinical practice, it's not -- I
+have to deal with what the patients tell me in the room. It's
+not my job to go out and verify any part of what's being told
+in the clinical room, but, rather, to hear what they're telling
+me and then relate that back to my other skills-training
+experience, the scientific literature. Someone, for example,
+might report to me symptoms of depression. I could ask them
+how that's manifesting in their life, but I don't go to their
+house to see if they're actually staying in bed all day. That
+kind of thing.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Dr. Rocchio, in your career, for approximately how many
+years have you treated and assessed patients?
+A. 30, maybe slightly more than 30 years at this point.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 18 of 15917
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. As a clinical psychologist, what issues or areas have you
+specialized in?
+A.
+Earlier in my career, as I said, I specialized in the
+assessment and treatment of eating disorders, and throughout my
+career I've specialized in the area of traumatic stress and
+interpersonal violence.
+e.
+Since about when have you focused on traumatic stress and
+interpersonal violence?
+A. Since graduate school.
+l. In the course of your career, have you treated and
+evaluated individuals who have experienced or reported
+experiencing childhood sexual abuse?
+A. I have.
+e. What is childhood sexual abuse?
+A. "Childhood sexual abuse" refers to a process by which a
+child is involved, engaged in sexual activity by an adult or
+sometimes by a peer who's generally three to five years older
+than them, but it involves engaging the child in sexual
+activity when they either do not consent or are unable to
+consent.
+l. And when you refer to "child," what are you referring to?
+A. Under the age of 18.
+l. Approximately how many victims of childhood sexual abuse
+have you evaluated and treated in your career?
+A. I've treated hundreds upon hundreds of individuals who have
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 19 of 15918
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+either reported to me that they've been sexually abused or have
+been
+referred to me after criminal proceedings have convicted a
+perpetrator.
+So those would be cases where it's been
+established that they've been abused.
+Q.
+During the course of your career, how old are the patients
+you've treated and evaluated who experienced childhood sexual
+abuse?
+A. I've treated, over the course of my career, individuals
+ages 13 and up.
+l. And if this -- in your current practice, how old are the
+patients you treat?
+A. I'm currently working with individuals predominantly who
+are 18 and older.
+l. In addition --
+THE COURT: Sorry.
+What you're describing generally,
+is there a distinction to be made here in terms of your
+practice regarding childhood sexual abuse between your clinical
+side of your work and the forensic side? You're talking about
+your clinical work, I presume.
+THE WITNESS: I'm talking about my clinical work, but
+it is true that in both my clinical and forensic practice I
+have done a fair amount of work with adolescents as well as
+adults and that currently I am predominantly working in both
+settings with the evaluation of adults.
+THE COURT: OK.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAXIps
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 20 of 15919
+Rocchio - Direct
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. In addition to your group practice, do you work anywhere
+else?
+A. I do.
+0. Where do you work?
+A. I'm on the voluntary faculty at |
+University, Alpert
+School of Medicine, in the department of psychiatry.
+Q. What is your title?
+A. I'm a clinical assistant professor.
+Q. How long have you been at the Alpert Medical School of
+University?
+A. Since July 2020.
+2. What are your current responsibilities in your employment
+there?
+A. I supervise psychiatry fellows in their efforts to learn
+how to conduct adult psychotherapy, and I also teach at some of
+the seminars that the psychiatry fellows attend.
+l. What sorts of things do you teach on?
+A. When I'm asked to teach, I teach on areas related to
+traumatic stress and interpersonal violence.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, I'd like to show you Government Exhibit 1.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Durocher, can you pull that up.
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is that?
+A. My curriculum vitae.
+2. Does it accurately describe your education and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 21 of 15920
+qualifications?
+A. It does,
+although it doesn't reflect my recent promotion at
+from clinical instructor to clinical assistant professor.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government would offer
+Government Exhibit 1.
+THE COURT: No objection?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection for purposes of this
+hearing, your Honor.
+THE COURT: OK. For the purposes of this hearing,
+Government Exhibit 1 is admitted. Thank you.
+(Government's Exhibit 1 received in evidence)
+l. Turning to page 4, what is listed there?
+A. Publications and professional presentations.
+l. Can you summarize the subject of some of your published
+work.
+A. My published work generally deals in some way with
+traumatic stress, ethics, and professional practice issues.
+a recent article was looking at the forensic assessment of
+So
+individuals who have experienced complex trauma, childhood
+trauma, severe and repeated childhood trauma. I've also
+written issues related to ethics as part of a public service
+for education of junior members in the newsletter for the Rhode
+Island Psychological Association.
+2. Have you had any public articles published in a
+peer-reviewed journal?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 22 of 15921
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. I have.
+Q. What does it mean to be in a peer-reviewed journal
+generally?
+A. So the peer-review process in my field involves generally
+people would either solicit or send -- either the journal would
+solicit requests for articles or people would submit articles
+to a journal for publication. The journal would -- editors
+would then take those articles and send them out to
+professionals in the field who have agreed to serve as
+reviewers, who have some sort of expertise related to the topic
+of the particular article. Generally in that process it's
+known as a blind review -- that is, the reviewers don't know
+who the author is, to help protect from bias. They then are
+asked to review and comment on the article, and then to make a
+recommendation regarding whether the article should be
+accepted, whether it should be -- whether the author should be
+asked to make either minor or major revisions to the article
+and then resubmit, or whether the article should be declined.
+2. You also mentioned professional presentations.
+l. Have you given any professional presentations?
+A. Yes, I have.
+l. Focusing on pages -- sorry. Just let me back up one
+moment. What is a professional presentation?
+A. It's a presentation that is given at a professional
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAXIps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 23 of 15922
+Rocchio - Direct
+conference, where I'm providing either information and
+knowledge in the course of a presentation or I'm conducting a
+workshop, either by myself or as part of a symposium, a panel
+of presenters, on a given topic.
+l. Are your professional presentations peer reviewed?
+A. Yes, they are.
+Q. What does it mean for a professional presentation to be
+peer reviewed?
+A. So it's the same peer-review process or it's analogous to
+the process I described for publication. In other words,
+people will submit, I would submit a presentation. There's a
+call for proposals. I would provide a proposal of what it is I
+would like to present to the program coordinator. They
+typically would have a team of individuals who then review all
+of the submissions and rate them. And then they would select
+those that they feel are most relevant and worthy and
+professional to present.
+l. Focus on page 7 of Government Exhibit 1, have any of your
+professional presentations focused on trauma psychology or
+interpersonal violence?
+A. The vast majority of them have, yes.
+l. Then turning to pages 7 and 8, have you given any invited
+addresses?
+A. I have.
+Q. What are invited addresses?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 24 of 15923
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. Those are talks where, rather than my submitting to a
+peer-review process, individuals or organizations and
+institutions have requested that I give a presentation within
+my areas of expertise.
+Q. Have any of your invited addresses focused on trauma
+psychology and interpersonal violence?
+A. The vast majority, yes.
+Q. You testified about the peer-review process. Have you ever
+served as a peer reviewer for publications?
+A. Yes. I serve as a peer reviewer for several.
+Q. What types of publications?
+A. I'm on the editorial board for the journal for the Division
+of Trauma psychology, so it's a trauma psychology journal, and
+my role there is to conduct regular peer reviews for that
+journal. I also serve as a peer reviewer, kind of as a guest
+peer reviewer, for a variety of other journals, when it's
+related to my topic matter. So I believe I've done that for
+psychological injury and the law as well as the journal of
+professional practice, recent -- journal -- professional
+journal research and practice, for example.
+l. When did you start serving as a peer reviewer for
+publications?
+A. I've served as a peer reviewer for either professional
+presentations or publications for much of my career. I'm not
+sure when I first started doing it for journals, but I know
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 25 of 15924
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+I've been doing it for conferences from, you know, 20, 25 years
+minimally.
+l. Do you have any other involvement in professional
+publications?
+A. I, apart from serving on the editorial board for the
+journal of trauma psychology, not at the moment, no.
+e. Do you hold --
+A.
+can I actually correct that answer?
+Yes. Actually, the other thing is that for the
+publication I recently had, in addition to submitting articles
+for peer review, I was an invited guest editor in that
+particular edition -- special issue of that journal, so that
+meant that I had to, with my co-editor, solicit articles and
+then review them for publication.
+Q. Do you belong to any professional organizations?
+A. I do.
+2. Do you hold any leadership positions with those
+organizations?
+A. I do.
+l. What are those leadership positions that you hold?
+A. I'm currently the president-elect for the division of
+trauma psychology for the American Psychological Association.
+I am also a member of the ethics committee for the American
+Psychological Association. I serve as a -- on the executive
+board of the Rhode Island Psychological Association, where I am
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 26 of 15925
+LBAAMAXIps
+Rocchio - Direct
+their counsel representative to the National American
+Psychological Association.
+I believe those are my current leadership roles. I've
+held others in the past.
+e. What do you do in your capacity as the president-elect of
+the division of trauma psychology?
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, you've gotten a little
+quieter, so into the mike and speak up.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
+l. What do you do in your capacity as president-elect of the
+division of trauma psychology?
+A. So I was elected to the position. It's a three-year term.
+I serve as part of what's called the presidential trio, which
+consists of the past president, the current president, and the
+president-elect. So I'll begin my term as president next year.
+And then, during my presidential year, I'm responsible
+for planning the topic and organizing and -- the theme of the
+program -- our division's program at the annual conference for
+the American Psychological Association.
+I sit on the executive board. I work closely with the
+executive director, overseeing, managing things related to
+finance, policy, particular outstanding projects or projects
+that - ad hoc projects that I wish to execute during my
+presidential year.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 27 of 15926
+Rocchio - Direct
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+e. What is the division of trauma psychology?
+A. So the national organization for - professional
+organization for psychology, within that organization, there
+are 56 separate divisions that each focus on a distinct area,
+specialized area of psychology. And I belong to a number of
+those divisions of psychology.
+Q. Have you served in a leadership position with other
+professional organizations?
+A. Yes, I have.
+Q. Can you briefly describe?
+A. I served on the Rhode Island psychological association.
+I've served on the committee for state leaders, which is an
+organization within the American psychological association
+dealing with various states and advocacy for issues related to
+psychology.
+2. How do you keep up to date on the subjects in which you
+specialize?
+A. In a variety of ways. Certainly, I regularly review the
+scientific and legal literature. I attend programming. I
+consult with peers in my field. I attend trainings. And then
+of course, I bring that information back to my experience, both
+in clinical and forensic settings, and learn from my patients
+and the people that I evaluate in my experience.
+Q. In what areas have you received additional education and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 28 of 15927
+Rocchio - Direct
+training?
+A. Various treatment methods specific to treating individuals
+who have experienced various kinds of traumatic stress and
+personal violence, childhood abuse, complex trauma, specialized
+practice in forensic psychology, predominantly.
+Q. What kinds of training have you received?
+A. Attending numerous workshops conducted by reputable experts
+in the field that typically have been vetted so that I can
+receive continuing education credits and are required on an
+annual basis for various forms of licensure. Also, there have
+been some trainings that I have done online. For example, I
+participate in a weekly webinar on issues relevant to the signs
+and practice of forensic psychology that is conducted by
+experts in the field. I think that covers it.
+Q. In what way do you train others?
+A. I have done a variety of things. So I have been on the
+ethics committee for the psychological association and also on
+the American psychological association. So part of what I do
+is we have a call in opportunity for our members, and we
+provide education about ethical issues to -- and consultation
+to individuals who request that form of assistance. As I
+mentioned, I'm a clinical supervisor for psychology fellows in
+medical school at
+University. I do provide consultation,
+supervision to all of my employees. And there are also times
+where others in the field may contact me on a professional
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 29 of 15928
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+basis to consult with them on my area of expertise. A recent
+colleague who is a forensic psychologist, but not a forensic
+expert, contacted me to ask to teach her and talk with her
+about some of the traumatic stress issues that were involved in
+her case.
+Q. What types of training and presentations have you given in
+the area of childhood sexual abuse?
+A. I've given a number of trainings on complex trauma. And
+complex trauma refers to repeated abuse that occurs during
+childhood perpetrated generally by caregivers of the
+individual. I've also given -- so I've given trainings on —-
+for general clinicians - on how to assess trauma and that may
+include assessing for a history of childhood sexual abuse. And
+I have given trainings, for example, at the Department of DCYF
+to investigators on how to manage the effects of being exposed
+to details related to traumatic stress in the course of their
+work. Those would be some examples of trainings I have done.
+Q. How do you keep up with the scientific literature in your
+field?
+A. So from my membership in a number of different divisions
+and, of course, international and national traumatic stress
+organizations, most of those journals have some combination —-
+most of those organizations have professional journals, in
+which they publish literature, scientific peer review
+literature, or they also have newsletters. They also have
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 30 of 15929
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+listservs to provide communication, and then creating a healthy
+clinical picture as well.
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, have you testified in court before?
+A. I have.
+l. How many times?
+A. Iwice.
+l. Were you qualified as an expert when you testified
+previously?
+A. I was.
+Q. On what subject were you qualified as an expert?
+A. I was qualified as an expert in psychology with a
+specialized expertise in traumatic stress and complex trauma.
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, I want to ask you about the specific opinions
+you have offered in this case.
+How are most instances of childhood sexual abuse
+committed?
+A. Majority are committed without the use of force. They're
+conmitted with the use of nonviolence, coercive and controlling
+tactics, but without the use of physical force and violence.
+Q. Are most instances of childhood sexual abuse committed by
+strangers or people known to children?
+A. They're generally committed by people known to the children
+in the context of a relationship between the perpetrator and
+the child.
+Q. Based on your experience, research and training, are you
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 31 of 15930
+Rocchio - Direct
+familiar with the term grooming?
+A. I am.
+Q. What is grooming?
+A. Grooming is a term that is used in the professional
+literature and in the field to refer to a series of tactics and
+strategies that are commonly experienced by victims and
+utilized by offenders in the course of deceiving the child,
+building a relationship of trust, and then eventually sexually
+abusing the child.
+l. Can you please describe specific grooming strategies?
+A. So various researchers have identified grooming strategies
+involving a series of tactics that typically fit into several
+stages. They typically involve strategies to identify a
+victim, strategies to have access and to isolate the victim.
+So for example, many offenders put themselves purposefully in
+situations where they're going to have a great deal of access,
+whether that's a boy scout troop or a school setting or that
+type of thing, a coach. And then there are various coercive
+and manipulative strategies that are utilized to develop a
+relationship of trust, prosocial behaviors, things that might
+be gift giving or letting the child know how special they are,
+showering the child with affection. There's been some
+comparison in the literature, a significant amount of
+comparison to strategies that are basically akin to what two
+adults might do in a courtship process. But basically the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 32 of 15931
+Rocchio - Direct
+offender is trying to win over the trust and affection of the
+child. Then there's another stage where the child is gradually
+exposed to greater levels of physical touch and sexual content
+and material that slowly escalates over time, and then
+strategies that keep the relationship going and help to prevent
+exposure.
+2. Based on your experience, research and training are you
+familiar with the term grooming the environment?
+A. I am.
+Q. What is grooming the environment?
+A. It's a term that applies to commonly recognized phenomenon
+and strategies, tactics, modus operandi used by perpetrators in
+the service of getting them access to victims and building that
+relationship of trust. So in addition to manipulating the
+child, they'll manipulate individuals or institutions in that
+child's life so that they're able to have greater access. So
+they might, for example, befriend a child's parent and hold
+themselves out as a trustworthy person who is going to help,
+say, a single mom and he'll serve as a father figure to the
+kid. Or they might groom an institution, they might work their
+way up through the boy scouts, for example, and become a leader
+there, become a pillar in the community to give them an air of
+respectability, disarming, gaining trust.
+2. Are you familiar with the term attachment?
+A. I am.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 33 of 15932
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. What is that term?
+A. Attachment basically refers to the relationship between one
+person, one individual and another. The original research was
+conducted looking at the attachment as a connection between an
+infant and a caregiver, her mother. But since has expanded
+into talking about the relational dynamics between either
+children and caregivers, children and family members or, for
+example, two intimate partners as adults.
+Q. Can you please explain the relationship, if any, between
+attachment and grooming?
+A. So when I talked about some of the strategies that are
+utilized, tactics, modus operandi in order to build that
+relationship within the context of childhood sexual abuse, the
+function and end result of that is to create a relationship or
+attachment and connection between the perpetrator and the
+child, whereby the child trusts and becomes dependent upon the
+perpetrator.
+Q. Based on your experience, research and training are you
+familiar with the term coercive control?
+A. I am.
+2. What is coercive control?
+A. Coercive control refers to a strategic pattern of behavior
+that's designed to attain and maintain control in a
+relationship. So coercion means getting somebody to either do
+or not do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do otherwise.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmaxZ
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 34 of 15933
+Rocchio - Direct
+And it is combined with control tactics like isolation or
+building access to resources so that the power in the
+relational dynamic lies with the person who is using coercive
+control.
+It was initially developed and conceptualized to help
+understand part of intimate partner violent relationships, but
+has since been found to exist in multiple forms of
+victimization.
+2. You mentioned specific grooming strategies earlier. Can
+you give examples or specific examples of specific grooming
+strategies?
+A. Gift giving, spending time alone, giving hugs, giving
+massages that gradually escalate to disrobing or more overtly
+sexualized behavior, talking about sex. Basically, normalizing
+behaviors and then over time - normalizing sexualized
+behaviors and then over time moving that line of what's normal,
+what's appropriate, what's happening within this relationship
+closer and closer to sexual abuse.
+But the strategies that are utilized for the building
+of relationship are the same types of things that anyone might
+do to build trust and attachment. Again, giving attention,
+making the child feel special, gift giving, spending - taking
+them out to special places, purchasing things for them. Also
+things that make them perhaps more dependent upon you. So if
+you are offering to pay for things and this person is in need
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 35 of 15934
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+of money, and if you are giving them something that will
+increase their dependency. Also the adult-child relationship,
+the power differential.
+THE COURT: The specific examples you are mentioning,
+are those found in the literature?
+THE WITNESS: They are.
+THE COURT: So you derive your views as to those
+specific examples from — not from your clinical work or your
+forensic work or maybe both -- but the ones you have cited just
+now, you find in peer-reviewed literature?
+THE WITNESS: Yes. It's an interaction. So
+everything I'm talking about today is derived from my education
+and experience, as well as my knowledge of the literature. But
+yes, for many years, those specific tactics and strategies have
+been described in numerous peer-reviewed articles.
+And your Honor, if I may, it's also, I believe
+important to know that those are articles that have studied
+reports and behaviors that offenders talk about doing as well
+as things that victims have talked about experiencing.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Dr. Rocchio, you gave an example of gift giving, how can
+you tell if that is grooming or innocent behavior?
+A. As I said, it depends on the context in which the gift
+giving is happening. And you have to look at the entire
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 36 of 15935
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+relationship. As I said, child sexual abuse is a process.
+It's not an isolated event. To the extent that gift giving is
+being done in the service of increasing someone's dependency on
+you for the purposes of increasing your ability to coerce and
+control them, ultimately, for sexual abuse, then that gift
+giving would be considered part of - to be part of the
+grooming process.
+Q. How long has the concept of grooming been in the scientific
+literature?
+A. Grooming itself has been in the scientific literature at
+least since the 80s. But the scientific literature that has
+looked at the relational components of child sexual abuse and
+the ways in which victims become coerced into, quote, unquote,
+complying with sexual activity by an adult has been well
+established in the study of child sexual abuse for quite some
+time.
+l. At a high level, what are your opinions on grooming based
+on?
+A. They're based on the interaction between my education, my
+training, the skills I have developed over time, certainly my
+ongoing review of the scientific literature and my practice.
+2. In your education, how did you learn about the concept of
+grooming?
+A. So again, in my education part of how I learned that, it
+was from my study of the process of child sexual abuse and both
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 37 of 15936
+Rocchio - Direct
+what that typically entails, not just the sexual components,
+but also the psychological and emotional components and their
+effects. And also, certainly, in my reviews of the literature
+and things that we talked about in graduate school and in other
+trainings, what sorts of behaviors offenders commonly use in
+order to engage children in that relationship.
+l. In your clinical practice, have you treated and evaluated
+patients who have reported being groomed in connection with
+sexual abuse?
+A. I have. Although they don't typically use that word. As I
+said, most patients, including patients I treat, who have been
+abused as children, have had abuse happen in the context of a
+relationship. The abuse hasn't involved explicit force. So to
+the extent that they talk about the ways that they came to
+know, love and depend upon the perpetrator, yes, they talk and
+describe at length the types of behaviors that would meet the
+definition of grooming.
+l. Approximately how many patients have you treated, evaluated
+who have reported behaviors consistent with grooming?
+A. I would say the vast majority of patients I have treated
+who have reported childhood sexual abuse, again, that would be
+hundreds upon hundreds.
+Q. What are the ages of the patients you have treated who have
+reported behaviors consistent with grooming?
+A. I have treated patients who are adolescents and patients
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 38 of 15937
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+who are adults.
+Q. Are you aware of other psychologists treating and
+evaluating patients that reported behaviors consistent with
+grooming?
+A. Absolutely. It's common in the field.
+Q. How do you know that?
+A. Through my review of the clinical research, it's something
+that's well documented in articles or books, chapters that have
+been written, for example, about how to provide treatment to
+patients. It's written in the literature around what sorts of
+symptoms might patients present with and why, what are some of
+the common difficulties. Of course, it's written in case
+studies. And then through my conversations with peers and, of
+course, trainings I have attended conducted by experts in the
+field.
+Q. In your forensic practice, have you evaluated survivors of
+childhood sexual abuse?
+A. I have.
+2. What does forensic evaluation of someone who has reported
+childhood sexual abuse entail?
+A. So in general, a forensic evaluation is a multistep
+process. As I mentioned before, it's not just talking to
+someone. So a forensic evaluation, as I conduct it, involves
+first reading all of the relevant external collateral
+information relevant to the case. So if it's a criminal case,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmaxZ
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 39 of 15938
+Rocchio - Direct
+that might be crime
+scene photos, autopsy photos, that might be
+transcripts of grand jury testimony, state police interviews.
+In a civil case, I might also look at things like medical
+records and psychotherapy records. So any and all documents
+relevant to the case.
+Then I typically do somewhere between eight and ten
+hours of face-to-face evaluation, that involves both
+psychological testing and clinical interviewing. I also
+conduct collateral interviews with others who have information
+that's relevant to the case and to the issues at hand.
+And then I synthesize all of that information. And if
+requested will prepare a report. Most cases don't end up going
+to trial. But if they do and I'm asked to testify, I would
+then testify in those cases.
+Q. Do you evaluate issues of grooming in connection with your
+forensic practice?
+A. Yes, I have.
+9. Can you give me an example of a forensic evaluation that
+has involved grooming-related issues?
+A. Sure. So for example, in the civil arena where I am asked
+to - say somebody has alleged that they've been sexually
+abused as a child or maybe we know that they have been sexually
+abused as a child because the perpetrator has been criminally
+convicted, I may be asked to assess, does this individual at
+the present time have any current psychiatric difficulties or
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 40 of 15939
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+impairments. And if so, to what degree, if any, are those
+attributable in whole or in part to the alleged sexual abuse.
+So as part of that assessment, I'm looking at the
+dynamics in the relationship between the individual and the
+perpetrator. And we know that the grooming behaviors that
+induce that relationship of trust and attachment have a
+significant negative affect on an individual's psyche and can
+strongly and negatively impact their functioning afterwards.
+So those are things I'm looking for.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, to be clear, in your forensic work, do you
+assume that everything a victim reports is true?
+A. Absolutely not.
+Q. Can you explain that?
+A. My role in a forensic capacity is to provide an objective
+answer based upon my evaluation and my review of the
+literature. And it is not dependent on who is hiring me, for
+example. So as I mentioned, the reason that I look at all of
+these other documents and the reason I administer psychological
+tests and talk to third parties is precisely because I'm
+looking for consistencies and inconsistencies in what the
+individual is telling me in order to form an opinion. As part
+of my duty in that role is to investigate various hypotheses,
+in a forensic setting, it has to be that I'm not being told the
+truth.
+Q. Io take a step back, to be clear, in your clinical work, do
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 41 of 15940
+Rocchio - Direct
+you assume everything a victim reports is true?
+A. No, I do not.
+Q. Can you explain?
+A. So in a clinical setting, it is not my role to determine
+whether something is or is not true. Of course, when someone
+is telling me something, I'm using my skill and experience to
+take that information in and also to inquire, as I communicate
+to that individual and provide treatment. But as I mentioned
+earlier, I don't go out and try to see, well, this person is
+having trauma related to a motor vehicle accident or a shooting
+on the job, I don't go and ask them to provide me with
+newspaper articles to verify whether that event happened.
+Q. How do the grooming that you have seen in your forensic
+practice compare to what you have seen in your clinical
+practice?
+A. There's remarkable consistency in what I see in my work
+over time in my forensic practice, my clinical practice and
+what I have been trained and what's in the literature.
+e. Can you describe at a high level the scientific literature
+upon which your opinions on grooming are based?
+A. So there have been a number of studies over time that have
+looked at the tactics, modus operandi, skill, manipulative
+techniques that have been used by perpetrators. And those
+studies have been published in peer-review journals. So there
+are studies that have done interviews with offenders, who have
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 42 of 15941
+Rocchio - Direct
+been convicted and who admit to their crimes, asking them what
+sorts of techniques they utilized in order to perpetuate the
+sexual abuse.
+There have been studies that have been done with
+victims, in terms of asking them what sorts of experiences they
+had. There have also been studies that have been conducted
+with professionals in various
+i law and human services
+and psychology about the types of tactics and strategies that
+have been used.
+l. How do the results of those studies compare?
+A. There's remarkable consistency. And even though
+definitions may vary in studies, as they always do, there are
+common - a clear set of common strategies, techniques and
+behaviors that have been identified in the literature across
+time and across various samples.
+Q. When you review articles about grooming, what sorts of
+things are you looking for to determine the quality of articles
+you are relying on?
+A. I'm looking at whether or not it's in a peer review
+journal. I'm looking at how a particular study was conducted.
+So for example, if they're doing content analysis of an
+interview, are they making sure that ways that that interview
+has been coded by multiple individuals to get some sort of
+consistency there. I'm looking at how they chose the sample
+size. I'm looking at if it's a review that summarizes the
+state of the literature, is the literature review
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 43 of 15942
+Rocchio - Direct
+comprehensive. I might go back to some of the original sources
+cited in the reference list, for example, and look at those
+articles to see if in the article I'm reading, when they
+describe article X, when I read article X, is that actually
+what article X is saying. Also, there are researchers who have
+come to be known in a particular field, so I might look at who
+the authors are and where the research is being conducted.
+Q. Beyond what you have already described, can you give any
+examples of how studies are conducted?
+A. They're conducted in a variety of ways. So for example -
+I think I may have already described it - but there are a
+variety of ways people might interview offenders and ask them
+what they do, what strategies and tactics they use. There
+might be studies that look at victims reporting what their
+experiences are. Or there might be studies where you're
+looking at treatment of victims and what are some of the issues
+that patients are bringing to treatment that need to be
+addressed, so the strategies that they experienced might come
+out that way. Certainly, studies have been done interviewing
+various experts, asking them what are strategies. And then
+looking for what are the strategies that experts from a variety
+of different
+agree upon, to a degree of certainty, and
+what do these professionals agree are part of what they see.
+l. Do studies use the same or different definitions of
+grooming?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 44 of 15943
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. So the definitions can vary. They're all generally
+referring to the same process. But the specific definition may
+vary in different studies. So you have to be sure that the
+literature, when reviewing it, you have to understand what
+definition they're using.
+Q. How can you rely on the empirical studies when there is
+variance across the different definitions of grooming used in
+those studies?
+A. To the extent they're talking about the same kind of
+process in the context of childhood sexual abuse. And again,
+grooming, not only may there be variances in definition of
+grooming, but the same patterns and behavior are sometimes
+referred to by different names. But what you really want to
+look for are the commonalities. So for example, are what
+offenders tell us they do, does that - to what degree of
+overlap is there between that and what victims tell us that
+they have experienced. When professionals talk about the kinds
+of behaviors, how much overlap and agreement is there between
+professionals, say, in similar
+, but also in different
+in characterizing these common phenomenon, the common
+phenomenon.
+2. Do studies look at samples of substantiated cases of abuse?
+e. What does that mean?
+A. So some of the research has been done that has looked at
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 45 of 15944
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+and interviewed individuals where the abuse has been known,
+either because the perpetrator has offended -- has admitted -
+I apologize -- or has been found guilty. So that would be an
+example of a legally substantiated case. Other times, they
+find studies where it's been substantiated in other ways; there
+have been interviews done with children who presented in
+medical settings with gonorrhea and talking with them about
+sexual abuse or abuse with kids in real time.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Can you pull up Government Exhibit 2,
+please.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, do you recognize this?
+A. I do.
+2. What is it?
+A. It's an article about coercive control.
+2. Who is the author?
+A. Jacquelynn Duron, Laura
+Postmus.
+1, Gretchen Hoge and Judy
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the government would offer
+Government Exhibit 2.
+THE COURT: Any objection?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Not for purposes of this hearing, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Government Exhibit 2 is admitted for the
+hearing.
+(Government's Exhibit 2 received in evidence)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 46 of 15945
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+2. Dr. Rocchio, to prepare for this hearing, did you provide
+the government with samples of literature?
+A. I did.
+l. Is this one of the samples you provided?
+l. Is this article peer-reviewed?
+Q. At a high level, can you describe this article?
+A. So what this article did, it reviewed information provided
+by a variety of professionals who had expertise, specifically
+in offender behavior and tactics that are utilized by offenders
+in sexual abuse, professionals from a variety of
+• And
+it asked them to talk about some of the tactics used in
+furthering the relationship and developing a dynamic of
+coercive control.
+What was significant in particular about this article
+is not only did they look at coercive control as it applies to
+childhood sexual abuse, but they also looked at how coercive
+control, patterns of behavior play out in multiple forms of
+victimization; trafficking, elder abuse or pimp and sex worker
+relationships, intimate partner violence, rape, sexual assault,
+that sort of thing.
+l. Does this article talk about grooming?
+A. It does.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 47 of 15946
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. Does this article use any particular sampling?
+A. The sampling was of professionals from a variety of |
+And it looked for content analysis and commonalities in what
+these professionals reported were common behaviors and tactics
+that were used across types of victimization.
+Q. How,
+if at all, does that impact your assessment of the
+study and article?
+A. It impacts it significantly. Because what this article is
+doing is not only is it replicating what has previously been
+found about tactics that are used, it's extending that
+literature and saying that these are common patterns of
+behavior that are used in the service of coercive control in a
+variety of types of victimization. So it's identifying a
+common tactic that's used in a number of settings to gain and
+maintain power and to coerce a victim into some form of
+behavior.
+THE COURT: Let me ask on that, one of the examples
+you gave was the pimp and sex worker relationship. In some of
+the literature and in the cases, trauma bonding is the phrase
+that's used?
+THE WITNESS: Yes.
+THE COURT: What's your understanding of the
+similarity, the overlap and prevalence of understanding of
+these two concepts in the field?
+THE WITNESS: In the field, there's significant - so
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 48 of 15947
+Rocchio - Direct
+trauma bonding is typically referring to a relationship of
+attachment and connection between the pimp and the sex worker.
+We know that the majority of sex workers are under some
+third-party control. And we know that the trauma bonding is
+often the means by which the pimp has coerced the sex worker to
+get them to do their bidding, similar to the kinds of
+techniques that traffickers might use. So there's a
+significant amount of overlap. And there has been actually
+some recent research - this is one example - but others have
+specifically looked at grooming as it applies to trafficking,
+for example.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Dr. Rocchio - withdrawn.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Can we pull up Government Exhibit 3,
+please.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, do you recognize this?
+A. I do.
+e. What is it?
+A. It's an article validating a model of child sexual abusers.
+e. Who wrote this?
+A. Georgia Winters, Elizabeth Jeglic and Leah Kaylor.
+MS. POMERANTZ: The government offers Government
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 49 of 15948
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
+THE COURT: Government Exhibit 3 is admitted to the
+hearing record.
+(Government's Exhibit 3 received in evidence)
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, is this one of the articles you provided to
+the government?
+A. It is.
+Q. When was this article published?
+A. 2020 or 2021. I can't read the date right now. I think it
+was 2020.
+Q. Is this article peer reviewed?
+A. It is.
+It was published in October 2020. Thanks. I don't
+have my glasses on.
+Q. What was the conclusion of this study?
+A. So what these authors did is a two-part study. So the
+first thing that they did is they did an extensive literature
+review to look for commonalities in the literature about what
+are the commonly described stages that a perpetrator engages in
+and what are the behaviors that are associated with those
+stages. So they did a very comprehensive literature review.
+They identified a number of specific behavioral and observable
+strategies that individuals have identified in the literature.
+They then got a group of recognized individuals in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmaxZ
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 50 of 15949
+Rocchio - Direct
+various
+with a high level of expertise - I believe
+there were about 18 professionals; 15 of them had doctoral
+degrees and they all had a significant number of publications
+having to do with offender behavior - they did a scientific
+analysis, whereby they had the professionals rate the relevance
+of not only the stages of grooming to their understanding of
+tactics and strategies utilized by offenders, but also the
+specific developments of very specific behaviors.
+So they had each of those behaviors rated on a four
+point scale by all of the professionals. And then they
+conducted analysis to see which of the items for which there
+was a high level, statistically significant level of agreement
+between the professionals, as to which of these behaviors were
+relevant. And they then went back and they asked, of those
+behaviors, where was their agreement on which stages that these
+specific behaviors belonged to.
+So I think they were able, through that analysis, to
+get a statistically significant agreement about behaviors. I
+think they narrowed it down to about 43 specific behaviors in
+this particular model.
+2. I want to direct your attention to Page 3.
+A. Okay.
+Q. What is this table?
+A. So this is a table that, if you can see, there are five
+stages of the model; the first being the victim selection, then
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 51 of 15950
+Rocchio - Direct
+gaining access and isolation, trust development,
+desensitization, sexual contact and physical contact. And then
+beneath each stage level, there is a list of the behavioral and
+the observable and measurable behaviors where there was a high
+level of statistical significance in agreement among varying
+professionals as to the relevance both to the grooming process
+and to the stages.
+Q. I want to direct your attention to Page 4. What is this
+table?
+A. So these, as I mentioned, there was an original list of
+about 77 specific behaviors that have been found associated
+with grooming in the literature fairly consistently. These are
+the behaviors that were part of that original list, where
+perhaps there were more differences of opinion, but the level
+of agreement among the professionals in this particular study
+did not reach the level of statistical significance.
+Q. What is your takeaway from the study in the article?
+A. I think this is a study that has really done a good job of
+integrating what we know and pulling together the literature,
+and then putting it to an empirical test. There have been
+other ways to empirically understand and test what is referred
+to as grooming. I think this is another way that provides some
+validation of a proposed model of the ways in which grooming
+works.
+MS. POMERANTZ: You can pull that down. I'd like to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 52 of 15951
+show Dr. Rocchio Exhibit 4.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Do you recognize this?
+A. I do.
+Q. What is it?
+A. It's an article on the construct of grooming in child
+sexual abuse that identifies both a summary of literature as
+well as some of the conceptual and measurement issues that were
+present at the time the article was written.
+Q. Who wrote this article?
+A. Natalie Bennett and William O'Donohue.
+MS. POMERANTZ: The government offers Exhibit 4.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
+THE COURT: Thank you. Government Exhibit 4 is
+admitted into the hearing record.
+(Government's Exhibit 4 received in evidence)
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Is this one of the articles that you provided the
+government?
+A. It is.
+2. Why did you provide the government with this article?
+A. I think that this article does a really good job of
+summarizing much of the previous literature that has been
+published and peer-reviewed sources about the grooming process.
+It identified some of the issues and varying definitions. It
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 53 of 15952
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+provided data supporting that this is a process that is well
+known and well established in the literature, and then it
+pointed to directions that were needed for future work. It
+pointed to some of the concerns about definitions and things
+that - suggestions, basically, for issues that needed to be
+addressed in future research.
+l. Do you agree with all of the conclusions of this article?
+A. I do not.
+l. I want to direct your attention to Page 959. And I want to
+zoom in on the paragraph above current definitions. It's about
+four lines down. It starts with "Furthermore."
+A. Okay.
+MS. POMERANTZ: We can highlight those next two
+sentences.
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, could you review the highlighted text.
+A. Okay.
+MS. POMERANTZ: And for purposes of the record, your
+Honor, I'm happy to read that.
+THE COURT: The sentence beginning with "Furthermore"
+and ending with "negatives."
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, what is your reaction to this?
+A. I think it's incomplete and I disagree with the conclusion.
+Q. Can you explain?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 54 of 15953
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. Sure. I think that certain things -- some psychologists
+use clinical judgment on whether or not a perpetrator's
+behaviors are considered grooming. But that certainly doesn't
+at all reference the scientific literature to determine what is
+and is not considered grooming. In addition, we also have data
+that's been provided by offenders themselves.
+In terms of reliability and validity of these
+judgments, the validity in psychological science refers to the
+degree to which you are measuring this particular thing, what
+you think you're measuring. So for example, the degree to
+which there is significant overlap between what victims say
+they experience and what offenders say that they have done
+provides us with a measure of validity.
+The degree to which different groups of individuals,
+whether that's groups of professionals or groups of victims
+agree in studies what it is that — the process, what kinds of
+behaviors, what's been done to the victim, what kinds of
+behaviors are associated with the grooming process, to the
+extent those professionals agree, that's a measure of
+reliability. Because you're getting different studies,
+different groups, different samples where there's significant
+overlap in what this dynamic and what this concept is.
+MS. POMERANTZ: I want to turn to Page 974.
+l. I want you to focus on the section under conclusions and
+the first two sentences, so "Currently."
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 55 of 15954
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+THE COURT: Can you repeat that, please.
+MS. POMERANTZ: The first two sentences of that
+paragraph starting with "currently" and ending with "has
+occurred or is occurring."
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Dr. Rocchio, what is your response to those two sentences?
+A. Again, I think that I would not agree with those
+conclusions. I also think it's important to recognize that
+this article was published many years ago. And there's
+certainly been evolutions and additional literature since the
+time of publication. But even at the time of publication, I
+think it's a little misleading. If they're defining consensus
+there as universal agreement as to exact - everything within
+the process of grooming, then sure. But when we're talking
+about any pattern of behavior or any phenomenon within the
+social science, it's a complicated phenomenon. You're never
+going to get universal agreement among experts. That's why you
+have to look at what's the particular definition used within a
+study.
+But most definitely, there's consensus within the
+scientific literature about the phenomenon not only of
+grooming, but the phenomenon of child sexual abuse itself, what
+the experiences are of the victim and what the behaviors are of
+the offender and also the impact of those behaviors, in terms
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 56 of 15955
+Rocchio - Direct
+of how it affects an individual. So if we know that it's a
+relationship of trust, for example, that typically results in
+feelings of shame on the part of the victim, obviously, we had
+to study how that trust was built up and how that relationship
+developed over time. That's well established. And there's
+consensus that that is a significant part of the dynamics of
+child sexual abuse.
+Q. I want to turn to the next two sentences starting with "The
+field possesses" and going through "does not meet some of the
+criteria in the Daubert standard."
+A. Okay.
+l. Do you see that, Dr. Rocchio?
+A. Mm-hmm.
+2. What is your reaction to the statement that grooming is not
+a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings?
+A. As I indicated, I think that it is absolutely part and
+parcel of a forensic evaluation to look at what are the
+behaviors, what is their impact and what was their function.
+So I think that to the extent that we have the ability in a
+forensic setting, in particular, to look for corroboration, to
+look for consistency among different data points, between what
+you are being told by an individual, between what other people
+have observed, for example, what people are reporting on
+measures and tests, what individuals have told in a
+contemporaneous setting. I think there are a lot of ways you
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 57 of 15956
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+can get consistency. And it's a concept that is frequently
+referred to in forensic studies.
+Q. Do more recent articles respond to some of the concerns
+raised by this Bennett and O'Donohue article?
+A. They do.
+Q. Can you please explain?
+A. The article we looked at earlier by Winters attempted
+specifically to address some concerns. So she attempted to
+validate the grooming model. And she very specifically wanted
+to see, okay, of course there's not going to be universal
+agreement on every single behavior, but she did a statistical
+study to find out specifically what behaviors do the
+professionals and the experts agree upon. And again,
+remembering that all of the behaviors - even the ones that, in
+that particular study, didn't meet the statistical significance
+in that study, all of those behaviors were behaviors that have
+been commonly referred to and described in the literature.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, how do error rates factor into this
+literature?
+A. So I think when we talk about error rates within the field
+of psychology, the kind of gold standard is when you have a
+particular technique or a drug and you ideally would randomly
+assign people, one who receives the drug, one who doesn't
+receive the drug, and I would kind of compare whether - how
+effective it is. For obvious reasons, you can't assign some
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 58 of 15957
+LBAGmaxZ
+Rocchio - Direct
+people as sexually abused and others not. So you have to 1ook
+for other ways to assess acceptability within the scientific
+literature; peer review and general thoughts about concepts.
+And so that's where you look at the reliability as in what do
+the experts consistently agree to among themselves. You look
+at the degree of overlapping studies, perhaps studying it in
+different ways, but are they still coming up with the same
+clear description of the types of things that happen in the
+context of child sexual abuse.
+So for example, there was a content analysis done
+through interviews to pull out what some of those studies have
+found and to the degree that they're rated by multiple
+reviewers, and then compare the ratings of those reviewers,
+that's an indices of reliability.
+MS. POMERANTZ: I think we're done with Government
+
+Can we pull up Government Exhibit 5, please.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, do you recognize this?
+A. I do.
+I. What is it?
+A. It's an article describing the evolution of the word
+grooming and how it's been used, as well as the term seduction,
+to describe this conmonly understood pattern of behavior and
+the strategies used by child perpetrators in the service of
+sexual exploitation and abuse.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 59 of 15958
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. Who wrote this article?
+A. Park Dietz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we move to admit
+Government Exhibit 5.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
+THE COURT: Government Exhibit 5 is received.
+(Government's Exhibit 5 received in evidence)
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Dr. Rocchio, did you provide the government with this
+article?
+A. I dia.
+e. Why did you provide the government with this article?
+A. I was asked to provide examples to the government of
+literature in the field that I thought might be helpful to the
+court to understand the concepts that I'm talking about. This
+does a really nice job of pointing to the part that the terms
+grooming and seduction refer to a pattern of behavior that's
+widely known and well established to be part of the dynamics of
+sexual abuse. But in particular, I appreciated the author's
+emphasis later on in the article of some of the problems with
+the words seduction and some of the ways that much earlier
+literature erroneously used terminology that could
+inappropriately indicate a victim is blamed for the abuse that
+they have been subjected to.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Can you pull up Page 31, please.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 60 of 15959
+LBAGmax2
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. I wanted to direct your attention to the use of the term
+grooming, so in that top paragraph. If you could review the
+section of the article that starts with "If their use of the
+term grooming" and all the way to the end of that paragraph and
+let me know when you have had a chance to review it, please.
+A. Okay.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, what is your response, reaction to this
+passage?
+A. It's a bit confusing as to the point that's being made. I
+feel like they're trying to -- the author here seems to be
+mixing different applications of the term that they use
+grooming, so it looks like in part he's talking about what is
+true in the literature, which is that we're not particularly
+good as a field of taking, frankly, many behaviors at all and
+predicting future behaviors. So he's saying accurately that we
+can't look at specific behaviors alone as predictors.
+And certainly, the use of the term grooming, again, is
+used to describe a process, a pattern of behaviors. I'm not
+here today to say that if somebody engages in any one of these
+particular behaviors, yes, we know you're a child abuser. So
+he's making that point. But I don't think anybody -- I don't
+think that - if that's his point, I wouldn't disagree with
+that. Except that he's then going on -- I disagree where he
+says that grooming then can't involve behaviors that might in
+fact be prosocial or normal.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax2
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 61 of 15960
+Rocchio - Direct
+Again, we're talking about a use of a variety of
+strategies for the purpose of sexual abuse. So these are ways
+in which - tactics, ways in which an offender might manipulate
+a child to developing a relationship of trust and attachment.
+Obviously, one can develop a relationship of trust and
+attachment in a variety of contexts. But when we're talking
+about grooming, the specific context, is when there's been
+coercive control and some form of organization.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, taking a step back —
+MS. POMERANTZ: You can pull down Exhibit 5.
+Q. - how have some of the behaviors you have seen in grooming
+literature compare to behaviors you have seen in your forensic
+practice and your clinical practice?
+A. Again, there's remarkable similarity in the impact of those
+behaviors. In my clinical practice victims talk about, I
+really trusted him, I thought he was a nice guy, he paid so
+much attention to me, he helped me out, he drove me places, he
+bought me sneakers when I didn't have any, he was the only
+person who cared about me. And that significantly - in a
+clinical arena, that significantly impacts the individual's
+confusion and self-blame and often experiences of shame.
+Similarly, in a forensic setting, it can often
+contribute to an increase in the kinds of damage and harm that
+I need to assess that have stemmed from an incident.
+Q. In your view, is the concept of grooming generally accepted
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 62 of 15961
+LBAGmaxZ
+Rocchio - Direct
+within the scientific community?
+A. Yes, absolutely.
+Q. Based on your experience, research and training, are
+certain individuals at higher risk of being sexually abused as
+children?
+A. There are certain groups who are more vulnerable and
+there's a higher prevalence of child sexual abuse, yes.
+Q. What factors contribute to increased risk or higher
+vulnerabilities?
+A. So there are factors that have been studied and found in
+literature that have to do with the individual themselves. So
+for example, individuals who are particularly needy and
+vulnerable, individuals who have a prior history of
+victimization, you know, are at much higher risk of
+revictimization, individuals who are part of marginalized
+groups. For example, we know there's very high rates of sexual
+assault, childhood sexual abuse among especially minority
+children or among intellectually and cognitively disabled
+children.
+We know that individuals who come from certain types
+of family structures can be also at higher risk. For example,
+where there's only one parent, or children who come from home
+environments where there's abuse of other types going on in the
+home. So there might be other siblings who are being abused or
+the parents might be engaged - one of the parents might be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 63 of 15962
+LBAGmaxZ
+Rocchio - Direct
+abusing another parent or another child, so where there's other
+violence, those groups are also at higher risk.
+There have been other studies that look at poverty as
+a risk factor. So those are just examples of the types of
+vulnerabilities that have been well established in the
+literature.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 64 of 15963
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. At a high level, what are your opinions on which
+individuals are at higher risk of child sexual abuse based on?
+A. My training and my education, certainly my clinical and
+forensic experience, as well as my review of the clinical and
+scientific literature.
+Q. In your education and training, did you learn about the
+concept of certain groups being at higher risk of childhood
+sexual abuse?
+A. Yes, because, again, in the phenomenon of child sexual
+abuse in general, not -- we're looking at vulnerability
+factors, i.e., who's more at risk. So to the extent that I was
+learning about ways that you might want to target prevention,
+for example, where you might want to make those interventions,
+but then also, we know that an individual's prior
+vulnerabilities interact with their subsequent experiences of
+victimization and have a profound effect on the outcome, the
+adverse outcomes of the abuse itself.
+So it was covered in a number of different ways
+through the course of my education and training.
+l. In your clinical practice, have you treat and evaluated
+patients who belong to higher-risk groups?
+2. Can you please explain.
+A. In particular, we know that gender is a higher-risk group,
+and we know that women and girls are at higher risk for child
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 65 of 15964
+Rocchio - Direct
+sexual abuse. So to the extent that more of my patients are
+women than men, certainly that's a vulnerability.
+But also, because, especially now, I'm working with
+adults, I'm working with people who have been repeatedly
+victimized at various points in time in their lives. And you
+can really clearly see the pattern, and it's something I often
+have to address with patients because they inquire about it,
+they don't understand. You know, why is it that this has
+happened to me so many times. And, again, we know from the
+revictimization literature that when someone is abused, they
+are at higher risk of being abused at later points in time.
+Also, you know, sometimes the clinical literature
+individuals will talk about the specific issues in their family
+that perhaps increase their vulnerability: They were always
+alone. They, you know, their mom was sick and this person had
+lots of opportunity to kind of befriend the family and, you
+know, therefore had greater access as a result of that
+vulnerability, or perhaps they were desperate for attention,
+care, love, and concern from another person because those are
+common childhood needs and maybe they weren't getting that at
+home.
+So those are all the kinds of things that would come
+up in, and have come up in, my over 30 years of treating
+patients.
+l. In your forensic practice, do you examine the impact of
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 66 of 15965
+Rocchio - Direct
+prior vulnerabilities with respect to childhood sexual abuse?
+A. I do.
+Q. Can you explain.
+A. So, again, I'll use an example in the civil arena. If I'm
+asked, as part of my forensic evaluation, to opine about the
+impact of an alleged event, say childhood sexual abuse, and the
+degree to which a person's current difficulties are related to
+that event, I have to take prior vulnerability into account,
+because part of what I'm looking at is, how can I determine
+which of these persons' current difficulties are related to the
+sexual abuse or maybe related to other things that have
+happened in their past. So we know, because of the
+vulnerability literature, that if somebody is being abused in
+adolescence, it wouldn't be at all unusual for them also to
+have a history of earlier childhood sexual abuse.
+So I have to look at the interaction of those prior
+vulnerabilities and ways in which those prior vulnerabilities
+both may have made the individual more vulnerable to the
+grooming behavior and to the subsequent sexual abuse, and also
+ways in which those prior vulnerabilities may have interacted
+with the abuse to create more adverse outcomes for the
+individual I'm evaluating.
+Q. How does what you have observed in your forensic practice
+compare to your clinical practice with respect to individuals
+in higher-risk groups?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 67 of 15966
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. Again, it's highly, high consistent, in both my criminal
+and civil, civil practices. Even if I'm not -- even if the
+issues
+specific to the sexual abuse are not the issue at hand,
+certainly when I'm doing a comprehensive evaluation, I'm taking
+a history and people are describing their prior experiences,
+the kinds of experiences they talk about in the context of
+having
+experienced childhood sexual abuse, the relationship
+they've had with the perpetrator, the kinds of things that the
+perpetrator has done to kind of engage them into that
+relationship for the purposes of sexual abuse are very
+consistent.
+l. Is there empirical data to support your view that certain
+groups of children are at higher risk of being sexually abused?
+A. There is.
+Q. Can you explain?
+A. Sure. When we're studying any phenomenon, I want to 1o0k
+at the prevalence, which is, you know, how often does this
+thing, in this case child sexual abuse, occur. We can never
+have a perfect understanding, because some people will deny,
+you know, not everybody will report. But to the degree that we
+can look at national samples and, you know, on average how
+often does this occur in a national sample and then how
+often -- what is the rate of occurrence in other subgroups, so,
+you know, is the rate of sexual abuse higher, for example, from
+a prevalence perspective, in some marginalized individuals.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 68 of 15967
+Rocchio - Direct
+when you look at who reports that they've been sexually abused,
+is it reported more often by individuals who are members -- who
+are women versus men.
+Is it reported, you know, more often or
+found to have occurred more often, for example, in a group of
+individuals who are cognitively or intellectually disabled.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Durocher, can we pull up
+Government Exhibit 3, please. Can we turn to page 3.
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, we looked at this table before. Can you
+please explain, what if anything does the table tell you about
+particular vulnerabilities.
+A. So the particular vulnerabilities in particular are most
+relevant to the first stage of the grooming model, which is the
+victim-selection model, in terms of looking at who are the
+individuals that offenders choose to abuse or who end up
+abusing. And, again, I think it's important to bear in mind
+that this whole list was initially established from literature
+looking at what offenders have told us they look for as well as
+what kinds of prevalence rates have occurred in certain
+populations.
+And then these, in that top section of victim
+selection, are the factors, vulnerability factors, that there
+has been statistically significant agreement by professionals
+factor into victim selection.
+l. And when you say "the top section," you're referring to
+the -- what part of the table are you referring to?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 69 of 15968
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. I'm sorry. I'm referring to the list of behaviors
+specifically that are under the category entitled "Victim
+Selection."
+Q. Thank you.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Can we turn to page 4.
+Q. And directing your attention to the table on page 4, what
+does this table show and how does that impact your view on
+vulnerabilities?
+A. So this table shows, again, specific behaviors that there's
+widespread agreement in this particular group of professionals
+that are relevant to a particular stage of the grooming
+process. And, again, these are also behaviors that have been
+commonly and repeatedly found to exist in the scientific
+literature as being associated with the grooming process.
+Q. And how does the information on this table compare to the
+table we were just looking at?
+A. There are similar types of behaviors that can be done in
+the service of building a relationship of trust and attachment,
+and in -- and have been found to be utilized by offenders. But
+there was not as much agreement among the professionals that
+these specific behaviors -- about the relevance of these
+specific behaviors and/or the stage to which they were part of.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you. Ms. Durocher, we can pull
+that down.
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, the defense has stated that your opinion that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 70 of 15969
+Rocchio - Direct
+individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted
+by sexual abuse is a commonly accepted bit of clinical lore
+derived from the frequent observation of highly vulnerable
+children among those children who allege sexual abuse, but it
+is not based on empirical data regarding the likelihood of
+abuse
+among children with varying degrees of vulnerability.
+What's your response to that?
+A. I believe that's a false statement.
+l. Can you explain.
+A. As I just indicated, there are a variety of ways that we
+can look at whether or not individuals with particular
+vulnerabilities are targeted and/or at higher risk for being
+sexually abused. We can look at the prevalence data, the rates
+in which these behaviors occur. You can look at both
+allegations as well as crimes that are reported. You can 1o0k
+at what offenders tell us. There has been extensive
+interviewing that's been done and studies that have been done
+with offenders about what they look for. And, again, this
+would not just be offenders of childhood sexual abuse but, you
+know, there have been studies done with pimps, for example, on
+what they look for. So in a variety of forms of victimization.
+So there are multiple data sources that exist in
+addition to clinical experience that can substantiate this
+phenomenon.
+Q. How does what you've observed in your review of the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 71 of 15970
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+literature compare to your clinical practice and your forensic
+practice with respect to the question of individuals with
+particular vulnerabilities being at higher risk of childhood
+sexual abuse?
+A. It's highly consistent.
+Q. The defense has argued that a victim's prior sexual
+behavior is relevant to the concept of grooming. What's your
+reaction to that?
+A. In what way? I mean, I've talked about, certainly their
+experiences of victimization can make them more vulnerable, but
+I'm not sure what you mean.
+Q. Does whether a person, whether or not a person has had
+sexual experience, putting aside prior victimization, make them
+more or less vulnerable to being groomed?
+A. I'm not aware of any literature on that issue, nor do I
+even understand how that would theoretically make sense. To
+the extent that you're suggesting that somebody who has been
+sexually active in the past can or cannot be groomed, I'm not,
+even theoretically, I don't understand why that would be the
+case.
+But, no, certainly I don't believe that there is any
+literature that would support that statement.
+THE COURT: So to the extent you've seen in your
+practice and studies the impact of prior sexual conduct on the
+phenomenon of grooming, you understand it to potentially
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 72 of 15971
+Rocchio - Direct
+increase the likelihood of grooming or susceptibility to
+grooming? Do I have that right?
+THE WITNESS: No. I'm sorry. What increases
+susceptibility to grooming would be prior victimization. I
+believe I'm being asked here now about consensual sexual
+activity. And I'm not aware of any known or studied
+relationship between consensual sexual activity and grooming.
+THE COURT: Right. So to the extent prior sexual
+conduct of any kind that you're aware of impacts grooming, it's
+that prior victim -- prior victimization, prior subjecting to
+sexual abuse increases the likelihood of one being susceptible
+to grooming tactics.
+THE WITNESS: Can increase the likelihood of being
+sexually abused later, not necessarily susceptibility to
+grooming per se, but we know that it increases the likelihood
+of subsequent victimization.
+We also know that one of the effects of victimization
+in and of itself can be an increase in risky behavior. And for
+adolescents in particular that risky behavior can often take
+the form of risky sexual behavior.
+So I think that, to the extent that there might be a
+relationship between sexual abuse and grooming and sexual
+behavior, it's actually the inverse of what you've talked
+about, which is, you might see a lot of high-risk sexual
+behavior being engaged in, in someone who has been previously
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 73 of 15972
+Rocchio - Direct
+groomed and victimized.
+THE COURT: So given that there's a history of prior
+sexual abuse, would that be relevant -- is that relevant for
+you to understanding whether grooming occurred?
+THE WITNESS: Not necessarily, because when I'm
+looking at whether or not grooming occurred and when the
+literature is looking about whether or not grooming occurred,
+they're going to look at the specific circumstances associated
+with whatever it is you're looking at. It's relevant in that I
+know that prior victimization could increase vulnerability, but
+just because someone is --
+THE COURT: Well, vulnerability to what?
+THE WITNESS: Vulnerability to subsequent sexual
+abuse. But just because somebody is more vulnerable, that can
+provide me with some information, but it's not going to factor
+into my specific conclusions around the facts, say, in a
+forensic setting if I'm being asked. Did grooming occur here.
+I'm going to take into account prior victimization and
+vulnerability. But that prior victimization and vulnerability
+isn't going to tell me whether or not it happened here.
+THE COURT: I guess I just want to understand that
+piece. The point you made about prior sexual abuse can lead to
+certain kinds of behaviors,
+is there anything in that analysis
+that would impact how one understands whether grooming tactics
+would be successful or whether the individual might be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 74 of 15973
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+susceptible or not to grooming?
+THE WITNESS: To the degree that someone is engaging
+in risky sexual behavior, that could -- they could end up then
+being in circumstances where they're more vulnerable to being
+targeted by offenders. It could be in that way.
+THE COURT: No other way that you can think of, or
+have seen in the literature.
+THE WITNESS: No, not that I'm aware of right now.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Dr. Rocchio, the defense has referred to a theory of
+grooming by proxy. Have you heard of that term in scientific
+or clinical literature?
+A. No, I have not.
+Q. Is there anything about what you're testifying about here
+today that says grooming can only be done for the benefit of
+the person doing the grooming?
+A. No, there's not.
+2. What is your opinion based on?
+THE COURT: And just to clarify, the opinion, so that
+we not have a fight about terminology, the opinion is that the
+presence of another individual can facilitate the sexual abuse
+of minors. Is that the opinion?
+THE WITNESS: What, what I was asked was whether or
+not there's anything that, in what I've testified about the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 75 of 15974
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+tactics and strategies of the grooming process, that would
+preclude or require that those strategies be utilized for the
+sexual gratification of the person who's doing the grooming as
+opposed to a third party. And my answer to that question is
+no.
+THE COURT: OK. So you don't have an opinion on
+whether the presence -- let me just get the language -- the
+presence of a third -- of another individual can facilitate
+sexual abuse of minors.
+THE WITNESS: To the extent that we know that
+offenders do put themselves in situations where they're more
+likely to be viewed as trustworthy, surrounding themselves with
+individuals who a child or an intended victim might trust is
+going to increase the child's trust, perhaps.
+THE COURT: Is there any literature that you can point
+to that goes from that sort of broad statement about
+trustworthiness to the inclusion of a third individual in order
+to build that trust, any literature that you can point to that
+suggests that?
+THE WITNESS: The literature that just points to, more
+generally, perpetrators putting themselves in environments
+where they have a wider array of access or the grooming of
+institutions and other individuals for the purpose of getting
+greater access to the child.
+THE COURT: So, well, let me ask it this way. In your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 76 of 15975
+Rocchio - Direct
+experience, what is the frequency with which -- not in the
+institutional setting, but in your experience, in which the
+presence of another individual helps create -- a single
+individual, helped create that trustworthiness that facilitated
+the abuse?
+THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of a particular study that
+would investigate that specific situation.
+THE COURT: Or any discussion of that phenomenon in
+the literature, specifically, not more broadly.
+THE WITNESS: Specifically the use of a single
+individual, unless you're talking about a co-offender. I mean,
+there is some literature, obviously, on co-offenders. There's
+literature that looks at, for example, in the pimping and
+trafficking literature, it's very common for individuals to
+engage in group activity. But specifically looking at child
+sexual abuse and the presence of a single other adult, I'm not
+aware of particular studies about that exact point.
+THE COURT: And how about in your clinical and
+forensic experience?
+THE WITNESS: Certainly in my clinical and forensic
+experience I have definitely seen that.
+THE COURT: With what frequency?
+THE WITNESS: A high degree, because oftentimes
+offenders surround themselves with other people. So I'm
+thinking of a foren -- a Boy Scout case I did, where in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 77 of 15976
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+particular the person I was evaluating talked about how he
+thought that the person who eventually abused him was a really
+good guy because there was another older person involved in the
+troop, and they were best friends. And so he really thought
+this other guy was really cool, and that was how he, you know,
+came to kind of be introduced and involved in the relationship.
+There's a -- there was a -- in a clinical setting,
+I've certainly talked with individuals where, you know, I've
+talked about that part of, why they came to trust someone and
+initially started the relationship with them was because either
+they looked cool or they knew someone that they knew or they
+were introduced by a friend or a teacher. So in those settings
+certainly I've -- it's something that happens.
+THE COURT: Does
+it surprise you, then, there's no
+discussion in the literature of that specific phenomenon?
+THE WITNESS: I think that it's - no, because I think
+what I'm talking about is specific ways in which individuals
+are kind of disarmed or come to trust others, so within the
+literature the phenomenon of what kinds of things, like -- can
+create an aura of trust and respectability, that is certainly
+discussed in the literature. But I think that the example
+you're asking me about is so highly specific, I think it would
+fall under the category of a number of things that are
+discussed, but I'm not aware of it having been discussed that
+specifically.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 78 of 15977
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+THE COURT: So in a sense what the field, the
+scientific field tell us is that there are scenarios that help
+create
+an aura of trust and respectability, and then one could,
+using some common sense, figure out what specific examples
+might fall within that?
+THE WITNESS: Sure. Or there is literature to say,
+you know, where, for example, do we find that perpetrators
+access victims? And so we know that they end up in leadership
+roles in various kinds of child organizations -- counselors,
+schools, Boy Scouts, church. So -
+THE COURT: But those phenomena are discussed in the
+literature.
+THE WITNESS: Those phenomena are discussed in the
+literature.
+THE COURT: OK. Thank you. Go ahead.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you.
+I. We've been talking about whether grooming only be done for
+the benefit of the person doing the grooming. What if anything
+in scientific literature addresses the concept of grooming not
+having to be done for the benefit of the person doing the
+grooming?
+A. So the article that we had spoken about earlier, looking at
+dynamics of coercive control, which refer to some of the
+strategies and dynamics that commonly occur in the context of
+grooming, we can see that coercive control, which are
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE l
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 79 of 15978
+Rocchio - Direct
+describing the same kinds of strategies and tactics as grooming
+refers
+to, happens in a variety of other settings. So in the
+pimp-and-sex-worker relationship, we know, for example, that
+the grooming strategies are happening, and typically a pimp is
+working not for their own, necessarily, sexual gratification
+but to provide -- to procure and provide for the sexual
+gratification of another, for example.
+THE COURT: And that's how it's discussed in the field
+and in the literature, that, to the extent that trauma bonding
+has been studied in the pimp-sex worker context, it is plainly
+about, at least largely about, the coercive techniques being
+used to facilitate sexual conduct with a third party.
+THE WITNESS: Exactly.
+THE COURT: And, again, nothing like that in the
+grooming child sexual abuse context beyond sort of the
+institutional authority positions that you've discussed.
+THE WITNESS: There have been studies, though, that
+have looked at specifically comparing the behaviors associated
+with grooming for the purposes of sexual abuse and those being
+the same behaviors, techniques, and strategies as utilized by
+the pimps. So to the extent that what we're talking about are
+groups of behaviors, they're the same behaviors, so they're
+being -- you're describing behavior that doesn't depend on
+whose sexual gratification the behaviors are being done in
+service of. You're talking about principles of coercion and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 80 of 15979
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+manipulation to get somebody to do anything that you want them
+to do, for your benefit or for someone else's. And that's what
+the scientific literature talks about, that the grooming is
+really a pattern of coercive control, manipulative behavior,
+strategies and techniques that are done to increase one's
+ability to coerce another.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Dr. Rocchio, switching gears --
+THE COURT: Let's actually break before we switch
+gears, to extend the metaphor.
+We'll take a ten-minute comfort
+break.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+(Recess)
+THE COURT: All right,
+And, Dr. Rocchio, you can take your mask off.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+proceed.
+l. DI. Rocchio, does the relationship of trust and attachment
+between a victim and a perpetrator impact disclosure?
+e. How so?
+A. In a couple ways. First, in a relationship of trust and
+attachment between a victim and a perpetrator, that can and has
+been established to cause a great deal of confusion on the part
+of the victim about what is and is not abusive. So to the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 81 of 15980
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+extent that someone doesn't recognize that what's happening to
+them or doesn't cognitively label it as abuse, obviously that's
+not something that can be reported.
+But then of course the relationship itself also
+functions to make disclosure less likely, because either the
+individual has been made, in the course of the relationship, to
+feel somewhat responsible, they might feel shame, or they may
+blame themselves; or to the extent that they've come to care
+for the person who's harming them, they may be afraid of
+getting that individual in trouble; or to the extent that the
+relationship as a whole clearly has positive elements to it
+apart from and distinct from the abusive elements, they may —
+it's fulfilling some need on the part of the victim, they may
+be fearful of losing those pieces.
+Q. Based on your experience,
+research, and training, are you
+familiar with delayed disclosure?
+A. I am.
+Q. What is delayed disclosure?
+A. "Delayed disclosure" is a term that's used in the
+literature to refer to telling about an experience of, well, in
+this case, sexual assault at some point after the event has
+occurred.
+l. Does disclosure of childhood sexual abuse depend on the
+victim's age?
+A. So there have been a number of studies that have looked at
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 82 of 15981
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+what are some of the predictors of delayed disclosure and to --
+the studies that have been done that have looked at different
+age groups have found that those ages 12 to 18, that is,
+adolescents, are much more likely to have a delayed disclosure,
+as opposed to adults. So rates of disclosure kind of match up
+closer to the time of event as somebody ages.
+Q. And in terms of adolescents, can you explain how common
+disclosure is and why.
+A. So the rates of delays disclosure have been studied a lot
+in various populations. And so we know most of the studies
+show that the majority of victims of childhood sexual abuse who
+are abused during adolescence don't disclose until sometime
+later, typically in adulthood. And there are other factors
+that are associated with delayed disclosure in adolescents, but
+in terms of age that would be one.
+l. Can you explain why disclosure of childhood sexual abuse is
+not common among adolescents?
+A. Part of it has to do with the developmental life stage of
+an adolescent individually. I mean, they -- we know that even
+if an adolescent does tell, for example, anyone, they're
+likely, most likely to tell a peer. Adolescents tend not to
+like to talk to adults.
+Also, adolescents often like to think of themselves as
+older and more competent. To the extent that they are involved
+in a sexually abusive relationship with an older person, they
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 83 of 15982
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+may not believe that relationship to be abusive. They may
+believe that the two of them are in love. They may have been
+deliberately misled to believe that it is somehow a love, a
+love relationship. So they, they don't identify it or label it
+as abuse.
+Also, there's, as with any form of sexual abuse,
+sexual assault, in childhood or otherwise, there's a great deal
+of shame and stigma, and adolescents are, again,
+developmentally as a group notoriously sensitive to fear of
+being judged.
+And then finally, they don't want to get in trouble.
+They don't want their freedom restricted. There are, you know,
+studies that have been done talking to teenagers or adults
+about why they did or didn't disclose at various points in
+time, have identified all of these as factors, among others.
+l. Based on your experience, research, and training, how do
+people who have experienced childhood sexual abuse talk about
+or disclose the abuse?
+A. So this is something that's really been studied in terms of
+the literature looking at how and why do people disclose or not
+disclose. And one of the consistent findings is that
+disclosure most often takes place to appear not -- for an
+adolescent to appear and for adults -- to friends, not to
+formal agencies.
+I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 84 of 15983
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. Yes.
+The question was, when -- based on your experience,
+research, and training,
+how do people who have experienced
+childhood sexual abuse talk about or disclose the abuse?
+A.
+Basically that is something that occurs in the context of a
+relationship, and the disclosure comes out kind of over time in
+the context of that relationship.
+0.
+What
+doctors contribute to how much a person discloses
+about the sexual abuse they experienced?
+A. That will depend on the level of safety that they feel in
+the relationship. That will also depend on the response that
+they're getting from the person that they're making --
+beginning to make the initial disclosure to. So, for example,
+research that's been done on barriers to disclosure, as well as
+research that's been done to train and teach people on how to
+respond when receiving the disclosure, has found, you know,
+things that imply any sort of blame, shame, minimization, or
+negative response will certainly shut down the process of
+disclosure quite -- and think, you know, to the extent that
+you're responding empathically to the extent that you're
+listening and attending to these, to the extent that that
+disclosure is happening in the context of a relationship of
+trust and safety, then the disclosure is more likely to evolve
+over time.
+I. How if at all does memory play a role in disclosure?
+A. So when we're talking about child sexual abuse, when we're
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 85 of 15984
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+talking about any event, there are general principles of
+memory, and those would apply to memory, general well-accepted
+principles of memory, that would apply to experiences of sexual
+abuse as well.
+So to the extent that we know everybody pays attention
+to and attaches significance to some aspects of an event more
+so than others, what a sexual abuse survivor discloses and the
+pieces of the story that they -- or their experiences, I'm
+sorry -- that they remember are going to be those things that
+were central details. They are going to have relatively good
+memory most of the time for the gist of the event and for the
+details that they attended to and were most significant to
+them. But their memory for peripheral details, we know, can
+fade away and weaken or change with time.
+Q. You just mentioned peripheral details. What do you mean by
+that?
+A. So in the memory literature, again, there is often a
+distinction made between what are considered to be central
+details and peripheral details. So the central details are
+subjectively defined as whatever it is an individual is paying
+attention to and attaching significance to at the time of an
+event. And those are the details that get encoded in memory
+and are then later available for retrieval at the time of
+recall.
+Q. Can you give an example.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 86 of 15985
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+A. Sure. If we're talking about child sexual abuse, someone
+may have attended to the -- and known full well that they were
+being sexually abused and they may have very clear memory of
+certain sounds, certain smells, breath, certain physical
+sensations. Alternatively, someone who is dissociating and
+trying very hard not -- to not think and not attend to what's
+happening to them, they may have very vivid details of the
+swirls on the ceiling or the pattern on the wallpaper.
+l. Dr. Rocchio, how do the topics of memory that you just
+testified about fit into your expertise?
+A. So as a psychologist, again, these general principles of
+memory are part of what I've been trained in throughout my
+career and, as a trauma psychologist in particular, certainly
+how individuals talk about their experiences, how they remember
+what's happened to them and what is typical, in terms of
+memory. Again, what are the general principles about memory is
+absolutely part of the literature and the research within the
+field of trauma psychology, as well as psychology generally,
+more broadly.
+l. In your education, did you learn about delayed disclosure?
+A. We taught -- we learned certainly about how people tell
+their stories. And certainly when I was trained in assessment
+techniques, for example, in my training, and I was taught about
+how to ask about abuse experiences, I was also told, you know,
+be mindful that if someone answers your questions, this may be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 87 of 15986
+Rocchio - Direct
+the first time they've ever talked about it.
+Similarly, through trainings and readings and in my
+graduate program, also being taught that when you make an
+assessment it's really important, when someone is talking about
+their experiences, to inquire of them what their experiences
+were like with disclosure, because that can be so impactful.
+Q. In your clinical practice, have you treated and evaluated
+patients who did not disclose sexual abuse they experienced as
+children but disclosed such abuse later?
+2. Can you explain.
+A. I've, as I mentioned, when I do an assessment and I'm
+talking with people about experiences of child sexual abuse,
+one of the common and important questions I will ask is: and at
+the time that this was happening or at some point later, did
+you share your experiences with anyone; did you tell anyone.
+And as I said, in terms of a -- in a clinical setting, that
+information is very important. We know that the responses of
+the person that they told have significant impact on the
+adverse, potentially adverse outcomes.
+Also, of course we know that if people don't tell,
+then that also means they likely didn't get medical care or
+assistance at the time of the event. And that also is highly
+relevant.
+So I see that a lot in my clinical practice. And
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 88 of 15987
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+often I've had individuals who, as, you know, older adults, say
+to me, this is the first time I've ever told anyone, I've never
+told anyone that this happened.
+Q. How common is delayed disclosure in the patients you treat
+and evaluate in connection with your clinical practice?
+A. It's very common.
+The majority of the patients that I work
+with who've -- who've experienced childhood sexual abuse, like
+all victims of child sexual abuse, the abuses, a majority that
+has occur, most likely will occur in the context of a
+relationship. And we know that the closer the relationship
+between the victim and the perpetrator, the more delayed the
+disclosure is.
+So I would say that it's -- it's certainly not rare
+but it's not common necessarily that I am always the first
+person that the individual has told, but it's definitely more
+common than not that they did not tell someone at the time that
+it was occurring, that they told at some point significantly
+later in time.
+2. When patients have disclosed that they experienced
+childhood sexual abuse to you for the first time, were your
+patients adults or children?
+A. I would say that when they're making an initial disclosure
+for the first time, they have been adults, although, when I was
+working in an inpatient setting at times I, I certainly worked
+with adolescents who had made disclosure while they were still
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 89 of 15988
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+kids around the time, so not as much delayed.
+Q. Approximately what percentage of the patients you treated
+and assessed disclosed that they experienced childhood sexual
+abuse at the time of the abuse?
+A. A very, very small number. I, I can probably count on one
+hand the number of patients, in my private practice, who said
+that they told right away.
+With younger children in
+particular, we also know that it's more likely with very young
+children not so much that they're just going to spontaneously
+go to someone and tell them but that's it's going to be
+accidentally discovered or someone else finds out about it and
+then inquires, and that's how that information comes out. But,
+again, we know that most victims of childhood sexual abuse
+don't end up disclosing until some significant point in time
+after the event, and that's consistent with what I've
+experienced in my practice.
+Q. You just mentioned very young children. What are you
+referring to?
+A. We know that delayed disclosure happens over time. But we
+also know that the younger the child, the more likely it is
+that the disclosure or the discovery of the abuse happens
+accidentally.
+l. Are you aware of other psychologists treating and evaluate
+patients who have delay disclosing childhood sexual abuse?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 90 of 15989
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. How?
+A. Through the clinical literature, through the training.
+Again, if either I'm conducting training and I'm teaching
+others or I'm participating in the training that's talking
+about what are some of the common themes and issues and things
+that you need to deal with in a psychotherapy and clinical and
+assessment context, we'll often talk about disclosure, and in
+particular things like, we also know that so many individuals
+of child sexual abuse but also of rape and sexual assault of
+all kinds don't necessarily label their experiences as such.
+So when I'm teaching, or ways that I've been taught and trained
+is to use behavioral descriptors of what I'm asking about. So,
+for example, there have been numerous studies that say, you
+know, if you ask a group of individuals, say college students,
+have you ever had an experience where someone physically forced
+you to engage in sexual activity against your will, they' 11,
+you know, a certain percentage of them will say yes. And then
+if you follow you and say, have you ever been raped, no. So
+you have to use behavioral descriptors, because people for a
+variety of reasons don't necessarily label their experiences as
+abuse. And that's also true with varying kinds of violence as
+well. Have you been abused, versus, have these behaviors
+happened to you.
+l. Is your clinical experience regarding disclosure consistent
+or inconsistent with that of other psychologists who treat and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 91 of 15990
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+evaluate patients who have delayed disclosing childhood sexual
+abuse?
+A. It's consistent with my peers and reports that I've read in
+the clinical literature, yes.
+l. In your forensic practice, have you dealt with
+disclosure-related issues?
+A. I have.
+Q. Can you explain.
+A. Disclosure-related issues in a forensic setting can come up
+particularly, for example, when there are issues related to the
+statute of limitations. So in a recent case, I was asked to
+evaluate the time at which an individual reasonably came to be
+aware of a connection between their present difficulties or
+potential connection between their present difficulties and the
+alleged abuse. And part of that case involved my looking at,
+you know, were there any reports made about the abuse at the
+time, because I'm working with an adult who's alleging
+something during childhood, and if so to whom and under what
+circumstances. And, you know, even if the reports weren't made
+at the time of the abuse, for example, did this person talk
+about their experiences with their therapist or when they were
+hospitalized for substance abuse, what did they have to say.
+So I'm looking at what they disclosed, how they
+disclosed it. I'm obviously, in a forensic setting, comparing
+that to what they're telling me now and with what the fact
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 92 of 15991
+pattern is from other data sources.
+Q. How common is it for you to consider disclosure-related
+issues in your forensic practice?
+A. Very.
+2. How do the disclosure-related behaviors you've seen in your
+forensic practice compare to those you've seen in your clinical
+practice?
+A. Very similar. Very, very similar.
+l. Are your opinions on disclosure based in part on your
+review of the scientific literature?
+A. Scientific and clinical literature, yes.
+l. Can you describe at a high level the literature upon which
+your opinion is based?
+A. So there's different ways that the literature has looked at
+the issue of disclosure. I spoke earlier about prevalence
+rates where you're asking people, often in anonymous surveys
+but sometimes in interview settings, but in research studies,
+about a variety of experiences. And typically in those
+studies, you will ask -- people are asked about their
+experiences with rape, sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse.
+And so you can get some idea of what percentage of people in
+various studies across time report particular events in their
+lives. So you get an estimate of prevalence.
+You can compare that to look at disclosure in two
+different ways. You can look, for example, if you're talking
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 93 of 15992
+Rocchio - Direct
+about disclosure to formal agencies, you can then compare that
+with uniform crime reports and look at the statistics for what
+rate, what percentage, what is the prevalence of these
+particular crimes being reported to -- through, through the
+legal system.
+Also, when you're doing the interviews, you can 1o0k
+at asking individuals:
+and did you disclose, and if so, to
+whom.
+So there are lots of different studies that can 1o0k
+at disclosure. There's also research that's been done looking
+at, again, how people tell and, you know, closer in time, not
+just with adults looking back retrospectively, but times when
+there's been -- someone has been known to have been abused, and
+there have been studies that have been done looking at, do they
+tell or not. I referred earlier to the study of very young
+children who had presented with sexually transmitted diseases,
+for example, who were later asked about their experiences, and
+you can look at, in real time, studies of what they say and to
+whom.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, let's move to the next
+opinion.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. DI. Rocchio, does childhood sexual abuse create higher
+risks for victims?
+A. Yes, it does.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 94 of 15993
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Direct
+Q. Can you please explain.
+A. So there's about been a lot of literature looking at what
+are some of the adverse outcomes in populations of individuals
+who have been sexually abused, among other adverse childhood
+events. So there's really two primary bodies of literature.
+One is the general well-established literature on adverse
+childhood events that -- of which childhood sexual abuse is
+one, that has documented that individuals who have had higher
+numbers of adverse events that have occurred to them during
+childhood are at much higher risk of a whole range of health
+difficulties - gastrointestinal difficulties, heart problems,
+all kinds of health-related issues -- as well as psychological
+and psychiatric difficulties, in particular depression,
+anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder. So there's that body
+of literature.
+And then there have been numerous studies that have
+looked more specifically at and narrowly at populations of
+individuals who have been sexually abused or who have reported
+to have been sexually abused. And then they have looked over
+time and found that individuals who have reported histories of
+childhood sexual abuse have both much higher frequencies of
+various psychiatric illnesses and difficulties, as well as
+higher severity of symptoms.
+And then, thirdly, the post-traumatic stress disorder
+literature has found that, when individuals have experienced a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 95 of 15994
+Rocchio - Direct
+traumatic event, which is part of the criteria for later
+developing
+post-traumatic stress disorder, those who
+experienced childhood sexual abuse and sexual abuse generally,
+as compared to those who have experienced other types of
+traumatic events, are at higher risk for developing
+post-traumatic stress disorder.
+there empirical data to support your views about the
+prevalence of adverse effects of childhood sexual abuse?
+A. Yes. There's a significant body of literature.
+l. Can you explain briefly.
+A. Yes. The literature I just talked about, the adversechildhood-events literature, as well as the scientific study of
+consequences and sequelae of childhood sexual abuse.
+e. When you review articles and studies about the adverse
+effects of childhood sexual abuse, what sorts of things are you
+looking for to determine the quality of the studies and
+articles that you're relying on.
+A. Things like, is it appearing in a peer-reviewed journal,
+how large was the sample, have the findings been replicated
+over time, have they been replicated in various studies. You
+want to know, is this something that is generally accepted
+within the scientific community as well as within the
+profession. And to the extent that those concepts then are
+recurring in the literature and the studies are continuing to
+advance our understanding and knowledge and finding similar
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 96 of 15995
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+kinds of things over time and across populations.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, I have what I need on this
+opinion, which I think is the last?
+MS. POMERANTZ: That's right, your Honor. If I may
+just have a moment to consult with my colleagues?
+THE COURT: You l
+•. POMERANTZ: Thank you.
+(Counsel confer)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. Nothing
+further from the government.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+Mr. Pagliuca.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: May I inquire, your Honor?
+THE COURT: You may.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you.
+CROSS-EXAMINATION
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+l. DI. Rocchio, I just want to start with some process here.
+I show that you met with the government 14 times in the last
+year or so. Is that correct?
+A. If you're including telephone contacts, perhaps. I'm not
+sure how many times we've spoken.
+2. OK. Does that sound about right, 14?
+A. It could be. A number of those were around scheduling and
+things, so sure.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 97 of 15996
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Q. ок.
+A. I'm not sure, though.
+Q. Have
+you reviewed any of the notes taken by the government
+during your interviews?
+A. No, I have not.
+Q. Did you take any notes during any of your interviews?
+A. Only on topics that I wanted to go and pursue, like subject
+headings of areas that they wanted me to speak about and
+educate the Court about.
+l. And did you record those topics in some sort of file?
+A. No, I did not.
+e. Do you have those notes?
+A. No, I do not.
+e. What did you do with those notes?
+A. At the time that we were talking, I wrote, like, "grooming"
+as a subject matter, and then when I went and researched the
+literature, I threw those notes away.
+l. OK. So is that your practice, to take notes and then throw
+them away?
+A. It depends on the purpose of the note. If the note is just
+a reminder to me, there's no reason for me to keep it.
+l. And do you have a file in connection with your retention in
+this case?
+A. I do.
+Q. What do you have in your file?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 98 of 15997
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+A. I have a copy of the agreement, my agreement with the
+government, my engagement agreement. I have a copy of the time
+spent, the date and the time spent and what activity I engaged
+in. I have copies of various filings that the government has
+provided me with, relevant to this hearing today.
+Q. And did you review
+that file in anticipation of testifying
+here today?
+A. I can.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to ask for
+production of that file at this point, please.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I just have one
+moment, please?
+THE COURT: You l
+•. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government has
+produced the materials that were in the possession of the
+government, the notes that the government had taken in
+connection with its meetings and phone calls with Dr. Rocchio.
+That is what we are required to produce under the Jencks Act.
+And I would note, your Honor, that I just -- I don't
+have, in terms of what the defense counsel is requesting, as I
+noted, I would just -- it is about the Jencks Act, and we have
+produced the materials that are in the government's possession,
+including the notes, and have indicated what materials we
+
+
+LBAAMAX3ps
+provided to Dr. Rocchio.
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 99 of 15998
+Rocchio - Cross
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Do you need a response from me, your
+Honor?
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, your Honor, I understand Jencks
+Act production, but this is a separate issue. She relied on
+this in preparation for her testimony today, and I believe that
+under Rule 16 I am allowed to examine whatever she relied on in
+anticipation and preparation for her testimony here today.
+This would be part of the bases for her opinion, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Well, I don't know if it is. Notes that
+have a subject heading "grooming," for example, that she threw
+away which are not in the file are not a bases for her opinion.
+So I don't know that the whole file is subject to that theory.
+The contract between her and the government is not a
+basis for opinion, but you've asked for that since she's
+included that in the file.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I have that, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Right. But you see the point.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand. But I don't know what is
+in her file, is my point.
+THE COURT: Right. Well, so then the question, I
+think, is: What is in your file that forms the basis for your
+opinion? That will get us to where we need to get.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 100 of 15999
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Q. What
+is it in your file that forms the basis of your
+opinion?
+A. There's nothing in my file that forms the basis of my
+opinion. What's in my file are, for example, the motion for
+today's hearing,
+a copy of the disclosure for some of the
+witnesses,
+redacted copy of those sorts of things, but
+nothing from which I'm basing my opinion on today.
+l. OK. You mentioned a contract. You're billing the
+government at a rate of $450 an hour. Is that correct?
+A. That is correct.
+l. And your initial government contract is from $45,000. Is
+that right?
+A. Up to $45,000.
+Q. And how much have you been paid up to today?
+A. Nothing.
+Q. And so you need to complete your contract before you
+receive your $45, 000; is that right?
+A. No. That's not my understanding. I need to prepare an
+invoice and provide it to the government. And I haven't had a
+chance to do that yet.
+Q. OK. And do you know what your final invoice will look like
+in terms of hours spent up till today?
+A. I don't at this point, no.
+2. How many hours have you spent up till today?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 101 of 159100
+A. I haven't tabulated them. I, I could make an estimate if
+you like, but I --
+e. Sure.
+A. -- don't know for sure.
+About 25.
+Q. 25 hours.
+And do you keep time records of what you do?
+A. I do.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd ask for production of those time
+records, your Honor.
+It doesn't have to be today.
+THE COURT: On what grounds?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, your Honor, it goes to the motive
+and bias of the witness, as a financial gain through this
+contract.
+THE COURT: It's a perfectly acceptable question in
+front of the jury. But what's your entitlement to the time
+records?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: So we know how much time she's spent on
+this and what her anticipated compensation is.
+THE COURT: I'm just asking, I mean, this sounds like
+broad-reaching discovery. Under what rule or other authority
+are you entitled to that?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I believe, your Honor, I'm entitled to
+this under Brady and Giglio, because this is motive and bias
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 102 of 159101
+for testimony.
+THE COURT: You can submit authority on that. I mean,
+certainly appropriate grounds for cross. I'm not sure, absent
+some specific motion for discovery, that I've ever seen expert
+time records turned over.
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Understood, your Honor.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, I'd like to talk to you about some of the
+terms that you've been using here today. The first one I want
+to ask you about is the definition of "child." Do you recall,
+when you discussed this case with the government on April 9th
+of this year, that you defined "child" for the government as
+someone under the age of consent? Do you recall that?
+A. I don't specifically recall that, no, I'm sorry.
+l. Is that a definition of "child," someone under the age of
+consent?
+A. I would -- I would define "child" as someone under the age
+of 18.
+l. Well, I'm looking at page 3 of the interview notes produced
+in connection with your interview on April 9, 2021.
+THE COURT: Do you have a 3500?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I do, your Honor. I'm at page
+3502-004. That's the beginning of this interview, April 9,
+2021. And if we go to -- well, that's the page 3 of that
+interview. The top of the page.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 103 of 159102
+Q. Did you recall discussing this with Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe,
+Ms. Pomerantz,
+Mr. Rohrbach, and telling them that "child" is
+anyone below the age of consent? Do you recall that?
+A. I don't have anything on the screen in front of me, so I --
+I'm not sure what you're referring to.
+Q. I'm just asking if you recall that at this point.
+A. No.
+Sorry.
+I don't.
+Q. OK. Do you have any reason to believe that any of those
+AUSAs would take that down incorrectly?
+A. I'm not sure of the context under which it was taken. I
+think, you know, for -- I haven't reviewed it. I didn't have a
+chance to correct it. I, I really have no idea.
+2. OK. Also, you used the term "sexual abuse, " and that's
+nonconsensual sexual touch. Is that correct?
+A. That is one of the definitions, yes. It doesn't have to
+be.
+l. Well, is that the definition that you gave the government
+in April of 2021; do you recall?
+A. I don't recall specifically what I said during the phone
+call in April, no.
+l. Do you recall defining -- do you define "nonconsensual"
+as -- when someone says no or the person is too intoxicated to
+give consent or the person is below the age of consent, is that
+a definition of "nonconsensual"?
+A. Those are examples of "nonconsensual." It's not an
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 104 of 159103
+exhaustive definition.
+OK. And when you say "below the age of consent, " you
+haven't defined that. Correct?
+A. In, in what you're reading to me?
+Q. You know that the age of consent varies from state to state
+and country to country, correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And so when you're talking about "below the age of
+consent, " you're talking about a --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+Overruled. Go ahead.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
+2. When you're talking about "below the age of consent,"
+you're talking about whatever the age is in the particular
+jurisdiction for someone to be able to consent to sexual
+contact, correct?
+A. As one example, yes.
+e. oK. You also talked about "trauma, " which I understand you
+define as "exposure by either directly experiencing or
+witnessing serious bodily injury, death, or sexual violation."
+Is that correct?
+A. "Sexual violence, " I believe. That's the definition in the
+DSM-V, criterion of trauma.
+Q. And that's the definition you've been using here today in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 105 of 159104
+connection with your testimony, correct?
+A.
+It's
+one of the definitions I've been using here today in
+connection with my testimony, yes.
+When you talk about "trauma," that's the definition you've
+been using, correct?
+A. Trauma
+is a continuum, so that is one of the definitions of
+"trauma, " but other things have been found to be traumatic in
+individuals' experiences that do not necessarily rise to the
+level of criterion A in PTSD. For example, there's a whole
+'nother section in the DSM called "Other Stressor and Trauma
+Disorders" that could refer to other traumatic events that
+don't fit that specific definition, but childhood sexual abuse
+is commonly understood to fall under the definition of "sexual
+violence." So to that degree, yes.
+Q. OK. You've described that you're a clinical psychologist,
+and that is someone who treats clients for presenting
+psychological issues, correct?
+A. That's part of what I do, yes.
+2. Right. And the job of a clinical psychologist is to assess
+the client, treat the client with the expectation proving --
+improving that person, correct?
+A. In a treatment capacity, yes. But I do a lot of things as
+a clinical psychologist in addition to that.
+l. Now, I know you've described this, but I want to make sure
+we're all on the same page, that your job as a clinical
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 106 of 159105
+psychologist is to not independently investigate what the
+client may or may not be telling you, correct?
+A. In
+• a treatment setting for the patients that I'm treating,
+yes, that's correct.
+Q. You don't go out and talk to witnesses or try to prove or
+disprove whatever your client is telling you in the treatment
+setting, correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. It wouldn't be appropriate for you to do that, correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And generally, you're accepting what the client is telling
+you as the presenting problem and then you are trying to treat
+that presenting problem during the course of your therapy,
+correct?
+Q. I want - you talked a bit about your job as a forensic
+psychologist. How many times have you testified as a forensic
+psychologist?
+A. In a courtroom or also in depositions?
+l. Both. Let's start with courtroom. I think you said twice.
+Correct?
+Q. And one of those was a criminal case where you testified on
+behalf of the defendant; is that right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 107 of 1591 06
+Q. And then the other one there was no transcript of; is that
+correct?
+A. That is correct.
+Q. In either of those cases -- well, let me put it the other
+way. In neither of those cases were you qualified as an expert
+on grooming, correct?
+A.
+Grooming is part of the dynamic, well established to be
+under the rubric of interpersonal violence, so it would fall
+into the category in which I was declared an expert.
+l. That wasn't my question. My question was, in neither of
+those cases were you qualified as an expert in the subject, the
+specific subject of grooming, correct?
+A. Correct.
+THE COURT: Did you testify about grooming in those
+instances?
+THE WITNESS: I testified about grooming in one of
+those, and I testified about coercive control and dynamics in a
+relationship in another.
+e. And how many times have you been actually deposed in your
+role as a forensic psychologist?
+A. I believe four. I'm not positive, but around that.
+l. So in your capacity as a forensic psychologist, you've
+testified maybe six times; is that right?
+A. Correct.
+2. OK. Now, as a forensic psychologist, you are typically
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 108 of 159107
+hired by a party in the litigation. Correct?
+A. Or in a criminal matter, yes.
+Q. Well, so that would either be the defendant or the
+prosecutor, right?
+Q. Which is a party in the litigation, correct?
+Q. OK. And in a civil case, you're going to be either hired
+by the plaintiff or the defendant's lawyer, correct?
+A. Correct.
+2. Now, they don't tell you to go out and just do an
+independent investigation on your own and then report back to
+them, whoever hires you. True?
+A. I -- I'm asked to do an independent investigation as it
+pertains to the specific question I'm being asked to answer in
+the course of my evaluation.
+l. Yes, I understand that. But whoever hires you gives you
+material to review and then asks you a specific question based
+on the material that that party has given you, correct?
+A. Not necessarily, no.
+l. Have you ever had a lawyer who hired you just say, go out
+and do whatever you want to do, bill me however much you want
+to bill me, and then tell me what your findings are? Has that
+ever happened in your career?
+A. In that specific way, no.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAAMAX3ps
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 109 of 159108
+Q. "Forensic psychology" refers to the professional practice
+by any psychologist when applying psychology to the law to
+assist to address legal matters. Is that the definition?
+l. And forensic and therapeutic roles are very different,
+correct?
+A. Yes, they are.
+Q. And a therapeutic role typically is not going to involve a
+forensic component, correct?
+A. Correct.
+2. And that would be somewhat of a boundary violation,
+correct?
+A. It would be a dual role.
+Q. OK. Do you consider yourself to be in a forensic capacity
+here?
+A. Here today, yes.
+l. Yes. And so subject to the forensic guidelines by the APA,
+correct?
+A. That's correct.
+l. On April 23rd, the government sent a letter outlining what
+the government said were your opinions in this matter. Did you
+review that letter before the government sent it?
+A. I've reviewed that letter, I'm not sure at what stage in
+the process. I believe so, though, yes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 110 of 159109
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Q. I want to talk a little bit about some of the opinions that
+are in your letter from the government of April 23rd, 2021. So
+I think the first opinion that I have identified relates to
+individuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted
+by perpetrators of sexual abuse.
+Do you recall that?
+A. I do.
+Q. So let's identify some of the categories of people that
+have particular vulnerabilities.
+So that could include economically and disadvantaged
+people; right?
+correct?
+l. That would include people who don't have any family at all;
+A. It could, sure.
+l. It could include people who have one parent; correct?
+2. It could include people who have two parents but one of
+them is abusive; right?
+l. It could include people who have cognitive disabilities;
+correct?
+l. It could include people who have emotional disabilities;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 111 of 159110
+correct?
+A.
+Depending on the type of emotional disability. I would
+have to look at the literature, but it could.
+Q. How about a personality disorder?
+A. I'm sorry, so what is the question?
+Q. Would that be somebody who is in this vulnerable
+population?
+A. I'm not sure whether there's been specific research on
+personality disorder and risk of victimization, so I couldn't
+speak to that.
+Q. What about people who have unstable lives?
+A. Again, depending on the specific nature of the instability.
+2. People with low self-esteem, would that fall under the
+category of particular vulnerabilities?
+A. Those have been spoken about in the literature. Again, I'm
+not sure about that particular construct and the degree to
+which it's been studied.
+l. People who abuse drugs and alcohol, are they in a
+vulnerable position?
+A. Research in child and sexual abuse has looked more at the
+parental use of drugs and alcohol. I would have to go back to
+the science to look at an individual's personal use of drugs
+and alcohol as to whether that specifically is or is not found
+to be a risk factor.
+2. People who have been previously sexually assaulted, are
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 112 of 159111
+they in the particularly vulnerable category?
+A. They're at much higher risk for revictimization, yes.
+Q. So that's a yes?
+Q. There's not like a list I can go to to say, these are all
+vulnerable people who are more likely to be sexually abused?
+A. Actually, there are descriptions of lists of vulnerable
+populations in the scientific literature.
+Q. But they're not necessarily all the same; correct?
+A. I don't understand.
+THE COURT: I don't understand your question.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+l. If I go to the DSM 5, for example, and I try to 1ook up
+populations of people with particular vulnerabilities, I'm not
+going to find a list that the American Psychological
+Association has come up with to say that these are people with
+particular vulnerabilities; correct?
+A. There are a number of problems with that question. I can't
+answer it.
+l. Do you have a list, a definitive list of the vulnerable
+population?
+A. To the extent that I have reviewed -- I haven't written it
+down. Io the extent that I have knowledge and am informed by
+my education, background, skills and training, I'm aware of the
+vulnerable populations that have been consistently identified
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 113 of 159112
+in the literature to be at higher risk for sexual abuse.
+Q. And vulnerable populations are at higher risk for many
+things; correct?
+A. Depending on what you're talking about, sure.
+Q. Well, vulnerable population?
+A. Vulnerability implies higher risk, yes.
+Q. Vulnerable populations could be at higher risk for being
+physically assaulted; correct?
+A. Yes. But the research has differentially looked at risk
+for, for example, sexual victimization versus other kinds of
+victimization.
+l. Vulnerable populations can be at higher risk for dropping
+out of school; right?
+A. Certain ones, sure.
+l. Vulnerable populations can be at higher risk for substance
+abuse?
+A. Sure, yes.
+l. Vulnerable populations can be at higher risk for health
+issues; right?
+l. So being in a vulnerable population means basically that
+you're at a higher risk for something bad happening to you in
+the future; correct?
+A. No. Because you're using the term more generally than what
+I was trying to say in my opinion. So I'm looking at the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 114 of 159113
+literature around which specific vulnerabilities have been
+found to be associated with which particular outcomes or
+adverse outcomes.
+So it's not that every single vulnerability
+has been found to increase vulnerability for every potential
+outcome. There's a relationship between particular types of
+vulnerability and particular types of outcome.
+Q. It's also true that there can be more than one
+vulnerability in a human being?
+A. Of course, yes.
+Q. One can be a victim of sexual abuse and have other
+vulnerability factors; correct?
+l. Or conversely, somebody can have vulnerability factors and
+then become a victim of sexual abuse; correct?
+l. I want to turn now to some of your questions about
+grooming, okay, some of your opinions about grooming.
+What is your definition of grooming?
+A. The definition that's commonly used in the literature is -
+l. I didn't ask that question.
+THE COURT: You may answer. Go ahead.
+THE WITNESS: The term grooming refers to a set of
+deceptive strategies that are utilized by an individual to
+establish a relationship of coercion and control for the
+purposes of subsequent sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 115 of 159114
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Q. And is that your definition?
+A. It's my understanding of the definitions that have been
+talked about in the literature. I mean, I haven't written and
+published a specific set definition. It's a common definition
+and the one I'm using in my testimony, yes.
+Q. I was going to ask you that question. You have not
+published anything specifically about grooming; correct?
+A. Specifically about grooming, no. But I have certainly
+published and made reference to grooming.
+l. And you have not done any metadata studies on your own to
+collect data about grooming; correct?
+A. Correct.
+2. Grooming can consist of the actions that you're talking
+about, can consist of -- I think we saw a list of 77 things on
+it as part of your testimony; is that right?
+A. Those were 77 specific behaviors that had been identified
+in the literature as potentially being part of the grooming
+process, yes.
+Q. But I think we were talking about things like taking an
+interest in another human being could be considered grooming?
+A. Not in and of itself. It would depend on the pattern of
+behavior and the context in which it's occurring.
+I. Let's talk about that for a second. Because what you're
+saying is, it depends on the groomer's intent in doing a
+specific act is what, in your view, makes it grooming or not
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 116 of 159115
+grooming; is that correct?
+A. So it -- grooming, the tactics you're referring to are a
+series of manipulative strategies. And to the extent that
+those manipulative strategies are being used to increase the
+likelihood of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, then we
+would describe it as sexual grooming.
+Q. Let me ask you a question. In order for something to
+become grooming, you are looking at the intent of the groomer
+relative to the act; correct?
+A. So the intent and the function of the behavior relative to
+the act has always been part of the definition of grooming,
+yes.
+l. So the answer to my question is yes; is that right?
+Q. So absent the intent to sexually abuse someone, there are a
+myriad of actions that one could consider grooming?
+A. The actions themselves are in the function of the
+establishment of a relationship of trust and attachment or
+trauma bonding. So to the extent that those behaviors build a
+relationship, then yes, they could be in another context
+normative behaviors.
+Q. And normative behaviors being normal behaviors; right?
+A. It could be.
+l. So for example, a parent wants to take an interest in their
+child; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 117 of 1591 16
+Q. And a parent wants to provide for their child; correct?
+Q. And a parent wants their child to go to school; correct?
+A. Usually, yes.
+Q. And if a parent can afford for school or after-school
+activities, the parent wants to provide for those activities;
+correct?
+A. Many parents, yes.
+l. And let's call them good parents, right, good parents want
+their children to eat; right?
+l. Good parents want to buy their children appropriate
+presents; correct?
+l. Good parents want everything they can get for their
+children in a positive way; correct?
+A. Good parents want good outcomes for their kids, yes.
+2. None of that would be considered grooming absent an intent
+to use that conduct to manipulate the child; correct?
+A. Again, the grooming is about the coercion. So to the
+extent that those behaviors are not being done in a coercive,
+controlling context, they would not be considered grooming,
+correct.
+2. Have you had mentors in your career?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 118 of 159117
+A. I have.
+Q. Are those mentors grooming you?
+A. Not for the purposes of sexual abuse, no.
+Q. But they could be grooming you for a job, for example;
+right?
+A. Mentoring is probably the word I would use, but yes, to
+your point -- at least the point I think you're making -- sure.
+Q. It's a positive thing if I'm trying to groom someone to get
+ahead at work; correct?
+l. Have you had mentees?
+A. I have.
+l. Have you taken an interest in them?
+2. And have you shown them special treatment because you're
+interested in their professional development?
+Q. And that's not bad grooming, is it?
+A. That wouldn't be grooming for the purpose of sexual
+exploitation or abuse, no.
+l. Similarly, a teacher taking an interest in a student,
+unless it's for a sexual purpose, wouldn't be grooming,
+correct?
+A. Sexual and/or coercive purpose.
+Q. Lawyers and judges have law clerks, and they take an
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 119 of 159118
+interest in their professional development. That's not
+grooming, is it?
+A. No.
+Q. And the same would be true for grandparents; right? Taking
+a positive interest in your grandchildren, taking them to the
+zoo, buying them presents, being there for them, reading them
+books, having them sit on your lap, none of that would be
+considered grooming behavior unless it's for an improper sexual
+purpose; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And the only way that you can back into this grooming
+opinion is if you assume that the conduct that's being done is
+being done for an improper sexual purpose; correct?
+A. Well, it's not an assumption. It's part of the definition.
+So if I'm looking at the dynamics of sexual abuse, then of
+course I'm looking at the behaviors that occurred in the
+context of that relationship.
+Q. And it assumes that sexual abuse occurred; correct?
+A. No. The definition says that it's for the purposes of
+sexual exploitation or abuse, but that could be attempted. It
+doesn't necessarily have to have occurred.
+Q. So it assumes that it's either attempted sexual abuse or
+actual sexual abuse or exploitation; correct?
+2. And you're not there physically when any of these behaviors
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 120 of 159119
+that you're describing occur; correct?
+A. Correct.
+2. So you are making an assumption that whatever you are
+hearing is accurate; correct?
+A. It depends on the context whether or not I'm making that
+assumption.
+Q. You would make that
+assumption in order to label it
+grooming; correct?
+A. I would, for example, in a forensic context, I wouldn't say
+this is grooming or grooming happened. I would say the
+individual described behaviors that are consistent with
+grooming, for example.
+Q. But for purposes of your testimony in this case, when
+you're talking about what you're describing as grooming,
+there's an underlying assumption that either there's an
+attempted sexual assault or exploitation or actual sexual
+assault or exploitation, otherwise it's not grooming; correct?
+A. I wouldn't agree that it's an assumption. It's part of the
+definition. So --
+l. We're kind of going circular here.
+THE COURT: Yes. So we'll move on. There are
+fruitful arguments in cross-examination here, I hope you'll get
+to that soon.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 121 of 159120
+Q. You also talked about delayed disclosures; correct?
+2. Now, the studies vary over when disclosure occurs for a
+number of reasons. First, the definition of disclosure, the
+studies have disclosures to law enforcement, right, which is
+one definition of disclosure?
+A. That's generally referred to in the literature as
+reporting.
+Q. And then there's disclosure to a parent; right?
+A. Correct.
+Q. Then there's disclosure to a friend; right?
+A. Mm-hmm.
+l. Disclosure to a teacher or other third person?
+Q. And there's really no set term of what disclosure in this
+context means; correct?
+A. No, that's not correct.
+l. There's also no set term on what delay means; correct?
+A. No, that's not correct.
+l. Well, some of the studies have one week as delay; right?
+l. And some of the studies have one month as a delay; right?
+right?
+l. Some of the studies have one year as delay, up to one year;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 122 of 159121
+A. Yes, many of the studies specifically look at disclosure
+that is delayed, as in not occurring at the time of the abuse.
+And then look at what are those rates at various points in
+time, so it could be a week later, it could be a month later,
+it could be a year later or five years later.
+Q. So those are all variables in this idea of when disclosure
+occurs; right?
+A. They are variables in the dynamics of the delay. They are
+all examples of delayed disclosure at various points in time.
+Because delayed disclosure refers to disclosure at some point
+after the incident that's being disclosed.
+l. I want to ask you some questions about memory now, which is
+another area of your opinion.
+You agree with me that memory is a complex topic?
+A. I do.
+l. Memory is generally regarded as the mental registration,
+retention and recollection of past experiences, sensations or
+thoughts; would you agree with that?
+A. I would.
+l. And there are a number of parts of the brain that work in
+connection to form memories; would you agree with that?
+A. I would.
+l. Do you know what those parts are?
+A. I'm not an expert on neuroscience, so I would not -- I
+could certainly go and review the literature and get back to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 123 of 159122
+you, but off the top of my head, no.
+Q. And would you agree with me that there are many things that
+can interfere with accurate memories?
+Q. You're not a neuropsychologist; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. Neuropsychology is the study of human behavior as it
+relates to the normal and abnormal functioning of the central
+nervous system, which includes the brain; right?
+A. Correct.
+Q. You're familiar with the term confabulation?
+A. I am.
+Q. And confabulation is a brain under certain circumstances
+will fill in gaps to make a whole picture; correct?
+A. An individual will fill in gaps, yes.
+l. Their brain will do that; right?
+A. Their brain, their mouths. I mean, semantics at this
+point. But generally, the way I understand confabulation is
+consistent with your description, yes.
+l. And those may or may not be accurate pieces of information,
+but the person actually believes them; right?
+A. Are you asking if that's possible? Yes.
+l. That's part of what confabulation is; correct?
+A. That those gaps may or may not be accurate, yes.
+Q. I want to talk now about some of the exhibits that you
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 124 of 159123
+reviewed with the government.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: If I could borrow Ms. Durocher, if that
+would be okay, to display these.
+THE COURT: It's fine with me.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Exhibit 2.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+l. This is the article that you talked about "Observing
+Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Violence: Examining
+the Perceptions of Professionals About Common Tactics Used in
+Victimization."
+l. This study involves 22 participants; do you see that in the
+abstract?
+A. Yes. N equals 22.
+THE COURT: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
+THE WITNESS: Yes, the sample size in this particular
+study is 22.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Q. And that's the total sample size here; right?
+A. The sample of professionals that were involved in this
+particular survey, yes.
+Q. And these are unidentified professionals; right?
+A. They're not identified by name. They're identified in
+other ways, though.
+Q. Well, there's no list of who the people are who are these
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 125 of 159124
+professionals that are giving these answers; right?
+A. Again, not by name, but certainly there are descriptors of
+who these individuals are.
+Q. Well, if we go to those descriptors, we're just talking
+about a general description of the people that are involved in
+the study; right?
+A. I'm not entirely sure. I'd have to look at the article,
+but I believe there are descriptions about the basis for which
+they were identified as experts, their level of education and
+training and the foundation for their publications and areas of
+expertise.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: If we could go to Page 3 of this
+exhibit.
+l. Do you see where it's talking about method there?
+A. I do.
+l. So let's start first with this paragraph. "This
+qualitative study took a phenomenological approach based on
+data collected as part of a statewide initiative to understand
+predatory alienation -- a new term created by an advocacy group
+to describe" and this definition below it.
+Do you see that?
+A. I do.
+l. Phenomenological means the psychological study of
+subjective experience; right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 126 of 159125
+Q. And that is explaining the experience from the point of
+view of the subject; right?
+Q. And then they talk about why they're doing this study and
+it's to collect data to define a new term created by an
+advocacy group.
+Do you see that?
+A. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question.
+e. Under method --
+l. - it says that this study is this phenomenological study,
+it's data collected as part of a statewide initiative to
+understand predatory alienation -- a new term created by an
+advocacy group.
+Do you see that?
+l. So that's what's being undertaken here, is this subjective
+study to determine this term created by an advocacy group in
+this study; right?
+A. I wouldn't call it a subjective study. I'd call it a
+qualitative study. But it's investigating the phenomenon of
+predatory alienation, which it looks like was a term created by
+an advocacy group.
+l. If you go down to the second part here, it says, "All
+experts identified as cisgender females between early 20s and
+
+
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 127 of 159126
+late 50s and identified as
+Do you see
+• that?
+or Latina."
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A. I do.
+Q. So those are the experts; right?
+A. Those are some of the qualities of the experts, yes, the
+demographics.
+Q. And then if we go down to the participants section here,
+the last part says, "A few professionals, those in law
+enforcement" -- on the next page -- "also worked with
+perpetrators of interpersonal abuse and coercion."
+Do you see that?
+A. I do.
+Q. And then we go on to talk about the professionals who were
+over the age of 40, et cetera, et cetera. So that's the
+identification of these folks in this article; right?
+A. Again, that's the description of their -- some of their
+backgrounds and demographics, yes.
+l. And then in terms of how this data was collected,
+initially, if we go to data collection, which is the next
+paragraph, there were 33 professionals contacted by email, and
+only 22 of these people responded; right?
+l. So we have a dropout rate here of roughly a third to begin
+with; correct?
+A. That wouldn't be referred to as a dropout rate in the field
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 128 of 159127
+of social science research. Because dropout rate refers to
+something else.
+This would be a response rate.
+Q. So we have a response rate that's a third less than was
+asked; right?
+Q. And then I want to go to the Page 11 of this study that
+you're relying on here, which is the appendix.
+Do you see that?
+A. I do.
+l. Now, this is the interview guide that was given to these 22
+unidentified professionals to guide the interview of the
+subjects here; correct?
+A. No. I believe that it was the professionals, the experts
+who were interviewed. So I believe that the -- these are the
+questions that were asked of the experts --
+e. Right.
+A. - in their interviews.
+l. That's right.
+You know what a leading question is; right?
+A. As it's used, yes.
+l. That was just a leading question; right?
+l. So let's look at question seven here -- and these are nine
+questions that were given out as part of this study to ask for
+the data that was used for this study; right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 129 of 159128
+A. Nine questions that were asked during the interviews to
+elicit data, yes.
+Q. Right. Question seven: "How do online predators, human
+traffickers, con artists, gangs, cults, and other groups use
+predatory alienation (term used by interviewee) to isolate
+young adults
+and senior citizens?"
+Do you see that?
+A. I do.
+Q. That's a leading question; right?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll sustain because I'm hoping you'll get
+to something that is helpful here.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+I. Well, this study has serious flaws, does it not?
+A. I don't -- I don't think that the study has serious flaws.
+I think it has a lot of useful information.
+As I said, there's no study I would agree with every
+single part of. Io the extent they're asking experts in the
+field about groups of behavior strategies, techniques and modus
+operandi that have been well established and studied and
+they're asking a group of experts to what degree and what ways
+have they observed these well-studied phenomena in their
+respective
+• I think that's an appropriate question that
+can elicit useful information.
+Q. And this is something you are relying on in support of your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 130 of 159129
+opinions here today; is that right?
+A. It's one piece as an example of the scientific literature.
+But my opinions are not relying upon any one individual piece
+in its entirety, no.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Can we turn to Exhibit 3, please.
+Again, thank you for doing this.
+l. This is another study that you gave to the government that
+you're relying on as part of your opinions; correct?
+A. It's an example of the type of literature -- among a lot of
+literature -- that I'm using in the formation of my opinion,
+yes.
+l. Well, let's look at the abstract for this exhibit. This
+was accepted May 19th, 2020, it's about a year old, this study;
+correct?
+I. Let's read the first part of this abstract.
+"Sexual grooming has been deemed an integral part of
+the child sexual abuse process. However, there has yet to be a
+universally accepted model for this process and, as a
+consequence, there is no clear understanding of which behaviors
+constitute sexual grooming."
+Do you see that?
+A. I do.
+l. That's the conclusion of this study; correct?
+A. That is an opinion of the author. That is not the primary
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LBAGmax4
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 131 of 159130
+conclusion of the study, no.
+Q. Well, are you just saying you ignore the conclusion of the
+author who did this study because you don't agree with it?
+A. I'm not saying this is the conclusion. The purpose of the
+study -- a conclusion generally refers to the concluding
+comments
+summarizing the main findings of the study. So this
+is actually not part of her -- their conclusion. It's part of
+their rationale for why this particular piece of research is
+important and needed in the field.
+Q. So let's go through the methodology of this particular
+study as well.
+THE COURT: We'll take about a 20-minute, 30-minute
+break for lunch. It's 12:55, I think we probably need 30
+minutes, just logistically, so we'll resume at 1:25.
+I do want to encourage you, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus
+your cross less on what you might do in front of a jury --
+because you are ably demonstrating to me so far that the points
+you made in your papers are cross-examination points -- so to
+the extent there are any of the opinions you want to focus on
+the underlying Daubert questions -- and you did a little bit at
+the end here -- the time would be much more effectively used.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Understood, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. We'll resume in 30 minutes.
+(Luncheon recess)
+
+
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 132 of 159131
+AFTERNOON
+SESSION
+1:25 p.m.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LISA ROCCHIO, resumed.
+THE COURT: Mr. Pagliuca, you may proceed.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
+CROSS EXAMINATION (Cont 'd)
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Q. Dr. Rocchio, we were talking about Exhibit 3, and as I
+understand it, this is the most recent attempt to validate the
+sexual grooming model of child sexual abusers; is that correct?
+A. That's the most recent attempt to validate this particular
+model, yes.
+Q. OK. Well --
+A. Actually, it's a recent. I'm not sure what research has
+been done since that.
+Q. You were asked by the government to give the government
+whatever articles you thought were helpful with regard to your
+testimony here today. Is that correct?
+A. I was asked by the government to give examples of articles
+that pertained to the subject matter of my testimony today.
+l. OK. And as I understand it, this is a hearing to determine
+whether or not there were scientifically valid principles under
+federal law to admit this testimony. You understand that.
+A. Yes, I do.
+Q. And one of the things that you did was provide the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 133 of 159132
+Rocchio - Cross
+government with this article, Exhibit 3, "Validation of Sexual
+Grooming
+Model of Child Sex Abusers," which I think you said
+that you thought that these authors, Winters and Jeglic, were
+credible. Is that right?
+A. I said I believed that they have done a lot of research in
+the field. I don't think I used the word "credible."
+Q. OK. It's something, though, that you provided to the
+government as support for your testimony here today. Is that
+right?
+A. It is some information pertaining to my testimony, yes.
+Q. So let's continue a little bit in terms of what this study
+involved. First of all, there were a total of 18 people that
+responded to this survey. Is that right?
+A. That was the second half, I believe, of the study that
+you're referring to. This was a two-part study. So my
+understanding is in the second part, there were 18 individuals
+who are experts in the field, yes.
+l. All right. The pertinent one is the literature review.
+Right?
+A. It was done in a structured way, though. It wasn't just a
+summary of the literature. But, yes. The first part was a
+culling of scientific literature to identify particular
+behaviors that have been established in the literature to be
+associated with the process of various tactics, such as
+grooming and abuse by offenders.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 134 of 1591 33
+Q. And of those 77 items, we basically cut that in half, and
+then
+we had 18 people that were ultimately interviewed about
+those items.
+Is that right?
+A. It was in the other order. If they used the 18 people to
+get the list down from the 77 items to the 42.
+Q. Right. And the author, if we can go to page 17 of Exhibit
+3, please, at the start of page 16, bottom. So that the
+authors conclude, "This study is the first to validate a model
+of grooming and behaviors involved in the process, which is a
+major step toward developing a more universally accepted
+framework for these pre-offense behaviors." Do you see that?
+l. And do you agree that this is the first to validate a
+model?
+A. Validate a model, yes.
+Q. OK. And then the authors go on to the rest of the
+conclusion here. I'm going to pick it up in the middle of that
+paragraph. "This study has established the content validity of
+a model of sexual grooming, therein laying the groundwork for
+further validation of an evidence-based model of sexual
+grooming." Do you see that?
+A. I do.
+l. OK. They go on to say, "the model" -- this is the model
+we're talking about here, correct?
+A. This particular model.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 135 of 159134
+Q. Yes.
+"The model should undergo rigorous testing to ensure
+the stages accurately represent the complex process of sexual
+grooming." Do you see that?
+A. I do.
+l. "Further, a standardized measure of grooming behaviors
+should be developed based on behaviors and stages delineated in
+the SGM, " which is what they're talking about here. Right?
+A.
+Yes.
+l. So as we stand here today, there has been no further
+rigorous testing of this model that you're aware of. Correct?
+A. There is an enormous amount of testing and scientific study
+that led up to this particular model. I'm not aware -- I
+don't -- I can't speak as to whether or not they've done
+research subsequent to this, no.
+Q. But even these authors say that this isn't good enough for
+evidence-based grooming testimony. Right?
+A. That's not my reading of the paper, no.
+l. OK. And you don't -- have you ever asked these authors
+about their opinion?
+A. No, I have not.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can turn to Exhibit 4, please.
+Q. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this. You've
+talked about it. This is the Bennett and O'Donohue opinions,
+or article, in which Bennett and O'Donohue say that there's a
+lack of consensus regarding what grooming is and talk about it
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 136 of 159135
+not meeting the Daubert standard. Correct?
+A.
+That was one of their opinions at the conclusion of the
+article.
+Q. Right, which you did not agree with. Is that right?
+A. I, I wouldn't presume to make an opinion about -- to offer
+an opinion about Daubert specifically, but certainly I'm here
+to talk about the state of the scientific literature in my
+areas of expertise.
+l. OK. But the most recent state of the scientific literature
+is Exhibit 3. Is that right?
+A. No. That's an example of a recent article that was done
+and not the most recent, nor is it the only.
+Q. Well, did you give any other more recent article to the
+government in support of your testimony here today?
+A. I would have to look at the dates of all of the articles I
+gave them. I'm not sure of the order of publication. It's
+possible that this was pub -- the Winters article we've been
+talking about was published, I believe, in 2020. So I would --
+certainly there have been articles published since that time.
+l. Do you know of one that does anything with the Winters
+study to move it forward, to validate it in any way?
+A. Not specifically. I would have to look for that. At the
+moment no.
+e. OK. Thank you.
+Exhibit 5 --
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 137 of 159136
+THE COURT: Can I ask, do you agree with the
+proposition that this was -- a version of it is that the
+meaning of grooming or an understanding of what constitutes
+grooming strategies and the like is contested in the
+literature?
+THE WITNESS: I wouldn't say that it's contested. I
+would say that there's actually substantial agreement and
+there's more agreement than disagreement. So I would say that
+the concept is well accepted. Exactly how to define it is the
+piece that I think they're working on. And also which specific
+stages or what order and the process by which it happens, I
+think, is something that these authors -- well, the Winters
+authors -- are trying to move forward on. But I think the very
+concept of the idea that offenders use a variety of tactics,
+modus operandi, and behaviors in the process of developing a
+relationship with their intended victims is well established
+and accepted in the peer-reviewed literature and scientific
+community.
+THE COURT: To the extent you're familiar with the
+body of literature around trauma bonding in the sex-worker
+context, is there a comparable sort of dialogue and discussion
+among -- within the field as to what is an appropriate model,
+what counts as -- deemed strategies and the like?
+THE WITNESS: I'm aware of some research that's been
+done looking at the types of behaviors and groomings, which
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 138 of 159137
+would be various stages in the pimp and prostitute literature
+that are
+analogous to this. So, for example, how victims are
+targeted and selected, how the relationship develops over time,
+what sorts of behaviors are done to influence and coerce, and
+then to develop that trauma bond and attachment, which may get
+harder, for example, tactics that involve isolation and
+increased dependency and things like that.
+THE COURT: Do you have a sense, is the state of the
+literature on that subject more settled or more advanced than
+it is on the concept of grooming in child sexual abuse?
+THE WITNESS: I, I'm not sure that I can answer that.
+I think it's analogous literature. They're talking about the
+same things, so I'm not -- I can't comment on that area of the
+literature specifically.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
+Ms. Drescher, if you could pull up Exhibit 5 for me,
+please.
+2. This is the article that you talked about by Dr. Dietz.
+And, again, Dr. Dietz wrote this in 2017, published in 2018.
+Is that right?
+2. And DI. Dietz warns, on page 31, that "there is
+considerable risk of misleading the fact finder into believing
+that these latter behaviors are well-established predictors of
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 139 of 159138
+child sexual abuse." Do you see that?
+Q. So that's yet another expert's opinion in this field about
+there being problems with this grooming moniker. Correct?
+A. No. I wouldn't agree with that statement.
+Q. There are some other studies that you provided to the
+government that have not been introduced into evidence. And I
+just want to ask you if you recall these. There is the study
+"Sexual Grooming of Children: Review of Literature and
+Theoretical Considerations." Do you recall that?
+A. The title is familiar. I don't recall the contents of that
+specific article.
+l. Do you recall the conclusion being that there is still no
+understanding about this phenomena when talking about grooming?
+A. Are you talking about the Craven article?
+e. Yes.
+A. My understanding is that was written a long time ago. But,
+no, I couldn't sit here and tell you that I have a recollection
+of what specifically the conclusion of any of those specific
+articles were without having an opportunity to review them
+again.
+2. Sure.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
+THE COURT: What are you identifying?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm identifying Defendant's Exhibit A,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 140 of 159139
+which is this article. If I may approach your clerk and give
+your clerk some copies.
+THE COURT: That's fine.
+I have a copy?
+THE COURT: The government needs a copy.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I've got copies for everybody.
+THE CLERK: Do you have another copy? Do you have an
+extra copy for us?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I do.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+l. This is, as you identified, the Craven article, correct?
+A. It is.
+Q. And in the introduction, Ms. Craven says that this
+phenomenon of grooming is little -- "there is little
+understanding about this phenomenon" correct?
+A. Where are you reading from? I'm sorry.
+l. Introduction, middle of the page. Fourth line down.
+A. "About this phenomenon." Yes.
+Q. And that's the ultimate conclusion of this article,
+understanding that it was written in 2006. Right?
+A. And whether it was the ultimate conclusion, that is
+something that they posit in the introduction, yes.
+l. May we go to page 11, to the conclusion. "Despite the wide
+acceptance of the term, sexual grooming of children is not
+understood clearly, particularly in the public domain." Do you
+
+
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 141 of 1591 40
+see that?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. PAGLIUCA: May I approach again with Exhibit B,
+your Honor?
+THE COURT: OK.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I move to admit A, which
+has been tendered previously.
+THE COURT: Which has been entered previously?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Tendered.
+THE COURT:
+,, tendered.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+THE COURT: No objection?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection.
+THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit A is admitted to the
+hearing record.
+(Defendant's Exhibit A received in evidence)
+THE COURT: B we already have in, don't we?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't believe so.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MS. POMERANTZ: No, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+l. Do you see Exhibit B, Doctor?
+A. I do.
+l. This is yet another study that you provided to the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 142 of 1591 41
+government in support of your testimony here today, correct?
+A.
+Partially in support, yes.
+l. And this is by the same folks who did the 2020 study,
+Winters and Jeglic. Right?
+Q. The abstract here
+-- this study was actually giving
+professionals a list, undergraduate students a list of
+potential grooming behaviors to see if they could identify
+grooming behaviors. And there were a total of 393
+undergraduate students who were provided with this information.
+Do you recall that?
+A. I don't recall specifically. I recog -- I can recall.
+This was the article that -- in which -- they did two things.
+They developed the model, which they later tested. And then
+they created a scenario in which they attempted to see whether
+or not grooming behaviors could be predicted.
+l. Right. And the results of this study were that grooming
+behaviors could not be predicted. Correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. And this is what ended up with the 2020 attempt to validate
+the model, which they're still working on. Right?
+A. So you're talking about two different concepts. I can't
+really answer that question.
+l. OK. Bottom line, "Nobody could predict grooming out of 364
+people" -- "393 undergraduate students." Right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 143 of 159142
+A. That was the conclusion of the article, yes.
+Q. And this
+is in 2016, this article, correct?
+A. It was written in '16, published in '17 perhaps, yes.
+Q. And we are talking about, in the conclusion and
+implications here, which is on page 9, "The present study found
+that individuals are not able to identify the potential
+predatory behaviors that a child molester may employ."
+Correct?
+A. Not able to identify it ahead of time, which is different
+than scientific literature looking at retrospective studies.
+But, yes, you're correct that this article found that we
+couldn't predict who is and is not, ahead of time, going to be
+a predator, based on certain behaviors and grooming.
+Q. Right. And the reason is, once you believe that someone
+sexually assaulted someone, then you can, in hindsight, go back
+and look at behavior and characterize it as grooming. Right?
+A. That's actually not what hindsight bias in the -- as
+referenced in the grooming literature refers to.
+2. So I'd like to take a look at Exhibit 6 now, which has been
+admitted -- or?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if I admitted that, your
+Honor. But I move for the admission of Exhibit B.
+THE COURT: Without objection?
+MS. POMERANTZ: I'm so sorry.
+THE COURT: Defendant's Exhibit B.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 144 of 1591 43
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT:
+Is admitted to the hearing record.
+(Defendant's Exhibit B received in evidence)
+MR. PAGLIUCA: If we could pull up Exhibit 6, please.
+THE COURT: Government 6?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, please.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+Q. Exhibit 6 is the study that you appear to have relied on
+with regard to disclosure issues. Is that correct?
+A. It's something I submitted in part, yes.
+I. Well, as you sit here today, can you tell us anything else
+that you submitted with regard to your testimony about delayed
+disclosure and supporting literature?
+A. I couldn't give you a list, but, again, my opinions are not
+based on any one article or even solely on my knowledge of the
+literature. It's based on an interaction of the totality of my
+education, training, skills, experience, and knowledge of the
+scientific and clinical and professional literature.
+2. OK. So looking at Exhibit 6, this is a survey,
+essentially, of a number of publications that talk about
+barriers of disclosure. Correct?
+A. So my understanding is, this was a study that was looking
+at, understanding that delayed disclosure is very common, they
+were trying to determine what sorts of things present as
+barriers to disclosure and as facilitators of disclosure.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 145 of 159144
+l. And do you recall that initially the authors considered 322
+articles and selected 33 out of those 332?
+I don't recall that as we sit here today, specifically, no.
+I'm sorry.
+l. And if we can go to page 3 of Government Exhibit 6. Page 3
+starts
+a table that has a summary of the various articles that
+were
+reviewed. Is that correct?
+A. That's my understanding, yes.
+l. So let's 1ook at some of the -- this study considered males
+and females, correct?
+l. And you know that males tend to not report as frequently as
+females for a variety of psychological issues, correct?
+A. Correct.
+Either not report or delay further.
+e. Right.
+A. So that would be one of the predictors or facilitators of
+delayed disclosure.
+2. And you're aware -- are you aware that this case does not
+involve any allegation of delayed reporting by males?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: What's the grounds?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, she doesn't know about
+this case, the specific details.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I think that's my point, your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 146 of 1591 45
+Honor, part of my point.
+THE COURT: If the point is that she doesn't know any
+of the facts of the specific case and the government concedes
+that's true, we can move on.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+I guess the other point, your Honor, which I can
+develop, is, these studies that are included and impact the
+statistics are really not relevant here because they deal with
+males or a combination of males and females, and there are only
+a few of them that deal with females specifically.
+THE COURT: OK.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: So when we're conflating these things,
+it conflates the numbers.
+May I proceed, your Honor?
+THE COURT: You may.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you.
+l. So that the first study, which is in 2016, in the last
+column, is all males. Do you see that?
+A. Could you -- the page is upside down on my screen. Can we
+rotate it so that I can look at what you're seeing, please.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't know if Ms. Drescher can do
+that or not.
+THE WITNESS: Or I can look at a paper copy. But I -
+there's no way I can read that.
+THE COURT: I can't read it either.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 147 of 1591 46
+Rocchio - Cross
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I believe there's a binder
+for Dr. Rocchio.
+THE COURT: OK. Is it in there?
+MS. POMERANTZ: It should be under tab 6, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Tab 6.
+MR. ROHRBACH: And would your Honor like a copy of it?
+THE COURT: I can't hear if you you're not using the
+mike.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Would your Honor like a binder as
+well?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+All right. So we're looking at Government 6.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct, your Honor, page 3 of 24.
+l. I'm going to skip the next one, Dr. Rocchio, which deals
+with a discrete set of individuals. If we go to the third one
+down, if you go to the right-hand column, which is the summary.
+l. This includes -- this is a 50 percent disclosure rate, as
+identified in this summary. Correct?
+A. 50 percent did not disclose until after the age of 19, I
+believe.
+l. "Half of the participants had not disclosed their CSA
+experiences before the age of 19." Right?
+Q. That means half did.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 148 of 1591 47
+Q. OK. And of that half, we've got 67 males in that
+population. Correct?
+A. No.
+Q. 67 male and female adult survivors. Right?
+A. 76 percent of whom were identifying as female.
+e. Right.
+So at least 50 percent disclosed before the age of
+19 according to this study. Right?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And we don't know how delayed this reporting was or was
+not.
+A. You mean disclosures that were made prior to the age of 19?
+Q. Right.
+A. Again, not in this summary. I'd have to look to see
+whether that was addressed in the article itself. But, no,
+that's not referenced in the summary.
+2. OK. But you didn't do that in preparation for your
+testimony here today, correct?
+A. This particular study?
+e. Correct.
+A. No, I don't believe I did.
+l. OK. The next one down, Leclerc and Wortley, 2015. Now,
+you spent some time talking about offender-generated data
+as
+part of the basis for your opinion, correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 149 of 1591 48
+Q. All right. And if we go to the summary here, the author is
+critical of offender-generated data or questions
+"offender-generated data through self-reports because it could
+be subject to cognitive distortions -- minimization or
+exaggerations, " correct?
+A. I think that they are identifying potential issues that
+could be present with offender-generated data.
+Q. Right. If we go to page 4, the McElvaney and Culhane
+article.
+A. The opinions in that study did continue. You didn't refer
+to all of their opinions, just part of them.
+l. That's OK. The government can ask you questions on
+redirect if they'd like.
+A. OK.
+l. In this opinion, in this, the findings are, "Majority of
+children told their mothers and their peers first." Do you see
+that?
+A. Of those who disclosed, the majority told mothers and
+peers, yes.
+l. Right. Then the next study, 2014, when the --
+A. So that study, though, was among -- everybody in that study
+had already disclosed. It was a study of children who had
+already disclosed, to look at who they disclosed to.
+e. Right.
+Then we have the next study here, "220 minor victims"
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 150 of 1591 49
+allege -- when we're talking about people outside of the
+family, we have a
+70 percent disclosure rate before one year as
+reported here, correct?
+A. I'm sorry. I would have to read where you're reading from.
+I'm not sure what -- can I take a moment to just read the
+opinion?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+A. This is the Dumont article?
+e. Yes.
+A. OK.
+Q. All right. I'd like to turn to page 5, to the bottom of
+the page, the Schonbucher, Maier, Mohler-Kuo study.
+A. Did you just ask me a question about the article you just
+asked me to read?
+l. Yes, 80 percent.
+A. When I said I had read it, I wasn't answering your
+question. Can you -- if you want an answer to the question,
+I'll need to hear it again.
+2. That's fine. The Court can read this.
+THE COURT: So the question is withdrawn?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure, your Honor. Yes. This is
+admitted into evidence.
+THE COURT: And to the extent you asked a question
+about it, it's withdrawn?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
+
+
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 151 of 159150
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: OK.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+l. We're going down to the bottom of page 5.
+Actually, you know what, it's on my screen properly
+now, so it's going to be easier for me to look there, because
+it's bigger.
+OK.
+l. So I want to just highlight here one of the problems with
+these studies that you're relying on is, we've got a comment,
+"Two-thirds of the sample did not disclose right away. " But we
+don't define what "right away" means, do we?
+A. So to be clear, the article that I submitted was a summary
+of the literature. I'm not saying that I have read and
+examined every study cited in this particular article. So I
+really can't speak as to how those in this article identified
+or defined "rate of disclosure." I would expect, however, that
+it would be defined in the full article itself. It's not
+defined here in the brief summary. But typically in scientific
+literature, it would -- the time period of disclosure that the
+authors were investigating, I would expect to find that in the
+article itself.
+2. OK. But apparently you haven't gone back to look at the
+underlying data. Is that right?
+A. I have not gone back to look at every reference cited in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 152 of 1591 51
+this particular article. I have extensively reviewed
+underlying data as it pertains to this subject over the course
+of my career.
+Q. OK. But this is the article you gave to the government in
+support of your testimony. Right?
+A. In partial support, yes.
+2. ок.
+Page 7 of 24, the top, the Alaggia study, 2010. This
+one we have a -- this involves male -- it says, well, 36
+percent. We have a 42 percent disclosure rate identified here
+during childhood. Do you see that?
+l. And then 26 percent claimed repressed memory. Right?
+A. That's what it says there, yes.
+l. I don't need to go through all of these. But fair to say
+that it's an overstatement, based on the literature, to claim
+that a majority of child alleged victims fail to report sex
+abuse during childhood.
+A. I would not agree with that, no.
+2. Can you point to one study that supports your conclusion
+here, or your opinion here, that a majority fail to report --
+A. A study you just cited, the Alaggia 2010, 46 disclosed --
+42 disclosed, which would mean 58 percent did not.
+Q. It says during childhood. We don't know exactly when the
+disclosure occurred or didn't. You're talking about
+substantial amounts in your government testimony here today,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 153 of 1591 52
+not the difference between 42 and 58 percent.
+A. I was talking about the majority. And they define there, I
+believe in this article, again assuming this summary is
+accurate, that they were defining childhood as under the age of
+18.
+Q. And I have two more of these I think we need to look at.
+THE COURT: Are we still on disclosure or another
+opinion?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, we're on disclosure.
+THE COURT: I think you can wrap up disclosure.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: All right, your Honor. I get it.
+BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
+l. So there are other reasons, outside of the statistics, that
+individuals who, at some point later in life, claim to be
+sexually assaulted make that claim. Correct?
+A. Outside of what statistics?
+I. Well, you've been talking about delayed disclosure as a
+predictor of sexual assault. Is that correct?
+A. No, that is incorrect.
+l. What is the significance, as far as you are concerned, with
+delays in disclosures as part of your opinions?
+THE COURT: If you'd like, Mr. Pagliuca, you don't
+have to, but you can take off your mask in the podium box if
+you like.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I appreciate it.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 154 of 1591 53
+THE COURT: And I would suggest that the microphone
+point directly at you.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+A. So the significance of delayed disclosure as it relates to
+my opinion is, it is part of our understanding of phenomenology
+of child sexual abuse and the ways in which individuals tell.
+So I'm not identifying delayed disclosure as a predictor. I'm
+simply saying that it is a common phenomenon that is observed
+in the scientific literature to occur among children who are
+sexually abused.
+l. Well, there are many other reasons why these reports may
+surface not immediately. Correct?
+A. Again, I'm commenting at this point my opinion is that
+delayed disclosure is common. I'm not -- do you have a
+question about the reasons why?
+Q. Yeah. There are many reasons why. There are allegations
+that are made months, weeks, years, after an alleged event.
+Correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. And they may or may not have anything to do with the
+veracity of the allegation. Correct?
+A. The reasons may not have -- again, are you -- I mean, are
+you asking me, can people make false claims?
+2. Yes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 155 of 159154
+A. Of course, yes.
+Q. For many reasons.
+Correct?
+A. Sure.
+Q. And that could be outright lying, could be a reason?
+A. Could be.
+0.
+False memories could be a reason, correct?
+A. Could be.
+Q. Intoxication could be a reason?
+A. Again, these are reasons that have been hypothesized to
+explain possibilities for false allegations, yes.
+l. And they are accepted in the literature, correct?
+A. That lying exists, or that intoxication can lead to, to
+distorted claims? Sure.
+l. Yes. Or a variety of psychiatric disorders, correct?
+A. Again, I'm not aware of the scientific research that has
+studied specifically these as predictors of false allegations.
+There's a very large body of scientific literature documenting
+of course that false allegations can occur, but they are --
+represent a very small minority of allegations that are made.
+And I believe the article that you're reviewing, the authors
+are putting forth some hypotheses as to how or why that might
+occur. But I don't believe it's coming from a scientific
+study, and I'm not aware of one at this point.
+l. ok. So wrapping up here --
+THE COURT: I would again try to point it directly at
+
+
+you.
+Rocchio - Cross
+Filed 11/23/21 Page 156 of 1591 55
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. PAGLIUCA: OK.
+THE COURT: Try that.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: All right.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+Q. What is the study that you are relying on for your opinions
+about whether -- that has been tested here?
+A. There is no single study that I'm relying upon for my
+opinion.
+Q. OK. And what is the known potential rate of error for any
+of your opinions?
+A. It would depend on what you're -- how you're defining
+"error." So, for example, in the study where they had a bunch
+of professionals identify, for example, the relevance of
+particular behaviors to grooming, in that particular study,
+they looked for, I think the standard in the field was a .78
+statistical significance or measure of agreement. So different
+studies use different measures. There are other studies that
+looked at inter-rater reliability. In other words, if someone
+is coding the content of a qualitative interview that's been
+done, they'll look at the degree of agreement and of course
+potential disagreement, which would be error, in differences of
+opinion, and attempt to address and resolve those.
+But, as I had indicated earlier, in this field, a pure
+error rate, as in many areas of the social sciences, cannot be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 157 of 159156
+identified, because we can't randomly assign individuals to be
+sexually abused or not. So we have to look at other measures
+of testability and scientific ways to study these issues, as
+well as acceptance within the commun -- general and
+professional community.
+Q. And finally, what is the study that you're relying on to
+determine that this theory of grooming has gained general
+acceptance in the scientific community?
+A. As I've said, none of my opinions are based on any single
+study, alone.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That's all I have, your Honor. Thank
+you.
+THE COURT: OK. Thank you.
+Anything, Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may we have a moment?
+THE COURT: You I
+. POMERANTZ: Nothing from the government, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+Dr. Rocchio, thank you very much. You're excused.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
+(Witness excused)
+THE COURT: I just, I have a couple of questions for
+the defense. Does the defense intend to impeach witness
+
+
+Document 499-2 Filed 11/23/21 Page 158 of 159157
+credibility based on failure to disclose at earlier time
+periods?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And then do you intend to impeach any
+witnesses based on substance abuse?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+THE COURT: OK. All right. I think I have what I
+need.
+I'm going to give the reasons for my opinion, I think,
+probably, at our proceeding on Monday, but what I intend to do
+is deny the Daubert motion except with respect to the opinion
+that expresses that the presence of another individual can
+facilitate sexual abuse of minors. But otherwise the motion
+will be denied. And as I said, I'll give my reasons for the
+denial and the reason for the partial grant on Monday.
+OK. I think with that we can transition to the 412
+proceeding. So we'll break for ten minutes. We will, as I
+said, have to seal the courtroom, as required by the rule,
+which will mean all nine party participants have to leave and
+the live feed will have to be turn off. And we'll confirm in
+the overflow rooms that those are off.
+So we'll break for ten. Thank you.
+(Recess)
+(Remainder of hearing sealed)
+
+
+Filed 11/23/21
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+INDEX OF EXAMINATION
+Examination of:
+LISA ROCCHIO
+Direct By Ms. Pomerantz .
+Cross By Mr. Pagliuca . .
+Page
+7
+. . ...95
+Cross By Mr. Pagliuca
+............ 131
+GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS
+
+1
+•
+•
+•
+•
+•
+•
+•
+DEFENDANT EXHIBITS
+Received
+• .20
+• .44
+• .48
+• .51
+• .58
+
+A
+B
+:::::
+•
+::
+:::::
+:
+::
+Received
+140
+: 143
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5adc217a2ba4b2cb32d3802519084c393fbac2f599ea74ba170c98977b64e93.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5adc217a2ba4b2cb32d3802519084c393fbac2f599ea74ba170c98977b64e93.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd79724fc25189fdde03148dc4e769c213628481
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5adc217a2ba4b2cb32d3802519084c393fbac2f599ea74ba170c98977b64e93.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14666,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f5adc217a2ba4b2cb32d3802519084c393fbac2f599ea74ba170c98977b64e93",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 167,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "002971604e10dbfa33affb63fa34fe0eaa2dfdaf392b990779645f0939493894",
+  "output_sha256": "b3b433f4074823eaccd441083e42703cf26ef10d62d1f8ee823a40858cead479",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5b9f0205c7ac0b041f0ec22d4dbc650350dbb890ed312d91f4b3c2a06968325.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5b9f0205c7ac0b041f0ec22d4dbc650350dbb890ed312d91f4b3c2a06968325.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bffbd1c009c81c9315a3af66e85b545658106ef0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5b9f0205c7ac0b041f0ec22d4dbc650350dbb890ed312d91f4b3c2a06968325.md
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 638 |
+Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF MEREDITH
+IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ALL WORK PRODUCT AND ATTORNEY
+CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS WITH PHILIP BARDEN
+I, Meredith
+declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Counsel with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
+Communication All Work Product and Attorney Client Communications with Philip Barden.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+4.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of|
+5.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+6.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 638 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 4
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+Esq.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 638k
+Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: February 22, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 638 Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 22nd day of February, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5b9f0205c7ac0b041f0ec22d4dbc650350dbb890ed312d91f4b3c2a06968325.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5b9f0205c7ac0b041f0ec22d4dbc650350dbb890ed312d91f4b3c2a06968325.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50ba4a014aed47224305251fb1841f42fe3244b5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5b9f0205c7ac0b041f0ec22d4dbc650350dbb890ed312d91f4b3c2a06968325.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f5b9f0205c7ac0b041f0ec22d4dbc650350dbb890ed312d91f4b3c2a06968325",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8e604a4fa24ba48dbf3b619d75c718ea9a650ce89d2678f5268bb8fb01ae5191",
+  "output_sha256": "d5eb5686d8c3bb132dced4b267e6a519ee5ccc39aee531de628de566b7bdd15a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5e6754e0583d93641915aaf0fc0a5194064c8f42a4cd2b33077f2739f8b46da.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5e6754e0583d93641915aaf0fc0a5194064c8f42a4cd2b33077f2739f8b46da.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..078fc0ea8e060ed8b360442d36d40ff728251570
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5e6754e0583d93641915aaf0fc0a5194064c8f42a4cd2b33077f2739f8b46da.md
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 534
+Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF
+LAW
+I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine
+and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
+4.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 534 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 4
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley.
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 534 |
+Filed 01/06/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: January 6, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 534 Filed 01/06/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 6th day of January, 2016, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5e6754e0583d93641915aaf0fc0a5194064c8f42a4cd2b33077f2739f8b46da.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5e6754e0583d93641915aaf0fc0a5194064c8f42a4cd2b33077f2739f8b46da.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6008885bbe913a239110f791bf5b3e132ff2662b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f5e6754e0583d93641915aaf0fc0a5194064c8f42a4cd2b33077f2739f8b46da.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f5e6754e0583d93641915aaf0fc0a5194064c8f42a4cd2b33077f2739f8b46da",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "90856cdc0dfe6b47f9bbdee7904702fff2e9879689f461f76612b96f524eb02d",
+  "output_sha256": "52bd7d5bf14903541b8b72d0c324e4f2cf4d47c80b4064d65ec9f66d66a24768",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60f5d158fd50922be9c6a689738c1eb1cb85f81c13a5c2992ceb64fac5924d0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60f5d158fd50922be9c6a689738c1eb1cb85f81c13a5c2992ceb64fac5924d0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..109ab969c480921c487619ab3f91ea23eb65bbff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60f5d158fd50922be9c6a689738c1eb1cb85f81c13a5c2992ceb64fac5924d0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 1 of 11
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-R WS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
+MOTION FOR BIFURCATED TRIAL RELATING TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES
+AND EXCLUSION OF REFERENCES TO DEFENDANT'S
+FINANCIAL INFORMATION
+Sigrid McCawley
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 2 of 11
+Plaintiff,
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+response in opposition to Defendant's motion in limine (DE 662).
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 3 of 11
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 4 of 11
+3
+
+
+
+ARGUMENT
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 6 of 11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 7 of 11
+
+
+
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 9 of 11
+8
+
+
+
+Dated: March 22, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLF
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+J. Quinney College of La
+niversity of Uta
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City,
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 766 Filed 03/22/17 Page 11 of 11
+UT 84112(801) 585-52025
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 22, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
+of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca. Esg.
+_&_
+, P.C.
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+5 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+10
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60f5d158fd50922be9c6a689738c1eb1cb85f81c13a5c2992ceb64fac5924d0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60f5d158fd50922be9c6a689738c1eb1cb85f81c13a5c2992ceb64fac5924d0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f1c04825d7b0fcafecc5c886fce8c7e02b83718
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60f5d158fd50922be9c6a689738c1eb1cb85f81c13a5c2992ceb64fac5924d0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -323,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f60f5d158fd50922be9c6a689738c1eb1cb85f81c13a5c2992ceb64fac5924d0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8d403801f3b55754d5661b629f0ed0eb389ee62ab8095a42342b93d2e0553182",
+  "output_sha256": "9eb7a9b545d21b79490035444d267866d071a59973cbc49f57434cd28a21ce3e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60fdddea630359e6eb98f6701fadc743ad4c04fb170145a5d11f89319ae8996.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60fdddea630359e6eb98f6701fadc743ad4c04fb170145a5d11f89319ae8996.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4baf53dfed07edfd532336c0501a0ff757e61c06
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60fdddea630359e6eb98f6701fadc743ad4c04fb170145a5d11f89319ae8996.md
@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 379-2 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 11
+
+
+
+Casease 2-9827489594RR D06tunne43Z402 FilEder20251051@agkage21of 11
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
+AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al.
+V.
+CIVIL ACTION
+NO. 98-5591
+ALBERTO R.
+as Attorney General of the United States
+ORDER
+AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2005, upon consideration of the motion
+of the defendant for a protective order (Doc. No. 224), the motion of plaintiffs to compel (Doc.
+No. 226), and the responses thereto (Doc. Nos. 230, 232), the court makes the following findings
+and conclusions:
+1.
+The plaintiffs in this action, including the four institutional plaintiffs, the
+American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), the American Booksellers Foundation for Free
+Expression ("ABFFE"), the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), and the Electronic Privacy
+Information Center ("EPIC), and thirteen individual, non-institutional plaintiffs, brought this
+action challenging the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. $ 231
+("COPA"). On February 2, 1999, I granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of
+COPA. (Doc. No. 121). Eventually, the preliminary injunction was affirmed by the Supreme
+Court on June 29, 2004, and remanded to me for a trial on the merits. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542
+U.S. 656 (2004). For a more detailed description of the history and background of this case, see
+the Supreme Court's opinion at 542 U.S. 656. The parties are now in the midst of discovery and
+certain disagreements have arisen. As a result, on November 22, 2005, defendant filed a motion
+for a protective order against certain discovery requests of plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 224). On the
+same date, pursuant to Pretrial Order 15, plaintiffs sent to
+a letter requesting the court
+
+
+Casease 2:98274895941R Do66943Z402 FilEder20251051@agage 310f 11
+to compel defendant to answer their discovery requests. By order dated November 23, 2005
+(Doc. No. 227), I construed the plaintiffs' letter as a formal motion and the letter was docketed
+on that date. (Doc. No. 226). Defendant's motion for a protective order and plaintiffs' motion to
+compel regard the same discovery requests. Therefore, both motions shall be discussed
+simultaneously.
+2
+The filing of defendant's motion for a protective order violated Pretrial
+Order 15 (Doc. No. 186) as defendant did not allege that the less formal discovery dispute
+resolution measures outlined therein would significantly impair his fundamental rights or that
+manifest injustice or deprivation of due process would occur from such procedures. In the future,
+the parties shall adhere to Pretrial Order 15;
+Once a party opposing discovery raises an objection to a discovery request,
+the party seeking the discovery must demonstrate that the information sought is relevant. When
+this showing of relevance is made, the burden shifts back to the party opposing discovery to
+show why the discovery should not be permitted. Norther v. City of Philadelphia, No. 98-6517,
+2000 WL 355526, at *2 (E.D. Pa. April 4, 2000). The court may limit discovery if: (i) the
+discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other
+source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking
+discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought;
+or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ.
+P. 26(b)(2);
+The first set of disputed discovery requests are plaintiffs' requests to
+produce I through M. The text of the requests are as follows:
+Request to produce I: All documents concerning communications within
+2
+
+
+Caseabd 2:98074895941R D0661943Z402 FilEte 29291051 @paglager1of 11
+the Department of Justice or communications between you and any other United States
+governmental body or any international organization, law enforcement agency, coalition or
+foreign government regarding materials that are harmful or potentially harmful to minors but not
+obscene;
+Request to produce J: All documents regarding the extraterritorial or
+potential extraterritorial application of internet gaming statutes or regulations;
+Request to produce K: All documents regarding the extraterritorial or
+potential extraterritorial application of anti-l
+statues or regulations;
+Request to produce L: All documents regarding the extraterritorial or
+potential extraterritorial application of internet obscenity statutes or regulations;
+Request to produce M: All documents regarding the extraterritorial or
+potential extraterritorial application of COPA;
+A.
+Plaintiffs contend that their request to produce I is relevant to show
+the scope of the speech covered by COPA and defendant's stated views regarding the
+extraterritorial reach of COPA. Defendant counters that the request is overly broad and too
+vague to permit an intelligible response since, inter alia, "harmful to minors" is not defined.
+Defendant further contends that this request should be limited to only materials that have been
+the subject of prosecution under either COPA or the Truth in Domain Name Statutes ("TDNS").
+I find that plaintiffs' request to produce I is overly broad and unduly burdensome since it is not
+limited, inter alia, by date or relevant statute and includes materials "potentially harmful to
+minors" which in itself is a vague and undefined phrase. Nonetheless, I find defendant's
+proposed limitation too narrow, since it encompasses only materials that have already been the
+subject of prosecutions under COPA, which has never been in effect, and TDNS, which,
+3
+
+
+Casease 2:9827489594RR D06tunne43Z402 FilEder20251051@agßager51of 11
+according to plaintiffs, has not been widely litigated. Perhaps some compromise could be
+reached limiting the request to documents concerning communications regarding the possibility
+of prosecution or an action, including preliminary investigations, under COPA, the Truth in
+Domain Name Statutes ("TDNS") or other statutes which defines "harmful to minors" and which
+regard materials that are harmful to minors but not obscene. However, this court will not re-cast
+plaintiffs request to produce I to reach such a result. Ileave that task to plaintifis or the
+agreement of the parties. Therefore, I will not compel defendant to answer either version of
+plaintiffs' request to produce I.
+B.
+Plaintiffs contend that their requests to produce J through M are
+also relevant to show the scope of the speech covered by COPA and defendant's stated views
+regarding the extraterritorial reach of COPA. Defendant argues that these requests to produce
+seek only advisory opinions and defendant's legal research regarding statutory construction.
+Defendant also contends that plaintiffs' requests to produce J through L regard laws distinct from
+COPA and do not list the relevant statutes about which plaintiffs seck information. Contrary to
+defendant's argument, these requests do not solicit legal conclusions, but seek the fact of whether
+such documents regarding these topics exist. In addition to plaintiffs' request to produce M,
+regarding the extraterritorial reach of COPA, plaintiffs' requests to produce J through L,
+regarding the extraterritorial reach of internet gaming, antiand obscenity statutes, are also
+relevant because the issue of whether a law similar to COPA has extraterritorial reach could also
+have impact on whether COPA has extraterritorial reach. See Northern, 2000 WL 355526, at *1
+(stating that discovery requests may be deemed relevant if there is any possibility that the
+information may be relevant to the general subject matter of the action) (internal quotation marks
+omitted). Therefore, defendant shall respond to plaintiffs' requests to produce J through M.
+4
+
+
+Casease 2-98274895941R Do66943Z402 FilEder20251051@ageagerlof 11
+However, it is necessary for plaintiffs to list specifically what statutes they seek documents
+regarding in their requests to produce J through L, which they have agreed to do. (Doc. No. 232,
+p. 4).
+5.
+The second set of disputed discovery requests are plaintiffs' request to
+produce P and interrogatories P and Q. The text of the requests are as follows:
+Request to produce P: All documents concerning materials determined
+by the Department of Justice to be harmful to minors but not obscene including, without
+limitation, all documents reflecting the content of such material and all documents concerning
+the rationale for that conclusion;
+Interrogatory P: Identify any speech on the internet that is "harmful to
+minors" under the definition in COPA but not obscene;
+Interrogatory Q: State whether any speech on the Plaintiffs' web sites is
+"harmful to minors" under the definition in COPA and identify any such speech;
+A.
+Like plaintiffs' request to produce I, plaintiffs claim that their
+request to produce P is relevant to the scope of speech covered by COPA. Defendant again
+counters that the request is overly broad and vague, just like plaintiffs" request to produce I.
+Defendant further argues that this request to produce should be similarly limited to materials
+which have been subject to prosecution under COPA or TDNS. Like plaintiffs' request to
+produce I, I find that their request to produce P is overly broad and unduly burdensome since it is
+not limited, inter alia, by date or relevant statute, but again, I find defendant's proposed
+limitations too narrow. As with plaintiffs' request to produce I, perhaps request to produce P
+could be reformed. Nonetheless, I do not view the court's task to include re-wording plaintiffs
+request to produce P. I leave this task to plaintiffs or the agreement of the parties. As a result, I
+5
+
+
+Casease 2-9827489594RR D06tunne43Z402 FilEder20251051@paglag ef71of 11
+will not compel defendant to answer plaintiffs' request to produce P.
+B.
+While plaintiffs contend that their interrogatories P and Q are
+relevant to determining the scope of speech covered by COPA, defendant counters that these
+interrogatories seek advisory opinions, go beyond the Complaint, and are premature. I find that
+these interrogatories, which seek to discover what materials are "harmful to minors", a key
+concept in COPA, are relevant to the scope of speech covered by COPA. I also disagree with
+defendant that plaintiffs' interrogatories P and Q request legal conclusions and, thus are
+impermissible. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, an interrogatory is not necessarily
+objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention
+that relates to fact or to the application of law to fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c); see Russo v.
+Abington Memorial Hosp., No. 94-195, 1996 WL 165493, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. April 3, 1996)
+(citing the 1970 comments to Rule 33 indicating that the rule was intended to permit a party to
+narrow and sharpen the issues through interrogatories seeking the application of law to fact, but
+not to allow interrogatories seeking purely legal conclusions) (internal quotation marks omitted);
+Deloach v. Companhia De Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro, No. 84-0947, 1985 WL 2659, at *3 (E.D.
+Pa. Sept. 11, 1985) (stating that the contentions of the parties as to the application of law to facts
+is discoverable). Here, these two interrogatories do not call for purely legal conclusions, but seek
+the defendant's contentions as applied to the facts of this case under COPA. Nonetheless, I find
+that interrogatory P is over-broad because it is not limited to speech defendant has already
+determined to be "harmful to minors" under COPA but appears to command defendant to search
+for all speech over the entire internet and determine whether it is harmful to minors. As a result,
+defendant need not respond to plaintiffs' interrogatory P. However, plaintiffs' interrogatory Q is
+proper and shall be responded to by defendant. To the extent that plaintiffs' interrogatory Q is
+6
+
+
+Casease 2:9827489594RR D06tunne43Z402 FilEder20251051@agßagef81of 11
+premature in that defendant has not yet determined all of the speech on plaintiffs' websites he
+contends is harmful to minors, defendant shall provide what knowledge he has now and timely
+provide such further information as it becomes available. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
+6.
+The third discovery request at issue is plaintiffs" request to produce GG,
+which states:
+Request to Produce GG: All documents concerning any of the plaintiffs
+in this action;
+A.
+Plaintiffs contend that this request is relevant because the plaintiffs
+fear prosecution under COPA due to the content of their websites. As a result, plaintiffs are
+willing to limit their request to produce GG to "all documents concerning the content of
+plaintiffs' websites." (Doc. no. 226, p. 4). Defendant contends that this request seeks irrelevant
+information in an overly broad and unduly burdensome manner since it is not tied to any
+allegation in the Complaint or limited to documents regarding COPA. I agree with defendant
+that even with plaintiffs' proposed limitation, the request is still over-broad. Plaintiffs' request to
+produce GG could possibly be limited to all documents concerning COPA or material harmful to
+minors which also concerns plaintiffs or their websites, but I will not recast the question to reach
+such a result. I leave that task to plaintiffs or the agreement of the parties. Therefore, defendant
+need not respond to plaintiffs' request to produce GG.
+7.
+The fourth set of disputed discovery requests are plaintiffs' interrogatories
+G through I. The text of the interrogatories are as follows:
+Interrogatory G: Identify any "digital certificate" within the meaning of
+COPA known to you that can be used to verify age;
+Interrogatory H: Identify any "other reasonable measures that are
+7
+
+
+Caseabd 2:9807489594R 20641943Z402 FilEte 29291051@pagag er91of 11
+feasible under the available technology" within the meaning of section 231(c)(1)(C) of COPA
+that can be used as a successful affirmative defense to prosecution under COPA under section
+231(a)(1);
+Interrogatory I: Identify any AVS products known to you that can be
+used to establish a successful affirmative defense within the meaning [of] section 231(c) of
+COPA to prosecution under section 231(a)(1) of COPA;
+A.
+Plaintiffs contend that the information sought by their
+interrogatories G through I is relevant and does not merely call for legal conclusions since there
+has already been factual testimony regarding these questions and the Supreme Court remanded
+the case to determine, in part, whether technology had changed since the preliminary injunction.
+Plaintiffs also contend that these interrogatories are necessary to identify relevant third parties.
+Defendant claims that these interrogatories seek legal conclusions regarding what technology
+would satisfy COPA's affirmative defenses. Moreover, defendant claims that he "simply has not
+reached any determination about what 'digital certificates,' "AVS products,' or "other reasonable
+measures [] are available' to satisfy the legal standard for an affirmative defense under COPA.
+To the extent that Defendant will present evidence on the affirmative defenses, it will be though
+expert testimony." (Doc. No. 232, pp. 4-5). I find that the information sought by plaintiffs"
+interrogatories G through I is relevant to what technology is available to satisfy the affirmative
+defenses in COPA. Furthermore, these interrogatories do not call for purely legal conclusions,
+but for defendant's contentions regarding the facts of this case as they apply to the defenses
+available under COPA. Russo, 1996 WL 165493, at *1-2; Deloach, 1985 WL 2659, at *3.
+Therefore, as information relevant to plaintiffs' interrogatories G through I becomes known to
+the defendant, he shall timely answer plaintiffs' interrogatories G, H, and I and forward that
+8
+
+
+information to plaintiffs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
+8.
+The fifth discovery request at issue is plaintiffs' interrogatory O, which
+states:
+Interrogatory O: Identify any forms of speech available on the Internet
+that are not covered by COPA because they do not employ Transmission Control
+Protocol/Internet Protocol or any successor protocol to transmit information;
+Plaintiffs contend that early in the case, the parties reached factual
+stipulations regarding what speech and speech protocols were covered by COPA. Plaintiffs
+claim that this interrogatory merely seeks to discover if those stipulations remain true. Defendant
+only contends that the use of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol ("TCP/IP") does
+not determine whether certain speech is covered by COPA, and, thus, the question is irrelevant.
+Instead, defendant claims that COPA prohibits communications using Hypertext Transfer
+Protocol ("HTTP"). Plaintiffs are aware of their mistake and request the court to reform their
+interrogatory O to replace TCP/IP with HTTP. Although this interrogatory is easily recast to be
+relevant, I decline to do so. I leave that task to plaintiffs or the agreement of the parties. As a
+result, the defendant need not respond to plaintiffs' interrogatory O.
+9.
+Finally, plaintiffs contend that the defendant has failed to produce
+privilege logs. Defendant counters that until his motion for a protective order is decided and the
+proper scope of discovery is resolved, he cannot provide privilege logs. While identification of
+privilege issues could be required before all scope of discovery issues are resolved, now that the
+scope of discovery has been resolved through the motions at issue and this order, the defendant
+shall produce to the plaintiffs all appropriate privilege logs.
+As a result of the forgoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for a
+9
+
+
+Casease 598074895949R 0064943Z402 FilEder29251051 @Pagßage dfl1of 11
+protective order filed by the defendant and the motion to compel filed by the plaintiffs are both
+GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and that:
+Defendant need not respond to plaintiffs' requests to produce I, P, and GG;
+and interrogatories P and O;
+11. By January 27, 2006, defendant shall respond to plaintiffs' request to
+produce J through M. By January 6, 2006, plaintiffs shall supplement their requests to produce
+J through L with the names and citations of any statutes regarding internet gaming, antiand
+obscenity statutes which they wish defendant to include in his search;
+12.
+By January 27, 2006, defendant shall respond to plaintiffs' interrogatory
+Q to the extent possible and shall timely supplement such responses as relevant information
+becomes available pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e);
+13.
+By January 27, 2006, defendant shall respond to plaintiffs' interrogatories
+G through I to the extent possible and shall timely supplement such responses as relevant
+information becomes available pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e); and
+14.
+Defendant shall timely provide the appropriate privilege logs to plaintiffs
+as necessary.
+LOWELL A.
+_. JR., S.J.
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60fdddea630359e6eb98f6701fadc743ad4c04fb170145a5d11f89319ae8996.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60fdddea630359e6eb98f6701fadc743ad4c04fb170145a5d11f89319ae8996.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9d53c49b988b8b052835b340dec39a2308c3c94
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f60fdddea630359e6eb98f6701fadc743ad4c04fb170145a5d11f89319ae8996.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -145,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f60fdddea630359e6eb98f6701fadc743ad4c04fb170145a5d11f89319ae8996",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 14,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7858fd8fbbaabdebaaa9af06d70fd7260d14379e14da6ab21a3328e3455fe71e",
+  "output_sha256": "d2ec6b277578e2a78bf52ceef5dfba3af592e12bfde0b12ee07ba9fedefe5dcd",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f612e8f86a9830415eb13999f22f4b69947c09708cf2952e32b4bb7a535c5806.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f612e8f86a9830415eb13999f22f4b69947c09708cf2952e32b4bb7a535c5806.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d87673486fa6793e68ce5e1af12197efb0cd87c3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f612e8f86a9830415eb13999f22f4b69947c09708cf2952e32b4bb7a535c5806.md
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 250
+Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USD SANY
+DOCUL
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED:_4/26/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed schedules for pretrial disclosures and
+pretrial motions practice. Dkt. Nos. 229, 230. Having considered the parties' respective
+positions, the Court hereby sets the schedule below, which it deems reasonable and fair. For
+purposes of this scheduling order, the trial commencement date shall mean the date that the
+Court will request from the Clerk's Office as the trial commencement date. It does not include
+any period involving the issuance of a jury questionnaire that may predate that trial
+commencement date. As explained at the April 23, 2021 conference, the Court is considering the
+Defendant's request for a continuance, but until such a request is resolved the parties shall
+presume that the Court will request July 12, 2021 as the trial commencement date. See also Dkt.
+No. 221. With that in mind, the Court hereby sets the following schedule:
+• Government expert witness disclosure are due April 23, 2021 (agreement of the
+parties)
+• Supplemental Pretrial Motions that pertain only to the new charges raised in the S2
+indictment (agreement of the parties):
+• Defense supplemental motions are due May 7, 2021
+• Government's response is due May 21, 2021
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 250 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 3
+Defense replies are due May 28, 2021
+• Disclosure of the alleged victims referenced in the S2 Indictment: May 17, 2021
+(agreement of the parties)
+• Jencks Act/3500 materials, Rule 404(b) notice, Giglio materials, the Government's
+witness list, and co-conspirator statements are due seven weeks before the trial
+commencement date
+• The Government's exhibit lists and marked exhibits are due five weeks before the
+trial commencement date
+Defense Expert Witness disclosure is due four weeks before the trial
+commencement date
+• The Defendant's Rule 16(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(1)(B) disclosures and witness list are
+due three weeks before the trial commencement date
+• Motions in limine are due four weeks before the trial commencement date
+(agreement of the parties)
+• Responses to motions in limine are due two weeks before the trial
+commencement date (agreement of the parties)
+• Requests to Charge, Verdict Sheet, and Proposed Voir Dire are due three weeks
+before the trial commencement date (agreement of the parties)
+The Court will address a process and schedule for the parties' proposals regarding a jury
+questionnaire by separate order.
+Finally, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer on the Government's proposal that
+the Defendant submit witness statements pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 at
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 250
+Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 3
+least four weeks in advance of trial. The parties are further ORDERED to submit a joint letter
+laying out their respective positions and proposals within one week of this Order.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: April 26, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alie Q. Notor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f612e8f86a9830415eb13999f22f4b69947c09708cf2952e32b4bb7a535c5806.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f612e8f86a9830415eb13999f22f4b69947c09708cf2952e32b4bb7a535c5806.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e39504ec1f135ff86837415f7b0fce41e02086ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f612e8f86a9830415eb13999f22f4b69947c09708cf2952e32b4bb7a535c5806.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f612e8f86a9830415eb13999f22f4b69947c09708cf2952e32b4bb7a535c5806",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "90a4fecf5af165abcc205ba8d72f7041982a1ae151e05c00452169994ab89c25",
+  "output_sha256": "10f9eeea74e88bc03ba9a62ea0662fca9f0384bf7b5c7f2cfb5b9a7dc6bfaee7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62044a4ba77dac4ced9be941ef7d35d87d552c4b73d054ca9fa771d58a1866f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62044a4ba77dac4ced9be941ef7d35d87d552c4b73d054ca9fa771d58a1866f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..400c13620a04bd5530ace61015ae1cc9608b698c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62044a4ba77dac4ced9be941ef7d35d87d552c4b73d054ca9fa771d58a1866f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Cased :15Cy27423LARvs D06umanh36783з Filed 08/18/16 pRade hpf1
+COMPOSITE
+EXHBIT 3
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62044a4ba77dac4ced9be941ef7d35d87d552c4b73d054ca9fa771d58a1866f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62044a4ba77dac4ced9be941ef7d35d87d552c4b73d054ca9fa771d58a1866f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..199b12eb332c2cca9aa7dec5aba12258a394ecd7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62044a4ba77dac4ced9be941ef7d35d87d552c4b73d054ca9fa771d58a1866f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f62044a4ba77dac4ced9be941ef7d35d87d552c4b73d054ca9fa771d58a1866f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4781741d58fb9ff3a0d190c8b56f9a533e302e05c03f3a4ed9f5a3a52bdf40d5",
+  "output_sha256": "1e343cb0647dcff6a3203e064772c127cbd07daa45002646fe526093973af002",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62b0942834651137a4e8fca00d0a9940968c33066c0b7bac6d13a9c433622a2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62b0942834651137a4e8fca00d0a9940968c33066c0b7bac6d13a9c433622a2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be517df8b496b0ea63db6cba26a0e5aa20ea25f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62b0942834651137a4e8fca00d0a9940968c33066c0b7bac6d13a9c433622a2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 617 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 3
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+January 13, 2022
+By Email
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+Counsel for Juror 50 has filed a motion to intervene, and to obtain a copy of certain
+materials relating to jury selection. The motion was submitted by email to
+In an Order
+dated January 12, 2022, the Court directed the parties "to submit via email any proposed redactions
+on or before January 13, 2022, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test
+articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.
+2006)." The Government respectfully submits that no redactions are necessary, and accordingly
+the motion should be publicly filed.
+The defendant opposes any public filing of Juror 50's motion, arguing that it is not a
+judicial document. This argument is meritless. Juror 50's motion to intervene is quite obviously
+"relevant to the performance of a judicial function and useful in the judicial process." United States
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 617 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 3
+v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995); see also S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232
+(2d Cir. 2001) (noting that a "document which is presented to the court to invoke its powers or
+affect its decisions" stands on a "different footing" than items merely passed between parties in
+discovery). The defendant's letter previews her argument on the merits of Juror 50's motion to
+intervene, which the parties have not yet briefed, yet ignores that the motion is a judicial document
+whether or not the Court ultimately grants the motion. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (rejecting the
+argument that "until a district court knows the disposition of the underlying motion, any attempt
+at calling something a judicial document is premature").
+The defendant also argues that Juror 50's motion is not a judicial document because it is a
+"discovery request." First, Juror 50 is not asking for discovery. He is asking for access to his
+questionnaire: a document that he himself prepared and swore under penalty of perjury, and which,
+now that trial is complete, is maintained under seal principally if not entirely to protect his own
+privacy interests. See, e.g., Press-Enter: Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S.
+501, 511-12 (1984). Second, the cases the defendant cites address whether discovery materials
+themselves should be docketed, not whether a motion for discovery should be. The issue here is
+not whether the questionnaire should be docketed, but whether the motion should be.
+Turning to the balancing factors set forth in Lugosch, the defendant has identified no
+privacy interest implicated by public filing of the motion, nor could she. Instead, the defendant
+cites the vague concern that potential witnesses at a hearing may learn Juror 50's views if the
+motion is unsealed, or that publicity regarding the filing will prejudice her. This argument has no
+merit. The only substantive factual assertion in the motion is a brief statement that Juror 50 "does
+not recall answering questions regarding his prior experience with sexual assault," which, as the
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 617 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 3
+motion then notes, Juror 50 has already said publicly.
+Accordingly, no redactions are justified, and the motion should be docketed
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN I
+United States Attorney
+By: _
+s/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense Counsel (by email)
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62b0942834651137a4e8fca00d0a9940968c33066c0b7bac6d13a9c433622a2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62b0942834651137a4e8fca00d0a9940968c33066c0b7bac6d13a9c433622a2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a44c6c07e3dc9204826d0f1ec6f9cb1bba69db21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f62b0942834651137a4e8fca00d0a9940968c33066c0b7bac6d13a9c433622a2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f62b0942834651137a4e8fca00d0a9940968c33066c0b7bac6d13a9c433622a2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "25d3cce70cf4d9ca47fb6ee4ce6f7edf4ce2ae986f0ef94b9f2961031de811cf",
+  "output_sha256": "aa205f35e81878e9e85afc38e2b0e5e7fa5a885da6b3182e9eff6cd8701ea904",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6390adb2d326a58f6e7aa1e9b387553edf570c890d18b182fd521f56c76aa4e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6390adb2d326a58f6e7aa1e9b387553edf570c890d18b182fd521f56c76aa4e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ae57db86f8e6524c13601575356533894c62fac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6390adb2d326a58f6e7aa1e9b387553edf570c890d18b182fd521f56c76aa4e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,733 @@
+Casedäb§-Ç8-03433+bAPımeP0gчment8709·2015|ed 08199/19agelage25 of 25
+18-2868; 16-3945-cv(L)
+v. Marwell; Dershowitz v.
+In the
+United States Court of Appeals
+for the Second Circuit
+-
+AUGUST TERM 2018
+No. 18-2868-cV
+JULIE
+TI MIAMI HERALD COMPANY,
+Intervenors-Appellants,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant-Appellee,
+V.
+Plaintiff-Appellee.
+-
+No. 16-3945-cv(L)
+No. 17-1625 (CON)
+No. 17-1722(CON)
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH
+MEDIA,
+Intervenors-Appellants,
+
+
+Case(äЬ§-¢6-07433+bAPumcP0g4ment 870912019|$ 08/09/19agePage25 of 25
+V.
+Plaintiff-Appellee,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant-Appellee:
+On Appeal from the United States District Court
+for the Southern District of New York
+-
+-
+ARGUED: MARCH 6, 2019
+DECIDED: JULY 3, 2019
+-
+-
+Before: CABRANES, POOLER, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
+-
+-
+Intervenors-Appellants Alan Dershowitz, Michael Cernovich,
+and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie
+) appeal
+from certain orders of the United States District Court for the Southern
+District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) denying their respective
+motions to unseal filings in a defamation suit. We conclude that the
+•The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the captions as set out above.
+2
+
+
+Casedä35-48-03433-bAPumP04ment 87092015|ed 08199/19agage23 of 25
+District Court failed to conduct the requisite particularized review
+when ordering the sealing of the materials at issue. At the same time,
+we recognize the potential damage to privacy and reputation that may
+accompany public disclosure of hard-fought, sensitive litigation. We
+therefore clarify the legal tools that district courts should use in
+safeguarding the integrity of their dockets. Accordingly, we VACATE
+the District Court's orders entered on November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017,
+and August 27, 2018, ORDER the unsealing of the summary judgment
+record as described further herein, and REMAND the cause to the
+District Court for particularized review of the remaining sealed
+materials.
+Judge Pooler concurs in this opinion except insofar as it orders
+the immediate unsealing of the summary judgment record without a
+remand.
+-
+SANFORD L. BOHRER (Christine N. Walz,
+Madelaine J. Harrington, New York, NY, on
+the brief), Holland & Knight LLP, Miami, FL,
+for Intervenors-Appellants Julie
+and
+Miami Herald.
+TY GEE (Adam Mueller, on the brief),
+Haddon,
+and
+P.C.,
+Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+3
+
+
+Casedäb§-¢8-97433-bAPumP04ment 87092019|ed 08199/1®age₽age2$of 25
+PAUL G. CASSELL (Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies
+Schiller Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on
+the brief), S.J Quinney College of Law,
+University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for
+Plaintiff-Appellee
+ANDREW G. CELLI JR. (David A. Lebowitz, on
+the brief), Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff &
+Abady LLP, New York, NY, for Intervenor-
+Appellant Alan M. Dershowitz.
+MARC RANDAZZA (Jay Marshall Wolman,
+Las Vegas, NV, on the brief), Randazza Legal
+Group, PLLC, Hartford, CT, for Intervenor-
+Appellant Michael Cernovich.
+-
+JOSE A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:
+Intervenors-Appellants Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"),
+Michael Cernovich ('Cernovich"), and the Miami Herald Company
+(with reporter Julie |
+,, jointly the "Herald") appeal from certain
+orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
+New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) denying their respective motions
+to unseal filings in a defamation suit. We conclude that the District
+Court failed to conduct the requisite particularized review when
+ordering the sealing of the materials at issue. At the same time, we
+4
+
+
+recognize the potential damage to privacy and reputation that may
+accompany public disclosure of hard-fought, sensitive litigation. We
+therefore clarify the legal tools that district courts should use in
+safeguarding the integrity of their dockets. Accordingly, we VACATE
+the District Court's orders entered on November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017,
+and August 27, 2018, ORDER the unsealing of the summary judgment
+record as described further herein, and REMAND the cause to the
+District Court for particularized review of the remaining sealed
+materials.
+I.
+BACKGROUND
+A. Jeffrey Epstein's Conviction and the CVRA Suit
+The origins of this case lie in a decade-old criminal proceeding
+against financier Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). On June 30, 2008, Epstein
+pleaded guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting, and procuring a
+person under the age of eighteen for, prostitution. The charges
+stemmed from sexual activity with privately hired "masseuses," some
+of whom were under eighteen, Florida's age of consent. Pursuant to
+an agreement with state and federal prosecutors, Epstein pleaded to
+the state charges. He received limited jail-time, registered as a sex
+offender, and agreed to pay compensation to his victims. In return,
+prosecutors declined to bring federal charges.
+Shortly after Epstein entered his plea, two of his victims,
+proceeding as "Jane Doe 1" and "Jane Doe 2," filed suit against the
+Government in the Southern District of Florida under the Crime
+Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). The victims sought to nullify the plea
+5
+
+
+Casedäb§-£8-03433-bAPumP04ment 87092019|ed 08199/19ageRage 26 of 25
+agreement, alleging that the Government failed to fulfill its legal
+obligations to inform and consult with them in the process leading up
+to Epstein's plea deal.'
+On December 30, 2014, two additional unnamed victims—one
+of whom has now self-identified as Plaintiff-Appellee
+("
+") - petitioned to join in the CVRA case. These petitioners
+included in their filings not only descriptions of sexual abuse by
+Epstein, but also new allegations of sexual abuse by several other
+prominent individuals, "including numerous prominent American
+politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a wellknown Prime Minister,
+and other world leaders," as well as
+Dershowitz (a long-time member of the Harvard Law School faculty
+who had worked on Epstein's legal defense) and Defendant-Appellee
+Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell").2
+Dershowitz moved to intervene, seeking to "strike the
+outrageous and impertinent allegations made against him and to
+request a show cause order to the attorneys that have made them."3
+Exercising its authority to "strike from a pleading an insufficient
+' On February 21, 2019, the Florida District Court ruled that federal
+rosecutors had violated the CVRA by failing to adequately notify the two victims
+laintiffs of the plea deal. The District Court has not yet determined the appropriat
+remedy. See Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1204-17 (S.D. Fla. 2019).
+= Doe 1 v. United States, No. 08-CV-80736-KAM, 2015 WL 11254692, at *2 (S.D.
+Fla. Apr. 7, 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
+3 Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
+6
+
+
+defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
+matter ... on its own,"* the Florida District Court (Kenneth A. Marra,
+Judge) sua sponte struck all allegations against additional parties from
+the pleadings, including those against Dershowitz, and therefore
+denied Dershowitz's motion as moot."
+The stricken allegations, however, quickly found their way into
+the press, and several media outlets published articles repeating
+accusations. In response to the allegations, on January 3,
+2015, Maxwell's publicist issued a press statement declaring that
+allegations "against Ghislaine Maxwell are untrue" and that
+her "claims are obvious lies."6
+B.
+Sues Maxwell
+On September 21, 2015,
+filed the underlying action
+against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York.
+alleged
+that Maxwell had defamed her through this and other public
+statements. Extensive and hard-fought discovery followed. Due to the
+volume of sealing requests filed during discovery, on August 9, 2016,
+the District Court entered a Sealing Order that effectively ceded
+control of the sealing process to the parties themselves. The Sealing
+Order disposed of the requirement that the parties file individual letter
+briefs to request sealing and prospectively granted all of the parties'
++ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
+5 Doe 1, 2015 WL 11254692, at *2-3.
+• See
+v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
+7
+
+
+Casedäb§-£8-03433-bAPumP04ment 870972015|ed 08199/1®ageRage 28 of 25
+future sealing requests. In total, 167 documents-nearly one-fifth of
+the docket— were filed under seal. These sealed documents include,
+inter alia, motions to compel discovery, motions for sanctions and
+adverse inferences, motions in limine, and similar material.
+On January 6, 2017, Maxwell filed a motion for summary
+judgment. The parties submitted their memoranda of law and
+supporting exhibits contesting this motion under seal. On March 22,
+2017, the District Court denied the motion in a heavily redacted 76-
+page opinion. Once again, the entire summary judgment record,
+including the unredacted version of the District Court opinion
+denying summary judgment, remained under seal. On May 24, 2017,
+Maxwell and
+executed a settlement agreement, and the case
+was closed the next day.
+C. Motions to Intervene and Unseal
+Over the course of the litigation before Judge Sweet, three
+outside parties attempted to unseal some or all of the sealed material.
+On August 11, 2016, Dershowitz moved to intervene, seeking to unseal
+three documents that, he argues, demonstrate that
+invented
+the accusations against him. On January 19, 2017, Cernovich, an
+independent blogger
+and self-described "popular political
+journalist,"' moved to intervene, seeking to unseal the summary
+judgment record, and Dershowitz joined his motion. On April 6, 2018,
+after the case had settled, the Herald moved to intervene and unseal
+' Br. Appellant (Cernovich) 4.
+8
+
+
+Casedäb5-48-03433-bARum₽04ment 87092015|ed 08199/19ageRage 29 of 25
+the entire docket. The District Court granted each of these motions to
+intervene, but denied the related requests to unseal in orders entered
+November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017, and August 27, 2018, respectively.
+The Appellants timely appealed from each of the orders
+denying their respective motions to unseal. Although each Appellant
+seeks the release of a different set of documents, all argue that the
+District Court failed to analyze the documents individually or
+properly apply the presumption of public access to court documents.
+We therefore ordered that the appeals be heard in tandem and held
+argument on March 6, 2019.
+On March 11, 2019, we issued an order to show cause why we
+"should not unseal the summary judgment motion, including any
+materials filed in connection with this motion, and the District Court's
+summary judgment
+decision."s The parties timely filed their
+responses.
+Il. DISCUSSION
+There are two categories of sealed material at issue in these
+appeals: (1) the summary judgment record, which includes the parties'
+summary judgment briefs, their statements of undisputed facts, and
+incorporated exhibits; and (2) court filings made in the course of the
+discovery process and with respect to motions in limine. In this
+Opinion, we explain that our law requires the unsealing of the
+8
+v. Maxwell, No. 18-2868-cv, Docket No. 138.
+9
+
+
+Caseda15-c8-07433-bAR
+120152ф 08199/19ageRager 10 of 25
+summary judgment materials and individualized review of the
+remaining sealed materials.
+While the law governing public access to these materials is
+largely settled, we have not yet adequately addressed the potential
+harms that often accompany such access. These harms are apparent.
+Over forty years ago, the Supreme Court observed that, without
+vigilance, courts' files might "become a vehicle for improper
+purposes."' Our legal process is already susceptible to abuse.
+Unscrupulous litigants can weaponize the discovery process to
+humiliate and embarrass their adversaries. Shielded by the "litigation
+privilege, "1° bad actors can defame opponents in court pleadings or
+depositions without fear of lawsuit and liability. Unfortunately, the
+presumption of public access to court documents has the potential to
+exacerbate these harms to privacy and reputation by ensuring that
+damaging material irrevocably enters the public record.
+We therefore take the opportunity to describe the tools available
+to district courts in protecting the integrity of the judicial process, and
+emphasize the courts' responsibility to exercise these powerful tools.
+We also caution the public to critically assess allegations contained in
+judicial pleadings.
+' Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).
+10 See notes 46-47 and accompanying text, post.
+10
+
+
+A. Standard of Review
+When reviewing a district court's decision to seal a filing or
+maintain such a seal, "we examine the court's factual findings for clear
+error, its legal determinations de novo, and its ultimate decision to seal
+or unseal for abuse of discretion."11
+B. The Summary Judgment Materials
+With respect to the first category of materials, it is well-settled
+that "documents submitted to a court for its consideration in a
+summary judgment
+motion are-as a matter of law-judicial
+documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under
+both the common law and the First Amendment."12 In light of this
+strong First Amendment presumption, "continued sealing of the
+documents may be justified only with specific, on-the-record findings
+that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the
+sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim. "13
+"' Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 139
+(2d Cir. 2016).
+12 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006). We
+observe that our holding in Lugosch relies on the general principle that parties may
+"be assumed to have supported their papers with admissible evidence and nonfrivolous arguments." Id. at 122. Insofar as a district court has, through striking a
+filing, specifically found that assumption inapplicable, the categorical rule in
+Lugosch may not apply. See notes 42-43 and accompanying text, post.
+13 Id. at 124. Examples of such countervailing values may include,
+depending on the circumstances, preserving "the right of an accused to
+fundamental fairness in the jury selection process," Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Court
+11
+
+
+Casedå⅓5-¢8-87433₺ARm₽994ment 87092015|ed 08199/19agager 13 of 25
+In this case, the District Court erred in several respects. + First, it
+failed to give proper weight to the presumption of access that attaches
+to documents filed in connection with summary judgment motions.
+The District Court reasoned that the summary judgment materials
+were "entitled to a lesser presumption of access" because "summary
+judgment was denied by the Court."15 In assigning a "lesser
+presumption" to such materials, the District Court relied on a single
+sentence of dicta from our decision in United States v. Amodeo." We
+have since clarified, however, that this sentence was based on a
+"quotation from a partial concurrence and partial dissent in the D.C.
+Circuit... [and] is thus not the considered decision of either this court
+or the D.C. Circuit." In fact, we have expressly rejected the
+proposition that "different types of documents might receive different
+of California, Riverside Cty., 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984); the protection of attorney-client
+privilege, Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; "the danger of impairing law enforcement or
+judicial efficiency," SEC. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001); and "the
+privacy interest of those who resist disclosure," id.
+1 Our discussion here focuses specifically on the District Court's denial of
+the Herald's motion to unseal the entire record. Because this decision grants relief
+to all Appellants, we need not discuss any separate, additional error in the District
+Court's denial of the earlier motions to unseal.
+15
+325 F. Supp. 3d at 444.
+16 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) ("'Amodeo II") ("One judge [in the District
+of Columbia Circuit] has pointed out, for example, that where a district court
+denied the summary judgment motion, essentially postponing a final determination
+of substantive legal rights, the public interest in access is not as pressing." (internal
+quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original)).
+1 Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121.
+12
+
+
+Casedäbē-ç8-Ø7А33₺AfımeP094ment87092015ı|ed 08/99/19agelager 13 of 25
+weights of presumption based on the extent to which they were relied
+upon in resolving [a] motion [for summary judgment]."18
+Second, in contravention of our precedent, the District Court
+failed to review the documents individually and produce "specific, onthe-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher
+values."19 Instead, the District Court made generalized statements
+about the record as a whole.2° This too was legal error.
+Finally, upon reviewing the summary judgment materials in
+connection with this appeal, we find that there is no countervailing
+privacy interest sufficient to justify their continued sealing. Remand
+with respect to these documents is thus unnecessary. Accordingly, and
+to avoid any further delay,?' we order that the summary judgment
+documents (with minimal redactions) be unsealed upon issuance of
+our mandate.2
+18 Id. at 123.
+19 Id. at 124.
+20 See, e.g.,'
+325 F. Supp. 3d at 445 (summarily concluding that all
+"It)he Summary Judgment Judicial Documents openly refer to and discuss these
+allegations [of sexual assault and sexual trafficking] in comprehensive detail, and
+that those allegations "establish[] a strong privacy interest here").
+21 Cf. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 127 (ordering that "the mandate shall issue
+forthwith" to expedite the unsealing process).
+2 Upon issuance of our mandate, a minimally redacted version of the
+summary judgment record will be made accessible on the Court of Appeals docket.
+We have implemented minimal redactions to protect personally identifying
+information such as personal phone numbers, contact lists, birth dates, and social
+13
+
+
+Casedå⅓5-¢8-87433₺AfımP094ment 87092015|ed 08199/1®ageager 124 of 25
+C. The Remaining Sealed Materials
+The law governing disclosure of the remaining sealed material
+in this case is only slightly more complex. The Supreme Court has
+recognized a qualified right "to inspect and copy judicial records and
+documents."2 In defining "judicial records and documents," we have
+emphasized that "the mere filing of a paper or document with the
+court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to
+the right of public access. "24 Instead, "the item filed must be relevant
+to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial
+process in order for it to be designated a judicial document."25
+As our precedent makes clear, a court "perform[s] the judicial
+function" not only when it rules on motions currently before it, but
+also when properly exercising its inherent "supervisory powers."26 A
+security numbers. We have also redacted the names of alleged minor victims of
+sexual abuse from deposition testimony and police reports, as well as deposition
+responses concerning intimate matters where the questions were likely only
+permitted -and the responses only compelled - because of a strong expectation of
+continued confidentiality. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. While we appreciate the views
+expressed in Judge Pooler's separate opinion, the panel majority believes that the
+efforts invested by three former district judges in reviewing these materials
+adequately address those concerns.
+23 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597-98.
+2* United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (" Amodeo I").
+25 Id.
+26 Cf. United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 135 (2d Cir. 2017)
+(explaining that, in considering whether the report of a monitor charged with
+assessing compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement is a judicial
+14
+
+
+document is thus "relevant to the performance of the judicial function"
+if it would reasonably have the tendency to influence a district court's
+ruling on a motion or in the exercise of its supervisory powers, without
+regard to which way the court ultimately rules or whether the
+document ultimately in fact influences the court's decision."
+Accordingly, if in applying these standards, a court determines that
+documents filed by a party are not relevant to the performance of a
+judicial function, no presumption of public access attaches.?
+Once an item is deemed relevant to the exercise of judicial
+power, "the weight to be given the presumption of access must be
+governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article
+Ill judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those
+document, "lilf the district court's conception of its supervisory power in this
+context were correct, the Monitor's Report would quite obviously be relevant to the
+performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process" (internal
+quotation marks omitted)). Whether a specific judicial decision constitutes a
+"performance of the judicial function" is a question of law. Accordingly, we review
+such determinations de novo. Id. at 134.
+27 Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145-46 (concluding that documents were relevant to
+the performance of a judicial function because they would have "informed" the
+district court's decision whether to discharge or retain a Receiver); see also FTC. v.
+Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 409 (Ist Cir. 1987) (citing Federal Rule of
+Evidence 401's "having any tendency" definition of relevance in determining
+whether documents were "judicial documents").
+28 As we explain below, there are several (often preferable) tools beyond
+sealing that district courts can use to protect their dockets from becoming a vehicle
+for irrelevant-and potentially defamatory —accusations. See Section D, post.
+15
+
+
+Casedå15-¢y-07433-
+•m•99949 en\ 910{20190819/19a9991 26 of 25
+monitoring the federal courts."29 Thus, while evidence introduced at
+trial or in connection with summary judgment enjoys a strong
+presumption of public access, documents that "play only a negligible
+role in the performance of Article III duties" are accorded only a low
+presumption that "amounts to little more than a prediction of public
+access absent a countervailing reason."30 Documents that are never
+filed with the court, but simply "passed between the parties in
+discovery, lie entirely beyond the presumption's reach. "31
+The remaining sealed materials at issue here include filings
+related to, inter alia, motions to compel testimony, to quash trial
+subpoenae, and to exclude certain deposition testimony. All such
+motions, at least on their face, call upon the court to exercise its Article
+III powers. Moreover, erroneous judicial decision-making with respect
+to such evidentiary and discovery matters can cause substantial harm.
+Such materials are therefore of value "to those monitoring the federal
+courts."32 Thus, all documents submitted in connection with, and
+relevant to, such judicial decision-making are subject to at least some
+presumption of public access.33
+29 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049.
+30 Id. at 1050.
+31 Id.
+32 Id. at 1049.
+* In previous decisions, we have identified an important exception to this
+general rule: the presumption of public access does not apply to material that is
+submitted to the court solely so that the court may decide whether that same
+16
+
+
+Casedå⅓5-¢8-87433₺AumP@94ment 87092019|ed 08199/19ageager 25 of 25
+Although a court's authority to oversee discovery and control
+the evidence introduced at trial surely constitutes an exercise of
+judicial power, we note that this authority is ancillary to the court's
+core role in adjudicating a case. Accordingly, the presumption of
+public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery
+disputes or motions in limine is generally somewhat lower than the
+presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection
+with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary
+judgment.34 Thus, while a court must still articulate specific and
+substantial reasons for sealing such material, the reasons usually need
+not be as compelling as those required to seal summary judgment
+filings.
+Here, the precise basis for the District Court's decision to deny
+the motion to unseal these remaining materials is unclear. In the three
+paragraphs devoted to the issue, the District Court emphasized the
+potential for embarrassment "given the highly sensitive nature of the
+underlying allegations," and concluded that "the documents sealed in
+the course of discovery were neither relied upon by [the District] Court
+in the rendering of an adjudication, nor necessary to or helpful in
+resolving a motion."3 It is therefore unclear whether the District Court
+held that these materials were not judicial documents (and thus are
+material must be disclosed in the discovery process or shielded by a Protective
+Order. See TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 233.
+34 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049-50.
+35
+325 F. Supp. 3d. at 442 (internal quotation marks and brackets
+omitted).
+17
+
+
+Casedå15-çy-07433-
+me₽094ment 97092015|2$ 08199/19ageRager 18, of 25
+not subject to a presumption of public access), or found that privacy
+interests outweighed a limited right of public access.
+On either interpretation, however, the District Court's holding
+was error. Insofar as the District Court held that these materials are not
+judicial documents because it did not rely on them in adjudicating a
+motion, this was legal error. As explained above, the proper inquiry is
+whether the documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial
+function, not whether they were relied upon. Indeed, decisionmakers often find that a great deal of relevant material does not
+ultimately sway their decision. And insofar as the District Court held
+that privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access in
+each of the thousands of pages at issue, that decision - which appears
+to have been made without particularized review —amounts to an
+abuse of discretion.37
+In light of the District Court's failure to conduct an
+individualized review of the sealed materials, it is necessary to do so
+now. We believe the District Court is best situated to conduct this
+review. The District Court can directly communicate with the parties,
+and can therefore more swiftly and thoroughly consider particular
+objections to unsealing specific materials. Relatedly, the District Court
+can obtain the parties' assistance in effecting any necessary redactions,
+and in notifying any outside parties whose privacy interests might be
+36 See text accompanying notes 12-18 and 26-28, ante.
+37 See In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 943 n.21 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining
+that "abuse of discretion" is a nonpejorative, legal "term of art").
+18
+
+
+Casedäbē-çВ-07433bAfımP094ment87092019|ed 08199/19agelagef 19 of 25
+implicated by the unsealing. Accordingly, we remand the cause to the
+District Court to conduct such a particularized review and unseal all
+documents for which the presumption of public access outweighs any
+countervailing privacy interests.
+D. Protecting the Integrity of Judicial Proceedings
+While we disagree with the District Court's disposition of the
+motions to unseal, we share its concern that court files might be used
+to "promote scandal arising out of unproven potentially libelous
+statements."38 We therefore describe certain methods courts can
+employ to protect the judicial process from being coopted for such
+purposes.
+The Supreme Court has explained that "[elvery court has
+supervisory power over its own records and files" to ensure they "are
+not used to gratify private spite or promote public scandal" or "serve
+as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption. "39 This
+supervisory function is not only within a district court's power, but
+also among its responsibilities.
+In practice, district courts may employ several methods to fulfill
+this function. They may, for instance, issue protective orders
+forbidding dissemination of certain material "to protect a party or
+person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue
+38฿
+325 F. Supp. 3d at 447.
+39 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (internal quotation marks).
+19
+
+
+Casedå⅓5-¢8-87433₺A₽umP@94ment 87092019|ed 08199/1®agage 20 of 25
+burden" and require that filings containing such material be submitted
+under seal.*° If parties then seek to file such materials, the court may
+deny them leave to do so.+1 District courts may also seek to counteract
+the effect of defamatory statements by explaining on the record that
+the statements appear to lack credibility. Moreover, under Federal
+Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the district court may strike such
+material from the filings on the grounds that it is "redundant,
+immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous."42 Because such rejected or
+stricken material is not "relevant to the performance of the judicial
+function" it would not be considered a "judicial document" and would
+enjoy no presumption of public access. 3 Finally, in appropriate
+40 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see also TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d at 229-30.
+* See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, February 1,
+2019
+Edition,
+Rule
+6.1,
+http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf/ECF%20Rules%20020119%20Final.pdf.
+42 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Courts may strike material from the pleadings either
+"on its own" or "on motion made by a party." Id. Although motions to strike
+naterial solely *
+mistavored lion material is that schenalus is in ect pre and im apies ar.
+Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976); see also Talbot
+v. Robert
+• Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664 (7th Cir. 1992)
+("Allegations may be stricken as scandalous if the matter bears no possible relation
+to the controversy or may cause the objecting party prejudice."); Wine Markets Int'l,
+Inc. v. Bass, 177 F.R.D. 128, 133 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ("Motions to strike are not generally
+favored, except in relation to scandalous matters."); Alvarado-Morales v. Digital
+Equip. Corp., 843 F.2d 613, 617-18 (1st Cir. 1988) (categorizing as scandalous "matter
+which impugned the character of defendants").
+43 Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145.
+20
+
+
+Casedå⅓§-¢8-87433₺A₽umP@94ment 87092019|ed 08199/19agPage 225 of 25
+circumstances, district courts may impose sanctions on attorneys and
+parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c).4
+E. A Cautionary Note
+We conclude with a note of caution to the public regarding the
+reliability of court filings such as those unsealed today.
+Materials submitted by parties to a court should be understood
+for what they are. They do not reflect the court's own findings. Rather,
+they are prepared by parties seeking to advance their own interests in
+an adversarial process. Although affidavits and depositions are
+offered "under penalty of perjury," it is in fact exceedingly rare for
+anyone to be prosecuted for perjury in a civil proceeding. 45 Similarly,
+# In relevant part, Rule 11 provides:
+By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper ... an
+attorney or unrepresented party certifies that ... it is not being presented
+for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
+needlessly increase the cost of litigation .... [T]he court may impose an
+appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the
+rule or is responsible for the violation .... The sanction may include
+nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed
+on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing
+payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and
+other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. See also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049 (describing sanctions available
+to the court).
+45 Sonia Sotomayor & Nicole A.
+•. Returning Majesty to the Law and
+Politics: A Modern Approach, 30 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 35, 47 n.52 (1996) ("Perjury cases
+are not often pursued ....").
+21
+
+
+pleadings, complaints, and briefs-while supposedly based on
+underlying evidentiary material — can be misleading. Such documents
+sometimes draw dubious inferences from already questionable
+material or present ambiguous material as definitive.
+Moreover, court filings are, in some respects, particularly
+susceptible to fraud. For while the threat of defamation actions may
+deter malicious falsehoods in standard publications, this threat is nonexistent with respect to certain court filings. This is so because, under
+New York law (which governs the underlying defamation claim here),
+"absolute immunity from liability for defamation exists for oral or
+written statements made ... in connection with a proceeding before a
+court."4 Thus, although the act of filing a document with a court might
+be thought to lend that document additional credibility, in fact,
+allegations appearing in such documents might be less credible than
+those published elsewhere.47
+# Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 718 (2015); see also Kelly v. Albarino, 485
+F.3d 664, 666 (2d Cir. 2007) (adopting the reasoning of the District Court explaining
+that this privilege is "the broadest of possible privileges"); Restatement (Second) of
+Torts § 587 (1977) ("A party to a private litigation or a private prosecutor or
+defendant in a criminal prosecution is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory
+natter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicia
+roceeding, or in the institution of or during the course and as a part of, a judicia
+proceeding in which he participates, if the matter has some relation to the
+proceeding."). But see note 47, post.
+47 While common law courts have generally interpreted the litigation privilege
+broadly, they nevertheless maintain an important (if rarely implemented)
+limitation on its scope: to qualify for the privilege, a statement must be "material
+and pertinent to the questions involved." Front, 24 N. Y.3d at 718 (quoting Youmans
+22
+
+
+Caseda15-96-87433-bAR
+972015|ed 08109/19ag Pager 23, of 25
+We have long noted that the press plays a vital role in ensuring
+the public right of access and in enhancing "the quality and safeguards
+the integrity of the factfinding process."s When faithfully observing
+its best traditions, the print and electronic media "contributes to public
+understanding of the rule of law" and "validates [its] claim of
+functioning as surrogates for the public."49
+At the same time, the media does the public a profound
+disservice when it reports on parties' allegations uncritically. We have
+previously observed that courts cannot possibly "discredit every
+statement or document turned up in the course of litigation," and we
+have criticized "the use by the media of the somewhat misleading term
+'court records' in referring to such items."50 Even ordinarily critical
+153 N.Y. 214, 219-20 (1897)). It follows, then, that immaterial and
+impertinent statements are (at least nominally) actionable, particularly when they
+are "so needlessly defamatory as to warrant the inference of express malice." Id.
+(same). It seems to us that when a district court strikes statements from the record
+pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) on the ground that the matter is "impertinent" and
+"immaterial," it makes the very same determination that permits a defamation
+action under the common law. We think the judicial system would be well served
+were our common law courts to revitalize this crucial qualification to the litigation
+privilege.
+As Westmoreland v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 23 (2d Cir. 1984)
+(quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 606
+(1982)).
+* Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572-73 (1980) (plurality
+opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted).
+50 Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1049.
+23
+
+
+Caseda15-cy-07433-bAR
+5|ed 08199/19agPage 24 of 25
+readers may take the reference to "court papers" as some sort of
+marker of reliability. This would be a mistake.
+We therefore urge the media to exercise restraint in covering
+potentially defamatory allegations, and we caution the public to read
+such accounts with discernment.
+III. CONCLUSION
+To summarize, we hold as follows:
+(1) Materials
+submitted in connection with a motion for
+summary judgment are subject to a strong presumption of
+public access.
+(2) The summary judgment record at issue will be unsealed
+upon issuance of our mandate, subject to minimal
+redactions.51
+(3) Materials submitted in connection with, and relevant to,
+discovery motions, motions in limine, and other nondispositive motions are subject to a lesser-but still
+substantial — presumption of public access.
+(4) The District Court is directed to review the remaining sealed
+materials individually and unseal those materials as
+appropriate.
+51 See note 22, ante.
+24
+
+
+(5) District courts should exercise the full range of their
+substantial powers to ensure their files do not become
+vehicles for defamation.
+For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the orders of the
+District Court entered on November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017, and August
+27, 2018, ORDER the unsealing of the summary judgment record as
+described herein, and REMAND the cause to the District Court for
+particularized review of the remaining materials.
+In undertaking this task, the District Court may be well-served
+by ordering the parties to submit to the Court unredacted, electronic
+copies of the remaining sealed materials, as well as specific, proposed
+redactions. The District Court may also order the parties to identify
+and notify additional parties whose privacy interests would likely be
+implicated by disclosure of these materials.
+In the interests of judicial economy, any future appeal in this
+matter shall be referred to this panel.
+25
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6390adb2d326a58f6e7aa1e9b387553edf570c890d18b182fd521f56c76aa4e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6390adb2d326a58f6e7aa1e9b387553edf570c890d18b182fd521f56c76aa4e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06d21e606470ea23cb33ae028e400e90bff0efc1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6390adb2d326a58f6e7aa1e9b387553edf570c890d18b182fd521f56c76aa4e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -312,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6390adb2d326a58f6e7aa1e9b387553edf570c890d18b182fd521f56c76aa4e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 31,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "02a03fcd6315b2615db691f97e0f6fb9fb11b4b0ae908d37b77b922efff38aea",
+  "output_sha256": "76188d8de708d9a00bfa239e23170e9b28b90eff28d7ed64f4197e58bbb70c48",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f639a24a12f5851981ff8619202fc6f113c1a706f47476ecc2648ae860daf8e4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f639a24a12f5851981ff8619202fc6f113c1a706f47476ecc2648ae860daf8e4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32c35c5b77c6f5c29cfb4f3fa85095ffeee87991
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f639a24a12f5851981ff8619202fc6f113c1a706f47476ecc2648ae860daf8e4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 661
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+---X
+15 Civ. 7433. (RWS)
+17. Mc. 25. (RWS)
+ORDER
+USDE SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALIY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED: 3-3-17
+Sweet, D.J.
+Motions shall be heard on the following dates:
+Thursday, March 9: Motions corresponding to ECF Nos.
+608, 637, 640, and the motion to quash in
+mc-00025.
+v. Maxwell, 17-
+Thursday, March 23: Motions corresponding to ECF Nos.
+520, 522, 524, 526, 528, 530, 533, 535, 561, 563, and 567.
+Thursday, March 30: Defendant's motion to compel filed
+March 2, 2017 and all motions filed March 3, 2017.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 661
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 2
+Wednesday,
+April 5:
+Objections
+to
+deposition
+designations.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+March 3, 2017
+Xa
+aret
+U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f639a24a12f5851981ff8619202fc6f113c1a706f47476ecc2648ae860daf8e4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f639a24a12f5851981ff8619202fc6f113c1a706f47476ecc2648ae860daf8e4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be6cd7fb47ff88f44ae8b4778448f3107ae36a2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f639a24a12f5851981ff8619202fc6f113c1a706f47476ecc2648ae860daf8e4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f639a24a12f5851981ff8619202fc6f113c1a706f47476ecc2648ae860daf8e4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d8c8024fe0a000bf5c85cf3b2584559dab67f4f7ca7d0c53e82144da18ea81c9",
+  "output_sha256": "51c88555ea5accec37e20dff1c64cfad70260d81db74fdb2b408a9f17d59a319",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f63f14676debc56d07142eb9e158efddf9c6899874dd265c35bc9768f8c364a4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f63f14676debc56d07142eb9e158efddf9c6899874dd265c35bc9768f8c364a4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f44c7647da11e122b6200680d9c6d486d7282e27
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f63f14676debc56d07142eb9e158efddf9c6899874dd265c35bc9768f8c364a4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 751-6 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f63f14676debc56d07142eb9e158efddf9c6899874dd265c35bc9768f8c364a4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f63f14676debc56d07142eb9e158efddf9c6899874dd265c35bc9768f8c364a4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..70855f69aa206c658ca0eb82092668ea1ba23907
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f63f14676debc56d07142eb9e158efddf9c6899874dd265c35bc9768f8c364a4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f63f14676debc56d07142eb9e158efddf9c6899874dd265c35bc9768f8c364a4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4b6b9907ad0a8ce47559080a4e1b5c53921492ca964f13faa2fa5116ed68486f",
+  "output_sha256": "2a5984878cf9bc1945feb945c21a276a4d72fae6e50879420c6a2ac6fd1ac86d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f655bf7172eedd5d9d059e394f7272f00f1115e927b700fbdb93fc27767718a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f655bf7172eedd5d9d059e394f7272f00f1115e927b700fbdb93fc27767718a9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb0febb4cfb5633e5ecb93a50beca9b9b5a01949
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f655bf7172eedd5d9d059e394f7272f00f1115e927b700fbdb93fc27767718a9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB |
+Document 16
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 1
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 15 Filed 07/15/19 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+July 15, 2019
+VIA ECE
+The Honorable Richard M. Berman
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+500 Pearl Street
+MEMO ENDORSED
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB)
+Dear Judge Berman:
+USUC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED:7/16/19
+The Government submits this letter respectfully to request the exclusion of speedy trial
+Very truly yours,
+GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+Alex Rossmiller / Alison Moe / Maurene Comey
+Assistant United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+Tel: (212) 637-2415 / 2225 / 2324
+Cc:
+Weinberg, Esq., and Reid Weingamen, Esq., counsel for defendant
+Application granted.
+Sace: FIElia Richard M. Beesan
+Richard M. Berman, U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f655bf7172eedd5d9d059e394f7272f00f1115e927b700fbdb93fc27767718a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f655bf7172eedd5d9d059e394f7272f00f1115e927b700fbdb93fc27767718a9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8306fba9b2c922e7cdb747842882bd8d77710a10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f655bf7172eedd5d9d059e394f7272f00f1115e927b700fbdb93fc27767718a9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f655bf7172eedd5d9d059e394f7272f00f1115e927b700fbdb93fc27767718a9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e2557ea1e722f16bf8005218676b048280cf76f6be1ebb283785afff4d1852b5",
+  "output_sha256": "b45d55c6911ff61de06d81c14b39daa4c799cd05068bdb0e9da7cefd47424c4e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6771d30b59437f2c3627900c2021ac55bae8b4d3ff0013249d3143b06aeaa49.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6771d30b59437f2c3627900c2021ac55bae8b4d3ff0013249d3143b06aeaa49.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..346011a7d580b595b14b5e390b4d7af9aa5ac1a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6771d30b59437f2c3627900c2021ac55bae8b4d3ff0013249d3143b06aeaa49.md
@@ -0,0 +1,804 @@
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 26
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MS. MAXWELL'S MOTION TO
+DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR
+PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 8020:
+hone: 303-831-736
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New
+York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+P.C.
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 26
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+TABLE OF EXHIBITS
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+INTRODUCTION
+APPLICABLE LAW
+I.
+Prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.
+II. Dead Witnesses and The Lost Testimony.
+A. Jeffrey Epstein.
+B. Paula Epstein
+C. Michael
+D. Detective
+Recarey.
+III. Lost and Missing Witnesses.
+IV. Witnesses Whose Memories Have Failed or Corrupted.
+V. Lost or Destroyed Records.
+VI. Prejudice Resulting from Prejudicial Media Reporting and Inappropriate Pre-Trial
+Publicity.
+VII. The Reckless, Tactical, or Bad Faith Delay.
+A. Abuse of the Civil Litigation Process to Gain a Tactical Advantage
+B. The government's Tactical Delay and the Civil Litigations.
+C. The Timeline Relating to the Accuser-2 Civil Litigation..
+D. Jane Doe v. Indyke, Case No. 20-cv-00484 (JGK).
+CONCLUSION
+Certificate of Service
+..i
+...ii
+iv
+1
+.. 1
+.. 4
+7
+8
+.. 8
+..9
+..9
+10
+11
+12
+12
+14
+15
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+..21
+i
+
+
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 26
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+v. Indyke, Case No. 19-cv-10475 (S.D.N.Y.)
+Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035 (1988).
+.. 17
+6
+Howell v. Barker, 904 F.2d 889 (4th Cir. 1990).
+Jane Doe v. Indyke, Case No. 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y)
+.. 6
+18
+Oregon v. Sperou, 442 P.3d 581 (Or. 2019).
+..2
+Schurman v. Leonardo, 768 F. Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
+6
+United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1977) ..
+..5
+United States v. Capone, 683 F.2d 582 (Ist Cir. 1982)
+United States v. Collamore, 751 F. Supp. 1012 (D. Me. 1990)..
+.9
+6
+United States v. Crable, No. 16-40101-01-DDC, 2017 WL 4843295 (D. Kan. Oct. 26, 2017)..... 1
+United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497 (5th Cir. 1996).
+1
+United States v. Drayton, No. 1:04CR00009, 2006 WL 758742 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2006)
+1
+United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in U.S. Currency,
+461 U.S. 555 (1983)
+United States v. Glenn, No. CR 15-99-1, 2018 WL 4091786 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2018).
+5,6
+1
+United States v. Glist, 594 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir. 1979).
+1
+United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984)..
+United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982)
+United States v.
+698 F.2d 1154, 1158 (11th Cir. 1983
+United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977).
+United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 326 (1971).
+..5
+. 3
+United States v. McNeal, No. 03 CR 80, 2006 WL 760186 (N.D. III. Mar. 20, 2006).
+..5
+5,6
+1, 4,6
+. 6
+United States v. Moran, 759 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1985).
+..6
+United States v. Sabath, 990 F. Supp. 1007 (N.D. III. 1998).
+.. 5
+ii
+
+
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 26
+United States v.
+987 F. Supp. 2d 46(S.D.N.Y. 2013)
+United States v. Scott, 579 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1978)
+United States v. Sowa, 34 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 1994).
+United States v. Valentine, 783 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1986).
+Statutes
+18 U.S.C.§ 371
+18 U.S.C.§ 1591
+18 U.S.C. § 3283
+18 U.S.C.A. § 3282
+Other Authorities
+BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1270 (6th ed.1990).
+Phyllis Goldfarb,
+, "When Judges Abandon Analogy: The Problem of Delay in Commencing
+Criminal Prosecutions," 31 WM. & Mary L. Rev. 607 (1990).
+Eli DuBosar, "Pre-Accusation Delay: An Issue Ripe for Adjudication by the United States
+Supreme Court," 40 FLA. ST. U. L. Rev. 659 (2013)
+N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214-g (McKinney 2019).....
+Rules
+Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A)(ii).
+.. 6
+. 1
+6
+6
+8
+8
+3
+• 3,4
+5
+6
+6
+14
+.. 1
+iii
+
+
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 26
+TABLE OF EXHIBITS
+EXHIBIT A:
+ExHIBIT B:
+EXHIBIT C:
+June 21, 2016 Deposition Transcript Excerpts
+June 3, 2016 Deposition Transcript Excerpts
+ExHIBIT D: Department of Justice November 2020 Office of Professional Responsibility
+Executive Summary Report
+iv
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 26
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+Ms. Maxwell brings this motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A)(ii) which requires
+that motions to dismiss an indictment for pre-indictment delay be raised by pretrial motion. She
+respectfully requests, however, leave to supplement this motion after the government provides
+her with meaningful discovery. Depending on the status of the case after the disclosure of
+meaningful discovery,
+request that the Court defer ruling on this motion until
+after any trial if the indictment has not been dismissed on other grounds. See United States v.
+Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 326 (1971) ("Events of trial may demonstrate actual prejudice."); United
+States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497, 1516 (5th Cir. 1996) (except for "compelling cases, the district
+court, rather than grant such a motion prior to trial, should carry it with the case, and make the
+determination of whether actual, substantial prejudice resulted from the improper delay in light
+of what actually transpired at trial"; affirmed); United States v. Glist, 594 F.2d 1374 (10th Cir.
+1979) (motions to dismiss for preindictment delay taken under advisement prior to trial and
+granted as to one of four counts after five days of trial).'
+INTRODUCTION
+The claims made in the Superseding Indictment (Indictment") occurred approximately
+twenty-seven years ago. The world has changed significantly during the last three decades.
+' See also, United States v. Scott, 579 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1978) (motion to dismiss two counts of
+three-count indictment denied without prejudice prior to trial, granted after close of all the evidence, jury
+acquittal on remaining count; affirmed); United States v. Crable, No. 16-40101-01-DDC, 2017 WL
+4843295, at *1 (D. Kan. Oct. 26, 2017) (defendant permitted to renew his Motion to Dismiss with
+authority supporting a renewed motion at the close of evidence); United States v. Glenn, No. CR 15-99-1,
+2018 WL 4091786, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2018) (defendant granted the opportunity to supplement his
+post-trial motions so that he could assert the issue of pre-indictment delay and renew his request for
+discovery); and United States v. Drayton, No. 1:04CR00009, 2006 WL 758742, at *1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23,
+2006), aff'd, 267 F. App'x 192 (4th Cir. 2008) (when ruling on a motion to dismiss for pre-indictment
+delay, the proper course is to reserve decision, in order to make a determination based on the actual
+evidence presented at trial).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 26
+Tragedies have been forgotten, governments replaced, wars fought. Gen Y has grown up, Gen Z
+has finished high school and college, Gen Alpha is now in elementary school.
+In 1994, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Podcasts did not exist. Few people, young or
+old, communicate today in the same manner, and the record of any communications has largely
+moved from paper files to smart phone text messages and computer files. The dissemination of
+information has also changed drastically as social and digital media platforms permit anyone to
+publish a story, true or false. Once published, the story remains accessible on the internet with
+just a few search words.
+The Epstein story is not new. As early as 1996 but at least by 2006, the government was
+aware of allegations that Mr. Epstein solicited females for sex. FBI records reflect that Accuser-
+23 was interviewed on November 14, 2006 as part of an ongoing investigation by the government
+into Epstein and others as documented in FBI case file 31-E-MM-108062-49. The 2006
+interview contained some of the allegations made in the Indictment. Investigative referrals
+appear to have been made to various FBI offices located in the same cities as those alleged in the
+Indictment.
+It was no secret that Ms. Maxwell was Mr. Epstein's employee and friend in the 1995-to-
+2000 timeframe. It also was no secret that Epstein worked out a deal with the government that
+2 According to the New York Times, in 1996
+"contacted the New York Police
+Department, and said she then went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offering to share what she
+knew about Mr. Epstein and the parade of young women being brought to Mr. Epstein's houses. " See,
+Of course, no FBI 302 has
+been produced corroborating this account.
+3 Although the Indictment refers to them as "Minor Victims" One through Three, there has been
+no finding by any court or jury that these now-adult women are in fact "victims." Use of those terms thus
+violates Ms. Maxwell's presumption of innocence, and counsel will refer to them throughout as
+"Accusers" One through Three or "Accusers." See, e.g., Oregon v. Sperou, 442 P.3d 581 (Or. 2019) (use
+of word "victim" by prosecutors and state witnesses during trial violated presumption of innocence and
+constituted improper witness vouching).
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 26
+resolved the allegations against himself and any potential co-conspirator. Faced with significant
+public pressure, the government broke that agreement and brought an indictment against Epstein,
+and only Epstein, in 2016. The charges were ultimately dismissed because Epstein died while in
+federal custody. Left with no fish to attempt to fry, the government, belatedly, turned to Ms.
+Maxwell.
+It is inexcusable that decades have passed while the government investigated Epstein,
+resolved the allegations against him by plea and non-prosecution agreements, and then changed
+course when these agreements were attacked by plaintiffs' lawyers who fueled the media fenzy.
+This dithering has allowed memories to be corrupted, conflated, and confabulated. Documents
+have been destroyed, altered, and lost. Witnesses have died, moved, and become afraid of
+discussing these matters for fear of media vilification or, as with Ms. Maxwell, tactical
+indictment by default. Meanwhile, the Epstein story continues to occupy the public's attention
+with various iterations and conflations including multiple books, podcasts, and television series
+available to alleged witnesses, posers, attention-seekers, copy-cats, and opportunists for study
+and exploitation.
+The primary guarantees against excessive preindictment delay and the prosecution of
+overly stale criminal charges are statutes of limitation for criminal offenses. United States v.
+Lawson, 683 F.2d 688, 694 (2d Cir. 1982). Ms. Maxwell has separately moved to dismiss Counts
+One through Four of the Indictment because those counts were brought after the expiration of the
+applicable statute of limitation, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282, which provides, in relevant part, that "no
+person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment
+is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been
+committed." The government will argue that a much longer statute of limitation applies to the
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 26
+charges alleged in Counts One through Four, 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which as amended in 2006,
+authorizes the prosecution of certain specific crimes during "the life of the child, or for ten years
+after the offense, whichever is longer." As a practical matter, this is tantamount to no statute of
+limitation and allows for substantial abuse by the government, particularly in a case with no
+forensic or other evidence to corroborate "she said" allegations.
+Ms. Maxwell agrees that Counts Five and Six were brought within five years of her
+deposition and therefore are within the applicable statute of limitation, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3282.
+However, as with Counts One through Four, the government's delay in charging Counts Five and
+Six resulted in substantial prejudice because the questions at issue, along with the resulting
+answers, are ill defined, ambiguous, and could relate to almost any time. The capricious
+questioning about 26-year-old claims presents the same practical problems for the defense,
+evidence that would exculpate Ms. Maxwell has been lost or destroyed.
+This Indictment should be dismissed because Counts One through Four are time barred
+and the 26-year delay in bringing the charges violates Ms. Maxwell's Fifth Amendment right to
+due process. Counts Five and Six should be dismissed for the variety of reasons as catalogued in
+other pleadings and the four-year prejudicial preindictment delay also violates due process.
+APPLICABLE LAW
+The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires dismissal of an indictment for
+delay which results in a violation of the fundamental concepts of justice or the community's
+sense of fair play and decency. To determine whether a due process violation has occurred, the
+government's reasons for the delay must be weighed against the prejudicial effects of the delay
+on the defendant. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 (1971). The showing of prejudice,
+however, does not end a preindietment delay inquiry because "proof of prejudice is generally a
+necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim ... [T]he due process inquiry must
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 26
+consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused." United States v.
+Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977); United States v.
+,. 698 F.2d 1154, 1158 (11th Cir.
+1983). A defendant's showing of prejudice triggers a "sensitive balancing of the government's
+need for an investigative delay ... against the prejudice asserted by the defendant." United States
+v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312, 1317 (5th Cir. 1977). For example, a delay caused by a good-faith
+ongoing investigation will generally not be considered a due process violation. Lovasco, 431
+U.S. at 791. Governmental delay caused by "sinister" reasons that prejudice a defendant require
+dismissal of an indictment. "Sinister" motives include using the delay to gain tactical advantage
+over the accused or as a weapon to induce a defendant's cooperation. Marion, 404 U.S. at 324.
+"Tactical" delay causing actual prejudice to a defendant violates the Due Process Clause
+of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 n. 17. A
+tactical delay is one that the government employs as a "deliberate device to gain an advantage
+over" the accused. United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 192 (1984). A due process violation
+also occurs with prosecutorial delay incurred in reckless disregard of circumstances, known to
+the prosecution, suggesting that there existed an appreciable risk that delay would impair the
+ability to mount an effective defense. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 795 n.17. The Supreme Court, in
+United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850) in U.S. Currency,
+461 U.S. 555, 563 (1983), interpreted Lovasco as holding that claims of prejudicial preindictment delay can succeed upon a showing that the government delayed seeking an
+indictment in a deliberate attempt to gain an unfair tactical advantage over the defendant or in
+reckless disregard of its probable prejudicial impact upon the defendant's ability to defend
+against the charges." '"Reckless' conduct means acting in a way that is 'indifferent to
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 26
+consequences."" United States v. Sabath, 990 F. Supp. 1007, 1018 (N.D. III. 1998) (quoting,
+BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1270 (6th ed.1990)).
+As noted by Chief Judge McMahon in United States v.
+1. 987 F. Supp. 2d 465,
+488-91 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), "[t]he Second Circuit has never specifically declined to adopt the
+Lovasco 'Footnote 17' test (as restated in Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Dollars). Nor has
+it specifically found that pre-indictment delay engendered in reckless disregard of circumstances
+that would likely impede a defendant's ability to mount a defense can never violate the Due
+Process Clause."
+Courts generally agree that (1) "tactical, reckless, or bad faith preindictment delay that
+unduly prejudices a defendant is constitutionally dubious," United States v. McNeal, No. 03 CR
+80, 2006 WL 760186, at *6 (N.D. III. Mar. 20, 2006); and (2) determinations of prejudicial
+preindictment delay are fact-specific inquiries that will turn on the unique circumstances of a
+case. See Marion, 404 U.S. at 324-25; Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 797.4
+This is that case.
+* Several Circuit Courts of Appeal interpret Marion/Lovasco as requiring a balancing test that
+1990); United States v. Sowa, 34 F.3d 447, 451 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v. Moran, 759 F.2d 777,
+782 (9th Cir. 1985). See also United States v. Collamore, 751 F. Supp. 1012, 1027 (D. Me. 1990), aff'd.
+940 F.2d 646 (Ist Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted) (holding that a defendant may show a due process
+violation based on excessive preindictment delay incurred in reckless disregard of circumstances, known
+to the prosecution, suggesting that there existed an appreciable risk that delay would impair the ability to
+mount an effective defense); and Schurman v. Leonardo, 768 F. Supp. 993, 998 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)
+(recognizing reckless disregard standard). Legal commentators have, for many years, discussed the
+Circuit split regarding the test to be applied to claims of pre-indictment delay and called for the U.S.
+Supreme Court to resolve the matter. See, e.g., Phyllis Goldfarb, "When Judges Abandon Analogy: The
+Problem of Delay in Commencing Criminal Prosecutions," 31 WM. & MARY L. REv. 607 (1990); Eli
+DuBosar, "Pre-Accusation Delay: An Issue Ripe for Adjudication by the United States Supreme Court,"
+40 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 659 (2013); see also Hoo v. United States, 484 U.S. 1035, 1036 (1988), where
+Justice
+_ noted that he would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Circuits on this
+important question of constitutional law.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 26
+I. Prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.
+As a threshold observation, the government has failed to provide discovery adequate to
+fully investigate the extent of the prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. We have not been provided with:
+• The names of the Accusers;
+• The dates of birth of the Accusers;
+• The specific location of any overt act;
+• The date of any overt act;
+• Any witness statements; or
+• Any supposed corroboration of any allegation in the Indictment.
+Like the preindictment delay, the delay in timely providing discovery is tactical and
+prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. Despite repeated requests, the government refuses to produce any
+evidence. Without knowing the who, what, when, and why of these allegations, the task of
+identifying dead and missing witnesses, percipient witness, travel records, phone records, or
+temporally relevant documents is challenging and limited by the vagueness of the claims. For
+example, the government produced part of its voluminous 2006 investigative case file
+concerning these issues. The names of the alleged witnesses, the agents who conducted the
+interviews and the agents who conducted the investigation are, however, redacted. Ms. Maxwell
+has no ability to conclusively identify these individuals much less interview them and therefore
+cannot represent to the Court whether they are alive, remember anything, or have useful
+evidence. By withholding this information, the government is purposefully preventing Ms.
+Maxwell from fully litigating this issue and presenting a defense.
+What we know, so far, however, will be sufficient to establish prejudice. Potential
+defense witnesses are dead, missing, otherwise unavailable, or unable to recall key events
+clearly. In contrast, the government will profit from the dimmed memories of witnesses with:
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 26
+(1) any inconsistency or vagary being excused by the passage of time and (2) any specific claim
+(to the extent any are forthcoming) being difficult to cross-examine because of the unavailability
+of documents or witnesses due to the passage of time.
+II. Dead Witnesses and The Lost Testimony.
+A. Jeffrey Epstein.
+Mr. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell on August 10, 2019 while awaiting trial for
+conspiracy to commit sex trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 371, and sex trafficking in
+violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 1591. The alleged range of Mr. Epstein's crimes was from 2002 to 2005.
+Mr. Epstein is the individual with whom Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have conspired and
+aided in this case. See Indictment, 99l 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 16. Had Mr. Epstein not died, he
+would have testified in any trial against Ms. Maxwell that:
+• She did not knowingly aid or facilitate any sex trafficking or transportation of
+minors as alleged in the superseding indictment;
+• She was unaware of Mr. Epstein's activities that led to his indictment when the
+activities allegedly occurred;
+• Between 1994-1997, Ms. Maxwell was not involved in any sexual act or massage
+with any minor including Accusers 1-3 as alleged in the superseding indictment;
+• Consistent with written communications with Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein would
+have testified that she
+, she should |
+that the accusers were liars and were lying about any alleged criminal acts
+attributed to Ms. Maxwell; Ex. A.
+• He believed that attorneys for many alleged accusers attempted to extort money
+from him by fomenting meritless litigation against his former employees,
+including Ms. Maxwell.
+•
+As to Ms. Maxwell,
+And, she
+Ex. A.
+Epstein's testimony would have also authenticated and provided an evidentiary
+foundation for numerous documents central to the defense in this case including travel records,
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 26
+bank records, records of payments to alleged accusers, facsimile transmissions, emails, and
+phone records. Presumably the government will argue that any reliance on Epstein testifying is
+speculative because he may have asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. See United States v. Capone, 683 F.2d 582, 589 (Ist Cir. 1982). Not so. Epstein
+was indicted in 2019. Any privilege against self-incrimination would have been lost as a result of
+his acquittal or final conviction prior to any trial in this matter.
+B. Paula Epstein.
+Paula Epstein was Jeffrey Epstein's mother. She died in April 2004. Had this prosecution
+been brought in a timely manner, Ms. Epstein would have testified that Ms. Maxwell spent
+considerable time with her while in the Palm Beach, Florida area. Ms. Epstein would have
+testified that she did not observe Ms. Maxwell with any Aceusers between 1994 and 1997. Ms.
+Epstein would have provided accurate information about Ms. Maxwell's relationship with Mr.
+Epstein, dates and times that she was with Ms. Maxwell, and presented a compelling counter to
+the specious allegations that Ms. Maxwell traveled for purposes of grooming accusers for Mr.
+Epstein. Ms. Epstein would have been able to portray Ms. Maxwell as a caring and
+compassionate human being and would have discussed the many days that the two were together.
+She would have testified that Ms. Maxwell was her caregiver when she was sick and injured.
+C. Michael
+Mr.
+died on August 9, 2017. Mr.
+was the agent of the person believed to be,
+but not identified by the government, Accuser-1. Mr.
+had knowledge about Accuser-l's
+interactions with Jeffrey Epstein and the lack of any interaction with
+were he available to testify, would establish the whereabouts of Accuser-1 during the relevant
+time periods and Ms. Maxwell's absence from those locations. Mr.
+while working with
+Accuser-1, did not relate any complaints about Ms. Maxwell to any authority, Ms. Maxwell, or
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 26
+any other known witness. Mr.
+would be able to testify about Accuser-l's behavior during
+the relevant time period, the lack of any "outcry" or "grooming" as alleged in the Indictment.
+D. Detective
+Recarey
+Detective Recarey died on May 25, 2018. He joined the Palm Beach Police Department
+in 1991 as an officer and was promoted to police detective in 1994. During his career, he worked
+in the police department's Organized Crime Vice and Narcotics Unit, the Department of Justice
+and Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Internet Crimes Against Children Unit, and the Palm
+Beach County State Attorney's Public Integrity Unit. He handled high profile cases and
+instructed law enforcement personnel and civilian members of the community about criminal and
+narcotics investigations. Throughout his career, Detective Recarey received more than 150
+commendations from the law enforcement community, including the Inaugural "Officer of the
+Year" Award by the Palm Beach Police Foundation in 2012. He was responsible for the design,
+implementation and maintenance of the security camera systems throughout the Town of Palm
+Beach.S
+Detective Recarey served as the lead detective from the Palm Beach Police Department
+charged with investigating Jeffrey Epstein. Ex. B at 10. That investigation commenced in 2005.
+Id. Recarey worked only on the Epstein case for an entire year. Id. at 274. He reviewed previous
+officers' reports and interviews, conducted numerous interviews of witnesses and alleged victims
+himself, reviewed surveillance footage of the Epstein home, participated in and had knowledge
+of the search warrant executed on the Epstein home, and testified regarding the case before the
+Florida state grand jury against Mr. Epstein. Ex. B at 212-215. Detective Recarey's investigation
+revealed that not one of the alleged Epstein victims ever mentioned Ms. Maxwell's name and she
+" See https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/local-obituaries/decorated-detective-rememberedfor-work-ethic-making-others-smile/Xn9DqgNZ544V3qx0dSbWpJ/
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 26
+was never considered a suspect. Ex. B at 10-11, 177, 180-82, 187-96, 241-42, 278. None of Mr.
+Epstein's alleged victims said they had seen Ms. Maxwell at Mr. Epstein's house, nor said they
+had been "recruited by her," nor paid any money by her, nor told what to wear or how to act by
+her. Id. Indeed, none of Mr. Epstein's alleged victims ever reported to the police they had met or
+spoken to Ms. Maxwell. Id. Maxwell was not seen coming or going from the house during the
+law enforcement surveillance of Mr. Epstein's home. Id. at 214-215. The arrest warrant did not
+mention Ms. Maxwell and her name was never mentioned before the grand jury. Id. at 203, 211.
+No property belonging to Ms. Maxwell, including "sex toys" or "child pornography," was seized
+from Mr. Epstein's home during execution of the search warrant. Id. at 257. Detective Recarey,
+when asked to describe "everything that you believe you know about Ghislaine Maxwell's
+sexual trafficking conduct," replied, "I don't." Id. at 278. He confirmed he has no knowledge
+about Ms. Maxwell sexually trafficking anybody. Id. at 278-79. Detective Recarey was the
+individual from the Palm Beach Police Department who referred the Epstein case to the FBI in
+2006.
+Detective Recarey entered Mr. Epstein's home in 2002 to install security cameras to
+catch a thief and did not observe any "child pornography" within the home, including on Mr.
+Epstein's desk in his office. Ex. B at 289-90.
+III. Lost and Missing Witnesses.
+The government alleges a three-year time frame for the allegations in the Indictment for
+acts purportedly occurring on Epstein properties in three states and another country. Had these
+charges been timely brought, Ms. Maxwell would have interviewed, and subpoenaed as
+witnesses, the many Epstein employees that were present at the different locations during that
+three-year period. None of the employees would have corroborated any of the allegations made
+in the Indictment.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 17 of 26
+IV. Witnesses Whose Memories Have Failed or Corrupted.
+Many potential witnesses have been contacted in relation to this matter and other related
+litigations. Significant numbers of potential witnesses no longer remember when events may
+have occurred, who was present, and do not have documents to refresh their memories. One
+example of the pervasive and prejudicial memory loss relates to the identity of passengers on Mr.
+Epstein's planes. Dave Rodgers was one of Mr. Epstein's pilots beginning in 1991. Mr. Rodgers
+kept flight logs, produced in civil litigation and subsequently released or leaked to the media.
+The logs contain the dates, locations of travel, and a rudimentary list of passengers, often
+identified only by gender, initials, or one name. Mr. Rodgers destroyed records prior to 1994.
+According to Mr. Rodgers, without his logs he is unable to recall who was on a particular flight.
+Ex. C at 211-212. And, even with the logs he cannot identify many of the passengers. "Maria"
+may or may not be a witness in this matter. Id. at 41. Where the logbook describes "one or two"
+females, Mr. Rodgers has no memory of who those people were. Id. at 44-45. Referring to a
+flight involving "Nadia," Mr. Rodgers testified "I'm not sure what Nadia that would be." Id. 58.
+The widespread dissemination of the flightlogs combined with the vague passenger descriptions
+has allowed any female who might have been under the age of 18 between 1994-2013 to claim
+that they were on the flight and a victim of Epstein.
+V. Lost or Destroyed Records.
+Because of the delay in this prosecution, Ms. Maxwell does not have records including
+but not limited to the following:
+1. Her own:
+• Phone records from 1994-1997;
+Emails from 1994-1997;
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 26
+• Day-Timer records from 1994-1997;
+• Tax records from 1994-1997;
+• Travel records from 1994-1997;
+• Business records from 1994-1997;
+• Credit card or ATM records - including, e.g., records of shopping trips, trips to the
+movies and;
+• Checking account records.
+2. Mr. Epstein's
+• Phone records from 1994-1997;
+• Emails from 1994-1997;
+• Day-Timer records from 1994-1997;
+• Tax records from 1994-1997;
+• Travel records from 1994-1997;
+• Business records from 1994-1997;
+• Mr. Epstein internal email "Citrix" communications; and
+• Business Records in the Palm Beach, Santa Fe, or New York area reflecting
+purchases of goods or services.
+The documentary evidence would establish that Ms. Maxwell did not travel as alleged in
+the Indictment; did not conspire with Mr. Epstein, as alleged in the Indictment, and was not
+present with either Mr. Epstein or any Accuser for significant periods of time between 1994 and
+1997. Business records associated with the property identified in the Indictment would detail
+various employees who worked at the properties during the relevant times. These individuals,
+were they to be located, would corroborate that they did not observe Ms. Maxwell behaving in
+any of the behavior alleged in the Indictment. The government has withheld any meaningful
+discovery relating to when or where any overt acts allegedly occurred. If Ms. Maxwell had this
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 26
+information, she could articulate the prejudicial loss of these records and witnesses with more
+specificity.
+VI. Prejudice Resulting from Prejudicial Media Reporting and Inappropriate
+Pre-Trial Publicity.
+Beginning in 2005 and escalating in 2011 through the present, Ms. Maxwell has been a
+potential target of a group of personal injury lawyers who made millions of dollars suing Jeffrey
+Epstein or extorting those associated with him. The playbook was relatively simple: File
+incendiary pleadings in court to avoid defamation claims; provide the pleadings and background
+information to various media organizations; obtain alleged victim's names and police reports
+from law enforcement; share information with potential claimants who hire the lawyers after
+reading or hearing the reports; file a lawsuit against Mr. Epstein; get money from Mr. Epstein or
+associates to settle; repeat. Once Mr. Epstein had settled all of these claims against himself and
+the other individuals alleged to have been involved, a new play was necessary - try to invalidate
+the NPA; and at the same time drum up litigation against Maxwell with the expectation that
+either Mr. Epstein would settle any new litigation to avoid being dragged into yet another case
+that would further tarnish the reputation he was trying to rebuild or result in money directly from
+Ms. Maxwell.
+From 2011 to 2019, Ms. Maxwell was the subject of millions of media stories, posts,
+blogs, podcasts, and comments that simply republished the same allegations that she correctly
+identified as "obvious lies" in 2015. Once New York passed L. 2019, ch. 11, known as the Child
+Victims Act, the door was open to claimants who wanted to take advantage of Mr. Epstein's
+vulnerability to file new lawsuits on stale allegations. At that point it easy to make copycat
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 20 of 26
+claims about Ms. Maxwell because of the passage of time.' A review of the media coverage of
+the Epstein story reflects an unwarranted transformation of Ms. Maxwell from Epstein friend to
+Epstein conspirator. This re-casting by the media has no basis in fact but is the cumulative effect
+of publishing or republishing untrue assertations about Ms. Maxwell.
+Had the government brought any charges against Ms. Maxwell in 1996-2011 it (a) would
+have not prevailed and (b) none of the accusers would have been able to conform their
+"memories" to the often republished "obvious lies."
+VII. The Reckless, Tactical, or Bad Faith Delay.
+There is no legitimate justification for the extraordinary delay associated with this
+prosecution. Tactical, reckless, and bad faith motives can reasonably be inferred from the way
+the government has ignored evidence, delayed any prosecution, enlisted partisan lawyers to do
+its bidding, circumvented established precedent to illegally obtain evidence, and misleadingly
+quoting banal testimony so that it could be labeled "perjury." And, after having done so,
+prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial by improper extrajudicial statements.
+A. Abuse of the Civil Litigation Process to Gain a Tactical Advantage.
+As detailed in Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Suppress all
+Evidence Obtained from the government's Subpoena to
+and to Dismiss Counts
+Five and Six, Ms. Maxwell was involved in lengthy, intrusive, and contentious litigation with
+" A simple Google search for the name "Ghislaine Maxwell" on January 13, 2021 yielded 5,140,000 results in 0.56
+seconds. Stories about Ms. Maxwell abound. Flight logs, complaints, deposition transcripts, and false accounts have
+been published and republished.
+ghislaine maxwell
+Q All
+@ News • Images • Videos
+About 5,140,000 results (0.56 seconds)
+• Books
+: More
+Settings
+Tools
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 21 of 26
+plaintiff,
+During the course of that litigation, in 2016,
+lawyers
+made overtures to the government seeking an indictment against Ms. Maxwell. At the same time,
+these lawyers were engaged in ongoing efforts to void the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement
+in litigation that was initiated in 2008. The government was the defendant and had actual notice
+of the claims made by
+her lawyers, and other Does about the allegations made in
+this criminal matter.? The Assistant U.S. Attorney's statements to
+cannot be reconciled with the
+facts, many of which are detailed in the Office of Professional Responsibility Report concerning
+the government's "2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein" Ex. D and the
+volumes of pleadings filed in the CVRA litigation. Ms. Maxwell was known to the government
+for at least 10 years prior to the AUSA's ex parte communication with
+B. The government's Tactical Delay and the Civil Litigations.
+The
+v. Maxwell defamation action has been in litigation for over five years. It has
+been advantageous to the government to have aggressive lawyers collecting information from
+Ms. Maxwell as part of civil discovery and disseminating that information to the public, as part
+of an ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell. Using a friendly, ex-parte,
+the government obtained
+The
+government has not, even after indicting Ms. Maxwell, moved to stay these civil proceedings.
+Instead, the government has used these lawyers to do their work, both in front of, and behind, the
+stage. These lawyers have made multiple, inappropriate, and prejudicial extrajudicial comments
+with no public rebuke from the government. The document unsealing process goes on, most
+^ https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-
+jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 22 of 26
+recently attracting approximately 1,000 prurient listeners, some of whom illegally broadcast the
+proceedings on YouTube.® The effect of all of this on a potential juror is not lost on the
+government and it has been to its tactical advantage to allow as much negative press as possible,
+fomented by Government shills.
+C. The Timeline Relating to the Accuser-2 Civil Litigation.
+In the civil matter,
+v. Indyke, Case No. 19-cv-10475 (LGS), plaintiff
+(presumed Accuser- 2) discussed in the Indictment, was represented by the same
+attorneys, David Boies and Sigrid McCawley of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ("BSF") who
+also represented
+in her defamation action. Shortly after counsel's
+appearance on behalf of Ms. Maxwell on March 4, 2020, BSF served on Ms. Maxwell a Notice
+of Deposition for April 29, 2020, without ever having conferred with counsel for available dates.
+Later, BSF amended their notice of deposition to May 18, or offered dates of May 21, 26, 27 and
+28** (and demanded an in-person deposition despite the raging COVID pandemic in New York).
+Ms. Maxwell filed a Letter Motion on May 13, 2020, requesting a stay of discovery in the case
+due, in part, to the U.S. Attorney's Southern District of New York's announcements of its
+"ongoing" criminal investigation into alleged Epstein "co-conspirators," presumed to include
+Ms. Maxwell. Id., Dkt. 68. In his response opposing the stay of discovery, Mr. Boies represented
+to the court that "Maxwell has provided no information about the subject matter of the criminal
+investigation into Mr. Epstein's co-conspirators, the status of the investigation, or even disclosed
+whether she herself is a target of the Southern District's investigation." Id., Dkt. 72. At the time
+he wrote that statement, Mr. Boies knew, and Ms. Maxwell and her counsel did not, that his
+client, plaintiff
+was herself participating in efforts to criminally prosecute Ms.
+" See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/19/ghislaine-maxwell-court-proceedingganon.
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 23 of 26
+Maxwell. Indeed, BSF attorneys had met with the Southern District of New York's USAO at
+least once (and likely twice) in 2016, urging that office to prosecute Ms. Maxwell.
+collected in the
+met with the
+civil litigation. Discovery in this case has not revealed when
+prosecutors, but it is fair to assume that as of April 2020, she had done so.
+The Motion to Stay was heard on May 22, 2020 by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman. Id.,
+Dkt. 80. During that phone conference, Judge Freeman ruled that a temporary stay was justified
+as to discovery from Ms. Maxwell due to the ongoing criminal investigation. Id. She ruled that
+no deposition nor interrogatories could be sought from her for the foreseeable future, but that
+other discovery could proceed. Id. A short time later, on June 19, BSF reversed its position.
+Recognizing it could not provide further discovery to the government from Ms. Maxwell through
+a deposition in the
+case, BSF then said it did wish to have the case stayed in its entirety
+while plaintiff participated in the Epstein payment program. Id., Dkt. 84. The Court granted that
+motion on June 22, 2020. Id., Dkt. 85. The Sealed Indictment in this matter was returned one
+week later, on June 29 and unsealed on July 2. Id., Dkt. 1.
+The government has not provided Ms. Maxwell with discovery regarding its
+communications with BSF. The timing of the partial stay and the reversal of the previous
+aggressive posture by BSF cannot be mere coincidence.
+D. Jane Doe v. Indyke, Case No. 20-ev-00484 (JGK).
+This action was brought against the Estate of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell by civil
+complaint, filed in this district on January 22, 2020. Ms. Maxwell surmises, but does not know,
+that the Jane Doe in this matter is so called Accuser-1.
+When it became clear that Ms. Maxwell (having been indicted) would exercise her Fifth
+Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination and it was therefore in the government's tactical
+18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 24 of 26
+interest to stop what would have been a one-way discovery process in favor of Ms. Maxwell, the
+government moved to intervene, representing to Magistrate Judge Freeman, among other things,
+that:
+• "should discovery in civil action go forward, multiple witnesses or potential
+witnesses at the criminal trial would be subject to deposition"
+• "any concern regarding the potential delay of this civil suit is outweighed by the
+concern that Maxwell would seek to assert her Fifth Amendment rights rather
+than submit to a deposition in the civil action, and that depositions of other
+witnesses could potentially interfere with the criminal prosecution"
+• "permitting any discovery to proceed in this lawsuit would enable Maxwell to
+seek a preview of trial testimony in the criminal case, and would afford her with a
+broader array of discovery than she is entitled to in the criminal case"
+• "a complaint concerning sexual abuse of minors by Epstein and Maxwell will
+inevitably implicate documents, witnesses, and other evidence that overlaps with
+the criminal matter, whether or not the plaintiff in this action—or the conduct she
+alleges—has any direct connection to the charges in the Indictment"
+Case No. 20-cv-484, Dkt. 80.
+These admissions make clear that the government was aware of the substantial overlap
+between the allegations it investigated more than a decade before this Indictment. The sharp
+contrast between the government's actions in this Jane Doe civil matter, and the Annie Farmer
+civil matter, the
+matter, and the
+matter also establish a strong inference that as
+long as the government stood to gain a tactical advantage by delaying the indictment (the soughtafter deposition in the Farmer civil litigation), it would not move to intervene. However, where
+the government's tactical advantage was lost or threatened (Jane Doe) it would shut the case
+down.
+CONCLUSION
+Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court dismiss the Indictment because of the prejudicial
+and tactical delay by the government in prosecuting this case.
+19
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 25 of 26
+Dated: January 25, 2021
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+20
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 138 Filed 02/04/21 Page 26 of 26
+Certificate of Service
+I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, I served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
+Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Memorandum of Law in Support of Ms.
+Maxwell's Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Six of the Superseding Indictment for Pre-
+Indictment Delay upon the following:
+Alison Moe
+Maurene Comey
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Lara Pomerantz
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Alison.moe @usdoj.gov
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach @usdoj.gov
+Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov
+s/ Christian R. Everdell
+21
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6771d30b59437f2c3627900c2021ac55bae8b4d3ff0013249d3143b06aeaa49.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6771d30b59437f2c3627900c2021ac55bae8b4d3ff0013249d3143b06aeaa49.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27d4a8d959ca45cf4a3117ae89a1539a484763ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6771d30b59437f2c3627900c2021ac55bae8b4d3ff0013249d3143b06aeaa49.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -503,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6771d30b59437f2c3627900c2021ac55bae8b4d3ff0013249d3143b06aeaa49",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 32,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4aebe97884a085afc7a8d97ca071f31fd1c2f22078cb4b8118096a4419f28c65",
+  "output_sha256": "ffd0eac16220b0f9b730c29ad78ae8f3ea8bf3e112e00e1f384897fd3decce4c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6887f121fd49ee98e5577edddb62a1c0e804e41d61e8775e406be27a9383638.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6887f121fd49ee98e5577edddb62a1c0e804e41d61e8775e406be27a9383638.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..95b42bbe1e1b20490380ded74d70584f1b0217c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6887f121fd49ee98e5577edddb62a1c0e804e41d61e8775e406be27a9383638.md
@@ -0,0 +1,306 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 l
+Filed 04/27/18 Page 1 of 11
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+-----
+Ms. Maxwell's Response to Miami Herald's Motion to Unseal
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+L. P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 2 of 11
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, submits this Response to the Miami
+Herald's motion to intervene and make public all documents filed under seal or redacted
+(Docs.935-936).
+INTRODUCTION
+The Miami Herald is late to this closed case. It seeks to intervene in a case that was
+resolved more than a year ago. And it seeks post facto to examine a relatively few sealed and
+redacted documents submitted among more than 900 court filings. That is only the beginning of
+the extraordinary nature of its request.
+Then there is the Miami Herald's blithe disregard of the Court's compelling reasons for
+permitting the parties to seal materials. This case involved plaintiff's claim she had been
+"forced" to be a "child" "sex slave" for a long list of prominent men. She accused Ms. Maxwell
+of helping to enslave her and, when Ms. Maxwell denied plaintiff's gratuitously salacious
+allegations, sued her for "defamation." During the course of discovery the parties produced or
+obtained significant information about plaintiff's alleged sex activities involving dozens of
+nonparties. While there was no trial and therefore no factual findings, the defense believed its
+investigation and the discovery significantly undermined, if not disproved, a large number of
+plaintiff's sex allegations. Regardless, the case ended with a truce under which neither side had
+an opportunity to marshal the evidence in her favor to prove her case or to disprove her
+opponent's case. Into this truce the Miami Herald wishes to enter to selectively pick through the
+most salacious, sensitive and prurient information.
+It does not ennoble the Miami Herald's desire to view dozens of pages of sex-related
+documents and salacious information by characterizing its request to make this material public as
+a pursuit of "investigative journalism." The alleged acts of sex and sexual activities and the
+identity of nonparty-participants in these activities require no "investigation" by a newspaper,
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 3 of 11
+and their disclosure serves no legitimate goal of journalism, certainly not the kind the Miami
+Herald claims to practice. Indeed none of the descriptions of alleged sexual activities or
+unsupported claims of sex with nonparties would be relevant to the Herald's claimed
+investigation of a "cross-border sex-trafficking ring," Mot. to Unseal, at 3.
+FACTS
+Plaintiff set the stage for discovery by making in her complaint a series of salacious and
+provocative allegations gratuitous to her defamation claim. She alleged she was the "victim of
+sexual trafficking and abuse while she was a minor child" and that Ms. Maxwell "facilitated"
+plaintiff's sexual abuse and "wrongfully" subjected plaintiff to "public ridicule, contempt and
+disgrace" by denying plaintiff's allegations. She alleged that over the course of a decade she had
+been sexually abused at "numerous locations" around the world with prominent and politically
+powerful men. As it turned out to be typical with the plaintiff, she omitted details of her dozens
+or hundreds of alleged sexual encounters with these prominent and powerful men. That, she
+suggested, was left to discovery by Ms. Maxwell under the rules of civil procedure.
+As this Court is aware, the parties early on disagreed on the discoverability of certain
+information. For example, plaintiff requested discovery of all Ms. Maxwell's sexual activities.
+Ultimately the Court created the boundaries of discoverable matters and at the parties' request
+entered a protective order that allowed the parties to provide discovery on highly private and
+sensitive subjects that could not be disclosed to the public without a further order of this Court.
+The Protective Order "provided confidentiality for information the parties determine would
+*improperly annoy, embarrass or oppress any party, witness or person providing discovery in this
+case."*
+v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, 2017 WL 1787934, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017)
+(quoting Doc.62, at 1).
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 4 of 11
+As the Court also is aware, the parties brought within the Protective Order numerous
+documents and information—from parties and third parties—that on their face qualify for the
+most robust protection afforded by Rule 26(c). For example, many of the documents and much
+of the information designated confidential included a wide range of allegations of sexual acts
+involving plaintiff and nonparties to this litigation, the identities of nonparties who either
+allegedly engaged in sexual acts with plaintiff or who allegedly helped facilitate the acts,
+plaintiff's sexual history and prior allegations of sexual assault, and her medical history. This is
+why the Court noted the last time a media representative sought unsealing in May 2017: "This
+Court has, three times, found the issues presented in the action warrant a Protective Order, and
+has specifically expressed concern for its ongoing efficacy." Id. at *2.
+The Miami Herald has identified no change in the circumstances from the Court's 2017
+ruling. Indeed the only change in circumstance is that shortly after the Court's remark the case
+was settled and has remained dormant until now.
+ARGUMENT
+The Miami Herald has failed to establish that any sealed document should be unsealed.
+Standard of review. There are two authorities for a request to unseal sealed materials.
+Neither is unlimited; both require the exercise of this Court's discretion. One is the common law
+right of public access to judicial documents; the other is the "qualified First Amendment right ...
+to access certain judicial documents." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-
+20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Miami Herald asserts both in support of its request that this Court
+indiscriminately unseal and make public everything that it "three times," |
+2017 WL
+1787934, at *2, found warranted sealing under its Protective Order. Neither supports the relief
+requested.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 5 of 11
+Before the common law right of access can attach, "a court must first conclude that the
+documents at issue are ... "judicial documents."" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. "IT]he mere filing
+of a paper or document with the court" does not convert the paper into a judicial document. A
+judicial document is a paper filed with the court that "must be relevant to the performance of the
+judicial function and useful in the judicial process." Id.
+Upon a finding that a paper is a judicial document, the common law "presumption of
+access" attaches. Id. The court must then determine the weight of that presumption; that
+determination is "governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III
+judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal
+courts." Id. The information generally will fall somewhere on a continuum from matters that
+directly affect an adjudication to matters that come within a court's purview solely to ensure
+their irrelevance. Id. Finally, after deciding the weight of the presumption, the court must balance
+that weight against the weight of the "countervailing factors," including "the privacy interests of
+those resisting disclosure." Id. at 120.
+The Second Circuit has established two approaches for determining whether the public
+and press have a qualified First Amendment right to access certain judicial documents. The
+"experience and logic" approach requires the court to consider whether the documents
+historically have been open to the press and public and whether public access "plays a significant
+positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Id. (emphasis supplied).
+The second approach considers the extent to which the judicial documents are derived from or
+are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant proceedings. Id. Even if such a
+qualified right is found as to a particular judicial document, the document may remain sealed
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 6 of 11
+upon specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and is
+narrowly tailored to achieve that aim. Id. at 124.
+Discussion. Without knowing the contents of any of the sealed documents, the Miami
+Herald says it wants every sealed document unsealed and made public. Mot. to Unseal, at 16. Yet
+the Miami Herald readily acknowledges that it is not entitled to any unsealing relief unless it can
+establish, for example under the common law-right analysis, that each document it seeks to
+unseal is a judicial document and that the weight of presumption afforded to that document
+outweighs the countervailing factors supporting sealing. Similarly with regard to the qualified
+First Amendment-right analysis, it acknowledges its motion should be denied unless it has
+established the right attaches to a particular sealed document and that, for example, public access
+to that sealed document plays "a significant positive role" in the functioning of the particular
+judicial process in question, that is, the judicial process in which the document was relevant.
+To begin with, many of the sealed documents identified by the Miami Herald, see id. at
+11-13, are not documents relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the
+judicial process," Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. They are not judicial documents. As an example,
+although the Miami Herald plants its flag squarely on the summary judgment papers, it is not a
+foregone conclusion that every paper attached to a summary judgment paper must be a judicial
+document. See, e.g., id. at 122 (indicating that presumption of access applies to document
+submitted to court in adjudicatory proceeding so long as document is "relevant" to that
+proceeding). Exhibit I, cited in Ms. Maxwell's motion for summary judgment, is plaintiff's
+supplemental discovery response; among other things it included a list of her health care
+providers for a period of years and referenced numerous pages of medical records. Such
+personal, confidential and sensitive medical information would militate against its designation as
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 7 of 11
+a judicial document, since that information did not bear on the summary judgment issues. As
+another example, Exhibit M to the summary judgment motion was plaintiff's passport
+application from 2001; it contains sensitive and confidential information. We relied on the
+exhibit for collateral purposes, e.g., establishing plaintiff's location or employment status. It
+hardly qualifies as a judicial document. See, e.g., id. at 121 ("At the low end of the continuum,
+where testimony or documents play only a negligible role in the performance of Article III
+duties, the weight of the presumption is low and amounts to little more than a prediction of
+public access absent a countervailing reason.") (internal quotations and brackets omitted).
+More examples are unnecessary, since the Miami Herald fails to conduct any "judicial
+document" analysis of its own. Its categorical—and conclusory—statement "[a]ll of the
+documents that the Miami Herald seeks to unseal ... qualify as judicial documents,"" Mot. to
+Unseal, at 11, does not qualify as an analysis.
+At the risk of stating the obvious, the Miami Herald has no hope of carrying its burden of
+unsealing every sealed document. Because it has not seen each document it has no ability to
+assess whether a particular document is a judicial document, if so what weight should be
+assigned to the presumption attached to it, and how that weight should be balanced against the
+privacy interests supporting nondisclosure. That is to say, it cannot perform the unsealing
+analysis the Second Circuit requires.
+For the same reason, this problem of proof extends to whatever qualified First
+Amendment right the Miami Herald might have. In fact, although the Herald claims the qualified
+presumption of access under the First Amendment "is even stronger," id., in a case like this the
+opposite is true. This is a defamation case which plaintiff's counsel candidly said in open court
+she intended to litigate as a sexual-assault case. The defense strenuously objected to this
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 8 of 11
+approach. We urged the court to limit significantly the introduction of salacious and gratuitous
+sex evidence that we said was entirely irrelevant to the question of defamation and was intended
+to garner sympathy from and prejudice the jury against Ms. Maxwell. The case was settled
+before the Court decided the question to what extent plaintiff's evidentiary presentation should
+be limited. In this context, the Miami Herald cannot demonstrate that the sealed sex documents
+historically would have been open to the press and public and that public access to these
+document would "playl] a significant positive role in the functioning," Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120,
+of the judicial process. No one knows, because the case was settled. Even if the Herald could
+make that showing, this Court nonetheless may "continue|] sealing ... the documents" after
+making specific findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values. See id. at 124.
+The Court's Lugosch analysis should take into account two additional factors. One is the
+Miami Herald's inexplicable and unjustified delay in seeking relief from the Protective Order.
+The newspaper admits it was well aware of Mr. Epstein, plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell "[flor over
+three years," Mot. to Unseal, at 2, and knew of the existence of this action from its
+commencement, see id. While the Herald has cited cases suggesting there is no hard deadline for
+a "journalistic request for access to documents," id. at 8, the facts in the cases it cites bear no
+resemblance to the facts here: Salacious and uncorroborated allegations of sex with numerous
+prominent men that never were adjudicated, that were irrelevant to the elements of a defamation
+claim, and that were subject to exclusion by the Court's pretrial rulings. Delay by a nonparty
+seeking unsealing bears on the Lugosch factors. For example, that it took an unseal movant a
+year after a case was resolved without an adjudication must be relevant to (a) whether public
+access to a particular document "plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the
+particular [judicial] process," Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120; and (b) the weight that should be
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 9 of 11
+assigned to the presumption of access to a document because of the document's role "in the
+exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those
+monitoring the federal courts," id. at 119. It hardly need be said that an unsealed judicial
+document one year after a nonadjudicatory settlement of a case should not carry the same weight
+it had when the case was pending before an Article III judge.
+The second factor the Court should consider is the parties' and the nonparties' reliance on
+the privacy and confidentiality afforded them by the Protective Order and this Court's repeated
+rulings reaffirming the sanctity and importance of the Order. The Protective Order authorized the
+parties to designate as "confidential" any information that met Rule 26(c)'s standards; once so
+designated the information could only be disclosed to nonparties if the nonparties also received a
+copy of the Protective Order and agreed to be bound by it. See Doc.39-1 at 5-6. Under the order
+only the parties had the authority to challenge the confidentiality of a designation. The parties did
+not challenge the designations of any of the documents at issue in the Miami Herald's motion. It
+would be unfair and highly prejudicial to the parties to grant the relief sought by the Herald, a
+nonparty, namely, removing the confidentiality designations on documents upon which the
+parties were relying to protect their privacy and confidential and sensitive information.
+In SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2d Cir. 2001), the Second Circuit reaffirmed
+its holding in Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979), that there is "a
+general and strong presumption against access to documents sealed under [a] protective order
+when there was reasonable reliance upon such an order." However, the court noted, judicial
+documents nonetheless "deserve a presumption in favor of access." 273 F.3d at 231 (italics
+omitted).
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 10 of 11
+Five years later, the Second Circuit in Lugosch had an opportunity to revisit the effect of
+a party's reliance on a protective order. The order at issue in Lugosch provided, "This
+Confidentiality Order shall not prevent anyone from applying to the Court for relief therefrom."
+435 F.3d at 126 (emphasis supplied). The Second Circuit relied exclusively on this language to
+reject the Lugosch defendants' argument that they had relied on the confidentiality order when
+disclosing sensitive and private information. See id. The reliance, the court held, was not justified
+because of the presence of the language authorizing nonparties to challenge the parties
+confidentiality designations. The Second Circuit's use of that language to reject the defendants'
+argument in Lugosch suggests that, in a different case in which the parties' reliance on a
+protective order was reasonable, it would be improper to permit a nonparty to upset the parties'
+reliance on a protective order and cause private and sensitive documents to be unsealed and
+made public post facto. If this was not the Second Circuit's message it simply would have
+dismissed the Lugosch defendants' reliance argument by holding that any reliance on a
+Rule 26(c) protective order is unreasonable as a matter of law because any nonmovant at any
+time-during the pendency of a case, or years after-
+—may move to unseal any document subject
+to a protective order. We note that the Miami Herald's late-by-a-year motion underscores the
+unfairness of upsetting the parties' justifiable reliance that the Protective Order would maintain
+the privacy of the Confidential-designated documents.
+CONCLUSION
+For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the motion to unseal.
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 944 Filed 04/27/18 Page 11 of 11
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on April 27, 2018, I electronically served this Response to Miami Herald's
+Motion to Unseal via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+Stant singer a 10590
+1. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Is/ Holly Rogers
+Holly Rogers
+10
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6887f121fd49ee98e5577edddb62a1c0e804e41d61e8775e406be27a9383638.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6887f121fd49ee98e5577edddb62a1c0e804e41d61e8775e406be27a9383638.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7ff8a928908383589d1385c25e4ca3d1a69993f7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6887f121fd49ee98e5577edddb62a1c0e804e41d61e8775e406be27a9383638.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -132,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6887f121fd49ee98e5577edddb62a1c0e804e41d61e8775e406be27a9383638",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 11,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3e3c9edda40f3591bc34e8ffc7105cbfc48064ed2560df5186d62f32cfd7e49e",
+  "output_sha256": "3619ebeb94ddf4912ae280a9e9dfde1ef31b49f631c6e3a06ab1d15211b0c0a0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6a775364196df5eddbaebe6dc712b44d7fa48246a133edadda63d4a6853da7e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6a775364196df5eddbaebe6dc712b44d7fa48246a133edadda63d4a6853da7e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..74910d6db05fc2ee6a920fe42827cefa933da5cb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6a775364196df5eddbaebe6dc712b44d7fa48246a133edadda63d4a6853da7e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,984 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529
+Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 18
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- x
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+20-Cr-330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+Conference
+-x
+New York, N.Y.
+November 15, 2021
+9:40 a.m.
+Before:
+HON. ALISON J. NATHAN
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+BY: MAURENE COMEY
+ALISON MOE
+LARA POMERANIZ
+ANDREW ROHRBACH
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+HADDON •
+• AND M
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA
+CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL
+LAURA A. MENNINGER
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Attorney for Defendant
+Also Present: Sunni Drescher
+Paralegal, U.S. Attorney's Office
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 18 2
+THE DEPUTY CLERK: The Honorable Alison J. Nathan is
+now presiding.
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 CR 330.
+Counsel, please state your name for the record.
+MS. COMEY: Good morning. Maurene Comey, Andrew
+Rohrbach, Lara Pomerantz, and Alison Moe for the government.
+Joining us is paralegal specialist Sunni Drescher.
+THE COURT: Thank you. And for the defendant?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Good morning, Judge Nathan. Bobbi C.
+Sternheim appearing for Ghislaine Maxwell, present at counsel
+table, along with Christian Everdell, Laura Menninger, and Jeff
+Pagliuca.
+THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.
+We're here for a pretrial conference in this matter.
+My primary purpose of today's conference is to go over the
+logistics of the voir dire that will begin tomorrow and
+finalize the list of prospective jurors who will return for
+voir dire, or at least we will ask to return for voir dire.
+I want to start with the list of jurors first. And
+just by background, the jury department conducted five sessions
+of questionnaires over the course of November 4, 5, and 12.
+As instructed, the parties conferred and I received
+your list for each of these days. One, prospective jurors both
+sides agreed should proceed to voir dire; two, prospective
+jurors that both sides agreed should be excused or struck for
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 18
+3
+LBFЗМАXC
+cause; three, prospective jurors that the defense but not the
+government believes should be excused; and four, prospective
+jurors that the government but not the defense believe should
+be excused.
+And so that produced, putting those together for the
+days, we had those four lists. My
+sent the parties,
+just so you had an opportunity to review them before today, a
+list of 13 additional prospective jurors that were on the
+parties' agreed to proceed to voir dire list, that when I
+looked at, thought should be considered for excusing and I had
+13 juror numbers on that list.
+I understand the government didn't object to striking
+those prospective jurors, but the defense objected to striking
+four of them. So from my perspective, we'll keep those four on
+the list for whom the parties agree should proceed to voir
+dire.
+So, subtracting those out from the ones that the Court
+sent, we would move the following onto the agreed to not return
+list: 23, 114, 215, 257, 338, 420, 422, 542 and 561.
+And then I also received in that letter or e-mail that
+the defense wishes to modify its previous strikes, it indicated
+it wanted to move three from the agreed to proceed to voir dire
+list to the defense objects to proceeding to voir dire list.
+One of them, by my count, was already on the agreed to
+strike. That was number 92. So the two new ones that the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 529 Filed 12/08/21 Page 4 of 18
+4
+LBFЗМАXC
+defense now wants to include in its the defense objects but the
+government doesn't is 226 and 404.
+Is that right, Ms. Menninger.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: We'll move those two out of the agreed to
+list and into the list of those for whom the defense objects
+but the government doesn't.
+Okay? Everybody understand where we are?
+So, by my count then, making those changes, we have
+231 prospective jurors for whom we agree should be called back
+for voir dire. I believe that's a sufficient number to get to
+the number of jurors that we need, so that's the list of jurors
+that we will proceed to call back.
+The way we're going to do it is we are going to aim
+for 50 jurors a day, a morning session and afternoon session,
+so we're breaking it so people aren't sitting around all day.
+We'll direct a certain number to come in the morning, a certain
+number to come in the afternoon. We'll get into the specifio
+logistics in a moment. But, that list of 231, my assumption is
+that that will get us to the 50 to 60 qualified that I'm
+planning on.
+We have produced a list of those numbers with the
+changes that I just noted, so the parties' agreed list with the
+changes that I've just noted, so that gets us to the 231. I'1l
+ask my law clerk to hand that list out to both sides. And
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 529 Filed 12/08/21 Page 5 of 18
+LBFЗМАXC
+5
+we're also handing out the names that correspond to the juror
+numbers, approximately 24 hours in advance of when voir dire
+even begins. My experience is attorneys get that list
+simultaneous with the beginning of voir dire. Here you get it
+24 hours in advance, and of course two weeks before the
+exercise of peremptories.
+So, we'll mark the juror number list that we've agreed
+that we are calling back as a court exhibit, we'll call that
+Court Exhibit 1 and mark it.
+Let me ask counsel if you have any questions about
+what I've just described.
+MS. COMEY: Not from the government, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: Not for us, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Very well.
+Moving to the specific logistics of voir dire. We'll
+meet at 8:30 each day beginning tomorrow in this courtroom,
+518. As I explained when we first began discussing this at the
+October 21 conference, each panel of jurors will be held in a
+separate courtroom. They will watch the video remarks that I
+shared with you and we agreed upon and I recorded the video.
+They'11 be shown those video remarks, and then they will be
+brought in here one at a time. And my hope is that we can get
+the jurors, the morning panel jurors checked in and ready to go
+so we can start at 9 a.m. with the first jurors.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Filed 12/08/21 Page 6 of 18
+6
+I anticipate that we'll break for lunch at 1 p.m., and
+then start with the afternoon panel at 2 p.m.
+We're going to be directing each panel to come back in
+accordance with that schedule. I do anticipate stopping at
+5 o'clock each day.
+When they are here for their individual questioning,
+they are going to be seated there in the witness box in the
+seat, is my anticipation, with a microphone. And we will do
+the questioning in the public courtroom, with the exception of
+if the juror has indicated on their questionnaire that they
+request a specific answer to remain confidential, because it
+would be embarrassing or otherwise concerning for them, which
+we did in order to encourage full disclosure and openness and
+ultimately to get a fair and impartial jury, to the extent we
+need to discuss those questions with any jurors, we will do
+that at sidebar. And my anticipation is we'll seal that
+portion of the transcript, to the extent it discusses that
+private information that the juror has asked to remain
+confidential.
+I think just looking at the questionnaires, that
+shouldn't happen too frequently. And otherwise the voir dire
+will take place in public.
+Next, we'll move thoroughly but efficiently through
+the process to make sure that we can get through it in the time
+that we have. I've given you an outline of what I will intend
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Filed 12/08/21 Page 7 of 18
+7
+to go back over in the voir dire and inquire about. I'm not
+going to stick to that script exactly, I'm going to have a
+conversation with the jurors, but you know what I'm going to
+ask about.
+With respect to individual places and entities, the
+parties submitted that list to the Court last night, and what
+we'll do is the list, as we've discussed, contains the name of
+witnesses who I've permitted to testify under pseudonyms.
+So
+we've rearranged that list so it's by letter or number, we'll
+show the list to the prospective juror, ask them to read the
+names, do they recognize any of those names, and if so, to
+indicate what letter. If they indicate the letter of a witness
+who has been granted permission to testify under pseudonym,
+we'll discuss at sidebar and presumably sealed, so as not to
+identify that witness. The rest, to the extent a juror has
+knowledge of anyone on the list, it can be discussed in open
+court. Same for the list of entities.
+There's one inclusion on the list, I think just one,
+which is a specific employer name that I've indicated would not
+be discussed in open court because that would undermine the
+protection for the witness who has been granted permission to
+proceed by pseudonym.
+We'll bracket that for a moment. I want to discuss
+with the parties how I intend to handle that. But to the
+extent that might include discussing the specific employer,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+
+8
+well take that up at sidebar in a moment. And as I said, only
+if the jurors indicated a specific wish to speak not in public
+because the answer would embarrass them or otherwise seriously
+compromise their privacy, other than that, we'll proceed in
+open court. But with respect to those, I'm doing that to
+ensure juror candor and honesty and ultimately ensure the
+selection of a fair and impartial jury.
+Process-wise, during the questioning, as the juror is
+answering my questions in the voir dire, if I think a juror
+answers in a way that would require striking for cause, I'1l
+ask counsel whether they have any objection. Meaning do you
+have any objection to me striking for cause. Assuming no
+objection, then I will strike that juror for cause, and they'll
+be excused and we'll give them instructions.
+If I don't think that any answer requires a striking
+for cause before we get to the individual questions at the end
+of the voir dire, I'll ask counsel if they have specific
+followup. If you have specific followup, I'll hear you at
+sidebar, that is, outside the hearing of the juror, consider
+your request for followup, and then either engage in that
+followup or not, and proceed apace.
+If we have a juror for whom there is no basis to
+strike for cause, at that point, we'll proceed to have them
+respond to the individual questions in the voir dire. And then
+they won't be struck, so they'll be given instructions on
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 529 Filed 12/08/21 Page 9 of 18
+LBFЗМАXC
+9
+returning as I've indicated we would do.
+And again, we need 40 qualified jurors in light of the
+number of peremptories, but I'm hoping with this number and the
+time that we have that we can get to 50 to 60 qualified jurors.
+Any questions?
+MS. COMEY: Not from the government, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, one briefly. Can I just
+inquire how you intend to conduct the sidebar in this
+courtroom, given the number of attorneys and so forth?
+THE COURT: Yes. So, I think it's going to have to be
+one attorney per side. And all of you are capable of operating
+on your own. So, if we are doing a sidebar with the juror,
+because they have private, confidential information they want
+to convey, then it will be me and the two attorneys and the
+court reporter with the juror. To the extent we are talking
+about any followup questions that you want me to ask, we'll go
+over here, and I'll still ask we limit it to one attorney per
+side. Okay?
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you.
+THE COURT: Any other questions?
+MS. MENNINGER: No, thank you.
+THE COURT: Anything else about voir dire?
+MS. COMEY: Not from the government, your Honor.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, this isn't actually about the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+LBFЗMAXC
+
+10
+protocols that you've just described. But has the Court made a
+determination with regard to whether we are sitting the week
+from Christmas to New Year's? Because I noticed on some of the
+individuals on your list, it appeared that they were people who
+might not be available that week. I'm just asking for some
+clarification.
+THE COURT: Yes. I think we do need to sit Monday,
+Tuesday and Wednesday of that week. I think there were enough
+responses of folks who had travel beginning the 23rd, so the
+Thursday if I had that right.
+We will sit the 20th, 21st and 22nd. And I think I
+had been thinking to sit the 23rd as well, but I think there
+were enough individuals who we're bringing back who indicated
+that travel began then. So I think someone who has got travel
+beginning on the 23rd is not an issue. The 20th, 21st or 22nd
+wouldn't be an issue.
+MS. STERNHEIM: For the following week, are you
+following a similar is schedule?
+THE COURT: I think we can sit through Thursday. The
+way the holidays fall this year, I do think we have to use that
+time. So the 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th we'll sit. We won't
+sit the 31st, which is New Year's Eve.
+Any other questions about voir dire?
+MS. COMEY: No, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'm not going to give rulings now, but to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+
+11
+flag what I understand to be remaining, we have two issues that
+are now fully briefed. That's the supplemental briefing on the
+defendant's fourth motion in limine, and we have the
+government's motion to exclude the testimony, or some of the
+testimony at least, of Drs. Loftus and Dietz pursuant to 702
+and Daubert.
+I'm working my way through that. I will either rule
+by written order or address those at the November 23 final
+pretrial conference.
+We also have not yet fully briefed the defendant's
+seventh motion in limine which relates to Government Exhibit
+52, the defendant's first motion in limine related to
+introduction of co-conspirator statements.
+Let me say the Court appreciates some effort to find
+places on which agreement was necessary and to come to it.
+Thank you.
+Those matters will be fully briefed tonight when I
+receive the defense's response. And again, I will either put
+out written orders on those or address them at the November 23
+final pretrial conference.
+If the government does move to exclude any of the
+other defense witnesses that have been noticed as potential
+experts, that briefing is due tonight, response by Friday.
+I'll either put out a written order, address it at the final
+pretrial conference on the 23rd if I can, or some time after
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529
+
+LBFЗМАXC
+12
+that in advance of trial if I can't get to it by then.
+From your perspective, other outstanding issues that
+the Court hasn't addressed yet?
+MS. COMEY: Nothing outstanding, your Honor. The
+government did have a few small issues to alert your Honor to.
+But I'll defer to the defense on these issues you already
+raised.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Late breaking, we requested subpoena
+issue last evening.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand that's very new, but I'm
+just flagging that as an outstanding issue.
+THE COURT: Yes. And let me ask, has notice been
+provided to the victim witnesses?
+MS. COMEY: No, your Honor. We received it late last
+night and had not had the opportunity to provide that notice,
+but we will do that today.
+THE COURT: So the government will provide notice?
+MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURI: So, I don't know that it matters. I can
+issue the subpoena, if there is a motion to quash, we can deal
+with it, or we can brief it in advance.
+I think we need to move as expeditiously as possible,
+so my inclination would be to issue the subpoena, and if there
+is a basis to quash, the government can be heard.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+
+13
+MS. COMEY: I do think we anticipate opposing the
+subpoena, your Honor. In terms of which way mechanically your
+Honor would like to proceed we don't have a particular
+preference, but I think we would like to brief that issue.
+THE COURT: Well, I think the only constraint under
+the rule, the victims have to be notified. So I'd like that
+notification to happen today.
+MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And then I suppose, why don't you propose
+when the government would brief any opposition.
+I have a moment, your Honor?
+THE COURT: You I
+•. COMEY: We would propose by Thursday of this week,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: So if we do Wednesday of this week and
+response from the defense by Friday.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, on that point, I'm hoping
+that the Court could, once notice is given, issue the subpoena
+so we can get it served. The documents are returnable to your
+Honor, not the parties. And then we're not holding up
+production by the briefing.
+THE COURT: I agree with that.
+MS. COMEY: Understood, your Honor.
+THE COURT: So I will issue the subpoena with the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+LBFЗМАXC
+
+14
+understanding that the government will provide notice to the
+victims today, and will file any -- I suppose at that point you
+could phrase it as a motion to quash the subpoena by Wednesday.
+Defense response by Friday. Okay. All right.
+Yes, Ms. Comey.
+MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. Iwo issues we wanted to
+bring up for your Honor.
+We've been working with defense
+counsel to reach points of agreement, and have reached
+stipulations as to certain pieces of evidence. But there are
+certain pieces of evidence where we believe we may need to
+brief authentication for your Honor. Particularly, there are
+certain birth certificates and a prior sworn statement that we
+think we need to brief. We have been conferring with defense
+counsel, I don't think we are going to reach agreement, so we'd
+like to set a schedule for the briefing on that.
+And the other issue we wanted to put on your Honor's
+radar but that does not need a briefing schedule at this point
+I believe, is we plan to confer with defense counsel about
+areas that we believe would be improper for cross-examination
+of government witnesses. Usually we can reach agreement on
+those, but if we can't reach agreement, then we will need to
+brief that with your Honor.
+THE COURI: Okay. So what do you propose for the
+authentication issues?
+MS. COMEY: We would propose that the government
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529
+
+15
+submit its papers by Friday, and that the defense submit theirs
+early next week.
+THE COURT: I'm not giving you to Friday to brief
+that. So, we'll do Thursday, Monday.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And what's the other issue?
+MS. COMEY: This is an issue that does not require
+briefing, but just a logistical question.
+THE COURT: No --
+MS. COMEY: The other issue.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MS. COMEY: Motions to preclude cross-examination on
+certain topics of government witnesses. We have not had an
+opportunity to confer with defense counsel about that issue.
+If we are able to agree, we won't need to brief it. If we
+can't agree, we will need to brief that.
+THE COURT: Okay. I might just need to hear you once
+we get through openings. Well, see if you can get agreement.
+See if you can get to agreement. If not, I'll hear
+you on the 23rd.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And logistics?
+MS. COMEY: With respect to seating in the courtroom
+where the witnesses will be heard during trial. The government
+wanted to know whether there would be a seat available for
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529 Filed 12/08/21 Page 16 of 18
+16
+LBFЗМАXC
+witness counsel in that room when that witness is testifying.
+THE COURT: That's a question for the district
+executive's office.
+MS. COMEY: Understood, your Honor. I imagine the
+same would be true for supervisors of the government. That
+question would go to the district executive's office?
+THE COURT: It does.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+I have nothing else. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Okay. Yes.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. One brief issue that
+I am not asking the Court to do anything about, but I want to
+make the Court aware of it. The defense has made a number of
+Touhy requests, thus far in the case.
+I want to raise with the Court one in particular where
+we've asked for a witness to authenticate certain border
+crossing records, a witness from the Customs and Border
+Protection. The government has been working to get a witness
+and make one available to us. The request was made several
+weeks ago.
+I want to flag this for the Court because, as I
+understand it from the government, there is some complications
+with this issue. But we do expect to have a witness available
+to us to be able to authenticate these documents, unless we
+reach some agreement as to authenticity in a stip.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529
+Filed 12/08/21 Page 17 of 18
+17
+But we wanted to flag that for the Court because we
+are getting close to trial.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. We are working
+expeditiously to identify a witness for the defense.
+THE COURT: Okay. I certainly will encourage that
+process to continue.
+Anything else?
+MS. COMEY: Not from the government, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing, thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. We are adjourned.
+See you the 23rd.
+My apologies. There was an issue that I had bracketed
+that I neglected to come back to. And that's the question of
+the voir dire process with the entity, the specific employer
+entity. So, because we might need to discuss that specific
+employer, we are going to do this at sidebar.
+(Pages 18-22 SEALED)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529 Filed 12/08/21 Page 18 of 18
+23
+(In open court)
+THE COURT: With that, I have nothing further and we
+are adjourned.
+One correction to what I said. My deputy reminded me
+that the courthouse is actually closed on the 30th of December.
+It's also closed on the 23rd. I've already said we won't sit.
+It is also closed on the 30th so we won't sit that day either.
+So anything else?
+we are adjourned.
+(Adjourned)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6a775364196df5eddbaebe6dc712b44d7fa48246a133edadda63d4a6853da7e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6a775364196df5eddbaebe6dc712b44d7fa48246a133edadda63d4a6853da7e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d548821b273d8d3c5b4463f2f5d4552ef1696a76
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6a775364196df5eddbaebe6dc712b44d7fa48246a133edadda63d4a6853da7e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1508,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6a775364196df5eddbaebe6dc712b44d7fa48246a133edadda63d4a6853da7e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 26,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "575e54502c890e3fab3c87fe4da1ba8a79d32cde5a2afdf606c2a0db87706394",
+  "output_sha256": "f067da4e4da68fdd23d76649f8799fcd735610ee0c00693fde0cfd37175297c8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6c3d8179102dfd27bdec3f88bcf58385ece7c1be4efc46374bcfb6b9c5617f3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6c3d8179102dfd27bdec3f88bcf58385ece7c1be4efc46374bcfb6b9c5617f3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..401fe284322b99fdbb1f6aac4cb4e7447a555dbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6c3d8179102dfd27bdec3f88bcf58385ece7c1be4efc46374bcfb6b9c5617f3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 429 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 2
+LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+212-243-1100 • Main
+917-912-9698 • Cell
+888-587-4737 • Fax
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+bcsternheim@mac.com
+November 9, 2021
+Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Judge
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The government's opposition to releasing Ghislaine Maxwell from pretrial detention
+(Dkt. 423) is a long-winded regurgitation of prior writings and rulings and underscores its
+determination to ignore the presumption of innocence and punish Ms. Maxwell pretrial for her
+association with Jeffrey Epstein. The indictment against her federalizes a New York State B
+misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of 90 days. Ms. Maxwell, who awaits trial, has
+served that five times over. Ms. Maxwell is not, and has never been, a flight risk. At every
+opportunity, Ms. Maxwell has vigorously asserted her innocence and her eagerness to face these
+unsubstantiated charges in court. She should be allowed to do so outside of the confines of the
+MDC, where her conditions of confinement significantly impede her ability to prepare for trial,
+negatively impact her health, and compromise her stamina to endure the rigors of trial.
+The Court now has the 3500 material and Giglio material which seriously undermine the
+strength of the government's case and underscore the lack of corroboration, facts which the
+government cannot and does not even attempt to refute. Rather, the government urges the Court
+to rely on prior rulings that were based on government conjecture that is not substantiated by
+recent disclosures. The Court and defense now have the witness statements, and they seriously
+call into question prior rulings based on the purported strength of the government's case.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 429 Filed 11/09/21 Page 2 of 2
+Ms. Maxwell is being treated differently than other defendants within and outside jail.
+Her conditions of confinement are extraordinary and "redundant" and have impeded her ability
+to prepare for trial. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were permitted to walk into the courthouse
+each day of their respective trials. Not until their verdicts were rendered, adjudging them guilty,
+were they detained. They were accorded dignity to defend themselves. Ms. Maxwell has not.
+The Court should release Ms. Maxwell from pretrial detention. It is the right and just
+thing to do, most especially for a mature woman with no criminal history, no history of violence,
+who poses no threat to the community, is not a flight risk, and is eager for her day in court.
+Ghislaine Maxwell looks forward to her trial and to walking out of the courthouse uncuffed and
+unshackled following her acquittal.
+Very truly yours,
+Is/
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+cc: All counsel of record
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6c3d8179102dfd27bdec3f88bcf58385ece7c1be4efc46374bcfb6b9c5617f3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6c3d8179102dfd27bdec3f88bcf58385ece7c1be4efc46374bcfb6b9c5617f3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3bb7c368ea8201c4d1ca0a770b59216f750757b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6c3d8179102dfd27bdec3f88bcf58385ece7c1be4efc46374bcfb6b9c5617f3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6c3d8179102dfd27bdec3f88bcf58385ece7c1be4efc46374bcfb6b9c5617f3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "da6fa54a21cf67fff2e7df7f0878a6bb47eba1e54be143f5ad58b00f300de348",
+  "output_sha256": "c894709664e57fcc91c533ede2c4e4c959ce26ff6bf5ce66fcbf116223b8e2bb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6d25bb1afd1766d4fee0183b3c5cef309e1d25543798c270f105c705ae649d1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6d25bb1afd1766d4fee0183b3c5cef309e1d25543798c270f105c705ae649d1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c267d7bdbbf7dae0cd6609301ecd24ea30bd84a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6d25bb1afd1766d4fee0183b3c5cef309e1d25543798c270f105c705ae649d1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,576 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 620
+Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 21
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+BIC TRONICALLY FILED
+DATE FILED: 2/24/22
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+OPINION & ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+Before the Court is the Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of
+Criminal Procedure 33, which the Government opposes. See Maxwell Br., Jan. 19, 2022; Gov.
+Br., Feb. 2, 2022. The Defendant seeks a new trial on the basis that Juror 50 "falsely answered a
+material question during voir dire and ... that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been
+subject to a challenge for cause." Maxwell Br. at 48. The Defendant contends that the current
+paper record sufficiently supports her motion and should be granted without a hearing. Id. In
+the alternative the Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing to inquire into Juror 50's alleged
+nondisclosure. She also argues a broader hearing is required based on a news article that
+suggests a second juror was allegedly a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 49. The Government urges
+this Court to deny the Defendant's motion on the current record, but it consents to a limited
+hearing on the issue of whether Juror 50 provided a materially false answer to Question 48 of the
+questionnaire. Gov. Br. at 31-32.
+The Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record is DENIED.
+Defendant's motion on the current record relies extensively on statements made by Juror 50
+regarding what occurred during jury deliberations that the Court is prohibited from considering
+under Rule 606. With regard to Juror 50's statements that do not pertain to jury deliberations, in
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 21
+order to resolve the motion at this stage, the Court would have to accept these unsworn
+statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available
+on the current record.
+Accordingly, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. The Court
+concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding an
+evidentiary hearing is met as to Juror 50's answer to Question 48 of the questionnaire. The
+Court further concludes that Juror 50's response to Question 25 is relevant to the inquiry.
+Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets
+about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the
+accuracy of his responses to Questions 25 and 48. Such statements are "clear, strong, substantial
+and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety"— namely a false
+statement during jury selectionhas occurred. To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that
+someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential
+failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that
+material information so that any potential bias could be explored. Conversely, the demanding
+standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to Juror 50's use of social media nor
+the conduct of any other juror. The Court therefore ORDERS a hearing take place at which the
+Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Defendant's request for a broader hearing and prehearing discovery is DENIED.
+Background
+On December 29, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in this case, finding the Defendant
+guilty of five counts. A week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the
+Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 21
+press outlets about his jury service and requested a hearing be held on the matter. Dkt. No. 568.
+The letter noted that in the interviews, which were both in print and on video, the juror
+"described being a victim of sexual abuse" and asserted that he "flew through" the juror
+questionnaire and did not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at
+1. The Government indicated in a redacted footnote that it believed the juror to be Juror 50, and
+a review of his questionnaire showed that he had provided a negative response to a question that
+asked whether a prospective juror had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 2 n.2.' Finally, the
+Government requested that the Court offer court-appointed counsel to the juror in the event a
+hearing was ordered. A letter from the Defendant followed shortly thereafter also informing the
+Court about the juror's interviews. Dkt. No. 569. The Defendant filed a second letter that same
+day opposing the Government's request "because based on undisputed, publicly available
+information, the Court can and should order a new trial without any evidentiary hearing." Dkt.
+No. 570.2
+The Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on January 19, 2022. The Government
+opposed the motion on February 2, 2022, and the Defendant filed a reply in support on February
+9, 2022. In addition to Juror 50's post-trial interviews, the Defendant's motion relies on a New
+York Times article reporting that "a second juror described in an interview ... having been
+' The Government proposed redacting the footnote because the juror questionnaire was not a public document at that
+time. Because (for the reasons explained below) the Court now unseals the questionnaire, that redaction is no longer
+necessary.
+2 For completeness of the record, the Court notes the following occurred also on January 5, 2022: The Jury
+Department of the Southern District of New York received a call from Juror 50 asking for guidance because of
+statements he had given to certain media outlets that were being widely reported on in the press and inquiring
+whether he needed an attorney. At the Court's direction, the District Executive returned Juror 50's call and
+informed him that the Court was unable to provide any guidance or response to his question. Juror 50 then asked the
+District Executive if he could access his questionnaire. The District Executive, again at the Court's direction,
+informed Juror 50 that the questionnaire was not a public document and could not be provided to him.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 21
+sexually abused as a child" as a basis for a broader hearing beyond inquiry into Juror 50.
+Maxwell Br. at 21, 49.
+II. Motion for a new trial on the current record
+Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that "[u]pon the defendant's motion, the
+court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires." Fed.
+R. Crim. P. 33(a). The parties agree that a defendant's Rule 33 motion premised on a juror's
+alleged nondisclosure during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v.
+Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). Maxwell Br. at 22-28; Gov. Br. at 11. In McDonough, the
+Supreme Court held that to obtain a new trial on the basis of juror nondisclosure during voir dire,
+"a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir
+dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a
+challenge for cause." McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556; see also United States v.
+995 F.3d
+32, 51 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 815-16 (2d Cir. 1994); United States
+v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).3
+The McDonough inquiry is restricted by Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which states:
+During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not
+testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's
+deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote; or
+any juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court
+may not receive a juror's affidavit or evidence of a juror's statement on these
+matters.
+Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1).
+3 The parties dispute certain contours of the McDonough test, including whether it requires a deliberately false
+answer. But at a minimum, the parties agree that the deliberateness of a juror's incorrect answer is relevant to this
+inquiry. Maxwell Reply at 13-14. Because, as explained below, the Court does not now resolve at this juncture
+whether Juror 50's answers on the questionnaire and voir dire merit a new trial, it need not and does not resolve
+those disputes pre-hearing.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 21
+The Defendant urges this Court to resolve the motion on the papers, without the need for
+a hearing. Maxwell Br. at 28. But resolving the motion now would require the Court to accept
+as true Juror 50's unsworn statements made to media outlets. Moreover, in arguing for a new
+trial based on the current record, the Defendant relies extensively on statements prohibited from
+consideration by Rule 606. E.g., Maxwell Br. at 12-14 (describing Juror 50's statements in
+deliberation and other jurors reactions). The Defendant also urges the Court to reach factual
+conclusions that are unavailable on the current record; for example, that Juror 50 deliberately
+lied in failing to disclose that he was the victim of sexual abuse. See Maxwell Br. at 39-43.
+Finally, the Defendant cites no authority—nor is the Court aware of any—in which a court
+granted a new trial under the McDonough standard without first conducting an evidentiary
+hearing. As the Second Circuit has instructed, "if any significant doubt as to a juror's
+impartiality remains in the wake of objective evidence of false voir dire responses, an
+evidentiary hearing generally should be held." United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 306 (2d
+Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624, 634 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). The Court
+therefore denies the Defendant's motion to grant a new trial on the current record.
+III. Evidentiary hearing
+For the reasons outlined below, the Court determines that a hearing must be held
+regarding Juror 50's alleged nondisclosure during the jury selection process.
+A. Threshold for an evidentiary hearing
+Because of the importance of finality of judgments, the threshold for conducting a postverdict inquiry is high. A post-verdict inquiry into juror misconduct is conducted only "when
+there is clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative
+impropriety has occurred which could have prejudiced the trial of a defendant." United States v.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 21
+Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018) (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d
+1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983)). Mere "[glossip and anonymous tips do not satisfy this standard."
+United States v. Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d 432, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Rather, "[a]llegations of
+impropriety must be 'concrete allegations of inappropriate conduct that constitute competent and
+relevant evidence."" Baker, 899 F.3d at 130 (quoting United States v. lanniello, 866 F.2d 540,
+543 (2d Cir. 1989)).
+The Defendant argues that this is the wrong standard. Maxwell Reply, Feb. 9, 2022, at 8
+n.4. But the Defendant does not identify an alternative standard. And the Second Circuit has
+applied precisely this standard to determine whether a district court should hold a McDonough
+hearing on the basis of a juror's nondisclosure during voir dire. Stewart, 433 F.3d at 302-03.
+The Court is bound to apply this demanding standard.
+This high standard for an evidentiary hearing intentionally raises an "exacting hurdle" for
+defendants because "motions to set aside a jury verdict are disfavored." United States v.
+Ventura, No. 09-CR-1015 (JGK), 2014 WL 259655, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2014). As the
+Second Circuit has repeatedly warned, "post-verdict inquiries may lead to evil consequences:
+subjecting juries to harassment, inhibiting juryroom deliberation, burdening courts with meritless
+applications, increasing temptation for jury tampering and creating uncertainty in jury verdicts."
+lanniello, 866 F.2d at 543; see also Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 119-20 (1987) (citing
+McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267-68 (1915)). And an evidentiary hearing "is not held to
+afford a convicted defendant the opportunity 'to conduct a fishing expedition." Stewart, 433
+F.3d at 306 (quoting Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234).
+The Defendant argues that the considerations in Tanner and lanniello are inapplicable to
+her motion because those cases "involved alleged conduct during trial and, crucially, during
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 21
+deliberations." Maxwell Reply Br. at 8. This argument is wrong, as "the ultimate purpose of the
+[requested] post-trial evidentiary hearing is to set aside a jury verdict." Ventura, 2014 WL
+259655, at *3. And "there is no discernible reason to apply a different general standard to new
+trial motions based on juror misconduct than to those premised on any other reason." United
+States v.
+Loera, No. 09-CR-0466 (BMC), 2019 WL 2869081, at *5 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. July
+3, 2019), aff'd, 24 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2022). "[E]ven though there are additional
+considerations ... when ruling on an evidentiary hearing and new trial motion premised upon
+allegations of juror misconduct, these are the overarching legal standards applicable to all Rule
+33 motions, including when juror misconduct is at issue." Id.
+If a hearing is held, "its scope should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary to
+determine the facts with precision." lanniello, 866 F.2d at 544. "Therefore, in the course of a
+post-verdict inquiry ..., when and if it becomes apparent that the above-described reasonable
+grounds to suspect prejudicial jury impropriety do not exist, the inquiry should end." Moon, 718
+F.2d at 1234. The Court has discretion to structure the hearing and to determine what testimony
+is needed. lanniello, 866 F.2d at 544.
+B. The scope of the hearing
+The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Juror 50 provided false
+answers on the questionnaire, the explanation for those answers, and how Juror 50 would have
+responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided. The Government
+acknowledges that Juror 50's answer to Question 48 satisfies the demanding standard for an
+evidentiary hearing under McDonough. Gov. Br. at 33. The Court agrees. Question 48 asked
+jurors:
+Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual
+harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 21
+sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger,
+acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)
+Dkt. No. 462 at 24. In response to that question, Juror 50 checked the box for "No," not the box
+for either "Yes (self)" or "Yes (friend or family member)." But in several public statements
+made to media outlets after the trial, including interviews in The Independent and The Daily Mail
+dated January 5, 2022, Juror 50 stated that he was sexually abused as a minor. The statements
+are direct, unambiguous, and made by Juror 50 himself to multiple media outlets. Moreover, the
+statements themselves describe Juror 50's own experience.* They constitute "clear, strong,
+substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has
+occurred," and so warrant an evidentiary hearing. Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.
+Although the Court does not decide whether the threshold to hold a hearing based on
+Question 25 alone has been met, because the Court will hold a hearing on Juror 50's answer to
+Question 48 and because Question 48 and 25 are sufficiently related, the Court will inquire into
+Juror 50's answer to Question 25. Question 25 asked jurors:
+Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?
+Dkt. No. 462 at 13. Again, Juror 50 checked the box for "No," and not the box for either "Yes
+(self)" or "Yes (friend or family member)." But Juror 50's post-trial statements, if true, may
+describe criminal conduct of which he was the victim. Therefore, Juror 50's answer to Question
+25 is sufficiently related to the answer to Question 48 and so the Court will also inquire as to
+Question 25 at an evidentiary hearing. See Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.
+independent statements made to a reporter about his own experience.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 21
+The potential impropriety that warrants a hearing is not that someone with a history of
+sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is Juror 50's potential failure to respond
+truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for such material information
+so that any potential bias could be explored. Accordingly, the Court will hold a hearing limited
+in scope to Juror 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 of the questionnaire.
+C. The Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media
+The parties devote significant portions of the briefs to the question of whether Juror 50
+answered falsely the Court's questions about social media usage during voir dire. To the extent
+that the Defendant seeks a hearing to probe Juror 50's answers to voir dire about his social media
+usage, her arguments are based on speculation, and she has failed to make the high showing
+required. See Baker, 899 F.3d at 130. At voir dire, when asked if he "use[s] social media," Juror
+50 stated, "I do, but I actually just deleted them because I just got out of a relationship and I
+didn't want to see anything regarding them. So I am fully off of it right now." Nov. 16, 2021 Tr.
+at 133. The Court then asked, "What did you use, Facebook, Twitter?" to which Juror 50 replied
+"Facebook and Instagram," clarifying that the accounts contained "[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies."
+Id.
+The screenshots proffered by the Defendant do not demonstrate that any of these answers
+implicate McDonough. First, Juror 50 did not deny having a Twitter account. Second, Juror
+50's account had only 1 follower and followed only 39 people, which corroborates that his
+Twitter use was, at most, relatively minimal. See Maxwell Br. at 17. Third, the fact that Juror
+50's Twitter account was opened in April 2021 and that he used it again in January 2022, after
+the completion of the trial, is consistent with Juror 50's answer that he deleted his social media
+accounts, or just the social media applications, shortly before voir dire. The same is true of Juror
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 21
+50's Instagram account, on which he also posted in January 2022, after the completion of the
+trial. Id. at 20. And fourth, the screenshots proffered match Juror 50's description of his social
+media accounts as containing only "[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies." Id. The threshold for a
+hearing has not been met on this issue and the Court will not permit "a fishing expedition" into
+Juror 50's social media usage. Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234 (quoting United States v. Moten, 582
+F.2d 654, 667 (2d Cir. 1978)).
+D. The Defendant has not justified an inquiry into other jurors
+The Defendant seeks to examine not only Juror 50 at an evidentiary hearing but also the
+other eleven members of the jury in order to identify a second juror who, according to an article
+published by the New York Times, also was sexually abused as a minor. Maxwell Br. at 21, 49-
+50. The Defendant further argues that even if the article alone is insufficient to order a hearing
+as to the juror mentioned in the article, Juror 50's post-trial statements corroborate that another
+juror discussed sexual abuse during deliberations. Maxwell Reply at 24. As explained below,
+the evidence of this allegation is inadequate to meet the exacting standard for a hearing and the
+Court denies the Defendant's request to examine any jurors on this basis.
+' On December 31, 2021, the Court informed the parties by sealed order that a juror had contacted court staff about
+being approached by a reporter despite the fact that the juror had not identified themselves publicly and wished to
+remain anonymous. Because the contact by the member of the media had been uninvited by the juror,
+staff notified all jurors via email on December 30, 2021, about the development. Subsequently, on January 5, 2022,
+a juror replied to the December 30 email sent by court staff. In that reply email, the juror wrote regarding news
+reports about the issue with Juror 50. The Court informed the parties of the juror communications by sealed order
+on January 6, 2022. The Defendant requested the communications, which the Court denied without prejudice. See
+Sealed Memo Endorsement, Jan. 13, 2022. The Defendant now renews her request on the theory that the
+communications could shed light on the identity of the second juror referred to by the New York Times. See
+Maxwell Br. at 21 n. 10; Maxwell Reply at 23 n. 12. Such a request is nothing but unfounded speculation. A juror's
+communication expressing fear about the media reports and the parties' responses to Juror 50's interviews are not
+relevant to the current inquiry. Nonetheless, in order to ensure a complete record, the Court will transmit under seal
+the concerned juror's communications to the parties with the name and contact information of the concerned juror
+redacted in order to protect the juror's privacy and prevent juror harassment. See lanniello, 866 F.2d at 543. The
+Court also includes a subsequent communication with the same juror expressing additional concerns so that the
+parties have a complete record of non-logistical juror communications. The Court will file the unredacted
+communications under seal for preservation for the appellate record.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 21
+First, the news article upon which the Defendant relies does not warrant a hearing.
+Baker, 899 F.3d at 130. The article includes a short, non-detailed mention of an anonymous
+juror. As the Second Circuit recently held in affirming the denial of a hearing after a high-profile
+trial, "the unsworn, uncorroborated statements that one unidentified juror made to a magazine
+reporter do not constitute the 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence"" of
+misconduct that requires a hearing. United States v.
+Loera, 24 F.4th 144, 161 (2d Cir.
+2022) (quoting Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234). Another court in this circuit held that a New York
+Times article that, in a single sentence, alleged misconduct by an unidentified juror was
+insufficient to justify a hearing. United States v. Bin Laden, No. S7R 98-CR-1023 (KTD), 2005
+WL 287404, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2005), aff'd sub nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S.
+Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) ("This single sentence, an unsworn snippet of
+hearsay within a newspaper article, is far less substantial than the sworn affidavits present in
+cases where evidentiary hearings have been ordered.").
+Other courts have also concluded that unsworn, hearsay, and/or anonymous reports of
+juror misconduct are not the clear, strong, and nonspeculative evidence required for a hearing.
+See, e.g.,
+v. United States, 576 F.2d 432, 438 (2d Cir. 1978) (affirming the denial of a
+hearing where the defendant presented "weakly authenticated, vague, and speculative material as
+to one juror," even where that juror was not anonymous); United States v. Wilbern, 484 F. Supp.
+3d 79, 87 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding a "double hearsay" report of misconduct inadequate to
+justify a hearing); Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 438 (denying the defendant's request for an
+evidentiary hearing where the defendant's support, including post-trial media interviews,
+"amount[s] to little more than hearsay, speculation, and in one instance, vague allegations made
+by a person who refused to identify himself"). Accordingly, the New York Times article is an
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 12 of 21
+insufficient basis for an evidentiary hearing, especially one that, according to the Defendant,
+would require the Court to "haul [11] jurors in after they have reached a verdict" to probe for
+who, if anyone, may have been mentioned in the article.
+Loera, 24 F.4th at 161
+(quoting Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234).
+Second, Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering Juror 50's
+statements as evidence of another juror's statements purportedly made during deliberations. As
+previously quoted, the rule states:
+During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not
+testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's
+deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror's or another juror's vote; or any
+juror's mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not
+receive a juror's affidavit or evidence of a juror's statement on these matters.
+Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1).
+Rule 606(b) is subject to three enumerated exceptions that permit a juror to testify about
+whether (A) "extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention";
+(B) "an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror"; or (C) "a mistake was
+made in entering the verdict on the verdict form." Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(2). In addition to these
+exceptions enumerated in the rule, the Supreme Court has held that Rule 606 "give[s] way"
+where "a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on racial stereotypes or
+animus to convict a criminal defendant." Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855, 863
+(2017). Absent one of these circumstances, evidence within the ambit of Rule 606 may not be
+considered.
+Here, the Defendant relies on Juror 50's statements of what another juror allegedly stated
+during deliberations. That proffer is barred by Rule 606.
+In response, the Defendant argues that Juror 50's statements about the second juror fall
+outside the scope of Rule 606 because she "does not seek to impeach the verdict based on the
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 13 of 21
+content of deliberations" but instead to demonstrate that the second juror made a false statement
+during voir dire, like Juror 50 allegedly did. Maxwell Br. at 50. But this reading of Rule 606
+has been squarely rejected by the Supreme Court, which held that the "plain meaning" of this
+language is that "Rule 606(b) applies to juror testimony during a proceeding in which a party
+seeks to secure a new trial on the ground that a juror lied during voir dire." Warger v. Shauers,
+574 U.S. 40, 44 (2014). The Defendant's one-sentence attempt to dismiss Warger because it
+involved a civil rather than a criminal case is unavailing. Maxwell Reply at 23 n. 11. It is the
+same rule of evidence in issue, and the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court apply here
+with equal force.
+The Defendant may also be suggesting in this argument that Rule 606 does not bar Juror
+50's statements because they concern "extraneous prejudicial information," which is an
+enumerated exception to the rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(2)(A). To the extent that argument is
+raised, it is meritless. Information is "extraneous" when it is "external to the jury" — that is,
+"publicity and information related specifically to the case the jurors are meant to decide," rather
+than "the general body of experiences that jurors are understood to bring with them to the jury
+room." Warger, 574 U.S. at 51 (cleaned up). So, for example, the Supreme Court has held that a
+foreperson's undisclosed experience with a car accident is not extraneous information, even in a
+motor-vehicle lawsuit where that failure to disclose could have supported a for-cause strike. Id.
+at 42-43. The same is true here, as the second juror's alleged undisclosed experience "did not
+provide either [the juror] or the rest of the jury with any specific knowledge regarding" this
+particular case. Id. at 51-52. Rather, as this Court instructed, jurors are expected to bring their
+"reason, experience, and common sense" to bear in evaluating witnesses' credibility and the
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 14 of 21
+Defendant's ultimate guilt. Trial Tr. at 3066; see also U.S. ex rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F.2d
+813, 818 (2d Cir. 1970).
+Last, the Defendant argues—in a single sentence of her reply brief-that if Rule 606 does
+bar consideration of Juror 50's statements about the second juror, then the rule "violates Ms.
+Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and to confrontation as applied to her." Maxwell
+Reply at 23. The Court rejects this argument. The Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal
+defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const., amend. VI.
+The Defendant's right to confrontation is not implicated here because Juror 50 is not a "witness[]
+against" the Defendant but was instead a factfinder in her trial. Simply put, Juror 50's testimony
+at the hearing will be proffered to determine whether Juror 50 has engaged in any misconduct
+warranting a new trial, not to accuse the Defendant of any crime. Cf. Crawford v. Washington,
+541 U.S. 36, 43 (2004) (describing the Confrontation Clause as a "right to confront one's
+accusers" (emphasis added)). Even if the Confrontation Clause were implicated, Rule 606's
+prohibition on juror affidavits to impeach a verdict is a reasonable limitation, subject to other
+exceptions not at issue here, on the evidence that a defendant may muster, a limitation with a
+long historical pedigree. See Pena-Rodriguez, 137 S. Ct. at 863 (tracing Rule 606 to traditional
+English common law); Crawford, 541 U.S. at 54 (explaining that the Confrontation Clause "is
+most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only
+those exceptions established at the time of the founding").
+Next, the Defendant's due-process claim is squarely foreclosed by controlling precedent.
+The Supreme Court in Tanner v. United States rejected a constitutional challenge to Rule 606,
+explaining that a criminal defendant's right to an impartial jury is "protected by several aspects
+of the trial process," including questions asked in voir dire; observations in court made by the
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 15 of 21
+judge, court personnel, and counsel; observations by other jurors, who "may report inappropriate
+juror behavior to the court before they render a verdict"; and "impeach[ment] [of] the verdict by
+nonjuror evidence of misconduct." 483 U.S. at 127; see also Warger, 574 U.S. at 51 ("[A]
+party's right to an impartial jury remains protected despite Rule 606(b)'s removal of one means
+of ensuring that jurors are unbiased."). The Defendant cites in support the Supreme Court's
+decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, but that case is unavailing to her position. There, the
+Supreme Court held that "where a juror makes a clear statement that indicates he or she relied on
+racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that
+the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of
+the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee." 137 S. Ct. at 869.
+Throughout the opinion, the Supreme Court took great care to hold that the "unique historical,
+constitutional, and institutional concerns" intrinsic to a juror with racial animus do not attach to
+other forms of juror misconduct. Id. at 868. In fact, it expressly contrasted the case of a juror
+with racial animus to a juror that "ha[s] a personal experience that improperly influences her
+consideration of the case," as was at issue in Warger v. Shauers and as is alleged here. Id. at
+869.
+Third, even if the Court did consider Juror 50's statements about what another juror said
+during deliberations —which Rule 606 prohibits the statements proffered by the Defendant do
+not meet the threshold of "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific,
+nonspeculative impropriety has occurred." Baker, 899 F.3d at 130. According to an article in
+the Daily Mail, Juror 50 "revealed that he was not the only juror to share a story of sexual
+abuse." That sentence summarizes an unsworn and non-specific statement, which does not
+identify the alleged misconduct or the juror in question with any particularity. It therefore falls
+15
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 16 of 21
+short of the demanding standard for ordering a post-verdict evidentiary hearing. See Bin Laden,
+2005 WL 287404, at *2. Notably, this case is far from United States v. Colombo, where the
+Second Circuit ordered an evidentiary hearing on the basis of two sworn affidavits that identified
+another juror by name and described with particularity the alleged misconduct. 869 F.2d 149,
+151 (2d Cir. 1989).
+The Court therefore rejects the Defendant's as-applied constitutional challenge to Rule
+606 and further concludes that Rule 606 bars the Court's consideration of Juror 50's statements
+about the second juror. Even if the Court considered Juror 50's statement about another juror,
+the evidence would be insufficient to meet the high threshold for an inquiry. Without
+nonspeculative evidence of misconduct by any juror but Juror 50, the Court restricts the focus of
+the evidentiary hearing to Juror 50. See lanniello, 866 F.2d at 544.°
+IV. The nature of the hearing
+A. The Court will examine the witnesses and the parties may submit questions
+In concluding that an inquiry into Juror 50's conduct is warranted, the Court is mindful
+that the "object of the proceeding is to permit the truth to be discovered with the least possible
+harm to other interests." Moten, 582 F.2d at 666. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's
+request that counsel directly question the juror—a decision committed to this Court's "sound
+discretion." Id. at 667; see also lanniello, 866 F.2d at 544 ("We leave it to the district court's
+discretion to decide the extent to which the parties may participate in questioning the witnesses,
+and whether to hold the hearing in camera."). The Court will conduct the questioning at the
+" The Defendant's briefing is unclear as to whether she seeks to question the other 11 jurors only to identify the juror
+implicated by the news article, or if she would seek to question the other jurors in any event to determine "what
+Juror No. 50 said to the other jurors." See Maxwell Br. at 49. To the extent the Defendant is requesting the ability
+to question jurors about what Juror 50 allegedly disclosed during deliberations, that request is denied as it is plainly
+foreclosed by Rule 606. See also lanniello, 866 F.2d at 544.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 17 of 21
+public hearing with input from counsel. The parties may submit questions consistent with this
+ruling, including what the Court holds in this Opinion are the limitations imposed by Rule 606
+and the appropriate scope of the hearing. Once again, the scope of the inquiry is whether Juror
+50's answers were false; if so, what is the explanation for the answers; and how Juror 50 would
+have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided.
+Per this Court's prior order, the parties must submit the proposed questions under
+temporary seal to ensure the integrity of the inquiry. See Dkt. No. 596 at 4. Proposed questions
+must be submitted via email on or before March 1, 2022. The proposed questions will be
+unsealed following the hearing.
+B. The Defendant's subpoena requests are denied
+The Defendant seeks two sets of subpoenas to conduct discovery in advance of the
+hearing. Maxwell Br. at 48 49. First, from Juror 50, the Defendant secks any emails or other
+communications between Juror 50 and any alleged victim or witness; any other juror; any other
+person or media organization about Juror 50's jury service; and, finally, any record of payments
+for any interview or information that Juror 50 gave about his jury service. Second, from
+Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other social media platforms, the Defendant seeks
+all communications to and from Juror 50 regarding his jury service; all posts, comments, or
+photographs by Juror 50 regarding his jury service; and all documents reflecting when Juror 50
+opened or closed his accounts. In her initial brief, the Defendant simply lists these requests
+without justification. In her reply, she provides only a short rebuttal to the Government's
+objections and does not explain why each request is relevant or proper.
+The Court denies these requests as vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing
+expedition. Given the focused inquiry the Court is ordering, the evidentiary hearing's scope
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 21
+must be "limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision."
+lanniello, 866 F.2d at 544. The Defendant can only speculate that the requested communications
+between Juror 50 and unknown persons and entities would shed any light on Juror 50's answers
+to the questionnaire and his bias before the trial at the time of voir dire. Nor has the Defendant
+explained why Juror 50's receipt of financial payment for interviews after the trial, if true, would
+be probative of his inclination to not disclose at voir dire prior to trial. The Court will not grant
+the Defendant "the opportunity to "conduct a fishing expedition."" Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234
+(quoting Moten, 582 F.2d at 667).
+Moreover, the Defendant's requested subpoenas directed at social media companies who
+have custody of Juror 50's communications, comments, and posts are procedurally improper.
+Those requests for social media content are subject to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C.
+§$ 2701-11, which requires an additional factual showing for the Court to order disclosure, see 2
+Wayne LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure §§ 4.8(b), 4.8(d) (4th ed. 2021); Matter of Warrant to
+Search a Certain E-Mail Acct. Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829 F.3d 197, 206
+(2d Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018). And only the
+Government, not private parties like the Defendant, may request disclosure pursuant to the Act.
+United States v. Nix, 251 F. Supp. 3d 555, 559 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) ("[T]he [SCA] does not permit
+a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena the content of a Facebook or Instagram account.");
+Facebook, Inc. v. Wint, 199 A.3d 625, 629 (D.C. 2019) (collecting cases). Though the
+Government raised the Act in its briefing, the Defendant does not acknowledge it or purport to
+show she is entitled to make a request. Accordingly, the requests as to the listed social media
+companies are denied.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 21
+The Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a showing that any pre-hearing
+discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied.
+C. The Court will release Juror 50's questionnaire
+This Court previously reserved ruling on Juror 50's request that the Court release his jury
+questionnaire to counsel, but that the document otherwise remain under seal to protect his
+supposed privacy interest. See Dkt. No. 596 at 5 n.l. The Defendant opposes both the unsealing
+and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that "advance disclosure ... will
+undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible
+posture." Maxwell Br. at 53. The Government argues that there is no legitimate interest in
+limiting Juror 50's access and opposes maintaining the questionnaire under seal. Gov. Br. at 42;
+see also Dkt. No. 594.
+The Court will provide Juror 50 a copy of his completed questionnaire. Unlike the
+parties' proposed questions, Juror 50's access to his completed questionnaire the answers to
+which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The Defendant's concern that
+advance disclosure may somehow taint Juror 50's testimony is unfounded. See United States v.
+et al., No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329, at 15 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) (providing
+the jury questionnaire to juror's counsel in advance of the hearing). Rather, delaying disclosure
+until the hearing would needlessly delay the fact-finding process.
+Moreover, the Court concludes that the presumption of access dictates that the
+questionnaire must be docketed. Juror 50's and the Defendant's request that the questionnaire
+remain sealed is governed by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v.
+Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). See Dkt. No. 596 at 2 (outlining the
+test). First, the jury questionnaire easily qualifies as a judicial document. It is a key exhibit to
+19
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 20 of 21
+the Defendant's motion for a new trial. Cf. Carbon Inv. Partners, LLC v. Bressler, No. 20-cv-
+3617 (ER), 2020 WL 5441497, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2020). Accordingly, a high
+presumption of access attaches. For the reasons stated in this Court's prior order, this
+presumption of access is not outweighed by the possibility of media interest in the document.
+See Dkt. No. 596 at 3. Nor is sealing necessary to safeguard a possible hearing for the reasons
+stated above. Finally, any privacy interest Juror 50 may have had in his questionnaire, see Press-
+Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 511-12 (1984), has at least been greatly
+diminished, if not extinguished, since his public comments. The Court further notes that
+prospective jurors had the opportunity to request that particular questionnaire answers remain
+confidential; Juror 50 did not make any such request. Accordingly, Juror 50's privacy interest in
+the questionnaire is now outweighed by the presumption of access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-
+20. The Defendant is accordingly ORDERED to docket Exhibit 1 to her motion for a new trial,
+Juror 50's completed questionnaire.
+V. Conclusion
+For the reasons stated above, the Court will hold a hearing regarding Juror 50's answers
+to Questions 25 and 48 of the questionnaire. The public proceeding will take place on March 8,
+2022, at 10:00 a.m. Juror 50 is hereby ORDERED to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood
+Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York at that date and time
+to give testimony under oath in response to the Court's questions. Counsel for the Defendant
+and the Government are ORDERED to submit via email proposed questions in accordance with
+this Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022.
+SO ORDERED.
+20
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 21 of 21
+Dated: February 24, 2022
+New York, New York
+Alia Q. Notor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+21
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6d25bb1afd1766d4fee0183b3c5cef309e1d25543798c270f105c705ae649d1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6d25bb1afd1766d4fee0183b3c5cef309e1d25543798c270f105c705ae649d1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c724439bdbe09cb3514346a4196a6d48c5ed85e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6d25bb1afd1766d4fee0183b3c5cef309e1d25543798c270f105c705ae649d1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -256,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6d25bb1afd1766d4fee0183b3c5cef309e1d25543798c270f105c705ae649d1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 23,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "84c2437388f572e07fecf2a3c3b9abe01fd4ad2ea633bc64cb5c97d8f4d94a0b",
+  "output_sha256": "299516bbc4f3292aaeaefd8fdf589060204f0dabd70a9355fde040fe0ee0ba7d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6e6d1cca491eb1689875af296046cdca6b6684e9de46cedf8dafcb83696143c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6e6d1cca491eb1689875af296046cdca6b6684e9de46cedf8dafcb83696143c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32d30bf7d580126d374615e91d881826e0a0536d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6e6d1cca491eb1689875af296046cdca6b6684e9de46cedf8dafcb83696143c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 176 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
+TO 24-PAGE MOTION ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT WAIVER ISSUES
+Plaintiff
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+Motion for Extension of Time, and hereby states as follows:
+On the evening of Thursday, May 26, 2016, Defendant filed a "Motion to Compel All
+Attorney-Client Communications and Attorney Work Product Placed at Issue by Plaintiff and
+Her Attorneys." The motion was 24 pages long and raises a host of issues regarding alleged
+waivers of attorney-client communications and work-product protections in those areas. One of
+counsel (Mr. Cassell) will be drafting the response to the motion, because most of
+the factual allegations in the motion relate to his actions as an attorney. Mr. Cassell has longstanding travel plans over the Memorial Day weekend, which will take him away from his office
+from Saturday, May 28, 2016, to Tuesday, May 31, 2016. On Wednesday, June 1, 2016, Mr.
+Cassell will fly from Utah to this Court for oral argument on several motions in this case. On
+Thursday, June 2, 2016, Mr. Cassell will argue those motions and then fly home to his office in
+Utah. Under the local rules, it appears that the response to the motion is due the next day,
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 176 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 4
+Friday, June 3, 2016. In addition, the Court has currently set the matter for oral argument on
+Thursday, June 2, presumably requiring l
+response by Wednesday, June 1.
+In light of the foregoing circumstances, it will be exceedingly difficult for counsel to
+prepare the kind of substantive response that fully articulates
+position on this
+lengthy motion by June 1. At this point, with the hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 2, 2016,
+counsel will have only three business days in which to draft a response to the
+motion.
+Counsel for Defendant has not consented to
+request to extend the time for
+filing.
+For all these reasons,
+seeks a short extension of time in which to respond to
+the 24-page Motion to Compel Attorney-Client Communications, from the current due date of
+Friday, June 3, until Wednesday, June 8, 2016. This is the first time
+has requested
+any extension of time in this case. If the Court grants the motion for extension of time on the
+response, the motion could then be heard at the court's convenience, as early as Thursday, June
+9, 2016, rather than Thursday, June 2, as currently scheduled.
+Dated: May 27, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Paul Cassell
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 176 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 4
+(801) 585-5202'
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3330]
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+J.
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+7. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 27th day of May, 2016, I served the attached document
+via Email to the following counsel of record.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+' This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 176 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 4
+Sigrid S. McCawley
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6e6d1cca491eb1689875af296046cdca6b6684e9de46cedf8dafcb83696143c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6e6d1cca491eb1689875af296046cdca6b6684e9de46cedf8dafcb83696143c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2594cc9ac4588ad20850c8fb2f93baf741dd1b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6e6d1cca491eb1689875af296046cdca6b6684e9de46cedf8dafcb83696143c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -50,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6e6d1cca491eb1689875af296046cdca6b6684e9de46cedf8dafcb83696143c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a9a12dedf6fa6b704ae57ef0f41b9baec39254edff4780bade2d663a0221bc62",
+  "output_sha256": "92d46bb7d32dad2efcbd0ad3b308d86dc757f418e31e862027bad6a1beb62742",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6f1c3d1518989730c96d2aa50c3293af27571b7f7182f15ef5e03dee03aa869.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6f1c3d1518989730c96d2aa50c3293af27571b7f7182f15ef5e03dee03aa869.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d0785862ef3512dbce60ff728a154dc9135cb41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6f1c3d1518989730c96d2aa50c3293af27571b7f7182f15ef5e03dee03aa869.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 771 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO PRESENT TESTIMONY FROM
+AND
+FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING AN
+ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION
+1, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+Present Testimony of
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Reply to Motion to
+and
+for Purposes of Obtaining an
+Adverse Inference Instruction.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 1 are true and correct copies of
+4.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 771 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 3
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+Dated: March 23, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+| (Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+7. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+Salt Lake City, UT 8411?
+(801) 585-5202
+'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 771 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+THEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of March 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+.. P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6f1c3d1518989730c96d2aa50c3293af27571b7f7182f15ef5e03dee03aa869.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6f1c3d1518989730c96d2aa50c3293af27571b7f7182f15ef5e03dee03aa869.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8b3d69631216c3df77595f5a08e0eec126d4594
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6f1c3d1518989730c96d2aa50c3293af27571b7f7182f15ef5e03dee03aa869.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6f1c3d1518989730c96d2aa50c3293af27571b7f7182f15ef5e03dee03aa869",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7af294d83383f457026c0ffb67958aa4b05751e81199b43c81adf4e38109716c",
+  "output_sha256": "31573565dce8b51f636984b6340592e22cf2d0a0b7cde1477797183c47e54911",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6ff76936305cb87b3d048a7b0f4f079a97a845374f27d992aacc1ac135b76b8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6ff76936305cb87b3d048a7b0f4f079a97a845374f27d992aacc1ac135b76b8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf5588e6c1d64a5fe37c14c526c284ef9ce482e5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6ff76936305cb87b3d048a7b0f4f079a97a845374f27d992aacc1ac135b76b8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 6
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS
+TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFF
+Plaintiff hereby serves her amended supplemental responses and objections to
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests.
+GENERAL OBJECTIONS
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests violates Local Civil Rule 33.3. Defendant
+has served interrogatories that are in direct violation of that Rule because the interrogatories are
+not "restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to
+the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and the
+existence, custodian, location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent
+insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar nature." Local
+Civil Rule 33.3(a). Instead, they seek information under subsections (b) and (c) of Local Civil
+Rule 33.3, and therefore, they should not be served because they are not "a more practical
+method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition," and
+because they were served in advance of the period "30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date."
+Local Civil Rule 33.3(b), (c). The interrogatories you served violate Local Rule 33.3 and we ask
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 6
+is in possession of a responsive document that contains a confidentiality
+provision. If Defendant obtains, and produces to
+a written waiver from her coconspirator, Mr. Epstein, of the confidentiality provision, freeing
+from any
+liability whatsoever under the confidentiality provision, she will produce the document.
+11.
+Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered
+as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell "past and future lost wages and
+past and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings - precise amounts yet to be
+computed, but not less than $5,000,000."
+Response to Interrogatory No. 11
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3. |
+objects to this interrogatory in that it prematurely seeks expert witness disclosures.
+incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures, which includes her
+computation of damages.
+12.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, that You suffered from subsequent to any
+Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b.
+the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+C.
+the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d.
+whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+C.
+the medical expenses to date;
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 6
+g-
+for each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 12
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable
+privilege.
+13.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal
+drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+C.
+the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d.
+whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e.
+the medical expenses to date;
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+g.
+For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 13
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 6
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case.
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it is not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the
+abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
+14.
+Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You
+engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,
+including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate
+sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else
+concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the
+outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 14
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim.
+objects to this request in that it seeks sexual assault information for a
+period prior to the sexual abuse at issue in this matter for a period when she was a minor child
+from the time
+was born until she was 15.
+objects to this request in that
+it is sought solely to harass, and intimidate l
+who is a victim of sexual abuse by the
+defendant.
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 6
+Ellen Brockman
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+575 Lexington Ave
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 446-2300
+43
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-2 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 6
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 22, 2016, I electronically served Plaintiff
+Amended Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Discovery
+Requests on the following:
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca,, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: ipagliuca@hmflaw.com
+,. P.C.
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+44
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6ff76936305cb87b3d048a7b0f4f079a97a845374f27d992aacc1ac135b76b8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6ff76936305cb87b3d048a7b0f4f079a97a845374f27d992aacc1ac135b76b8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc2806aa466be657e0f8a3082a1331d04737ec79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f6ff76936305cb87b3d048a7b0f4f079a97a845374f27d992aacc1ac135b76b8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -74,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f6ff76936305cb87b3d048a7b0f4f079a97a845374f27d992aacc1ac135b76b8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9ee9f3953fd431aa7e8bd6652297e1859af8f55e1566a8ffa651c7b7c3851f82",
+  "output_sha256": "029a90b8a406e582c83b3c4010cae700708378d18ccb4d74e1084d36a17fb4a3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f704a194b123609e9d4db2fe32485a8797567831b5935ec95049112623c43d6c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f704a194b123609e9d4db2fe32485a8797567831b5935ec95049112623c43d6c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..36d4e4072c7ce3f8f7c836b50532fae0a5f63e30
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f704a194b123609e9d4db2fe32485a8797567831b5935ec95049112623c43d6c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 12
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
+EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF
+GREGORY B. TAYLOR AND KYLE D. JACOBSON
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+| (Pro Hac Vice)
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+
+
+Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 12
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+1
+ARGUMENT
+..2
+I. TAYLOR DOES NOT OFFER ANY OPINION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THE
+JURY.
+.2
+II. TAYLOR IS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING D
+4
+III.TAYLOR IS NOT QUALFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING THE
+CONCLUSION
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+.. 5
+7
+...9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 3 of 12
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.,
+882 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1989)..
+Carter v. Full Serv., Inc.,
+815 N.Y.S.2d 41 (2006)
+Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider,
+379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).…...
+Statutes
+IRC §170.
+§501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code .....
+Rules
+Fed. R. Evid. 403
+Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence.
+Page
+. 3
+3
+... 3
+... 6
+... 6
+.. 6
+... 7
+il
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 4 of 12
+Plaintiff
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this reply
+in support of her Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D.
+Jacobson (hereinafter "Taylor").
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+has moved to exclude the testimony of Defendant's purported expert Taylor,
+a certified public accountant, who offers testimony on an olio of subjects wholly unrelated to
+accounting, ranging from
+These are among the topics
+upon which Taylor, as an accountant, is not qualified to opine. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 1,
+• More specifically,
+has correctly explained why Taylor should not be
+allowed to opine on
+The remaining opinions offered by Taylor would not be relevant or helpful to the jury,
+which is why Taylor should be precluded from testifying at all. Defendant has already conceded
+that Taylor cannot offer any opinions on
+However, Defendant incorrectly states that Taylor may opine on
+issues that are exclusively reserved for the jury's determination, and on subjects on which an
+accountant has no expertise whatsoever. Taylor is unqualified to opine on |
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 5 of 12
+an opinion that is wholly irrelevant to the cause of action
+being tried.
+1.
+ARGUMENT
+TAYLOR DOES NOT OFFER ANY OPINION THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
+THE JURY.
+While Taylor's report concedes that
+Instead, Taylor provides opinion after opinion for which he lacks
+expertise. Putting forth these miscellaneous and unqualified opinions necessarily usurps the role
+of the jury.
+Taylor contends that |
+Simply put, Taylor's report lacks explanation or analysis for most, if not all, of his
+claims. For example, i
+Furthermore, Taylor lacks any expertise in
+2
+Notably, Defendant's response does not proffer any explanation
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 6 of 12
+as to why an accountant is qualified to testify about issues - such as
+that clearly
+lie in the province of the jury. Indeed, "expert testimony is inadmissible when it addresses 'lay
+matters which a jury is capable of understanding and deciding without the expert's help."*
+Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (quoting
+Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co., 882 F.2d 705, 708 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing cases)).
+Setting aside
+the fact that such a determination is far afield of an accountant's expertise, this is an issue that a
+jury can resolve, a jury that will also be equipped with the knowledge that
+To add a veneer of plausibility of her argument, Defendant cites Carter v. Full Serv., Inc., 815
+N.Y.S.2d 41, 43 (2006) - a case involving a car accident and a medical doctor providing expert
+testimony on the cause of the plaintiff's injured knee. Of course, such specialized testimony is
+useful to a jury, because it comes from a medical doctor with expertise on the nature of physical
+injuries. In contrast, Taylor does not offer opinions that fall within the competence of an
+accountant, such as financial reports and loss/profit ledgers. Instead, he ventures far afield
+Such is the stuff of an attorney's closing argument, not the expert opinion from an accountant of
+all people.
+Perhaps recognizing how remote Taylor's testimony is from his field of expertise,
+Defendant claims that
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 599 Filed 02/09/17 Page 7 of 12
+Taylor's opinions are just a thinly-veiled effort to invade the
+province of the jury. The Court should exclude Taylor from testifying entirely.
+II.
+TAYLOR IS NOT QUALIFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING
+Remarkably,
+Yet Taylor obviously lacks any
+and his opinions in this area
+expertise
+are particularly objectionable.
+In her response, before offering any explanation as to why an accountant could opine on
+issues relating to
+See McCawley Dec. at
+Composite Exhibit 2,
+Taylor has absolutely no experience in |
+4
+
+
+Filed 02/09/17
+
+See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 3,
+And, given Defendant's own arguments, Taylor should
+that are far afield from any
+obviously be precluded from testifying on I
+expertise he might otherwise have.
+III.
+TAYLOR IS NOT QUALFIED TO OFFER ANY OPINIONS REGARDING THE
+Defendant now concedes that Taylor should not be permitted to offer any opinions on
+Resp. at 6.
+Such
+opinions are irrelevant and highly prejudicial and should be excluded.
+In any event,
+issue to be tried before the jury: whether Defendant defamed
+5
+_are wholly irrelevant to the central
+in calling her a liar
+
+
+Filed 02/09/17
+
+about the sex abuse she experienced at her hands, and how much damage that defamation
+caused. Defendant's response fails to offer any rational reason
+6
+
+
+
+Accordingly, Taylor's opinion
+regarding l
+appears to be contrary to facts and based on unfounded speculation. There are no
+grounds for the admission of Taylor's report or testimony under Rule 702, Federal Rules of
+Evidence. And given the confusion of issues -
+-- the Court should exclude his unfounded
+opinions.
+CONCLUSION
+For all of the foregoing reasons,
+respectfully requests that the Court
+preclude Defendant's purported experts, Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle D. Jacobson, from
+offering any expert opinions in this case.
+Dated: February 9, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+
+
+
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+8
+
+
+
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 9th of February, 2017, 1 electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+/s/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f704a194b123609e9d4db2fe32485a8797567831b5935ec95049112623c43d6c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f704a194b123609e9d4db2fe32485a8797567831b5935ec95049112623c43d6c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c11164c5e9cfd7460925343d87735965d2c3829f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f704a194b123609e9d4db2fe32485a8797567831b5935ec95049112623c43d6c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -469,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f704a194b123609e9d4db2fe32485a8797567831b5935ec95049112623c43d6c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 18,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "abf4c83be6d1d069dcd0ce2dc7f6004f8f9b6e7c299855f42c712cb4c6f21167",
+  "output_sha256": "6f9ae4db4dad846e72e71067052f86262806db75a31b8d82dfd8fe23d38d409f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f710087b5d8f4c1eda61cc6c6e994c705f643d5df4bdf3c09d4d22dcf17258e5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f710087b5d8f4c1eda61cc6c6e994c705f643d5df4bdf3c09d4d22dcf17258e5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4896917f19e50550fe1a2049f35edbf89a507353
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f710087b5d8f4c1eda61cc6c6e994c705f643d5df4bdf3c09d4d22dcf17258e5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 53
+Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 3
+M
+HADDON
+Haddon,
+and
+P.C
+Jeffrey Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364 x 303.832.2628
+www.hmfiaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+August 24, 2020
+VIA EMAIL
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: Proposed Redactions to Request to Modify Protective Order (Under Seal)
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan,
+In accordance with this Court's Order of August 18, 2020 (Doc. 44), Ms. Maxwell hereby
+respectfully submits under seal her proposed redactions to her Request to Modify Protective
+Order ("Request"), filed under seal on August 17, 2020. Ms. Maxwell also has filed her Reply
+under seal and contemporaneously submits her proposed redactions to that pleading.'
+Ms. Maxwell has no opposition to keeping under seal, and redacting from her Request and
+Reply, the contents, description and discussion of the sealed materials themselves; because the
+government has marked them Confidential, the Protective Order requires as much. See Doc. 36,
+€ 15.
+The government's proposed redactions, however, go further and propose to redact
+The government would
+have this Court redact
+on the premise that it would "risk jeopardizing the
+government's investigation."
+• To the extent this Court believes this letter also should be filed publicly, counsel also has indicated her proposed
+redactions to this letter.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 53 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+August 24, 2020
+Page 2
+Moreover, the government has made repeated, highly public statements, including at the press
+conference following Ms. Maxwell's indictment,' in the press conference following Mr.
+Epstein's indictment," in a press conference convened at the doorstep of Mr. Epstein's former
+and in other publicly-released statements' that its investigation into
+associates of Mr. Epstein is ongoing and active.
+•. The process to evaluate whether a
+judicial document should remain under seal is clear. Once a determination is made that the
+materials are judicial documents the Court is required to determine whether any countervailing
+interests outweigh the presumptive right to public access.
+v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50
+(2d Cir. 2019).
+Frankly, Ms. Maxwell does not believe that the government has established a countervailing
+interest compelling enough to justify continued sealing of the documents.
+It is also likely that these same documents
+will be the subject of future motion practice in this Court,
+However, Ms. Maxwell has no interest in additional pretrial publicity related to any of these
+documents and submits that protecting her right to a fair trial is the countervailing interest that,
+at this point, requires her proposed redactions and the continued sealing of the materials with the
+exception of her limited request to file the materials under seal
+2 "These charges to be announced today, are the latest result of our investigation into Epstein, and the people
+around him who facilitated his abuse of minor victims. That investigation remains ongoing."
+(https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/announcement-transcript-of-charges-against-ghislaine-maxwell-in-new-yorkjeffrey-epstein-associate-arrested).
+3 *This in no way is over, OK. There's going to be more investigative steps they're going to take place and the FBI
+with the U.S. attorney here is going to continue to investigate."
+http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1907/08/ath.01 html).
++ Sarah Nathan and Kate Sheey, "Prince Andrew refuses to cooperate with feds in Jeffrey Epstein probe," NY Post
+(Jan. 27, 2020) (https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/prince-andrew-refuses-to-cooperate-with-feds-in-jeffrey-epsteinprobe/).
+' Alan Feuer, "Prince Andrew and U.S> Prosecutor in Nasty Dispute Over Epstein Case," NY Times (June 8, 2020)
+(https://wwwnytimes.com/2020/06/08/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-prince-andrew html).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 53 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+August 24, 2020
+Page 3
+Respectfully Submitted,
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+CC: Counsel of Record (via Email)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f710087b5d8f4c1eda61cc6c6e994c705f643d5df4bdf3c09d4d22dcf17258e5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f710087b5d8f4c1eda61cc6c6e994c705f643d5df4bdf3c09d4d22dcf17258e5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69ef9eeefe813ddb4bff27e130787fa51c9e310f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f710087b5d8f4c1eda61cc6c6e994c705f643d5df4bdf3c09d4d22dcf17258e5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -40,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f710087b5d8f4c1eda61cc6c6e994c705f643d5df4bdf3c09d4d22dcf17258e5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "15bbd0088aef8191983640f8345461015211d733f4ea1c68741706db773d6451",
+  "output_sha256": "b777223cf27795f5e999d59d12e79cf54a7688c6d52475668ecdc78a3769a004",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f729500fbeda26cff247a83cc7ed96a6eeee37d005f6e13c3e02abc0822de2d8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f729500fbeda26cff247a83cc7ed96a6eeee37d005f6e13c3e02abc0822de2d8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6849efe3453161f8bc3fdb3557a1ffa31c76e4a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f729500fbeda26cff247a83cc7ed96a6eeee37d005f6e13c3e02abc0822de2d8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 45
+Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- - X
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+Notice of Appearance
+- V. -
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+X
+TO:
+Clerk of Court
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+The undersigned attorney respectfully requests the Clerk to note her appearance in this case
+and to add her as a Filing User to whom Notices of Electronic Filing will be transmitted in this
+case.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+Acting United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+by:
+S/
+Lara Pomerantz
+Assistant United States Attorney
+(212) 637-2343
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f729500fbeda26cff247a83cc7ed96a6eeee37d005f6e13c3e02abc0822de2d8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f729500fbeda26cff247a83cc7ed96a6eeee37d005f6e13c3e02abc0822de2d8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a87c85743e570c9efe63aa30344e9000acde867
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f729500fbeda26cff247a83cc7ed96a6eeee37d005f6e13c3e02abc0822de2d8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f729500fbeda26cff247a83cc7ed96a6eeee37d005f6e13c3e02abc0822de2d8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6834333e271e12fe5c1e2b1c1414453effe9cc232b0743785601e330e5cf9e3f",
+  "output_sha256": "be164fc6cc277c53aa4f091a1416193a4201453270de4d9422eced740c6dc680",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f72c407e4bc188e8b1b01e719311ccf4c5059c34897d719854f0e116a21ce266.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f72c407e4bc188e8b1b01e719311ccf4c5059c34897d719854f0e116a21ce266.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..112103cd2db1f898ff7900847977bcb4dc5bcacf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f72c407e4bc188e8b1b01e719311ccf4c5059c34897d719854f0e116a21ce266.md
@@ -0,0 +1,560 @@
+CG
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636
+Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 22
+800 Third Avenue
+& GRESSER LLP
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+ceverdell@)cohengresser.com
+BY EMAIL
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We write in response to the Court's order, dated February 24, 2022, permitting the parties
+to submit proposed questions to the Court for the hearing related to Ms. Maxwell's Motion for a
+New Trial. Dkt. 610.
+Renewed Request for Counsel to Conduct the Questioning of Juror 50
+Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request that the Court allow counsel to conduct the questioning
+of Juror 50 during the upcoming hearing. Attorney-conducted questioning enhances the
+opportunity and ability to elicit bias on the part of the juror. See, e.g.,
+& Haney, Felony
+Voir Dire: An Exploratory Study of its Contents and Effect, 18 Law and Human Behavior 309
+(1994). To smoke out the reasons why Juror 50 did not truthfully answer Questions 48 and 25 on
+the jury questionnaire, he must be cross-examined. Defense counsel is in the best position to
+conduct that cross-examination. This was the procedure that Judge Pauley followed in United
+States v. Daugerdas, and there is no reason to follow a different procedure here. See Dkt. 616-1.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 22
+Page 2
+Proposed Questions
+A. Questions to Determine the Nature of Juror 50's Sexual Abuse and Whether Juror
+50's Responses to Questions 48 and 25 of the Jury Questionnaire Were False
+Under the McDonough test, the Court must first determine whether Juror 50's responses to
+Questions 48 and 25 were, in fact, false as reflected in his post-trial statements to the media.
+United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McDonough Power Equipment,
+Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984)). It is also necessary for the Court to inquire about
+the nature of the sexual abuse that Juror 50 experienced. Had Juror 50 disclosed in response to
+Question 48 that he was the victim of sexual abuse, he would have had to explain the nature of
+that abuse in his response to the very next question. See Question 48a. Furthermore, it is
+important for the Court to explore the specifics of Juror 50's sexual abuse to determine how
+similar his experience was to the experiences of the witnesses who testified at trial. See United
+States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Courts imply bias "when there
+are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.""
+(quoting United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151, 163-64 (D. Mass. 2011)). Accordingly,
+the defense requests that the Court ask Juror 50 the following questions:
+1. The Independent and the Daily Mail reported that you said you were the victim of
+sexual abuse when you were child, correct?
+2. Did you say that?
+3. So, it is accurate that you claim to have been a victim of sexual abuse when you were
+under the age of consent?
+4. How old were you when you were sexually abused?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 22
+Page 3
+5. Who abused you - was it a family member? An acquaintance? A stranger?
+6. Was it someone in position of authority or trust - a teacher? A coach? A mentor? A
+family friend? A religious leader - i.e., a priest/rabbi/etc.? A scout
+or group
+leader?
+7. How old was the person who abused you?
+8. How many times were you abused?
+9. Over how long a time period did the abuse happen?
+10. What was the nature of the sexual abuse?
+a. Did the abuse involve sexual touching?
+b. Did the abuse involve just you and the abuser, or were others ever involved?
+11. Where were you when the abuse took place?
+a. Were you at your home, or the home of the abuser, or some other place?
+b. Were your parents nearby or were they absent?
+12. Were you living with both your parents when the abuse took place? Or were you in a
+single parent houschold?
+13. Did you know the accuser before the abuse took place? For how long?
+14. Did the abuser spend time with you before the abuse took place? Please describe that
+interaction.
+15. Did the abuser spend time with your parents before the abuse took place? Please
+describe that interaction.
+16. Did the abuser give you attention?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 22
+Page 4
+17. Did the abuser give you gifts?
+18. Did the abuser buy you things?
+19. Did the abuser offer to help you in any way?
+20. Did the abuser discuss sexual topics with you before the abuse took place?
+21. Did the abuser otherwise try to normalize sexual topics or sexual situations before the
+abuse took place?
+22. How old were you when the abuse stopped?
+23. Did you report the abuse right away? Why not?
+24. When did you report the abuse?
+a. How old were you?
+b. To whom did you report the abuse?
+c. What led you to report the abuse at that time?
+d. Did you seek counseling for the abuse?
+25. What you have described was a very traumatic event, wouldn't you agree?
+26. This is the kind of event that someone never forgets, right?
+27. This is something that you never forgot?
+28. You agree that what was done to you was a crime?
+29. As you sit here today, do you consider yourself to be the victim of a crime?
+30. Was a friend or family member of yours ever the victim of sexual abuse?
+31. Please explain the nature of the sexual abuse they experienced.
+a. [REPEAT SAME QUESTIONS AS ABOVE]
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 22
+Page 5
+32. The jury questionnaire that you filled out before you were selected to be a juror on this
+case asked you the following question: "Have you or a friend or a family member ever
+been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?"
+a. That was Question 48?
+b. And it gave you the choice of marking "Yes (self)" or "Yes (friend of family
+member)" or "No"?
+c. And you marked "No"?
+d. Based on what you have just described about your own experience of being
+sexually abused as a child, that answer is not true, correct?
+33. The jury questionnaire also asked you the following question: "Have you, or any of
+your relatives or close friends, ever been the victim of a crime?"
+a. That was Question 25?
+b. And it gave you the choice of marking "Yes (self)" or "Yes (friend of family
+member)" or "No"?
+c. And you marked "No"?
+d. Based on what you have just described about your own experience of being
+sexually abused as a child, that answer is not true, correct?
+B. Questions to Probe the Reasons for Juror 50's Responses to the Questions on the
+Questionnaire and the Credibility of His Explanations
+The Court ruled that the scope of the hearing must include an inquiry into "the explanation
+for [the] answers" that Juror 50 gave to the questions in the jury questionnaire. 2/24/2022 Op. &
+Order at 7. The Court therefore must ask questions that explore Juror 50's level of knowledge
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 6 of 22
+Page 6
+about the case before he completed the jury questionnaire, his state of mind when he completed
+the questionnaire, and how he approached the task of completing the questionnaire, as well as
+questions that test Juror 50's after-the-fact explanation that he "flew through" the questions.
+Accordingly, the defense requests that the Court ask Juror 50 the following questions:
+1. You were aware of the case before jury selection began, correct?
+2. Tell me everything you can recall knowing about either Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine
+Maxwell before jury selection began.
+a. What did you learn about the case from media reports?
+b. When did you learn that it was a case involving allegations of sexual abuse of
+minors?
+3. When you first learned of this case in the media, that must have caused you to think
+about your own abuse as a child, correct?
+a. That must have caused you to want to know more about the case, right?
+b. As a victim of serious child sexual abuse, you must feel sympathy for other
+victims, correct?
+c. Do you identify with them as people who had experienced the same type of
+abuse that you had experienced as a minor?
+4. When you were called for jury duty, did you know which case you were summoned
+for?
+5. When you arrived at the courthouse on the day you received your questionnaire, you
+learned that you were summoned for the Maxwell case?
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 7 of 22
+Page 7
+6. And you recognized her as someone who was accused of helping Jeffrey Epstein
+sexually abuse children?
+7. You also heard a preview of the case before completing your questionnaire?
+8. The questionnaire included a summary of the case on the second page?
+a. That summary explained that the charges in the indictment "stem from
+allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004, the Defendant conspired with
+and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to engage in
+criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual
+activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor""?
+b. You read that summary before completing the questionnaire?
+9. So, before you started answering the questions on the questionnaire, you knew the case
+involved allegations of sex abuse of minors and sex trafficking of minors?
+a. How did that make you feel about the case?
+b. Did it cause you to think about your own sexual abuse as a child?
+c. Did it cause you to feel sympathy for the victims?
+10. You were asked to read the jury questionnaire and answer the questions?
+a. The jury questionnaire was several pages long?
+b. And it contained 51 questions?
+c. And some of those questions had subparts?
+11. When you first got the questionnaire, you read through the Preliminary Instructions on
+the first two pages?
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 8 of 22
+Page 8
+12. You knew that you were "sworn to give true and complete answers to all questions in
+[the] questionnaire"?
+13. So, you knew that you needed to pay attention to the questions, read them carefully,
+and answer truthfully?
+14. You are familiar with this kind of attention to detail in your own work, correct?
+a. You work for
+b. You are employed as an executive assistant?
+C.
+expects thoroughness and attention to detail from its
+employees, especially on important matters, correct?
+d. Your job requires you to be thorough?
+e. Your job requires you to be accurate?
+f. Your job requires you to be truthful?
+g. You don't "fly through" important tasks at your job?
+h. You know how to read a document carefully?
+i. And you knew that truthful and accurate responses on the jury questionnaire
+was critical for selecting a fair and impartial jury in this trial?
+15. You knew that you had as much time as you needed to read the questionnaire and
+answer the questions accurately?
+a. You weren't given any time limits to complete the questionnaire?
+b. You did not feel pressured to complete the questionnaire quickly?
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 9 of 22
+Page 9
+16. When you got to end of the questionnaire, you signed your name and swore under
+penalty of perjury that your answers were "true and correct"?
+a. When you are required to affirm the truth of your answers, you read them
+carefully before you sign your name?
+b. You had the opportunity to go back and check your answers before you signed
+the questionnaire?
+c. Did you review your answers?
+17. You have spoken to the media on several occasions about your involvement as a juror
+in this case?
+a. You spoke to a reporter working with a UK publication called The
+Independent?
+b. You spoke to a reporter working with the UK publication called the Daily
+Mail?
+c. You gave a videotaped interview to that same reporter?
+d. And you spoke to a reporter working for Reuters?
+e. You told the Reuters reporter that you "flew through" the questionnaire?
+18. Please look at page 8 of the questionnaire. That is the section entitled "Basic Legal
+Principles and Media Restrictions"?
+a. It starts off with a series of questions that ask you whether you can accept
+certain legal principles that you must accept in order to serve on the jury?
+b. Those are Questions 10-14?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Document 636
+Filed 03/01/22 Page 10 of 22
+Page 10
+c. You read those questions?
+d. You understood those questions?
+e. You knew that if you responded "No" to any of these questions, you might not
+be able to serve on the jury?
+f. And you responded "Yes" to each?
+g. You gave truthful and accurate responses to those questions?
+h. Then at Question 15, the questions switch - they describe some of the
+anticipated evidence in the case and they ask you whether that kind of evidence
+would affect your ability to be fair and impartial?
+i. Those are Questions 15-16?
+j. You read those questions?
+k. You understood those questions?
+1. You knew that if you responded "Yes" to any of these questions, you might not
+be able to serve on the jury?
+m. So, it was the reverse of Questions 10-14?
+n. And you responded "No" to each?
+o. You gave truthful and accurate responses to those questions?
+p. You didn't "fly through" Questions 15 and 16 and answer "Yes" simply
+because you had checked "Yes' for Questions 10-14?
+q. You read the questions carefully and realized they were asking something
+different, and as a result, you gave a different answer?
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 11 of 22
+Page 11
+19. Please look at pages 11-13 of the questionnaire. That is the section entitled
+"Experience as a Witness, Defendant, or Crime Victim"?
+a. Those questions explored whether you or a relative or a close friend had any
+experiences with the legal system or with law enforcement or with being a
+crime victim that might prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror?
+b. Each of those questions had multiple parts?
+c. If you answered "yes," to any of those questions, you would have to provide
+further information and potentially a written explanation?
+d. You read those questions?
+e. You understood those questions?
+f. Those questions included Question 25, which asked you if you were the victim
+of a crime?
+g. You responded "No" to each of those questions?
+h. You didn't respond to any of the sub-questions that asked for further
+information if you answered "Yes" to the first question?
+i. You skipped those?
+j. Because you had read the initial question and the follow-up questions closely
+and realized that you didn't need to answer the follow-up questions if you
+answered "no" to the first question?
+20. Please look at pages 19-21 of the questionnaire. That is the section entitled
+"Knowledge of the Case and People"?
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 12 of 22
+Page 12
+a. As the title suggests, this section contains questions about your knowledge of
+the case and the relevant parties and whether you have formed any opinions
+about them?
+b. With the exception of the last question in this section (Question 41), all of the
+questions ask you to provide additional information if your answer is "yes or
+unsure"?
+c. And you did provide additional information?
+d. You provided a written response to Question 34 because you answered that
+question "Yes."
+e. You didn't just "fly through" that question?
+f. You took the time to give a written response, as the questionnaire requested?
+g. You also provided a written response to Question 37 because you answered that
+question "Yes."
+h. You didn't just "fly through" that question either?
+i. You took the time to give a written response, as the questionnaire requested?
+j. Please look at Question 41. As I mentioned, Question 4lis the only question in
+this section that asks for further information if your answer to the initial
+question is "No"?
+k. And you responded "Yes."
+1. You did not "fly through" that question and answer "no"?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 13 of 22
+Page 13
+m. You responded "Yes" because you carefully read the question and realized that
+it was asking something different?
+n. The two questions before Question 41 asked if information you had heard about
+the case might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror?
+o. You responded "No" to those questions?
+p. By contrast, Question 41 asked whether you could put aside anything you heard
+and decide the case on the evidence?
+q. You responded "Yes" to that question?
+r. Because you had read the question carefully enough to know that your response
+to the question was different from the previous two?
+21. Please look at pages 24 of the questionnaire. That is where Question 48 appears?
+a. You told the reporter from Reuters that you "flew through" the questionnaire
+and you don't recall being asked on the questionnaire about personal
+experiences with sexual abuse?
+b. You also told the reporter from the Daily Mail in your video interview that you
+weren't asked about your sexual abuse history in the jury questionnaire?
+c. When the reporter from the Daily Mail told you that Question 48 asked that
+very question, you said "I don't remember it being there."
+d. But you also said, "I definitely remember a family or relative or something ...
+being sexually abused."
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 14 of 22
+Page 14
+e. And when you made that statement to the Daily Mail reporter, you had not seen
+your jury questionnaire since you had filled it out.
+f. So, at the time of your interview with the Daily Mail, you recalled a question
+about whether or not a family member or a relative was sexually abused, but
+you didn't recall a question about whether you yourself were sexually abused?
+g. Question 48 is the only question in the entire questionnaire that asks whether
+you or a friend or a family member has been the victim of sexual abuse?
+h. And the word "you" comes before "friend" and "family member"?
+i. So, you're saying that you read this question closely enough at the time you
+filled out the questionnaire to remember that it asked about sexual abuse
+involving your friends and family members, but not involving yourself?
+j. So, you didn't "fly through" this question - you remember almost all of it?
+k. The only part you now claim you "flew through" is the part that asked about
+your own sexual abuse?
+C. Questions to Probe Whether Juror 50 Was Biased Due to His Childhood Sexual
+Abuse and Could Have Been Struck for Cause
+Apart from the questions set forth above concerning the similarities between Juror 50's
+childhood sexual abuse and those of the witnesses —which alone is sufficient to support a for
+cause challenge—the Court should inquire about other possible sources of actual, implied, and
+inferred bias that may have resulted from his abuse. See United States v.
+128 F.3d 38, 43
+(2d Cir. 1997) (Challenges for cause can be based on implied bias, inferable bias, or actual bias).
+The defense believes it serves no purpose to ask Juror 50 what he would have said if he had been
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 15 of 22
+Page 15
+asked, at the time of jury selection, whether he could still be fair and impartial juror despite his
+experience with childhood sexual abuse. Similarly, it serves no purpose to ask Juror 50, after the
+fact, whether his experience with childhood sexual abuse affected his ability to be a fair and
+impartial juror during the deliberations. Both questions will elicit only self-serving answers. The
+Court should, instead, ask Juror 50 questions that are designed to elicit the impact that the sexual
+abuse had on Juror 50 and his ability to impartially assess evidence of a case involving sexual
+abuse.
+1. How has the sexual abuse you experienced as a child affected your life?
+a. Did it affect how you interact with people? How?
+b. Did it affect your ability to trust people? How?
+c. Did it affect your personal relationships? How?
+2. Have you ever been involved in victims' rights groups or victim advocacy?
+a. Do you support victims' rights or victim advocacy groups?
+b. Are you a member of any of these groups?
+c. Do you donate your time to these groups?
+d. Do you donate money to these groups?
+e. Have you ever attended rallies or protests in support of victims' rights?
+3. Did you seek mental health counseling to address the abuse you experienced?
+a. You have spoken publicly about your own therapy in your social media posts?
+b. How long have you been in therapy?
+c. Have you used your therapy to address your feelings about the abuse?
+
+
+Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 16 of 22
+Page 16
+d. Have you participated in any support groups for sexual abuse survivors?
+Which ones? How often?
+4. You posted on your Instagram account shortly after the trial that you "see a therapist
+regularly" who has given you "some help dealing with the stress from this case."
+a. Did you speak to your therapist before trial when you became a potential juror
+on this case?
+b. Did you speak to your therapist during trial while serving as a juror on this
+case?
+c. Did you speak to your therapist after the trial?
+d. Were your feelings of stress you mentioned in your Instagram post caused in
+any way by the allegations of sexual abuse?
+e. Were your feelings of stress caused in any way by the testimony of the
+witnesses?
+f. Did their testimony cause you to revisit your own traumatic experience of
+sexual abuse?
+5. You made number of statements to the media about how you remember your own
+abuse?
+a. You told The Independent "I know what happened when I was sexually abused.
+I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of' it can be replayed like a
+video."
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 17 of 22
+Page 17
+b. You believe that there are parts of your memory of your own abuse that are like
+a video tape that can be played back?
+c. Those parts of your memory are frozen and inalterable (like a videotape) and
+are so vivid that they cannot be altered by the passage of time?
+d. And you believe that all victims' memories function this way?
+e. You believe that victims may not be able to remember all of the details, but
+they will never forget or misremember the core aspects of the abuse?
+f. Does that include who participated in the abuse?
+g. Do you believe it is possible that someone who makes an allegation of child
+sexual abuse can be mistaken about who abused them?
+h. You do not credit other people who say that victims may misremember even
+core details of their abuse?
+i. You have this belief because that's how your memory of your own abuse
+functions?
+j. That is a belief that you had even before jury selection began?
+k. And had you been asked about this belief during voir dire, you would have
+disclosed it?
+6. Being a victim of a sexual assault is something you will never forget, is that a fair
+statement?
+7. As a former victim you are sympathetic to other victims of sexual abuse?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 18 of 22
+Page 18
+8. Do you agree with the following statement: "Based on my own experience and without
+knowing the particular facts of any case, if someone claims that they were abused, it is
+more likely that I will believe they are telling the truth"?
+9. Do you believe that people who make allegations of being sexually abused as a child
+are usually telling the truth?
+10. Do you believe that victims would not go through the stress of testifying at trial about
+the sexual abuse they suffered as a child unless they were telling the truth?
+D. Questions to Elicit Whether Juror 50's Responses to Questions 48 and 25 of the Jury
+Questionnaire Were Deliberately or Intentionally False
+The Court did not resolve whether the standard for a new trial requires the prospective
+juror to make a deliberate false statement on the jury questionnaire or whether an inadvertent
+misstatement is sufficient as long as a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a
+challenge for cause. See 2/24/2022 Op. & Order at 4 n.3. The defense and the amici believe that
+that a deliberate misstatement is not required. Nevertheless, because this issue has not been
+resolved, the Court should ask additional questions to elicit whether Juror 50's responses to
+Questions 48 and 25 were deliberately false. That includes questions to establish when he first
+spoke to the press, whether he contacted the press himself, whether he got paid for his interviews,
+and what his intentions were about serving on the Maxwell jury.
+Ms. Maxwell submits that whether Juror 50 received payment for interviews after the trial
+is probative of his intention to not disclose information during voir dire that would have called
+into question his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror. As discussed in the Amicus Brief,
+fame, prestige, and profit are powerful motivators; and the lure has given rise to the so-called
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 19 of 22
+Page 19
+"stealth juror" who deliberately lies or evades full disclosure of bias to get on a jury. See Dkt. 614
+at 4-5. Jurors who have served in high-profile trials have become instant celebrities, garnering 15-
+minutes of fame and beyond. They are interviewed by the press; appear on talk shows,
+documentaries, and podcasts; publish books; and even become employed as trial consultants. The
+proliferation of social media and 24-hour news channels has made the media interest surrounding
+jurors more intense and has created abundant opportunity for jurors to step into the limelight and
+profit from their experience. Jurors have profited financially' and gained notoriety from
+publishing books, being interviewed, and securing employment based on their trial experience.*
+Alternate Juror No. 2, Jeffrey Welbaum sold his trial notebooks to Vincent F. |
+, The Michael
+Trial Juror Notebooks. https://www.vincentfamen.com/juror-notebooks/;: Michael Knox, author
+of Private Diary of an O.J. Juror, reportedly received $100,000 advance.
+https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-23-mn-5092-story.html).
+2 See Dkt.614 at n 3; see also Greg Beratlis, Juror No. 1, Tom Marino, Juror No. 2, Mike Belmessieri, Juror
+No. 4, Dennis Lear, Juror No. 5, Richelle Nice, Juror No. 7, John Guinasso, Juror No. 7, and Julie Zanartu,
+Juror No. 9, We, the Jury: Deciding the Scott Peterson Case; Jury
+Herman Tubic, Inside the
+Manson Jury: From Deliberation to Death Sentence.
+3 CNN broadcast a joint interview of Chauvin jurors days before the trial judge officially released names of
+jury members. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/10/28/don-lemon-derek-chauvin-trial-jurorsnewsroom-vpx.cnn; Jury Duty host Kary Antholis interviewed Durst jurors. Durst Trial Podcast: Juror
+Interviews. https://shows.acast.com/jury-duty-the-trial-of-robert-durst/episodes;
+https://podcasts.apple.com/bh/podcast/jury-duty/id1521920134; Interviews of Chauvin Juror No 52
+Brandon Mitchell. https://www.facebook.com/ABCNewsLive/videos/watch-juror-brandon-mitchellspeaks-to-abc-news-robin-
+-in-his-first-telev/129172915896546/; https://abcnews.go.com/US/derekchauvin-juror-trial-watching-die-daily-basis/story?id=77361744; Interview of Alternate Juror Lisa
+Christenson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsgDdd4pcbY.
+* See, e.g., Stephanie Francis
+, Former Jurors To Be Consultants-Defense is Hiring Them For Help in
+Gang-Rape Retrial,30 A.B.A. J. E. REP., July 30, 2004; Michael D. Goldhaber, Thinking Out of the Jury
+Box: Lawyer-Juror on Hung Panel Joins the Defense for Retrial, NAT'L L.J., July 26, 1999.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 Filed 03/01/22 Page 20 of 22
+Page 20
+Money, fame, and prestige are powerful motivators enhancing a prospective juror's desire
+to be seated in a high-profile case. The amount of money Juror 50 may have received post-verdict
+may have minimal relevance. However, whether he hoped he would gain the opportunity to profit
+from jury service in the Maxwell trial is relevant to his motive to be selected as a juror on this case
+and may underly his failure to truthfully answer Questions 25 and 48.
+1. When did you first have contact with a member of the media concerning this case?
+a. Was it before, during, or after jury deliberations?
+b. You already told us that you spoke journalists working for The Independent, the
+Daily Mail, and Reuters?
+c. When did you first make contact with each of them?
+d. Who made the first contact - did you first contact the journalists, or did they
+contact you?
+e. Did you speak to any other member of the media? When? Who reached out to
+whom?
+2. Did you get paid for any of these interviews?
+a. Was that part of the reason you spoke to the media?
+3. When did you first decide that you would talk to the media about your experience as a
+juror on the Maxwell case?
+a. Was it after you were selected as a juror, but before the trial began?
+b. Was it during the trial, but before jury deliberations began?
+c. Was it during jury deliberations?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 636 |
+Filed 03/01/22 Page 21 of 22
+Page 21
+d. Was it after the verdict?
+4. You did not shy away from speaking publicly about your jury service?
+5. You did not shy away from publicly revealing that you were a victim of child sex
+abuse?
+6. What was your reason for going public?
+a. You told the reporter from The Independent: "This verdict is for all the victims"
+and "shows that you can be found guilty no matter your status."
+b. When
+posted a Tweet thanking you for your jury service, you
+Tweeted back "Thanks for sharing my story."
+c. In early January, shortly after the trial was over, you posted the following
+message on Instagram: "I can now tell everyone that I was a juror on the
+Ghislaine Maxwell trial."
+7. Did you want to be on the Maxwell jury?
+a. Did you think it was important that you be on the Maxwell jury as a survivor of
+childhood sexual abuse?
+b. Did you view your role on the jury as a someone who could provide the
+perspective of someone who had been abused as a child?
+c. Did you view the verdict as a triumph for victims over abusers?
+d. Was it your intent to "share your own story" about being a juror on the
+Maxwell case after the trial was over?
+
+
+Document 636
+Filed 03/01/22 Page 22 of 22
+Page 22
+e. By speaking to the media, did you want to be viewed as a champion of victims
+of sexual abuse?
+Sincerely,
+/s/ Christian Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+ce: All Counsel of Record (by ECF)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f72c407e4bc188e8b1b01e719311ccf4c5059c34897d719854f0e116a21ce266.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f72c407e4bc188e8b1b01e719311ccf4c5059c34897d719854f0e116a21ce266.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..16479dbfcd8c1508668611633b7e41cff774a529
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f72c407e4bc188e8b1b01e719311ccf4c5059c34897d719854f0e116a21ce266.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1688,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f72c407e4bc188e8b1b01e719311ccf4c5059c34897d719854f0e116a21ce266",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 26,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "708ec961fa017e375d0da5cc96aab8fc36e74dfb478cc4f8befecfd0286f51d0",
+  "output_sha256": "774e580e5de84c3f62430bc070d8d5f2b484e807d4b4e08a90744b6a8b32adba",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f734f67f3ecfe29fc4d8e972a2a2c5783b2eddd9ee53cd183a38d95330cbc182.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f734f67f3ecfe29fc4d8e972a2a2c5783b2eddd9ee53cd183a38d95330cbc182.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46851cdf4d0bc681c43e6fe1e3872307475fdaa3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f734f67f3ecfe29fc4d8e972a2a2c5783b2eddd9ee53cd183a38d95330cbc182.md
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 447
+Filed 11/12/21
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+enver, CO 8020
+hone: 303-831-736
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New
+York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+P.C.
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 447 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 8
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+BACKGROUND
+ARGUMENT..
+.. 2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 447 Filed 11/12/21 Page 3 of 8
+TABLES OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) ..
+Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
+Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001)
+v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968)
+Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) ....
+United States v.
+983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992).
+United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x 640 (2d Cir. 2012)..
+2,3
+2,3
+..3
+2,3
+..2
+...3
+.. 3
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 447 Filed 11/12/21 Page 4 of 8
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, moves to prohibit the Government from
+offering testimony from Accuser 4
+identifying Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator
+of any crime. Any in-court identification is tainted by unduly suggestive photo array procedures
+employed by the Government that violate Ms. Maxwell's right to due process under the United
+States Constitution for the following reasons:
+BACKGROUND
+Accuser 4,
+was first contacted by the FBI in 2007.
+was
+interviewed on August 7, 2007 by Agents D
+and asked
+about any abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.
+did not identify Ms. Maxwell as someone who recruited her, groomed her, or
+otherwise interacted with her in Palm Beach, Florida, or any other location. She identified
+I as someone she interacted with and who took nude photographs of her at Mr. Epstein's
+direction.|
+After her FBI interview,
+represented by counsel, filed lawsuits against
+Jeffrey Epstein |
+•. Neither of those lawsuits mentions Ms. Maxwell. •
+During her deposition in connection with the lawsuit,
+She did not identify Ms.
+Maxwell as having had any role in any alleged sexual abuse or trafficking.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 447 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 8
+presented
+On June 23, 2021, almost twenty years after the alleged events, and 14 years after
+did not identify Ms. Maxwell as the perpetrator of any crime, the Government
+with a series of • photographs, attached as Exhibit A.
+The photographic identification procedure used was the functional
+equivalent of a one-on-one show-up. Any identification is tainted and should therefore be
+suppressed by the Court.
+ARGUMENT
+A defendant's right to due process includes the right not to be the object of suggestive
+police identification procedures that create "a very substantial likelihood of irreparable
+misidentification."
+v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968); accord Neil v. Biggers,
+409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972); see also Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 106 n.9, 114 (1977). This
+principle applies both to show-ups, see, e.g., Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967), and to
+photographic identifications.
+v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 (1968).
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 447 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 8
+When a defendant challenges the admissibility of identification testimony given by a
+witness who made a pretrial identification, the Court is required to conduct a two-part inquiry,
+asking first whether the pretrial identification procedures were unduly suggestive and, if so,
+whether the identification is nonetheless independently reliable. Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122,
+133 (2d Cir. 2001).
+A Government arranged photo array is unduly suggestive when a procedure "give[s] rise
+to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."
+v. United States at 384
+(1968); see also United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x 640, 646 (2d Cir. 2012). In the context
+of a photo array, familiar examples of a suggestive presentation include the "use of a very small
+number of photographs," "the use of suggestive comments," or the display of the accused's
+photograph in a way that "so stood out from all of the other photographs as to suggest to an
+identifying witness that that person was more likely to be the culprit." United States v.
+, 983 F.2d 369, 377 (2d Cir. 1992).
+The photo looks like a mug shot, is
+different than the others, and the manner in which it was presented was unduly suggestive.
+Where, as here, pretrial procedures have been unduly suggestive, the court must
+determine whether an in-court identification will be the product of the suggestive procedures or
+whether instead it is independently reliable. The factors to be considered include "the
+opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of
+attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty
+demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and
+the confrontation." Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. at 199-200; accord Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 447 Filed 11/12/21 Page 7 of 8
+at 114. The factors must be assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances, and the linchpin
+of admissibility is reliability.
+Here, the factors weigh heavily in favor of suppression. [
+in interviews,
+court filings, and under oath, never identified Ms. Maxwell as anyone who abused her in any
+fashion. There was no "opportunity" for
+to "view the criminal at the time of the
+crime" because Ms. Maxwell did not participate in any crime. There was no prior description of
+Ms. Maxwell by
+and the length of time between the alleged event and the
+suggestive identification procedure was extraordinarily long.
+Accordingly, any identification, both out of court and in court, should be suppressed.
+Dated: October 18, 2021
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 447 Filed 11/12/21 Page 8 of 8
+Certificate of Service
+I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing
+Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Suppress Identification with the Clerk of Court
+using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
+Alison Moe
+Maurene Comey
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Lara Pomerantz
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Alison.moe@usdoj.gov
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov
+Lara. Pomerantz @usdoj.gov
+s/ Nicole
+5
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f734f67f3ecfe29fc4d8e972a2a2c5783b2eddd9ee53cd183a38d95330cbc182.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f734f67f3ecfe29fc4d8e972a2a2c5783b2eddd9ee53cd183a38d95330cbc182.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a196bb30dba15b4d5dbc1b86a63937af62de98d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f734f67f3ecfe29fc4d8e972a2a2c5783b2eddd9ee53cd183a38d95330cbc182.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -107,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f734f67f3ecfe29fc4d8e972a2a2c5783b2eddd9ee53cd183a38d95330cbc182",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f26130cce1620d6677bc3ecbcdf1c7a603b55668fc32baa0bf996d9055377b36",
+  "output_sha256": "ea07dc520ae8f0fdb78ee0fd758709de966427f6a47395abd84c777cc26bf0e4",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7373f2cb96b6fccd8358baeec5e31a28f62eb767786237d7ea54293dde9e4c1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7373f2cb96b6fccd8358baeec5e31a28f62eb767786237d7ea54293dde9e4c1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eef642896bfd5fb56181f5ff9c018b86b61daf63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7373f2cb96b6fccd8358baeec5e31a28f62eb767786237d7ea54293dde9e4c1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 216-7 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-0407433+IsABlave Dooment Bif About Selech06 dElibew | RRagaide of 6
+New 100-Calorle Snacks!
+The most satisfying way to lose weight!"
+NEW! Slimfast
+learn more
+WORLD EXCLUSIVE
+"My Head ares Endless Complice My Aped My Blossoming
+Figure': Diary Entries Of 'Teen Sex Slave' Detail Sordid
+Hook-Up With Prince Andrew — In Her Own Handwriting
+:: By Sharon Churcher
+* Posted on Jan 13, 2015 @ 11:00AM
+ip, we were lit
+ere Andraco did
+alcoholic Cocktail
+corner of the ext
+a Few sips ther
+floor. He was t
+ideous dancer
+Bad not to mentor
+ito have to be the
+I pelvics with, e
+win 0
+• A
+Stau
+Radar Online, Splash News, AP
+adar Online Splash Newa. A
+The never-before-seen diary of a teenage "sex slave" spells out the "fearful" moment when she was coldly ordered to
+allow Britain's Prince Andrew to have sex with her.
+In a bombshell world exclusive, RadarOnline.com has exclusively obtained the secret journal of the then 17-year-old
+employed to have sex with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his rich and powerful pals - and it's packed with
+scandalous claims about her illicit trysts, including with Andrew, the fifth in line to the British throne.
+In 24 jaw-dropping pages,
+dirt on how her
+details the whirlwind 2001 sex trip she took with Epstein, and she dishes the
+passed her off for a night of sordid sex with the British
+1/12
+
+
+Case 1:15-0607433+IsABlave Dourrent Wife About Selec06rd Shibow | RRagaide of 6
+PHOTOS: Shocking Scandals Of The
+Family
+Epstein and his right-hand woman, Ghislaine Maxwell, who had allegedly fooled
+parents into believing she was
+training with them to become a professional masseuse, helped their underage plaything get a passport for the sick
+vacation.
+"I was heading over to my first overseas trip to Europe, 1st stop off Paris, France," the excited teen wrote.
+Once abroad,
+daily list of chores included "massages, sex, and even dressing [Epstein]."
+PHOTOS: The
+Family Revealed: Secrets William, Kate & Harry Don't Want You To Know
+Radar can also reveal that another important duty called for
+to score new sex slaves for her boss, just as she was
+required to do in the United States. "I would offer [girls] money to come meet my gentlemen friend and tell them I'd show
+them how to massage," wrote
+"I never brought back a girl that ever said no, or didn't want to participate in an erotic massage."
+Jerrney would send me gut, just like in the V.S,
+and go task to pretty giris, the younger the
+better. I would offer them money to Come mot
+try gentleman Frend and let them l'd show
+now to massage. never becught back
+a girl that ever said no, or didnt wart to
+partcipate in an erotic massay for money.
+From Paris,
+traveled to Spain, Morocco and, finally, England. That first night in London, she stayed with her
+"madam," Maxwell, who had reportedly recruited her at age 15 to be the "top girl" in Epstein's twisted harem.
+PHOTOS: 25 Moments That Shocked & Rocked 2014
+"The next morning, Ghislaine, chirpy, came into my room,"
+chronicled in her diary.
+"She sat down next to me, as I was just starting to uncover the sheets and told me told me excitedly we were going
+shopping because I needed a new dress I could wear to dance with a prince. Wow, what?' were the first words that
+popped into my head, not knowing that meant using my body as entertainment for another rich pedophile, or worst, being
+convinced it was exciting."
+She sat dion next Hol nee
+just starting
+to uncover the Sheets and told me
+Feared day
+to dance with a prince. Wow, What?
+were the first words that popped
+head, wot knowing that meant going ich
+bode as entertainment for anotter
+pedophile, fu worst, being convinced it was exciting
+feeling insecure, revealed that Epstein and his sick pals could make her feel special, yet terrible at the same time.
+PHOTOS: 40 Of The Biggest Secrets & Scandals Of 2014!
+"But the way these men adored me, and many others like me, kind of made us feel like we weren't so awkward after all.
+That was the nice side to these predators, the other side was learning to accept money to degrade ourselves morally
+[and] end up another lost girl down a chain of statutory rape victims."
+http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-sex-slave-virginia-|
+- writes-sex-prince-andrew/
+2/12
+
+
+Case 1:15-0607433+IsABlave Doearent Bif About Selec06nd Ehbow | RRagalife of 6
+with nothing
+on perFection on euer.
+Our the way Hase men adored memo, and
+many others like me, Kind of made us feel lik
+ure werent so akard afterall. Tho
+another
+get dan a long clain of statutory
+rape victims.
+But Maxwell didn't seem to care about anything but pleasing Epstein - and Prince Andrew. So she accompanied
+to buy everything from expensive dresses and embroidered jeans to makeup and perfume.
+After
+had showered and got ready in her new clothes, "Ghislaine made it very apparent I needed to be very bubbly
+and energetic for our special guest tonight as she told me he was expecting me and needed to be royally entertained... we
+were expecting his
+highness, Prince Andrew."
+Like clockwork, the guest of honor knocked at the door just after 6 p.m., and Maxwell ushered him inside.
+PHOTOS: The Top 30 Celebrity Fights & Feuds Of 2014
+*They spoke kindly of his daughters ... [and] the conversation turned to me next, starting with Ghislaine playing the 'guess
+my age' game, which was one of her favorite's among her morally impaired friends," sniped
+"He guessed 17 and Ghislaine chuckled, 'She'll be too old soon,' and told him I was really only 16."
+From there the group headed to dinner, where "the Prince's attention towards me amplified... making eye contact at every
+given chance and concentrating at my plunging V-neck top," [
+recounted.
+PHOTOS: Cheating, Gay Lovers, Incest, Drugs & Lip Synching! 50 Of Hollywood's Juiciest Confessions
+The titillated Prince later took the teen to Club Tramp, where he grabbed them both an "alcoholic cocktail," she wrote in
+the diary obtained by Radar.
+"He was the most incredibly hideous dancer I had ever seen and not to mention how embarrassing it was to have to be
+the one he was smashing pelvics with, even if he was a prince."
+We later made an arpearano
+at club Tramp, we were let in to the
+ViP secho, Where Andrews did not hesitate
+to grab us an alcoholic Cocktail and Founde
+to the dance floor. He was the moste
+incredibly fadeous dancer Thad
+ever seen, and not to mention how
+embarrassin' to have to be the one he
+was maste peles with even at t
+We only Stayed at
+We only stayed at the club for a little over an hour before his highness was dripping from sweat and ready to embark to
+another quieter setting, where we could get to know each other better, and from the way he was fondling me on the dance
+floor, I knew that was a man's polite way of saying he wanted to intimately get acquainted."
+3/12
+
+
+Case 1:15-0607433+IsABlave Doeurent Wif About Selled 06rd hbow | RRagaibe of 6
+was a prince We one
+ji staged a
+club for a little. one
+an hour before
+bua bughness was drippin
+From Sweat
+ready to embark to another quieterd
+8. Where me could get to Krin
+eachotier better, and From The karl
+he was Fondling me on the dance Floor!
+Know that was a maris pole way or Sayery
+he wantedsintimalky to get acquainted.
+The randy
+and his young prey soon headed to Maxwell's private townhouse to get down to business, she recalled.
+"I led him into the upstairs bathroom next to the room I was staying in," revealed
+" was doing my best trying to put on a good show for him by slowly undressing and started to pour a bath. The room
+quickly filled with steam from the hot water as I turned to Andrew and began to kiss his neck and undress him.
+PHOTOS: On The Kourt Docket: 17 Times The Kardashians Were Sued
+"He was caressing every part of my naked body and filling my head with endless compliments about my blossoming
+figure."
+seperate directions. Had him into the
+Upstairs bathroom next to the room I
+was stagn in san doing my bigh trian.
+a good Show for
+him by
+undressing and Started to pow
+1. The room quickly Filled With Steam
+From the Hot water as l
+turned to Andrew
+and began to Kiss his neck and undress him.
+He was caressing every park of my naked
+body and ballant my best ass tigere.
+my head with endless
+In the bath, the two "continued with back and forth foreplay, touching, kissing, and him even licking my toes. 'I love your
+feet, he whispered, 'they are so irresistible,"
+recalled the Prince saying.
+"That was definitely a 1st for me, but I went with it all, fearful of letting down the Prince and in turn Jeffrey and Ghislaine."
+"I had pomped in. We continued with
+back and Forth Foreplay, touchung, Kissing.
+and him even licking my toes. love your faul
+he whespered, the
+an so irresistat
+was defentley a let for me, but Iwent
+e. That
+with it all, Fearful of letting down the frince
+and in turn Jersey and Glushang
+Once the foreplay was over, the two had sex, she claimed.
+*The entire affair was short-lived, when his climax was achieved he was not the same attentive guy I had know for the last
+few hours,"
+detailed. "Instead, (hel quickly got dressed, said his goodbyes and slipped out of my bedroom to the
+driver still waiting for him outside."
+http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-sex-slave-virginia-
+-writes-sex-prince-andrew/
+4/12
+
+
+Case 1:15-007433+ISABlave Document 216 About Selec@6/d-51bew | RRagelife of 6
+pan The entire affair was Short-lured,
+When his climax was achieved he was
+not the same attentive guy I had known
+For the last few homss. Instead cog
+quickly got dressed, said his good byes
+and supped out of my bedroom to
+the driver Still waiting fon him outsice
+Andrew, son of Queen Elizabeth Il and a brother of Prince Charles, has labeled accusations that he slept with |
+claims resurfaced in a federal court filing in early January - as "categorically untrue."
+"It is emphatically denied that HRH The
+Lof York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with
+The allegations made are false and without any foundation," a palace spokesman has said.
+Maxwell and Epstein have also dismissed the allegations, with the investment banker declaring: "These are stale,
+rehashed allegations that lawyers are now attempting to repackage and spice up by adding the names of prominent
+people," said Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger.
+PHOTOS: See How Fame - And Plastic Surgery - Transformed Kris & Bruce Jenner Over 22 Years Of Marriage Before
+Divorce
+*The allegations, which are outlandish on their face and discredited by the evidence, were made in a civil case in which
+Mr. Epstein is not a party."
+Keep checking RadarOnline.com for more explosive revelations from the secret private diary of Epstein's "sex slave."
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Prince Andrew
+YOU MAY LIKE
+Are You Ignoring This Once-A-Year
+The Motley Fool
+Sponsored Links by Taboola
+Buy Signal?
+Former Congressman: Financial Martial Law Is Coming
+Stansberry Research
+Here's What Happened When I Tried Dollar Shave Club
+Dollar Shave Club
+21 Duggar Family Secrets That Will Send Chills Down Your Spine!
+Womens Forum
+Free Guide: From Intern to Employee - How to Invest in Next Gen Talent
+Yelle
+How To Fix Your Fatigue And Get More Energy
+RICHARD
+SEX CHANGE
+JOE GIUDICE PRISON UPDATE
+EMAIL US A TIP
+5/12
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7373f2cb96b6fccd8358baeec5e31a28f62eb767786237d7ea54293dde9e4c1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7373f2cb96b6fccd8358baeec5e31a28f62eb767786237d7ea54293dde9e4c1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e6e6aeeb3109cd5a78740a8699b4086a435c2e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7373f2cb96b6fccd8358baeec5e31a28f62eb767786237d7ea54293dde9e4c1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -132,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f7373f2cb96b6fccd8358baeec5e31a28f62eb767786237d7ea54293dde9e4c1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2b7421aae7b14f7adf45f95762a912b3804a23d6b1589e38b0686bc074ee08eb",
+  "output_sha256": "723da8c519a5593802ae5208cdb2ac279a4d821a0416f7fbafa501a0a583071d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f776c9afa307fb66334d65893108d468163b3b654176fbd56223ca45a1fe5fbf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f776c9afa307fb66334d65893108d468163b3b654176fbd56223ca45a1fe5fbf.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a5ddca6fef042a3953738df0e1eed75552aaade6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f776c9afa307fb66334d65893108d468163b3b654176fbd56223ca45a1fe5fbf.md
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 236
+Filed 04/22/21 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+April 22, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's April 22, 2021
+Order (Dkt. 232) regarding whether the parties seek redactions to Exhibit L of Reply Brief 3. The
+Government does not seek redactions to Exhibit L and accordingly does not object to the public
+filing of Exhibit L. The Government has conferred with defense counsel. Defense counsel has
+indicated that it has no objection to the public filing of Exhibit L and, accordingly, will file Exhibit
+L on the public docket.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+By:
+s/
+Maurene Comey / Alison Moe /
+Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f776c9afa307fb66334d65893108d468163b3b654176fbd56223ca45a1fe5fbf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f776c9afa307fb66334d65893108d468163b3b654176fbd56223ca45a1fe5fbf.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9f9cd7a568ad8b8e0b04cabf65a3c91522c6892
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f776c9afa307fb66334d65893108d468163b3b654176fbd56223ca45a1fe5fbf.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f776c9afa307fb66334d65893108d468163b3b654176fbd56223ca45a1fe5fbf",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8c3e04e722c8453fe6d267e3d85c52dcf8f6334cc133c0792c957214dc777380",
+  "output_sha256": "feab104044e4eae18218ceb7d91deaccebcc6d1198447d4a797b4d744f893839",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f779fddb894105ea57f663bb4434d59496d8f6cb90e46468c3fa22395c33cb43.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f779fddb894105ea57f663bb4434d59496d8f6cb90e46468c3fa22395c33cb43.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5616d8ca1c53bf81913f24211a5151f57e07de99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f779fddb894105ea57f663bb4434d59496d8f6cb90e46468c3fa22395c33cb43.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 984
+Filed 09/11/19 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VIGINIA L.
+USA / Plaintiffs)
+Case No. 15CV7433
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL
+Defendants)
+)
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
+CONFERENCE
+Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a
+_held on
+has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.
+9/4/19
+Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting
+the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.
+The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court
+any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also
+be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically
+available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.
+This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security
+numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information
+may proceed by motion.
+I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter.
+/s
+PRATER
+Court Reporter/Transcriber
+Date
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f779fddb894105ea57f663bb4434d59496d8f6cb90e46468c3fa22395c33cb43.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f779fddb894105ea57f663bb4434d59496d8f6cb90e46468c3fa22395c33cb43.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66102ab99e329859c07564ffb763fc5bcb519485
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f779fddb894105ea57f663bb4434d59496d8f6cb90e46468c3fa22395c33cb43.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f779fddb894105ea57f663bb4434d59496d8f6cb90e46468c3fa22395c33cb43",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "dec9aff23d3143192bdad672efc2a060f9b1d4c6d9712fcc71b23e8d102ec668",
+  "output_sha256": "4af53603fee06bd9f53e655f6696b3997b82834e556b0e224bb0fb8edf4ee3b7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7a92747a87b5dc8d2c35cd62197fe13d7e70347806d80349894acfadf3730d6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7a92747a87b5dc8d2c35cd62197fe13d7e70347806d80349894acfadf3730d6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41114ab717221d57d9ff7f94be84ecd38d936597
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7a92747a87b5dc8d2c35cd62197fe13d7e70347806d80349894acfadf3730d6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,526 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 965 |
+J265giuc
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 9
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- X
+Plaintiff,
+New York, N.Y.
+15
+Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+February 6, 2019
+12:15 p.m.
+Before:
+HON. ROBERT W. SWEET,
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+Attorneys for Plaintiff
+BY: SIGRID 'S. MCCAWLEY
+HADDON,
+•. P.C.
+Attorneys for Defendant Maxwell
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA
+LAURA A. MENNINGER
+EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY,
+LLP
+Attorneys for Intervenor Dershowitz
+BY: ANDREW G. CELLI
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 965
+J265giuc
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 9
+2
+(Case called)
+THE COURT: How nice to see you all again.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Good afternoon, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I have the sense that somehow this
+litigation will never die. However, we will see.
+Yes.
+I will hear from the movant.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Good afternoon, your Honor. Jeff
+Pagliuca and Laura Menninger appearing on behalf of Defendant
+Maxwell. This is our request for the Court's help in
+implementing paragraph 12 of the protective order entered by
+this Court March 17, 2016.
+This case settled, as the Court may remember, in May
+of 2017, much to everyone's happiness, including the Court's,
+and was dismissed shortly thereafter. Iwo times since May we
+have asked for agreed upon protocol with the plaintiff's
+counsel to finish up destroying or exchanging-back confidential
+documents. The first request was shortly after the case was
+dismissed in July of 2017. That request was rejected by
+plaintiff's counsel. We asked again about a year later, that
+was also rejected.
+The plaintiffs offer three reasons why they don't
+believe they should have to comply with the Court's order. The
+first is according to plaintiffs the case is not concluded.
+This Court has held the case concluded, the case has been
+dismissed with prejudice, and really the only thing left to do
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 965
+J265giuc
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 9
+3
+is to implement paragraph 12 of the protective order.
+The plaintiffs also argue the Court doesn't have
+jurisdiction to hear this matter. Clearly, it does. This is
+an order of the Court that the Court retains jurisdiction over
+to implement and there is no merit to that argument.
+The third argument, as I understand it from the
+plaintiff, is that there is really no prejudice and we can sort
+of let this linger in limbo. I think that is a fallacy, your
+Honor, in that the longer this case goes on, in my view, the
+more likely it is that we are going to have some disclosure of
+protected information in violation of this Court's order. I
+don't have control over anyone that the plaintiff has
+disseminated this information to pursuant to the protection
+order, and the longer this goes on the more likely it is that
+either inadvertently or overtly this information will get
+disclosed.
+It is time to end this litigation with finality and
+this is the last thing left to do. We would ask that the Court
+enter an order directing that all counsel in this case comply
+with the Court's orders entered almost three years ago and that
+we begin the protest of either exchanging or destroying these
+confidential materials. We have proposed that the information
+simply be destroyed and documented by affidavit which seems to
+me to be the most expeditious way to deal with it.
+I guess finally, your Honor, the claim I think is that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 965
+J265giuC
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 4 of 9
+4
+because there are three appeals related to documents that were
+filed with the Court that somehow they need to hold on to these
+documents and I guess I haven't heard any reason why documents
+in the possession of the parties and witnesses have anything to
+do with the discrete issues that are currently on appeal in the
+Second Circuit, and so I think at this point Court should
+simply direct that everyone follow Court's order.
+Thank you.
+MS. McCAWLEY: Good afternoon, your Honor. Sigrid
+McCawley on behalf of
+I position is simple and is
+supported by law. It is that the protective order in this
+case, while it stands, should not be altered to enforce
+destruction of evidence when there are three appeals pending
+with respect to the documents at issue in this case. As your
+Honor knows there are three appeals; Mr. Cernovich has one,
+Mr. Dershowitz; and then the Miami Herald has an appeal. They
+all relate to the underlying documents in this case that were
+marked at issue under the protective order. So, that is our
+position.
+There are cases that we have cited to you in the
+Southern District of New York, for example, the Standard
+Charter case which is a 2008 case, Westlaw 199537. That case
+had the exact issue. One of the parties was moving to enforce
+the protective order and saying that the documents needed to be
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 965
+J265giuc
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 5 of 9
+5
+destroyed and there were appeals pending and the Court said
+simply that in the Southern District of New York, when there
+are appeals pending and there is a protective order, it is
+prudent to wait until the appeal has completed before requiring
+the destruction of evidence in the case.
+So, that is all that we are asking, your Honor. We,
+as you know,
+produced thousands and thousands of
+pages of documents in this case and also had non-parties
+produce documents as well that were marked confidential.
+Ms. Maxwell comes to the Court, while she has not herself
+returned or destroyed any of
+documents,
+requesting a motion and sanctions against us for not doing the
+same. We simply had meet and confers with them saying that we
+would follow the order. We thought it was prudent to wait
+until the appeals were resolved because once something is
+destroyed you cannot recreate it.
+So, that was our position, your Honor, that's still
+our position, we believe it is the prudent course for this
+Court.
+With respect to jurisdiction, we cited to you the
+Shapiro case which is one of your prior cases that simply says
+that when there is an appeal pending and the underlying issue
+comes again before the Court, the Court does not have
+jurisdiction to hear that appeal. Whether or not that is the
+case, we believe that it is prudent in this circumstance to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP|
+Document 965
+J265giuc
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 6 of 9
+6
+wait until the Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit has ruled
+on whether or not those documents, whether or not there is
+going to be a change to the status of those documents, whether
+or not they're unsealed or kept confidential, etc.
+Your Honor, I note that Mr. Dershowitz's counsel is
+here as well. I am happy to address the letter submitted if
+you want me to. That was not noticed for today but I can do
+that, if your Honor wants me to.
+Thank you, your Honor.
+MR. CELLI: Good afternoon, your Honor. I am Andrew
+Celli, I represent Alan Dershowitz.
+We are here today to continue the position that
+Mr. Dershowitz has always had in this case which is the
+position in favor of transparency and openness. We are
+intervenors in the case, we
+are appellants in the case and, you
+know, life makes strange bedfellows, we actually are in
+agreement with
+counsel that the case is ongoing
+and we don't believe there ought to be destruction order at
+this point.
+I want to be available for the Court for questions
+about our appeal. I think the Court is aware we initially are
+seeking unsealing of three unique categories of records. We
+subsequently filed a second appeal that relates to the entire
+summary judgment record which that lines up with
+Mr. Cernovich's application and appeal, and then of course the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+J265giuC
+Document 965
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 7 of 9
+7
+Miami Herald has an application to unseal the entire record of
+materials that have been filed with the Court.
+Just so the Court knows, at last, the Circuit has set
+this down for argument; it will be argued on March 6th, your
+Honor.
+Thank you.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, would I like to just
+respond briefly with regard to the appellate issue.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: The three appeals deal solely with
+documents filed with the Court. The three appeals do not deal
+with documents maintained by the parties.
+THE COURT: I'm not sure that -- one might have
+thought that every piece of paper
+in this case would be
+indelibly etched in my mind but since there were thousands of
+pieces of paper that's not true and I don't know now and I, in
+a sense, do not want to be forced to look but perhaps I will
+have to.
+My best recollection is that the summary judgment
+briefing included reference to papers other than just the
+summary judgment papers but also depositions, etc., etc., that
+supported the two parties, the different positions that the
+parties had.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That is true, your Honor.
+THE COURT: That's what I thought. Yes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 965
+J265giuc
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 8 of 9
+8
+MR. PAGLIUCA: All of those papers were attached or
+submitted in connection with the summary judgment filings; they
+weren't,
+somebody has it in their office.
+THE COURT: So, it seems to me -- well, that raises
+for me the question about the decision of the Court of Appeals
+with respect to the validity of my sealing order.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I think what is --
+THE COURT: I mean the extent of it.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I understand, your Honor. But
+assume for a moment that the Court of Appeals disagree with
+your Honor and I think it would -- the only appeal that would
+really have impact would be the Miami Herald appeal which deals
+with a larger volume of documents than the other appeals.
+THE COURT: Well, except to the extent that for the
+reasons we just mentioned, the Dershowitz appeal and the other
+one on the summary judgment may also deal with the larger group
+of documents.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: True. All of those documents, however,
+were submitted to the Court as part of any of some argument or
+pleading and so what we are asking you to do, your Honor, is to
+direct the parties, pursuant to paragraph 12, to destroy the
+documents that we have in our possession. Certainly it would
+not be difficult, frankly, to carve out whatever is at issue
+and is maintained by the Court because we know what we
+submitted to the Court. The parties know that. And there is a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 965
+J265giuC
+conference
+Filed 02/26/19 Page 9 of 9
+large volume of other material that has not been submitted to
+the Court in any fashion and is not a part of any appeal in
+this case and so we understand that --
+THE COURT: But would be covered by --
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 12 of the protective order,
+9
+correct.
+THE COURT: Yes, but also be part of the scope of the
+Miami Herald decision in the Court of Appeals.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't believe so, your Honor, because
+I believe that appeal as well as the Cernovich appeal simply
+relate to an issue of whether or not the Court files would be
+maintained, sealed, not the parties' files which are two
+different things. So, those appeals deal with what was
+submitted to the Court, not as what is maintained by the
+parties and that's a significant distinction, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I hear you. Thank you, all. I will
+reserve decision.
+Anything further?
+MS. MCCAWLEY: No, that's fine, your Honor.
+MR. CELLI: No, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you very much. I will reserve
+decision.
+000
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7a92747a87b5dc8d2c35cd62197fe13d7e70347806d80349894acfadf3730d6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7a92747a87b5dc8d2c35cd62197fe13d7e70347806d80349894acfadf3730d6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb44bae8326fba8a65e5da1c82417f8235d30520
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7a92747a87b5dc8d2c35cd62197fe13d7e70347806d80349894acfadf3730d6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -550,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f7a92747a87b5dc8d2c35cd62197fe13d7e70347806d80349894acfadf3730d6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b9500aa9aeb49ed524c43e7889100d1dbdf2dbc76ca070a3dd3d3f297a5afb89",
+  "output_sha256": "709d66a27b7f0869f2afe65f5e5aa4310d9461071593457259445a0957357c8c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7b68f40e95ccecadabf460a1cbfecc9bd181b4737eb5d7775b6f21a75636d66.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7b68f40e95ccecadabf460a1cbfecc9bd181b4737eb5d7775b6f21a75636d66.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d09b7c14340b23a8d38af85ea9847db803093abb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7b68f40e95ccecadabf460a1cbfecc9bd181b4737eb5d7775b6f21a75636d66.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Coasd 1:554004433-RDS D9600h886412 Filed 05/26/17 PB§89 bP11
+EXHIBITS A-F
+(FILED UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7b68f40e95ccecadabf460a1cbfecc9bd181b4737eb5d7775b6f21a75636d66.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7b68f40e95ccecadabf460a1cbfecc9bd181b4737eb5d7775b6f21a75636d66.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56ee4b996bfb71b2b3200d51aab8853eb76bbb15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7b68f40e95ccecadabf460a1cbfecc9bd181b4737eb5d7775b6f21a75636d66.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f7b68f40e95ccecadabf460a1cbfecc9bd181b4737eb5d7775b6f21a75636d66",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0460039c2f4590aa5864f63a1aae8a53dcc5356e999d0ed3d29f1039eba55c93",
+  "output_sha256": "e5eeb84747a93b0b640b646521a396df8eff89e80bbfdfdbec3b76beaf06d65d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7c4d6f51fb240aa5f0f2bcd9f4d38e9f2ba28572603f15ed472d09cc8f97108.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7c4d6f51fb240aa5f0f2bcd9f4d38e9f2ba28572603f15ed472d09cc8f97108.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bfe353d12b8ba8d3f1f695a9617372d075f20dbe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7c4d6f51fb240aa5f0f2bcd9f4d38e9f2ba28572603f15ed472d09cc8f97108.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 166
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILT*
+DOC #:
+DATE TIED: 5/22116
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+---X
+Sweet, D.J.
+Plaintiff's motion for leave to serve, filed May 25, 2016,
+shall be heard at noon on Thursday June 2, 2016 in Courtroom 18C,
+United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street.
+It is so ordered.
+New York, NY
+May 26, 2016
+Quet
+U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7c4d6f51fb240aa5f0f2bcd9f4d38e9f2ba28572603f15ed472d09cc8f97108.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7c4d6f51fb240aa5f0f2bcd9f4d38e9f2ba28572603f15ed472d09cc8f97108.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17a0c2f3918b12cacb8e9deadd5fe2cd1dfdf075
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7c4d6f51fb240aa5f0f2bcd9f4d38e9f2ba28572603f15ed472d09cc8f97108.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f7c4d6f51fb240aa5f0f2bcd9f4d38e9f2ba28572603f15ed472d09cc8f97108",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "16598e0132c6aae529d57cee90125813beeceffa4807992b511b17fa3ed8608e",
+  "output_sha256": "2e13c77f4b31b6b9faaa71d1acfd40ce456b84c859fddc4382316bf8377a99c9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7cc30e90c1a69f8f1e3340664f406c387d528da123bb36b89bc898ad4a2df9f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7cc30e90c1a69f8f1e3340664f406c387d528da123bb36b89bc898ad4a2df9f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bdf8d212eba7e1d1a1519bcef2001a584ed0942
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7cc30e90c1a69f8f1e3340664f406c387d528da123bb36b89bc898ad4a2df9f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 750-3 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7cc30e90c1a69f8f1e3340664f406c387d528da123bb36b89bc898ad4a2df9f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7cc30e90c1a69f8f1e3340664f406c387d528da123bb36b89bc898ad4a2df9f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6fc34758845d354638c3ae233ad24cede92347e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f7cc30e90c1a69f8f1e3340664f406c387d528da123bb36b89bc898ad4a2df9f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f7cc30e90c1a69f8f1e3340664f406c387d528da123bb36b89bc898ad4a2df9f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "79bc8357f2bb349aa3f70367b9f36c3e3d2ec7843b2d16b2e34625127b7da70c",
+  "output_sha256": "93b1ef2fa66a9a1ad577f98e5325e6e5e7fc6c87f55d6f6d881365a86b9af2a6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f808bcb84bffc999bc9d2171b84e19fe03660eb0d6a46f5a11c6ee8a81c7ea36.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f808bcb84bffc999bc9d2171b84e19fe03660eb0d6a46f5a11c6ee8a81c7ea36.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..39286b8eb9c8ccf366d4a121b5d42f5423caad5a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f808bcb84bffc999bc9d2171b84e19fe03660eb0d6a46f5a11c6ee8a81c7ea36.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1534 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 47
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+/
+PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE AND
+OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF
+DISCOVERY REQUESTS TO PLAINTIFE
+Plaintiff hereby serves her second amended supplemental responses and objections to
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests.
+GENERAL OBJECTIONS
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests violates Local Civil Rule 33.3. Defendant
+has served interrogatories that are in direct violation of that Rule because the interrogatories are
+not "restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with knowledge of information relevant to
+the subject matter of the action, the computation of each category of damage alleged, and the
+existence, custodian, location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent
+insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar nature." Local
+Civil Rule 33.3(a). Instead, they seek information under subsections (b) and (c) of Local Civil
+Rule 33.3, and therefore, they should not be served because they are not "a more practical
+method of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition," and
+because they were served in advance of the period "30 days prior to the discovery cut-off date."
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 47
+Local Civil Rule 33.3(b), (c). The interrogatories you served violate Local Rule 33.3 and we ask
+that you immediately withdraw those interrogatories. See Rule 33.3, Local Rules for the
+Southern District of New York; see also Shannon v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 00 CIV.
+5079 (Sweet, J.), 2001 WL 286727, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001); accord Gary Friedrich
+Enterprises, LLC v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., No. 08 CIV. 1533 BSJ JCF, 2011 WL 1642381, at
+*4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2011). Specifically, Rule 33.3 provides:
+(a)
+Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, at the commencement of discovery,
+interrogatories will be restricted to those seeking names of witnesses with
+knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of the action, the
+computation of each category of damage alleged, and the existence, custodian,
+location and general description of relevant documents, including pertinent
+insurance agreements, and other physical evidence, or information of a similar
+nature.
+(b)
+During discovery, interrogatories other than those seeking information described
+in paragraph (a) above may only be served (1) if they are a more practical method
+of obtaining the information sought than a request for production or a deposition,
+or (2) if ordered by the Court.
+(c) At the conclusion of other discovery, and at least 30 days prior to the discovery
+cut-off date, interrogatories seeking the claims and contentions of the opposing
+party may be served unless the Court has ordered otherwise.
+Similarly, Requests for Production numbers 1, 2, 4, 6(i), 9, 12, 30, 35 and 37 also violate
+Local Rule 33.3 in that they rely on the offending interrogatory requests. The Rule provides that
+a party must first try to obtain discovery through document production and testimony. Discovery
+does not close in this case until July 1, 2016, and Defendant has not yet noticed a deposition. As
+such, these interrogatories violate Local Rule 33.3 and are premature.
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests also violates Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P., which
+provides "a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 interrogatories, including all
+discrete subparts" - in that Defendant has served a total of 59 interrogatories, including subparts,
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 47
+in violation of Rule 33. We ask that you immediately withdraw those interrogatories that exceed
+the 25 interrogatory limit set by Rule 33.
+objects to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to the extent they
+seek information that is protected by any applicable privilege, including but not limited to,
+attorney client privilege, work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, public
+interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to the requests to the extent Defendant's First Set of Discovery
+Requests call for the production of documents or information that is already in the possession,
+custody, or control of the Defendant.
+further objects to the requests to the extent that
+Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests is duplicative of documents and information that
+can equally or more readily be obtained by the Defendant.
+objects to the requests to the extent that they seek documents that are not
+relevant, material, or necessary to this action and, thus, are not reasonably calculated to lead to
+the discovery of admissible evidence. Many of the requests in the Defendant's First Set of
+Discovery seek documents that are in no way limited to their relation to this case. Indeed, they
+seek documents that are not important to resolving the issues; documents that are not relevant to
+any party's claim or defense; and documents that are not proportional to the needs of the case.
+Such requests create a heavy burden on
+that outweighs any benefit. Such discovery
+is prohibited by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly under the 2015 amendments to
+Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and is wholly inappropriate.
+objects to the requests to the extent that they are overly broad and unduly
+burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly
+burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are overly
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 47
+broad under Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. Specifically,
+objects to the requests as
+overly burdensome to the extent that they would require logging voluminous and ever-increasing
+privileged communications between
+and her counsel after the date litigation
+commenced on September 21, 2015.
+objects to the requests as overly burdensome to
+the extent that they would require logging voluminous privileged documents between
+and her counsel related to Jane Doe #l and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case no. 08-
+80736-CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District of Florida;
+and Paul
+Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz, Case no. CACE 15-000072, pending in the Seventeenth Judicial
+Circuit, Broward County, Florida; and Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-80656-
+CIV-Marra.
+(Southern District of Florida). Accordingly, due the undue burden of
+individually logging responsive privileged documents related to Defendant's overly broad
+requests, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging of such privileged responsive documents
+pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c).
+objects to the requests in that they seek to invade her privacy for the sole
+purpose of harassing and intimidating
+who was a victim of sexual trafficking.
+objects to the requests to the extent they are overly broad and unduly burdensome.
+objects to Defendant's definition of "your attorneys" because it includes
+names of attorneys that do not represent her, including Spencer Kuvin and Jack Scarola.
+responses to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests are being made
+after reasonable inquiry into the relevant facts, and are based only upon the information and
+documentation that is presently known to her.
+reserves the right to modify and/or
+supplement her responses.
+is producing documents and information herewith, and
+she will continue to review and produce relevant documents until completion.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 232-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 47
+incorporates her above-listed general objections in the responses herein.
+INTERROGATORIES
+State:
+a.
+Your present residential address;
+b. Each residential address You have had since 1998, including any
+residential treatment facilities;
+C.
+the dates You lived at each address;
+d. the other Persons who lived with You at each address and for what period
+of time they lived at such address.
+Response to Interrogatory One:
+objects to this interrogatory in part because it violates Rule 33.3.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information that is sought by Defendant only
+to harass and intimidate
+who was a victim of sexual trafficking. Per the Plaintiff's
+First Responses and Objections, and per our representations during the March 21, 2016 meet and
+confer phone call, we are working diligently to find information to supplement the below
+information with regard to address and dates, and once that information is obtained, Plaintiff will
+serve supplemental responses. Additionally, per the March 21, 2016 meet and confer phone call,
+we are addressing with the Plaintiff whether she will reveal here address to Defendant's counsel
+confidentially and we will update you with her response.
+a.
+Due to safety concerns with respect to
+and her minor children,
+she is not at liberty to reveal her present residential location. To ensure that
+Defendant is not prejudiced by the failure to provide information about Ms.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 47
+c.
+specific residential location,
+agrees to have her
+attorney's accept service on her behalf of any necessary communication or
+filings in this matter to be addressed to: Sigrid McCawley, Esq. Boies
+Schiller & Flexner LLP, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200, Fort
+Lauderdale, FL 33316.
+can recall living at the following addresses during the period of
+1998 to the present.
+have lived at other locations for which
+she does not presently have the address.
+is providing the
+information she has presently to the best of her recollection and review of
+documents and will supplement to the extent she obtains additional
+information responsive to this interrogatory.
+believes she has lived at the following residences:
+In January 1998, |
+I was 14 years old.
+recalls
+one facility named "Growing Together" that was located in or around
+Palm Beach, but she does not recall the dates when she resided at the
+facility.
+• From 2000-2002,
+lived and travelled with Jeffrey
+Epstein and stayed at his various mansions in New York (9 E.
+71st Street, New York, NY 10021-4102), Palm Beach (358 El
+Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, New Mexico (Zorro
+Ranch, 49 Zorro Ranch Rd., Stanley, New Mexico 87056),
+U.S.V.I. (Little St. James, 6100 Red Hook Quarters, Suite B3,
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 47
+St.
+Virgin Islands 00802), and Paris (22 Avenue Foch
+Apt 2DD, Paris, France 75116).
+Jeffrey Epstein also rented a residence for
+Palm
+Beach, the exact address and dates of rental are in the possession,
+custody and control of Jeffrey Epstein. Tony
+, James Michael
+Austrich and a few other individuals for whom
+cannot
+recall the names of, stayed with her from time to time at the residence
+that Jeffrey Epstein rented.
+I parents' address was 12959 Rackley Road, Loxahatchee,
+Florida 33470, and she lived there from time to time with her mother,
+her father, and her brothers.
+2C Quentin St. Basshill NSW in approximately 2003, but she is not
+certain of that date. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+N. Paramentata, NSW from approximately 2003 - 2005, but she is not
+certain of those dates. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+• Blue Bay, NSW from approximately 2005 - 2008 but is not certain of
+those dates. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+3 Elk St., NSW from approximately 2008 - 2009 but is not certain of
+those dates. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+50 Robertson Road, Basshill, NSW, from 2009 through January of
+2010. At this location,
+lived with Robert
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 47
+50 Bundeena Rd., Glenning Valley, NSW from approximately January
+of 2010 through October 13, 2013. At this location,
+lived
+with Robert
+5035 Winchester Drive, Titusville, FL from approximately November
+6, 2013 to October of 2014. At this location,
+lived with
+Robert
+1270 J. Street, Penrose, CO 81240, from approximately October of
+2014 through October of 2015. At this location
+lived with
+Robert
+Identify any email address, email account, cellphone number and cellphone
+provider, social media account and login or screen name, text or instant messaging account name
+and number, that You have used, applied for or been supplied between 1998 and the present.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 2
+objects to this request in that it violates Rule 33.3.
+objects to this
+request in that it is overly broad and seeks information solely to harass and intimidate
+For the period of 1998 to the present
+I provides the following information.
+During the time period that she was sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant, the
+defendant provided
+with a cellphone so that she could be reached by the Defendant
+and Jeffrey Epstein at any time. Defendant is in possession of the information relating to this
+cellphone that she provided to
+is responding with the information she
+can presently recall, but to the extent she obtains additional information she will supplement this
+response.
+e-mail address is robiejennag@y7mail.com. She can recall having the
+following cell numbers (321) 271-4948, +61414651273, 0407.433.252.
+had a
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 47
+Facebook account for a short time but it is no longer active. Per our representations during the
+March 21, 2015 meet and confer phone call, we are working diligently to find information to
+supplement the above information, and once that information is obtained, Plaintiff will serve
+supplemental responses.
+3.
+Identify each attorney who has represented you from 1998 to the present, the
+dates of any such representation, and the nature of the representation.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 3
+objects to this interrogatory as it seeks privileged information relating to her
+representation by attorneys.
+responds as follows: Bob Josefsberg, Katherine W. Ezell, Amy Ederi
+(among other possible Podhurst Orseck, P.A. attorneys) represented l
+as a party in the litigation styled as Jane Doe No. 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No.
+09-80656-CIV-Marra
+, starting on January 27, 2009.
+Stan Pottinger, David Boies, and Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies
+Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boies Schiller") attorneys) represented
+as a
+non-party in the litigation styled as
+and Paul Cassell v. Alan
+Dershowitz, Case no. 15-000072, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County,
+Florida, starting in February, 2015.
+• Brad
+(along with other
+, Jaffe, Weissing,
+, Fistos &
+Lehrman, P.L. ("1
+Jaffe") attorneys), Paul Cassell, Stan Pottinger, David
+Boies and Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represent
+as a party in the litigation styled
+v. Maxwell, 15-cv-07433-
+RWS in the Southern District of New York, the complaint of which was filed in
+September, 2015.
+Paul Cassell represents
+as a non-party in the litigation styled as Jane
+Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-Marra,
+Southern District of Florida, starting in May of 2014.
+• Brad
+(along with other
+, Jaffe attorneys) represents
+as a non-party in the litigation styled as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United
+States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-Marra, Southern District of Florida, starting in
+2011.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 47
+Brad
+with legal advice concerning media inquiries
+had received starting in 2011.
+Paul Cassell, Brad
+(along with other
+Jaffe, attorneys), Stan
+Pottinger, David Boies (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represented
+regarding investigations into potential legal action starting in the
+second half of 2014.
+• Paul Cassell, Brad
+(along with other
+, Jaffe, attorneys), Stan
+Pottinger, David Boies, and Sigrid MeCawley (along with other Boies Schiller
+attorneys) represent
+as a cooperating witness with regard to a law
+enforcement investigation, starting in May, 2015.
+Paul Cassell provided
+action starting in early 2011.
+with legal advice concerning potential legal
+Paul Cassell and Brad
+(along with other|
+Jaffe, attorneys)
+represented
+and Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding
+Victims Refuse Silence, starting in October, 2014.
+• Meg Garvin (law professor at
+& Clark Law School, and the Executive
+Director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute ) represented |
+and
+Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding Victims Refuse Silence, starting
+in October, 2014.
+Sigrid McCawley (along with other Boies Schiller attorneys) represented
+and Victims Refuse Silence, giving advice regarding Victims Refuse
+Silence, starting in February 2015.
+Identify each Communication, including the transmission of any Document, that
+You or Your Attorneys have had with any local, state or federal law enforcement agent or
+agency, whether in the United States or any other country, whether in Your capacity as a
+purported victim, witness, or perpetrator of any criminal activity, and whether as a juvenile or as
+an adult, including without limitation:
+a.
+the date of any such Communication;
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 47
+b.
+the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if
+written, the format of any such Communication;
+C.
+the identities of all persons involved in the Communication, including the
+identity of the law enforcement agency with whom the agent is or was
+affiliated;
+d.
+the case number associated with any such Communication;
+e.
+the subject matter of any such Communication;
+f.
+the disposition of any case associated with any such Communication,
+irrespective of whether the matter was sealed, expunged or later dismissed.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 4
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks protected information regarding confidential
+investigations.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the
+public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to the extent
+this seeks information regarding sexual assaults that occurred prior to her involvement with the
+Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
+responds as follows:
+in accordance
+with the Court's direction at the hearing on April 21, 2016, has submitted documents to the
+Court for In Camera review.
+met with the FBI on or about March 17, 2011.
+also
+corresponded with Maria Villafano from the U.S. Attorney's office and that
+correspondence has been produced.
+5.
+Identify each Communication that You or Your Attorneys have had with any
+author, reporter, correspondent, columnist, writer, commentator, investigative journalist,
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 47
+photojournalist, newspaper person, freelance reporter, stringer, or any other employee of any
+media organization or independent consultant to the same, including:
+a.
+the date of any such Communication;
+b. the form of any such Communication, whether oral or written and if
+written, the format of any such Communication;
+C.
+the identities of all persons involved in such Communication,
+including the identity of the media organization with whom the agent
+is or was affiliated;
+d.
+the article title, date of publication, and means of publication of any
+article, report, or re-printing of any such Communication made by
+You or Your Attorneys;
+e.
+the amount of Income that You and/or Your Attorneys received in
+exchange for any such Communication;
+f.
+the dates on which You and/or Your Attorneys received any such Income
+for any such Communication.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 5
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any
+other applicable privilege.
+objects in that this request is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6
+Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 47
+6.
+Identify any "false statements" attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell which were
+"published globally, including within the Southern District of New York" as You contend in
+paragraph 9 of Count 1 of Your Complaint, including:
+a.
+the exact false statement;
+b. the date of its publication;
+c. the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the
+purportedly false statement;
+d.
+the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and
+e.
+the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some
+other form of media.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 6
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
+attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+further objects because the
+information requested above is in the possession of Defendant who has failed to comply with
+her production obligations in this matter.
+7.
+State whether You believe that You have ever been defamed by anyone other than
+Ghislaine Maxwell. If so, as to each alleged act of Defamation, state
+a.
+the exact false statement;
+b.
+the date of its publication;
+C.
+the publishing entity and title of any publication containing the
+purportedly false statement;
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 47
+d.
+the URL or internet address for any internet version of such publication; and
+C.
+the nature of the publication, whether in print, internet, broadcast or some
+other form of media.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 7
+objects to this request in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects
+to this request in that it seeks information protected by the attorney client and work product
+privileges.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it is not limited in time or to the
+subject nature of this litigation.
+8.
+Identify the individuals referenced in Your pleadings filed in the U.S. District
+Court for the Southern District of Florida, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States of
+America, 08-cv-80736-KAM, as the "high-profile non-party individuals" to whom Mr. Jeffrey
+Epstein sexually trafficked You, "including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful
+business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,"
+including as to each episode of alleged sexual trafficking:
+a.
+the date of any such sexual trafficking;
+b. the location of any such sexual trafficking;
+c. any witnesses to any such sexual trafficking;
+d.
+any Income You received in exchange for such sexual trafficking; and
+e.
+any Documents You have to support or corroborate Your claim of such
+sexual trafficking.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 8
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.|
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 47
+product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any
+other applicable privilege. Additionally, I
+objects to this interrogatory because naming
+some such individuals would jeopardize her physical safety based on credible threats to the
+same.
+refers to the list of witnesses identified in her Revised Rule 26 Disclosures.
+9.
+Identify any Employment You have had from 1996 until the present, including
+without limitation, the name of Your employer or the name of any Person who engaged You for
+such Employment, the address and telephone number for any such Employment, the beginning
+and ending dates of any such Employment, Your job title in such Employment, and Your
+Income from such Employment.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 9
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, and
+seeks information that is not relevant to this case.
+responds as follows:
+worked at Mar a Lago as a locker room attendant for the spa area. Records
+produced in this case identify the date of employment as 2000, and she recalls being
+there in the summer.
+previously attempted to gather employment records
+from Mar-A-Lago. See Giuffire002726. She earned approximately $9 per hour. The
+address is 1100 South Ocean Boulevard, Palm Beach, Florida 33480, with the telephone
+number of 561-832-2600
+worked at Roadhouse Grill as a waitress in approximately 2002, but |
+is unsure of the exact dates of employment. Her wages primarily consisted of
+tips.
+does not recall the location of Roadhouse Grill. A Google search for
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 47
+the same yields an address at 8865 Southern Blv., West Palm Beach, FL 33411 and a
+telephone number of 561-651-0400.
+worked at Employment Training and Recruitment Australia from
+approximately 2005 through January of 2006, but |
+is unsure of the exact
+dates of employment.
+was a receptionist earing approximately $15 per hour
+to the best of her recollection. Upon information and belief, this corporation is currently
+located in a different location from the location at which
+was employed.
+Upon information and belief, based on an internet search, the new location of this entity
+is 123 Donniforn Street, Gofford NSW 2250, with a telephone number of 02-4323-1233
+worked at Gemma Catering/Wedding Receptions in approximately 2004.
+She received approximately $10/hr. She does not recall the name of the proprietor nor its
+location.
+worked at Manway Logistics in approximately 2003.
+recalls it
+located in or around Sydney, Australia. An internet search yielded an address of 246
+Road, Villawood NSW 2163, and a phone number of 02-8707-2300.
+worked as a receptionist and earned approximately $20/hr.
+10.
+Identify any Income from any source other than Your Employment that You have
+received from January 1, 1996 until the present, including the Person or entity providing such
+Income, the amount of the Income, the dates on which any such Income was received, and
+the nature of the Income, whether a loan, investment proceeds, legal settlement, asset sale,
+gift, or other source.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 47
+Response to Interrogatory No. 10
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and seeks confidential financial
+information.
+objects to this interrogatory in that it seeks information covered by
+confidentiality provisions.
+objects to this information in that any payment
+information for the sexual trafficking she endured at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and
+Ghislaine Maxwell is in the possession, custody and control of the Defendant and Jeffrey
+Epstein.
+is in possession of a responsive document that contains a confidentiality
+provision. If Defendant obtains, and produces to
+a written waiver from her coconspirator, Mr. Epstein, of the confidentiality provision, freeing
+from any
+liability whatsoever under the confidentiality provision, she will produce the document.
+11.
+Identify any facts upon which You base Your contention that You have suffered
+as a result of the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell "past and future lost wages and
+past and future loss of earning capacity and actual earnings - precise amounts yet to be
+computed, but not less than $5,000,000."
+Response to Interrogatory No. 11
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.|
+objects to this interrogatory in that it prematurely seeks expert witness disclosures.
+incorporates by reference herein her Revised Rule 26 disclosures, which includes her
+computation of damages.
+12.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 47
+physical, mental or emotional condition, that You suffered from subsequent to any
+Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+the medical expenses to date;
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+g. for each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 12
+Pursuant to this Court's Order,
+will provide information for health care
+providers from 1999 through the present.
+continues to search for medical providers
+that appear in documents.
+• Dr. Steven Olson, St.
+CO 81212, treated
+More Hospital, 1338 Phay Avenue, Canon City,
+as described in the medical records produced at
+GIUFFE005342-5346.
+• Dr. Mona Devansean, 11476 Okeechobee Blvd.,
+Palm Beach, FL. It
+appears Dr. Devansean is retired. We produced the letter we sent her as well as a
+document indicating the practice was closed at GIUFFRE005335-
+GIUFFRE0005338.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 19 of 47
+• Dr. Chris Donahue, 12 Clifton Village Shopping Centre, Captain Hook Hwy,
+Clifton Beach, QLD 4879 is believed to have treated
+has sent a release to Dr. Donahue, and is awaiting a response.
+• Dr. John Harris and Dr. Darshanee Majaliyana at The Entrance Medical Centre,
+120 The Entrance Road, The Entrance 2261, 43321300, treated
+as
+described in the records produced at GIUFFRE005315-5322.
+• Dr. Wah Wah, Central Coast Family Medicine, Unit 2, 17 Anzac Rd., Tuggerah
+2259, 0243518777 treated
+as described in the medical records
+produced at GIUFFRE005339-5341.
+• Dr. M. Sellathurai (a/k/a Dr. Sella), Buss
+Plaza, Medical Center, 753 Hume
+Highway, Bass
+NSW 2197, 02297555292 treated
+as described
+in the medical records produced at GIUFFRE005089-5091.
+Oaks Medical Center, 1855 Knox McRae Dr., Titusville, FL 32780, was
+believed to have possibly treated
+but Medical Center responded
+stating that they have no records for
+see GIUFFRE005347-5349.
+• Dr. Carol Hayek, Denison Road, Dulwich
+NSW 2203. Records have been
+requested, but thus far have been denied. Another medical release was sent and is
+pending.
+• New York Presbyterian Hospital treated
+as described in the medical
+records produced at Giuffre003258-3298.
+• Campbelltown Hospital, 8 Monerleff [illegible] Close, St. Helens treated
+as described in the medical records produced at Giuffre003193-3257.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 47
+• Sydney West Hospital treated
+as described in the medical records
+produced at Giuffre003291-3298.
+• Westmead Hospital treated |
+on as described in the medical records
+produced at GIUFFRE003291-003298.
+• As Defendant requested, Medical releases have been provided for:
+• Dr. Karen Kutikoff
+• Wellington Imaging Associates, PA
+• Growing Together
+13.
+Identify any Health Care Provider from whom You received any treatment for any
+physical, mental or emotional condition, including addiction to alcohol, prescription or illegal
+drugs, that You suffered from prior to the Alleged Defamation by Ghislaine Maxwell, including:
+a.
+the Health Care Provider's name, address, and telephone number;
+b. the type of consultation, examination, or treatment provided;
+c. the dates You received consultation, examination, or treatment;
+d. whether such treatment was on an in-patient or out-patient basis;
+e. the medical expenses to date;
+f.
+whether health insurance or some other person or organization or entity
+has paid for the medical expenses; and
+8.
+For each such Health Care Provider, please execute the medical and mental
+health records release attached hereto as Exhibit A.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 13
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+20
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 21 of 47
+abuse victim and is not limited in scope to the issues in this case.
+objects in that it
+seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege,
+joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it is not limited in scope to the medical information relating to the
+abuse she suffered from Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
+14.
+Identify any Person who You believe subjected You to, or with whom You
+engaged in, any illegal or inappropriate sexual contact, conduct or assault prior to June 1999,
+including the names of the individuals involved, the dates of any such illegal or inappropriate
+sexual contact, conduct or assault, whether Income was received by You or anyone else
+concerning such event, whether a police report was ever filed concerning such event and the
+outcome of any such case, as well as the address and location of any such event.
+Response to Interrogatory No. 14
+objects to this interrogatory in that it violates Local Rule 33.3.
+objects to this request in that it is overbroad and seeks confidential medical information of a sex
+abuse victim.
+objects to this request in that it seeks sexual assault information for a
+period prior to the sexual abuse at issue in this matter for a period when she was a minor child
+from the time
+was born until she was 15.
+objects to this request in that
+it is sought solely to harass, and intimidate
+who is a victim of sexual abuse by the
+defendant.
+21
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 47
+REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
+All Communications and Documents identified in Interrogatories 1-14,
+above.
+Response to Request No. 1
+objects to this request in that Defendant's interrogatories violate Local Rule
+33.3.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request on the grounds
+that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, incorporating the interrogatories that total 59
+subparts, and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks to invade the privacy rights of a sex abuse victims, and is meant for the
+improper purpose of harassing and intimidating this victim.
+Subject to and without waving the above objections,
+is withholding
+production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work
+product privilege, and the public interest privilege.
+is also withholding electronic
+renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits
+and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children.
+Subjection to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict
+images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement her production.
+22
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 47
+All Documents reviewed or relied upon in answering Interrogatory Nos.
+1-14 above.
+Response to Request No. 2
+objects to this request in that defendant's interrogatories violate Local Rule
+33.3.
+objects to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the
+attorney client, work product, and public interest, and other applicable privileges.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad incorporating the interrogatories that total 59
+subparts.
+objects to this request in that it seeks to invade the privacy rights of a sex
+abuse victims and is meant for the improper purpose of harassing and intimidating this victim.
+Subject to and without waving the above objections,
+is withholding
+production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work
+product privilege, and the public interest privilege.
+is also withholding electronic
+renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits
+and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children.
+Subjection to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict
+images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement her production.
+All Documents from any law enforcement agency, whether local, state or
+federal, whether in the United States or elsewhere, which concern or relate to You in any
+way. These Documents should include, without limitation, any witness statements,
+including statements made by You.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 47
+Response to Request No. 3
+objects to this request in that it secks information that is protected by the
+attorney client, work product, public interest privilege and other applicable privileges.
+objects to this request in that it is not limited in time period.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+_ is withholding documents that concern or relate to
+any currently ongoing investigation by any law enforcement agency under the public interest
+privilege and other applicable privileges.
+4.
+All Documents reflecting any letter of engagement, any fee agreement, or
+any other type of writing reflecting an engagement of any attorney identified in
+response to Interrogatory No. 3.
+Response to Request No. 4
+objects to this request in that it seeks information that is protected by the
+attorney client, work product, joint defense and other applicable privileges.
+is
+withholding documents based on this objection. Specifically,
+is withholding
+documents reflecting the engagements between herself and her attorneys she has engaged in
+relation to the above-captioned action and other actions as those documents involve
+privileged communications.
+All Documents relating to any Communications occurring from 1998 to the
+present with any of the following individuals or with their attorneys, agents or
+representatives:
+24
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 47
+a. Jeffrey Epstein;
+b. Ghislaine Maxwell
+c. Any witness disclosed in Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) disclosures;
+d. Any witness identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and No.
+14;
+e. Sky L
+f.
+Kimberley
+h. Daniel
+, half-brother of Plaintiff;
+i. Carol
+Kess;
+j. Philip Guderyon;
+k. Anthony Valladares;
+1. Anthony
+m. Ron Eppinger
+Response to Request No. 5
+objection to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome, particularly as it seeks documents relating to over 60 individuals, and calls for the
+production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to
+the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects because compliance with this request
+is unduly burdensome.
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this
+request are within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with
+whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and Ms.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 47
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+objects to this request to the
+extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public
+interest or any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it is sought
+solely to harass and intimidate
+, and invade her privacy, by seeking her private
+communications with her various family members, including aunts, uncles and parents and
+siblings.
+Subject to and without waving the above objections,
+is withholding
+production of documents that are privileged pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the work
+product privilege, and the public interest privilege.
+is also withholding electronic
+renditions of photographs that depict the faces of her minor children, including school portraits
+and other photographs taken that reveal the faces of her minor children.
+Subjection to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request limited to documents that do not depict
+images of her minor children as described supra and will continue to supplement this production.
+6.
+All photographs or video containing any image of You and the following
+individuals. To the extent You have such photographs and video in their original, native
+format, please produce them in that format (not a paper copy).
+a.
+Ghislaine Maxwell
+b. Alan Dershowitz
+c.
+Jeffrey Epstein
+d. Andrew Albert Christian Edward, the |
+of York (aka Prince
+Andrew)
+26
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 27 of 47
+e. Ron Eppinger
+f. Bill Clinton
+g. Stephen Hawking
+h. Al Gore
+i.
+Any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory
+No. 8 and No. 14.
+Response to Request No. 6
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her
+does not have "original, native format," as requested so she is
+producing the paper copies she has in her possession, custody and control.
+7.
+All photographs and video of You in any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties,
+including, but not limited to: his home in Palm Beach, Florida; his home in New York
+City, New York; his ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Little Saint James Island in the
+U.S. Virgin Islands. To the extent You have such photographs and video in their original,
+native format, please produce them in that format (not a paper copy).
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 28 of 47
+Response to Request No. 7
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+Subject to
+and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her production.
+does not have "original, native format," as requested so she is producing the paper
+copies she has in her possession, custody and control. The Defendant has documents
+responsive to this request that she should produce.
+8.
+All photographs or video of You in any of Ms. Maxwell's properties,
+including her home in London, England and her home in New York City, New York. To
+the extent You have such photographs or video in their original, native format, please
+produce them in that format (not a paper copy).
+Response to Request No. 8
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents to
+request seeking communications between the Defendant and
+and between Jeffrey Epstein and
+28
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 29 of 47
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce
+non-privileged documents responsive to this Request and will continue to supplement her
+does not have "original, native format," as requested so she is
+producing the paper copies she has in her possession, custody and control. The Defendant has
+documents responsive to this request that she should produce.
+9.
+Any Documents reflecting rental agreements or purchase agreements for the
+residential addresses identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 1.
+Response to Request No. 9
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant to this action.
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client,
+work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege.
+objects
+to this request in that the information regarding rental agreements for the apartments that
+Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein rented for her are in the Defendant's possession, control and
+custody.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+29
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 30 of 47
+10.
+All Documents relating to Your Employment and/or association with the
+Mar-a-Lago Club located in Palm Beach, Florida, including any application for
+Employment.
+Response to Request No. 10
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the
+attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+11. Any Document reflecting any confidentiality agreement by and between, or
+concerning, You and the Mar-a-Lago Club.
+Response to Request No. 10
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by
+the attorney client, work product, joint defense, public interest or any other applicable
+privilege.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+12.
+All Documents concerning any Employment by You from 1998 to the
+present or identified by You in response to Interrogatory No. 9, including any records of
+Your Employment at the Roadhouse Grill in Palm Beach, Florida.
+Response to Request No. 12
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+30
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 31 of 47
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint
+defense, public interest or any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+13.
+All Documents concerning any allegations of theft by You from the
+Roadhouse Grill in Palm Beach, Florida from 1999 - 2002.
+Response to Request No. 13
+objects to this request in that it seeks information solely to harass, embarrass,
+and intimidate
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents
+protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint
+defense/common interest privilege, public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it wrongfully characterizes a "theft by You".
+objects to this request as it seeks documents of sealed juvenile records, and the only
+means of obtaining such records are either through court order or illegal means.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+14.
+A copy of Your federal, state or local tax returns for the years 1998 to the
+present, whether from the United States or any other country.
+Response to Request No. 14
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+31
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 32 of 47
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks confidential financial information that is irrelevant to this action.
+objects to this request in that it seeks financial information from her when she was a
+minor child starting at age 14.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the
+attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest
+privilege, the accountant client privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+15.
+All Documents concerning Your attendance at or enrollment in any
+school or educational program of whatever type, from 1998 to the present.
+Response to Request No. 15
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
+work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and
+any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that her school records from
+when she was a minor child are an invasion of privacy, and sought only to harass and embarrass
+her.
+documents
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-
+32
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 33 of 47
+privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+16.
+Any diary, journal or calendar concerning Your activities between 1996 -
+2002.
+Response to Request No. 16
+objections to this Request on the grounds that the time period is overly
+broad and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects
+to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary and copyright protected materials.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
+attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other
+applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks highly personal
+and sensitive material from a time when she was being sexually trafficked.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+17.
+All Documents relating to Your travel from the period of 1998 to the
+present, including, but not limited to a copy of Your passport that was valid for any
+part of that time period, any visa issued to You for travel, any visa application that
+You prepared or which was prepared on Your behalf, and travel itinerary, receipt, log,
+or Document (including any photograph) substantiating Your travel during that time
+period.
+Response to Request No. 17
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 34 of 47
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects in that
+it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
+privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad and not limited to travel records relevant
+to the abuse she suffered.
+objects to this request in that it seeks information that is
+wholly irrelevant to this lawsuit.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement this
+production. Per the agreements made in the March 21, 2016 meet and confer, we will attempt to
+locate and make copies of Plaintiff's current passport book.
+18.
+All Documents showing any payments or remuneration of any kind
+made by Jeffrey Epstein or any of his agents or associates to You from 1999 until the
+present.
+Response to Request No. 18
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within
+the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom she claims a
+joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest privilege, and any
+other applicable privilege.
+At this point in time,
+has been unable to locate any such documents, but
+continues to search for responsive documents.
+34
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 35 of 47
+19.
+Any Document reflecting a confidentiality agreement, settlement agreement,
+or any contractual agreement of any kind, between You and Jeffrey Epstein, or any
+attorneys for You and/or Mr. Epstein.
+Response to Request No. 19
+objects to this request in that the documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein with whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the
+public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+is in possession of a
+responsive document that contains a confidentiality provision. As discussed during the
+March 21, 2016 meet and confer, If Defendant obtains, and produces to
+a
+written waiver from her co-conspirator, Mr. Epstein, of the confidentiality provision,
+releasing
+from any liability whatsoever under the confidentiality provision, she
+will produce the document.
+20.
+Any Document reflecting Your intent, plan or consideration of, asserting
+or threatening a claim or filing a lawsuit against another Person, any Document
+reflecting such a claim or lawsuit, including any complaint or draft complaint, or any
+demand for consideration with respect to any such claim or lawsuit against any Person.
+Response to Request No. 20
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and
+unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this
+action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 36 of 47
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney
+client, work product, joint defense or any other applicable privilege.
+objects
+because this request is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it seeks wholly privileged
+communications from other cases the logging of which on a privilege log would be unduly
+burdensome. As
+is providing categorical privilege entries relating to those
+matters.
+At this point in time,
+has not found any non-privileged documents
+responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents.
+21.
+All Documents relating to Your driver's license from 1998 - 2002.
+Response to Request No. 21
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and
+control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and
+defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+At this point in time,
+has not found any documents responsive to this request,
+but continues to search for responsive documents.
+22.
+A copy of Your marriage license(s) from 1999 to the present.
+Response to Request No. 22
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to this action
+and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+36
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 37 of 47
+objects in that it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this request, and will continue to supplement this production.
+23.
+All documents concerning Your naturalization application to Australia from
+1999 to the present.
+Response to Request No. 23
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to this action
+and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects in that it secks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+24.
+All Documents concerning Your Employment in Australia, including, but not
+limited to employment applications, pay stubs, Documents reflecting Your Income
+including any tax Documents.
+Response to Request No. 24
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request in that it seeks confidential financial information
+objects to this request to
+the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney client, work product, joint defense, or
+37
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 38 of 47
+any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks overly broad
+financial information not tailored to the sexual abuse and defamation issues in this case.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this request, and will continue to supplement this production.
+25.
+All Documents concerning any massage therapist license obtained by
+You, including any massage therapy license issued in the United States, Thailand and/or
+Australia.
+Response to Request No. 25
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom
+she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive
+documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+At this point in time,
+has not found any non-privileged documents
+responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents.
+26.
+All Documents concerning any prescription drugs taken by You,
+including the prescribing doctor, the dates of said prescription, and the dates of any
+fulfillment of any such prescription.
+Response to Request No. 26
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and
+unduly burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this
+action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Ms.
+38
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 39 of 47
+objects to this request in that it is not limited in date range in any way; therefore if
+she was on a prescription drug when she was 2 years old, she would have to produce that
+document.
+also objects to this request in that it is not limited to prescription
+drugs she has taken as a result of the abuse she endured.
+objects to this request
+to the extent it seeks confidential medical records that are not relevant to this action.
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks documents protected by the attorney
+client, work product, or any other applicable privilege.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and is
+producing non-privileged documents responsive to the Request limited to documents
+relating to prescription drugs relating to her treatment for sexual abuse she suffered at the
+hands of the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, and relating to conditions or symptoms arising
+after Defendant's defamatory statement, and will continue to supplement this production.
+27.
+All Documents, written or recorded, which reference by name, or
+other description, Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Response to Request No. 27
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it
+seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce non-
+39
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 40 of 47
+privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+28.
+All Documents reflecting notes of, or notes prepared for, any
+statements or interviews in which You referenced by name or other description,
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Response to Request No. 28
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege,
+the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to
+this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials.
+At this point in time,
+has not found any non-privileged documents
+responsive to this request, but continues to search for responsive documents.
+29.
+All Documents concerning any Communications by You or on Your behalf
+with any media outlet, including but not limited to the Daily Mail, Daily Express, the
+Mirror, National Enquirer, New York Daily News, Radar Online, and the New York Post,
+whether or not such communications were "on the record" or "off the record."
+Response to Request No. 29
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected
+materials.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+40
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 41 of 47
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+30. All Documents concerning any Income received by You from any media
+outlet in exchange for Your statements (whether "on the record" or "off the record")
+regarding Jeffery Epstein, Alan M. Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton or Ghislaine
+Maxwell or any of the individuals identified by You in response to Interrogatory Nos. 8
+and 14.
+Response to Request No. 30
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it secks proprietary or copyright protected
+materials.
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial
+information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+31.
+All Documents concerning any actual or potential book, television or movie
+deals concerning Your allegations about being a sex slave, including but not limited to a
+potential book by former New York Police Department detective John Connolly and writer
+James Patterson.
+41
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 42 of 47
+Response to Request No. 31
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected
+materials.
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial
+information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+32.
+All manuscripts and/or other writings, whether published or unpublished,
+created in whole or in part by or in consultation with You, concerning, relating or
+referring to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell or any of their agents or associates.
+Response to Request No. 32
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
+privilege, the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege. [
+objects to this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial
+materials.
+information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already
+produced documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will
+produce non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to
+supplement her production.
+42
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 43 of 47
+33.
+All Documents concerning or relating to Victims Refuse Silence, the
+organization referred to in the Complaint, including articles of incorporation, any financial
+records for the organization, any Income You have received from the organization, and any
+Documents reflecting Your role within the organization or any acts taken on behalf of the
+Organization.
+Response to Request No. 33
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to
+this request to the extent it seeks proprietary or copyright protected materials.
+objects to this request in that it seeks confidential financial information.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+34.
+To the extent not produced in response to the above list of requested
+Documents, all notes, writings, photographs, and/or audio or video recordings made or
+recorded by You or of You at any time that refer or relate in any way to Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Response to Request No. 34
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are within
+the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a
+joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work
+43
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 44 of 47
+product privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request to the
+extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected material.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+35.
+All phone records, including text messages, emails, social media
+Communications, letters or any other form of Communication, from or to You or
+associated with You in any way from 1998 to the present, which concern, relate to,
+identify, mention or reflect Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein, Alan Dershowitz, Prince
+Andrew, Bill Clinton, or any of the individuals identified in response to Interrogatory Nos.
+8 and 14.
+Response to Request No. 35
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to this
+request to the extent it seeks documents from "anyone associated with you" as that is vague and
+ambiguous.
+objects to this request in that documents responsive to this request are
+within the possession, custody and control of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she
+claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has refused to produce responsive documents.
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
+attorney work product privilege, the public interest privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+44
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 45 of 47
+objects to this request to the extent is seeks proprietary and copyright protected
+material.
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+documents
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+production. While
+has produced her documents,
+response does not
+include documents "from anyone associated with you" based on the above referenced objection.
+36.
+All Documents relating to massages, including but not limited to any
+Documents reflecting the recruiting or hiring of masseuses, advertising for masseuses,
+flyers created for distribution at high schools or colleges, and records reflecting e-mails
+or calls to Persons relating to massages.
+Response to Request No. 36
+objections to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and unduly
+burdensome and calls for the production of documents that are irrelevant to this action and not
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+objects to
+this request in that it is not time limited in any way.
+objects to this request in that
+documents responsive to this request are within the possession, custody and control of the
+defendant and Jeffrey Epstein for whom she claims a joint defense privilege and defendant has
+refused to produce responsive documents. [
+objects in that it seeks information
+protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+has been unable to locate any such documents.
+45
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 46 of 47
+37.
+Statements or records from any bank into which You deposited money
+received from Jeffrey Epstein, any Person identified in Interrogatory No. 8 or 14, any
+witness disclosed in Your Rule 26(a) disclosures, any media organization or any employee
+or affiliate of any media organization.
+Response to Request No. 37
+objects in that it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
+the attorney work product privilege, joint defense/common interest privilege, the public interest
+privilege, and any other applicable privilege.
+objects to this request in that it seeks
+personal financial information.
+objects to this request in that it is overly broad as it
+has no time limitation.
+documents
+Subject to and without waiving the above objections,
+has already produced
+labelled GIUFFRE000001 to GIUFFRE005353, and will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this Request, and will continue to supplement her
+Dated: April 29, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+101 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3330
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+46
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 232-6 Filed 06/20/16 Page 47 of 47
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on April 29, 2016, I electronically served Plaintiff
+Amended Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendant's First Set of Discovery
+Requests on the following:
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10' Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+'s Second
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+47
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f808bcb84bffc999bc9d2171b84e19fe03660eb0d6a46f5a11c6ee8a81c7ea36.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f808bcb84bffc999bc9d2171b84e19fe03660eb0d6a46f5a11c6ee8a81c7ea36.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b61b888d9f678e888048a704e71d5cc515674e4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f808bcb84bffc999bc9d2171b84e19fe03660eb0d6a46f5a11c6ee8a81c7ea36.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -753,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f808bcb84bffc999bc9d2171b84e19fe03660eb0d6a46f5a11c6ee8a81c7ea36",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 60,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "18ba1476837fac17f9f1c56c9c35959fb98090dfa518e8f53a21c9146a16e4f8",
+  "output_sha256": "cf462fc6308c96af858bba2a2577266f826dbe36b2a5ea1f039030fb3ff4b9c3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f80dd633cc49e593ea7b0be5b627b567f22318fccf81341a135bac21a756895d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f80dd633cc49e593ea7b0be5b627b567f22318fccf81341a135bac21a756895d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..03178a15f568008613389f5a3a502f2e435ffed3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f80dd633cc49e593ea7b0be5b627b567f22318fccf81341a135bac21a756895d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 19
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff
+Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS
+VS.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant
+NON-PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
+COMPEL TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South, #1400
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+(561) 659-8300
+(561) 835-8691 (fax)
+
+
+Document 473 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 19
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+INTRODUCTION
+I.
+BACKGROUND
+1
+2
+4
+8
+•
+9
+CONCLUSION
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+13
+16
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 473 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 of 19
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff
+V.
+Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant
+NON-PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
+COMPEL TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Non-party Jeffrey Epstein, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+Response in Opposition to defendant Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion to Compel Testimony of
+Jeffrey Epstein. Defendant's Motion to Compel should be denied in its entirety.
+
+
+Document 473 Filed 10/17/16 Page 4 of 19
+2
+
+
+Document 473 Filed 10/17/16 Page 5 of 19
+3
+
+
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 6 of 19
+4
+
+
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 7 of 19
+
+
+Document 473 Filed 10/17/16 Page 8 of 19
+
+
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 9 of 19
+7
+
+
+
+8
+
+
+
+
+
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 12 of 19
+10
+
+
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 13 of 19
+11
+
+
+
+12
+
+
+
+13
+
+
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 16 of 19
+14
+
+
+Filed 10/17/16 Page 17 of 19
+15
+
+
+
+CONCLUSION
+For all the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to compel should be denied in its
+entirety.
+16
+
+
+
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all counsel of
+record by CM/ECF on October 17, 2016.
+Respectfully submitted,
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+By his attorneys,
+1s/ Jack A. Goldberger
+Jack Alan Goldberger
+Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A.
+250 Australian Avenue South, #1400
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+(561) 659-8305
+(561) 835-8691 (fax)
+igoldberger@agwpa.com
+]G. Weinberg
+Pro hac vice pending
+20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
+Boston, Massachusetts 02116
+(617) 227-8616
+(617) 338-9538 (fax)
+owlmgw@att.net
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f80dd633cc49e593ea7b0be5b627b567f22318fccf81341a135bac21a756895d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f80dd633cc49e593ea7b0be5b627b567f22318fccf81341a135bac21a756895d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f4ca8ae192262f60e23e6b5e8dc33adf35b72fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f80dd633cc49e593ea7b0be5b627b567f22318fccf81341a135bac21a756895d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -993,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f80dd633cc49e593ea7b0be5b627b567f22318fccf81341a135bac21a756895d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 26,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2f51350819b378aa9cf9443490a49f5703e151d588c84b2485d1e67131c1d874",
+  "output_sha256": "95a856df361fe68d2bf042f008fb76e0d86126e9e6274974c8823d84afc2b644",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8246321d2b92535fca6b9a42c91209192821a6eacdd472808bb19f0787096d3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8246321d2b92535fca6b9a42c91209192821a6eacdd472808bb19f0787096d3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..465ee980257413485831abcaab771d09bd2e8506
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8246321d2b92535fca6b9a42c91209192821a6eacdd472808bb19f0787096d3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 536-3 Filed 01/06/17 Page 1 of 1
+EXHBIT 3
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8246321d2b92535fca6b9a42c91209192821a6eacdd472808bb19f0787096d3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8246321d2b92535fca6b9a42c91209192821a6eacdd472808bb19f0787096d3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9aa267711eef8e33eb299d589830cfb898705ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8246321d2b92535fca6b9a42c91209192821a6eacdd472808bb19f0787096d3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f8246321d2b92535fca6b9a42c91209192821a6eacdd472808bb19f0787096d3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9dd00f18bbb1dd5a25d912faa9d5c5249883fc8f416f65b8a8d27fa858b52857",
+  "output_sha256": "e10e4f375c9f952144794ae34766fbbb36256ddcd0a045c3606156c4e3fcb09f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f82a5aebf415c5558ac6eafbc7ad21c94e0baa30e207b1101df3dd41246de0fc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f82a5aebf415c5558ac6eafbc7ad21c94e0baa30e207b1101df3dd41246de0fc.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..68604e4bea468f6aff97a7fe7bdf4ec880844019
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f82a5aebf415c5558ac6eafbc7ad21c94e0baa30e207b1101df3dd41246de0fc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 344
+Filed 10/14/21 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 10/14/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court received a letter via email from a lawyer for an alleged victim regarding victim
+attendance at the upcoming trial. The Court will file the letter under seal and forward a copy to
+counsel for both sides.
+Consistent with the District's COVID-19 protocols, the Court will ensure public access
+for pre-trial proceedings and trial, including several overflow rooms at the courthouse with live
+feeds of the proceedings. Additional information will be provided as soon as it is available.
+Access for alleged victims will be coordinated between the Victim Witness Unit and the
+District Executive's Office. The contact information for each office is provided below.
+Furthermore, Defense counsel may coordinate access for the Defendant's family members with
+the District Executive's Office.
+Wendy Olson, Coordinator
+Victim Witness Unit
+United States Attorney's Office
+(212) 637-1028
+Wendy.Olson@usdoj.gov
+Pecorino
+District Executive's Office
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+(212) 805-0504
+SO ORDERED.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 344 Filed 10/14/21 Page 2 of 2
+Dated: October 14, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia go Attor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f82a5aebf415c5558ac6eafbc7ad21c94e0baa30e207b1101df3dd41246de0fc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f82a5aebf415c5558ac6eafbc7ad21c94e0baa30e207b1101df3dd41246de0fc.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f92a02ebe3fda08ed1d3365b236c9b428ca1357
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f82a5aebf415c5558ac6eafbc7ad21c94e0baa30e207b1101df3dd41246de0fc.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f82a5aebf415c5558ac6eafbc7ad21c94e0baa30e207b1101df3dd41246de0fc",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a9072eaa620e92e99780279a75b4199fc0df9df4b1d50db1290d10708c3596cc",
+  "output_sha256": "3817333fdb896ef7ff492f2a4fea16011daa0ac1f98db8ed3a312f25abc4ba64",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8355004f892e992e912ff7160aa6a58dcdda2dc3905599068003680ed4c67c1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8355004f892e992e912ff7160aa6a58dcdda2dc3905599068003680ed4c67c1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d8b85214edce3a312bc0919824a55af04022d609
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8355004f892e992e912ff7160aa6a58dcdda2dc3905599068003680ed4c67c1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 277 Filed 07/13/16
+
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USA / Plaintiffs)
+Case No. 15CV7433
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL
+Defendants)
+)
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
+MOTION
+Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a
+has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.
+held on
+6/23/16
+Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting
+the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.
+The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court
+any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also
+be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronicalls
+available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.
+This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security
+numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information
+may proceed by motion.
+I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter.
+Is VINCENT BOLOGNA
+Court Reporter/Transcriber
+Date
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8355004f892e992e912ff7160aa6a58dcdda2dc3905599068003680ed4c67c1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8355004f892e992e912ff7160aa6a58dcdda2dc3905599068003680ed4c67c1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fb4797ce6ca5d6324096b6ec404ec645a1b5859
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8355004f892e992e912ff7160aa6a58dcdda2dc3905599068003680ed4c67c1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -25,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f8355004f892e992e912ff7160aa6a58dcdda2dc3905599068003680ed4c67c1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "807ceffdbd70dfc42810f9f027d9a78fe8790129058fbc6694b513bb6c01f2ca",
+  "output_sha256": "2073412a1070bb4c2a73421d322345ad27652d282cd18868c243386713c4da5a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f86feec7476b4a68d02b23bae57924be5367daabdf26664c26e5b4c28936f770.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f86feec7476b4a68d02b23bae57924be5367daabdf26664c26e5b4c28936f770.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86950e3a97c5c5eb72d13f1289f8d5b35b7edac1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f86feec7476b4a68d02b23bae57924be5367daabdf26664c26e5b4c28936f770.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 682
+Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cy-07433-R WS
+--X
+Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in Support of
+Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude "Victim Notification" Letter
+1, Laura A. Menninger, declare as follows:
+1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of New York and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am a
+member of the law firm Haddon,
+P.C., counsel of record for Defendant
+Ghislaine Maxwell in this action. I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of
+Ms. Maxwell's Motion in Limine to Exclude "Victim Notification" Letter.
+2. Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the l
+3. Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of |
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 682 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 3
+4. Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Executed on March 3, 2017.
+s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 682 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 3, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support of Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude "Victim Notification" Letter via ECF on the
+following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+9 Twin Lakes Rd
+South Salem. NY 1059(
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f86feec7476b4a68d02b23bae57924be5367daabdf26664c26e5b4c28936f770.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f86feec7476b4a68d02b23bae57924be5367daabdf26664c26e5b4c28936f770.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0fbff6af469b7112949bb598e739386916a7a33
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f86feec7476b4a68d02b23bae57924be5367daabdf26664c26e5b4c28936f770.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f86feec7476b4a68d02b23bae57924be5367daabdf26664c26e5b4c28936f770",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c1d54e4937e5368d35e8f6e220d710feedb3cb6b70737d1b65aa147eab44aa98",
+  "output_sha256": "9c84ec662b1baa09e0e13b4e8d64e6e52dc138224d5d5bfe6eddcfc205e2d98c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8854c10e2a1c20a5f099ab0a72e445242b1457f280c90e4c74b44595b2cdd9a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8854c10e2a1c20a5f099ab0a72e445242b1457f280c90e4c74b44595b2cdd9a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f5d90c058a98686da1bd9d20d8f69b114d5a58d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8854c10e2a1c20a5f099ab0a72e445242b1457f280c90e4c74b44595b2cdd9a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 846-1 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8854c10e2a1c20a5f099ab0a72e445242b1457f280c90e4c74b44595b2cdd9a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8854c10e2a1c20a5f099ab0a72e445242b1457f280c90e4c74b44595b2cdd9a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..81498d5e0431cc2f767c362f339afcf2ddc48b9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8854c10e2a1c20a5f099ab0a72e445242b1457f280c90e4c74b44595b2cdd9a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f8854c10e2a1c20a5f099ab0a72e445242b1457f280c90e4c74b44595b2cdd9a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9a6a9b0b899dad01013038c8182abd310344efdac8186985bcccc0435d17c0bd",
+  "output_sha256": "b2252ac7105ebf4a366e2f815c2a29fb533ae2cb9a1f29d76f5cd50cdc51fe53",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f88ffeccadb86a9654f2c7380df3f9c406fdb1812aec570d0b7f25ae45a445c8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f88ffeccadb86a9654f2c7380df3f9c406fdb1812aec570d0b7f25ae45a445c8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8865735c76dc2566060aed7275c03fe2a4c5bc55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f88ffeccadb86a9654f2c7380df3f9c406fdb1812aec570d0b7f25ae45a445c8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24
+
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DATA FROM DEFENDANT'S UNDISCLOSED
+EMAIL ACCOUNT AND FOR AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION
+Plaintiff,
+by and through her undersigned counsel, files this Motion to
+Compel Data from Defendant's Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse Inference
+Instruction regarding the data from that account, and states as follows. Defendant has not disclosed,
+nor produced data from, the email account she used while abusing
+from 2000-2002
+in violation of this Court's Order [DE 352].
+hereby moves to compel Defendant to
+produce this data, and requests that this Court enter an adverse inference jury instruction for this
+willful violation of this Court's orders.
+1.
+BACKGROUND
+The earliest-dated email Defendant has produced in this litigation is from July 18, 2009.
+(GM_00069).
+is aware of two email addresses that appear to be the email addresses
+Defendant used while
+was with Defendant and Epstein, namely, from 2000 - 2002.
+Defendant has denied that she used those accounts to communicate, but she has not disclosed the
+account she did use to communicate during that time, nor produce documents from it.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 12
+Importantly, Defendant has never denied using an email account for communication from
+1999-2009, and the facts and circumstances show that it is exceedingly unlikely that Defendant
+did not use an email account to communicate those years.'
+For example, according to United States Department of Commerce, "eighty-eight percent
+of adult Internet users sent or received e-mail" in 2000. See Eric C. Newburger, "Home
+Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000," U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
+COMMERCE, ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, September
+2001. Additionally, the Pew Research Center published findings that certain demographics have
+higher internet usage, including many demographics to which Defendant belongs. For example,
+higher rates of internet usage are found among younger adults (Defendant was 38 in 1999); those
+with college educations (Defendant has a L
+degree; those in households earning more
+than $75,000 (Defendant was in a household headed by a billionaire during that time, and that
+household had its own private email server and account); whites or English-speaking Asian-
+Americans (Defendant is
+); and those who live in urban areas (Defendant lived in Palm
+Beach and Manhattan). See Andres Perrin and Maeve Duggan, 'Americans' Internet Access:
+2000-2015," PEW RESEARCH CENTER, June 26, 2015.
+Additionally, her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, with whom she shared a household from
+1999-2002 (and other years), implemented an entire, private email system to communicate with
+his household and employees, including Defendant. Accordingly, given Defendant's
+extraordinary economic resources, her high-level social connections, and her elaborate
+residential email/internet configuration she had during that time, it is extraordinarily unlikely that
+she would not employ an almost ubiquitous communication tool, nor has she denied it.
+' On Friday, September 23, 2016, counsel for
+sent a letter to Defendant inquiring about the undisclosed
+account. As of the date of this motion, Defendant has made no response.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 12
+A.
+The
+Account
+has knowledge of the
+account because it was listed as
+part of Defendant's contact information (including phone number) on documents gathered by the
+police from Epstein's home, and turned over to the Palm Beach County State Attorney as part of
+the investigation and prosecution of Epstein.
+Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell
+Email
+See (DE 280-2), Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, Public Records Request No.: 16-
+268, Disc 7 at p. 2305 (GIUFFRE007843). Despite the fact that this account was listed as her
+contact information in the home she shared with Epstein, and despite the fact that the username
+bears her initials, Defendant claims she does not recognize the account, and has no access to it.
+B.
+The
+Account
+The mindspring account is also listed as part of Defendant's contact information gathered
+by the police. In her filing with this Court, Defendant represented that this was merely a "
+account "to use when registering for retail sales notifications and the like," and that it contains no
+relevant documents. (DE 345 at pg. 8). However, it appears that Jeffrey Epstein created the
+mindspring.org accounts to communicate with his household and with his employees, and did, in
+fact, communicate with them this way.
+As previously recounted, Jeffrey Epstein's house manager, Juan Alessi testified that
+MindSpring account was in daily use by the Epstein household to send and receive messages, a
+household to which Defendant belonged:
+Q. So when there would be a message from one of them while they were out of town,
+they would call you, call you on the telephone?
+A. I haven't spoken to Ghislaine in 12 years.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 12
+Q. Sorry. I'm talking about when you worked there and you would receive a message that
+they were coming into town, would that be by way of telephone?
+A. Telephone, and also, there was a system at the house, that it was MindSpring,
+MindSpring I think it's called, that it was like a message system that would come from
+the office.
+Q. What is MindSpring?
+A. It was a server. I think it was -- the office would have, like, a message system
+between him, the houses, the employees, his friends. They would write a message on the
+computer. There was no email at that time.
+Q. Okay. So what computer would you use?
+A. My computer in my office.
+Q. And so was part of your daily routine to go to your computer and check to see if you
+had MindSpring messages?
+A. No. That was at the end of my stay. That was the very end of my stay. I didn't get
+involved with that too much. But it was a message system that Jeffrey received every
+two, three hours, with all the messages that would have to go to the office in New York,
+and they will print it and send it faxed to the house, and I would hand it to him.
+Q. Did it look like the message pads that we've been looking at?
+A. No, no, nothing like that.
+Q. Was it typed-out messages?
+A. Yes, typed-out messages.
+Q. Just explain one example of how it would work. Let's say that Ghislaine wanted to
+send him a message on MindSpring. How would that work?
+A. An example?
+Q. Sure.
+A. It got so ridiculous at the end of my stay, okay? That Mr. Epstein, instead of talking
+o me that he wants a cup of coffee, he will call the office; the office would type it; they
+vould send it to me, Jeffrey wants a cup of coffee, or Jeffrey wants an orange juice ou
+by the pool.
+Q. He would call the office in New York. They would then type it in MindSpring?
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 12
+A. Send it to me.
+Q. How would you know to check for it? How would you know to look for this
+MindSpring?
+A. Because I was in the office. I was there. I was there. And we have a signal when it
+come on and says, Hey, you've got mail.
+Q. Okay.
+A. Every day. Every day it was new things put in. That's why I left, too.
+Q. Do you know who set up the mind spring system?
+A. It was a computer guy. It was a computer guy who worked only for
+Jeffrey. Mark. Mark Lumber.
+Q. Was he local to Palm Beach?
+A. No. He was in New York. Everything was set up from New York. And Mark
+Lumber, I remember he came to Palm Beach to set up the system at the house.
+Alessi Dep. Tr. at 223:5-225:17. (June 1, 2016) (McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 1).
+Accordingly, mindspring was a domain name set up for Jeffrey Epstein and his houschold to
+communicate with one another, and was, in fact, used in this manner.
+The sworn testimony of Janusz Banasiak, another of Epstein's house managers, from the case
+L.M. v. Jeffery Epstein and |
+' gives a fuller representation of how Defendant, and
+others in Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, used their accounts on Epstein's mindspring server:
+Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Epstein used a Citrix program to link various computers?
+Did you know that?
+A. Yeah. I use Citrix too in my computer for exchanging e-mails and get through Internet.
+* Case No.: 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB, In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial
+Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 12
+Q. That's not something that you were, you were privy to? You weren't, you weren't in the
+loop of the sharing of information in the house in terms of the computers being connected
+through any server?
+A. I don't really know what, how, how to answer your question because Citrix is for the
+whole organization to exchange e-mail between employees.
+Q. All right. You used the term?
+A. So, even my computer is connected to Citrix. I can receive mail and I can e-mail
+information to employee within organization. But I don't know if you can see to each
+computer what is going on on another computer.
+***
+2. You have used the term organization; you can share within the organization. What do yo
+- just so I can understand what you're calling the organization, what do you mean by tha
+word?
+A. People employed by Jeffrey Epstein. There are a few groups of people, his office in New
+York and I guess --
+Q. Okay. The other people mentioned as co-conspirators are
+and
+So we'll get to them in a minute but first just so we stay on the track of
+who was in the organization, is
+and
+all people
+that you would also consider within the organization?
+A. Yes.
+Q. Okay. So, we just added three more names to it. Who else would you consider,
+Ghislaine Maxwell?
+A. Yes.
+Banasiak Deposition at 56:13-17; 57:2-14; 58:1-7; 60:21-61:7 (February 16, 2010) (Emphasis
+added) (McCawley Decl. at Sealed Composite Exhibit 2).
+As Defendant was a member of Epstein's household, and claims to have been his
+employee (See McCawley Decl. at Sealed Exhibit 3, Maxwell's April 22, 2016 Dep. Tr. at 10:7-
+11:3), it is unlikely that her mindspring account was merely a *
+account" from 1999-2002.
+It is much more likely that this account has - or had - Defendant's communications with co-
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 12
+conspirators
+and Epstein. However, it is Defendant's
+representation that this account does not presently have responsive documents and was merely
+used for *
+C.
+Defendant's Non-Disclosed Email Account
+If the Court accepts Defendant's claim that she used neither the earthlink.net account nor
+the mindspring.org "
+account to communicate, logic dictates that Defendant must have had
+another email account - one that she actually used - from 2000 - 2002. Despite the Court's orders
+that Defendant produce responsive documents from all her email accounts from 1999 to the
+present, Defendant has neither disclosed nor produced from the email account that she actually
+used to communicate from 2000-2002. This refusal violates this Court's orders.
+issued requests to Defendant on October 27, 2015. Nearly a year later, after this Court has
+specifically ordered Defendant to produce her responsive email from all her accounts, Defendant
+has produced none from this account. Not only has Defendant failed to produce emails from the
+account she actually used from 1999-2002, and she has not even disclosed what account it is.
+Il. ARGUMENT
+A. An Adverse Inference Instruction is Appropriate
+An adverse inference instruction is appropriate regarding documents from the email
+account Defendant actually used from 1999-2002. In light of this clear and persistent pattern of
+recalcitrance, the Court should instruct the jury that it can draw an adverse inference that the
+Defendant has concealed relevant evidence. Even if Defendant were, at this late date, to run
+proposed search terms over the data from the email account she used from 1999 - 2002
+(which she refuses to disclose), such a production would be both untimely and prejudicial. Fact
+discovery has closed. Numerous depositions have already been taken by
+without the
+benefit of these documents. The window for authenticating the documents through depositions
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 12
+has shut. Expert reports have been exchanged, so
+experts did not have the benefit
+of reviewing these documents. Late production of this information robs
+of any
+practical ability to use the discovery, and, importantly, it was incumbent on Defendant to identify
+this account.
+The Second Circuit has stated, "[w Jhere documents, witnesses, or information of any
+kind relevant issues in litigation is or was within the exclusive or primary control of a party and
+is not provided, an adverse inference can be drawn against the withholding party. Such adverse
+inferences are appropriate as a consequence for failure to make discovery." Bouzo v. Citibank,
+N.A., 1993 WL 525114, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (internal citations omitted). The Defendant's
+continued systemic foot-dragging and obstructionism - even following the Court's June 20
+Sealed Order and August 10, 2016 Order [DE 352] - makes an adverse inference instruction with
+regard to Defendant's documents appropriate. An adverse inference instruction is appropriate
+when a party refuses to turn over documents in defiance of a Court Order. See Lyondell-Citgo
+Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2005 WL 1026461, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005)
+(denying application to set aside Magistrate Judge Peck's order entering an adverse inference
+instruction against defendant for failure to produce documents that the Judge Peck had ordered
+Defendant to produce). Accordingly, because a "party's failure to produce evidence within its
+control creates a presumption that evidence would be unfavorable to that party" an adverse
+inference should be applied with respect to Defendant's failure to produce data from the email
+account she used from 1999 -2002 "in order to ensure fair hearing for [the] other party seeking
+evidence." Doe v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 483 F. Supp. 539, 580 (S.D. N.Y., 1980)
+(citing International Union v. NLRB, 148 U.S. App. D.C. 305, 312-317, 459 F.2d 1329, 1336-41
+(D.C.Cir.1972)).
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 12
+"An adverse inference serves the remedial purpose of restoring the prejudiced party to the
+same position he would have been in absent the wrongful destruction of [or willful refusal to
+produce] evidence by the opposing party." Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 296 F.R.D. 168, 222
+(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (granting an adverse inference when defendants refused to produce documents
+pursuant to the District Court's order). Where "an adverse inference... is sought on the basis that
+the evidence was not produced in time for use at trial, the party seeking the instruction must
+show (1) that the party having control over the evidence had an obligation to timely produce it;
+(2) that the party that failed to timely produce the evidence had a culpable state of mind'; and
+(3) that the missing evidence is "relevant' to the party's claim or defense such that a reasonable
+trier of fact could find that it would support that claim or defense." Id. (citing Residential
+Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir. 2002)).
+Furthermore, as discussed in detail in
+Motion for an Adverse Inference
+Instruction (DE 315) and Supplement Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction (DE 338), an
+adverse inference is appropriate regarding the documents that Defendant is withholding under
+the Second Circuit's test set forth in Residential Funding. Defendant has admitted to deleting
+emails as this Court noted in its Order. An adverse inference is equally appropriate if the noncompliance was due to Defendant's destruction of evidence. See
+v. Coleman, 2009 WL
+2877602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2009) ("Where a party violates a court order— either by
+destroying evidence when directed to preserve it or by failing to produce information because
+relevant data has been destroyed Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
+that the court may impose a range of sanctions, including dismissal or judgment by default,
+preclusion of evidence, imposition of an adverse inference, or assessment of attorneys' fees and
+costs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); see Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Financial Corp., 306
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 12
+F.3d 99, 106-07 (2d Cir.2002)"). See also Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 2011 WL
+124505, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011); and Rule 37(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. ("If electronically stored
+information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost
+because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it ... the court: (2) only upon finding
+that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the
+litigation may: (A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party; (b) instruct
+the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or (C) dismiss
+the action or enter a default judgment."). Failure to disclose the email account Defendant actually
+used from 1992-2002 warrants an adverse inference instruction.
+Ill.
+CONCLUSION
+For the reasons set forth above,
+respectfully requests that this Court compel
+Defendant to disclose what email account she actually used from 2009-1999, and that the court
+give the jury an adverse inference jury instruction concerning the documents from the
+undisclosed email account.
+October 14, 2016
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 12
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+. JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52023
+3 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 1330-11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 12
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 14, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic Court Filing
+System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10' Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+/s/ Meredith
+Meredith
+12
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f88ffeccadb86a9654f2c7380df3f9c406fdb1812aec570d0b7f25ae45a445c8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f88ffeccadb86a9654f2c7380df3f9c406fdb1812aec570d0b7f25ae45a445c8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eb59a6cd83348e08538d4317e683a62fc708bdbc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f88ffeccadb86a9654f2c7380df3f9c406fdb1812aec570d0b7f25ae45a445c8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -158,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f88ffeccadb86a9654f2c7380df3f9c406fdb1812aec570d0b7f25ae45a445c8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 14,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "499382fbaeb4bb530c1aa5be273a524c51728ab67669503006a2ac178cfeff6a",
+  "output_sha256": "0c81f1b91a6a97f96166e5f5a06990956b41b367796ce9f60f5e4646e7a80d80",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8bfa8810caa05364e94eea85e6a3d59c8d62c2735788f9467bd3b7a79d38a24.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8bfa8810caa05364e94eea85e6a3d59c8d62c2735788f9467bd3b7a79d38a24.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a32a825b2b3186854aa4862876591af994697ff6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8bfa8810caa05364e94eea85e6a3d59c8d62c2735788f9467bd3b7a79d38a24.md
@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 8
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+:
+------
+DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+AND
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 2 of 8
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell"), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3),
+files this Renewed Motion to Compel Settlement Agreement regarding the confidential
+settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Jeffery Epstein, and states as follows:
+INTRODUCTION
+As part of her scorched earth litigation practice, Plaintiff, without any legal basis,
+continues to withhold production of a settlement agreement and the amount of her settlement
+between herself and Jeffrey Epstein. Initially, Plaintiff improperly conditioned production of the
+document by requiring that counsel for Ms. Maxwell obtain a "waiver from Mr. Epstein."
+Although it was not Ms. Maxwell's burden to do so, in an attempt to avoid filing this Motion,
+counsel for Ms. Maxwell obtained the waiver from counsel for Mr. Epstein. These efforts were
+apparently useless because, although counsel for the Plaintiff promised the Court that she would
+"gladly" produce the documents with a "waiver from Mr. Epstein," she has reneged on that
+promise, forcing Ms. Max well to file yet another motion to compel production of relevant,
+discoverable information in Plaintiff's possession. Plaintiff's refusal to produce the document is
+groundless and the Court should order production of the document forthwith and sanction
+Plaintiff for her conduct.
+STATEMENT OF CONFERRAL
+The undersigned has conferred extensively with Plaintiff's counsel on this issue by
+telephone and email, as demonstrated in the correspondence attached hereto in Menninger Decl.
+Ex. B. The parties have been unable to reach a resolution without the need for Court
+intervention.
+PROCEDURAL HISTORY
+• On February 12, 2016 Ms. Maxwell served her First Set of Discovery Requests on
+Plaintiff. Request Number 19 requested "Any Document reflecting a confidentiality
+agreement, settlement agreement, or any contractual agreement of any kind, between You
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 3 of 8
+and Jeffrey Epstein, or any attorneys for You and/or Mr. Epstein." Menninger Decl. Ex.
+A.
+• On March 16, 2016 Defendants responded to the Request for production stating "..
+is in possession of a document that contains a confidentiality provision. If
+Defendant obtains, and produces to |
+,, a written waiver from ... Mr. Epstein,
+of the confidentiality provision, she will produce the document." Menninger Decl. Ex. A
+• On March 31, 2016, Ms. Maxwell moved to compel production of, inter alia, the
+Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. Epstein. Doc. #75.
+• On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff represented in Response that she 'is willing to produce the
+Settlement Agreement and all documents concerning the Settlement Agreement if
+Defendant gets a waiver of liability from Jeffrey Epstein for its disclosure." Doc. #78 at
+15. Indeed, with a "waiver of the confidentiality clause from Jeffrey Epstein," she said
+she would "gladly turn over" information regarding the amount of her settlement with
+Mr. Epstein. Id. at 2.
+• On April 21, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Compel. At the hearing,
+Plaintiff's counsel represented to the Court:
+"The other things, your Honor, that she has raised is, for example, she had
+asked for the Epstein settlement agreement and that was one of the things
+she had asked for. We agreed to produce that if we got the waiver from
+Mr. Epstein because we can't produce it without that waiver. I believe
+that covers it, your Honor." (Transcript of April 21, 2016 at 19).
+• The Court did not specifically issue a ruling on the Motion to Compel concerning
+Request for Production 19, presumably relying upon Plaintiff's counsel's representation.
+• On August 16, 2016, Mr. Epstein's counsel provided a written waiver of claims
+concerning the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement as requested by
+Plaintiff. Mr. Poe, Mr. Epstein's counsel stated "I am authorized to state that Jeffrey
+Epstein is willing to agree not to sue plaintiff's counsel/plaintiff if the settlement
+agreement is disclosed to defendant Maxwell's counsel provided that (1) the settlement
+agreement is designated as confidential under the protective order; (2) the settlement
+agreement is deemed fully subject to the protective order; and (3) the settlement
+agreement (including individual terms) will not be publicly disclosed or used in court
+proceedings without notice to Mr. Epstein and an opportunity to be heard." Menninger
+Decl. Ex. B.
+Despite Mr. Epstein's specific waiver of any claim concerning the confidentiality
+provision of the settlement agreement between himself and Plaintiff based on the production of
+the document, Plaintiff continues to refuse to produce this document. Plaintiff now claims that
+Ms. Maxwell must obtain the document from a third party - Mr. Epstein. Menninger Decl., Ex.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 4 of 8
+B. She requires this despite acknowledging that Ms. Maxwell has no right to demand these
+documents from a third party instead of Plaintiff because it is an improper use of a third party
+subpoena. Zoological Soc. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Carvedrock, LLC, No. 10-CV-35A SR, 2013 WL
+5652759, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2013) (imposing sanctions under Rule 45 where party
+imposed an undue burden on a third party by, among other things, failing to seek documents
+from party to the action);
+v. Bank of America, 2007 WL 1589437, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 4,
+2007) (if documents available from a party, preferable to obtain them pursuant to Rule 34 rather
+than subpoenaing them from a non-party witness pursuant to Rule 45).
+Mr. Epstein will likely move to quash as he has specifically stated. Plaintiff has no basis
+for non-production. The Settlement Agreement is readily available and within her control.
+Plaintiff's failure to abide by her representations to Ms. Maxwell and the Court have forced this
+unnecessary Motion to Compel.
+IL.
+THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS RELEVANT TO THE CLAIMS AND
+DEFENSES
+No one contests that the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff and Mr. Epstein is
+relevant. Plaintiff sued Mr. Epstein in 2009 under various theories for his alleged sexual abuse
+of her from 1998 to 2002. Plaintiff's damages claims alleged:
+Plaintiff has in the past suffered, and will in the future continue to suffer, physica
+injury, pain and suffering, emotional distress, psychological and/or psychiatric
+trauma, mental anguish, humiliation, confusion, embarrassment, loss of
+educational opportunities, loss of self-esteem, loss of dignity, invasion of her
+privacy, separation from her family, and other damages
+Menninger Decl. Ex. C
+Plaintiff alleges the same damages in this case. She claims that "[t]he defamation caused
+to re-live the sexual abuse she previously endured" as alleged against Mr. Epstein,
+which claims have been settled. Plaintiff's Rule 26(a) Disclosures, Menninger Decl. Ex. D.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 5 of 8
+Plaintiff's settlement with Mr. Epstein is relevant to multiple issues including, but not limited to:
+1) Plaintiff's own valuation of her damages for the types of damages alleged in that matter, 2)
+whether Plaintiff has already been fully compensated for any past and future alleged pain and
+suffering relating to the alleged sexual abuse she endured, 3) the scope of the parties and claims
+released in the agreement, and 4) Ms. Maxwell's defenses, including other intervening causes
+and acts of others causing any and all alleged damages. Indeed, in Plaintiff's Discovery
+Responses, she does not raise any relevance objection to production of the Settlement
+Agreement, thereby waiving any objection as to its relevance. Menninger Decl., Ex. A, Resp.
+No. 19. A failure to respond or object to a discovery request in a timely manner waives any
+objection which may have been available. See Cohalan v. Genie Industries, Inc., 276 F.R.D.
+161, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that failure to timely object to discovery
+request waives objections and collecting cases);
+v. Conway Organization, Inc., 154 F.R.D.
+73 (S.D.N.Y.1994). Plaintiff cannot and does not contest that the Settlement Agreement is
+relevant and must be produced.
+Ill.
+PLAINTIFF MUST COMPLY WITH HER DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS AND
+REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT
+Plaintiff made the unreasonable demand that Mr. Epstein provided a waiver of any claim
+relating to a purported confidentiality provision in the Settlement Agreement prior to production.
+Ms. Maxwell has never seen the Agreement, but presumably, it contains a confidentiality clause,
+as do most settlement agreements. What is unclear is if that clause would permit the disclosure
+of the Agreement in this litigation pursuant to validly issued discovery requests, as most
+settlement agreements contain. It is also unclear if Plaintiff was permitted to turn over the
+document upon giving notice to Mr. Epstein, again a common provision. Regardless, Mr.
+Epstein has been notified and consented to the production of the document pursuant to the terms
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 6 of 8
+of the blanket protective order in the matter, which both parties have agreed is appropriate.' He
+has stated he will not sue Plaintiff for the production of the document. Plaintiff has gotten
+exactly what she requested. Despite her promises to this Court and Ms. Maxwell that production
+would be made immediately after receiving this assurance, she now refuses to produce the
+Agreement without any reason or justification. Plaintiff should be required to comply with her
+representations and produce the Settlement Agreement between her and Mr. Epstein.
+IV.
+CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS ARE NOT PROTECTED
+FROM DISCOVERY
+The demand for a waiver from Mr. Epstein, however, was unnecessary and inappropriate.
+Confidential "'Settlement agreements,' and related documents, "are governed by Rule 26, which
+allows discovery thereof so long as such disclosure 'appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
+discovery of admissible evidence.'" Casagrande v. Norm Bloom & Son, LLC, No. 3:11-CV-
+1918 CSH, 2014 WL 5817562, at *7 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2014) (quoting Rates Tech. Inc. v.
+Cablevision Sys. Corp., No. 05 cv 3583(DRH)(WDW), 2007 WL 1176732, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
+20, 2007) (dismissing case where, after court order, Plaintiff refused to turn over confidential
+settlement agreement relevant to the pending litigation)); see also Laforest v. Honeywell Int'l
+Inc., No. 03-CV-6248T, 2004 WL 1498916, at *7 (W.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) (the mere fact that
+the third-party defendants designated their indemnification agreement as confidential does not
+shield it from discovery"); Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti, 1996 WL 337277 at *3; Weissman v.
+Fruchtman, 1986 WL 15669, *19 (S.D.N.Y.1986) ("parties' intention that agreement remain
+confidential is not controlling."). In sum, a third-party's desire to maintain confidentiality as to a
+'Mr. Epstein's counsel does request that if the Agreement is to be used at trial that he be given notice and
+opportunity to be heard prior to
+_ Maxwell has agreed to this request to notify Mr. Epstein's counsel,
+and there is no reason to object to this notice request.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 7 of 8
+Settlement Agreement is immaterial if the agreement itself is relevant to the proceeding and
+reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
+Plaintiff does not contest that the Settlement Agreement is relevant. She therefore had
+and has no basis for refusing to produce the Agreement. There is certainly no reason to refuse
+the request now since she has been assured that the production will not result in any claim for
+breach of the confidentiality provision. The Court should compel production of the Settlement
+Agreement between Plaintiff and Jeffery Epstein.
+WHEREFORE, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell request that this Court compel Plaintiff
+to produce the Settlement Agreement between her and Jeffery Epstein and all associated
+documents concerning her receipt of money from that settlement within two business days of the
+Order on this Motion, for fees and costs associated with the filing of this motion and such other
+and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
+Dated: September 6, 2016
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 422 Filed 09/06/16 Page 8 of 8
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on September 6, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant's Renewed
+Motion to Compel Settlement Agreement via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+7
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8bfa8810caa05364e94eea85e6a3d59c8d62c2735788f9467bd3b7a79d38a24.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8bfa8810caa05364e94eea85e6a3d59c8d62c2735788f9467bd3b7a79d38a24.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..28afac99804a8fa8b65dc5be8788df52eff35196
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8bfa8810caa05364e94eea85e6a3d59c8d62c2735788f9467bd3b7a79d38a24.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -96,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f8bfa8810caa05364e94eea85e6a3d59c8d62c2735788f9467bd3b7a79d38a24",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4c20e20dd755369aaa0f846734a01b4fc76e5448d91ce75b88d1d3517c8b4d27",
+  "output_sha256": "c53d7bdd1804034b7b85ae7f45d93c5087372f7ea59e9739219051bace9ab9de",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8d8b90947c73107931c65811ce3581c7f0a75bb33ea90d4eb62ccae45ea740d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8d8b90947c73107931c65811ce3581c7f0a75bb33ea90d4eb62ccae45ea740d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0b8b15c377d8d2e6536b953df9d1fbc043aa3b6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8d8b90947c73107931c65811ce3581c7f0a75bb33ea90d4eb62ccae45ea740d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 902-1 Filed 05/05/17 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 902-1
+Filed 05/05/17 Page 2 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION TO
+BRING PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICE(S)
+OR GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING
+DEVICE(S) INTO THE COURTHOUSES OF THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR
+USE IN A PROCEEDING OR TRIAL
+_x
+The following Order is subject to the
+definitions, obligations and restrictions imposed pursuant to Standing Order M10-468, as
+Revised. Upon submission of written application to this Court, it is hereby
+ORDERED that the following attorney(s) are authorized to bring the Personal Electronic
+Device(s) and/or the General Purpose Computing Device(s) (collectively, "Devices") listed below
+into the Courthouse for use in a proceeding or trial in the action
+captioned:
+v. Maxwell
+No.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+The date(s) for which such authorization is provided is (are) May 11, 2017.
+PERSON(S)
+Device(s)
+RODOLFO DURAN- MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES
+Cell Phone Device and Video Equipment
+3.
+(Attach Extra Sheet If Needed)
+The attorney(s) identified in this Order must present a copy of this Order when entering
+SO ORDERED
+Dated:
+United States Judge
+Revised: February 26, 2014
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8d8b90947c73107931c65811ce3581c7f0a75bb33ea90d4eb62ccae45ea740d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8d8b90947c73107931c65811ce3581c7f0a75bb33ea90d4eb62ccae45ea740d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d4e391d46cdb0d03449d240ed44f12f989f74435
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f8d8b90947c73107931c65811ce3581c7f0a75bb33ea90d4eb62ccae45ea740d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f8d8b90947c73107931c65811ce3581c7f0a75bb33ea90d4eb62ccae45ea740d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c07f4b3b1e3f04191ba7b8577ea96466693d551daadeafd93719df0c7f9cd25c",
+  "output_sha256": "9046644ba18b02f479254b38f60351aa0205d5273d2bb9efb9965bc5f7111eb8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9257f407a5d20289aba9921de68ced9c754fbf2907057c57e7372a0d7fe4a6c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9257f407a5d20289aba9921de68ced9c754fbf2907057c57e7372a0d7fe4a6c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c070231619a9b29f9c6bb2bfd6dcfe839e946148
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9257f407a5d20289aba9921de68ced9c754fbf2907057c57e7372a0d7fe4a6c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,643 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 23
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+:
+MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
+IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO
+SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S SUBPOENA
+TOL
+AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New
+York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+P.C.
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 23
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF CONTENTS..
+..i
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+..ii
+TABLE OF EXHIBITS
+iv
+INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
+1
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND...
+..2
+A. The Protective Order in
+v. Maxwell.
+2
+B.
+Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions.
+4
+C. The Settlement And
+Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order..... 6
+D. The Government's False Statements To
+..6
+E.
+Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The Government.
+10
+ARGUMENT..
+11
+A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The Evidence Obtained
+From
+Evidence
+And Dismiss Counts Five And Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That
+.. 11
+1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation.
+11
+2.
+The government circumvented the protective order.
+12
+3. The government violated due process.
+14
+4. This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression..
+B.
+At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell May Inquire
+Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government's Misrepresentations To İ
+15
+. 16
+CONCLUSION
+. 16
+Certificate of Service
+18
+i
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 23
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Benkovitch v. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017)
+17
+v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019)
+v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991).
+3,6
+. 17
+Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
+Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)....
+• passim
+18
+Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
+16
+v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
+.. 6
+Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017).
+17
+Manhattan Review LLC v. Yun, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
+21, 2017)
+Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) ..
+S. E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001).
+12,13
+.12
+Stewart v. Hudson
+LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020). 12
+United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998).
+United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980)..
+16
+16
+United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018).
+16
+United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June
+8, 2009).
+. 18
+United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013)
+United States v. Valentine, 820 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1987)
+Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987)
+. 18
+16
+16
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 23
+Other Authorities
+Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York Times
+Stephen Rex
+Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
+Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020)
+Rules
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 1
+Constitutional Provisions
+U.S. CONST. amend. V
+9
+12
+15
+iii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN|
+Document 134
+Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 23
+TABLE OF EXHIBITS
+ExHIBIT A: Civil Protective Order
+EXHIBIT B:
+Protective Order Proposal
+EXHIBIT C:
+ExHIBIT D: Transcript, 3/26/2019
+ExHIBIT E: Transcript, 4/9/2019
+ExHIBIT F:
+ExHIBIT G:
+ExHIBIT H:
+ExHIBIT I:
+iv
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 23
+Ghislaine Maxwell moves to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand
+jury subpoena it issued to
+and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which
+are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena.
+INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
+Counts Five and Six allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions
+conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of
+the firm's clients.
+v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective
+Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential
+discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, including with the
+government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a
+By proceeding ex parte, the government
+ensured that no one before the court would be able to contest the accuracy of its representations
+in support of its application.
+The government then took full advantage. |
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 23
+To paraphrase Mary McCarthy's philippic about Lillian Hellman, every word of the
+government's representation was untrue, "including 'and' and 'the.'"' The government knew
+what was in the
+had provided that information well before the
+investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with •
+1. And [
+was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution.
+The record is surpassingly clear: But for the
+never would have permitted the circumvention of the civil Protective
+Order, on which Maxwell relied in agreeing to sit for her depositions. This Court therefore has
+both the authority and the duty to suppress the fruits of that misrepresentation, including the
+and the two perjury counts based on those transcripts. If the Court is
+disinclined to exercise that inherent authority on the present record, Maxwell should be granted a
+hearing to examine the circumstances that resulted in the
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+A. The Protective Order in
+v. Maxwell
+Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment allege that Maxwell committed
+perjury during two civil depositions taken in
+v. Maxwell, a civil defamation case
+filed in 2015.
+claimed that Maxwell defamed her when Maxwell's attorney-hired
+press agent denied as "untrue" and "obvious lies"
+numerous allegations, over the span
+of four years, that Maxwell had participated in a scheme to cause
+to be "sexually abused
+and trafficked" by Jeffrey Epstein.
+Times.
+'See Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 23
+, a public figure required to prove actual malice, had an uphill battle-even she
+was constrained to acknowledge that many of her public statements were false. Using a timehonored if unfortunate litigation tactic, her lawyers at Boies Schiller therefore sought to turn the
+lawsuit into a proxy prosecution of Epstein. Not surprisingly, discovery in the case was bitter,
+hard-fought, and wide-ranging. It spanned more than a year and included large document
+productions, many responses to interrogatories, and thirty-some depositions, including
+depositions of
+and Maxwell as well as several third parties. See
+v. Maxwell, 929
+F.3d 41, 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that discovery was "hard-fought" and "extensive" and
+noting that the court file, which includes only some of the documents created during discovery,
+totals in the "thousands of pages").
+sought and obtained a wide variety of private and confidential information about
+Maxwell and others, including information about financial and sexual matters.
+929 F.3d
+at 48 n.22. Given the intimate and highly confidential nature of the discovery exchanged between
+the parties, the district court entered a stipulated Protective Order. See Ex. A. The Protective
+Order included a mechanism for one party to challenge another party's confidentiality
+designation (such a challenge never occurred) and provided that it did not apply to any
+information or material disclosed at trial. (Because the case settled before trial, that sole
+exception to the Protective Order was never triggered.)
+Notably, Boies Schiller sought to add a "law enforcement" exception to the Protective
+Order, doubtless because the firm was eager to enlist the government in its campaign against
+Maxwell. In particular, Boies Schiller proposed to include a provision stating that
+"CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the
+preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to,
+investigations by law enforcement." Ex. B 9l 1(a)(4) (emphasis supplied). Maxwell flatly rejected
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 23
+this proposal, and it was never included in the Protective Order. Ex. A.- To the contrary, the
+order strictly limited the parties' disposition of Confidential Material, including at the conclusion
+of the case. In particular, paragraph 12 of the order provided that:
+[alt the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each
+document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL
+shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties
+may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to
+destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties
+with an affidavit confirming destruction.
+Ex. A 1 12
+B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions
+Relying on the confidentiality protections of the Protective Order, Maxwell declined to
+invoke her privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and agreed to testify at her April
+2016 deposition. In that deposition,
+Following the deposition,
+_ moved to compel Maxwell to answer additional
+intimate and personal questions that she had previously declined to answer. In support of the
+motion, Boies Schiller assured the district court that "[s]uch questions are entirely appropriate in
+the discovery phase of this case, particularly where any answers will be maintained as
+confidential under the Protective Order in this case."
+2 This proposal was rejected because of justifiable concerns about the misuse and abuse of this
+information by plaintiff and her lawyers including the selection and misleading leaking of confidential
+material to the media, other false claimants, and the government.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 23
+The district court granted the motion. In requiring Maxwell to answer highly intrusive
+questions "relating to [her] own sexual activity" and "her knowledge of the sexual activity of
+others," the court held that Maxwell's "privacy concerns are alleviated by the protective order in
+this case."
+Secure in the belief that the Protective Order would be honored, Maxwell appeared at a
+second deposition, in July 2016, and answered hundreds of pages worth of questions about I
+and
+From the very first
+question, Maxwell discussed I
+. She was asked
+She was asked
+Count Six of the superseding indictment alleges that Maxwell provided false testimony
+when she testified during her July 2016 deposition that: (1) she could not recall whether sex toys
+or devices were used in sexual activities at Epstein's Palm Beach house; (2) she did not know
+whether Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities; (3) she wasn't aware that
+Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than herself when she was with him; and
+(4) she never gave anyone, including Accuser-23, a massage.
+3 The indictment refers to the accusers as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3.
+We will refer to them as Accuser-1, Accuser-2, and Accuser-3.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 23
+C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The
+Protective Order
+In 2017, the parties settled the defamation claim, and the case was dismissed.
+V.
+Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), vacated and remanded sub nom.
+929 F.3d 41. As the district court found, "a significant, if not determinative, factor" in reaching a
+settlement was its confidentiality. Id. at 446.
+After the case was settled and concluded, Maxwell repeatedly invoked Paragraph 12 of
+the Protective Order and demanded that
+either return or destroy all confidential
+information, including her deposition transcripts. Boies Schiller refused.
+D. The Government's False Statements To
+Only in August 2020, after she was indicted in this case, did Maxwell finally learn that
+the government had obtained the
+file by grand jury subpoena. Maxwell also
+learned that, to overcome the strictures of the Protective Order, the government had instituted an
+ex parte proceeding before
+| (S.D.N.Y).
+Needless to say, neither Maxwell nor her attorneys were given the opportunity to oppose that
+application or to contest the government's representations in support of the application. This was
+all in direct violation of Paragraph 14 of the Protective Order, which provides that the order may
+be modified by the court only "for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an
+opportunity to be heard." Ex. A Il 14 (emphasis added).
+In its ex parte application, the prosecutors professed that they had sought out
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 12 of 23
+'That
+the
+government claimed, indicated that the
+•Nowhere did the government
+had in fact approached the prosecutors multiple times well
+acknowledge that
+before the grand jury subpoena issued.
+In March 2019, in the first appearance before
+continued this refrain,
+the Government
+The prosecutor
+-which sought all
+Ex. D, p 17. For all the government knew, according to the Assistant U.S. Attorney, what he was
+seeking was
+• Ex. D, p 19.
+The government appeared a second time before
+| in April 2019. Ex. E.
+Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told
+I, omitting mention of any
+contacts between |
+and the government prior to that time:
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 13 of 23
+Ex. E, 99 pp 2-3.
+Those representations were false. At the time the government claims it began the
+investigation (
+, its knowledge of the civil case was not
+based exclusively on public filings. It knew that
+possessed relevant information
+because
+had come to the government asking it to open an investigation. In particular, on
+February 29, 2016, AUSA Amanda Kramer met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged
+Kramer to open an investigation of" Epstein and Maxwell.* Then, after Maxwell's two
+depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016,
+asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury."
+, supra
+n.2. Said Mr. Boies:
+"We were saying to anyone who would listen: We've got clients who were abused.
+Some of them were underage. We have the evidence. There's a whole record that's
+been developed. We can establish beyond any reasonable doubt there was a massive
+sex trafficking ring going on."
+Id.
+* Stephen Rex |
+, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and
+Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020),
+https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-
+jmzhl7zdrzdgrbbs7ycobfnszu-story.html.
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 14 of 23
+At that time, however, the government did not act. Boies "was particularly frustrated by
+the failure to pursue a perjury charge [against Maxwell]," reported one person, who recalled him
+saying, "We have her dead to rights."S Id. All of this contradicts The government's
+representations to
+, who specifically
+Reassured by the government that
+the Protective Order so that
+found that
+modified
+• could comply with the subpoena. Ex. F. I
+1. In making this finding,
+relied on the Assistant U.S. Attorney's misrepresentations, and she
+] from the subpoena at issue in Chemical Bank. Said
+Ex. G, p 21.
+S Ms. Maxwell strenuously disagrees with Mr. Boies' comments. We reference them here only to
+show their connection to the perjury counts that the government subsequently charged.
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 23
+Contrary to the government's misrepresentations,
+did foment the
+investigation (or at least it tried to). And the evidence of "collusion" between the government
+and
+was ample, tracing to at least early 2016 and precisely designed to have
+Maxwell charged with perjury.®
+E.
+Separately Rejects An Identical Gambit By The
+Government
+Around the same time that
+granted the government's ex parte request,
+case,
+rejected an identical request from the government in a different civil
+recognized the
+government's conduct for what it was: an attempt to deprive Maxwell of notice and an
+opportunity to be heard. Ex. H. Indeed,
+rebuffed the government even after it
+alerted her to
+order. Ex. I. As
+found
+Ex. H, P
+6.
+that
+was all too eager for the government to investigate and prosecute Maxwell:
+« Maxwell has not yet been provided discovery of whether |
+extent to which
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 16 of 23
+Ех. Н, р б.
+ARGUMENT
+Evidence Obtained From
+, And Dismiss Counts Five And
+Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That Evidence
+1. The role of protective orders in civil litigation.
+Protective orders serve a "vital function" in civil litigation. Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel.
+Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 295 (2d Cir. 1979). They promote "the secure the just, speedy, and
+inexpensive determination' of civil disputes, by encouraging full disclosure of all evidence." Id.
+(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1). "If protective orders were easily modified ... parties would be less
+forthcoming in giving testimony and less willing to settle their disputes." S.E.C. v.
+TheStreet. Com, 273 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2001). In particular, as here, "witnesses might be
+expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be
+made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those
+orders." Martindell, 594 F.2d at 295-96. Parties thus rely on protective orders, and courts strictly
+enforce them. See, e.g., Stewart v. Hudson |
+LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676, at
+*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) ("In the Second Circuit, there is a strict standard for modification of
+a protective order entered by a district court." (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
+This case illustrates just how crucial a protective order is. The Maxwell depositions
+sought highly intrusive evidence of the most personal aspects of Maxwell's life. Her sexual
+practices. Her sexual preferences. Her sexual partners. In urging the district court to permit these
+extraordinary intrusions—in what should have been a simple defamation case
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 17 of 23
+expressly invoked the assurances of the Protective Order. So did the district court in permitting
+these intrusions and ordering Maxwell to sit for a second deposition. Maxwell likewise relied on
+the Protective Order in choosing to render such intimate details, rather than assert her Fifth
+Amendment privilege as she had every right to do.
+And why shouldn't Maxwell have relied on the Protective Order? The central protection
+in the Order was that none of Maxwell's answers could be disclosed to the government. Boies
+Schiller had expressly sought a law enforcement exception but was rebuffed. Instead, the law
+firm was required either to return the confidential material or, at Maxwell's option, to destroy it.
+Maxwell had every reason to take that assurance seriously, even if
+did not.
+2. The government circumvented the protective order.
+Faced with a duly entered Protective Order—which quite deliberately omitted any "law
+enforcement" exception-
+-the government had lawful options to pursue the confidential
+discovery. It could have moved to intervene in the civil case and to amend the Protective Order.
+It could have issued a subpoena for the materials and given Maxwell an opportunity to respond.
+Martindell, 594 F.2d at 294. It could even have applied for a search warrant, assuming
+(counterfactually) that it could show probable cause in support of such a warrant.
+The government did none of those things. Instead,
+. This was not among the lawful options available to the government.
+It cannot fairly be disputed that
+• ruling to amend the Protective Order
+was based on the government's misrepresentations. Immediately before issuing her decision,
+held a hearing with the sole purpose of asking the prosecutor,
+stated reason for so
+inquiring was to ensure that the government and
+had not coordinated as the parties
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 18 of 23
+had in the Chemical Bank case. In no uncertain terms,
+haled the prosecutor back into court:
+explained why she had
+Ex. E, p 2.
+In Chemical Bank, a protective order precluded parties to a civil case from disclosing
+confidential documents to others. 154 F.R.D. at 92-93. Despite this prohibition, counsel for the
+defendant approached the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and suggested that it had
+evidence of criminal violations relating to the case. Id. at 93. A grand jury issued a subpoena,
+and the defendant produced to the government various confidential documents without
+complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the protective order. Id.
+Once this collusion came to light, the district court reprimanded the defendant for its "disregard
+of the [protective] order|]" and admonished its behavior as "contrary to the traditions of the Bar
+which dictate that court orders be respected." Id.
+In addressing the government's application here,
+specifically asked
+whether
+had acted as the defendant did in Chemical Bank. The prosecutor omitted
+any mention of his office's previous meetings with the firm, and falsely led the court to believe
+that
+had not encouraged its investigation. Reassured by the misrepresentations,
+commented:
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 19 of 23
+Had
+known the truth,
+likely would not have granted the government's
+application to modify the Protective Order to allow
+to comply with the subpoena.
+3. The government violated due process.
+The government's conduct cannot be squared with elemental due process. U.S. CONST.
+amend. V. Pursuant to this guarantee, "[t]he responsibility of a public prosecutor differs from
+that of the usual advocate; his duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict." Young v. United
+States, 481 U.S. 787, 803 (1987). The government engages in misconduct and violates due
+process when it materially misrepresents facts before a court. See United States v. Valentine, 820
+F.2d 565, 570 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that the government violated due process and reversing
+conviction when the government mischaracterized the substance of grand jury testimony).
+The prosecutor may well have known that his representations to
+were
+false (or at best misleading). But the Assistant U.S. Attorney's personal knowledge doesn't
+matter. "An individual prosecutor is presumed .... to have knowledge of all information gathered
+in connection with his office's investigation of the case." United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249,
+255 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) ("The prosecutor's office is
+an entity and as such it is the spokesman for the Government. A promise made by one attorney
+must be attributed, for these purposes, to the Government."). At the barest minimum, a federal
+prosecutor has a duty to check the entire file to ensure that his representations to a federal judge,
+submitted on behalf of the office he serves and under oath, are true and complete. The Assistant
+U.S. Attorney did not discharge that basic function.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 20 of 23
+4. This court possesses the inherent authority to order suppression.
+Incident to its inherent power to superintend proceedings, this Court has the authority to
+suppress the fruits of the government's misrepresentation. See, e.g., United States v. Cortina, 630
+F.3d 1207, 1214 (7th Cir. 1980) ("The court has inherent authority to regulate the administration
+of criminal justice among the parties before the bar .... [by] excluding| evidence taken from
+the defendant by willful disobedience of law." (citation omitted)); United States v. Lambus, 897
+F.3d 368, 386 (2d Cir. 2018) ("It is within the court's inherent authority to suppress evidence
+gathered unlawfully in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings ...."); Benkovitch
+v. Gorilla, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-7806 (WJM), 2017 WL 4005452, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017)
+("District courts have 'inherent authority' to impose a variety of sanctions, including ...
+suppression of evidence ....").
+It does not matter that the government made its misrepresentations to
+and not directly to this Court. "As long as a party receives an appropriate hearing, ... the party
+may be sanctioned for abuses of process occurring beyond the courtroom ....
+NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32, 57 (1991). "Courts have held that inherent authority sanctions may be
+imposed for misconduct in another court where the misconduct is ... in some way related to the
+case before the sanctioning court." Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260, at *6
+(E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) (citation and alteration omitted); Manhattan Review LLC v. Yun, 16
+Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317, *7 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) ("The inherent
+power ... can punish conduct before a different court if it is intimately related to the relevant
+case." (citing Klein, 2017 WL 2834260, at *4)). Here, the government's misrepresentation to
+was not simply "related" to Counts Five and Six; only by the government's
+deception was it able to obtain the factual predicate for those counts. Accordingly, the Court may
+exercise its inherent authority to suppress that evidence. And it should.
+15
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 21 of 23
+B. At A Minimum, This Court Should Order A Hearing At Which Maxwell
+May Inquire Into The Circumstances Surrounding The Government's
+Misrepresentations To
+If the Court is disinclined to grant relief on the present record, then at a minimum it
+should hold an evidentiary hearing to probe the government's misstatements to
+and the extent to which the prosecutor's office had, in fact, coordinated with
+prior
+to the issuance of the grand jury subpoena. These factual issues go directly to whether the
+predicate finding for
+ruling-namely, that no Chemical Bank collusion had
+occurred— was mistaken. See, e.g., United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S1 03 CR. 987DAB,
+2009 WL 1585776, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) ("An evidentiary hearing is normally required
+to address motions to suppress where a factual issue is in dispute.").
+An evidentiary hearing is warranted for an additional reason as well: If it turns out that
+the prosecutor knew (or was reckless in not knowing) that
+had previously
+approached his office, both before and after the Maxwell depositions, in an effort to stir up a
+criminal prosecution and dangled the deposition transcripts as a carrot, then suppression would
+be warranted on that basis alone. Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); United
+States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Franks instructs a district court to hold
+a hearing to determine whether the alleged misstatements or omissions in the warrant or wiretap
+application were made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth and, if so, whether
+any such misstatements or omissions were material.").
+CONCLUSION
+For these reasons, this Court should: (1) suppress all evidence the government obtained
+from
+and any other evidence derived therefrom; or (2) suppress the April and July
+2016 depositions and all evidence derived therefrom; and (3) dismiss Counts Five and Six.
+Maxwell requests an evidentiary hearing on this Motion.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 22 of 23
+Dated: January 25, 2021
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+P.C.
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
+I & GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone:
+212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor
+New York, NY 10011
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 23 of 23
+Certificate of Service
+I hereby certify that on January 25, 2021, served by email, pursuant Rule 2(B) of the
+Court's individual practices in criminal cases, the Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support
+of Her Motion Under the Due Process Clause to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the
+Government's Subpoena to I
+• and to Dismiss Counts Five And Six upon the
+following:
+Alison Moe
+Maurene Comey
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Lara Pomerantz
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Alison.moe@usdoj.gov
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov
+Lara.Pomerantz @usdoj.gov
+s/ Christian R. Everdell
+18
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9257f407a5d20289aba9921de68ced9c754fbf2907057c57e7372a0d7fe4a6c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9257f407a5d20289aba9921de68ced9c754fbf2907057c57e7372a0d7fe4a6c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff1c0e1cf859da2941305d1e72739768057b7836
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9257f407a5d20289aba9921de68ced9c754fbf2907057c57e7372a0d7fe4a6c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -278,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9257f407a5d20289aba9921de68ced9c754fbf2907057c57e7372a0d7fe4a6c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 24,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6eb066126e0427f38c714b0da00e0984b7f830d1553b06ec62a6b00a6fe303ed",
+  "output_sha256": "2803a4f0edcc2689205c9949417cf91cfe933b11842b13fa5cc43a297ba01d34",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f92ef47f82669840cc847e23c65c56053cc368e07d2267b85b0675f000ebdfca.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f92ef47f82669840cc847e23c65c56053cc368e07d2267b85b0675f000ebdfca.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..12d2e3b19a8f3c38d4b1d69e7724558b3937e97f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f92ef47f82669840cc847e23c65c56053cc368e07d2267b85b0675f000ebdfca.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 473
+Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOCH:
+DATE FILED: 11/19/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter motion to quash the Defendant's Rule
+17(c)(3) subpoena. That motion has been filed temporarily under seal to allow the parties the
+opportunity to propose limited redactions. The parties are hereby ORDERED to file any
+proposed redactions on the public docket on or before November 22, 2021, and to justify any
+requested redactions by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in
+Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 19, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia O. Mattor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f92ef47f82669840cc847e23c65c56053cc368e07d2267b85b0675f000ebdfca.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f92ef47f82669840cc847e23c65c56053cc368e07d2267b85b0675f000ebdfca.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2554d0befdf0b0e7cb0dc2bd59d97d6c24219fc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f92ef47f82669840cc847e23c65c56053cc368e07d2267b85b0675f000ebdfca.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f92ef47f82669840cc847e23c65c56053cc368e07d2267b85b0675f000ebdfca",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7fe5cfbc4f562e25483940913c859412b7cd4447c8a15b9fc86d3331aae5845e",
+  "output_sha256": "8d69f2fd7c84d474c60a946204018a08b9e3ff5ada0054d91a2fa8438414c615",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9595541a3aaabff2b949bc16655012bab4c17b3ef9d207232ab63d86a80d47c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9595541a3aaabff2b949bc16655012bab4c17b3ef9d207232ab63d86a80d47c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..08803f066fb1af0bcb0d1c852c6a4bdbdf011a3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9595541a3aaabff2b949bc16655012bab4c17b3ef9d207232ab63d86a80d47c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,857 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 499
+Filed 11/23/21
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION
+IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF
+DR. PARK DIETZ AND DR. ELIZABETH LOFTUS
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+P.C.
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue New York,
+NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 28
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.
+ARGUMENT
+I. Dr. Dietz's Testimony is Admissible. ....
+A. Response to Dr. Rocchio's Proposed Testimony
+B. Hindsight Bias
+C. The Halo Effect
+D. Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault.
+E. Dr. Dietz's Alleged Opinions about the Accusers' "Credibility."
+F. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
+II. Dr. Loftus's Testimony is Admissible
+CONCLUSION
+Certificate of Service
+. ii
+1
+2
+..3
+4
+8
+...9
+11
+. 13
+15
+16
+22
+24
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 28
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Brooklyn Waterfront Terminal Corp. v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co. Inc., 311 F.2d 221 (2d Cir.
+1962)
+8
+Brooklyn Waterfront Terminal Corp. v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co., 211 F. Supp. 702
+(S.D.N.Y.)
+California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984).
+v. People, 814 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1991)
+Commonwealth v.
+92 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2014).
+8
+..2
+21
+21
+Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) .....
+....2
+v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974)…...
+Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) .
+Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588 (2d Cir. 2005)
+Hygh V.
+961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992).
+In re Fosamax Prod. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
+In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) ..
+Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
+Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
+Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005).
+Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988) …....
+Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola, 161 F.3d 77 (Ist Cir. 1998)..
+State v. Buell, 22 Ohio St.3d 124, 489 N.E.2d 795 (1986).
+State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983)
+United States v.
+, 557 F.2d 541 (6th Cir. 1977).
+United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) ..
+United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985).
+United States v. Heine, No. 3:15-CR-00238-SI-2, 2017 WL 5260784 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2017)... 16
+United States v.
+, 860 F.3d at 1140 (8th Cir. 2017)
+...2
+..2
+. 8
+11
+12
+..5
+12
+10
+11
+2
+.. 5
+18
+18
+..9
+..2
+18
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499
+Filed 11/23/21
+
+United States v. Jordan, 924 F. Supp. 443 (W.D.N.Y. 1996..
+United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 1999)
+United States v. Mathis, 264 F.3d 321 (3d. Cir. 2001) ..
+United States v. Moore, 786 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1986).
+United States v. Randall, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)...
+United States v. Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2006) ..
+United States v.
+156 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1998)
+United States v.
+621 F. Supp.2d 1207 (M.D. Ala. 2009)
+United States v.
+, 736 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir. 1984)
+United States v. Smithers, 212 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2000)
+United States v. Stevens, 935 F.2d 1380 (3d Cir. 1991)
+United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086 (9th Cir. 2021)..
+United States v.
+1. No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503
+Other Authorities
+Jed Rakoff and
+Albright, Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification
+(Natl. Res. Counc. 2014).
+Rakoff J & Loftus EF, The intractability of inaccurate eyewitness identification (2018)
+Rules
+22
+14
+21
+17
+..9
+21
+21
+..21
+18
+18,21
+18
+14
+14
+18
+18
+Fed. R. Evid. 702
+Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Notes, 2000 Amendments
+Fed. R. Evid. 703
+Fed. R. Evid. 704
+Constitutional Provisions
+U.S. Const. Amend. V
+U.S. Const. Amend. VI
+.. passim
+. 5, 7, 10, 12
+.. 6
+...5
+2,3
+2,3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 5 of 28
+Ghislaine Maxwell submits this Response to the Government's Motion in Limine to
+Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus.
+INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
+The government asks this Court to drastically limit the expert opinions of Dr. Park Dietz
+and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. The government's motion seeks to unfairly capitalize on this Court's
+decision largely overruling Ms. Maxwell's Daubert challenge to the government's expert, Dr.
+Lisa Rocchio. If the government gets its way, Dr. Rocchio will present the jury with a one-sided
+version of events while Ms. Maxwell will be crippled in her ability to respond. This Court should
+not permit the asymmetry the government hopes to create.
+There is no dispute that Drs. Dietz and Loftus are supremely qualified in their respective
+areas of expertise. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the defense disclosure of the expert opinions of Dr.
+Dietz and Dr. Loftus. That 374-page document includes eleven exhibits (Exhibits A - K)
+describing the qualifications and bases of the opinions Ms. Maxwell's experts will offer at trial.
+Dr. Dietz is so well-regarded that Dr. Rocchio herself has relied on his opinions, Exhibit 2, p
+58:1-24 (transcript of Nov. 10, 2021 hearing), and Dr. Loftus all but wrote the book on the
+science of memory.
+Unable to challenge the qualifications of either Dr. Dietz or Dr. Loftus, the government's
+motion mischaracterizes their proposed opinions in an effort persuade this Court that they either
+invade the province of the jury or are unhelpful to the finder of fact. This Court should not fall
+for the government's construction of strawmen.
+Beyond their responsiveness to Dr. Rocchio's testimony, Dr. Dietz's and Dr. Loftus's
+expert opinions are independently relevant because they will help the jury understand the facts of
+this case. To the extent the government contends these opinions don't "fit," that objection is flatout wrong or at least premature, since the government hasn't put any evidence on yet. Because
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 6 of 28
+the government's true objection is a question of fit, and because there is no dispute Dr. Dietz and
+Dr. Loftus are qualified, this Court should deny the government's motion.
+ARGUMENT
+"Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause ..., or in the Compulsory Process or
+Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants
+"a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690
+(1986) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)); see U.S. Const. amends. V.
+VI. A court violates a defendant's right to present a defense when it excludes competent and
+reliable evidence that is central to the defense. See Crane, 476 U.S. at 690. The exclusion of such
+evidence "deprives a defendant of the basic right to have the prosecutor's case encounter and
+"survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing."" Id. at 690-91 (quoting United States v.
+Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656 (1984)).
+The Constitution also affords Ms. Maxwell the right to confront her accusers. U.S.
+amend. VI; Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988). "[A] criminal defendant states a
+violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that [she] was prohibited from engaging in
+otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part
+of the witness, and thereby to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors... could
+appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.'" Delaware v. Van
+Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 (1986) (quoting |
+v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318 (1974)).
+Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of Dr. Deitz and Dr. Loftus's
+proposed testimony.
+A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
+or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
+a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help th
+rier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 7 of 28
+(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
+(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
+(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the
+case.
+Fed. R. Evid. 702.
+As elaborated below, the proposed testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus fall squarely
+within the ambit of Rule 702.
+I. Dr. Dietz's Testimony is Admissible.
+The government agrees that Dr. Dietz is qualified to offer expert opinion testimony under
+Rule 702. Even so, the government hopes to limit his testimony by claiming that six categories of
+his proposed opinions are either unreliable, irrelevant, or invade the province of the jury.
+The government, though, is trying to have it both ways, by eliciting testimony from its
+expert Dr. Rocchio while unfairly precluding Ms. Maxwell from responding. The government
+also seeks to foreclose Dr. Dietz from offering opinions that are independently relevant to this
+case, irrespective of Dr. Rocchio's testimony. To make its case, the government engages in the
+time-honored practice of mischaracterizing a defendant's position and then responding to the
+strawman.
+This Court should reject the government's efforts, which, if successful, will deprive Ms.
+Maxwell of her constitutional right to present a complete defense and to confront and crossexamine her accusers. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 8 of 28
+A. Response to Dr. Rocchio's Proposed Testimony.
+The government challenges what it characterizes as four opinions Dr. Dietz might offer in
+response to testimony from Dr. Rocchio.' As explained below, though, Dr. Dietz's testimony is
+responsive to Dr. Rocchio's testimony in more than the four narrow ways identified by the
+government. In addition, much of his proposed testimony has independent relevance. In any
+event, none of the government's challenges is persuasive.
+First, the government challenges Dr. Dietz's proposed testimony (1) that Dr. Rocchio's
+opinion on grooming "carries the risk of imputing motive and intent to the Defendant," that "Dr.
+Rocchio's proposed testimony is silent as to whether she is expected to impute a theory of
+"grooming-by-proxy' to the defendant," and that "Ms. Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or
+enticing sexualized massages for herself," but instead that she allegedly "recruited and groomed
+minors to provide sexualized massages for Mr. Epstein." Mot. at 10. The government says these
+three opinions are inadmissible "legal" conclusions suitable only for a Daubert hearing and not
+for the jury trial.
+It is perfectly appropriate for Dr. Dietz to opine that Dr. Rocchio's definition of
+"grooming" risks "imputing motive and intent" to the defendant because that is precisely why
+there is no settled, clinical definition of grooming, which the government has conceded is a
+proper subject of Dr. Dietz's expert opinions. Supra Note 1; Ex. 1, p 3-4. Surely Dr. Dietz can
+inform the jury why the science does not support Dr. Rocchio's definition of grooming.
+Dr. Dietz will not himself (and Dr. Rocchio cannot herself) ascribe motive or intent to
+Ms. Maxwell, nor will he testify that the jury lacks sufficient evidence to ascribe motive and
+' The government agrees Dr. Dietz can inform the jury that Dr. Rocchio is wrong to
+suggest that grooming has a settled definition. Mot. at 9.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 9 of 28
+intent to Ms. Maxwell. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 704 ("In a criminal case, an expert witness must not
+state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that
+constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense."). Those are questions for the jury.
+Id. But the very purpose of Dr. Dietz's testimony on this point is to caution the jury about
+improperly inferring motive and intent from Dr. Rocchio's unreliable opinions because, as even
+Dr. Rocchio recognized in her testimony, behavior cannot be called "grooming" if it is not in
+furtherance of "attempted sexual abuse or actual sexual abuse or exploitation." Ex. 2, p 118:22-
+14.
+Accordingly, if Dr. Dietz's opinions about Dr. Rocchio's conclusions are reliable as the
+government does not dispute they are-
+-"Daubert neither requires nor empowers trial courts to
+determine which of several competing scientific theories has the best provenance." Fed. R. Evid.
+702, Advisory Committee Notes, 2000 Amendments (quoting Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola, 161
+F.3d 77, 85 (Ist Cir. 1998)). A court must admit competing expert opinions that are reliable and
+relevant, and then it's for the jury to decide which expert is correct. Id. ("[P]roponents "do not
+have to demonstrate to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessments of their
+experts are correct, they only have to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that their
+opinions are reliable.... The evidentiary requirement of reliability is lower than the merits
+standard of correctness'" (quoting In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d
+Сіг. 1994)).
+As for informing the jury that "Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony is silent as to whether
+she is expected to impute a theory of 'grooming-by-proxy' to the defendant" and that "Ms.
+" It's not clear that Dr. Rocchio will be permitted to testify on this subject, as this Court
+has precluded her from opining that the presence of a third party can facilitate grooming. (Dkt.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 10 of 28
+Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself," Ex. 1, p 4,
+these are proper subjects of Dr. Dietz's testimony because they form the basis of his principal
+responsive opinion: Dr. Rocchio's opinions are unreliable generally and particularly in the
+context of this case. The Rules of Evidence are clear that an expert can inform the jury of the
+bases of his opinions. See Fed. R. Evid. 703.
+Second, the government claims that Dr. Dietz's reasoning is "circular." Mot. at 10. The
+government characterizes Dr. Dietz's opinion as follows:
+[!]t is circular to say that "grooming" "imputes motive and intent," because
+grooming is defined to be a strategic pattern of behavior used to develop
+relationships of attachment and coercion between perpetrators and victims. That is,
+if the behaviors lack the requisite motive and intent, they are not grooming
+behaviors.
+Id. (citing Ex. 1, p 3). In an unconsciously revealing way, the government misunderstands Dr.
+Dietz's opinion.
+The government's objection to Dr. Dietz's opinion is the very objection that Dr. Dietz has
+to Dr. Rocchio's opinion. Dr. Dietz is critical of Dr. Rocchio's view of "grooming" because it
+risks imputing motive and intent to innocuous conduct "without adequate evidence of either."
+Ex. 1, p 3. Dr. Dietz proposes to identify this circular reasoning for the jury, so jurors can
+evaluate Dr. Rocchio's testimony and decide whether it is worth of belief.
+The risk of imputing motive and intent is not abstract. After all, the government itself
+does so. In response to Ms. Maxwell's Rule 412 motion, the government flat out said that
+"[e]vidence of grooming is evidence of intent." Gov't Resp. to Rule 412 Mot., p 7.
+435, p 11). To the extent Dr. Rocchio offers testimony, however, addressing or implying
+"grooming-by-proxy," (terminology aside, id. at 10), Dr. Dietz's opinion is admissible as
+described herein.
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 11 of 28
+Third, the government says Dr. Dietz should not be permitted to testify that it is a
+"commonly accepted bit of clinical lore" that perpetrators often target vulnerable victims. Mot. at
+11. The government's argument misconstrues and misunderstands Dr. Dietz's point. Dr. Dietz
+does not dispute that vulnerable people can be and are targeted. Ex. 1, p 4. But what the science
+does not know, and what there is no data about, is how often perpetrators target individuals who
+are not characterized as "vulnerable." Id. There is no comparator, and there is thus no way to
+know how representative "vulnerable victims" are of all victims of abuse. Id. As Dr. Dietz will
+testify, experts do not know the empirical relationship between vulnerability and abuse. Id.
+Again, Dr. Dietz should be able to challenge the reliability of Dr. Rocchio's opinions by
+explaining how they lack scientific support. Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Notes, 2000
+Amendments (Rule 702 "is broad enough to permit testimony that is the product of competing
+principles or methods in the same field of expertise.).
+Fourth, the government disputes Dr. Dietz's opinion that there is no authority supporting
+a "theory of grooming by proxy." Mot. at 11-12.3 Once again, though, the government
+misunderstands Dr. Dietz's point, and its argument is correspondingly non-responsive. The
+government says, for example, there is "ample literature on the pimp-prostitute relationship."
+Mot. at 12. Dr. Dietz does not deny this. But unless the government (to use its crude vernacular)
+is saying that the accusers were the prostitutes, Ms. Maxwell was the pimp, and Mr. Epstein was
+the John, this literature is beside the point and not applicable to this case. Ex. 1, p 4.
+***
+3 To the extent Dr. Rocchio offers testimony on this point, addressing or implying
+"grooming-by-proxy," Dr. Dietz's opinion is admissible as described herein. See also supra note
+2.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 12 of 28
+The government hopes Dr. Rocchio will fill in the gaps in the accusers' stories by lending
+the imprimatur of an "expert" to their allegations. The likely importance of her testimony to the
+government's case cannot be overstated.' Dr. Dietz, who the government admits is supremely
+qualified, should be allowed to challenge the reliability of Dr. Rocchio's opinions, explain why
+they lack support, and opine about their limits. See Brooklyn Waterfront Terminal Corp. v. Int'l
+Terminal Operating Co., 211 F. Supp. 702, 707 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd sub nom. Brooklyn Waterfront
+Terminal Corp. v. Int'l Terminal Operating Co. Inc., 311 F.2d 221 (2d Cir. 1962) ("As in all
+cases, this sharp conflict between the experts must be resolved by the trier of the fact.").
+B. Hindsight Bias.
+The government appears to have two objections about Dr. Dietz's opinions on hindsight
+bias: First, that the testimony improperly attempts to inform the jury what result to reach, and
+second that the testimony is "well within the ken of the average juror." Mot. at 13-14. The
+government does not dispute the reliability of Dr. Dietz's opinions, and as explained below, Dr.
+Dietz's testimony is independently relevant and relevant in response to Dr. Rocchio's testimony.
+The government's first argument once again misunderstands Dr. Dietz's point. Dr.
+Dietz's opinion is about grooming. In his expert opinion, and at most, behavior can be labeled
+"grooming" only after the fact and retrospectively—that is, only after it is clear abuse occurred.
+Ex. 1, p 4-5. But the government's burden in this case is to prove that, at the time the abuse
+allegedly occurred, Ms. Maxwell knew about it and intended to facilitate it. If Ms. Maxwell
+4 So important are Dr. Dietz's and Dr. Loftus's opinions to the defense that the failure to
+consult with and call them as witnesses would amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. See
+Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588, 607-08 (2d Cir. 2005) (defense counsel was ineffective in
+failing "to call as a witness, or even to consult in preparation for trial and cross-examination of
+the prosecution's witnesses, any medical expert on child sexual abuse").
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 13 of 28
+lacked actual knowledge of and intent to facilitate the alleged grooming and abuse, she is not
+guilty, even if, as a matter of hindsight, it should have been obvious.
+The government's second argument falls short as well. Although the phrase "20/20
+hindsight" might be well-known, the power of hindsight bias and the degree to which it might
+unreliably affect the outcome of this case is not. To be sure, as Dr. Dietz laid out in his
+disclosure, the scientific literature about hindsight bias is voluminous. Ex. 1, p 4-5. These expert
+articles wouldn't exist if the concept were obvious to everyone, and surely it wouldn't be the
+case that, as Dr. Dietz notes, "[e]ven individuals with specialized training and expertise succumb
+to hindsight bias," id. at 5.
+The government concedes that "the jury, and not the court, should be the one to decide
+among conflicting experts." Mot. at 9 (quoting United States v. Randall, No. 19 Cr. 131 (PAE)
+(S.D.N.Y.)). But for the jury to do that job, it must be equipped with the necessary tools. And
+one of those tools is Dr. Dietz's perfectly permissible opinion that Dr. Rocchio's testimony
+cannot carry the water the government wants it to because it is tainted by hindsight bias. See
+United States v.
+557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977) ("Conflicting testimony concerning
+the conclusions drawn by experts, so long as they are based on a generally accepted and reliable
+scientific principle, ordinarily go to the weight of the testimony rather than to its admissibility.").
+C. The Halo Effect.
+The government has two objections to Dr. Dietz's opinions on the "halo effect." The first
+is that it is irrelevant (though, again, not unreliable). The second is that it improperly seeks to
+engender sympathy for Ms. Maxwell.
+First, the government is wrong to argue the testimony is irrelevant. Take just one
+(representative) example. Dr. Dietz opines that Mr. Epstein's
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 14 of 28
+flaws allowed him to use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding and
+to compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete
+information about his activities.
+Ex. 1, p 7. This testimony is patently relevant to Ms. Maxwell's knowledge and intent and to the
+conspiracy counts. If this "compartmentalization" prevented Ms. Maxwell from having the
+required knowledge or intent (an ultimate issue for the jury to decide, on which Dr. Dietz will
+not opine), then she will be not guilty. The government after all intends to ask the Court to
+instruct the jury on "willful blindness." The jury should have the benefit of a scientific
+understanding of the manner in which a skilled manipulator could have eluded exposure to those
+around him.
+The government obviously disagrees with Dr. Dietz in his evaluation of Mr. Epstein. But
+just because the government has a different view of the facts does not mean Dr. Dietz's
+testimony is inadmissible. Rule 702's emphasis on "sufficient facts or data" does not "authorize
+a trial court to exclude an expert's testimony on the ground" that the government "believes one
+version of the facts and not the other." See Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Notes, 2000
+Amendments.
+The government's second objection is easily addressed. The point of the testimony is not
+to suggest jury nullification, which would be improper as defense counsel and Dr. Dietz well
+know. Mot. at 17. The testimony is relevant, as explained above. In any case, if the Court is
+concerned about any potential for Dr. Dietz's testimony to engender sympathy for Ms. Maxwell,
+the Court can give a limiting instruction. That limiting instruction would be in addition to the
+Court's written instructions, which already will instruct the jury not to decide the case based on
+sympathy or bias. Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 558, 571 (S.D.N.Y.
+2007) ("This Court has routinely relied upon limiting instructions to remind the jury of its role
+and of the limits of expert testimony and clarify the extent of their consideration of such
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 15 of 28
+testimony." (cleaned up)). The government's speculative concern about the effect of Dr. Dietz's
+testimony is no reason to exclude it when the Court has ample tools at its disposal to address the
+governments (ill-founded) worries.
+Almost as an aside, the government disingenuously suggests that Dr. Dietz's opinion is
+inadmissible because "it appears" to be based "solely on one interview of Epstein with Steven
+Bannon." Mot. at 17. As the government well knows, Dr. Dietz's opinion is based on much
+more. To be sure, Dr. Dietz quoted the interview in his disclosure, Ex. 1, p 6, but he also
+reviewed and considered thousands of pages of material before reaching his opinion, including
+most significantly all the material available to him about the Palm Beach Investigations of Mr.
+Epstein, Ex. 1, p 166-69.
+D. Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault.
+The government misses the mark in its hyperbolic objection to Dr. Dietz's opinions about
+the multiple pathways to false sex assault allegations. Mot. at 18-22. The government claims
+these opinions invade the province of the jury are unreliable and unhelpful. Not so.
+First, the opinions do not invade the province of the jury because Dr. Dietz is not offering
+an opinion on the truthfulness of the accusers' allegations in this case. See Nimely v. City of New
+York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005) (expert testimony is inadmissible if it "comment[s]
+directly, under the guise of expert opinion, on the credibility of trial testimony from" specific
+fact witnesses.); cf. Hygh v.
+961 F.2d 359, 364 (2d Cir. 1992) (expert not permitted to
+offer testimony that "merely [tells] the jury what result to reach"). Dr. Dietz's opinions rely on
+his clinical experience and the vast body of literature explaining how an accuser might come to
+falsely allege sexual assault.
+One point (but by no means the only one) of Dr. Dietz's opinion is to challenge the
+reliability of Dr. Rocchio's opinions, which she bases on the untested assumption that her
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 16 of 28
+patients are telling the truth when they claim to have been abused. See Ex. 1, p 7 ("Studies
+concerning the accurate reporting of alleged sexual assaults undermine the assertions made by
+Dr. Rocchio to the extent they are based on uncorroborated allegations and are also otherwise
+relevant here."). Because, in Dr. Dietz's opinion, Dr. Rocchio does not make sufficient
+allowance for the potential that her patients are not telling the truth, the jury is entitled to know
+how and why that analytical flaw undermines her opinions. As even the government concedes,
+Mot. at 9, "the jury, and not the trial court, should decide among the conflicting views of
+different experts." In re Fosamax Prod. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2d 164, 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
+(quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 153 (1999)).
+Moreover, Dr. Dietz's opinions are directly relevant to evaluate the nature and timing of
+the disclosures by the alleged victims in this case. As Dr. Rocchio admitted during her testimony
+at her Daubert hearing, there are numerous reasons why a report of sexual assault might not
+surface immediately, including the various pathways to a false allegation identified by Dr. Dietz.
+Ех. 2, p 153-54.
+Nor are Dr. Dietz's opinions unreliable, as the government claims. Mot. at 20-21. First,
+Dr. Rocchio essentially admitted they were reliable during her testimony. Ex. 2, p 153-54.
+Second, if Dr. Dietz's reliance on the
+and O'Donohue article weren't enough
+(which it is), Dr. Dietz will testify as well based on his extensive clinical experience. In his own
+practice, he has personally seen ten of the eleven pathways to false allegations identified by
+& O'Donohue. Dr. Dietz thus could reliably offer these opinions even if the absence of the
+article. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Notes, 2000 Amendments. ("Nothing in this
+[rule] is intended to suggest that experience alone--or experience in conjunction with other
+knowledge, skill, training or education--may not provide a sufficient foundation for expert
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 17 of 28
+testimony. To the contrary, the text of Rule 702 expressly contemplates that an expert may be
+qualified on the basis of experience.").
+Third, in admitting Dr. Rocchio's testimony over an objection by Ms. Maxwell similar to
+the one offered here by the government, this Court said as follows:
+Dr. Rocchio's opinions speak only to concepts and will not (and indeed may not)
+suggest that the jury find any alleged victim witness to be credible or to find Ms.
+Maxwell guilty.... It is the jury's role to determine whether and how Dr. Rocchio's
+opinions apply to the facts of this case and the credibility of the witnesses.
+(Dkt. 435, p 10). The same logic applies to Dr. Dietz's opinions.
+Finally, the government says the Dr. Dietz's opinions don't "fit the facts of the case."
+Mot. at 21. But because the accusers' stories have changed so much over the last twenty years,
+and because it's still unclear what they will testify to at trial, this objection is premature at best.
+If the government believes Dr. Dietz's opinions do not "fit" the facts, this Court can consider that
+argument once there is evidence of what the facts really are.
+E. Dr. Dietz's Alleged Opinions about the Accusers' "Credibility."
+Nowhere in Dr. Dietz's expert disclosure does he propose to opine on the credibility of
+Ms. Maxwell's accusers. Ex. 1. The government can argue otherwise only by mischaracterizing
+his opinions. See Mot. at 22-23.
+For one thing, Dr. Dietz should be able to critique Dr. Rocchio's methods and
+conclusions by opining that experts in the field would not be "so credulous" as Dr. Rocchio is.
+See Gov't Omnibus Resp. to Maxwell Mot. in Limine, at 16; Ex. 2, p 16:11-16 (Dr. Rocchio: "In
+my clinical practice, it's not - I have to deal with what the patients tell me in the room. It's not
+my job to go out and verify any part of what's being told in the clinical room, but, rather, to hear
+what they're telling me and then relate that back to my other skills-training experience, the
+scientific literature."). Dr. Dietz proposes to opine that Dr. Rocchio erred in assuming that her
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 18 of 28
+patients were telling the truth without evaluating, for example, "the changes in the core details of
+the allegations" of her patients, which is something "professionals" in the field do. Ex. 1, p 10.
+If, however, Dr. Rocchio testifies that she does not merely assume alleged victims are
+telling the truth (as when, for example, Dr. Rocchio is acting in a forensic rather than clinical
+capacity, see Ex. 2, p 39-40), and that her expert opinions are based on a rigorous inquiry into the
+veracity the claims, Dr. Dietz's opinions are still reliable and admissible. He can testify, for
+example, that because the literature does not support the hypothesis that emotional distress (e.g.,
+crying) is predictive of truthfulness, Ex. 1, p 11, Dr. Rocchio is wrong to base her opinions about
+her patients on such conduct.
+For another thing, Dr. Dietz does not propose to tell the jury who is telling the truth and
+who is not telling the truth. Thus, to use this Court's words,
+Dr. [Dietz's] testimony is appropriate because []he does not testify as to any
+specific witness's credibility. See, e.g.,
+, No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL
+1947503, at *7;|
+, 860 F.3d at 1140 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that an expert
+may testify "regarding the general characteristics that sexually abused children
+exhibit" but may not usurp the jury's role of assessing the credibility of any specific
+victim); United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 2021) (same).
+(Dkt. 435, p 5).
+The government is wrong to rely on United States v. Lumpkin (distinguishable on other
+grounds in any event), in which the Court affirmed the district court's decision to exclude
+"testimony on witness confidence in identifications." 192 F.3d 280, 289 (2d Cir. 1999). Mot. at
+22. Not only did Lumpkin concern eyewitness identification (a concept far afield from the
+testimony at issue here), but the expert witness there proposed to evaluate the credibility of
+witnesses who made the identification of the defendant. Dr. Dietz does not propose to testify to
+the credibility of accusers in this case.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 19 of 28
+Finally, the government points to Dr. Dietz's "acknowledgement" that credibility should
+be judged on a "case-by-case basis." Mot at 23. That is exactly right. And it is exactly what Dr.
+Rocchio does not do in her clinical practice, which is one reason why Dr. Dietz's testimony is
+admissible.
+F. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
+Dr. Dietz's opinions on PTSD are relevant, reliable, and admissible.
+The government's first argument is that it doesn't understand Dr. Dietz's proposed
+testimony, particularly Dr. Dietz's statement that victims with PTSD symptoms are unlikely "to
+unnecessarily recreate a sexual assault event." Mot. at 23. To be clear, the point Dr. Dietz was
+making in this statement and this paragraph of his disclosure is that victims with PTSD will
+likely avoid reminders of the event that caused the trauma in the first place-for example, they
+will avoid continued communication with the alleged perpetrator and they are unlikely to wear
+clothing provided by the alleged perpetrator. Dr. Dietz is not saying, as the government claims,
+that victims should bear "responsibility for experiencing repeated assaults."
+According to the government, the
+critical distinction in this case involves the difference between victims of sexual
+assaults who are involved an ongoing relationship of attachment and coercion with
+their abusers—including the power imbalance arising from the age differential
+between them and the abusers—and those who are not. To the extent Dr. Dietz's
+testimony primarily addresses the latter category, such an opinion is irrelevant and
+should be precluded for lack of fit with the facts of the case... To the extent Dr.
+Dietz intends instead to opine on the former category, that opinion is not reliable.
+Mot. at 23-24 (citations omitted). This argument fails as well.
+On the one hand, the government says Dr. Dietz's opinion does not "fit the facts" of the
+case because this case is about alleged "victims of sexual assaults who are involved an ongoing
+relationship of attachment and coercion with their abusers." But this argument begs the
+15
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 20 of 28
+question —are the accusers in this case telling the truth? The government obviously thinks they
+are. And that's fine. But it will be up to the jury to decide.
+On the other hand, if the alleged "victims of sexual assaults ... [were not] involved an
+ongoing relationship of attachment and coercion with their abusers"- that is, if the victims are
+not telling the truth then according to the government Dr. Dietz's opinions are unreliable. In
+either scenario, says the government, Dr. Dietz can't testify. As explained above, and as the
+government concedes when it admits that Dr. Dietz can testify about his disagreement with Dr.
+Rocchio's definition of "grooming," there is ample room for debate about what constitutes
+grooming behavior and how it manifests.
+Accordingly, this Court should reject this "heads the government wins, tails Ms. Maxwell
+loses" argument.
+II. Dr. Loftus's Testimony is Admissible.
+The government goes to great lengths to present cases where memory testimony was
+precluded. Excepting one civil negligence claim based on exposure to sexual abuse, the cases
+cited by the government almost exclusively focus on reliability of eyewitness testimony or failed
+memory regarding specific time or documents. The simplicity of the issues in the cited cases
+were deemed by the court not to require expert testimony. None of these cases involved the
+government proffering its own expert to testify about why an accuser or witness might not
+remember things or remember them inconsistently. Moreover, the cases recognize that, in
+circumstances like those present in this case, even absent a government "trauma/memory"
+witness, defense expert testimony is appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Heine, No. 3:15-CR-
+00238-SI-2, 2017 WL 5260784, at *2 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2017) (expert testimony regarding
+memory would be allowed if the case involved issues of suggestive questioning, drug use,
+hallucinations, or repressed or recovered memories).
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 21 of 28
+The issues in this case, by contrast, are far from simple: accusers making allegations
+decades after the alleged events after reading, hearing, and speaking about the events with others,
+barraged by media coverage, and motivated by monetary gain. Most of the accusers have spoken
+publicly and all have received large settlements from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund.
+Their "memories" have changed dramatically over time and conveniently began to include Ms.
+Maxwell after retaining many of the same personal injury lawyers. None of the cases cited by the
+government comes close to the issues presented here.
+Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D., is a distinguished professor and preeminent expert on
+memory science, with extensive credentials and academic and research experience spanning
+decades. She has published more than 20 books and over 600 scientific articles and chapters, the
+majority of which focus on the subject of memory.
+She has been qualified as an expert and testified approximately 300 times in civil and
+criminal court cases and approximately 100 times during depositions. Like Dr. Rocchio, she
+would be testifying as a "blind" expert. Dr. Loftus will not testify about the credibility or lack
+thereof of any witness in this case nor will she testify about whether any particular memory of
+any witness is true or false or credible or mistaken. She will testify about how human memory
+operates, the nature of the process of remembering as a reconstructive process, and the factors
+that can cause memory distortion over time.
+Admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification and memory has significantly
+evolved, catalyzed by reversals due to DNA exoneration. In 2013, the National Academy of
+S See, e.g., United States v. Smithers, 212 F.3d 306, 311-12 (6th Cir. 2000) (noting the
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 22 of 28
+Sciences was asked to conduct a thorough study of scientific research relating to eyewitness
+testimony and memory. In response, the National Research Council formed a committee, cochaired by the Honorable Jed Rakoff and
+Albright, a prominent cognitive scientist at the
+Salk Institute for Biological Studies. In 2014, the committee published its report: Identifying the
+Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (Natl. Res. Counc. 2014): "Human visual perception
+and memory are changeable, the ability to recognize individuals is imperfect, and policies
+governing law enforcement procedures are not standard and any of these limitations can
+produce mistaken identifications with serious consequences" Id. The committee recommended
+that judges admit expert testimony as a way of educating juries on the science of memory. An
+alternative recommendation, having the court deliver a carefully crafted jury instructions that
+could accomplish this same educational goal, requires the daunting task of devising the right
+instructions. See Rakoff J & Loftus EF, The intractability of inaccurate eyewitness identification
+(2018).
+eyewitness identification, expert testimony regarding the accuracy of that identification is
+admissible and properly may be encouraged ... "); United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224,
+[should] be admitted at least in some circumstances"); United States v.
+1232 (3d Cir. 1985) (reasoning that exper testimony on eyewitness percention and 2t 1lry.,.
+1107 (6th Cir. 1984) ("The day may have arrived, therefore, when Dr. Fulero's testimony can be
+said to conform to a generally accepted explanatory theory.")). As also noted by the court in
+Smithers, "[s]tate court decisions also reflect this trend." (citing State v. Buell, 22 Ohio St.3d
+124, 489 N.E.2d 795 (1986) (overruling per se rule and holding expert testimony admissible to
+inform jury about factors generally affecting memory process)). Moreover, the court noted that
+"several courts have held that it is an abuse of discretion to exclude such expert testimony."
+(citing United States v. Sevens, 933 F.20 1380, 1400-01 (30 CIr. 1991) (reversing anc
+remanding for new trial):
+1. 736 F.2d at 1107 (holding error harmless in light of other
+inculpatory evidence); Downing, 753 F.2d at 1232 (holding error harmless in light of other
+inculpatory evidence); State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983) (reversing and
+remanding for new trial)).
+18
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 23 of 28
+Admission of expert testimony rests with the discretion of the court. Exclusion of expert
+testimony, especially regarding the reliability of eyewitness testimony, has been deemed error
+resulting in reversals. See, e.g., supra note 5 & cases cited infra. The admission of expert
+testimony on the subject of memory, especially in sex abuse cases, has been prominent in state
+court, where most prosecutions regarding sex-based offenses are brought. In the last decade, for
+example, Dr. Loftus has given expert testimony regarding memory science in numerous sex
+abuse cases:
+• People v. Weinstein (NY Cty, NY 2020)
+• People v. Heely (San
+, CA 2019)
+• People v. Dudley (Orange Cty, CA 2018)
+• State v.
+(Douglas Cty, Neb 2017)
+• State v. Howard (Douglas Cty, Neb 2017)
+• Doe v. Hosey (Spokane Cty, WA (2016)
+• People v. Armstrong (Broomfield Cly, CO 2016)
+• GM v. LAUSD (Los Angeles, CA 2015)
+• People v. Martinson (Denver Cty, CO 2014)
+• State v. Carson (Tulsa Cty, OK 2013)
+• People v. Manzanares (Broomfield Cty, CO 2013)
+• People v. Barreto (Monterey Cty, CA 2012)
+• People v. Tortorelli (San Bernardino Cty, CA 2011)
+• People v. Wellen (Orange Cty, CA 2011)
+• People v. Borbon (Orange Cty, CA 2011)
+Dr. Loftus's testimony is based on decades of social science research that she personally
+conducted as well as upon the body of scientific research and literature in the field of memory
+science. In contrast, Dr. Rocchio relies on literature of others, mostly non-identified and some
+that do not support the science of grooming, and upon anecdotal reporting by patients engaged in
+talk therapy.
+Although Dr. Rocchio is not an expert on memory or neuroscience (as she admitted at her
+Daubert hearing, Ex. 2, p 121), the government intends to have her testify about the impact of
+19
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 24 of 28
+trauma on memory. The government does not explain how it can be fair to oppose the testimony
+of an actual memory expert.
+According to the government, (Dkt. 397), Dr. Rocchio's testimony about memory is
+proper under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because:
+Sexual abuse also impacts the way memory is encoded. In traumatic circumstances,
+often only the most salient details are encoded, and over time, specific details may
+be lost. With traumatic memory in particular, adrenaline and cortisol responses in
+the context of fear and trauma cause people to narrow their focus to the most salient
+and relevant details. If someone is abused multiple times or by multiple people, it
+is very common for memories of similar occurrences to jumble together, although
+the victim can remember the perpetrator and maybe some of the locations where
+the abuse occurred.
+Taken together, Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony explains why victims of child
+sexual abuse—and especially repeated sexual abuse may disclose their abuse in
+a delayed and incremental fashion, and why their memories may lack some level of
+detail when the disclosure finally occurs.
+The validity of these opinions is debatable. What is not, however, is that these opinions
+are a small part of what may or may not affect someone's memory over time. The government
+desperately wants to avoid discussing the other factors that may affect memory such as
+suggestibility, substance abuse (both short and long term), secondary gain, the effects of time,
+psychological disorders, and confabulation (Dr. Rocchio admitted that these things impact
+memory during the 702 hearing). E.g., Ex. 2, p 121-22.
+These are not topics readily understandable. The government has selected a "trauma"
+expert who will present only a small, self-serving part of the science related to memory. Experts
+such as Dr. Loftus spend a lifetime researching and writing about these concepts which have
+been regularly misunderstood by fact finders. One need only to consider the extraordinary
+number of innocent people convicted on what was thought to be reliable testimony based on
+faulty memories of witnesses whose convictions were reversed after DNA evidence proved the
+"memories" incorrect. Jurors do not understand these scientific concepts and will benefit from
+20
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 25 of 28
+considering the whole picture, not the part that the government believes will serve to help
+convict Ms. Maxwell. The helpfulness of this type of testimony is well recognized. See, e.g.,
+United States v.
+, 156 F.3d 1046, 1052-53 (10th Cir. 1998) (rejecting, in criminal case
+involving the reliability of memory and its impact on the reliability of eyewitness identifications,
+per se rule excluding such expert testimony); Commonwealth v.
+, 92 A.2d 766, 782-83
+(Pa. 2014) (collecting cases and noting that 44 states now permit trial courts, in their discretion,
+to admit expert testimony on factors that affect memory and the reliability of eyewitness
+testimony, and that "all federal circuits that have considered the issue, with the possible
+exception of the 11th Circuit, have embraced this approach"). See also
+v. People, 814
+P.2d 1 (Colo. 1991) (reversing trial court decision that used improper test to exclude expert
+testimony "on how certain factors, such as ... post-event information, can affect memory and
+perception"); United States v. Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d 1117, 1124 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating
+that, if warranted in a particular case, expert testimony may be admissible on "[such]
+psychological phenomena as the feedback factor" in which "witnesses who discuss a case with
+each other may unconsciously reinforce mistaken identifications"); United States v. Mathis, 264
+F.3d 321, 336-38 (3d. Cir. 2001) (holding that district court abused discretion in excluding
+expert testimony on factors affecting memory, such as witnesses' exposure to "post-event
+information" that may have distorted witnesses' recollection of prior events); United States v.
+Smithers, 212 F.3d 306, 312 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000) (describing "assimilation factor, which concerns
+a witness's incorporation of information gained subsequent to an event into his or her memory of
+that event"); United States v.
+621 F. Supp.2d 1207, 1216-17 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (ruling that
+expert testimony was admissible to show how "post event information" can influence memory,
+noting that "[r]esearch regarding post-event information shows that access to facts after an
+21
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 26 of 28
+occurrence can, under some circumstances, change a witness's memory and even cause
+nonexistent details to become incorporated into a previously acquired memory") (citing Fionna
+Gabbert, et. al, Memory Conformity: Can Eyewitnesses Influence Each Other's Memories for an
+Event?, 17 Applied Cogn. Psychol. 533 (2003)), and United States v. Jordan, 924 F. Supp. 443,
+449 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) (where government's case was largely dependent on witness's memory
+testimony about the formation, storage, retention and retrieval of memories along with factors
+that influence the accuracy of memories expert testimony would be helpful to the jury).
+The government fails to provide compelling reasons to preclude the testimony of Dr.
+Loftus. The government's bold statement that there is no evidence that "occurrences, suggestion,
+influences or the like" happened to any witness is this case is pure bolstering that is belied by the
+3500 material. Dr. Loftus's extensive experience, expertise, and proposed testimony is the right
+"fit" for this case. The Court should permit her expert testimony.
+CONCLUSION
+The government does not call into question Dr. Dietz's and Dr. Loftus's qualifications,
+nor does it meaningfully question the reliability of their opinions. Rather, the government claims
+their opinions invade the province of the jury or do not "fit" the case. A hearing is not necessary
+or appropriate to resolve the government's arguments. And as explained above, these arguments
+fail on the merits.
+This Court should deny the government's motion.
+Dated: November 12, 2021
+22
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+23
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 28 of 28
+Certificate of Service
+I hereby certify that on November 12, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine
+Maxwell's Response to the Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert Testimony of Dr.
+Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which
+will send notification of such filing to the following:
+Alison Moe
+Maurene Comey
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Lara Pomerantz
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Alison.moe@usdoj.gov
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov
+Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov
+s/ Nicole
+24
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9595541a3aaabff2b949bc16655012bab4c17b3ef9d207232ab63d86a80d47c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9595541a3aaabff2b949bc16655012bab4c17b3ef9d207232ab63d86a80d47c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b629f92bb681123e87972a4bb3e08be78b535126
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9595541a3aaabff2b949bc16655012bab4c17b3ef9d207232ab63d86a80d47c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -379,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9595541a3aaabff2b949bc16655012bab4c17b3ef9d207232ab63d86a80d47c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 34,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4fd42d2beaa42bdc1a68a19808c14e216f465ac7e7a1739eb31fce8022620c91",
+  "output_sha256": "ae9dc03a59ccb5c8c85d7f5b7bb46d2a5b5313a1a5623596d6969c4ae97c88da",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97aefb4f20b5e53cea9e6c225811a48d1c6c7b85b46310067e9cb87623e77ba.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97aefb4f20b5e53cea9e6c225811a48d1c6c7b85b46310067e9cb87623e77ba.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2284f34360cf0859500a74bb6b26dec32358a98
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97aefb4f20b5e53cea9e6c225811a48d1c6c7b85b46310067e9cb87623e77ba.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 656-4 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97aefb4f20b5e53cea9e6c225811a48d1c6c7b85b46310067e9cb87623e77ba.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97aefb4f20b5e53cea9e6c225811a48d1c6c7b85b46310067e9cb87623e77ba.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bdde4d85d219bd747bc9d88a90c845ac9ea2843b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97aefb4f20b5e53cea9e6c225811a48d1c6c7b85b46310067e9cb87623e77ba.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f97aefb4f20b5e53cea9e6c225811a48d1c6c7b85b46310067e9cb87623e77ba",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ad908ca9fcb18462129abd2018edef011a5c9e47c73b20337bf49bf7a80946ed",
+  "output_sha256": "b8d48f631bd4f9d583cab642ba6d569d0b2c3bad431754a114931778a60e24a9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97d18819f89ab616a139052138d1a6419aad9a1d97ee70a0f56d8f94f0e8e01.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97d18819f89ab616a139052138d1a6419aad9a1d97ee70a0f56d8f94f0e8e01.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fc00be0879e3256204ad4222cdcb88628c62fe1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97d18819f89ab616a139052138d1a6419aad9a1d97ee70a0f56d8f94f0e8e01.md
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 997 l
+Filed 10/09/19
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Plaintiff
+- against -
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)
+NON-PARTY REPLY BRIEF
+Defendant.
+Notwithstanding this Court's invitation for non-party participation, see Amended Order
+(DE 982), and the Court of Appeals' endorsement of the same, see
+v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d
+41, (2d Cir. Cir. 2019) - Plaintiff's essential point seemingly is that John Doe's arguments
+constitute an attempt to "dictate" process to this Court and "to serve as a de facto Special
+Plaintiff's Memorandum (DE 995) ("PI. Mem.") at 1-2.' John Doe's brief does not "dictate"
+anything. And Plaintiff's declaration that it does cannot shield the shortcomings in Plaintiff's
+own legal arguments - shortcomings which are plain on the face of Plaintiff's own brief. ?
+A. Filings Related to Unadjudicated Motions or Requests are Non-Judicial
+Plaintiff argues that the Court of Appeals' decision "forecloses" the argument that filings
+related to unadjudicated motions or requests are categorically non-judicial. Id. at 3. That is
+wrong. Indeed, one need not even look past the four-corners of Plaintiff's own brief to see that.
+Plaintiff cites for that bald proposition the following language (quoted here from
+Plaintiff's brief in its entirety): "Insofar as the District Court held that these materials are not
+' The Plaintiff also asserts that our "arguments are unnecessary," id. at 1; that our
+participation is "counterproductive," id. at 6; and that a citation to the Court of Appeals' decision
+is "pointless
+...because th[is] Court did not need John Doe to remind it of what the opinion and
+order remanding the case said," id. at 5.
+2 This brief consolidates our replies to Plaintiff's and Intervenor Miami Herald's briefs.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 997 Filed 10/09/19 Page 2 of 5
+judicial documents because it did not rely on them in adjudicating a motion, this was legal
+error."' Id. (quoting |
+1, 929 F.3d at 50). But we agree. It would be legal error for a court to
+conclude that a given filing is non-judicial merely because the court did not expressly rely on
+that filing "in adjudicating a motion."
+But, of course, that is not the argument here. Rather, where Judge Sweet did not
+"adjudicat[e]" a motion or otherwise engage in some form of judicial action or determination of
+litigants' rights, the documents related to that motion that were - at the time, properly, and
+pursuant to court order? - filed under seal, cannot be judicial documents.
+Critically, the Court of Appeals invoked the above-quoted language in its criticism of the
+basis Judge Sweet himself' invoked for maintaining the documents under seal: namely that those
+documents "were neither relied upon by [the District] Court in the rendering of an adjudication,
+nor necessary to or helpful in resolving a motion."" Id. (quoting
+v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp.
+3d 428, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Sweet, J.) (emphasis supplied). The Court of Appeals was
+unambiguous: a court performs the judicial function when it "rules on motions" and "exercises
+its supervisory powers" though a "judicial decision." Id. at 49 & n.26.
+Plaintiff further undermines her own argument in the very next paragraphs in which
+Plaintiff rightly points out that the Court of Appeals' analysis is focused on documents submitted
+in connection with ""judicial decision-making."" Pl. Mem. at 3 (quoting |
+1, 929 F.3d at
+3 Plaintiff argues that our contention that the sine qua non of a judicial document is that it
+relate to affirmative judicial action cannot be correct because it would lead, for example, to
+complaints and answers being filed under seal until a case is resolved. But that is a straw-man.
+The instant issue concerns a circumstance in which the Court explicitly permitted filings under
+seal (and pursuant to a protective order), and now a different Court is reviewing the propriety of
+maintaining the seal. This is not about ex ante sealing; it is about ex post unsealing.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 997 Filed 10/09/19 Page 3 of 5
+50).4 Plaintiff argues that the Court of Appeals "was aware of" the status of motions and
+therefore must have "meant for the holding to apply to this specific situation" - namely to wholly
+unadjudicated motions. Id.
+But why? The Court of Appeals nowhere stated that it had assessed whether any motion
+subject to remand here involved actual "judicial decision-making." And there is nothing about the
+"status of the docket" that obviously sets out which motions were and were not adjudicated.
+Accordingly, the question of whether certain of the motions subject to remand - including "motions
+to compel testimony, to quash trial subpoenae, and to exclude certain deposition testimony,"
+. 929 F.3d at 50 - were adjudicated was simply not examined by the Court of Appeals.®
+But, most importantly, for the (unrebutted) reasons set forth in our initial brief, Plaintiff's
+argument is fundamentally contrary to law? and common sense.® See NP Br. at 2-4.
+4 A court performs "the judicial function ... when it rules on motions currently before it
+[and] when properly exercising its inherent supervisory powers."|
+, 929 F.3d at 49 (internal
+quotation marks and emendations omitted; emphasis supplied).
+" Indeed, the underlying case was settled on the eve of trial, and thus the Court of
+Appeals may well have assumed that motions subject to remand had been adjudicated.
+• The single motion that the Court of Appeals, itself, unilaterally unsealed was, in fact,
+adjudicated by Judge Sweet "in a heavily redacted 76-page opinion." [
+1, 929 F.3d at 46.
+" See Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 621 F. Supp. 2d
+55, 63 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that, where documents "did not in any way figure into the
+Court's performance of its Article IIl functions, the documents do not qualify as judicial and
+carry no presumption of public access"); see also S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233
+(2d Cir. 2001) (documents are non-judicial if they "did not directly affect an adjudication [or]
+significantly determine litigants' substantive rights" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
+& See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 123 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining
+that "the rationale behind access is to allow the public an opportunity to assess the correctness of
+the judge's decision" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 997 Filed 10/09/19 Page 4 of 5
+B. Filings With Frivolous, Scandalous or Otherwise Improper Content Are Non-Judicial
+Plaintiff does not appear to contest that filings with frivolous, scandalous, or otherwise
+improper content, which is predicated on the express language of governing precedent. See, e.g.,
+Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 122; United States v. Gatto, No. 17-CR-686 (LAK), 2019 WL 4194569, at
+*3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2019); |
+, 929 F.3d at 51-52. Indeed, Plaintiff appears to argue only
+that because the Court of Appeals already made clear that this Court has the authority to sua
+sponte strike or deem non-judicial documents that contain such content, this "Court did not need
+John Doe to remind it" of that authority. PI. Mem at 5.
+C. The Herald Seems to Misunderstand the Unsealing Review Process
+For all its failings, Plaintiff's brief at least appreciates that this stage of the review
+process - identifying potential categories of non-judicial documents that should remain under
+seal - is only the first step of a process that will also involve notice to and participation of nonparties. See, e.g., Pl Mem. at 7. The same cannot be said of intervenor Miami Herald's brief.
+Consistent with its single-note performance at the initial status conference, see Tr. at 22-
+23 ("THE COURT: And [counsel for the Herald] is going to say unseal the whole thing, right?"),
+the Herald's brief argues that because Defendant and John Doe "have failed to identify any nongeneralized, non-speculative interest that would outweigh these ... rights of access... the
+remaining documents should be immediately unsealed." Herald Br. at 2. Obviously, that is
+wrong, and reflects a fundamental misapprehension of the status of this review. This is not the
+time to be identifying countervailing interests; that may come later. This is the time to identify
+° Indeed, a non-party cannot be expected to identify any countervailing interest when it
+lacks any means of knowing what any sealed document contains.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 997 Filed 10/09/19 Page 5 of 5
+whether any categories of documents can be deemed non-judicial and therefore remain sealed
+and require no further review or non-party input. See generally Order at 1; Transcript, passim.
+Dated: October 9, 2019
+New York, New York
+By:
+Respectfully Submitted,
+KRIEGER
+& LEWIN LLP
+Hubla Jain
+Paul M. Krieger
+KRIEGER & LEWIN LLP
+500 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor
+New York, New York 10110
+Tel.: (212) 390-9550
+Attorneys for Non-Party John Doe
+5
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97d18819f89ab616a139052138d1a6419aad9a1d97ee70a0f56d8f94f0e8e01.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97d18819f89ab616a139052138d1a6419aad9a1d97ee70a0f56d8f94f0e8e01.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30665d3238544ddcd31b2b9d050afff613361812
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97d18819f89ab616a139052138d1a6419aad9a1d97ee70a0f56d8f94f0e8e01.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -75,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f97d18819f89ab616a139052138d1a6419aad9a1d97ee70a0f56d8f94f0e8e01",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f92130837dca5c71a26a6a43a12981ed9e5f9d4f0e85c3ab941f6254eec0dc5c",
+  "output_sha256": "64bf92a0ce3246f4a3f58cbc8c5524999b3461420f956de0281b9076fe055d17",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97ee75718d46aadd0ad14b602ae02d5b93a865cf04e682d37c6c409caf95bd2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97ee75718d46aadd0ad14b602ae02d5b93a865cf04e682d37c6c409caf95bd2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..43cbf439a0dd6e8914d123e3f9d8951492d80eba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97ee75718d46aadd0ad14b602ae02d5b93a865cf04e682d37c6c409caf95bd2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 841 Filed 04/11/17 Page 1 of 6
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-- X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+:
+------X
+DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO
+PRODUCTION OF N
+SUBMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+_ P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 841 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 6
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, by and through her attorneys, hereby files her Reply in
+Support of the Objection to the Production of Documents' Submitted in camera and states as
+follows:
+INTRODUCTION
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 841
+Filed 04/11/17
+
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 841
+Filed 04/11/17 Page 4 of 6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 841 Filed 04/11/17 Page 5 of 6
+CONCLUSION
+Dated: April 11, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+aura A. Menninger (LM-137-
+effrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vic
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10'" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 841 Filed 04/11/17 Page 6 of 6
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on April 11, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Reply in Support of
+Objection to Production of|
+• Submitted for in Camera Review via
+ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+5
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97ee75718d46aadd0ad14b602ae02d5b93a865cf04e682d37c6c409caf95bd2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97ee75718d46aadd0ad14b602ae02d5b93a865cf04e682d37c6c409caf95bd2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f6dffa3820a1815cd7a030fa08742d07546c994
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f97ee75718d46aadd0ad14b602ae02d5b93a865cf04e682d37c6c409caf95bd2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -83,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f97ee75718d46aadd0ad14b602ae02d5b93a865cf04e682d37c6c409caf95bd2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "366853c8460876341126c174bc359709273bd783c6396c87e02ca9265662e866",
+  "output_sha256": "2db30dd0b1bc036feab0d36ee12e1996d155f23cad132a849a9ef482278857d0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9821dd71cb494943faa6c7fc814e246589a43cf2be3dfea8309cb6209a29944.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9821dd71cb494943faa6c7fc814e246589a43cf2be3dfea8309cb6209a29944.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..094005298f421f1fc06c3f64cd7f54197b871d15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9821dd71cb494943faa6c7fc814e246589a43cf2be3dfea8309cb6209a29944.md
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 340 |
+Filed 08/08/16
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+)eclaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support O
+Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Court's Orde
+and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+,. P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of Response In Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and
+Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal.
+2.
+Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+Attached as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of |
+stamped documents
+GM_00523-00528.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 340 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 3
+4.
+Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of
+6.
+Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+Attached as Exhibit F (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+Attached as Exhibit G (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+Attached as Exhibit H (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+10. Attached as Exhibit I (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of excerpts
+Dated: August 8, 2016
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 340 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on August 8, 2016, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S.
+Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce the
+Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal via ECF
+on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+19 Twin Lakes Rd
+South Salem, NY 1059(
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9821dd71cb494943faa6c7fc814e246589a43cf2be3dfea8309cb6209a29944.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9821dd71cb494943faa6c7fc814e246589a43cf2be3dfea8309cb6209a29944.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..db9f1d0a9b199a660144a54c8c92aaebd5ca46fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9821dd71cb494943faa6c7fc814e246589a43cf2be3dfea8309cb6209a29944.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9821dd71cb494943faa6c7fc814e246589a43cf2be3dfea8309cb6209a29944",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7f7d84f14ff8afdc15eaf7f078a95639ac6fe6bbf375fe4096622921c508fbf6",
+  "output_sha256": "9ede56ffa2c37e88524b7ae034015339949ea2209a50443b392e7bc4a6023a55",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f99201e6bbe4e51f59eb8723777556e2f0f604e9fbd745ef00e31aafca9c1424.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f99201e6bbe4e51f59eb8723777556e2f0f604e9fbd745ef00e31aafca9c1424.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6fe19f22d22e6dcd38c6f29460dfc4addc530b1f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f99201e6bbe4e51f59eb8723777556e2f0f604e9fbd745ef00e31aafca9c1424.md
@@ -0,0 +1,621 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 17
+COMPOSITE
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 2 of 17
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Attachments:
+Monday, March 07, 2016 2:22 PM
+marty@martinweinberglaw.com
+v. Maxwell
+2015-09-21 [DE 1] Complaint.pdf
+Hello Marty,
+I understand that you are one of the lawyer who represent Jeffrey Epstein. My firm is representing
+her defamation action against Ghislaine Maxwell pending in federal court in New York - case number 15-cv-07433-RWS.
+( If I am incorrect in my understanding that you represent Jeffrey Epstein kindly let me know.)
+We would like to take the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein and want to confirm whether you will be willing to accept service
+of a subpoena on his behalf. Kindly let me know and we can discuss a date for the deposition.
+If you have any questions, I can be reached at (954) 356-0011. I have included a copy of the complaint for your review.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LEP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 3 of 17
+From: (
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Weinberg <owimgw@ att.net>
+Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:46 AM
+Sigrid McCawley;
+Weinberg
+Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Sigrid, understood. Subject to reserving my rights to make any, all objections, I will let you know on
+facilitating service and discussing time and place no later than midday tomorrow (in court most of
+today). Let me know if that works. Marty
+G. Weinberg, Esq.
+20 Park Plaza
+Suite 1000
+Boston,
+02116
+(617) 227-3700 - Office
+(617) 901-3472 - Cell
+=This Electronic Message contains information from the Law
+Office of
+G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the
+addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the
+contents of this message is prohibited.
+On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:39 AM, Sigrid McCawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com> wrote:
+Hello Marty - Per your inquiry below - we are going to need to take a videotaped deposition of Epstein for use
+at trial. Kindly let me know if you are authorized to accept service on his behalf. We will be glad to coordinate
+a location and reasonable date that works for you and your client.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+So: Tues inach 08, 2016 1:13 PM
+Subjeet: RE mere
+v. Maxwell
+Hello Marty - thank you for your call back this afternoon. I understand from our conversation that you have a
+"preliminary question" before you can answer whether or not you are authorized to accept service of a subpoena
+for Jeffrey Epstein's testimony in the Maxwell action.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 4 of 17
+You explained that it would be Epstein's position that he would be invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege as
+to all questions relating to the Maxwell action so your "preliminary question" as I understand it, is whether the
+plaintiff would be willing to accept a form of sworn statement in response to questions whereby Epstein invokes
+his Fifth Amendment privilege in lieu of Epstein having to sit for a formal in-person deposition.
+I will endeavor to get you a response shortly. Thank you for your call.
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 3:21 PM
+Weinberg
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell
+That would be fine. Thank you.
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]
+Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 2:59 PM
+Weinberg
+Subject: Re: L
+I v. Maxwell
+Marty
+Sent from my iPhone
+On Mar 7, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Sigrid McCawley <Smccawley@BSFLL.P.com> wrote:
+Hello Marty,
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 5 of 17
+I understand that you are one of the lawyer who represent Jeffrey Epstein. My firm is
+representing
+in her defamation action against Ghislaine Maxwell pending in
+federal court in New York - case number 15-cv-07433-RWS. ( If I am incorrect in my
+understanding that you represent Jeffrey Epstein kindly let me know.)
+We would like to take the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein and want to confirm whether you will be
+willing to accept service of a subpoena on his behalf. Kindly let me know and we can discuss a
+date for the deposition.
+If you have any questions, I can be reached at (954) 356-0011. I have included a copy of the
+complaint for your review.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LEP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipients) and may contain
+information that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
+If the reader of this elecironic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby
+notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have
+received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message
+from your computer. [v.1]
+<2015-09-21 [DE 1] Complaint.pdf>
+The information contained in this ciocironic message is confidentiul information intended only for the use of the named recipients) and may contain information
+any other protections, is the subject of atorney-client privilege, attomey work product er exempt from disclosure undar applicable law. If the reader of this
+sage is not the named roopient, or the employce or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipion!, you are hereby notilied that any
+dissemination, distribution, copying or ether use of tres commurication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is walved. If you have rocolved this communication in
+error, please unmadiately nolity the sender by replying to this eloc ronic message and then deleting this electronic message frein your computer. [v.1]
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 161-3
+Filed 05/25/16 Page 6 of 17
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
+Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:42 AM
+Weinberg
+Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Sigrid
+Do you need an answer today?
+I have several time sensitive conflicts and then afternoon court commitments
+Sent from my iPhone
+On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Sigrid McCawley<Smccawley@BSFL.L.P.com> wrote:
+That works fine - thank you.
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]
+Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:46 AM
+To: Sigrid McCawley:
+Weinberg
+Subject: Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Sigrid, understood. Subject to reserving my rights to make any, all objections, I will let
+you know on facilitating service and discussing time and place no later than midday
+tomorrow (in court most of today). Let me know if that works. Marty
+G. Weinberg, Esq.
+20 Park Plaza
+Suite 1000
+Boston,
+02116
+(617) 227-3700 - Office
+(617) 901-3472 - Cell
+= This Electronic Message contains
+information from the Law Office of
+G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged.
+The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
+addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents
+of this message is prohibited.
+On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:39 AM, Sigrid McCawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com> wrote:
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 7 of 17
+Hello Marty - Per your inquiry below - we are going to need to take a videotaped
+deposition of Epstein for use at trial. Kindly let me know if you are authorized to accept
+service on his behalf. We will be glad to coordinate a location and reasonable date that
+works for you and your client.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 1:13 PM
+To: 1
+Weinberg'
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell
+Hello Marty - thank you for your call back this afternoon. I understand from our
+conversation that you have a "preliminary question" before you can answer whether or
+not you are authorized to accept service of a subpoena for Jeffrey Epstein's testimony
+in the Maxwell action.
+You explained that it would be Epstein's position that he would be invoking his Fifth
+Amendment privilege as to all questions relating to the Maxwell action so your
+"preliminary question" as I understand it, is whether the plaintiff would be willing to
+accept a form of sworn statement in response to questions whereby Epstein invokes his
+Fifth Amendment privilege in lieu of Epstein having to sit for a formal in-person
+deposition.
+I will endeavor to get you a response shortly. Thank you for your call.
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfilp.com/
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 3:21 PM
+To: "
+Weinberg'
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3
+Filed 05/25/16 Page 8 of 17
+That would be fine. Thank you.
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]
+Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 2:59 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Cc:
+Weinberg
+Subject: Re: 1
+v. Maxwell
+Hi Sigrid
+Give me a few days to check. I represent him on certain matters, not others but will get
+back to you no later than thursday on the service issue. Let me know if that works for
+you
+Thanks
+Marty
+Sent from my iPhone
+On Mar 7, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Sigrid McCawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com> wrote:
+Hello Marty,
+I understand that you are one of the lawyer who represent Jeffrey
+Epstein. My firm is representing |
+in her defamation action
+against Ghislaine Maxwell pending in federal court in New York - case
+number 15-cv-07433-RWS. ( If I am incorrect in my understanding that
+you represent Jeffrey Epstein kindly let me know.)
+We would like to take the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein and want to confirm
+whether you will be willing to accept service of a subpoena on his
+behalf. Kindly let me know and we can discuss a date for the deposition.
+If you have any questions, I can be reached at (954) 356-0011. I have
+included a copy of the complaint for your review.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 9 of 17
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named
+recipients) and may contain information that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege,
+attomey work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not
+the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified
+that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is
+waived. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this
+electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]
+<2015-09-21 [DE 1] Complaint.pdf>
+The information contained in this ciesbonio message is confidential infomation intended only for the use of the named recipients) and may
+contain intermation ihat, among oler protections, is the Subject of attorney-client privilege, atomey work product or exempi from disclosure
+under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic massage is not the rumod raspiont. or the empioye or agent responsible to dativer it to
+the named recipiont, you are hareby nollied that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of thia communication is sirictly
+prohibited and no privilege is waived, If you have recohed this communication in error, please mediately notify the sender by replying to
+this electronic massage and then deleting this electronic message froin your computer. [v. 1]
+The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipien (s) and may
+contain inicamation that, among other protections, is the subject of atterney-client privllage, allomsy work product orarempt inom disclosure
+under applicante lav. If the reader of its cladronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to
+the named recipient, you are hereby notlied that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly
+p chinited and no privllege is waived. If you have receed this communication in eror, please immediately notify the sonder by replying to
+ho olden message and then deleting is electronic message tom your computer. [4.1]
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 10 of 17
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
+Thursday, April 07, 2016 5:14 PM
+Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Thanks
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:01 PM
+To:
+Weinberg
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell
+No - I can wait until tomorrow. Thank you for following up.
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]
+Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:42 AM
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Cc:
+Weinberg
+Subject: Re:
+v. Maxwell
+Sigrid
+Do you need an answer today?
+I have several time sensitive conflicts and then afternoon court commitments
+Sent from my iPhone
+On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Sigrid McCawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com> wrote:
+That works fine - thank you.
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 11 of 17
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsflip.com
+From: 1
+Weinberg [mailto:owimgw@att.net]
+Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 11:46 AM
+To: Sigrid McCawley:
+Weinberg
+Subject: Re: 4
+v. Maxwell
+Sigrid, understood. Subject to reserving my rights to make any, all objections, I will let
+you know on facilitating service and discussing time and place no later than midday
+tomorrow (in court most of today). Let me know if that works. Marty
+G. Weinberg, Esq.
+20 Park Plaza
+Suite 1000
+Boston,
+02116
+(617) 227-3700 - Office
+(617) 901-3472 - Cell
+=====================This Electronic Message contains
+information from the Law Office of
+G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged.
+The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
+addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents
+of this message is prohibited.
+On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 11:39 AM, Sigrid McCawley<Smccawley@BSFLLP.coms wrote:
+Hello Marty - Per your inquiry below - we are going to need to take a videotaped
+deposition of Epstein for use at trial. Kindly let me know if you are authorized to accept
+service on his behalf. We will be glad to coordinate a location and reasonable date that
+works for you and your client.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 1:13 PM
+To: '
+Weinberg'
+Subject: RE:
+V. Maxwell
+Hello Marty - thank you for your call back this afternoon. I understand from our
+conversation that you have a "preliminary question" before you can answer whether or
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 12 of 17
+not you are authorized to accept service of a subpoena for Jeffrey Epstein's testimony
+in the Maxwell action.
+You explained that it would be Epstein's position that he would be invoking his Fifth
+Amendment privilege as to all questions relating to the Maxwell action so your
+"preliminary question" as I understand it, is whether the plaintiff would be willing to
+accept a form of sworn statement in response to questions whereby Epstein invokes his
+Fifth Amendment privilege in lieu of Epstein having to sit for a formal in-person
+deposition.
+I will endeavor to get you a response shortly. Thank you for your call.
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+So: t: Mondaginarch 07. 2016 3.21 PM
+Weinberg
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell
+That would be fine. Thank you.
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+Weinberg [mailto:owlimgw@att.net
+Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 2:59 PM
+Co: Sir Weinberg
+Weinberg
+v. Maxwell
+Hi Sigrid
+Give me a tew days to check. I represent him on certain matters, not others but will get
+back to you no later than thursday on the service issue. Let me know if that works for
+you
+Thanks
+Marty
+Sent from my iPhone
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 13 of 17
+On Mar 7, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Sigrid McCawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com> wrote:
+Hello Marty,
+I understand that you are one of the lawyer who represent Jeffrey
+Epstein. My firm is representing \
+in her defamation action
+against Ghislaine Maxwell pending in federal court in New York - case
+number 15-cv-07433-RWS. ( If I am incorrect in my understanding that
+you represent Jeffrey Epstein kindly let me know.)
+We would like to take the deposition of Jeffrey Epstein and want to confirm
+whether you will be willing to accept service of a subpoena on his
+behalf. Kindly let me know and we can discuss a date for the deposition.
+If you have any questions, I can be reached at (954) 356-0011. I have
+included a copy of the complaint for your review.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com/
+The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named
+recipients) and may contain information that, among other protections, is the subject of attomey-client privilege,
+attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not
+the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified
+that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited and no privilege is
+waived. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this
+electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]
+<2015-09-21 [DE 1] Complaint.pdf>
+The information contained in this alectronic message is confidential information intended only for the use of the named recipients) and may
+contain information Urat, among other protections, is the subjoct of attomey-cent privilege, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure
+under opplicable law. If the roader of this clectronic message is not the named recipient, or the employes or agent responsible to deliver it to
+the nomed recipiend. you urs hereby hotfied Wit any disseminstion, distitution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly
+prohibited and no prutiego is waived, if you have received this cornunication in orror, please mediately noty the sonder by repiying to
+this electronic message and then deleting the elecivic message from your computer. fv.33
+The information contained la this cloctronic message is confidental infonnation intendad only for the use of the named rocipionts) and may
+contain information that, among other protections, iS the subject ef attomey-clant pilvilege, attorney work product or exampt from disclosure
+under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employne of agent responsible to deliver it to
+the named rocipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distibution, copying or ethor use of this communication is strictly
+prohibited and no privilege is waived. if you have received this communication in eror, please Immediately notly the sender by replying to
+this electronic message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 14 of 17
+The Informalion contained in this electronic message is comelentin infonmation infended only for the use of the named recipients) and may contain information
+that, among other prolacions, is the subject of altomey-client privlege, altorney works product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reador of this
+dectronic message is not the namad recipient, orthe employdo or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby nolified that any
+dissemination, distribulion, copying or olher use of this communication is stricily prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication in
+error. please immediately notify the sender by replying to this elecronic message and then doloting this electronic message from your compuler. [v.1]
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 15 of 17
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
+Friday, April 08, 2016 4:31 PM
+Sigrid McCawley; owlmgw@att.net
+Guiffre v Maxwell
+Sigrid, Friday is winding down and due largely to my client's travel/business schedule I have not, today, received final
+authority to accept service or discuss related arrangements. I will have contact with him over the weekend and get you an
+answer Monday (or we can default to a "no" if for any reason I don't have an unconditional communication on the service
+issue by then) if that works. Marty
+I G Weinberg PC
+20 Park Plaza
+Suite 1000
+Boston,
+02116
+Tel 617 227 3700
+Cell 617 901 3472
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 16 of 17
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Attachments:
+Wednesday, May 25, 2016 10:30 AM
+'owlmgw@att.net'; 'marty@martinweinberglaw.com'
+Sigrid McCawley; 'owlmgw@att.net'; Meredith
+Subject: Re: Service on Jeffrey Epstein
+Re:
+v. Maxwell; Re:
+v. Maxwell; Re:
+Maxwell; Guiffre v Maxwell
+v. Maxwell; Re:
+V.
+Hello Marty,
+Thank you for the response. I went back through my e-mail communications and I didn't see anything about an
+agreement by you to accept service of Jeffrey Epstein's deposition for a deposition in the Virgin Islands near his
+residence. I have attached the e-mails that I have from you above. I do not have an "April 11'" e-mail as referenced
+below.
+That said, we can work to accommodate that location request for a deposition in the Virgin Islands. If Mr. Epstein can
+accommodate us on his island, assuming he can provide transportation as I understand it is remote, we would be willing
+to take the deposition at that location. Please confirm given the agreement on relocating the deposition to the Virgin
+Islands that you will agree to accept service of the subpoena for Jeffrey Epstein's deposition.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+G. Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]
+Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:33 AM
+To: Sigrid McCawley; owlmgw@att.net
+Subject: Re: Service on Jeffrey Epstein
+Sigrid, first to "correct the record" - I did not simply refuse to accept service in response to your April 6 email, instead, on
+April 11 | emailed you saying that if you agreed to the deposition being near Mr Epstein's Virgin Island residence, I could
+accept service subject to our agreeing on a date and my reserving legal objections to the deposition request. I received
+no answer to that email. As to Monday's email, I would first request that you inform me whether you are agreeable to a
+deposition in the Virgin Islands (the predicate for my April 11 email and Mr Epstein's sole residential and business venue
+as defined by Rule 45) in which case I will determine immediately whether I am still authorized to accept service
+(particularly given the new {to me) and expansive request for documents that like the anticipated testimony would be
+subject to a principled Fifth Amendment assertion). I remain of the view that Mr. Epstein (indisputably would contend)
+has a Fifth Amendment right and intends to assert it in relation to any and all questions and document requests relevant to
+the subject matter of your case. Thanks. Marty
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 161-3 Filed 05/25/16 Page 17 of 17
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:30 AM
+To: marty@martinweinberglaw.com
+Cc: Meredith
+Subject: Service on Jeffrey Epstein
+Hello Marty,
+As you are aware we initially reached out to you back on March 7, 2016 to inquire as to whether you would accept
+service on your client, Jeffrey Epstein's behalf. You did not agree to accept service so we proceeded with numerous
+service attempts on Jeffrey Epstein. I am attaching above the latest subpoena that we have been attempting service
+of. Please confirm whether you will accept service of this subpoena on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein or whether we will be
+required to seek court intervention for alternative service. As I mentioned previously, if you accept service, we can work
+with you and your client on a the date and location of the deposition to make it convenient for the parties.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+The information contained in this elecironic message is confestel informalion intended only for the use of the named recipient(s) and may contrin information
+that, among other protoctions, is the subject of atomsy-cient priv
+That an an else is act he ne the re ince of are amelie to age, terey sick preter et tare recipe, yoder hereal ired the racer of ang
+dissemination, distribution, copying or oiher use of this communication is shictly prohibited and no pradlege is waived, if you have raceived this communication in
+eror, pleose innediately notty the sender by replying to this electronic messoge and than deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1] |
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f99201e6bbe4e51f59eb8723777556e2f0f604e9fbd745ef00e31aafca9c1424.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f99201e6bbe4e51f59eb8723777556e2f0f604e9fbd745ef00e31aafca9c1424.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a717e791f8f9f9814c1be8ce665bd2e5b5f12366
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f99201e6bbe4e51f59eb8723777556e2f0f604e9fbd745ef00e31aafca9c1424.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -974,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f99201e6bbe4e51f59eb8723777556e2f0f604e9fbd745ef00e31aafca9c1424",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 19,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "b8e5a4e430927496100b8e31d457ec4a5c85e405b134446cd3e58529cdd86384",
+  "output_sha256": "4ae29d95627d2ecb0dd2d9dee20a930fcf1b0908c37ad17cc839df5d5f3f8f7f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9a74af21ab5d6b7032b464b57d4067b92bd05f1909e14c85b350a8827932f9b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9a74af21ab5d6b7032b464b57d4067b92bd05f1909e14c85b350a8827932f9b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..058674235408fa96089d31a227df00f6f292fb19
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9a74af21ab5d6b7032b464b57d4067b92bd05f1909e14c85b350a8827932f9b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 350
+Filed 10/15/21 Page 1 of 3
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+October 15, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated
+October 15, 2021 (Dkt. No. 348) ordering the Government to respond to the defendant's October
+14, 2021 letter regarding delivery of the defendant's legal mail at the Metropolitan Detention
+Center ("MDC") (Dkt. No. 346).
+The Government conferred with legal counsel at the MDC in response to the Court's Order
+and was informed of the following: As a general matter, legal mail from a defendant's counsel is
+delivered to the defendant within one business day of receipt at the MDC. Legal mail sent to a
+defendant from the Government via FedEx goes to the MDC's warehouse. Staff at the MDC's
+warehouse process and log the mail in a tracking system and then contact the relevant
+department—in this case, the legal department—about the mail. The legal department has to then
+go to the warehouse to retrieve the mail, log the mail, assign the mail an internal number for
+tracking purposes, and fill out a form authorizing the delivery of the mail to the inmate before
+delivering the mail to the inmate.
+Legal counsel at the MDC has explained to the Government that these are the MDC's
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 350 Filed 10/15/21 Page 2 of 3
+Page 2
+standard procedures for legal mail, and these protocols apply to each one of the approximately
+1,700 inmates at the MDC. Legal counsel at the MDC has further explained that defense counsel's
+request that the MDC be ordered to provide the defendant with all legal mail within one day of
+receipt by the MDC would be extremely burdensome and is not practicable in light of the various
+responsibilities of the MDC's legal department, which is responsible for issues relating to the
+approximately 1,700 inmates at the MDC. The Government respectfully submits that there are no
+circumstances that merit special expedited delivery for this defendant, and that the delivery of the
+defendant's mail should not receive priority over the services the legal department's staff provides
+to other inmates.
+As noted in the defense's letter, the Government sent a hard drive containing Court-ordered
+disclosures to the defendant via FedEx on October 11, 2021. The hard drive was received by the
+MDC on October 12, 2021. Legal counsel at the MDC informed the Government that there was
+an institutional emergency impacting the safety and security of the MDC on October 13, 2021,
+such that no inmate at the MDC received any legal mail from the warehouse that day. On the
+morning of October 14, 2021, legal counsel at the MDC personally delivered the hard drive to the
+defendant.
+The Government has made best efforts to obtain accurate information and respond to the
+Court's Order within a short time frame. Should the Court have any questions or require any
+additional details regarding this topic, the Government will confer with legal counsel at the MDC
+and provide additional information.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 350 Filed 10/15/21 Page 3 of 3
+Page 3
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By: _
+S/
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9a74af21ab5d6b7032b464b57d4067b92bd05f1909e14c85b350a8827932f9b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9a74af21ab5d6b7032b464b57d4067b92bd05f1909e14c85b350a8827932f9b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..106db06db1f763157622eb376babeb8452502f5a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9a74af21ab5d6b7032b464b57d4067b92bd05f1909e14c85b350a8827932f9b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9a74af21ab5d6b7032b464b57d4067b92bd05f1909e14c85b350a8827932f9b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7ff9a9dfdf38ab45c45892aff1f1d795d3d3eaf66aa9ba6472bb3c5e141cd859",
+  "output_sha256": "2bfaf0833a8166ab946e142adbeba5404217bd1f672e9b75a4b13848f9c4be12",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9c912faf1bf8ce802acce7cb9482d8b029a2866ad3c08dab185f7c63fb61d33.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9c912faf1bf8ce802acce7cb9482d8b029a2866ad3c08dab185f7c63fb61d33.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3d632fe37c9c707be3ca654ea147263222baaff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9c912faf1bf8ce802acce7cb9482d8b029a2866ad3c08dab185f7c63fb61d33.md
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 981 Filed 09/03/19 Page 1 of 2
+RANDAZZA
+LEGAL GROUP
+Jay Marshall Wolman, JD
+Licensed in CT. • NY. DC
+September 3, 2019
+Via CM/ECF
+Hon. Loretta A. Preska
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell | Case No.: 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Dear Judge Preska:
+Intervenor Michael Cernovich d/b/a Cernovich Media originally sought to intervene and
+unseal the wholly-redacted summary judgment documents filed by Defendant Ghislaine
+Maxwell and the subsequent summary judgment documents that would be filed relative
+to Maxwell's motion. See ECF Nos. 550-552. Mr. Cernovich's goal in unsealing the
+Maxwell records was to give the Jeffrey Epstein network the attention it deserved. Mr.
+Cernovich had informed many members of the press that Epstein had escaped justice,
+with little to no interest from them. Other than a May 4, 2017 write-up in Politico, the
+great travesty
+of the Epstein
+criminal
+https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/jeffrey-epstein-trump-lawsuit-sex-trafficking-
+237983. Google Trends shows that there was almost no organic interest from the public
+in Epstein at the time he filed his motion to intervene and unseal in January 2017.' See,
+e.g., https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=Jeffrey%20Epstein&geo=US
+In the recent Second Circuit decision (ECF No. 977), Mr. Cernovich was the only party
+to obtain the exact relief he sought, namely the unsealing of the summary judgment
+records. The Miami Herald subsequently sought the full case record to be unsealed,
+which Mr. Cernovich believed to be far too ambitious an ask in January 2017. This belief
+was confirmed by the Second Circuit's ruling.
+Although Mr. Cernovich ultimately joined the Miami Herald's motion to unseal the entire
+record (ECF No. 941) as far too much was sealed, then-including the summary judgment
+record, it remains unclear if his involvement in this case will remain necessary. The
+' Google Trends tracks the number of times people search for a given keyword, and
+eyword searches serve as a way to determine how much public interest there is in :
+ubject. At that time, the public was uninterested in Jeffrey Epstein and his connection
+to powerful people due to a lack of coverage.
+100 Pearl Street, 14' Floor, Hartford, Connecticut 06103
+jmw@randazza.com | 702.420.2001
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 981 Filed 09/03/19 Page 2 of 2
+
+RANDAZZA
+LEGAL GROUP
+remarkable, Pulitizer-level work done by Intervenor Julie
+and her colleagues has
+far exceeded any expectation he had regarding the coverage the Jeffrey Epstein case
+would receive.
+On August 9, 2019, following the issuance of the mandate, the Court scheduled a
+conference for September 4, 2019, to discuss how to proceed. ECF No. 979. For almost
+a decade, the story of Jeffrey Epstein and his confederates fell through the cracks of
+media coverage. For reasons that are not clear, the press seemed to be uninterested. As
+the Epstein story has now been reported by major every network and publication in the
+world, Mr. Cernovich's work as a reporter has had the desired effect of informing the
+public and reporting on the most powerful and evil people. Mr. Cernovich will,
+therefore, be notifying this Court shortly whether he believes his involvement in the case
+is necessary. In the interim, Mr. Cernovich does not believe it necessary for him to
+participate in the Conference and, as a result, undersigned counsel will not be appearing.
+Thank you for your attention to this matter.
+Randazza Legal Group, PLLC
+100 Pearl Street, 14" Floor
+Hartford, CT 06103
+Tel: 702-420-2001
+ecf@randazza.com
+cc:
+All Parties (Via CM/ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9c912faf1bf8ce802acce7cb9482d8b029a2866ad3c08dab185f7c63fb61d33.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9c912faf1bf8ce802acce7cb9482d8b029a2866ad3c08dab185f7c63fb61d33.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f58e6fc5945e3487454294018e3a039485b7ab40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9c912faf1bf8ce802acce7cb9482d8b029a2866ad3c08dab185f7c63fb61d33.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9c912faf1bf8ce802acce7cb9482d8b029a2866ad3c08dab185f7c63fb61d33",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3d5c12e92d5b43ce605107f8fdda3188bbb1e4ebcc194da46265b1f52065e375",
+  "output_sha256": "72be08fa7e3997768d2ad96d1afbde7bfe4014f935a8dbadf6f32fbf823e2651",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9d857555ec152a454c7cc8175fee607918503eedb658c2f0c51a3e105442d20.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9d857555ec152a454c7cc8175fee607918503eedb658c2f0c51a3e105442d20.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b83b0f6747cf810e873268d96471408d1ba6bfb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9d857555ec152a454c7cc8175fee607918503eedb658c2f0c51a3e105442d20.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 247-3 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9d857555ec152a454c7cc8175fee607918503eedb658c2f0c51a3e105442d20.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9d857555ec152a454c7cc8175fee607918503eedb658c2f0c51a3e105442d20.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac6a2e6bfc48245baca92eccc12050ec3f3f5fea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9d857555ec152a454c7cc8175fee607918503eedb658c2f0c51a3e105442d20.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9d857555ec152a454c7cc8175fee607918503eedb658c2f0c51a3e105442d20",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "13184621a922cf99d8c12fef1d55c20d971acbfc03d332a0b1005bcb7c4eeb82",
+  "output_sha256": "8374228985e57e1c1103f923d26f86e140aa8a50001e966165a5320c8207bc3c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9dd298d3bf45de1022099cd8a119bf556aaab8d3bb1b18b0409fb84189f9193.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9dd298d3bf45de1022099cd8a119bf556aaab8d3bb1b18b0409fb84189f9193.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f287774da65627303b4c703fd04cffdb4357ba4b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9dd298d3bf45de1022099cd8a119bf556aaab8d3bb1b18b0409fb84189f9193.md
@@ -0,0 +1,376 @@
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 11
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 239-1
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 2 of 11
+Gregory Poe
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Gregory Poe
+Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:03 AM
+'Brad
+1; Laura Menninger
+Sigrid McCawley;
+G. Weinberg; Jeff Pagliuca;
+cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith
+RE: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Mr.
+McCawley -
+As I informed Ms. McCawley in my June 9, 2016 letter, I represent Jeffrey Epstein with
+respect to the Rule 45 subpoena. Marty Weinberg represents Mr. Epstein in Does.
+Neither June 17 nor June 28 is an available date.
+Regards,
+Greg Poe
+Please note: As of June 1, 2016, my email address has changed to
+gpoe@gpoelaw.com. Please update your address book accordingly.
+Gregory L. Poe
+LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY L. POE PLLC
+The Executive Building
+1030 15th Street, N.W.
+Suite 580 West
+Washington, D.C. 20005
+Telephone: (202) 583-2500
+Fax: (202) 583-0565
+Mobile: (202) 595-4466
+Web Site: www.gpoelaw.com
+This communication is intended solely for the use of the addressee. It may contain
+information that is privileged, confidential, exempt from disclosure under applicable
+law, and/or attorney work product. Any dissemination or copying of this
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 239-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 3 of 11
+communication is prohibited except by the addressee and employees of agents
+responsible for delivering it to the addressee. If you have received this communication
+in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and by telephone at (202) 583-
+From: Brad
+[mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com]
+Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:42 PM
+To: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
+Cc: Sigrid McCawley <Smccawley@BSFLLP.com>;
+G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>;
+Gregory Poe <gpoe@gpoelaw.com>; Jeff Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>;
+cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith
+<mschultz@BSFLLP.com>
+Subject: Re: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Mr. Epstein's counsel is on this email chain so hopefully Mr. Weinberg will let us
+know which date works.
+Sent from my iPhone
+On Jun 13, 2016, at 7:36 PM, Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com> wrote:
+Brad -
+I do not know, nor have I ever represented to you, what Mr. Epstein's
+availability is for any deposition. He is not my client, and I do not have
+access to either his or his attorneys' calendars. I am speaking purely from
+the perspective of my and Jeff Pagliuca's availability to participate in any
+such deposition as counsel for Ms. Maxwell.
+When I told you Ms. Maxwell's counsel's availability for depositions whe
+ve spoke on Friday, I made a point that we are NOT available on the 28
+for an in person deposition and that we would only be able to participate
+by telephone that date. We disagree with being the only party to
+participate by telephone. I am now repeating to you what I said then
+regarding our availability to participate in person as counsel for Ms.
+-Laura
+2
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 4 of 11
+From: Brad
+[mailto:brad@pathtojustice.com]
+Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 5:30 PM
+To: Laura Menninger
+Cc: Sigrid McCawley; |
+G. Weinberg; gpoe@gpoelaw.com; Jeff
+Pagliuca; cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith
+Subject: Re: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Let me just jump in quickly. I can't tell by reading this email whether
+nederstand that cementin the apterse deprence or no admitte
+nderstand that vol
+in this case and we respectfully disagree. But that is an issue for
+another day.
+On Friday, as you say in the beginning of your email below, we
+worked through a deposition schedule for the remainder of the month
+id agreed on Mr. Epstein for the 28th - as the last available day o
+ur tight schedule for his depo. I relayed the schedule exactly as v
+lad discussed. I also relayed that you said you would probably atten
+›y phone (because Mr. Epstein will likely take the 5th anyway)
+Are you saying now that Mr. Epstein is available this Friday, the
+17th? If so, I will try to arrange my schedule to take it then. But to
+my knowledge we have not received that information from Mr.
+Epstein's attorney. If we can confirm that date now, then I will try to
+make that happen. If not, then we will take it on the 28th.
+Brad
+Sent from my iPhone
+On Jun 13, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Laura Menninger
+<Imenninger@hmflaw.com> wrote:
+Sigrid -
+I had a conversation with Brad last Friday afternoon
+regarding the scheduling of depositions. During that
+conversation, i stated that the only day remaining in June
+that we could even potentially participate in a deposition
+of Mr. Epstein before the end of discovery cut-off would
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 5 of 11
+be June 28t, however, I informed him we could only
+participate by phone on that date.
+Just so you are clear, we object to the deposition being
+held at all, given Mr. Epstein's stated intention to take the
+5t" Amendment as to all questions, our strongly held and
+legally supported position that such a non-party 5"*
+Amendment does not have any admissibility in this case
+the cost and expense of such a deposition in the U.S. Virgin
+deposition of Mr. Epstein during the 5 ½ months of
+discovery available in this case. Furthermore, including the
+umber of depositions that you have scheduled and
+ancelled at the last minute in this case, you have alread
+reached the allowable 10 depositions before Mr. Epstein's.
+If any deposition of Mr. Epstein is to occur by telephone,
+we believe all parties should participate by telephone. If it
+is to be in person, we are available on June 17 and June
+21.
+-Laura
+<image002.jpg>
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+Land
+_. P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission,
+and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is
+confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the
+intended recipient, or a person responsible for
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 239-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 6 of 11
+delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
+notified that you must not read this transmission and
+that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or
+use of any of the information contained in or attached
+to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you
+have received this transmission in error, please notify
+the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete
+the original transmission and its attachments without
+reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley [mailto:Smccawley@BSFLLP.com]
+Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 9:57 AM
+G. Weinberg; Laura Menninger;
+gpoe@gpoelaw.com
+cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith
+Co: Jeff Pagluca; brade bathtajustice CofFSigrid McCawley
+Subject: RE: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Hello Marty and Mr. Poe,
+Per the below - It is my understanding that Maxwell's
+counsel has confirmed with Mr.
+that they are
+available for the deposition of Mr. Epstein on Tuesday,
+June 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in the USVI (with Maxwell's
+counsel participating by phone).
+Per the below, we propose the island of St.
+as it is
+my understanding that this island is the closest island with
+an airport to Mr. Epstein's island. Kindly confirm the date
+and we will coordinate a location for the deposition
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+5
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16
+
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From:
+G. Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]
+Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 11:12 AM
+To: Laura Menninger; Sigrid McCawley
+Cc: Jeff Pagliuca; brad@pathtojustice.com;
+cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith
+owlmgw@att.net
+Subject: Re: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Sigrid, with everyone in agreement as to both the service
+and the location issues, I would request that you notify
+Judge Sweet that the portion of your motion addressing the
+deposition service issue as to Mr. Epstein has been
+resolved. I will forward any proposals on dates to the
+attorney or attorneys who will physically be present at the
+deposition so that they, Laura, and you can work agree on
+a schedule and location. Thanks, Marty
+From: Laura Menninger
+Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 10:55 AM
+G. Weinberg ; Sigrid McCawley
+Cc: Jeff Pagliuca ; brad@pathtojustice.com :
+cassellp@law.utah.edu ; Meredith
+Subject: Re: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+We do not oppose your agreement with respect to
+the location of Mr. Epstein's deposition.
+-Laura
+<image003.png>
+Laura A. Menninger
+and
+, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+6
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16
+
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail
+to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If
+ou have received this transmission in error, pleas
+otify the sender by telephone or return e-mail ar
+delete the original transmission and its attachments
+without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
+Date: Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley <smccawley@bsfllp.com>
+Cc: Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>, Jeff
+Pagliuca <jpagliuca@hmflaw.com>, Brad
+<brad@pathtojustice.com>, Paul Cassell
+<çassellp@law.utah.edu>, Meredith
+<mschultz@BSFLLP.com>,
+Weinberg
+cowlmgw@att.net>
+Subject: Re: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Hi Sigrid. Mr. Epstein is in agreement to proceed with a VI
+Thanks, Marty
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+7
+
+
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 9 of 11
+Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 5:45 PM
+Weinberg
+Cc: Imenninger@hmflaw.com ;
+mailto:jpagliuca@hmflaw.com ; brad@pathtoiustice.com ;
+mailto:cassellp@law.utah.edu; Meredith
+Subject: RE: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Hello Marty,
+Thank you for your response regarding our subpoena to
+Jeffrey Epstein. You have represented that Mr. Epstein will
+agree to accept service of the subpoena, "reserving his
+rights to contest the breadth of the subpoena and whether
+a deposition should be required at all given his articulated
+and principled intention to assert the Fifth Amendment in
+response to questions addressing the subject matter of the
+v. Maxwell lawsuit" if we can accommodate his
+request to have the deposition take place near Mr.
+Epstein's Virgin Island residence.
+We can agree on behalf of Ms. Guiffre to accommodate
+Mr. Epstein's location request, however, in an abundance
+of caution so that there is no misunderstanding, I have
+copied counsel for Ms. Maxwell for whom Mr. Epstein is in
+a joint defense agreement with, to confirm their
+agreement. If Ms. Maxwell's counsel does not agree to
+Mr. Epstein's deposition location request, then I will have
+to proceed with the Alternative Service Motion relating to
+Mr. Epstein that we have filed to have the Court confirm
+alternative service of Mr. Epstein in NY and the deposition
+in NY.
+If you have not already done so, I ask that you please
+confer with your joint defense counsel and confirm with us
+that both Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein are in agreement
+to proceed as you proposed with the deposition location in
+the Virgin Islands.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 239-1
+Filed 06/21/16 Page 10 of 11
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From:
+Weinberg [mailto:owlmgw@att.net]
+Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 12:11 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley;
+Weinberg
+Subject: SERVICE - Epstein Deposition
+Sigrid, I am authorized to accept service
+conditioned on the deposition being located near
+Mr. Epstein's Virgin Island residence which you
+indicated in your email of May 25 was acceptable
+to you, on a date and location (close to but not at
+the residence) that would be agreeable to all
+parties, and on Mr. Epstein's reservation of all
+rights to contest the breadth of the subpoena and
+whether a deposition should be required at all
+given his articulated and principled intention to
+assert the Fifth Amendment in response to
+questions addressing the subject matter of the
+v Maxwell lawsuit. Let me know if this
+resolves the service issue and if so a good time
+to discuss or exchange emails on dates and other
+specifics.
+Marty
+G. Weinberg, Esq.
+20 Park Plaza
+Suite 1000
+Boston,
+02116
+(617) 227-3700 - Office
+(617) 901-3472 - Cell
+====
+==:
+=====This
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 239-1 Filed 06/21/16 Page 11 of 11
+Electronic Message contains information from the
+Law Office of
+G. Weinberg, P.C., and may
+be privileged. The information is intended for the
+use of the addressee only. If you are not the
+addressee, please note that any disclosure,
+copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this
+message is prohibited.
+The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information
+intended only for the use of the named recipients) and may contain information
+that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney
+work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
+this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent
+responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notifled that any
+dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly
+prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communication
+n eror, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic
+message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v.1]
+The information contained in this electronic message is confidential information
+intended only for the use of the named recipients) and may contain information
+that, among other protections, is the subject of attorney-client privilege, attorney
+work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of
+this electronic message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent
+responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any
+dissemination. distribution, copying or other use of this communication is strictly
+prohibited and no privilege is waived. If you have received this communicatior
+n error. please immediately notify the sender by replying to this electronic
+message and then deleting this electronic message from your computer. [v. 1]
+10
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9dd298d3bf45de1022099cd8a119bf556aaab8d3bb1b18b0409fb84189f9193.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9dd298d3bf45de1022099cd8a119bf556aaab8d3bb1b18b0409fb84189f9193.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f29143e904cc8a44743b3466840ab7d4247e3a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9dd298d3bf45de1022099cd8a119bf556aaab8d3bb1b18b0409fb84189f9193.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -394,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9dd298d3bf45de1022099cd8a119bf556aaab8d3bb1b18b0409fb84189f9193",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 15,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f95841090927a0c5468ded1214f5e9c15732c16ce89512c0fa65d1115021b50d",
+  "output_sha256": "b5aeec6534c619b5dd1376edccf54a9cac3fa290dd452e9697ccf03480b37a4a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9f41aaf9db865a3bb9085d4fd9b7c47eee8af1b9790a115496c0a97570da5a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9f41aaf9db865a3bb9085d4fd9b7c47eee8af1b9790a115496c0a97570da5a9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..690f4015876cd14bb312fd3bc0ccd572f7bcfc7d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9f41aaf9db865a3bb9085d4fd9b7c47eee8af1b9790a115496c0a97570da5a9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 826
+Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-----X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+-----X
+DEFENDANT'S AMENDED SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO
+PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HAddon,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 826 Filed 04/03/17 Page 2 of 4
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+and
+PAGES 1-108
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 826 Filed 04/03/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: April 3, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10* Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+109
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 826 Filed 04/03/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on April 3, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Amended
+Specific Objections to Plaintiff's Designation of Deposition Testimony via email
+on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtoiustice.com
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+Is/ Nicole
+Nicole |
+110
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9f41aaf9db865a3bb9085d4fd9b7c47eee8af1b9790a115496c0a97570da5a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9f41aaf9db865a3bb9085d4fd9b7c47eee8af1b9790a115496c0a97570da5a9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e49a05362e64f2adc44ac493d8c7722a5015d4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/f9f41aaf9db865a3bb9085d4fd9b7c47eee8af1b9790a115496c0a97570da5a9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "f9f41aaf9db865a3bb9085d4fd9b7c47eee8af1b9790a115496c0a97570da5a9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5cfc6f9fbd2f1daa91553fb13c4fdce81b97762ba0a8b9b0970866bd1d84755b",
+  "output_sha256": "6a48b8b7bfa081e42797f494d46beef1149b3d5140a65dfff9d3bd68d7894203",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa17d932d55823f4d8ff0eb8e1c28c4608e0a956acfd89952d1f225e98798c0d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa17d932d55823f4d8ff0eb8e1c28c4608e0a956acfd89952d1f225e98798c0d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0554be4dde37780bc55f101bbb03901637639a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa17d932d55823f4d8ff0eb8e1c28c4608e0a956acfd89952d1f225e98798c0d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 879-5 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa17d932d55823f4d8ff0eb8e1c28c4608e0a956acfd89952d1f225e98798c0d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa17d932d55823f4d8ff0eb8e1c28c4608e0a956acfd89952d1f225e98798c0d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2732fd9c4ce86c021b79748ebb83b6e30a634fb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa17d932d55823f4d8ff0eb8e1c28c4608e0a956acfd89952d1f225e98798c0d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fa17d932d55823f4d8ff0eb8e1c28c4608e0a956acfd89952d1f225e98798c0d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "adc6c0914adba6dd123c6c5b742f44febda1a0e6efb18b094b30dda8f08c77d4",
+  "output_sha256": "1b3dec62a884ef96b33583c0820a02d2c33f842a498f1c05575dafd4a7b4170e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa3a4fc681f42524bb26d4eed36f46f23235f1341c207f77c30e3ae10a6e98eb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa3a4fc681f42524bb26d4eed36f46f23235f1341c207f77c30e3ae10a6e98eb.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd9a86354a877b9853154a139604d6c76f793a4c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa3a4fc681f42524bb26d4eed36f46f23235f1341c207f77c30e3ae10a6e98eb.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+CG
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 96
+Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 1
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+mcohen@)cohengresser.com
+ceverdell@cohengresser.com
+December 8, 2020
+TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
+VIA EMAIL (SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2(B)
+OF JUDGE NATHAN'S INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES IN CRIMINAL CASES)
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, and pursuant to the Court's order (Dkt. 89),
+we respectfully submit under seal two versions of the Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in
+Support of Her Renewed Motion for Bail (the "Motion") and accompanying exhibits: an
+unredacted original to be kept under seal and a version for public filing with proposed narrowly
+tailored redactions. The proposed redactions are based on the following: (1) privacy concerns, as
+articulated in our letters of November 25, 2020 (Dkt. 86) and November 30, 2020 (Dkt. 87); and
+(2) the Motion's reference to, and discussion of, Confidential Information, including financial
+documents and other materials produced in discovery and governed by paragraph 15 of the
+Protective Order (Dkt. 36).
+Please contact us with any questions. Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Christian R. Everdell
+Mark S.
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue. 21st Floor
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+cc: All counsel of record (via email)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa3a4fc681f42524bb26d4eed36f46f23235f1341c207f77c30e3ae10a6e98eb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa3a4fc681f42524bb26d4eed36f46f23235f1341c207f77c30e3ae10a6e98eb.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c21ca4caec3a88b069b51fa99d4a89cb6bf3fd7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa3a4fc681f42524bb26d4eed36f46f23235f1341c207f77c30e3ae10a6e98eb.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fa3a4fc681f42524bb26d4eed36f46f23235f1341c207f77c30e3ae10a6e98eb",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4af95faf2583113df5fb2719aa3b1e960f22795803b436629c4f847b2b2b971c",
+  "output_sha256": "6130176cd9c663d8ad0eaedfbd4bb9cdaad5bc89b39d8be549b146bbf1b8eb57",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa5018f27cb767da0bd821c7def1c27a54ff16c12179c24f78309bda3b1e4307.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa5018f27cb767da0bd821c7def1c27a54ff16c12179c24f78309bda3b1e4307.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4d2c362ce34bb1585c5582ea4602e62f430a2e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa5018f27cb767da0bd821c7def1c27a54ff16c12179c24f78309bda3b1e4307.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 772
+Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+:
+------X
+Defendant's Response In Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Preclude
+Defendant From Calling Plaintiff's Attorneys As Witnesses At Trial
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10 Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+L, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 772 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 4
+PAGES 1-10
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 772 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: March 23, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 772 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 23, 2017, I electronically served this Defendant's Response In Opposition
+To Plaintiff's Motion In Limine to Preclude Defendant From Calling Plaintiff's Attorneys As
+Witnesses At Trial via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+TARTE
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+12
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa5018f27cb767da0bd821c7def1c27a54ff16c12179c24f78309bda3b1e4307.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa5018f27cb767da0bd821c7def1c27a54ff16c12179c24f78309bda3b1e4307.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5ef9ad45b580c3ab7ff34f39bf0cd77e64daf9ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa5018f27cb767da0bd821c7def1c27a54ff16c12179c24f78309bda3b1e4307.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fa5018f27cb767da0bd821c7def1c27a54ff16c12179c24f78309bda3b1e4307",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e45483e98ff95d6d41ccb76b955ca7a3585b8605cfabee7a2e702a669b367dc7",
+  "output_sha256": "ddd98cddc6c430fa785d3e51372611f6a7533915d777f6cb4ecf15dda9709ee6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa6fc2047e6d98bf0f42ad382b67951990c98d965c90f3e063c3ee90045eeb2c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa6fc2047e6d98bf0f42ad382b67951990c98d965c90f3e063c3ee90045eeb2c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f1a2bbc72d484920691d2d2b594a7ba5db08843
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa6fc2047e6d98bf0f42ad382b67951990c98d965c90f3e063c3ee90045eeb2c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 474
+Filed 11/19/21 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:_
+DATE FILED: 11/19/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter motion dated November 18, 2021.
+That motion has been filed temporarily under seal to allow the parties the opportunity to propose
+limited redactions. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to file a response on or before November
+20, 2021. The parties are FURTHER ORDERED to file any proposed redactions to the motion
+papers on the public docket on or before November 22, 2021, justifying any requested redactions
+by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
+Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 19, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alis Nator
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa6fc2047e6d98bf0f42ad382b67951990c98d965c90f3e063c3ee90045eeb2c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa6fc2047e6d98bf0f42ad382b67951990c98d965c90f3e063c3ee90045eeb2c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..941d3b7d989fc7fb23a41cf8bb1e9af44633a57a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa6fc2047e6d98bf0f42ad382b67951990c98d965c90f3e063c3ee90045eeb2c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fa6fc2047e6d98bf0f42ad382b67951990c98d965c90f3e063c3ee90045eeb2c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c75da16ccc552434570de67e26b9feb043f8547aa6ecc998fbc4a7cd0768abbc",
+  "output_sha256": "333785b6295d11940103d3b184ec8f25601b2e05891b9a42f6972b91889366f6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa82d41ca50eb23a33b92801fa50f9cfebf325f5072f3b418fb26badde19217f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa82d41ca50eb23a33b92801fa50f9cfebf325f5072f3b418fb26badde19217f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1f1a7278e82eb4f3f3f76e862d7c97eba4153b86
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa82d41ca50eb23a33b92801fa50f9cfebf325f5072f3b418fb26badde19217f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 144
+Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 4
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+REDACTED DECLARATION OF SIGRID S. McCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
+DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL
+I, Sigrid S. McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+1.
+I am a partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's September 29, 2015
+Order granting my Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
+Defendant To Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal.
+3.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is a true and correct copy of |
+4.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, are true and correct copies of |
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 144 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 4
+5.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, is a true and correct copy of the Palm Beach police
+report.
+6.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, are true and correct copies of
+7.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, is a true and correct copy of
+8.
+Attached hereto as Composite Exhibit 6, are true and correct copies
+9.
+Attached hereto as Exhibit 7, is a true and correct copy
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 144
+Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 4
+Dated: May 5, 2016.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite
+1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+Ellen Brockman
+Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
+575 Lexington Ave
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 446-2300
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 144 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 5, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document
+with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing document
+is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices of
+Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Paliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+&
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa82d41ca50eb23a33b92801fa50f9cfebf325f5072f3b418fb26badde19217f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa82d41ca50eb23a33b92801fa50f9cfebf325f5072f3b418fb26badde19217f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca916bdcec9e7f61f54c2d86eaa8d04de487b225
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fa82d41ca50eb23a33b92801fa50f9cfebf325f5072f3b418fb26badde19217f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fa82d41ca50eb23a33b92801fa50f9cfebf325f5072f3b418fb26badde19217f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1d32c327130bfb60f2c315cd37bea8a8fccbfb9c70a64b758def50ebf75ba6b5",
+  "output_sha256": "8000c107e95730f8e13b4af93b7d3bcfa45e98fb1327f5b6e8f51d803585dbbf",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/faf4cf0b473a3dfbdaf1d96650e2c444fc4152606d8c01d0d44e48555ebaecd2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/faf4cf0b473a3dfbdaf1d96650e2c444fc4152606d8c01d0d44e48555ebaecd2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..364dbb928124faa897bbf9e6cb531c2aa95593af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/faf4cf0b473a3dfbdaf1d96650e2c444fc4152606d8c01d0d44e48555ebaecd2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 895-2 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/faf4cf0b473a3dfbdaf1d96650e2c444fc4152606d8c01d0d44e48555ebaecd2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/faf4cf0b473a3dfbdaf1d96650e2c444fc4152606d8c01d0d44e48555ebaecd2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f78fc5f6db54d767bdd39ff528a2ba2a11dcfc10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/faf4cf0b473a3dfbdaf1d96650e2c444fc4152606d8c01d0d44e48555ebaecd2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "faf4cf0b473a3dfbdaf1d96650e2c444fc4152606d8c01d0d44e48555ebaecd2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7a01f4f7d520111810cf8d6ba0a13daf89508e64c593166b95e4f6eaac5c03bd",
+  "output_sha256": "3d3ffc523ab9980c59339fa01d5927ba25774106ed89a2bbf653f28f3a822a3d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb04b5ae9d0ba5d918fdf8b9e4127c30ec41a9addc3a0f81888c7799fd10e90d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb04b5ae9d0ba5d918fdf8b9e4127c30ec41a9addc3a0f81888c7799fd10e90d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10886bb24228af3abbd0befb6ff6fd112e5515a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb04b5ae9d0ba5d918fdf8b9e4127c30ec41a9addc3a0f81888c7799fd10e90d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1506 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-9
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 27
+
+
+
+
+THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH.
+IN RE:
+PALM BEACH INVESTIGATION.
+SWORN STATEMENT OF JUAN P.
+ALESSI
+Monday, November 21, 2005
+12:25 p.m. - 1:05 p.m.
+401 N. Dixie Highway
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+ist.
+ORIGINAL
+Reported By:
+Susan Shelling, RPR
+Notary Public, State of Florida
+Consor & Associates Reporting and Transcription
+Phone - 561.835.9738
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000529
+GIUFFRE000598
+
+
+
+Page 2
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+APPEARANCES:
+On behalf of the State:
+DALIAH H. WEISS, Esquire
+ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY
+Dixie Highway
+west Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+561.355.7100
+On behalf of the Witness:
+DONNIE MURRELL, Esquire
+L.D. MURRELL, P.A.
+400 Executive Center Drive
+Suite 201
+West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
+561.686.2700
+ALSO PRESENT:
+DETECTIVE JOE RECAREY
+Palm Beach Police Department
+-
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000530
+GIUFFRE000599
+
+
+
+Page 3
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+21
+25
+INDEX
+WITNESS:
+JOAN P. ALESSI
+EXAMINATION BY DET. RECAREY
+-
+-
+NO
+EXHIBITS MARKED
+---
+PAGE:
+4
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000531
+GIUFFRE000600
+
+
+
+Page 4
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+Sworn
+statement taken before Susan
+Shelling, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
+Public in and for the State of Florida at large, in the
+above cause.
+- - -
+Thereupon,
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21.
+22
+23
+24
+25
+JUAN P. ALESSI,
+having been first duly
+sworn or affirmed, was examined
+9 and stated as follows:
+MR. MURRELL: I just want to repeat that
+we're here under the State investigative subpoena
+that was served on Mr. Alessi, although it was
+dated for, I believe, Wednesday or something.
+This is Monday the 21st, and we are here by
+agreement.
+EXAMINATION
+BY DET. RECAREY:
+l. Mr. Alessi, I'm Detective Joe Recarey with
+the Palm Beach P.D. As I explained to you on the
+telephone, I am conducting an investigation on a former
+employer of yours.
+I just spoke with your wife and she told me
+you guys worked for Mr. Epstein for eight years?
+A.
+Yes, she did work for eight years. I
+worked longer. I was there before my wife came.
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000532
+GIUFFRE000601
+
+
+
+Page 5
+1
+Before your wife came.
+2
+A.
+I started
+full-time
+with him on January 1,
+3
+1991, and we both left December 31, 2002. So I worked
+4
+eleven years exactly. Prior to that, prior to working
+5
+full-time for him, I worked part-time for him, on-and-off
+6 basis.
+7
+What were your responsibilities?
+8
+A.
+In the full-time basis, I started as a
+9 houseman, and I became a major domo and
+and
+10
+everything else, driver, and did everything. We both did
+11
+all the chores in the house, but I was in charge of the
+12
+house. I was above my wife and above the cleaning crew,
+13
+the gardners, pool people. So I was house manager, major
+14
+domo.
+15
+You would have been the go-to guy for the
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+house?
+A.
+Yes. And the one who would get the blame.
+We are talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
+A.
+A.
+Of course.
+Do you remember the address of the house?
+558 El Brillo.
+e.
+A.
+Was it in the beginning of the street --
+At the end of the street, on the left-hand
+side.
+0.
+We're talking about the same house.
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000533
+GIUFFRE000602
+
+
+
+Page 6
+1
+A.
+Yeah.
+2
+Your wife said the same number you did.
+3
+A.
+558?
+358? 5583
+It was 358.
+5
+A.
+We left three years ago.
+And I understand it's been some time since
+6
+Q.
+7
+then. So the questions I'm going to ask you basically
+8
+is:
+During your time, did you deal directly with
+9 MI. Epstein?
+10
+A.
+Yes. And her -- and her - girlfriend,
+11
+manager. She was the manager of all the households,
+12
+because he has homes all over the world.
+13
+Right.
+14
+A. So we have -- she was my boss, and I deal
+15
+directly with her.
+16
+e.
+Who was --
+17
+A.
+Blaine Maxwell.
+18
+R.
+Ms. Maxwell, that's his girlfriend,
+19
+correct?
+20
+A.
+Um-hum.
+21
+During the eleven years, he would come
+22
+down,
+she would inform you that they were coming down?
+23
+A.
+Right.
+24
+Make arrangements to have the house ready?
+25
+A.
+Right.
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000534
+GIUFFRE000603
+
+
+
+Page 7
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21.
+22
+23
+24
+25
+During
+the time that he was here, you
+prepared the house, did all the chores.
+Did you do any of the cleaning?
+A.
+Sometimes.
+Many times. I did -- last two
+or three years
+the work
+was so much that we have to
+hire -- we hire a clean-up crew that they came twice a
+week or once
+week, then it was twice a week. Depends
+upon
+his schedule, because he did not allow anybody at
+the house except us when he was in town.
+So when he was
+in town, it was just us doing the cleaning and the
+cooking, the driving, shopping, everything else.
+Q. Did you stay on property in the guest
+house?
+A. Yes and no. We had an apartment right
+across the bridge. We had an apartment in Tower 1515 on
+Flagler, and we had an apartment at the house.
+Q. Why would you stay at the house, then?
+A. We stay at the house mostly when he was
+there. When he was not in town, we went home. We went
+to our apartment. When he was there, it was -- the job
+was just too much to go home 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock and
+come back 5 o'clock in the morning. We would just stay
+and sleep and get up and work.
+Q.
+of guests at the house?
+When he was in town, did he receive a lot
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000535
+GIUFFRE000604
+
+
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 27
+Page 8
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+A.
+Yes.
+Many, many, many guests. It was
+never with no guests.
+Q. Did he have assistants with him?
+A.
+Assistants? At the last year he had an
+assistant just for him.
+They would travel with him all
+the time.
+At the last -- in the last two years of my
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+stay there, he also have a chef, a gourmet chef that he
+would travel with him.
+That's it.
+Do you remember the chef's name?
+A.
+know is Adam
+New York.
+There were quite a few. The last one I
+P-E-R-R-Y, I think. And he was from
+And there was another !
+chef, Didier
+(phonetic); I don't know his last name.
+And there was another English chef. But
+they went quickly.
+2. They would come and go, come and go.
+What about the assistant that was his
+19 personal assistant that would fly with him?
+A. Annie Taylor. It was an English girl that
+would travel with him a lot, and became the personal
+assistant. But most of the time it was Ms. Maxwell that
+traveled with him all the time.
+She was basically like his --
+A.
+Girlfriend, whatever it was.
+Boss,
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000536
+GIUFFRE000605
+
+
+
+Page 9
+1
+girlfriend. She was our immediate superior.
+2
+Q. Did he have girls come over to give
+massages?
+4
+A.
+Yes.
+5
+How many massages would he have in a day?
+6
+A.
+Sometimes one, sometimes two, three.
+7
+Was it the same girl that would cone back
+8
+to do the massages?
+9
+A.
+Yeah, yeah. Not the same girl - I mean
+10 during eleven years, I probably saw a hundred, two
+11 hundred different massage therapists.
+12
+e. Did they seem young to you?
+13
+A. No, sir. Mostly no. We saw one or two
+14. young ones in the last year. Before that, it was all
+15
+adults.
+16
+17
+18
+19
+During your last year when you were working
+with him, what do you mean that they looked young? Did
+they look like they were still in high school?
+A. I remember one girl was young. We never
+asked how old she was. It was not in my job.
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+0.
+Right. I understand.
+A.
+But I imagine she was 16, 17. In my
+judgment, she was 16, 17.
+Where would these massages take place?
+A. All the time it was in his room. Sometimes
+1. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000537
+GIUFFRE000606
+
+
+
+Page 10
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+it was in the balcony of his quarters. His room has a
+wraparound balcony facing the pool. So the massages were
+in the balcony outside in the sun, or inside in his
+bathroom or her bathroom.
+Would you set up the room for the massages?
+A.
+Many times. Yes, he will tell me, Set up
+the room inside my bathroom or in the bedroom or in
+Elaine's bathroom, or outside on the balcony. And I
+would go and set up or my wife would go and set up the
+table.
+We had a table in every room of the house,
+the massage tables, for the different guests. Because
+not only he got massages, all the other guests got
+massages too. So we have a table -- massage table in
+basically every room, guest room.
+The girls that would come over to do
+massages, they would massage him first or massage guests?
+A. Different times. There were -- mostly they
+was his massage. Mostly he would get massages.
+l. Would Ms. Maxwell be in the room with him
+while he was getting the massage?
+A.
+We don't know. Apparently we saw her going
+upstairs, because it was
+-- when they went upstairs, they
+closed -- his quarters, it had a double door, so it was a
+door on top of the stairs -- I don't know if you've been
+1. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000538
+GIUFFRE000607
+
+
+
+Page 11
+1
+in the house
+and then there's another door going into
+2 his room.
+So it
+was
+long corridor. So everything was
+3 closed and nobody saw
+anything.
+4
+Q.
+Would you clean up after?
+5
+A.
+Once in a
+while, yes, I did. Most of the
+6 times I did. I did the cleanup.
+7
+Q.
+Did it appear as if there was going to be
+8
+more than
+one massage going on in the room?
+9
+A.
+More than
+one massage? I don't know.
+It
+10
+was massages. There was massages, because it was a hot
+11
+12
+oil, and it was -- you know this vibrator, the neck
+vibrators with the long handles. And towels, a lot of
+13
+towels. We used a lot of towels in the house. Used like
+14
+maybe 40, 50 towels a day, because every time he go in
+15
+into the pool, it was two or three towels. Everything
+16 had to be cleaned up. I went most of the time to pick up
+17 the room and get it ready.
+18
+Did it ever appear to you that more went on
+19
+in the room other than a massage?
+20
+A.
+I just imagine.
+I never saw anything.
+But
+21
+22
+_I imagine there was more than -- I never saw anything
+because it was closed doors. It was never done outside.
+23
+24
+25
+R.
+Based on the cleanup?
+A.
+Based
+on the cleanup -- at the end, I
+cannot say there was.
+At the end, it was a few times
+1. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000539
+GIUFFRE000608
+
+
+
+Page 12
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+that the bed was undone. You know, we make the beds
+three or four times a day. And sometimes we went to
+clean up the massage to put it back, the massage table,
+to pick up the towels, but the bed was undone again. So
+either he took a nap
+or he went for a nap, I don't know.
+e.
+A.
+Or something else occurred?
+Or something else. I cannot.
+Did the girls, would they bring their own
+9 stuff or they would use his stuff?
+A.
+No. We had everything. We had gallons of
+stuff, different stuff.
+Different massage oils?
+A.
+e.
+A.
+Different, all kinds.
+Different massagers?
+Different stuff.
+They would buy all over the world different
+types of -- for different --
+Did any of these massagers look like sex
+toys?
+A.
+At the end, at the last year that we were
+there they had like sex toys, some of them. I can say
+maybe three or four occasions that I saw in the sink,
+they were left out on the sink, and just --
+Where would he keep these massagers?
+A.
+When I was there, we keep all the stuff in
+1. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000540
+GIUFFRE000609
+
+
+
+Page 13
+1
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+a basket inside Ms. Maxwell's closet. It was a big
+basket,
+about this round (indicating), with a cover on
+it.
+And we used to pick up from the towel and just dump
+it in there.
+That's it.
+That's the standard we went
+through.
+0.
+What sink would you find those massagers
+in?
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+11
+15
+16
+17
+18
+20
+22
+23
+24
+A. Mostly in his sink, in his bathroom sink.
+e. His bathroom sink?
+Was Ms. Maxwell still his girlfriend at
+that time?
+A.
+e.
+•. yeah.
+Still his girlfriend that you know of right
+now?
+A.
+Yeah. We left, she was still his
+girlfriend. I don't know now, but she was still there.
+e. Why did you leave at the end?
+A. It was a hard job. It was an incredible
+19 hard job. So demanding. Hours were terrible, from
+5 o'clock in the morning to 10 o'clock at night.
+21 Constantly on your feet.
+I got very sick. My health went down the
+drain. I was diagnosed with cancer, polycythemia, a kind
+of blood cancer, and we had to leave. It was just too
+25
+much for me.
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000541
+GIUFFRE000610
+
+
+
+Page 14
+1
+2
+3
+Sounds like a lot.
+Yeah. For me and my wife, we both left.
+Q. It was very demanding when he was here in
+4
+town?
+5
+A.
+It was
+terrible. Bad job. Pay was good,
+but we had enough.
+7
+I know you guys had a falling out a couple
+8
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+of years
+ago; I guess you weren't working with him
+9 anymore. This would have been in 2003. You guys had a
+10 falling out, remember?
+A.
+Yeah, we settled that.
+e.
+That was settled?
+A.
+That was settled with him between us.
+e.
+Was that --
+A. It was an amicable -- it was an agreement,
+mutual agreement. It was a mistake on my part.
+e. Are there any questions you have of me?
+A. No. I told you the truth.
+We just imagined things that could have
+happened. I used to talk to my wife all day, working and
+under that environment. But we didn't know for sure what
+was going on.
+We never heard anything. We never heard a
+complaint, or a girl crying.
+Q.
+Would these massage girls, especially
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000542
+GIUFFRE000611
+
+
+
+Page 15
+1
+towards the end, would they come alone or would they come
+2
+with other people?
+3
+4
+A.
+Mostly they would come alone.
+It was one
+girl, one of the young girls, the one I can't think of
+5
+it, she
+would bring
+somebody else.
+She'd bring
+other
+6
+girls. But I didn't even know the names.
+7
+Q. All of them would go downstairs?
+A.
+Yes.
+9
+10
+e. Or would one stay downstairs?
+A. Most of the times when that girl came, it
+11
+was at night. So after dinner -- after dinner, they went
+12
+to the movies. And by the time they went to the movies,
+13
+we clean up right away and tried to get out of there.
+14
+And that was about 8, 9 o'clock at night.
+15
+After, when they come back, I don't know
+16
+what happened. Our quarters were a different -- I don't
+17
+know if you've been in the house, but our quarters were
+18 separate.
+19
+20
+It's separate.
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A.
+Separate. Before - that building is new.
+They build the building in 2001.
+The guest quarters?
+A.
+Yeah, the guest quarters.
+Before, we had an apartment upstairs.
+They have the laundry and a little office
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000543
+GIUFFRE000612
+
+
+
+Page 16
+1
+and the bedroom?
+2
+A.
+Yes. That was 2001. Before that, we had
+3
+4
+an apartment upstairs in their house, in the main house.
+Q.
+In the little rooms upstairs across from
+5
+his
+bedroom?
+6
+A.
+Right.
+7
+Was there ever any photographs that you can
+8
+recall around the house?
+A.
+Girls, girls' photographs and guests'
+10 photographs, yes.
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+Were they dressed or were they naked?
+A.
+Most of them were dressed. It was a lot of
+entertainment in the pool, around the pool area. But
+most of them were dressed.
+When was the last time you spoke with
+16
+Mr. Epstein?
+17
+18
+19
+20
+A.
+The last time I spoke with Mr. Epstein was
+about a week ago, when you left me the card. I got
+scared because of that fallout that we had, and I thought
+it was a consequence of that. And I called and says,
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Jeffrey, what's going on, what's happening? Because I
+thought it was an investigation against me on his part.
+R.
+A.
+I'm sorry if I gave you that impression.
+That's why I called him. That's the only
+reason that I called.
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000544
+GIUFFRE000613
+
+
+
+Page 17
+1
+Before I even spoke to you.
+2
+Just when you found the card?
+3
+A.
+When I find the card, I get scared. I
+4 said, what's going on now? Why are you bothering me now
+5 in my house?
+6
+That's why I called him.
+7
+He said, John, there is an investigation
+8
+going
+on.
+I have nothing to talk to you. That's it.
+9
+I said, Okay.
+10
+He didn't give you any information as to --
+11
+A. No, not a word.
+12
+e. Has anybody else contacted you from
+13 Mr. Epstein or his organization, his assistants, his
+14
+attorney?
+15
+A. No, no, no.
+16
+2. Anyone that works for his attorney?
+17
+A. For his attorney? Yes. For his attorney,
+18 the present attorney? Yes. That was an investigator
+19 that it was investigated on his side, I can't remember
+20
+his name, but I understand it was from Roy Black's
+21
+office. That was his attorney. And he - this
+22
+investigator basically asked me the same questions,
+23
+exactly the same questions: What did I know, what did I
+24
+know.
+25
+When did this happen?
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000545
+GIUFFRE000614
+
+
+
+Page 18
+1
+A.
+This happened about ten days ago -- about a
+2
+week ago, ten days ago. I'm not sure what date.
+Was his investigator's name --
+4
+A. It's the date after I contacted you.
+5
+-- Paul, first name Paul?
+6
+A.
+7
+Paul, Paul, yes.
+You have the last name?
+8
+9
+10
+No.
+A.
+He asked me exactly the same questions.
+Did he offer you any money?
+11
+A.
+Absolutely not. I would not take it.
+12
+e.
+Did he tell you not to speak to me?
+13
+A. No. He says -- no, he toid me not to speak
+14 to you. He didn't say that to me. He says, It's your
+15
+choice. You make that decision.
+16
+And he says, If you hire a lawyer, you make
+17 that decision.
+18
+19
+20
+21-
+22
+And we feel that was important for us. I
+don't want to be involved with this thing. I'm out of
+the job three years ago, and that's why we hired
+Mr. Murrel1. He suggested that.
+Did he ask you if anybody else has been
+23
+24
+25
+contacted?
+A.
+No.
+Q.
+Did he tell you that to call him back after
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000546
+GIUFFRE000615
+
+
+
+Page 19
+1
+our meeting?
+2
+A.
+No, no.
+3
+Q.
+Were you to have any contact with him at
+4
+any time after our meeting?
+5
+A.
+If I will have a contact? I have no reason
+6
+for it. I have no reason to call Jeffrey or anybody
+7
+else. This is over, I hope.
+8
+Well, Mr. Alessi, this is basically an
+9
+ongoing investigation, so obviously anything that we
+10 discuss hopefully will stay between us. Because it is
+11 still ongoing, I wouldn't want this out until the
+12
+13
+14
+investigation is complete.
+A.
+It's not going anywhere. Even my kids
+don't know it.
+15
+He contacted you after you called
+16
+17
+Mr. Epstein?
+A.
+Yes.
+18
+When I call him and I said, Jeffrey, what's
+19 going on?
+20
+He said, John, I don't know what's going
+21
+on. There's an investigation against me.
+22
+23
+24
+25
+So then I said, Whew, thank God. I don't
+know what's happening.
+And then he says, I have an investigator
+that is investigating, the same thing the police
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000547
+GIUFFRE000616
+
+
+
+Page 20
+1
+department is doing. He's going to contact you.
+2
+And that was the end of it.
+3
+I think his name was Paul. I only met him
+4
+for
+about fifteen minutes, ten minutes.
+5
+Q. You met at your house?
+6
+A. No, no. I don't want him at my house.
+We
+7
+met at Carrabas
+restaurant, but it was not open,
+we
+8
+met outside Carrabas.
+It took about ten minutes.
+9
+Q. Going back to the items that were found in
+10
+the sink, can you describe any of those massagers?
+11
+I only saw two things: It was a big,
+12
+13
+big -- I think a vibrator. Big (indicating). And it was
+a long -- I hate to -- I'm sorry. It was a long dick, I
+14
+think. Rubber thing. And there was a thing you used it
+15
+in the back, the vibrator in the back.
+16
+0. What color?
+17
+A. We always had those. Not those toys.
+18
+19
+20
+21
+Vibrators, we have different types, one for the neck, one
+for the back. You know the one that has a battery and
+they move, with balls on it, vibrator. That's it.
+That's what I find there, I never find anything else.
+22
+Those two things.
+23
+24
+25
+Do you remember any names of the girls that
+might have come over for massages?
+A.
+Yes. I remember some of them. From the
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000548
+GIUFFRE000617
+
+
+
+Page 21
+1
+beginning? From the end?
+2
+As many as you can remember.
+3
+A.
+As many as I can remember.
+4
+Q. I know it's been
+while.
+5
+A. It was Jody. It was Donna. And it was --
+6
+it was Virginia. It was -- how many? Virginia, Lana.
+7
+It was also a young girl, but she was not a
+8
+massage therapist. She came to the house as
+friend, I
+9 think. I don't think she was a massage therapist. Her
+10 name was -- as a matter of fact, she's in a soap opera
+11 now, she's a star. Just give me a minute.
+12
+Nadya Jorlin, J-O-R-I-I-N.
+13
+There also were men masseuses.
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+There were men too?
+A.
+There were men. A few. Not that many. A
+few. I can't remember.
+Allison. There was an Allison. There was
+a Dina. I think every name -- girls' names. In
+eleven years, I cannot remember.
+e. That's fine.
+Ar There were girls coming and going. There
+22
+were girls traveling with him as massage therapists.
+23
+They would travel with him all over the world, because he
+24
+was in the plane, he got massages on the plane,
+25
+because -- I know because I used to supply the oils and
+1. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000549
+GIUFFRE000618
+
+
+
+Page 22
+1
+the towels for the plane.
+2
+Q.
+Would you clean his plane too?
+3
+A.
+No, no.
+4
+Did you ever travel with him anywhere?
+5
+A.
+No, no.
+6
+When he went to New York or Arizona or his
+7
+private island?
+8
+A.
+I've been on his island. I've been as a
+9 guest, as a vacation. We just took vacations, and I went
+10 to his island in the Caribbean. And I've been in New
+11 Mexico. I've been at his house in London. But not as a
+12
+13
+worker, just vacation.
+As a vacation?
+14
+A.
+Uh-huh.
+15
+We went to New Mexico for -- it was kind of
+16
+a symposium about how to clean homes. It was this lady
+17
+who make -- teach all the house people, housemen, and
+18 they invited us to Santa Fe, New Mexico, to teach us how
+19 to clean homes. That was kind of stupid.
+20
+How he wanted it to be cleaned?
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A.
+-Yes. We didn't get that much.
+Can you think of anything that I haven't
+asked you that might be relevant to this?
+A.
+I can't think of anything. Basically it's
+the same questions that the other investigator asked me.
+1. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000550
+GIUFFRE000619
+
+
+
+Page 23
+1
+Exactly the same.
+2
+I wish I could give you more names.
+3
+Allison --
+4
+Q. I'm not going to ask you to do that because
+5 I know it's been a long time. I can't think of stuff I
+6 did last week.
+7
+A. It's been a long time.
+8
+Q. If by any chance you are contacted again by
+9 his investigator again for any more questions or anything
+10 or any packages that he may deliver to you --
+11
+A.
+They have to go to Mr. Murrell.
+12
+e.
+I was going to say, have him contact your
+13
+attorney.
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. MURRELL: Packages? Are we expecting a
+delivery of something?
+DET. RECAREY: No. I'm just saying -
+MR. MURRELI: Okay. Just making sure there
+wasn't something I didn't know about.
+DET. RECAREY: I.e., gifts, et cetera.
+That kind of thing.
+THE WITNESS: No.
+DET. RECAREY: I would appreciate a phone
+call just to give me a heads up.
+THE WITNESS: I do not intend to contact
+him at all.
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000551
+GIUFFRE000620
+
+
+
+Page 24
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+concluded at 1:05
+DET. RECAREY: Okay. I appreciate it.
+And that's it.
+(Thereupon, the sworn statement
+was
+p.m.)
+- - -
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000552
+GIUFFRE000621
+
+
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 26 of 27
+Page 25
+1
+2
+THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
+COUNTY OF PALM BEACH.
+)
+4
+5
+6
+7
+I, the undersigned authority, certify that Juan
+P. Alessi personally appeared before me and was duly
+sworn.
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+WITNESS my hand and official seal this 5th day
+of December, 2005.
+Notary Public - State of Florida
+My Commission No. DD 098441
+My Commission expires 3/7/2006
+•- # 10096441
+Expires Murch 7, 200G
+Bonded Thre
+adent Bonding Ca, Inc.
+J. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000553
+GIUFFRE000622
+
+
+
+Page 26
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+CERTIFICATE
+The State Of Florida,
+County Of Palm Beach.
+}
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Susan Shelling, Registered Professional
+Reporter and Notary Public
+in and for the State of
+Florida at Large, do hereby certify that Juan P. Alessi
+was by me first duly sworn to testify the whole truth;
+that I was authorized to and did report said sworn
+statement in stenotype; and that the foregoing pages,
+numbered from 1 to 24, inclusive, are a true and correct
+transcription of my shorthand notes of said sworn
+statement.
+I further certify that said sworn statement
+was taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth and
+that the taking of said sworn statement was commenced and
+completed as hereinabove set out.
+I further certify that I am not an attorney or
+counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or
+employee of any attorney or counsel of party connected
+with the action, nor am I financially interested in the
+The foregoing certification of this transcript
+does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any
+means unless under the direct control and/or direction of
+the certifying reporter.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOE,
+Shave hepeunto
+set my hand
+and seal
+this 5th day of Docember, 2007
+Susan shafling/ Notary/ Pubiie
+In and for the State of Florid
+My Commission Expires 3/112006
+1. CONSOR & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & TRANSCRIPTION
+NON PARTY (VR) 000554
+GIUFFRE000623
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb04b5ae9d0ba5d918fdf8b9e4127c30ec41a9addc3a0f81888c7799fd10e90d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb04b5ae9d0ba5d918fdf8b9e4127c30ec41a9addc3a0f81888c7799fd10e90d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2636bc77dc3dcfc4a6c68f971a77c25f774fa95f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb04b5ae9d0ba5d918fdf8b9e4127c30ec41a9addc3a0f81888c7799fd10e90d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2325,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fb04b5ae9d0ba5d918fdf8b9e4127c30ec41a9addc3a0f81888c7799fd10e90d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 53,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "715250b13674f32abe78f231617a0f88fab5100aad743fbc62d4ec63dca3dde2",
+  "output_sha256": "35bc283056b24c94f5706a3eb2cfba1a7fc5c6673a99e0b30bf1523294110097",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb09681134818450b5adc910817317780450709b1788249a05938001ddd62370.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb09681134818450b5adc910817317780450709b1788249a05938001ddd62370.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd0b4701d4b9c6d61dde90f94a617d60172f4c2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb09681134818450b5adc910817317780450709b1788249a05938001ddd62370.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 138
+Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 1
+BOIES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200 • FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 3330|-22|| • PH. 954.356.00|| • FAX 954.356.0022
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+Email: sinccawley@bsfllp.com
+May 4, 2016
+Via CM/ECF
+Honorable Judge Robert W. Sweet
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell,
+Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS - Regarding Protective Order
+Dear Judge Sweet:
+This is a letter motion to file
+Brief in Support of the Privilege Claimed for
+Her In Camera Submission ("Brief") and certain accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to
+this Court's May 2, 2016, Order (DE 134) directing
+_ to submit a brief, and pursuant
+to this Court's April 21, 2016, Order directing
+to make an in camera submission.
+Additionally,
+designates the portions under seal as confidential, pursuant to this
+Court's Protective Order (DE 62).
+The Protective Order states:
+Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL
+NFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion t
+cal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for th
+Southern District of New York.
+See Protective Order (DE 62) signed on March 17, 2016, at p. 4. Accordingly, as
+Brief contains materials that were submitted for in camera review and that
+designates as confidential, she seeks leave to file the Non-Redacted Brief and certain related
+exhibits under seal.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+Cc:
+Laura Menninger, Esq., via CM/ECF
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq., via CM/ECF
+WWW.BSFLLP.COM
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb09681134818450b5adc910817317780450709b1788249a05938001ddd62370.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb09681134818450b5adc910817317780450709b1788249a05938001ddd62370.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91c1ae0b177918c49c54cd299aec7a9ec2cabff1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb09681134818450b5adc910817317780450709b1788249a05938001ddd62370.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fb09681134818450b5adc910817317780450709b1788249a05938001ddd62370",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b72974f14a3de464944b4243ae94628a1b0b688e2cb17eba67b13f5efd4cdd54",
+  "output_sha256": "0d32dca7bf6e05c2be242e8b7354ffad4a03ea15b2c9354fb8b101ecb08c9f87",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb1575e847eb9a4d05ed9ec8a27fddb5d0a8a5d18add5448aa31721f24976d3a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb1575e847eb9a4d05ed9ec8a27fddb5d0a8a5d18add5448aa31721f24976d3a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30313686eadc834579137e27ecb67a21b9ba8989
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb1575e847eb9a4d05ed9ec8a27fddb5d0a8a5d18add5448aa31721f24976d3a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 27
+Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 1
+Troutman Sanders LLP
+875 Third Avenue
+troutman"
+New York, New York 10022
+sanders
+troutman.com
+Bennet J. Moskowitz
+bennet.moskowitz@troutman.com
+November 12, 2019
+ECF
+Hon. Alison J. Nathan
+Thurgood Marshall
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: VE v. Nine East 71st Street, et al., 1:19-cv-07625 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We represent Darren _|. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executors of the Estate of
+Jeffrey E. Epstein (incorrectly named herein as "Joint Personal Representatives" of the Estate of
+Jeffrey E. Epstein), Nine East 71st Street, Corporation, Financial Trust Company, Inc., and
+NES, LLC (together, "Defendants") in the referenced action. We write to respectfully request a
+two week extension of Defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's
+Complaint, from November 15, 2019 to November 29, 2019. The Initial Pretrial Conference is
+scheduled for December 6, 2019. The requested extension would not affect any other
+scheduled dates in this action.
+This is the first request for an extension of this deadline. The Court previously So
+Ordered the parties' agreement whereby we accepted service of Plaintiff's Complaint and
+setting the November 15 response deadline (ECF #21).
+Plaintiff's counsel does not consent to this request, stating: "I cannot agree to extend
+your time to respond any further and cannot agree to postpone the conference." However, as
+explained above, this is the first request to extend the November 15 deadline; and we do not
+request an adjournment of the Initial Pretrial Conference.
+Thank you for your attention to this matter.
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/Bennet J. Moskowitz
+Bennet J. Moskowitz
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb1575e847eb9a4d05ed9ec8a27fddb5d0a8a5d18add5448aa31721f24976d3a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb1575e847eb9a4d05ed9ec8a27fddb5d0a8a5d18add5448aa31721f24976d3a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a90b94fae72ad698eabd18dfa099563f351dcf7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb1575e847eb9a4d05ed9ec8a27fddb5d0a8a5d18add5448aa31721f24976d3a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fb1575e847eb9a4d05ed9ec8a27fddb5d0a8a5d18add5448aa31721f24976d3a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b468b82c4bb0f3896a0d3138456a58953228f6eb4569b79254e82e61e144e0a6",
+  "output_sha256": "7fea52658be856489ba18d61202bf7837475ca826ed4f92a5655e4c035cc0141",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb30cf43f2591a952a04c0b4bb76187cebd8450bec5fdd0eeadb321f135aadb9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb30cf43f2591a952a04c0b4bb76187cebd8450bec5fdd0eeadb321f135aadb9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..697e6a6c9863aa48a73ac54bc93463f654ca3b54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb30cf43f2591a952a04c0b4bb76187cebd8450bec5fdd0eeadb321f135aadb9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 561
+Filed 12/19/21 Page 1 of 4
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvia J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+December 19, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+OC#:_
+DATE FILED: 12/19/2
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding Government exhibits admitted
+during the course of the trial. The Government and the defense have conferred and agree that the
+following Government exhibits can be released to the public:
+GX-1-B-R
+GX-1-J-R
+GX-1-K-R
+GX-1-M-R
+GX-1-O-R
+GX-1-P-R
+GX-2-C-R
+GX-2-D-R
+GX-2-E-R
+GX-2-F-R
+GX-2-G-R
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 561 Filed 12/19/21 Page 2 of 4
+GX-2-H-R
+GX-2-I-R
+GX-2-J-R
+GX-2-K-R
+GX-2-L-R
+GX-2-M-R
+GX-2-N-R
+GX-2-O-R
+GX-2-P-R
+GX-2-Q-R
+GX-2-R-R
+GX-2-S-R
+GX-2-T-R
+GX-2-U-R
+GX-2-V-R
+GX-3-AA-R
+GX-3-B-R
+GX-3-BB-R
+GX-3-C-R
+GX-3-CC-R
+GX-3-D-R
+GX-3-E-R
+GX-3-F-R
+GX-3-FF-R
+GX-3-G-R
+GX-3-GG-R
+GX-3-H-R
+GX-3-HH-R
+GX-3-I-R
+GX-3-II-R
+GX-3-J-R
+GX-3-JJ-R
+GX-3-K-R
+GX-3-KK-R
+GX-3-L-R
+GX-3-M-R
+GX-3-N-R
+GX-3-O-R
+GX-3-P-R
+GX-3-Q-R
+GX-3-R-R
+2
+
+
+Є629łZV||
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 561 Filed 12/19/21
+
+GX-3-T-R
+GX-3-U-R
+GX-3-V-R
+GX-3-W-R
+GX-3-X-R
+GX-3-Y-R
+GX-3-Z-R
+GX-296-RR
+The following Government exhibits were temporarily admitted under seal so that the
+parties had an opportunity to consider the need for redactions. The Government has reviewed the
+following exhibits and determined that no redactions are necessary and therefore can be released
+to the public:
+GX-1-C
+GX-2-W
+GX-3-DD
+GX-3-EE
+GX-3-S
+The Government further notes that after conferring with the defense about GX 603 and GX
+604, which are public exhibits, and defense exhibit AF-1, the parties have reached agreement about
+redactions for those exhibits. Accordingly, the Government is submitting GX 603-A, which is a
+less redacted version of GX 603, into evidence as a public exhibit. The Government is also
+submitting GX 604-A, which is an unredacted version of GX 604, into evidence under seal to
+protect the privacy of third parties who are named in the exhibit. The Government understands
+that the defense will submit a redacted version of DX AF-1 that matches the redactions in the final
+versions of GX 603-A and GX 604-A.
+Before the jury begins deliberating, the Government asks that the Court so-order this letter,
+which (1) offers GX 603-A and 604-A into evidence, and (2) proposes releasing versions of various
+3
+SO ORDERED.
+1219/21 Alia O. Mattor
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 561 Filed 12/19/21 Page 4 of 4
+other Government exhibits listed above. The Government is submitting to the Court GX 603-A
+and GX 604-A under temporary seal until the Court rules on this request, and will provide a copy
+of the remaining exhibits referenced in this letter tomorrow morning.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+s/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense Counsel (by ECF)
+4
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb30cf43f2591a952a04c0b4bb76187cebd8450bec5fdd0eeadb321f135aadb9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb30cf43f2591a952a04c0b4bb76187cebd8450bec5fdd0eeadb321f135aadb9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35368a227bfdf0bff91e8a2f082d5fe6cbe6bc84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb30cf43f2591a952a04c0b4bb76187cebd8450bec5fdd0eeadb321f135aadb9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fb30cf43f2591a952a04c0b4bb76187cebd8450bec5fdd0eeadb321f135aadb9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2bf48eaee95b04f4ffad1c04e1e7a517a724a94265f0a51d5d1ff3c7dc25edf9",
+  "output_sha256": "d61a0857f086247fd9a83a25719b21c7c5d404e99ba1151ee198c4bab459e772",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb3e1a4dab8500555031544b795e3daf0e26ac3c960b41a52ded815e19a46c05.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb3e1a4dab8500555031544b795e3daf0e26ac3c960b41a52ded815e19a46c05.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..29cd6caa35dbde831e450e560b9e8cb939d7366e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb3e1a4dab8500555031544b795e3daf0e26ac3c960b41a52ded815e19a46c05.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 660
+Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 2
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York. New York 10007
+May 11, 2022
+By ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, Sitting by Designation
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully moves for the exclusion of time for Counts Seven and Eight
+under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), until June 28, 2022—the scheduled date of
+sentencing.
+Although the Government currently intends to move to dismiss these counts at
+sentencing, as it has previously stated (see Dkt. No. 574), the Government seeks this exclusion of
+time in an abundance of caution, so the Act does not preclude prosecution in the unlikely event an
+intervening development occurs between now and sentencing which causes the Government to
+reconsider that position. Such an exclusion promotes the ends of justice by obviating any need for
+the parties and the Court to prepare for a second trial which, barring unforeseen developments,
+will not occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Defense counsel consents to this exclusion.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 660 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 2
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+S/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Ce: Defense Counsel (by ECF)
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb3e1a4dab8500555031544b795e3daf0e26ac3c960b41a52ded815e19a46c05.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb3e1a4dab8500555031544b795e3daf0e26ac3c960b41a52ded815e19a46c05.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..147b72fa0826a391715b9ef7079ef31dfc2d6e56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb3e1a4dab8500555031544b795e3daf0e26ac3c960b41a52ded815e19a46c05.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fb3e1a4dab8500555031544b795e3daf0e26ac3c960b41a52ded815e19a46c05",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "66180339c478cd13a8d5d281e43afc2311f0f4898e688f387a6987ed697e3cce",
+  "output_sha256": "708f6594979ec8d483309ea0b0ad894e58a68d4d2e12998715b2126696b09b44",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb6a20f69a2f5800ff23608dbcb7f55cbdeeb4be7d1ee9c497b1f7730f3c04a6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb6a20f69a2f5800ff23608dbcb7f55cbdeeb4be7d1ee9c497b1f7730f3c04a6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a41e989bfae72d92926b2edffc98e1675419a6c8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb6a20f69a2f5800ff23608dbcb7f55cbdeeb4be7d1ee9c497b1f7730f3c04a6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 744|
+Filed 03/17/17
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+-x
+Defendant's Response in Opposition to
+Plaintiff's "Motion in Limine to Present All Evidence of
+Defendant's Involvement in Epstein Sexual Abuse and Sex Trafficking"
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+_AND|
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 744 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 4
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+and
+PAGES 1-17
+REDACTED
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 744 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 4
+CONCLUSION
+For the reasons articulated above, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of her
+Motion in Limine to Present All Evidence of Defendant's Involvement in Epstein Sexual Abuse
+and Sex Trafficking should be denied.
+Dated: March 17, 2017
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Laura A. Menninger
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON, I
+LAND
+150 East 10* Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 744
+Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on March 17, 2017, 1 electronically served this Defendant's Response in Opposition
+to Plaintiff's "Motion in Limine to Present All Evidence of Defendant's Involvement in Epstein
+Sexual Abuse and Sex Trafficking" via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+1. Stanley Pottinge
+19 Twin Lakes Ri
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+19
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb6a20f69a2f5800ff23608dbcb7f55cbdeeb4be7d1ee9c497b1f7730f3c04a6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb6a20f69a2f5800ff23608dbcb7f55cbdeeb4be7d1ee9c497b1f7730f3c04a6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e74bc63d1417ea267b9faab5d47e3a246632f827
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb6a20f69a2f5800ff23608dbcb7f55cbdeeb4be7d1ee9c497b1f7730f3c04a6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -59,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fb6a20f69a2f5800ff23608dbcb7f55cbdeeb4be7d1ee9c497b1f7730f3c04a6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6250ad2ab60166bfde65182fc2093a44e4b8fc6ef5e5d91c63f9ba69a45d5469",
+  "output_sha256": "bfbdb49147d66adaad83bfbb52f91f56ff17712b3b1c971cbd576625fb65a595",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb7b6473f816cd367795d1772eeb12e5ee02ca2d8bd2b27c51e491b98b049b96.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb7b6473f816cd367795d1772eeb12e5ee02ca2d8bd2b27c51e491b98b049b96.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9de67a9ad9eb0785055867b35749241552f7b7ee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb7b6473f816cd367795d1772eeb12e5ee02ca2d8bd2b27c51e491b98b049b96.md
@@ -0,0 +1,716 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 153-10 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+Document 153-10 Filed 05/11/16
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+,14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 270
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80119
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+JANE DOE NO. 3,
+Plaintiff,
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80232
+CONDENSED
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+JANE DOE NO. 4,
+Plaintiff,
+Vs.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+JANE DOE NO. 5,
+Plaintiff,
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80380
+CASE NO: 08-CV-80381
+VS
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
+NON PARTY (VR) 000315
+GIUFFRE001004
+
+
+Document 153-10 Filed 05/11/16 Page 3 of 6
+Page 311
+1
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
+3
+4
+5
+BY MS. EZELL:
+Q. And were there some who maybe came just
+once or twice with other young women?
+A. That's correct, ma'am.
+7
+Q. Now, where would the young woman who was
+8
+bringing another young woman go during the time
+9
+the person that she brought was upstairs giving
+10
+11
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+12
+THE WITNESS: I will take them to the
+13
+kitchen and
+would take them from
+14
+there.
+15
+BY MS. EZELL:
+16
+Q. Do you know where she took them?
+17
+A. No, ma'am.
+18
+Q. Were they ever taken to just sit in the
+19
+living room and wait?
+20
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+21
+THE WITNESS: I don't know, ma'am.
+22
+BY MS. EZELL:
+23
+Q. These pictures of nude young women taken
+24
+25
+in gatherings where they were smiling, did they
+appear to you to be taking part in an orgy?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 312
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I don't know, ma'am.
+BY MS. EZELL:
+Q. Do you know the word cavorting?
+A. No, ma'am, I don't know.
+Q. I need my Thesaurus. You said they were
+smiling, did they appear to be having a good time?
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. Did they appear to be doing anything
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. And in these instances were there girls
+doing sexual things with other girls?
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. And I'm still talking about the pictures
+on Ms. Maxwell's computer.
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+MR. CRITTON: You're talking about the
+group shots that he's mentioned from Russia
+and Eastern Europe?
+MS. EZELL: And girls in the shower.
+MR. CRITTON: Let me object to the form
+then the way you just now described that.
+MS. EZELL: He said for instance.
+MR. CRITTON: He had said a girl in the
+Page 313
+shower, I don't know whether he ever used
+NH
+3
+plural.
+BY MS. EZELL:
+5
+Q. Was there more than one picture of a girl
+in the shower?
+6
+A. There were two girls in the shower.
+7
+Q. Two girls in the shower together?
+8
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+9
+Q. And were those two girls engaged in
+10
+something sexual?
+11
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+12
+13
+Q. And I may have asked you this question,
+14
+forgive me if I did, did you know those two girls?
+A. No, ma'am.
+15
+Q. Did Ms. Maxwell have nude pictures of
+16
+Nadia on her computer?
+17
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+18
+THE WITNESS: I don't know, ma'am.
+19
+BY MS. EZELL:
+20
+0.
+Did you ever meet a young woman named
+21
+who had an association with Ms. Maxwell?
+22
+MR. CRITTON:
+23
+MS. EZELL:
+24
+THE WITNESS: I don't remember, ma'am.
+25 BY MS. EZELL:
+Page 314
+1
+Q. Did you ever have any conversations with
+2
+Ms. Maxwell about any of the women in those
+3
+pictures?
+4
+A. No, ma'am.
+5
+0. And did you ever have a conversation with
+6
+about any of the pictures of the
+7
+girls in her computer?
+8
+9
+A. No, ma'am.
+Q. You were asked last time about the creams
+10
+and lotions that Mr. Epstein typically had
+11
+12
+available to him and you said you thought there
+was a favorite one but you couldn't remember it.
+13
+A. Spa.
+14
+Q. Spa, you did say Spa.
+15
+A. Yeah.
+16
+Q. Thank you.
+Where did the stairway from the kitchen
+18 lead -- to where did it lead?
+19
+A. To the second floor between the first and
+20 second bedrooms.
+21
+Q. Were either of those bedrooms the master
+22 bedroom?
+23
+A. No, ma'am.
+24
+Q. Could one go up that staircase through --
+25 could one go up that staircase and reach the
+12 (Pages 311 to 314)
+Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
+NON PARTY (VR) 000326
+GIUFFRE001016
+
+
+Document 153-10
+Filed 05/11/16 Page 4 of 6
+Page 315
+Page 317
+1
+2
+4
+5
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+master bedroom?
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. And how would you do that? If you want
+to turn the page over for the upstairs you could
+MR. CRITTON: Are you going to mark this
+as an exhibit?
+MS. EZELL: Uh-huh.
+MR. CRITTON: Would that be Exhibit 37
+(Exhibit No. 3 was marked for
+THE WITNESS: This is the master bedroom,
+master bath, and there were one, two -- the
+rest of the bedrooms were here and the
+master bedroom was here. This is master
+bath one and master bath two.
+So the staircase came to the second floor
+like this and it was between the first and
+second bedroom. And you could go through
+here and you enter a foyer with double doors
+here, double doors here, and you enter the
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Q. All right. How would you get to the
+master bathroom on that end?
+A. You go through these double doors, go
+around the bed and you gain access to the master
+bedroom - master bathroom, sorry.
+Q. And then there was another master
+bathroom on the other side of the room?
+Where generally did the massages take
+A. Right here, ma'am.
+Q. And is that in the master bathroom?
+Master bathroom, yes.
+Q. Do you recall what color the tile was in
+Q. Was there tile on the walls or marble
+ог **
+There was a sauna here with marble but
+outside the sauna everything was carpet, and the
+walls, they didn't have any tile.
+yes, I will
+say four feet off the floor they will have marble.
+Q. And do you remember what color marble it
+was?
+A. White.
+2
+3
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Q. White. By the way, I have some more
+water, would you like some?
+A.
+Thank you, ma'am.
+Q. I figure if I'm a little dry you may be
+too.
+I believe one of the items that you
+mentioned that sometimes had to be picked up after
+girls were there giving massages was a back
+massager.
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. Could you describe that for me, please?
+A. It was a piece about this big.
+Q. Would you say that's about 18 inches?
+A. Yes, ma'am. And two prongs with the
+rubber tips and a cord.
+A. Or it could be detached too.
+Q. Do you have any recollection of what make
+A. No, ma'am.
+Q. Were there any other massagers that you
+recall seeing there regularly?
+A. Those are the ones I remember. I think
+they are from Sharper Image, but I don't --
+Q. Okay. Were there often girls around the
+Page 318
+1
+Nm
+pool at the house?
+A.
+Yes, ma'am.
+Q. And were these sometimes the same girls
+that came to give massages?
+5
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. Were there girls in addition to those who
+7
+came to give massages who hung around the pool?
+A. The girls who were staying at the house.
+Q. Okay. And so they weren't girls who just
+10
+regularly came to hangout around the pool?
+11
+A. No, ma'am.
+12
+MS. EZELL: Excuse me. Can we go off the
+13
+record for a minute?
+14
+(Thereupon, a recess was had.)
+15
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the
+16
+record with tape number two.
+17 BY MS. EZELL:
+1 that sled out gue, d you race soun
+20 deposition?
+21
+22
+Q. And did you bring any with you?
+A. I couldn't find anything at my house.
+25 journal that you kept, and you toked for that?
+13 (Pages 315 to 318)
+Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
+NON PARTY (VR) 000327
+GIUFFRE001017
+
+
+Document 153-10 Filed 05/11/16
+
+Page 319
+Page 321
+ANm
+A.
+Yes, ma'am.
+Q.
+And you couldn't find it?
+A.
+I give it to Detective Joe.
+4
+5
+Q.
+Recarey?
+Yes, ma'am.
+7
+8
+9
+10
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Q. You mentioned that you called Mr.
+Jean-Luc Bernell about a recommendation when you
+were looking for a job.
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. And did you know him from his visits in
+11 the home?
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. Did you say that his wife's name was Eva?
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+THE WITNESS: No, ma'am.
+BY MS. EZELL:
+Q. Do you know what his wife's name was?
+A. Eva was a model, a former model from
+years past who was friend of Mr. Epstein.
+Q. Do you know if she was married to Glenn
+Dubin? Do you know Mr. Dubin?
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+THE WITNESS: I believe, yeah, I'm not
+sure, ma'am.
+BY MS. EZELL:
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+25
+Page 320
+Q. Is she now a doctor?
+A. No, she was a model, her husband could be
+a doctor but I don't think she is.
+Q. Okay. So is Jean-Luc Bernell married; to
+your knowledge?
+A. I don't know, ma'am.
+Q. I think I must have gotten confused
+because we were talking about the picture in the
+house of the little girl who is lifting up her
+skirt or her underpants, I'd forgotten what it
+was.
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+BY MS. EZELL:
+Q. And I thought you said that that was
+Jean-Luc's child.
+A. No, ma'am, she is Mrs. Eva
+2. Eva's child?
+A.
+Yes, ma'am.
+Q
+And she is Jeffrey Epstein's Goddaughter?
+A.
+Yes, ma'am.
+Q. Do you know where she and her mother
+live?
+A. They live in Manhattan.
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+1
+2
+3
+5
+6
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+BY MS. EZELL:
+Q. Did they ever visit Mr. Epstein at the
+home when you were there?
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. How old was the little girl at that time?
+A. Eight years old.
+Q. Did the girl's father come to visit as
+well?
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. And do you remember his name?
+A. No, ma'am.
+Q. Do you remember hearing anything about
+what he does for a living?
+A. No, ma'am.
+Q. Can you describe him?
+A. Tall, American born, I will say 50 years
+old.
+Q. What color hair did he have?
+A. At that time it was black with a few
+white hairs.
+Q. Were there drawings of nude women in the
+house?
+A. No, ma'am.
+Q. Were there paintings of nude women in the
+house?
+Page 322
+1
+2
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. Did any of those appear to be
+Ms. Maxwell?
+4
+5
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+Q. You mentioned that Louella who was still
+working there when you left --
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+8
+Q. - was a very religious woman -
+9
+A. Yes, ma'am.
+10
+Q. - and would sometimes be upset about
+11
+seeing pictures of nude girls or having to pick up
+12
+sex toys, et cetera.
+13
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+14
+15
+THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
+BY MS. EZELL:
+16
+Q. And you said that you remembered her
+17
+crying because there was a picture of the Pope
+18 next to a picture of a naked girl.
+19
+MR. CRITTON: Form.
+20
+THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
+21 BY MS. EZELL:
+22
+Q. Do you know who that naked girl was?
+23 A. I don't remember, ma'am.
+24
+Q. I believe David Copperfield's name came
+25 up in the last deposition as someone who would
+• 14 (Pages 319 to 322)
+Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
+NON PARTY (VR) 000328
+GIUFFRE001018
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 153-10 Filed 05/11/16 Page 6 of 6
+Page 471
+1
+2
+THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
+COUNTY OF DADE.
+)
+4
+5
+I, the undersigned authority, certify
+6 that ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ personally appeared before
+7
+me on the 7th day of August, 2009 and was duly
+sworn.
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+WITNESS my hand and official seal this
+18th day of August, 2009.
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter
+Notary Public - State of Florida
+Page 472
+CERTIFICATE
+County Of Dade.
+I MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter and
+Notary Public in and for the State of florida at
+large, do hereby certify that 1 was authoried to
+and did stenographically report the deposition of
+ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ; that a review of the branscript
+was not roquested; and that the foregoing pages,
+numbered from 270 to 472, inclusive, are a true
+and correct transcription of my stenographic notes
+9 of said deposition.
+10
+1 further certify that said deposition was
+taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth
+and that the taking of said deposition was
+commenced and completed as hereinabove set out.
+12
+13
+I further certify that I am not an
+attorncy or counsel of any of the parties, nor am
+14
+I a relative or employee of any attorney or
+counsel of perty connected with the action, nor amn
+15
+I financially interested in the action.
+The Toring cartreaten or ens
+16
+transcript does not apply to any reproduction of
+the same by any means unless under the direct
+17
+control and or direction of the certifying
+reporter.
+18
+19
+20
+DATED this 1ith day of August, 2009.
+MICHELLE PAYNE, Court Reporter
+52 (Pages 471 to 472)
+Kress Court Reporting, Inc. 305-866-7688
+NON PARTY (VR) 000366
+GIUFFRE001056
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb7b6473f816cd367795d1772eeb12e5ee02ca2d8bd2b27c51e491b98b049b96.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb7b6473f816cd367795d1772eeb12e5ee02ca2d8bd2b27c51e491b98b049b96.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..93f4f9e4872f0073719991f6ef2c4bdf499db131
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fb7b6473f816cd367795d1772eeb12e5ee02ca2d8bd2b27c51e491b98b049b96.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -411,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fb7b6473f816cd367795d1772eeb12e5ee02ca2d8bd2b27c51e491b98b049b96",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "d8ab6a4a208d0bdd7886b64a46f764ee8034ca10435f4244e3c114edb226789a",
+  "output_sha256": "315361a5be3c42e3998dde14bbc43c26e1a89dc7e4ff444e67a9dfeff8730cf2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fba4e55e4bd22dc4f117fc7fc450b7f7505f7c2b394b230d9166ef8b16ffe251.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fba4e55e4bd22dc4f117fc7fc450b7f7505f7c2b394b230d9166ef8b16ffe251.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd036c80a29bc0e0ccdc26942ccc54f78e759860
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fba4e55e4bd22dc4f117fc7fc450b7f7505f7c2b394b230d9166ef8b16ffe251.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 304-2 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fba4e55e4bd22dc4f117fc7fc450b7f7505f7c2b394b230d9166ef8b16ffe251.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fba4e55e4bd22dc4f117fc7fc450b7f7505f7c2b394b230d9166ef8b16ffe251.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c71ae9d5d304f5c948d762ef75e2fdf93544ce7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fba4e55e4bd22dc4f117fc7fc450b7f7505f7c2b394b230d9166ef8b16ffe251.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fba4e55e4bd22dc4f117fc7fc450b7f7505f7c2b394b230d9166ef8b16ffe251",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "35de35962edd5b768092e908302e1f98bd5471be48cc834990d9b1c0458ef06b",
+  "output_sha256": "597f0259693787443060531b3334f0f8abcb7c9d7cd954b5e8bf8016f769d5e6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbc6bb7c35938a8d799d4d2f2bf883972abebcae7bd0de3edba4bad7a5dcae1d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbc6bb7c35938a8d799d4d2f2bf883972abebcae7bd0de3edba4bad7a5dcae1d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f00057ccdd65ce3f330f2e524201a4b9d6f3fde4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbc6bb7c35938a8d799d4d2f2bf883972abebcae7bd0de3edba4bad7a5dcae1d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,401 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+--X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+-----
+Ms. Maxwell's Motion for an Order to Show Cause re Protective Order
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Ty Gee
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10"" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+, P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 2 of 13
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through her counsel, moves for an Order to Show Cause
+requiring plaintiff
+and her lawyers to state why this Court should not impose
+sanctions for their failure to comply with this Court's Protective Order (Doc.62) and Opinion
+issued on November 14, 2017.
+INTRODUCTION
+This Court entered a Protective Order that governs the parties' use and disposition of
+documents designated as "Confidential" ("Confidential Materials"). The Protective Order
+prohibits the use of the materials in any other case, and requires the parties to return or destroy
+the materials at the conclusion of this case.
+This case concluded in May 2017. Despite our requests,
+lawyers have
+refused to return or destroy the Confidential Materials. Instead, they have indicated they wish to
+use the Confidential Materials in another case they are pursuing.
+The Protective Order on which all the parties relied to disclose and produce Confidential
+Materials is unambiguous about the use and return or destruction of Confidential Materials. This
+Court should issue an Order to Show Cause.
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+sought to convert her defamation action into a lawsuit for child "sexual
+abuse" and "sexual trafficking" of children. Toward that end, she made numerous allegations of
+sexual conduct involving herself, Jeffrey Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and dozens of others, including
+numerous prominent men. In preparation to litigate
+factual allegations, the parties
+sought and obtained from each other and non-parties a wide range of highly sensitive, personal
+and confidential information about themselves and non-parties.
+This Protective Order. To facilitate disclosures and discovery the Court entered a
+Protective Order allowing parties to disclose and produce "confidential"-designated materials
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 3 of 13
+("Confidential Materials"). The parties' depositions were taken under the Order's auspice: The
+parties and numerous non-parties in depositions and document productions disclosed highly
+sensitive, personal and confidential information with the understanding that such information
+would be designated "Confidential." The Order prohibits Confidential Materials from being
+"disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case." Doc.62 9| 4.
+Under the Order the parties are (a) prohibited from disclosing such materials to non-parties
+except on certain conditions, and (b) required at the conclusion of the case to return or destroy
+"each document and all copies thereof" of these Confidential Materials. Id. | 12. The parties
+produced thousands of pages of Confidential Materials under the Protective Order.
+The parties submitted various Confidential Materials under seal as exhibits to court
+filings. The Protective Order provided that any such materials submitted to the Court "shall be
+accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules &
+Instructions for the Southern District of New York."
+In May 2017 the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving all matters relating
+to the lawsuit. On May 25, 2017, "[t]his action was settled and dismissed with prejudice pursuant
+to a joint stipulation for dismissal." Sealed Op., at 3 (Nov. 14, 2017); see Doc.917 (Order
+approving joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice).
+On November 14, 2017, this Court ordered: "[A]II documents, materials, and information
+subject to the Protective Order must be returned to the party who designated its confidentiality as
+of the date this action was dismissed." Id. 2 (emphasis supplied).
+and her counsel
+have not complied with this order. This Motion seeks enforcement of the Protective Order and
+this Court's November 14, 2017, reiterating the command contained in the Protective Order to
+return Confidential Materials.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 4 of 13
+The attempts by non-parties to gain access to Confidential Materials. Four sets of
+non-parties have sought access to various Confidential Materials submitted to the Court in
+various filings.
+In August 2016 Alan Dershowitz requested unsealing of portions of a brief filed in
+connection with a motion to quash, discrete emails filed with the motion, and the manuscript of
+memoir filed with another motion. Doc.364, at 1-2. The Court denied the motion
+to unseal. Sealed Op., at 15-25 (Nov. 2, 2016). The Court noted Mr. Dershowitz sought to use
+the materials "in a media campaign to make public a selected portion of the discovery in this
+action to defend himself not in this court but in the court of public opinion." Id. 21 (internal
+quotations and citation omitted). If his motion were granted, the Court observed, "the Protective
+Order will be selectively deployed and in the interest of reciprocity destroyed." Id. at 21-22. The
+Court concluded:
+"It is presumptively unfair for courts to modify protective orders which assure
+confidentiality and upon which the parties have reasonably relied.... [T]he
+Second Circuit determined that "absent a showing of improvidence in ... [a]
+protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need ... a
+witness should be entitled to rely upon the enforceability of a protective order
+against any third parties."" In this case, the parties and multiple other deponents
+have relied on this Court's Protective Order in giving testimony and producing
+documents....
+Id. at 23 (quoting Dorsett v. City of Nassau, 289 F.R.D. 54, 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting
+Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 296 (2d Cir. 1979))). Mr. Dershowitz filed an
+appeal (Doc.504), which is pending.
+In January 2017 a purported journalist Michael Cernovich requested unsealing of
+Ms. Maxwell's summary judgment brief, her attorney's declaration in support of the summary
+judgment motion, and any "pleadings, memoranda, declarations, exhibits, orders, and other
+documents filed or to be filed" in connection with the summary judgment motion. Doc.551, at 2.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 5 of 13
+Mr. Dershowitz joined the motion. Doc.610. The Court denied the motion. Doc.892. Among
+other things, the Court found that "the parties and multiple deponents have reasonably relied on
+the Protective Order in giving testimony and producing documents including evidence of assault,
+medical records, and emails." Id. at 6. Mr. Cernovich (Doc.920) and Mr. Dershowitz (Doc.915)
+filed an appeal, which is pending.
+In January 2017, while the case at bar was pending, the
+lawyers brought a second
+lawsuit, Doe 43 v. Epstein, No. 17-cv-616 (S.D.N.Y.). In the case sub judice the |
+lawyers
+had identified their new client, Doe 43, as a witness for
+in the case at bar, and we
+deposed and obtained documents relating to Doe 43. In the second lawsuit, Doe 43 (an adult)
+alleged she, like
+had been the victim of sexual abuse and sexual trafficking by
+Mr. Epstein to prominent men. Doe 43 named multiple defendants, including Mr. Epstein and
+Ms. Maxwell.
+In October 2017 two of the Doe 43 defendants, Mr. Epstein and Lesley Groff, requested
+unsealing of numerous Confidential Materials relating to Doe 43's alleged relationship with
+Mr. Epstein. Doc.924, at 4.
+and Doe 43 opposed the motion, arguing in part, "Jane
+Doe 43 courageously gave her testimony... and voluntarily produced documents ... The
+documents that she produced contain sensitive information." Doc.928, at 7.
+and
+Doe 43 objected, arguing that the movants were seeking "to humiliate and embarrass Jane Doe
+43" by using the Confidential Materials in public filings in the Doe 43 case. Id. 9-10. This Court
+denied the motion to unseal. It held that the Protective Order did not extend beyond the May 25,
+2017, termination of this action. Sealed Op., at 7 (Nov. 14, 2017). "Accordingly," the Court said:
+absent "other arrangements ... agreed upon" regarding the disposal of the
+protected information, and this Court was informed of no such arrangements, on
+May 25, 2017, all protected information, including the [materials that are the
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 6 of 13
+subject of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Groff's motion], was to be returned to the original
+party, parties, non-party, or non-parties who designated it as confidential.
+Id. at 7-8 (footnote omitted; quoting Protective Order 9| 12).' The Court ordered: "[A]II
+documents, materials, and information subject to the Protective Order must be returned to the
+party who designated its confidentiality as of the date this action was dismissed." Id. at 2
+(emphasis supplied).
+Notwithstanding the Court's November 14, 2017, Opinion and our specific requests, the
+lawyers for
+and Doe 43 have refused to comply with Paragraph 12 of the Protective
+Order. In the face of the Court's conclusion that this case "terminat[ed]" on May 25, 2017, the
+lawyers have taken the position that this case has not terminated because of the pendency of
+appeals of this Court's orders denying motions to unseal documents filed with the Court and in
+the Court's possession. As these lawyers know the vast bulk of the Confidential Materials was
+never filed with the Court. They have offered no reason why they have refused to return or
+destroy Confidential Materials "and all copies thereof" in their possession, custody and control
+that have not been filed with the Court.
+In April 2018 a Miami Herald journalist and the Herald (collectively "the Miami
+Herald") moved to unseal all sealed and redacted documents filed with the Court. Doc.936, at 1.
+Messrs. Dershowitz and Cernovich joined the motion. Does.941 & 947; see Doc.953, at 10. The
+lawyers for
+and Doe 43 took this position on behalf of
+does not oppose [the Miami Herald's motion to unseal] to the extent it seeks to
+unseal all docket entries ..., including the unsealing of all trial designated deposition
+'In the footnote the Court acknowledged that the parties could comply with Paragraph 12
+by destroying the Confidential Materials, but observed that without any affidavits provided to
+the Court stating [that destruction has occurred], and in light of the present dispute, the Court
+infers that such action was not taken." Id. at 8 n.l.
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 7 of 13
+transcripts." Doc.945, at 3 (italics added; underscoring in original). The Court denied the motion.
+Doc.953. It noted the case at bar contained "allegations concerning the intimate, sexual, and
+private conduct of the parties and of third persons, some prominent, some private," id. at 2;
+had alleged she had been subjected to "public ridicule, contempt and disgrace," id. at
+3; she also alleged she had been "sexually abused at numerous locations around the world with
+prominent and politically powerful men," id. at 3-4. As it did in denying the Dershowitz and
+Cernovich motions, the Court found that release of the Confidential Materials "could expose the
+parties to annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression given the highly sensitive nature of the
+underlying allegations." Id. at 24. Moreover,
+[t]he parties mutually assented to entering into the Protective Order. The parties
+relied upon its provisions, as did dozens of witnesses and other non-parties.
+Documents designated confidential included a range of allegations of sexual acts
+involving Plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some famous, some not; the
+identities of non-parties who either allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Plaintiff
+or who allegedly facilitated such acts; Plaintiff's sexual history and prior
+allegations of sexual assault; and Plaintiff's medical history. The Protective Order
+has maintained the confidentiality of these sensitive materials.
+Id. The Court found irrelevant that Mr. Dershowitz and
+in joining or not opposing
+the Miami Herald's motion were choosing not to protect their privacy interests:
+The privacy interests of Maxwell,
+Dershowitz, as well as dozens of
+hird persons, all of whom relied upon the promise of secrecy outlined in the
+Protective Order and enforced by the Court, have been implicated. It makes no
+difference that
+and Dershowitz have chosen to waive their privacy
+interests to the underlying confidential information by supporting this motion, as
+Maxwell has not agreed to such a waiver.
+More importantly, the dozens of non-parties who provided highly
+confidential information relating to their own stories provided that information in
+reliance on the Protective Order and the understanding that it would continue to
+protect everything it claimed it would....
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 8 of 13
+Id. at 34-35.- The Miami Herald filed an appeal (Doc.955), which is pending.
+ARGUMENT
+The Court should enter an Order to Show Cause requiring
+and her lawyers to
+state why the Court should not impose sanctions on them for violation of this Court's
+orders.
+The Protective Order requires the return or destruction of all Confidential Materials:
+At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each
+document and all copies thereof which have been designated as Confidential shall
+e returned to the party that designated it Confidential, or the parties may elect
+estroy Confidential documents. Where the parties agree to destroy Confidentia
+documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit
+confirming the destruction.
+Doc.62 | 12 (capitalization altered).
+and her lawyers have not returned any
+Confidential Materials to us. Nor have they provided us with an affidavit confirming the
+destruction of the materials.
+On July 6, 2017, we proposed a procedure for compliance with Paragraph 12 of the
+Protective Order. Under that procedure the parties would destroy all Confidential Materials in
+their possession, custody and control and would cause any non-party to whom they provided
+Confidential Materials to destroy the materials. We proposed compliance by July 31, 2017. See
+counsel rejected this proposal. Mr. Cassell said Paragraph 12's
+provisions were not in effect because the case had not concluded:
+*Just as Mr. Dershowitz correctly points out in his papers that the Confidential Materials
+establish the falsity of
+allegations against him, the materials contain compelling
+evidence establishing that the allegations against Ms. Maxwell are false and that
+sold
+her false narrative to the press. Nonetheless we recognize that it is impossible to put back into the
+proverbial bag l
+_salacious and defamatory statements. Even if all the Confidential
+Materials were disclosed contrary to the privacy rights of dozens of individuals, they "will be
+selectively deployed" "not in this court but in the court of public opinion," Sealed Op. (Nov. 3,
+2016), at 22, by the media and others for their own purposes, none of which will be the search
+for the truth. Accordingly we continue to believe the right of privacy of Ms. Maxwell and other
+innocent individuals should carry the day.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 9 of 13
+[T]wo appeals involving this case (and to which
+has been named as a
+party) are currently pending in the Second Circuit. These two appeals [by Messrs.
+Dershowitz and Cernovich] involve some of the confidential documents that you
+are, apparently, proposing may need to be destroyed now.
+Until those appeals have been resolved, it would be premature to begin
+implementing paragraph 12's provision.
+ЕхнІвІт В.
+On September 6, 2018, we renewed our request that
+and her counsel comply
+with Paragraph 12 "in light of Judge Sweet's Opinions of November 14, 2017 [denying
+Mr. Epstein and Ms. Groff's motion to unseal] and August 27, 2018 [denying the Miami
+Herald's motion to unseal]. ExHiBIT C.
+counsel again rejected our request.
+Mr. Cassell repeated that this case had not concluded. In addition to the two pending appeals
+involving Messrs. Dershowitz and Cernovich, he said, the Miami Herald's appeal of the denial of
+its motion to unseal also was pending. "Until the three pending appeals have been resolved," he
+concluded, "it continues to be the case that it would be premature to begin implementing
+paragraph 12's provisions." ExHIBIT D. Mr. Cassell did not address this Court's conclusion in its
+November 14, 2017, opinion that this case terminated on May 25, 2017, and as of that date the
+parties were required to comply with Paragraph 12.
+On November 21, 2018, we conferred once more with
+counsel. They said
+their position remained unchanged.
+and her counsel's position violates the Protective Order. Their position that
+this case has not concluded flies in the face of this Court's conclusion and direction to the parties
+more than a year ago to comply with Paragraph 12. In its sealed Opinion issued November 14,
+2017, the Court ruled that this lawsuit concluded for purposes of Paragraph 12 on May 25, 2017,
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 10 of 13
+and that the parties were required to return or destroy the Confidential Materials pursuant to
+Paragraph 12:
+• "Based upon the conclusions set forth below, ... all documents, materials, and
+information subject to the Protective Order must be returned to the party who
+designated its confidentiality as of [May 25, 2017,] the date this action was
+dismissed." Sealed Op. (Nov. 14, 2017), at 2 (emphasis supplied).
+• "[P]aragraph 13 and the [Protective] Order's introductory language establish that the
+purpose of the Order was to guide confidentiality determinations during the
+discovery process, and not beyond this point. The Protective Order did not extend
+beyond the completion of discovery or beyond the termination of this action." Id. at
+7.
+• "Accordingly, absent 'other arrangements ... agreed upon' regarding the disposal of
+the protected information, this Court was informed of no such arrangements, on May
+25, 2017, all protected information, including the Jane Doe Evidence, was to be
+returned to the original party, parties, non-party, or non-parties who designated it as
+confidential." Id. at 7-8 (footnote omitted; emphasis supplied).
+These conclusions and the Court's direction to the parties to comply with Paragraph 12
+underscore the willful violation of Paragraph 12 of the Protective Order and the directive in
+Court's November 14, 2017, opinion to comply with Paragraph 12.
+counsel's argument that the case has not been terminated because of the
+pendency of the appeals by the non-parties is meritless. When the Court issued its directive on
+November 14, 2017, to comply with Paragraph 12, it was well aware of the two pending appeals.
+There is no dispute this action has been terminated: the case was dismissed with prejudice by the
+parties' stipulation approved by the Court on May 25, 2017. Id. at 3; Doc.917. The Court's
+interpretation of its own Protective Order is conclusive. It explicitly held that the Protective
+Order "did not extend beyond the completion of discovery or beyond the termination of this
+action," and it declared on November 14, 2017, that this case is well beyond both. Sealed Op., at
+3 (Nov. 14, 2017).
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 11 of 13
+The three pending appeals are irrelevant to the parties' compliance with Paragraph 12.
+None of the non-parties who brought the appeals requested Confidential Materials in the parties"
+possession, custody and control. To the contrary, each requested the unsealing of discrete court
+filings or, in the case of the Miami Herald, the unsealing of all sealed court filings. None of these
+requests concern the parties, who are not in the possession, custody or control of the court
+filings. Indeed none of the non-parties requested any order requiring the parties to maintain or
+produce Confidential Materials to them. Axiomatically whatever the result of the appeals,
+nothing but unwarranted intransigence explains
+and her counsel's refusal to comply
+with the Protective Order or the Court's November 14, 2017, directive.
+The Court's inherent power to vindicate its orders is broad. "When the district court
+invokes its inherent power to sanction misconduct by an attorney that involves that attorney's
+violation of a court order or other misconduct that is not undertaken for the client's benefit, the
+district court need not find bad faith before imposing a sanction under its inherent power."
+United States v. Seltzer, 227 F.3d 36, 42 (2d Cir. 2000). We have such a situation here.
+attorneys' refusal to comply with Paragraph 12 and this Court's November 14,
+2017, directive was not undertaken for
+has settled her lawsuit.
+Meanwhile
+lawyers are prosecuting Doe 43 and seeking to take advantage of the
+Confidential Materials in that lawsuit.
+To the extent
+is complicit in her attorneys' violation of the Court's orders
+and directives, both she and her counsel are subject to sanction. See, e.g., Seltzer, 227 F.3d at 40-
+41; N.Y. State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1352 (2d Cir. 1989).
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 12 of 13
+CONCLUSION
+The Court should issue an Order to Show Cause requiring
+state why this Court should not impose sanctions upon
+violation of this Court's Protective Order and November 14, 2017, directive.
+Dated: December 4, 2018
+and her counsel to
+or her counsel or both for
+Respectfully submitted,
+S/ Laura A. Menninger, Ty Gee
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+Ty Gee (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10* Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 1332-17 Filed 01/08/24 Page 13 of 13
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on December 4, 2018, I electronically served this Motion for an Order to
+Show Cause re Protective Order via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+Jaffe, Weissing,
+Lehrman, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+Fistos &
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Road
+South Salem, NY 10590
+stanpottinger@aol.com
+s/ Nicole
+12
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbc6bb7c35938a8d799d4d2f2bf883972abebcae7bd0de3edba4bad7a5dcae1d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbc6bb7c35938a8d799d4d2f2bf883972abebcae7bd0de3edba4bad7a5dcae1d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e2aed193e3f27880dd9b844871308bdf4266d29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbc6bb7c35938a8d799d4d2f2bf883972abebcae7bd0de3edba4bad7a5dcae1d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -168,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fbc6bb7c35938a8d799d4d2f2bf883972abebcae7bd0de3edba4bad7a5dcae1d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 14,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c34d9c8b24237ab9a5e01cee5cb942296999347e64201e62ca7dfd7239d51136",
+  "output_sha256": "a3919dbacc4d9a24c1a917a6241b2e19e3db9424f654aa3be2f33971daa4c979",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbe2731e28464df2f29fcafb20782b2143aa868a40342526460405dc008ee770.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbe2731e28464df2f29fcafb20782b2143aa868a40342526460405dc008ee770.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7e79f128891f3bffeb2757c72789bfb7115888e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbe2731e28464df2f29fcafb20782b2143aa868a40342526460405dc008ee770.md
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 600 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
+EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF GREGORY B TAYLOR and KYLE JACOBSON
+I, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Reply in Support
+of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Gregory B. Taylor and Kyle Jacobson.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of |
+Attached hereto as Sealed Composite Exhibit 2 are true and correct copies of
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of |
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 600
+Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 3
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Dated: February 9, 2017.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley.
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLF
+101 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+| (Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202
+'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 600 Filed 02/09/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 9th day of February 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbe2731e28464df2f29fcafb20782b2143aa868a40342526460405dc008ee770.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbe2731e28464df2f29fcafb20782b2143aa868a40342526460405dc008ee770.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..53ea6336bea13765eb90ad5fbfe2620913d1160f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbe2731e28464df2f29fcafb20782b2143aa868a40342526460405dc008ee770.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fbe2731e28464df2f29fcafb20782b2143aa868a40342526460405dc008ee770",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "41102a60bc36144ea18e779ad4846e1eb70b8466b59bcc598a16f8bd4f6753f0",
+  "output_sha256": "dd32a87eaf6d06ab5e233df8b273c64f7a44d3761f59a7531f0c6810b124dd93",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbf6a689ff7d14112057785e995ca48dac71ee789ac58ff60641d2abea2b0db9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbf6a689ff7d14112057785e995ca48dac71ee789ac58ff60641d2abea2b0db9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dd528d48e647a840e50f8f606e0b4d168f6c2936
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbf6a689ff7d14112057785e995ca48dac71ee789ac58ff60641d2abea2b0db9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 21
+Filed 07/16/19 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+USA / Plaintiffs)
+Case No. 19CR490
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+Defendants)
+)
+NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
+CONFERENCE
+Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a
+_ held on
+has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.
+718/19
+Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record or pro se parties, even if the person requesting
+the transcript is a judge or a member of the public or media.
+The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date of filing of this NOTICE to file with the court
+any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTION of this transcript. A copy of said NOTICE must also
+be served on the court reporter. If no such NOTICE is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically
+available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.
+This process may only be used to redact the following personal data identifiers: Social Security
+numbers; dates of birth; minors' names; and financial account numbers. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
+5.2, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. Parties wishing to request redaction of other information
+may proceed by motion.
+I (we) certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the aboveentitled matter.
+Is KRISTEN CARRANANTE
+Court Reporter/Transcriber
+Date
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbf6a689ff7d14112057785e995ca48dac71ee789ac58ff60641d2abea2b0db9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbf6a689ff7d14112057785e995ca48dac71ee789ac58ff60641d2abea2b0db9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b05c5a741a628918332c269cdedafff0a2e92a50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbf6a689ff7d14112057785e995ca48dac71ee789ac58ff60641d2abea2b0db9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fbf6a689ff7d14112057785e995ca48dac71ee789ac58ff60641d2abea2b0db9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "dce0695da3543fc8ed920cc77447b789dbffac42a64cf6cf767c3f955a5f7fff",
+  "output_sha256": "32bc28168591e1cd57773b58267456e8132a35c65d836e363da0344777d7a8b8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbfddc2b4f56ea0f3178070211ca3af2613a4ac35ae3b9e24754a89a8dac9e83.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbfddc2b4f56ea0f3178070211ca3af2613a4ac35ae3b9e24754a89a8dac9e83.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..609009293ceead6d5113e9e46f4cdadae689337f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbfddc2b4f56ea0f3178070211ca3af2613a4ac35ae3b9e24754a89a8dac9e83.md
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+Casase: 2020000838BABN
+• Document 414 Freet/111004221 Pagage off 3
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+UST SNY
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+DOCUMENT
+New York, New York 10007
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED: 11/4/21
+November 4, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Court hereby DENIES the Government's request as to Dr. Park Dietz
+and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus. Pursuant to this Court's Order, if the
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+Government seeks to exclude these anticipated witnesses, briefing must
+United States District Court
+be submitted by November 8, 2021. Dkt. No. 409. As to the remaining
+Southern District of New York
+individuals disclosed in Defendant's notice, the Court GRANTS the
+United States Courthouse
+Government's request. If the Government seeks to exclude those
+40 Foley Square
+anticipated witnesses, briefing must be submitted by November 15, 2021,
+New York, New York 10007
+with a response by Defendant due November 19, 2021. SO ORDERED.
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Alie A Matter
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+11/4/21
+The Government respectfully moves for reconsideration of the portions of the Court's order
+dated November 3, 2021 (Dkt. No. 409), directing the Government to file by November 8, 2021,
+any briefing to exclude any defense witness testimony disclosed on November 1, 2021, with
+defense responses due November 11, 2021.
+This schedule provides the Government seven days—or six, if timed from the Court's
+order—to respond to the defense's expert notice, in which they gave notice for the first time of
+eight potential experts. By contrast, the Government notes that it provided the defense with notice
+of its expert on April 23, 2021, and the defense filed its motion to preclude on October 18, 2021.'
+Moreover, during that time, the Government will be (1) preparing for the November 10,
+2021 Daubert hearing; (2) responding to the defendant's motion for reconsideration regarding
+disclosure of juror names (Dkt. No. 407); (3) providing the defense with categories of its coconspirator statements and exemplars; (4) briefing the admissibility of Minor Victim-3's testimony
+' The Government also provided expert notice of a witness who it does not believe requires
+admission through Rule 702 on September 15, 2021. The defense has not moved to preclude that
+witness.
+
+
+Casest: 2020003388DAON Document 404 Feet|11004221 Pagage aff 3
+Page 2
+under Rule 404(b) or as direct evidence of the sex trafficking counts; (5) reviewing 400 juror
+questionnaires, conferring with the defense, and filing lists of for-cause strikes with the Court; (6)
+responding to the defendant's fourth bail motion (see Dkt. No. 408); and (7) conferring with the
+MDC regarding the defendant's legal mail and transportation to the courthouse? By November
+10, the Government will also (8) respond to defense objections to the admissibility of coconspirator statements, including a discussion of statements that postdate the charged period of the
+conspiracy; (9) propose procedures for the use of pseudonyms following conferral with defense
+counsel; and (10) provide a letter regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 52. This is
+in addition to the ordinary press of preparing for trial, which in this case involves, among other
+things, extensive travel to meet with victim witnesses.
+The Government is grateful for the care and attention that the Court has devoted to this
+case and the speed and efficiency with which the Court has resolved pretrial matters. In the
+Government's view, however, the foregoing confluence of deadlines seriously taxes the
+Government's ability to provide the Court with the thorough, careful briefing and advocacy that
+the Court rightly expects.
+It is not practicable to further require the Government to brief in six
+days the admissibility of testimony from several defense expert witnesses, particularly when (a)
+the defense had six months to brief the admissibility of a single expert witness; (b) the defense has
+clearly known the identity of these eight experts for some time; and (c) there is additional time
+between now and the start of trial in which to brief and resolve the issues surrounding these experts.
+Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court set a deadline for any
+2 In addition, on November 3, 2021, the Government provided the Court with the joint request to
+charge and verdict form, for which the Government received full comments from the defense late
+last night.
+
+
+Casest: 2020003388DAON Document 404 Feet|111004221 Pagage 8f8 3
+Page 3
+Government briefing of November 15, 2021, with defense responses due thereafter.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+s/
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbfddc2b4f56ea0f3178070211ca3af2613a4ac35ae3b9e24754a89a8dac9e83.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbfddc2b4f56ea0f3178070211ca3af2613a4ac35ae3b9e24754a89a8dac9e83.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f13da415081bf60dae58052673ebaff07424f975
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fbfddc2b4f56ea0f3178070211ca3af2613a4ac35ae3b9e24754a89a8dac9e83.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -40,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fbfddc2b4f56ea0f3178070211ca3af2613a4ac35ae3b9e24754a89a8dac9e83",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2a59fa1ec838054578c475b32e75bbc5ce4a994a8f8fbda61c9d1af6a4120604",
+  "output_sha256": "e0d6fb80bc7d6edea880e451b627136aeb88e1b712d84ae690c0292f20edc65c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc005c2f8cb789420d62674ae7eca20eabd023fdaf14e2a18df31f2cae44a2a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc005c2f8cb789420d62674ae7eca20eabd023fdaf14e2a18df31f2cae44a2a9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..490dcc87f803b27b087836587ccf7f3f1adaf784
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc005c2f8cb789420d62674ae7eca20eabd023fdaf14e2a18df31f2cae44a2a9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+Case 1:19-Cr-00490-RMB Document 47 Filed 08/19/19 Page 1 of 1
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Bwilding
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+August 19, 2019
+VIA ECF
+The Honorable Richard M. Berman
+United States District Judge
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB)
+Dear Judge Berman:
+As the Court is aware, on the morning of August 10, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein died while in
+custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. On August 16, 2019, and after conducting an
+autopsy, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York issued a statement
+identifying the cause of death as hanging, and the manner of death as suicide. In light of the death
+of the defendant prior to a conviction becoming final, the Government must request the Court
+approve the attached proposed order of nolle prosequi.
+Consistent with our practice throughout this case and our obligations under the Crime
+Victims' Rights Act, the Government has made efforts to contact all identified victims since
+learning of the death of the defendant and will similarly notify all known victims of the attached
+order, once entered. As this Office has previously stated publicly, it remains committed to doing
+its utmost to stand up for the victims who have already come forward, as well as for the many
+others who have yet to do so.
+Respectfully submitted,
+GEOFFREY S. BERMAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+Alison Moe / Alex Rossmiller / Maurene Comey
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Tel: (212) 637-2225 / 2415 / 2324
+Ce: All counsel of record (Via ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc005c2f8cb789420d62674ae7eca20eabd023fdaf14e2a18df31f2cae44a2a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc005c2f8cb789420d62674ae7eca20eabd023fdaf14e2a18df31f2cae44a2a9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55a0481e1ede4c6acd7ba484b9aa59b0ec000168
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc005c2f8cb789420d62674ae7eca20eabd023fdaf14e2a18df31f2cae44a2a9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fc005c2f8cb789420d62674ae7eca20eabd023fdaf14e2a18df31f2cae44a2a9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4ba442ebf9b6078422dd0591b409fcc1d8749d5f46d66e73bfda3de54513e2c1",
+  "output_sha256": "7a24eb95adaf83f788e848faced07fbbf800dd7bbe03a89894baecd1640d7538",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc0a978261a1006f492f76ecedd7609a3369a946b8a0ec738dcf56a37e1f8faa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc0a978261a1006f492f76ecedd7609a3369a946b8a0ec738dcf56a37e1f8faa.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6c5b9a2d96e30dacd2724e3ee76e654a4bb663c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc0a978261a1006f492f76ecedd7609a3369a946b8a0ec738dcf56a37e1f8faa.md
@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 612
+Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 5
+HADDON
+Haddon, l
+and
+, P.C
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364
+FX 303.832.2628
+www.hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+VIA EMAIL
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan,
+Ms. Maxwell requests that the "Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene
+and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor,
+Juror 50" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms.
+Maxwell's forthcoming motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully
+during jury selection. Juror 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to
+obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to
+participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not "judicial documents" and
+are afforded no presumption of public access.
+Juror 50 first seeks to intervene suggesting that "it is indisputable that precedent supports
+intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters...." Memo. at 8.
+Au contraire, "the long line of precedent hold[s] that a non-party lacks a judicially
+cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution." United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271, 278 (3d
+Cir. 2012). Juror 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror 50 to intervene in this
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 5
+Page 2
+matter. The request is not to intervene by a journalist for public access. See United States v. Aref
+533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right
+of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent.
+United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure
+of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek
+protective orders). Although Juror 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this
+case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal
+Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of
+the general rule that "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
+nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one
+court has noted, "[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have
+no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case." United States v.
+2013 WL
+4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).
+The second request by Juror 50 is for discovery. Ms. Maxwell's position, to be more fully
+articulated in her forthcoming substantive response to this Motion, is that this request should be
+denied. For purposes of the issue concerning maintaining the seal on public access, discovery
+requests are not "judicial documents." United States v.
+985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519(S.D.N.Y.
+2013) ("experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials"). See
+SEC v. The Street. Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition
+testimony became a "judicial document" "because the Court reviewed it in order to decide
+whether or not to enter [a] protective order").
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 5
+Page 3
+The fact that Juror 50 filed these pleadings does not make them "judicial documents."
+United States v. Amodeo ("Amodeo I"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) ("We think that the
+mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial
+document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to
+the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be
+designated a judicial document."). Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the
+pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access.
+V.
+Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], "the district court may strike
+such material from the filings on the grounds that it is "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
+scandalous." Because such rejected or stricken material is not "relevant to the performance of the
+judicial function" it would not be considered a "judicial document" and would enjoy no
+presumption of public access.").
+The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
+Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a
+right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that "[b]efore any such
+common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue
+are indeed "judicial documents."" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. "Once the court has determined that
+the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access
+attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption." Id. "Finally, after determining the
+weight of the presumption of access, the court must balance competing considerations against
+it."" Id. at 120.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 5
+Page 4
+There exists no compelling reason to release Juror 50's pleadings. Any public release of
+the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which
+is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial
+proceedings.
+The pleadings filed by Juror 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and
+implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the court into juror misconduct. Certainly,
+at least at this stage of the proceedings, the pleadings are not "judicial documents" and until the
+issues around Juror 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should
+remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror 50's pleadings merit judicial document status the seal
+should remain. The pleadings would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and
+compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.
+Juror 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the
+documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror 50's intent, state of mind, and
+actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential
+witnesses, including notably the other jurors. Documents regularly remain sealed where public
+release would "compromis[e] the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation," In re
+Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at
+*5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 612
+Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 5
+Page 5
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+cc: Counsel of record (via Email)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc0a978261a1006f492f76ecedd7609a3369a946b8a0ec738dcf56a37e1f8faa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc0a978261a1006f492f76ecedd7609a3369a946b8a0ec738dcf56a37e1f8faa.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f8f51a77ecc941535562a18000f3be124b9f165
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc0a978261a1006f492f76ecedd7609a3369a946b8a0ec738dcf56a37e1f8faa.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -301,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fc0a978261a1006f492f76ecedd7609a3369a946b8a0ec738dcf56a37e1f8faa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "88c5bdeb0d269c552cb86b01cbd5a6acfcb6d3bb831655f7b5c458e8fb3128f1",
+  "output_sha256": "800920cb3ac21d777e83bef8bad5acfc87f7a308c11387ffac30c19db5fbb039",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc1c21ebef51a017472d45ae4a894b193e179f0d98b55396caa02f0c98d636f8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc1c21ebef51a017472d45ae4a894b193e179f0d98b55396caa02f0c98d636f8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6de7100aa0b69880fbb1dd559c7466841a272fbd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc1c21ebef51a017472d45ae4a894b193e179f0d98b55396caa02f0c98d636f8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 623 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 2
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 597-3 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF USY YORK
+DOCUMENT
+---X
+ELECTRONICATYY FILED
+DOC#
+DATE FILi.D.
+2-13-17
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-ev-07433-RWS
+--X
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
+The motion of Ty Gee for admission to appear and practice pro hac vice in this action is
+GRANTED.
+Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the state of
+Colorado; and that his contact information is as follows:
+Ty Gee, Colorado Atty. Reg. #19772
+HADDoN, |
+AND
+L P.C.
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303.831.7364
+Fax: 303.832.2628
+tgee@hmflaw.com
+Applicant having requested admission pro hac vice to appear for all purposes as counsel
+for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in this action,
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in his
+action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All attorneys
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 623
+Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 2
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 597-3 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 2
+appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules
+governing discipline of attorneys.
+Date:
+2/60/17
+Larr
+States District Judge
+Robek W. Sweet
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc1c21ebef51a017472d45ae4a894b193e179f0d98b55396caa02f0c98d636f8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc1c21ebef51a017472d45ae4a894b193e179f0d98b55396caa02f0c98d636f8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0a1da557fdf52e7f4bb084b876f9da3dde8bafc0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc1c21ebef51a017472d45ae4a894b193e179f0d98b55396caa02f0c98d636f8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fc1c21ebef51a017472d45ae4a894b193e179f0d98b55396caa02f0c98d636f8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7554434427bc31e96beda717f5ea4bea73c03ab8d51cffa87d463a321655c419",
+  "output_sha256": "2689355fd4807b92eb23518868032bb55b89b12efb1d837bfe0d2bfec900b6aa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc7f87360e022d51083a4cdd447b57a18be6f66bae39f8a11ee2d42a75415d62.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc7f87360e022d51083a4cdd447b57a18be6f66bae39f8a11ee2d42a75415d62.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..777eeeca1851c152a140f6a2fc919126e3e9ba14
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc7f87360e022d51083a4cdd447b57a18be6f66bae39f8a11ee2d42a75415d62.md
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 615
+Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+---X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's Reply
+In Support Of Her Motion In Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D.
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+, P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of her Motion In Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry
+Coonan, J.D.
+Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of the
+Attached as Exhibit D (filed under seal) are true and correct copies of |
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 615 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 3
+4.
+Attached as Exhibit E (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of |
+Dated: February 10, 2017
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 615 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on February 10, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S.
+Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's Reply In Support Of Her Motion In Limine to Exclude
+Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D. via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+outh Salem, NY 1059
+tanPottinger@aol.co
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave.., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc7f87360e022d51083a4cdd447b57a18be6f66bae39f8a11ee2d42a75415d62.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc7f87360e022d51083a4cdd447b57a18be6f66bae39f8a11ee2d42a75415d62.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f4f9c3f5526f29ebbf59bdf1c986adc60463a60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc7f87360e022d51083a4cdd447b57a18be6f66bae39f8a11ee2d42a75415d62.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fc7f87360e022d51083a4cdd447b57a18be6f66bae39f8a11ee2d42a75415d62",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "745cd0e37cea7af94ed609e6a34f46d633f8eaaa48d4a699662ba9e5fb8ff0c4",
+  "output_sha256": "2d52fd5f37786ec939d169ce01c936cf01c49c665439a161c015014c69c4100e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc929753fe4e1d0f5ef7000ef7fd3e926fddc992fb797cea7854012d7c114188.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc929753fe4e1d0f5ef7000ef7fd3e926fddc992fb797cea7854012d7c114188.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bb24e29ea43258bc5884807ff3ea327d73231e16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc929753fe4e1d0f5ef7000ef7fd3e926fddc992fb797cea7854012d7c114188.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 379
+Filed 10/28/21 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 10/28/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+As noted in its previous order, the Court will hold an in-person pretrial conference on
+November 1, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Dkt. No. 330. The conference will take place in Courtroom 518
+of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall
+U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. In accordance with its prior Order,
+the Court will ensure access for alleged victims and any members of the Defendant's family.
+Dkt. No. 344. Two pool reporters will be permitted in the courtroom proper.
+In order to comply with the District's COVID-19 protocols, the public will be able to
+access the proceeding in overflow Courtrooms 110, 506, 619, 905, and 906 of the Thurgood
+Marshall U.S. Courthouse. These overflow rooms will have live video and audio feeds of the
+proceeding. The use of any electronic devices during the proceeding in the overflow rooms
+is strictly prohibited.
+The Court anticipates seating capacity in the overflow rooms for at least 100 members of
+the public. If capacity is reached, no additional persons will be admitted. Per the S.D.N.Y.
+Response to COVID-19, anyone who appears at any S.D.N.Y. courthouse must complete a
+questionnaire on the date of the proceeding prior to entering the courthouse. All visitors must
+also have their temperature taken when they arrive at the courthouse. Only persons who meet
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 379 Filed 10/28/21 Page 2 of 2
+the entry requirements established by the questionnaire and whose temperatures are below 100.4
+degrees will be allowed to enter the courthouse. All visitors must wear a mask that covers the
+person's nose and mouth. Bandannas, gaiters, and masks with valves are not permitted. If a
+person does not have an approved mask, a screener will provide one. Anyone who fails to
+comply with the COVID-19 protocols that have been adopted by the Court will be required to
+leave the courthouse. There are no exceptions. For more information, please see
+https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/covid-19-coronavirus.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: October 28, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia Q. Notor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc929753fe4e1d0f5ef7000ef7fd3e926fddc992fb797cea7854012d7c114188.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc929753fe4e1d0f5ef7000ef7fd3e926fddc992fb797cea7854012d7c114188.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2c3b79668942acbf6b5c2985145bfde06c25554c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fc929753fe4e1d0f5ef7000ef7fd3e926fddc992fb797cea7854012d7c114188.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fc929753fe4e1d0f5ef7000ef7fd3e926fddc992fb797cea7854012d7c114188",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6e58e8c06da424d91eb8fa37604602ce42c61529e345f70341104dab2f2c0f5e",
+  "output_sha256": "2b2f3aaedf5ab0065772f085466080eb6e89883b1c10633f352900cd30121d56",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcb89ad1b0c18da491e546dc09142ea91993033b531d0c96e241bf5e4c50985c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcb89ad1b0c18da491e546dc09142ea91993033b531d0c96e241bf5e4c50985c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f020289d3f60ee78438051d8bbacbab822e702c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcb89ad1b0c18da491e546dc09142ea91993033b531d0c96e241bf5e4c50985c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 660-3 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcb89ad1b0c18da491e546dc09142ea91993033b531d0c96e241bf5e4c50985c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcb89ad1b0c18da491e546dc09142ea91993033b531d0c96e241bf5e4c50985c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b55d0cc7d5345996eaf0eb2729ae691c29dd207
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcb89ad1b0c18da491e546dc09142ea91993033b531d0c96e241bf5e4c50985c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fcb89ad1b0c18da491e546dc09142ea91993033b531d0c96e241bf5e4c50985c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4e8056e5851577709782e16a14c1e135b75cd1482ffae476910a6b6e8d08424e",
+  "output_sha256": "b67fad7e40b5bdf569176db4a02aba4c915bbab1b560841c4e4a24ab2f436238",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcd733bd72bd9280d7f4b114938d387f330295719dc48831474be7843454fda3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcd733bd72bd9280d7f4b114938d387f330295719dc48831474be7843454fda3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8608c22ef9eeaa25b324dc8e2e7b01e7fbb042f8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcd733bd72bd9280d7f4b114938d387f330295719dc48831474be7843454fda3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 554-1 |
+Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN E. STEPHENSON, JR.
+I, John E. Stephenson, Jr., hereby declare as follows:
+I am a partner with the law firm Alston & Bird LLP. I am admitted to practice law
+in Georgia. I make this declaration in connection with my motion for admission pro hac vice in the
+above-captioned matter.
+3.
+I have never been convicted of a felony.
+I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or
+readmission by any court.
+There are no disciplinary proceedings pending against me.
+Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of
+the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Executed on January 20, 2017
+Johnny Stephenson
+ohn E. Stephenson, Jr
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcd733bd72bd9280d7f4b114938d387f330295719dc48831474be7843454fda3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcd733bd72bd9280d7f4b114938d387f330295719dc48831474be7843454fda3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a9d43d975e4bddbdae22d4212917e1b57203785
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcd733bd72bd9280d7f4b114938d387f330295719dc48831474be7843454fda3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fcd733bd72bd9280d7f4b114938d387f330295719dc48831474be7843454fda3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "15c8cef84c58fb6a2f963ecae12ffaebd76db9b5e23cbb32d7c21ced6c31825e",
+  "output_sha256": "3827918f9cb6fd95712f8fa8a751838b46fdf18363c110bc381f0f3ca2ea964a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fce44c88b0adf3a29a890b3413f0ba328f600725e7eb22fdb5d904062e15c9ee.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fce44c88b0adf3a29a890b3413f0ba328f600725e7eb22fdb5d904062e15c9ee.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..364336629d46ce353e652e5131fa42ba67c1bb56
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fce44c88b0adf3a29a890b3413f0ba328f600725e7eb22fdb5d904062e15c9ee.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 840-1 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(FILE UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fce44c88b0adf3a29a890b3413f0ba328f600725e7eb22fdb5d904062e15c9ee.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fce44c88b0adf3a29a890b3413f0ba328f600725e7eb22fdb5d904062e15c9ee.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..126ad81b36b4e515989f85c50e5f6db97a8b0310
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fce44c88b0adf3a29a890b3413f0ba328f600725e7eb22fdb5d904062e15c9ee.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fce44c88b0adf3a29a890b3413f0ba328f600725e7eb22fdb5d904062e15c9ee",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4d4400dee43b41707300ac0c853777a57eb40c58b72c815d60cc297ee7865284",
+  "output_sha256": "ef6470283e5aaad6874d8cbb3f4a1c3c68e338f64f7929866885ccc74dbfe874",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcebfdd95ce95ddc1ebbf2409d797366f03c6810af7ca0e2d497800562d14f82.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcebfdd95ce95ddc1ebbf2409d797366f03c6810af7ca0e2d497800562d14f82.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f8b539d2996acf88e39bf326223c39b3958f4f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcebfdd95ce95ddc1ebbf2409d797366f03c6810af7ca0e2d497800562d14f82.md
@@ -0,0 +1,391 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 156-7 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+Unidented Professionals Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 6
+Log Email Sent
+ID
+Date
+Email From
+Email To
+CC Address
+Privilege
+Action
+Page
+Doc
+Count Type
+1 Brad
+, Paul Cassell,
+, Brad
+Brittany
+(and
+Paul Cassell,
+other, Sigrid McCawley,
+Brittany
+L Sigrid
+Meredith
+, David
+McCawley, Meredith
+Emails,
+Boies, Jack Scarola, Stan
+David Boies, Jack
+letters, and
+Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Scarola, Stan Pottinger,
+Legal Assistants,
+Ellen Brockman, Legal
+communicat Professionals retained by
+Assistants, Professionals
+ions from
+attorneys to aid in the
+retained by attorneys to aid
+2011-
+rendition of legal advice
+in the rendition of legal
+125 Present
+and representation
+advice and representation
+Subject Matter
+Type of Privilege
+Plaintiff has objected that Defendant's requests
+are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as
+individually logging all privileged responsive
+documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff
+contends that requests targeting such privileged
+information are not reasonably calculated to lead
+to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not
+important to resolving the issues, are not relevant
+to any party's claim or defense, are not
+proportional to the needs of the case, and creates
+a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its
+benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed
+categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule
+26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane
+Doe #2 v. United States ("CVRA case"), Case no. 08-
+80736-CIV-Marra, pending in the Southern District
+of Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the
+privileges asserted included communications from
+to the attorneys listed seeking legal
+advice related to the CVRA case, communications
+from the attorneys to
+giving legal
+advice or giving attorney mental impressions
+related to the CVRA case, communications sending
+or attaching attorney work product related to the
+CVRA case, and/or communications sending or
+AC Privilege and
+attaching client revisions to attorney work product Work Product/joint
+related to the CVRA case, and communications re defense/common
+evidence.
+interest
+docs
+overla
+pping
+
+
+Unidented Professionals Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 0т 6
+Log Email Sent
+ID
+Date
+Email From
+Email To
+CC Address
+Privilege
+Action
+Page
+Doc
+Count Type
+Brittany
+1 Brad
+Paul Cassell,
+Sigrid
+1. Brad
+Paul Cassell,
+McCawley, Meredith
+Brittany
+Sigrid
+David Boies,
+McCawley, Meredith
+Emails,
+Stephen Zach, Stan
+, David Boies,
+letters, and
+Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Stephen Zach, Stan
+Legal Assistants,
+Pottinger, Ellen Brockman,
+communicat Professionals retained by
+Legal Assistants,
+lions from
+attorneys to aid in the
+Professionals retained by
+19/21/15-
+rendition of legal advice
+attorneys to aid in the
+126 Present
+and representation
+rendition of legal advice and
+Subject Matter
+Type of Privilege
+Plaintiff has objected that Defendant's requests
+are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as
+individually logging all privileged responsive
+documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff
+contends that requests targeting such privileged
+information are not reasonably calculated to lead
+to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not
+important to resolving the issues, are not relevant
+to any party's claim or defense, are not
+proportional to the needs of the case, and creates
+a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its
+benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed
+categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule
+26.2(c). Correspondence re:
+v. Maxwell
+("Maxwell case"), 15-cv-07433-RWS, pending in
+the Southern District of New York, since the date
+of filing, September 21, 2015. Documents
+withheld pursuant to the privileges asserted
+included communications from
+to the
+attorneys listed seeking legal advice related to the
+Maxwell case, communications from the attorneys
+tol
+giving legal advice or giving attorney
+mental impressions related to the Maxwell case,
+communications sending or attaching attorney
+work product related to the Maxwell case, and/or AC Privilege and
+communications sending or attaching client
+Work Product/joint
+revisions to attorney work product related to the defense/common
+Maxwell case, and communications re evidence.
+interest
+Appro
+x. 1.3K
+docs
+overla
+pping
+
+
+Unidented Professionals Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 6
+Log Email Sent
+ID
+Date
+Email From
+Email To
+CC Address
+Privilege
+Action
+Page
+Doc
+Count Type
+1, Brad
+Paul Cassell,
+, Brad
+Brittany
+Sigrid
+Paul Cassell,
+McCawley, Meredith
+Brittany
+, Sigrid
+Emails,
+David Boies,
+McCawley, Meredith
+letters, and
+Stephen Zach, Stan
+, David Boies,
+Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Stephen Zach, Stan
+communicat Legal Assistants,
+Pottinger, Ellen Brockman,
+lions from
+Professionals retained by
+Legal Assistants,
+January
+attorneys to aid in the
+Professionals retained by
+2015-
+rendition of legal advice
+attorneys to aid in the
+127 Present
+and representation
+rendition of legal advice and
+Subject Matter
+Type of Privilege
+are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as
+individually logging all privileged responsive
+documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff
+contends that requests targeting such privileged
+information are not reasonably calculated to lead
+to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not
+important to resolving the issues, are not relevant
+to any party's claim or defense, are not
+proportional to the needs of the case, and creates
+a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its
+benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed
+categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule
+26.2(c). Correspondence re:
+and
+Paul Cassell v. Alan Dershowitz("Dershowitz
+case"), Case no. 15000072, pending in the
+Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County,
+Florida. Documents withheld pursuant to the
+privileges asserted included communications from
+to the attorneys listed seeking legal
+advice related to the Dershowitz case,
+communications from the attorneys to
+giving legal advice or giving attorney mental
+impressions related to the Dershowitz case,
+communications sending or attaching attorney
+work product related to the Dershowitz case,
+AC Privilege and
+and/or communications sending or attaching
+Work Product/joint
+client revisions to attorney work product related
+|to the Dershowitz case, and communications re
+defense/common
+interest
+Appro
+x. 1.3K
+docs
+overla
+pping
+
+
+Unidented Professional File 05/20/16 Page 5 of 6
+Log Email Sent
+ID
+Date
+Email From
+Email To
+CC Address
+Emails,
+1. Bob
+Josefsberg, Katherine W.
+letters, and Ezell, Amy Ederi, other
+Podhurst attorneys, Legal
+communicat Assistants, and
+ions from
+Professionals retained by
+2009-
+attorneys to aid in the
+128 Present
+endition of legal advice
+re evidence.
+AC Privilege and
+defense/common
+interest
+Privilege
+Action
+Page
+Doc
+Count Type
+Subject Matter
+Plaintiff has objected that Defendant's requests
+are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as
+individually logging all privileged responsive
+documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff
+contends that requests targeting such privileged
+information are not reasonably calculated to lead
+to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not
+important to resolving the issues, are not relevant
+to any party's claim or defense, are not
+proportional to the needs of the case, and creates
+a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its
+benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed
+categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule
+26.2(c). Correspondence re: Jane Doe No. 102 v.
+Jeffrey Epstein("Epstein case"), Case No. 09-80656-
+CIV-Marra/
+(Southern District of Florida).
+Documents withheld pursuant to the privileges
+asserted included communications from
+to the attorneys listed seeking legal advice
+related to the Epstein case, communications from
+the attorneys to
+giving legal advice or
+giving attorney mental impressions related to the
+Epstein case, communications sending or
+attaching attorney work product related to the
+Type of Privilege
+Appro
+x. 1.3K
+docs
+overla
+Ipping
+
+
+Unidented Professionals Filed 05/20/16 Page 6 of 6
+Log Email Sent
+ID
+Date
+Email From
+Email To
+CC Address
+, Brad
+Paul Cassell,
+Brad
+Paul Cassell,
+Brittany
+Sigrid Brittany
+Sigrid
+Emails,
+letters, and
+McCawley, Meredith
+McCawley, Meredith
+. David Boies,
+, David Boies,
+Stephen Zach, Stan
+Stephen Zach, Stan
+communicat Pottinger, Ellen Brockman, Pottinger, Ellen Brockman,
+Legal Assistants,
+Legal Assistants,
+Professionals retained by
+Professionals retained by
+2015-
+152 Present
+attorneys to aid in the
+attorneys to aid in the
+rendition of legal advice
+rendition of legal advice
+Subject Matter
+Plaintiff has objected that Defendant's requests
+are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as
+individually logging all privileged responsive
+documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff
+contends that requests targeting such privileged
+information are not reasonably calculated to lead
+to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not
+important to resolving the issues, are not relevant
+to any party's claim or defense, are not
+proportional to the needs of the case, and creates
+a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its
+benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed
+categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil
+Rule26.2(c). This categorical entry is regarding
+correspondencere potential legal action against
+entities and individuals. Documents withheld
+pursuant to the privileges asserted included
+communications from
+to the attorneys
+isted seeking legal advice related to potential lav
+suits, communications from the attorneys to
+giving legal advice or giving attorney
+mental impressions related to the law suits,
+communications sending or attaching attorney
+work product related to potential lawsuits, and/or
+communications sending orattaching client
+revisions to attorney work product relatedto
+potential lawsuits, and communications re
+evidence.
+Type of Privilege
+Privilege
+Action
+Page
+Doc
+Count Type
+AC Privilege and
+Work Product/joint
+defense/common
+interest
+Appro
+x. 1.3K
+overla
+Ipping
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcebfdd95ce95ddc1ebbf2409d797366f03c6810af7ca0e2d497800562d14f82.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcebfdd95ce95ddc1ebbf2409d797366f03c6810af7ca0e2d497800562d14f82.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d8683fa19f9bfddb9b85c3c51c255f0717c0314
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fcebfdd95ce95ddc1ebbf2409d797366f03c6810af7ca0e2d497800562d14f82.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -421,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fcebfdd95ce95ddc1ebbf2409d797366f03c6810af7ca0e2d497800562d14f82",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "18374fca847a02eec394e228c8aa0961c9a57c3cf6af89f83dbd7e5bfbbd4ef8",
+  "output_sha256": "48c747f4641fd101c0d1a6eca9cbf170d0d7dd72514bd618e4503e2b52b487ca",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd011eb47bee991b1ddeea652e942e06ece49c18e33a702e9d1e0cc3457b2e30.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd011eb47bee991b1ddeea652e942e06ece49c18e33a702e9d1e0cc3457b2e30.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..495c5f4f5f30a7eae3c5e073edf8f6de37190902
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd011eb47bee991b1ddeea652e942e06ece49c18e33a702e9d1e0cc3457b2e30.md
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 385-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 385-1
+Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 3
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+October 11, 2021
+BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
+Christian Everdell, Esq.
+& Gresser LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Laura Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+Haddon,
+and
+150 East Tenth Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+P.C.
+Bobbi Sternheim, Esq.
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+33 West 19th Street-4th Fl.
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Counsel:
+We write to notify you that the Government may seek to introduce certain evidence at trial.
+In particular, the Government may offer certain exhibits at trial that demonstrate that.
+We are producing these proposed exhibits today, marked with the following exhibit
+numbers: GX 401 through 404, GX 409 through 410, and GX 413.
+In addition, please be advised that the Government may call
+as a witness
+at trial. Today, we are producing Jencks Act materials relating to
+, who was employed
+by Jeffrey Epstein from
+The Government anticipates that
+will testify about, among other things, certain documentary evidence relating to the charged
+crimes. The Government further anticipates that
+will testify about her role in
+scheduling sexualized massages for Jeffrey Epstein with underage girls.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 385-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 3
+Page 2
+This evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative,
+pursuant to Rule 404(b) as proof of the defendant's intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity,
+and/or absence of mistake of accident with respect to the charges in the above-referenced case.
+Because this evidence is admissible as direct evidence, the Government is not planning to
+affirmatively move in limine to seck its admission.
+Please note that this letter and the information contained herein is governed by the July 31,
+2020 Protective Order in this case. This letter is itself designated as "confidential" under the
+Protective Order.
+Very truly yours,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+by:
+/s
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+(212) 637-2324
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd011eb47bee991b1ddeea652e942e06ece49c18e33a702e9d1e0cc3457b2e30.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd011eb47bee991b1ddeea652e942e06ece49c18e33a702e9d1e0cc3457b2e30.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e91b96bd4804ab182cf351868fa7525446f23562
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd011eb47bee991b1ddeea652e942e06ece49c18e33a702e9d1e0cc3457b2e30.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fd011eb47bee991b1ddeea652e942e06ece49c18e33a702e9d1e0cc3457b2e30",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "06ba1c64a8aa0d62ca746b5d90f4fa1d7dc852ee66782126553d61347c13c341",
+  "output_sha256": "124597459f1bbf968a9099114431bb906feab9e0a563a421d88b4cf98dea289e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd0369565c294127bae49e1d9ac50b6656fb96fd15ab10f9b79cb1b1051ea072.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd0369565c294127bae49e1d9ac50b6656fb96fd15ab10f9b79cb1b1051ea072.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60986ec45d0bdb4f129623bab9f4a373198a6e68
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd0369565c294127bae49e1d9ac50b6656fb96fd15ab10f9b79cb1b1051ea072.md
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 800 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+PLAINTIFF'S CORRECTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO BRING PERSONAL
+ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTING DEVICES INTO
+THE COURTHOUSE FROM MARCH 30, 2017 - JUNE 16, 2017
+Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court for an Order
+granting leave to bring Personal Electronic Devices and General Purpose Computing Device into
+the Courthouse for hearings and trial currently scheduled in the above-styled case from March
+30, 2017 - June 16, 2017. Plaintiff and listed attorneys will comply with all of the obligations
+and restrictions imposed pursuant to Standing Order M10-468, as Revised.
+Plaintiff has included a list of attorney names and related devices.
+See Exhibit A, completed Standing Order M10-468 form, as Revised.
+Dated: March 28, 2016
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 800 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 3
+Dated: March 28, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid S. McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+5801) 58-5202 T84112
+"This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 800 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 28™ day of March, 2017, 1 electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd0369565c294127bae49e1d9ac50b6656fb96fd15ab10f9b79cb1b1051ea072.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd0369565c294127bae49e1d9ac50b6656fb96fd15ab10f9b79cb1b1051ea072.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8559774bf9b94f6ce9cd2f8a6c4e60d29ee8e443
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd0369565c294127bae49e1d9ac50b6656fb96fd15ab10f9b79cb1b1051ea072.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fd0369565c294127bae49e1d9ac50b6656fb96fd15ab10f9b79cb1b1051ea072",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4ccba073fdd97c578e7dbbb9b7981c78c36406c5e44445b11783e1669714518e",
+  "output_sha256": "3780a333f998fd967026a293749ab05f017201468b6324645fc6e4f9d0c151af",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd122b8b212d9f43794d4d31e33dd8d06a9376992037af0f4fb87558b0ba27cb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd122b8b212d9f43794d4d31e33dd8d06a9376992037af0f4fb87558b0ba27cb.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be072d2756553097730fee9fa169111a6eedabcc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd122b8b212d9f43794d4d31e33dd8d06a9376992037af0f4fb87558b0ba27cb.md
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 57 Filed 09/26/19
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+19 CR 490 (RMB)
+Before Hon. Richard M. Berman
+NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF
+GLORIA ALLRED AND ALLRED,
+MAROKO & GOLDBERG OF
+REPRESENTATION OF THE
+SECOND OF THREE JANE DOES
+WHOSE VICTIM STATEMENTS
+WERE READ BY GLORIA ALLRED
+ON AUGUST 27, 2019
+11
+12
+ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG
+BY: GLORIA ALLRED
+14
+[Jane Doe appearing on Page 76 Line 20 through Page 78 Line 20 in the official transcript of the
+15
+August 27, 2019 Victim Impact Statement hearing
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+26
+27
+September 25, 2019
+NOTICE OF WITHORAWAL OF CLORIA ALLRED AND ALLRED, MAROKO & COLDBERG OF REPRESENTATION OF THE SEZ, 21$
+OF FOUR JANE DOES WHOSE VICTIM STATEMENTS WERE READ ON AUGUST 27, 2019
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB
+Document 57 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 2
+1
+Gloria Allred and Allred, Maroko & Goldberg hereby inform the Court that they no longer
+represent the third of four Jane Does who were represented by Gloria Allred and Allred, Maroko &
+Goldberg, and whose Victim Impact Statement was read into the record during the August 27,
+4
+2019 hearing before the Honorable Richard M. Berman. The Notice of Withdrawal is only as to
+the Jane Doe whose statement appears on Page 76, Line 20 through Page 78, Line 20 of the August
+27, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings. Gloria Allred and Allred, Maroko & Goldberg continue to
+represent the other three Jane Does whose Victim Impact Statements appear on Page 75, Line 9
+through Page 76, Line 17, Page 78, Line 21 through Page 84, Line 2, and on Page 84, Line 4
+9 through Page 85, Line 12.
+8
+10
+ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG
+GLORIA ALLRED
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+26
+28
+2
+Sentember 25, 2019
+NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF GLORIA ALLRED AND ALLRED, MAROKO & GOLDBERG OF REPRESENTATION OF THE SECOND
+OF FOUR JANE DOES WHOSE VICTIM STATEMENTS WERE READ ON AUGUST 27, 2019
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd122b8b212d9f43794d4d31e33dd8d06a9376992037af0f4fb87558b0ba27cb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd122b8b212d9f43794d4d31e33dd8d06a9376992037af0f4fb87558b0ba27cb.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3a11ea9fa3f94bbfe5fad9b672719109a0a5291
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd122b8b212d9f43794d4d31e33dd8d06a9376992037af0f4fb87558b0ba27cb.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fd122b8b212d9f43794d4d31e33dd8d06a9376992037af0f4fb87558b0ba27cb",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "11d6eade8986a1b37d5f1df0b28507a16d4473655bb8697cee1b6666f9923159",
+  "output_sha256": "397c211f58b76a57ff580042a50e0243ddff88dae673b505c6c2f2438670013e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7b619b49de0f78ce18b55bc8f9f8c6e50191743ab15dc0383f6adac8d29b39.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7b619b49de0f78ce18b55bc8f9f8c6e50191743ab15dc0383f6adac8d29b39.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e9e660d2cb313cea230a649239e92c31141a22ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7b619b49de0f78ce18b55bc8f9f8c6e50191743ab15dc0383f6adac8d29b39.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 219-1
+Filed 06/16/16
+
+District of Onlumbia Omart of Appeals
+Committee on Inauthorized Practice of lat
+130 g Street, N.J. — Room 123
+Mashington, 9. 0. 20001
+202 / 879-2777
+I, JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court
+of Appeals, do hereby certify that
+GREGORY L. POE
+was on DECEMBER 10, 1990 duly qualified and admitted as an
+attorney and counselor entitled to practice before this Court and is,
+on the date indicated below, an active member in good standing of
+this Bar.
+In Testimony Whereof, I have
+hereunto subscribed my name
+and affixed the seal of this Court
+at the City of Washington, D.C.,
+on June 13, 2016.
+JULIO A. CASTILLO
+Clerk of the Court
+By:
+Nexitte are
+Deputy Clerk
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7b619b49de0f78ce18b55bc8f9f8c6e50191743ab15dc0383f6adac8d29b39.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7b619b49de0f78ce18b55bc8f9f8c6e50191743ab15dc0383f6adac8d29b39.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1bd30fe8e9d11fd90598064db0b43cda9be6e82c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7b619b49de0f78ce18b55bc8f9f8c6e50191743ab15dc0383f6adac8d29b39.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fd7b619b49de0f78ce18b55bc8f9f8c6e50191743ab15dc0383f6adac8d29b39",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "09a614d37d26eaea8e40a3e84d4526be7ca2b3272fdfa25fe0e828360d682635",
+  "output_sha256": "81e3c695051880afdeeedecff43693891e023580dd414b16d9785b456d196d66",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7e68f140311789d58153025391004ac57e5b5c6da431ecefe7720d83a369fa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7e68f140311789d58153025391004ac57e5b5c6da431ecefe7720d83a369fa.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b81e928ea7011eed4d550a61a94ed9abc7aff0a4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7e68f140311789d58153025391004ac57e5b5c6da431ecefe7720d83a369fa.md
@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 490
+Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 3
+HADDON
+A N
+N
+Haddon, l
+and
+. P.C
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364
+FX 303.832.2628
+www.hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+November 15, 2021
+VIA EMAIL
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan,
+There are two fundamental flaws with the government's evidentiary proffer regarding
+proposed Exhibit 52. First, as a matter of fact, Government Exhibit 52 was not something that
+the cooperating government witness reviewed, used, or saw during her brief employment with
+Jeffrey Epstein. Records produced in discovery reflect that witness began working for Epstein in
+At that point, the suspect source of Government Exhibit 52, Alfredo Rodriguez, was not
+employed by Epstein because he had been fired in 2004.
+According to Mr. Rodriguez, when he left the Epstein home he took an address book,
+which he claimed was Epstein's book, and had it in his possession until 2009 when he tried to
+sell it to Brad
+for $50,000.' The book was clearly altered by Mr. Rodriguez. The single
+'Mr. Rodriguez knew the target of his intended sale which makes the likelihood of
+alteration all the more probable. Mr.
+was a lawyer with of the Fort Lauderdale law firm
+of Rothstein Rosenfelt Adler. The firm was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 490 Filed 11/22/21 Page 2 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+November 15, 2021
+Page 2
+page that the government intends to offer has various handwritten notations on the copy. The
+book, as an entire document, contains numerous handwritten notations, added tabs, and
+additional handwritten pages. The government does not explain how the one selected page is
+authentic and does not identify any Fed, R. Evid 602 basis for the witness's testimony about the
+book.
+The evidentiary proffer by the government glosses over what limited facts the witness
+may have actual knowledge about: that she saw copies of address books in the Palm Beach
+Residence beginning in l
+| She cannot say that Exhibit 52 was one of these books and she
+cannot comment about the alterations made by Mr. Rodriguez. There is no other address book to
+compare with Exhibit 52. Other witnesses dispute the characterization of the books as proffered
+by the government.
+The party offering an exhibit must demonstrate "evidence sufficient to support a finding
+that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). "The requirement
+under Rule 901 is satisfied 'if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror
+could find in favor of authenticity or identification.' " United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658
+(2d Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Ruggiero, 928 F.2d 1289, 1303 (2d Cir.1991)). The
+government cannot meet this minimal threshold here.
+Ms. Maxwell respectfully suggests that this issue cannot be resolved by the Court without
+consideration of the evidence and the witness through whom the government will attempt
+Southern District of Florida for a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme, involving falsifying documents,
+neluding police reports and court pleadings, specifically against Epstein; blackmailing targete
+lefendants to settle false allegations of sexual harassment and abuse; and devising an investmen
+scheme involving pre-trial funding in the guise of structured settlements.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 490 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+November 15, 2021
+Page 3
+authentication. Ms. Maxwell requests that the government be precluded from discussing the book
+at trial prior to a proper evidentiary foundation being established. In addition, the government
+should be required to produce the entire book for inspection at trial and counsel for Ms. Maxwell
+should be afforded an opportunity to conduct voir dire of the exhibit with the proffering witness.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+&/
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7e68f140311789d58153025391004ac57e5b5c6da431ecefe7720d83a369fa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7e68f140311789d58153025391004ac57e5b5c6da431ecefe7720d83a369fa.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..859f9a1ea4e61a5bd63391ba400377f12abe3e60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd7e68f140311789d58153025391004ac57e5b5c6da431ecefe7720d83a369fa.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fd7e68f140311789d58153025391004ac57e5b5c6da431ecefe7720d83a369fa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "772d630924d71e91b71b2513e115deb5dc82ffd6613f3b09e22486cad7c431d2",
+  "output_sha256": "6d922ae533f3c25b0740aa706a95e1613788e13b7f84a37ce9470e1dbf4984ee",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd9d78a4823022130e0ace8550c3d7300a5d7bafa3db0317040ba96a2446049f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd9d78a4823022130e0ace8550c3d7300a5d7bafa3db0317040ba96a2446049f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d5d2c6e8f5e8a821ec9ddd2238e3e26970ea1e0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd9d78a4823022130e0ace8550c3d7300a5d7bafa3db0317040ba96a2446049f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 575 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
+RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPERT
+TESTIMONY AND OPINIONS OF REBUTTAL EXPERT WILLIAM F.
+1, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Response In
+Opposition To Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions of Rebuttal Expert
+William F.
+3.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of |
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of |
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 575 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 3
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+/s/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+Dated: January 30, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Meredith
+Sigrid S. McCawley(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+] (Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+1, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-5202'
+This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and i
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 575 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 30th day of January, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+,, P.C.
+/s/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd9d78a4823022130e0ace8550c3d7300a5d7bafa3db0317040ba96a2446049f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd9d78a4823022130e0ace8550c3d7300a5d7bafa3db0317040ba96a2446049f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51ac29515690b9fb3a99bdba73c8879c95c40b26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fd9d78a4823022130e0ace8550c3d7300a5d7bafa3db0317040ba96a2446049f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fd9d78a4823022130e0ace8550c3d7300a5d7bafa3db0317040ba96a2446049f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "739eeeb82dbce03e003931dc0423ea3a99baf887d88665136b9f8a15595471f0",
+  "output_sha256": "32939933384fae3593d206a774a27c8e936ebf21459a8e0ca2d38c749d7af1f0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fda24f3de87a866c9e0b52114206597a873851960c3731e0e1a9d28fea6f2906.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fda24f3de87a866c9e0b52114206597a873851960c3731e0e1a9d28fea6f2906.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1fe4135c90a3fc34b760942378520ca9054ed090
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fda24f3de87a866c9e0b52114206597a873851960c3731e0e1a9d28fea6f2906.md
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 8
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintift,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+!
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO
+PRODUCTION OF
+SUBMITTED FOR
+IN CAMERA REVIEW AND SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO
+PRODUCE HER
+Sigrid McCawley
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830 Filed 04/04/17 Page 2 of 8
+Plaintiff
+by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
+Response In Opposition to Defendant's Objection to Production of l
+Submitted for In Camera Review and Second Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Her |
+On August 9, 2016,
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+submitted a motion to compel seeking, among other
+things,
+August 19, 2016 (DE 383 at 9-11) and L
+This issue was fully briefed in Defendant's Response on
+Reply on August 24, 2017 (DE 397 at 2-4).
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830
+Filed 04/04/17
+
+ARGUMENT
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830 Filed 04/04/17 Page 4 of 8
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830 Filed 04/04/17 Page 5 of 8
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830 Filed 04/04/17 Page 6 of 8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830 l
+Filed 04/04/17 Page 7 of 8
+CONCLUSION
+For the foregoing reasons,
+respectfully requests that the Court affirm its
+March 23, 2017, holding that the
+submitted by
+Defendant for in camera review is relevant to this action and Order the production of |
+Dated: April 4, 2017
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+By: /s/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice
+Meredith
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd.., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+1 (Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+_. FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+so river age of la.
+Salt Lake City,
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 830 Filed 04/04/17 Page 8 of 8
+UT 84112(801) 585-52022
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 4, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
+document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the foregoing
+document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission of Notices
+of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq.
+HADDON,
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+, P.C.
+Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+2 This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+8
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fda24f3de87a866c9e0b52114206597a873851960c3731e0e1a9d28fea6f2906.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fda24f3de87a866c9e0b52114206597a873851960c3731e0e1a9d28fea6f2906.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..94ae0d93710f80402cd7880ae706195fb4ece208
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fda24f3de87a866c9e0b52114206597a873851960c3731e0e1a9d28fea6f2906.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -107,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fda24f3de87a866c9e0b52114206597a873851960c3731e0e1a9d28fea6f2906",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "59a25cee490bb4d5817c0066561b710566bd269df0d2075e1e5516795cb83fea",
+  "output_sha256": "c81a186075a66c124f27f9ef39f2ab0e5a751aad0a0a200650290f1db27e4c70",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdd2893208946ba6c3df3800cb916248a267b3ce9055e67b5b5eeb4f5dc97c98.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdd2893208946ba6c3df3800cb916248a267b3ce9055e67b5b5eeb4f5dc97c98.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9c5ccb0ad5ea85af103c4b36b97f3adb07f581df
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdd2893208946ba6c3df3800cb916248a267b3ce9055e67b5b5eeb4f5dc97c98.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 993-1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 993-1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 2
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Categories:
+Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
+Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:27 PM
+Sigrid McCawley; Jeff Pagliuca; Ty Gee; Nicole
+Meredith
+; Brad
+(brad@pathtojustice.com); Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu)
+RE:
+v. Maxwell, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Red Category
+Sigrid -
+Thank you for offering to jointly submit typographical corrections to the deposition designations for both parties. We will be
+happy to join in a request for correction, but due to scheduling conflicts including (as you know) Jeff's daughter's wedding this
+week, we are unable to do so by your proposed date of March 3.
+Since the depo objections are not being argued until April 6, I propose that both sides aim to submit any changes, as well as one
+set of depo transcripts marked with both sides designations and objections, by March 24*.
+Will you agree to that date?
+Thanks,
+Laura
+F
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+and
+, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached
+to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
+person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this
+transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
+attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
+the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
+saving it in any manner. Thank you.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdd2893208946ba6c3df3800cb916248a267b3ce9055e67b5b5eeb4f5dc97c98.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdd2893208946ba6c3df3800cb916248a267b3ce9055e67b5b5eeb4f5dc97c98.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6f93ce26c97c5064a369c12a052638becd48a8bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdd2893208946ba6c3df3800cb916248a267b3ce9055e67b5b5eeb4f5dc97c98.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fdd2893208946ba6c3df3800cb916248a267b3ce9055e67b5b5eeb4f5dc97c98",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "680483b1f340573c0e21918a0579feac0e2807885d8e185bc508840102159a4e",
+  "output_sha256": "3c50929d30203359114655e33ef3446fcd87fba4baf5ba07454faab1108eef1a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdef13f5f05d86edcea411c0d5b6937a3cedbb83e6be60727e80c2be30cb04e2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdef13f5f05d86edcea411c0d5b6937a3cedbb83e6be60727e80c2be30cb04e2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..25bea9a545406085920e1368e8db944cc002a516
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdef13f5f05d86edcea411c0d5b6937a3cedbb83e6be60727e80c2be30cb04e2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149
+Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 9
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+-X
+Defendant's Combined Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant
+to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal and
+Motion to Terminate or Limit Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3)
+Laura A. Menninger
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+HADDON,
+East 10" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+303.831.7364
+AND
+P.C.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 9
+INTRODUCTION
+Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, through her attorneys, responds to Plaintiff's Motion to
+Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed Under Seal (Doc. # 143) ("Motion").
+Ms. Maxwell, pursuant to Rule 30(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves to
+prohibit Plaintiff from asking her questions about any adult,
+In support of her
+requests, Ms. Maxwell states:
+Plaintiff initiated this action purportedly in reaction to statements attributed to Ghislaine
+Maxwell on January 3, and 4, 2015. The first of the two statements, according to Plaintiff's
+complaint, was issued by
+Gow in the United Kingdom. The second was made by Ms.
+Maxwell in New York when she was accosted by reporters on the street. Both statements were
+brief, contained no factual content, and can best be described as general denials of allegations
+made by Plaintiff against Ms. Maxwell, to wit, that Ms. Maxwell "assisted" and participated in
+sexual abuse of the Plaintiff between 1999 and 2002.
+Plaintiff does not claim that any sexual abuse occurred after 2002 or that she had any
+contact with Ms. Maxwell after 2002. Indeed, according to Plaintiff, in 2002 she relocated, first
+to Thailand and then to Australia, where she married and started a family. Given that she has
+been thousands of miles away from the United States for more than a decade it is unlikely that
+Plaintiff has any personal knowledge about events involving Jeffrey Epstein after she left the
+country and broke off all contact with both Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.
+This lawsuit presents one relatively simple question: is Plaintiff's claim that she was
+sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein between 1999 and 2002 "with the assistance and participation
+of" Ms. Maxwell substantially true? In light of this one simple question,
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149 |
+Filed 05/10/16
+
+Plaintiff deposed
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149 Filed 05/10/16 Page 4 of 9
+This is a very reasonable line given the subject matter of this
+defamation action, i.e., did Ms. Maxwell assist Mr. Epstein in the sexual trafficking of the
+Plaintiff from 1999 to 2002. The |
+ARGUMENT
+Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides, in relevant part, that "[p]arties may
+obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of
+any party..."
+Although the scope of discovery is deliberately broad, a Court is not "required to permit
+plaintiff to engage in a 'fishing expedition' in the hope of supporting [her] his claim."" [
+V.
+Hayes, 43 Fed.Appx. 214, 217 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion). See Tottenham v. Trans
+World Gaming Corp., 2002 WL 1967023, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("Discovery, however, is not
+intended to be a fishing expedition, but rather is meant to allow the parties to flesh out
+allegations for which they initially have at least a modicum of objective support") (quotations
+omitted); Hardrick v. Legal Services Corp.., 96 F.R.D. 617, 618 (D.D.C. 1983) (courts should
+remain concerned about "fishing expeditions, discovery abuse and inordinate expense involved
+in overbroad and far-ranging discovery requests") (quotation omitted). "[B Jroad discovery is not
+without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights of
+both plaintiff and defendant." Gomez v.
+Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir.
+1995) (quotation omitted).
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149 Filed 05/10/16 Page 5 of 9
+Although relevance in discovery is broader than that required for admissibility at trial,
+"the object of inquiry must have some evidentiary value before an order to compel disclosure of
+otherwise inadmissible material will issue." Zenith Electronics Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., No. 93 C
+041, 1998 WL 9181, at *2 (N.D.I11.1998) (quoting Piacenti v. Gen. Motors Corp., 173 F.R.D.
+221, 223 (N.D.I11.1997)). Courts have also recognized that "[t]he legal tenet that relevancy in
+the discovery context is broader than in the context of admissibility should not be misapplied so
+as to allow fishing expeditions in discovery." Id. (quotation omitted).
+Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure any party may move the court,
+for good cause shown, for a protective order regarding pretrial discovery "which justice requires
+to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or
+expense." Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(c). "Although the Rule contains no specific reference to privacy or
+to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose
+and language of the Rule." Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 (U.S. 1984).
+It is important to consider that Ms. Maxwell is the defendant in this action. She has not
+put her private affairs at issue. She simply denied that she assisted Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual
+trafficking of the Plaintiff. She stated that claims made by Plaintiff about her are "untrue" and
+contain "obvious lies".
+It is also important to recognize that Ms. Maxwell is not Mr. Epstein and Mr. Epstein's
+alleged conduct after Plaintiff left the country is not an issue in this defamation case. The
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149 Filed 05/10/16 Page 6 of 9
+Plaintiff has no personal knowledge of any of Mr. Epstein's activities after 2002. Accordingly,
+any statements by Plaintiff about Mr. Epstein's activities occurring after 2002 are her opinions,
+not facts that are subject to any defamation claim.
+In an attempt to avoid the obvious problems with the non-relevant, highly intrusive,
+overbroad, and in most instances technically objectionable questions, Plaintiff has created a new
+theory:
+In Conduit v. Dunn, 225 F.R.D. 100 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the court considered the reverse of
+the issue presented here. Mr. Conduit, a former United States Congressman brought a
+defamation action against a media commentator based on statements made regarding the
+disappearance and death of a Washington intern. The defendant filed a motion to compel the
+plaintiff to provide deposition testimony regarding his sexual relationships which was opposed
+by the plaintiff who requested a protective order. Although the court allowed for a limited
+inquiry into the Plaintiff's sexual relationships it did so in large part because the Courts in the
+District of New York have:
+adamantly refused to allow a litigant to invoke privilege to protect discovery of
+information relating to the matter the litigant put directly at issue. Sanofi-
+Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc.., 299 F.Supp.2d 303, 308-09 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (finding it
+unfair for complainant to assert contentions to the court and then to rely on
+privilege to block disclosure of materials that might disprove or undermine those
+contentions). This holds true in defamation cases. Cf. _
+v. Multimedia
+Entm't, No. 97 Civ. 0682, 1997 WL 729039 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) (allowing
+discovery of sexual history of plaintiff as to damages in defamation case, though
+plaintiff claimed irrelevancy). Id. at 108 (emphasis added).
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149 Filed 05/10/16 Page 7 of 9
+The court recognized that:
+New York, of course, recognizes a right to privacy arising from its own
+constitution and the United States Constitution. See People v. Onofre, 72 A.D.2d
+268, 424 N.Y.S.2d 566, 568 (App.Div.1980), aff d, 51 N.Y.2d 476, 434 N.Y.S.2d
+947, 415 N.E.2d 936 (1980) ("Personal sexual conduct is a fundamental right,
+protected by the right to privacy."); see, e.g., Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 93
+S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35
+L.Ed.2d 147 (1973); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d
+1010 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d
+510 (1965).
+For
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149
+Filed 05/10/16
+
+CONCLUSION
+Dated: May 10, 2016.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger (LM-1374)
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice)
+HADDON,
+AND
+150 East 10"" Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone:
+303.831.7364
+Fax:
+303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 149 Filed 05/10/16 Page 9 of 9
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on May 10, 2016, I electronically served this Defendant's Combined
+Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions Filed
+Under Seal and Motion to Terminate or Limit Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(3) via ECF on the
+following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meridith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of
+Utah
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L..
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+8
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdef13f5f05d86edcea411c0d5b6937a3cedbb83e6be60727e80c2be30cb04e2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdef13f5f05d86edcea411c0d5b6937a3cedbb83e6be60727e80c2be30cb04e2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d73cb57c7f81044e2a6210004cb1fcda864ce8f8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdef13f5f05d86edcea411c0d5b6937a3cedbb83e6be60727e80c2be30cb04e2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -130,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fdef13f5f05d86edcea411c0d5b6937a3cedbb83e6be60727e80c2be30cb04e2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 11,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "dd6ebc03706da48a65224012dec8f7fcbdc26231ea17125aa0f3db57644dcade",
+  "output_sha256": "5e462abb3aa7f2ab5765ce91c45276f5be4e7cbf4797fb7ca5d543d4e573c7cc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdfe799ae0a03478e99c2f13a7f4e60faee0ab0246cf798215315e352fc36e82.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdfe799ae0a03478e99c2f13a7f4e60faee0ab0246cf798215315e352fc36e82.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd1d9fb534b1ac4d8267c293c6d62bc192e7b377
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdfe799ae0a03478e99c2f13a7f4e60faee0ab0246cf798215315e352fc36e82.md
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-14
+Filed 01/05/24
+
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF SIGRID MCCAWLEY IN SUPPORT OF
+PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE
+TO EXCLUDE IN TOTO CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS DESIGNATED BY PLAINTIFF
+FOR USE AT TRAIL
+1, Sigrid McCawley, declare that the below is true and correct to the best of my
+knowledge as follows:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and duly
+licensed to practice in Florida and before this Court pursuant to this Court's Order granting my
+Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice.
+2.
+I respectfully submit this Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's Response in
+Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude in Toto Certain Deposition Designated
+by Plaintiff for Use at Trial.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of February 9,
+2017, Correspondence from Jack Goldberger.
+4.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of February 8,
+2017, Affidavit of Anna Intriago.
+5.
+Attached hereto as Sealed Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Excerpt from
+August 8, 2009, Deposition of Alfredo Rodriguez.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 4
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-14 Filed 01/05/24
+
+Dated: February 10, 2017.
+Respectfully Submitted,
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+By: Is/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid McCawley (Pro Hac Vice)
+Meredith
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+(954) 356-0011
+David Boies
+Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+•, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+125 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is
+not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private representation.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 4
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 10th day of February, 2017, I electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served to all parties of record via transmission of the Electronic
+Court Filing System generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10"" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Sigrid McCawley
+4
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdfe799ae0a03478e99c2f13a7f4e60faee0ab0246cf798215315e352fc36e82.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdfe799ae0a03478e99c2f13a7f4e60faee0ab0246cf798215315e352fc36e82.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..149bd9767721549d124961cd021436ec2a037257
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fdfe799ae0a03478e99c2f13a7f4e60faee0ab0246cf798215315e352fc36e82.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -111,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fdfe799ae0a03478e99c2f13a7f4e60faee0ab0246cf798215315e352fc36e82",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8e123410d2f7ef148c7eca1cc3b391c7c70f91a20a5fc78d06825155202db318",
+  "output_sha256": "e9dcc7d7c6896b5b0b287a497b64b12d4f361cc5e4dba0683767c637d3eceeeb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe4d06abb3a35c00be9f5891701393eb0019a3429b320b3e3472b2a279990e9b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe4d06abb3a35c00be9f5891701393eb0019a3429b320b3e3472b2a279990e9b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7baf5ef129ff6734fdf7194c8b567b6c1b2d39d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe4d06abb3a35c00be9f5891701393eb0019a3429b320b3e3472b2a279990e9b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-3 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 5
+
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-3 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 5
+30* November 2020
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+I have known Ghislaine
+all her life.
+Ghislaine and I have always enjoyed
+sharing the personal experience of our lives with each other.
+and met up much more consistently over the past seven years
+be
+one of her best friends.
+It is a joy to
+1| Page
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-3 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 5
+Throughout her school life Ghislaine
+always had friends and seemed to be genuinely grounded in her love of life and learning. We
+were all quite proud when she graduated from Oxford with her Bachelor's degree. She,
+learned early on the value of hard work
+Around 1990, Ghislaine came to live in New York to continue
+Maxwell Corporate Gifts, a successful company she had founded in the UK which was
+subsequently absorbed
+in 1991, Ghislaine had to rely on her personal
+compass, inner resilience and sheer determination to build a fresh life for herself. Her prior
+'big picture' experience, top-level entertaining skills and talent for organizing, coupled with
+her multi-cultural and multi-lingual sophistication, opened doors into New York society.
+Although it is true that for many years Ghislaine was frequently involved in high society and
+attended fashionable social gatherings; what irks me greatly is the press's one dimensional
+"socialite' focus on Ghislaine, that completely denies and refuses to acknowledge the very
+serious, highly intellectual and passionate caring sides of Ghislaine. For example, since 2003,
+Ghislaine devoted all her energy, her own financial resources and intellectual skills to helping
+save the Oceans, through her establishment of the not-for-profit company, The Terramar
+Project. Ghislaine's deep knowledge and appreciation of the significant role the oceans play
+in our world's fragile ecosystem enabled her to work with key partners to influence the
+United Nations in 2014 in enunciating its Sustainable Development Goal 15 "To conserve
+and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development."
+Indeed, it seemed so clear to me that this mission encompassed her life's passion and offered
+a way for her proactively to give something back of real value to society.
+Ghislaine showed a huge amount of courage and forbearance in the face of great adversity
+and in the years that followed. I have seen this strength more than ever
+during the times
+Despite the tremendous daily pressures she has been under, notably from the world's media,
+universally hostile to her, she has shown simultaneously a deal of humility and fortitude. She
+has the profoundly deep conviction (through every fibre of her being) of her innocence in the
+face of all the unsupported accusations and criminal charges latterly filed against her.
+To the best of my knowledge and belief,
+Ghislaine has never been brought in for
+questioning, arrested, or charged with any criminal offense by law enforcement until now.
+Notwithstanding the seriousness of the offenses with which she has been charged, as a US
+Citizen, she has the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. For
+the purpose of increasing their profits by boosting TV ratings and / or newspaper readership,
+the world's media has aired or printed the most heinous accusations against her, in some
+cases for years now, that have never been cross-examined in a criminal court in front of an
+2 | Page
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-3 Filed 12/14/20 Page 4 of 5
+independent judge and jury. Ghislaine is not a malicious or jealous person. In all the
+I have known her, I have never seen her be violent or act inappropriately against anyone, let
+alone young adults or children as has been alleged.
+believe in her innocence. I know
+she would never do anything to put my life or my family's life in jeopardy in any way, which
+is why I have no hesitation in placing the one property that I own - which is my only nestegg for my retirement—up as part of her bail application. The value is $1.5 Million dollars. I
+do not have any other savings and it would be completely devastating financially and in every
+way to my own family were the house to be taken over by the Government due to a breach of
+bail conditions. I know in every fibre of my being that
+Ghislaine will
+never try to flee and will absolutely turn up to her trial, to have the opportunity to fight the
+charges against her. Based on my deep knowledge and experience with Ghislaine
+I totally trust and believe that I do not have to worry in any way about my home being
+put up as a part of her bail application.
+Until her arrest, I spoke often with Ghislaine over the phone and in the early summer of this
+year, two to four times a week.
+I witnessed how hard she worked every day and well into the nights going through the
+ever-growing tsunami of press clippings, videos, audio files, etc, that so gravely traduced her
+and continue to do so. Ghislaine is completely horrified and flabbergasted by these
+unfounded and completely horrendous accusations, as indeed am I.
+I feel totally safe around Ghislaine, in fact, I feel safer with her. I have never had any
+hesitation in my children visiting her or being with her — as they have been - both as young
+children and now they are older. Neither they nor I have ever seen any signs or signals of the
+alleged criminal conduct. I personally witnessed her be a warm, lovely, understanding and
+caring
+When visiting Ghislaine more recently as well as in
+the past
+I was
+impressed by her interaction with them and by their evident trust in and great affection for her
+which was entirely natural and unforced. Every exchange was totally normal and just lovely
+to watch how each of these
+clearly liked
+and she them. Although
+Ghislaine was certainly part of the New York social scene in the past, for many years, it had
+become clear to me that she was happy in a long-term loving relationship with her previous
+partner of over 7 years far away from the New York scene and with
+leading a happy family life with people she loved and trusted and who were similarly equally
+loving and trusting of her. I saw the same pattern of strong domesticity and family happiness
+with her spouse
+_ I have personally witnessed how much they love
+being with and being loved by Ghislaine.
+In terms of character, Ghislaine is compassionate, capable, and proactive. Ghislaine is very
+kind and caring. She brought
+to stay with
+her in New York for extended periods so that they could spend quality time together. She
+took them all around the US to see the sights and to visit with family and friends. Even under
+the terrible weight of her present circumstances, she has consistently demonstrated her
+consideration for others. Whenever we spoke, she asked about
+The fact that she could care enough and not just be thinking only of herself at this impossible
+time remains deeply moving to me.
+3 | Page
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-3 Filed 12/14/20 Page 5 of 5
+has called the United States her home for almost 30 years. She has deep affective
+Dan husbandre in this coare
+Most of all, her
+own husband
+are here. During the past 18 months in particular Ghislaine has
+gone out of her way to continue to stay in the United States expressly so that she could put
+her case forward in a court of law should it ever come to that. I therefore feel great
+consternation and deep shock and sadness when I hear about the conditions of her present
+incarceration, which include over 150 days of solitary confinement and other extreme
+deprivations and restrictions. The great toll that this physical, mental, and emotional stress is
+taking on
+makes it even more impossible for her to adequately prepare her defence
+from inside jail.
+If she is granted bail, I will be in continuous touch with her during the weeks and months
+leading up to her trial, providing whatever support I can while she has the chance to fairly
+prepare for her upcoming trial and fight for her innocence.
+I am grateful for the opportunity to provide this statement.
+Sincerely,
+4 | Page
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe4d06abb3a35c00be9f5891701393eb0019a3429b320b3e3472b2a279990e9b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe4d06abb3a35c00be9f5891701393eb0019a3429b320b3e3472b2a279990e9b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..92f4bdc5876d1b21711572f22a0c9b1d76d20389
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe4d06abb3a35c00be9f5891701393eb0019a3429b320b3e3472b2a279990e9b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -71,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fe4d06abb3a35c00be9f5891701393eb0019a3429b320b3e3472b2a279990e9b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5665aa4f664e9e4cc40aff5690bebab638126a29a61f928aaacadb571b7da48a",
+  "output_sha256": "d565d07fe123e101b38908d1fafdfde0e1ca6ba5a8997bc86e5b88d803b9530a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe5dd77b60848cffee2977b10f53052d797e128dd64e7604a95cafc4c9c79cf4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe5dd77b60848cffee2977b10f53052d797e128dd64e7604a95cafc4c9c79cf4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7f3e9e8a9b4cb98b067994bb8469bccab06ef2b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe5dd77b60848cffee2977b10f53052d797e128dd64e7604a95cafc4c9c79cf4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 458
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 11/12/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court is in receipt of the Government's letter motion seeking clarification on two
+items from the November 1, 2021 pretrial conference. Dkt. No. 455.
+As to the first item, the Government seeks clarification about the line between
+permissible and impermissible cross-examination for witnesses testifying under a pseudonym.
+The Government's suggested level of generality as to permissible cross-examination of the
+witnesses' careers would unduly curtail the Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to meaningful
+cross-examination. See United States v.
+, 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008). The line of
+questioning the Government identifies may be relevant to a juror's credibility determination and
+thus the Court will not limit the Defendant's ability to pursue such questioning on crossexamination. As the Court noted at the November 1 conference, the Defendant may not elicit the
+name of a specific employer, but the type and genre of employment may be relevant to the jury's
+assessment of credibilty. Nov. 1, 2021 Transcript at 11-12.
+As to the second item, the Government is ORDERED to submit a proposed order
+regarding sketch artist depictions of certain witnesses on or before November 18, 2021.
+SO ORDERED.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 458
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 2
+Dated: November 12, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia O Mattor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe5dd77b60848cffee2977b10f53052d797e128dd64e7604a95cafc4c9c79cf4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe5dd77b60848cffee2977b10f53052d797e128dd64e7604a95cafc4c9c79cf4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f932a520eac29b49c194250a5751cc68c47ed512
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe5dd77b60848cffee2977b10f53052d797e128dd64e7604a95cafc4c9c79cf4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -26,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fe5dd77b60848cffee2977b10f53052d797e128dd64e7604a95cafc4c9c79cf4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "affdd536a0f364d122dff4f0c67c14229d13fb08a79c5337fab327166babb8b5",
+  "output_sha256": "55f29230cab7a2bebb485993cd12af7d754d74fa2e1fbc801cef810f937ccf80",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe65496da188a280936ec2d16c14ed535ae03272ce3f997d20481398f059b9fa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe65496da188a280936ec2d16c14ed535ae03272ce3f997d20481398f059b9fa.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb9235889c41b9162cd3df0ad5c868113148e252
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe65496da188a280936ec2d16c14ed535ae03272ce3f997d20481398f059b9fa.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 272-6 Filed 07/12/16 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe65496da188a280936ec2d16c14ed535ae03272ce3f997d20481398f059b9fa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe65496da188a280936ec2d16c14ed535ae03272ce3f997d20481398f059b9fa.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9475f8bd9c4b6c3086db71e572e5cf33fc7c4e1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe65496da188a280936ec2d16c14ed535ae03272ce3f997d20481398f059b9fa.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fe65496da188a280936ec2d16c14ed535ae03272ce3f997d20481398f059b9fa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "cc496876c6437b64a4c4a8131aff717a2db9183f5c4e639f00f191bb219b28af",
+  "output_sha256": "49602d5911d96709c97ad7b95c71143dcd00160977ee1b2dc0bdb03d9d6d36d0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7347d675d6a39df7377fa9084aab39d4f32d71025247f0a1bcd53885bd9ba0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7347d675d6a39df7377fa9084aab39d4f32d71025247f0a1bcd53885bd9ba0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..242a456dcf85728387f749295d8233e38658fc73
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7347d675d6a39df7377fa9084aab39d4f32d71025247f0a1bcd53885bd9ba0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+CG
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 569
+& GRESSER LLP
+Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 3
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
++1 212 957 7600 phone
+www.cohengresser.com
+Christian R. Everdell
++1 (212) 957-7600
+ceverdell@)cohengresser.com
+January 5, 2021
+BY EMAIL
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+We write concerning an issue of pressing importance. It has come to the attention of the
+defense that one of the twelve jurors in this case (the "Juror") has been giving oral and videotaped
+interviews to various members of the press concerning the jury deliberations. These interviews
+have been publicly reported in several media outlets.' Among other things, the Juror told
+reporters that he disclosed to the other members of the jury during deliberations that he was a
+victim of sexual abuse and further described his memory of those events. According to the Juror,
+his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms.
+Maxwell.
+'See Lucia Osborne-Crowley, "*They were all believable': Maxwell juror says jury was convinced by accusers'
+accounts of a pattern of abuse," The Independent (Jan. 4, 2022); Laura |
+and Daniel |
+"*Ghislaine was a
+predator as guilty as Epstein': Maxwell juror describes moment he 'locked eyes' with sex trafficker and reveals his
+own abuse ordeal," Daily Mail (Jan. 5, 2022), available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
+10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html; Lue
+. "Some Ghislaine
+Maxwell jurors initially doubted accusers, juror says," Reuters (Jan. 5, 2022).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 569
+Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+January 5, 2021
+Page 2
+presents incontrovertible
+grounds for a new trial under Rule 33.
+Should the defense prevail on
+this motion—-and we believe the law and facts are clearly on our side—it would render all other
+post-trial motions moot. Ms. Maxwell should not have to expend precious time and resources
+briefing other motions when this motion can and should be dispositive. Accordingly, the defense
+respectfully requests that the Court set a briefing schedule for this motion alone and defer setting a
+briefing schedule for any other post-trial motions.
+Sincerely,
+Is/ Christian Everdell
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 569 Filed 01/05/22 Page 3 of 3
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+January 5, 2021
+Page 3
+New York, New York 10022
+(212) 957-7600
+cc:
+All Counsel of Record (By Email)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7347d675d6a39df7377fa9084aab39d4f32d71025247f0a1bcd53885bd9ba0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7347d675d6a39df7377fa9084aab39d4f32d71025247f0a1bcd53885bd9ba0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b698e3bda8d578c0ad9440e4d0f8098687878c44
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7347d675d6a39df7377fa9084aab39d4f32d71025247f0a1bcd53885bd9ba0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -67,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fe7347d675d6a39df7377fa9084aab39d4f32d71025247f0a1bcd53885bd9ba0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "85283f91f3e9e34a2cc19a7b1aa9a2ccf65edbe723ffe6fd0f47574ea3f75a89",
+  "output_sha256": "c2c2ba6579a9ed528c71571c10c08d12c061bce97a12dfaeaab77e86d573815e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7e7648e9c5a83da19663a8f27b6c4014421b0830bda4f7ab674cf5d42dca14.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7e7648e9c5a83da19663a8f27b6c4014421b0830bda4f7ab674cf5d42dca14.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6e6860105dfb1129d6624d3d58e7ed4903d12258
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7e7648e9c5a83da19663a8f27b6c4014421b0830bda4f7ab674cf5d42dca14.md
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 302
+Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 3
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+June 7, 2021
+BY ECE
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the
+defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"") pursuant to
+the Court's Order dated December 8, 2020. (Dkt. No. 92). This update is based on information
+provided to the Government by MDC legal counsel regarding the conditions of the defendant's
+confinement over the last two months.
+The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate
+at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per
+day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant still has access to both a
+desktop computer provided by the MDC and a laptop computer provided by the Government on
+which to review discovery. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the
+MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys. This discovery review
+takes place in a day room that is separate from the defendant's assigned cell. Accordingly, the
+defendant continues to be permitted out of her cell from 7am to 8pm every day. While in the day
+room, the defendant continues to have exclusive access to the MDC desktop computer, the laptop,
+a television, a phone on which to place social or attorney calls, and a shower. The defendant is
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 302 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 3
+Page 2
+also permitted outdoor recreation every day, although she has the option of declining such
+recreation time if she wishes.
+The defendant also continues to receive as much, if not more, time as any other MDC
+inmate to communicate with her attorneys. Currently, the defendant receives five hours of videoteleconference (VTC") calls with her counsel every weekday, for a total of 25 hours of attorney
+VTC calls per week. All of these VTC calls take place in a room where the defendant is alone and
+where no MDC staff can hear her communications with counsel. During these VTC calls, MDC
+staff place a camera approximately 30 feet away from the door to the room where the defendant
+conducts the VTC calls. The camera has a full view of the door to the VTC room, but the camera
+does not capture any sound from the defendant's VTC calls with her attorneys. The defendant is
+also permitted to use the phone in the day room to place phone calls to her attorneys as needed.
+In addition, the defendant receives in-person visits from her attorneys as needed on
+weekends. These meetings take place in a room where the defendant is alone with her counsel and
+where no MDC staff can hear the defendant's communications with counsel. During these visits,
+MDC staff place a camera approximately 30 feet away from the door to the attorney visit room.
+The camera has a full view of the door to the attorney visit room, but the camera does not capture
+any sound from the defendant's meetings with her counsel.
+Like any other inmate, the defendant is patted down by MDC staff whenever she is moved
+to a different part of the facility. As part of every pat-down search, the defendant is required to
+open her mouth briefly so that MDC staff can confirm she has not hidden contraband in her mouth.
+These pat-down and mouth searches continue to be consistent with MDC's policy that all inmates
+be searched whenever they move to a different location within the jail facility. Also like all other
+inmates, after each in-person visit she receives, the defendant is strip searched.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 302 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 3
+Page 3
+After any in-person visit the defendant receives, MDC staff conduct a body scan of the
+defendant, which is a non-invasive machine scan, to check for any secreted contraband. MDC
+staff also search the defendant's cell for contraband approximately once per day. Finally, as
+discussed in detail in the Government's May 5, 2021 letter (Dkt. No. 270), MDC staff conduct
+wellness checks on the defendant every fifteen minutes at night to confirm that the defendant is
+breathing. The MDC continues to be of the view that all of these searches are necessary for the
+safety of the institution and the defendant, including for the reasons detailed in the Government's
+May 5, 2021 letter.
+MDC medical staff and psychology staff continue to monitor the defendant daily.
+MDC medical staff continue to assess that the defendant is physically
+healthy.
+Should the Court have any questions or require any additional details regarding this topic,
+the Government will promptly provide additional information.
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+By:
+Maurene Comey / Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Tel: (212) 637-2324
+Ce: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7e7648e9c5a83da19663a8f27b6c4014421b0830bda4f7ab674cf5d42dca14.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7e7648e9c5a83da19663a8f27b6c4014421b0830bda4f7ab674cf5d42dca14.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2808fc5a31ff9608c652b629be80d311efc99c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe7e7648e9c5a83da19663a8f27b6c4014421b0830bda4f7ab674cf5d42dca14.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -38,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fe7e7648e9c5a83da19663a8f27b6c4014421b0830bda4f7ab674cf5d42dca14",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "63c8e972694782f6b7e3b653a3af4efface54e49d33a61c503a3c0ddbc79b9d1",
+  "output_sha256": "fa1249e787e77a42bff7d07fbb47f566686c1023e42ec633179dc8784a860a1a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe9a29b3b485e5fce26ddd269654ed3d9fe8abf7d7aa689a193fac253fc99d7f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe9a29b3b485e5fce26ddd269654ed3d9fe8abf7d7aa689a193fac253fc99d7f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0ef8fb4e8e67d2f9d8c4a05b897086d5e4b6f01c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe9a29b3b485e5fce26ddd269654ed3d9fe8abf7d7aa689a193fac253fc99d7f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Case 1:19-cv-07625-AJN-DCF Document 6 Filed 08/27/19 |
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+VE
+Plaintiff,
+Case No. 1:19-cv-07625-AJN
+VS.
+DARREN K. INDYKE AND RICHARD
+D. KAHN AS JOINT REPRESENTATIVES OF
+THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
+NINE EAST 71ST STREET, CORPORATION,
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC.,
+NES, LLC,
+Defendants.
+MOTION FOR
+ADMISSION
+PRO HAC VICE
+Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and
+Eastern Districts of New York, Brittany N.
+I hereby moves this Court for an Order for
+admission to practice Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel for Plaintiff VE in the above-captioned
+action.
+I am in good standing of the bar of the State of Florida and there are no pending
+disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I have never been convicted of a
+felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by
+any court. I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3
+Dated: August 27, 2019
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida
+Respectfully submitted,
+POTTINGER, LLC
+/s/ Brittany N.
+Brittany N.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+Tel: (954) 524-2820
+Fax: (954) 524-2822
+Email: brittany@epllc.com
+Attorney for Plaintiff VE
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe9a29b3b485e5fce26ddd269654ed3d9fe8abf7d7aa689a193fac253fc99d7f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe9a29b3b485e5fce26ddd269654ed3d9fe8abf7d7aa689a193fac253fc99d7f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d0dab434aee59d78d9977ab8092b191d8e8e8e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fe9a29b3b485e5fce26ddd269654ed3d9fe8abf7d7aa689a193fac253fc99d7f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fe9a29b3b485e5fce26ddd269654ed3d9fe8abf7d7aa689a193fac253fc99d7f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "23d34b24d1cd43f404783dbe0f07361ff6c211f46a7d06f2028e9590633fa862",
+  "output_sha256": "0c8d7f55b9544c577d02667b38b634efa70411c00a99ae023f742d0bb61096a9",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/feb94771dc29f9df940b5554cc822469071a6d7936a831cfb2f4cca83b01580c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/feb94771dc29f9df940b5554cc822469071a6d7936a831cfb2f4cca83b01580c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1e21e7db10f9599173baa15facab8e263d46275a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/feb94771dc29f9df940b5554cc822469071a6d7936a831cfb2f4cca83b01580c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3639 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 1 of 60
+| BOIES
+SCHILLER
+FLEXNER
+Sigrid McCawley
+Telephone: (954) 356-0011
+Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com
+VIA ECE
+District Court Judge
+United States District Court
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+v. Maxwell,
+Case No. 15-cv-07433-LAP
+Dear Judge Preska:
+Plaintiff submits the following categories of documents pursuant to the Court's Order of
+September 5, 2019. Dkt. 982. The parties met and conferred several times over the past two weeks,
+and were able to reach agreement with the exceptions of Categories 4 and 10 below. Plaintiff'
+believes that all documents concerning trial deposition designations (including objections and
+counter-designations) fit comfortably within one category. Defendant requested that Category 4
+be broken out into two separate categories: one for trial deposition designations, and another for
+counter-designations, trial objections, and counter-designations. Plaintiff includes as Category 10
+"Motions re. depositions," which Defendant's list does not include.
+It is Plaintiff's understanding from the meet and confer process that Defendant Maxwell's
+submission may also include labeling certain docket entries as including information that was put
+forth in Defendant's view for an "improper purpose." Defendant did not challenge these
+submissions in the underlying action despite having the opportunity to do so, and it is Plaintiff's
+position that Defendant cannot now inject these belated challenges, which are all unfounded in any
+event.
+While the parties generally agree as to the categories, there is disagreement as to which
+categories the individual docket entries listed below fall under. In addition, Plaintiff considers
+each document in question to be a judicial document.
+Categories Reflected in Docket Entries:
+1. Motions to Compel and Related Motions for Protective Orders and Court Orders ("Motion
+to Compel")
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 | (t) 954 356 0011 | (f) 954 356 0022 | www.bsfllp.com
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 2 of 60
+Page |2
+2. Motions in Limine re. Admissibility of Evidence and Related Orders ("Motion in Limine
+re. Admissibility of Evidence")
+3. Motions in Limine re. Expert Testimony and Related Orders ("Motion in Limine re.
+Expert")
+4. Trial Deposition Designations and Counter-Designations and Trial Objections and Counter
+Designations
+5. Filings related to Third-Party Intervenors and Related Orders ("Pleadings re. Third-Party
+- Intervenors")
+6. Filings related to Third-Party - Other - and Related Orders ("Pleadings re. Third-Party -
+Other")
+7. Case Management Pleadings and Related Orders ("Case Management")
+8. Adverse Inference/Sanctions Motions/ Motions to Strike or Exclude Evidence
+9. Trial Motions and Trial Submissions
+10. Motions re. Depositions
+Date Filed DE
+04/04/2016 79
+04/25/2016 121
+Category
+Docket Text
+DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in
+Opposition re: 75 MOTION to Compel Responses
+Motion to Compel - Judicial to Defendant's First Set of Discovery Requests to
+Document
+Plaintiff filed by
+(Exhibit 4 "Restricted")
+(Attachments:
+# 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3
+Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit
+Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6)
+Motion to Compel
+- Judicial Document
+EPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support r
+6 MOTION for Clarification of Court's Order ar
+For Forensic Examination. REDACTED filed by
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 3 of 60
+Page |3
+04/25/2016 122
+05/02/2016 135
+05/04/2016 139
+05/04/2016 140
+05/04/2016 141
+05/05/2016 143
+05/05/2016 144
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 96 MOTION for Clarification of Court's Order
+Motion to Compel
+- Judicial Document
+Redacted -Ex. 4, 7,8
+and For Forensic Examination filed by
+. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3
+Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit, # 6
+Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit
+REDACTED)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial REDACTED OPINION #106433 re: 33 MOTION
+Document
+to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to
+Produce Documents Subject to Improper Claim of
+Privilege.
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE re: 134 Order, Redacted filed by
+Motion to Compel
+- Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley re: 139
+Response, DECLARATION of Sigrid MeCawley in
+# 1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)
+Motion to Compel
+- Judicial Document
+(In Camera Materials)
+NOTICE of In Camera Submission re: 134 Order.
+Document filed by
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell
+to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine
+Document
+Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted
+filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1
+Redacted - Exs. 1, 2,4,5,6,7
+Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit Redacted, # 3
+Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit Redacted, # 5 Exhibit
+Redacted, # 6 Exhibit Redacted, # 7 Exhibit
+Redacted)
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 4 of 60
+Page |4
+05/10/2016
+149
+05/10/2016 150
+05/11/2016152
+05/11/2016 153
+05/20/2016 155
+05/20/2016 156
+05/25/2016 160
+05/25/2016 161
+Motion to Compel - Judicial RESPONSE to Motion re: 143 MOTION to
+Document
+Compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer
+Deposition Questions Redacted filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel
+- Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in
+Opposition re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant
+Ghislaine Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions
+Redacted filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. A
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Document
+143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine
+Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted
+tiled by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 143 MOTION to Compel Defendant Ghislaine
+Maxwell to Answer Deposition Questions Redacted
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+filed by
+. (Attachments: # 1
+Document
+Exhibit Exhibit 1 Redacted, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2
+Part 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Part 2, # 4 Exhibit
+Redacted- Ex. 1
+Exhibit 2 Part 3, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 1, # 6
+Exhibit Exhibit 3 Part 2, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 8
+Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 10
+Exhibit Exhibit 7)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+MOTION to Compel Non-Privileged Documents
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Support re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non-
+Document
+Privileged Documents filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit
+Redacted- Ex. E, J
+F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10
+(Exhibit J)
+Motion regarding Deposition
+- Judicial Document
+MOTION for Leave to Serve Three Deposition
+Subpoenas by Means Other Than Personal Service
+Redacted filed by
+Motion regarding Deposition
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+- Judicial Document
+re: 160 MOTION for Leave to Serve Three
+Deposition Subpoenas by Means Other Than
+Redacted- Ex. 2
+Personal Service Redacted. Document filed by
+- (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 5 of 60
+Page |5
+05/26/2016 164
+05/26/2016 165
+05/27/2016 172
+05/27/2016 173
+05/31/2016 179
+Composite Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2
+Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 3, #4
+Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit
+Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit
+8, # 9 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 9)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client
+Document
+Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by
+Plaintiff and Her Attorneys filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Menninger, Laura)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Client Communications and Work Product Put At
+Document
+Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5
+Redacted-Ex. C,H, J, K
+Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit
+H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, #
+12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15
+Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q)
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition
+Limit Redacted filed by
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+Redacted- Ex 5,6
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten
+Deposition Limit Redacted filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2
+Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit
+Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Redacted, # 6
+Exhibit Exhibit 6 Redacted, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7
+Part 1, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Part 2, # 9 Exhibit
+Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 155
+MOTION to Compel Non-Privileged Documents
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 6 of 60
+Page |6
+05/31/2016 180
+06/01/2016 184
+06/01/2016 185
+06/06/2016 189
+06/06/2016 190
+06/06/2016 191
+DECLARATION of Meredith L. [
+in
+Motion to Compel - Judicial Opposition re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non-
+Document
+Privileged Documents filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted- Ex. 1,2,3,5,6
+Redacted, # 3 Exhibit Redacted, #4 Exhibit, # 5
+Redacted, # 6 Redacted, # 7 Exhibit)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 164
+Document
+MOTION to Compel all Attorney-Client
+Communications and Work Product Put At Issue by
+Plaintiff and Her Attorneys.. Document filed by
+Virginia L.
+DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in
+Opposition re: 181 LETTER MOTION to Seal
+Document 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-
+Motion to Compel -
+Judicial Document
+Client Communications and Work Product Put At
+Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys, addressed to
+Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
+dated 06/01/16 filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 Sealed, #
+Redacted- Ex. 2,3,11,13, 14-
+3 Exhibit 3 Sealed, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6
+Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit
+9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11 Sealed, # 12
+Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13 Sealed, # 14 Exhibit 14
+Sealed, # 15 Exhibit 15 Sealed, # 16 Exhibit 16
+Sealed)
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 172
+MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition
+Limit Redacted filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+Redacted- Ex. A
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Opposition re: 172 MOTION To Exceed
+Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+A)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 155 MOTION to
+Compel Non-Privileged Documents, filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 7 of 60
+Page |7
+06/06/2016 192
+06/06/2016 194
+06/13/2016 203
+06/13/2016 204
+06/14/2016 211
+Motion to Compel - Judicial DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Document
+Support re: 155 MOTION to Compel Non-
+Privileged Documents filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K, # 2 Exhibit L, # 3
+Redacted- Ex. K,L,M
+Exhibit M)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel - Judicial Support re: 164 MOTION to Compel all Attorney-
+Document
+Client Communications and Work Product Put At
+Issue by Plaintiff and Her Attorneys filed by
+Redacted- Ex. S
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q, #
+2 Exhibit R, # 3 Exhibit S)
+RESPONSE in Support of Motion re: 202 LETTER
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Seal Document re Reply addressed to
+Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
+dated 06/13/2016., 172 MOTION To Exceed
+Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit Redacted filed
+by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in
+Support re: 202 LETTER MOTION to Seal
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+Document re Reply addressed to Judge Robert W.
+Sweet from Meredith
+dated 06/13/2016.,
+172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten
+Redacted- Ex. 1-3
+Deposition Limit Redacted. Document filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1
+(Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3 Exhibit 3
+(Sealed)
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 172 MOTION
+To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit
+Redacted. CORRECTED filed by
+06/14/2016 212
+06/17/2016 224
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+Redacted- Ex. 1-3
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of Meredith L
+in Support
+re: 172 MOTION To Exceed Presumptive Ten
+Deposition Limit Redacted filed by|
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit SEALED, #2
+Exhibit SEALED, # 3 Exhibit SEALED)
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 172 MOTION
+To Exceed Presumptive Ten Deposition Limit
+Redacted. AMENDED filed by
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 8 of 60
+Page |8
+06/20/2016 228
+06/20/2016 229
+06/20/2016 230
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 199
+MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete
+Depositions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel - Judicial Opposition re: 199 MOTION for Extension of Time
+Document
+to Complete Depositions filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
+B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
+Redacted - Ex. A, B, D, J, K, Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit
+I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, #
+13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)
+MOTION to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+06/20/2016 231
+Motion to Compel-Judicial
+Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+06/20/2016 232
+06/21/2016 235
+MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure to
+Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply
+with Rule 26(a) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure
+Document
+to Comply with Rule 26(a) filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
+B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
+Redacted - Ex. G, H, 1, J, K
+Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit
+I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, #
+13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of
+Motion to Compel - Judicial Plaintiff
+filed by Ghislaine
+Document
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
+B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
+Redacted- Ex. D-K, M-N
+Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit
+I, # 10 Exhibit K, # 11 Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M, #
+(13 Exhibit N)
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 9 of 60
+Page l9
+06/22/2016 246
+06/22/2016 247
+06/22/2016 248
+06/22/2016 249
+06/28/2016 257
+06/28/2016 258
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 215
+MOTION to Quash subpoena of Sharon Churcher
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel - Judicial DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Document
+Opposition re: 215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of
+Sharon Churcher filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. B-C
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #3
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Document
+199 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete
+Depositions. REDACTED filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 199 MOTION for Extension of Time to
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Complete Depositions filed by
+Document
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit,
+# 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit,
+Redacted- Exs. 4, 13-15
+# 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, #
+11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 14 Exhibit REDACTED, # 15
+Exhibit REDACTED)
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 231
+MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure to
+Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply
+with Rule 26(a). REDACTED filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Opposition re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) &
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+(c) for Failure to Comply with Court Order and
+Document
+Failure to Comply with Rule 26(a) tiled by l
+. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED,
+# 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit
+Redacted - Exs. 1-10
+REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 6 Exhibit REDACTED, # 7 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED, #9 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 10 Errata REDACTED)
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 10 of 60
+Page |10
+06/28/2016 259
+06/28/2016 260
+07/01/2016 261
+07/05/2016 263
+Motion to Compel - Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 230
+MOTION to Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff
+. REDACTED filed by
+Motion to Compel - Judicial DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Document
+Opposition re: 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition
+of Plaintiff
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, #
+Redacted - Exs. 1-2
+2 Exhibit REDACTED)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 231
+MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure to
+Comply with Court Order and Failure to Comply
+with Rule 26(a). REDACTED-CORRECTED filed
+by
+Motion to Compel-Judicial
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Document
+215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of Sharon
+Churcher filed by Sharon Churcher. (Feder, Eric)
+(07/05/2016)
+07/05/2016 264
+Redacted- DE 254-1: pp 9-10; by
+NOTICE of FILING REDACTED OPINION filed
+16-17
+- (Attachments: # 1 Text of
+Proposed Order Proposed Redacted Opinion)
+07/08/2016 267
+07/08/2016 268
+07/08/2016 269
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 230 MOTION to
+Reopen Deposition of Plaintiff
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Document
+Support re: 230 MOTION to Reopen Deposition of
+Plaintiff
+filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. O-P
+P)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial REPLY to Response to Motion re: 231 MOTION
+Document
+for Sanctions 37(b) & (c) for Failure to Comply
+with Court Order and Failure to Comply with Rule
+26(a) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 11 of 60
+Page |11
+07/08/2016 270
+07/12/2016 272
+07/13/2016 279
+07/13/2016 280
+07/18/2016 290
+07/18/2016 291
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Support re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c)
+Document
+for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure
+to Comply with Rule 26(a) filed by Ghislaine
+Redacted Ex. O-R, T
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit
+P, # 3 Exhibit Q, # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6
+Exhibit T)
+LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply
+addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid
+McCawley dated July 12, 2016 filed by Virginia L.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED
+sur-keply, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED Declaration, #
+3 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. 1-8
+REDACTED Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit REDACTED
+Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 4, # 7
+Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit
+REDACTED Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit REDACTED
+Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED Exhibit 8)
+Motion for Adverse Inference
+Judicial Document
+(Motion to Strike filed at DE
+MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Adverse
+288)
+Inference Instruction REDACTED filed by
+Motion for Adverse Inference
+Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+(Motion to Strike filed at DE
+re: 279 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Adverse
+288)
+Inference Instruction REDACTED filed by
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED,
+Redacted Ex. 1-2
+# 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit)
+LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion
+Motion for Adverse Inference addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Meredith
+Judicial Document
+dated July 18, 2016 re: 288 LETTER
+(Motion to Strike filed at DE
+• MOTION for Discovery to Strike Plaintiff
+288)
+Motion for an Adverse Inference
+Instruction Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (f),
+Fed.R. Civ.P addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet
+from Laura A. Menninger dated June 15. 201
+REDACTED filed by
+Motion for Adverse Inference
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 288 LETTER MOTION for
+(Motion to Strike filed at DE
+Discovery to Strike Plaintiff
+288)
+Motion for an Adverse Inference Instruction
+Pursuant to Rule 37(b), (e), and (D), Fed.R.Civ.P
+addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Laura A.
+
+
+Page |12
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 12 of 60
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+Menninger dated June 15, 201 filed by l
+- (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, #
+2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED)
+07/25/2016 303
+07/25/2016 304
+07/25/2016 306
+07/25/2016 307
+07/25/2016 309
+07/25/2016 311
+07/29/2016 313
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 272 LETTER
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply addressed to
+Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid McCawley
+dated July 12, 2016. Defendant's Sur Sur-Reply In
+Support of Motion for Rule 37(b) & (c) Sanctions
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Support re: 231 MOTION for Sanctions 37(b) & (c)
+Document
+for Failure to Comply with Court Order and Failure
+to Comply with Rule 26(a) filed by Ghislaine
+Redacted - Ex. U-X
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U, # 2 Exhibit
+V. # 3 Exhibit W, # 4 Exhibit X)
+Motion re Depositions -
+Judicial Document
+MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete
+Discovery to Serve and Depose
+Gow filed by
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+Motion re Depositions
+Judicial Document
+re: 306 MOTION for Extension of Time to
+Complete Discovery to Serve and Depose
+Gow filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1
+Redacted - Ex. 7-8
+Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, #5
+Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, #8
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 9 Exhibit)
+Motion for Sanctions- Party - DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+Other
+re: 308 MOTION for Sanctions and finding Civil
+Judicial Document
+for Ignoring
+Motion for Sanctions-Third
+Party - Other
+Judicial Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+# 4 Exhibit, #5 Exhibit)
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+re: 310 MOTION for Sanctions and for Finding of
+Civil Contempt Against
+for
+Ignoring Subpoena filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit,
+#4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)
+NOTICE of Supplemental Authority re: 257
+Response in Opposition to Motion filed by
+- (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED)
+
+
+Page | 13
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 13 of 60
+07/29/2016 315
+07/29/2016 316
+08/01/2016 320
+08/01/2016 321
+08/08/2016 335
+08/08/2016 336
+08/08/2016 338
+FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION to
+Compel and Motion to Enforce the Court's Order
+and Direct Defendant to Answer Deposition
+Questions filed by
+Modified
+on 8/10/2016.
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET
+ENTRY - DECLARATION of Meredith
+in
+Support re: 315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Enforce the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to
+Document
+Answer Deposition Questions filed by L
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, #
+Redacted Ex. 1-8
+2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED,
+# 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit REDACTED,
+# 6 Exhibit REDACTED, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED,
+# 8 Exhibit REDACTED) Modified on 8/10/2016.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+MOTION Defendant's Submission Regarding
+"Search Terms" And Notice Of Compliance With
+Court Order Concerning Forensic Examination Of
+Devices filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. A-F
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 320 MOTION Defendant's Submission
+Regarding "Search Terms" And Notice Of
+Compliance With Court Order Concerning
+Forensic Examination Of Devices filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit
+B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
+(Exhibit F)
+MOTION for Protective Order and Motion for the
+Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
+Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated
+Confidential Information. Document filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+re: 335 MOTION for Protective Order and Motion
+for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
+Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated
+Confidential Information filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, #
+2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED)
+Motion for Adverse Inference MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 279
+Judicial Document
+MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Adverse
+Inference Instruction REDACTED. Supplement
+Based on New Information filed by Virginia L.
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 14 of 60
+Page |14
+08/08/2016 339
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+08/08/2016 340
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. A, C-I
+08/09/2016| 345
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+08/09/2016 346
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-5
+08/10/2016 353
+1. (Attachments: # 1 REDACTED
+DECLARATION, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, #5
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 6 Exhibit REDACTED, # 7
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED, # 9
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED)
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 315
+MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the
+Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
+Deposition Questions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in
+Opposition re: 315 MOTION to Compel and
+Motion to Enforce the Court's Order and Direct
+Defendant to Answer Deposition Questions filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5
+Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit
+H, # 9 Exhibit D
+MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+re: 345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, #
+< Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED,
+# 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit
+REDACTED)
+MOTION to Strike Document No. [338, and all
+supporting documents] to Plaintiff's Supplement to
+Motion for Adverse Inference Instruction Based on
+New Information filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+08/10/2016 354
+Motion to Strike - Judicial
+Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's
+Document
+Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and
+for Sanctions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Page | 15
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 15 of 60
+08/10/2016 355
+08/11/2016 356
+08/11/2016 357
+08/11/2016 363
+08/11/2016 364
+08/12/2016 367
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Support re: 354 MOTION to Compel Responses to
+Document
+Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to
+Plaintiff, and for Sanctions filed by Ghislaine
+Redacted - Ex B
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit
+B)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
+DEPOSITION QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL
+filed by
+FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE
+SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION to Direct
+DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+QUESTIONS
+DECLARATION ISO
+_DE
+356_MOTIONJ filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed),
+Redacted - Ex. 1-8
+# 3 Exhibit 3 (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Sealed), # 5
+Exhibit 5 (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Sealed), # 7
+Exhibit 7 (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Sealed)) Modified
+on 8/12/2016
+DECLARATION of Alan M. Dershowitz in
+Support re: 362 MOTION to Intervene. MOTION
+Filings related to Third-Party
+to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify
+Intervenors - Judicial
+Protective Order. Document filed by Alan M.
+Document
+Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2
+Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. A-B, G, M
+E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9
+Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12
+Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N) (Celli,
+Andrew)
+Filings Related to Third-Party
+Intervenors
+MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 362
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Intervene. MOTION to Unseal
+Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective
+Order filed by Alan M. Dershowitz. (Celli, Andrew)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - - Ex. 1-8
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+re: 357 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO
+ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS L
+DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTION]., 315
+MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce the
+Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
+Deposition Questions., 356 MOTION to Direct
+DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION
+QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL.. Document
+filed by
+- (Attachments: # 1
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 16 of 60
+Page |16
+08/12/2016 368
+08/12/2016 369
+08/12/2016| 370
+08/12/2016 371
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-16
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. C
+Exhibit 1 (Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed), # 3
+Exhibit 3 (Sealed), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Sealed), # 5
+Exhibit 5 (Sealed), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Sealed), #7
+Exhibit 7 (Sealed), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Sealed)
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+315 MOTION to Compel and Motion to Enforce
+the Court's Order and Direct Defendant to Answer
+Deposition Questions., 357 MOTION to Direct
+DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION
+QUESTIONS /
+_ DECLARATION
+ISO_DE 356_MOTIONJ, 356 MOTION to Direct
+DEFENDANT TO ANSWER DEPOSITION
+QUESTIONS FILED UNDER SEAL.. Document
+filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 357 MOTION to Direct DEFENDANT TO
+ANSWER DEPOSITION QUESTIONS 1
+DECLARATION ISO_DE 356_MOTIONJ filed by
+- (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 4 Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 6 Exhibit REDACTED, # 7 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 8 Exhibit REDACTED, # 9 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 10 Exhibit REDACTED, # 11
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 12 Exhibit REDACTED, #
+13 Exhibit REDACTED, # 14 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 15 Exhibit REDACTED, # 16
+Exhibit REDACTED)
+MOTION for Protective Order (REDACTED)
+Regarding Personal Financial Information filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Support re: 370 MOTION for Protective Order
+Document
+(REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial
+information filed by Ghislaine Maxwell
+Redacted - Ex. C
+/Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
+Exhibit C)
+
+
+Page |17
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 17 of 60
+08/17/2016 378
+08/17/2016 379
+08/18/2016 380
+08/18/2016 381
+08/19/2016 383
+08/19/2016 384
+08/19/2016 385
+Motion to Compel- Judicial RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 354
+Document
+MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's
+Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and
+for Sanctions filed by
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1, 3-6
+Motion to Compel-Judicial
+Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. A-H
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Opposition re: 354 MOTION to Compel Responses
+to Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to
+Plaintill, and for Sanctions filed by l
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted, # 2
+Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Redacted, # 4 Exhibit
+Redacted, # 5 Exhibit Redacted, # 6 Exhibit
+Redacted)
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 335
+MOTION for Protective Order and Motion for the
+Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
+Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated
+Confidential Information filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Opposition re: 335 MOTION for Protective Order
+and Motion for the Court to Direct Defendant to
+Disclose All Individuals to whom Defendant has
+Disseminated Confidential Information filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 345
+MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Opposition re: 345 MOTION to Compel Defendant
+Document
+to Produce Documents Subject to Improper
+Objection and Improper Claim of Privilege filed by
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+DECLARATION of REDACTED in Opposition re:
+Document
+345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+
+
+Page |18
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 18 of 60
+08/19/2016 386
+08/19/2016 387
+08/22/2016 388
+08/22/2016 389
+08/23/2016 392
+08/23/2016 393
+08/24/2016 397
+Motion to Compel- Judicial DECLARATION of REDACTED in Opposition re:
+Document
+345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+DECLARATION of REDACTED in Opposition re:
+Document
+345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 370
+Document
+MOTION for Protective Order (REDACTED)
+Regarding Personal Financial Information filed by
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-9
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Opposition re: 370 MOTION for Protective Order
+(REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial
+Information filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED, # 2 Exhibit
+REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 5 Exhibit REDACTED, #6
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 7 Exhibit REDACTED, #8
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 9 Exhibit REDACTED)
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+335 MOTION for Protective Order and Motion for
+the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
+Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated
+Confidential Information filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 335 MOTION for Protective Order and Motion
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+for the Court to Direct Defendant to Disclose All
+Document
+Individuals to whom Defendant has Disseminated
+Confidential Information filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-4
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite
+Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3,
+#4 Exhibit Sealed 4)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Document
+345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 19 of 60
+Page |19
+08/24/2016 398
+08/25/2016 400
+08/25/2016 401
+08/25/2016 402
+08/25/2016 403
+08/29/2016 404
+08/29/2016 405
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 345 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Documents Subject to Improper Objection and
+Document
+Improper Claim of Privilege filed by L
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. 1-5
+1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed
+Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit
+Sealed Exhibit 5)
+Motion to Compel/Motion to MOTION for Leave to File A Sur-Reply or,
+Strike- Judicial Document
+Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's
+Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. [DE 370]
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel/ Motion to
+Support re: 400 MOTION for Leave to File A Sur-
+Strike-Judicial Document
+Reply or, Alternatively, to Strike Plaintiff's
+Misrepresentations of Fact to the Court filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+Redacted - Ex. A-F
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5
+Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+354 MOTION to Compel Responses to Defendant's
+Second Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff, and
+for Sanctions.. Document filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Support re: 354 MOTION to Compel Responses to
+Defendant's Second Set of Discovery Requests to
+Plaintiff, and for Sanctions filed by Ghislaine
+Redacted - Ex. C
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit
+B. # 3 Exhibit C)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 370 MOTION
+Document
+for Protective Order (REDACTED) Regarding
+Personal Financial Information filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Document
+Support re: 370 MOTION for Protective Order
+(REDACTED) Regarding Personal Financial
+Information filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. D
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 20 of 60
+Page |20
+08/29/2016 406
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Intervene
+Judicial Document
+08/29/2016 407
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Intervene
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-23
+08/29/2016 408
+09/06/2016 423
+09/15/2016 435
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Intervene
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-4
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. A-D
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Intervene
+Judicial Document
+09/15/2016 436
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Intervene
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 362
+MOTION to Intervene. MOTION to Unseal
+Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective
+Order. Document filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Opposition re: 362 MOTION to Intervene.
+MOTION to Unseal Document or in the Alternative
+to Modify Protective Order. Document filed by
+| (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, #2
+Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, #6
+Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10
+Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, #
+14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit,
+# 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, #21
+Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit)
+DECLARATION of Paul Cassell in Opposition re:
+362 MOTION to Intervene. MOTION to Unseal
+Document or in the Alternative to Modify Protective
+Order filed by
+(Attachments: #
+1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, #3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 422 MOTION to Compel Settlement
+Agreement (Renewed) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)
+DECLARATION of Alan M. Dershowitz in
+Support re: 362 MOTION to Intervene. MOTION
+to Unseal Document or in the Alternative to Modify
+Protective Order. Document filed by Alan M.
+Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2
+Exhibit P, # 3 Exhibit Q. # 4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit
+S, # 6 Exhibit T, # 7 Exhibit U, # 8 Exhibit V, #9
+Exhibit W, # 10 Exhibit X) (Celli, Andrew)
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+362 MOTION to Intervene. MOTION to Unseal
+Document or in the Alternative to Modify
+Protective Order filed by Alan M. Dershowitz.
+(Celli, Andrew)
+
+
+Filed 09/18/19 Page 21 of 60
+Page |21
+09/20/2016 440
+09/21/2016 441
+09/21/2016 442
+09/28/2016 447
+09/30/2016 449
+09/30/2016 450
+10/14/2016 466
+Motions to Compel - related
+Court Order
+- Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Filing Proposed Redacted Opinion
+filed by Sharon Churcher. (Attachments: #1
+Exhibit Proposed Redacted Opinion) (Feder, Eric)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+MOTION for Discovery for Court Approval of
+Plaintiff's Certification of Production filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+re: 441 MOTION for Discovery for Court Approval
+Document
+of Plaintiff's Certification of Production filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #
+Redacted - Ex. 2-5
+2 Exhibit 2 Sealed, # 3 Exhibit 3 Sealed, # 4
+Exhibit 4 Sealed, # 5 Exhibit 5 Sealed)
+LETTER RESPONSE to Motion addressed to
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Intervene
+Judicial Document
+Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S. McCawley
+dated September 28, 2016 re: 444 LETTER
+MOTION for Leave to File a less-redacted version
+of Professor Dershowitz's Reply Declaration
+addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Andrew
+G. Celli dated 9/26/2016 filed by
+Motion to Compel Filings re.
+Third Parties - Other
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel Filings re.
+Third Parties - Other
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey
+Epstein filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
+# 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4
+Redacted - Ex. A-C, E-F
+Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+MOTION to Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based
+on Defendant's Late Production of New, Kej
+Documents filed by
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 22 of 60
+Page |22
+10/14/2016 467
+10/14/2016 468
+10/14/2016
+09/06/2016 469
+10/17/2016 470
+10/17/2016 471
+10/17/2016 473
+10/17/2016 474
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+re: 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's
+Document
+Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production
+of New, Key Documents filed by l
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed Composite, #2
+Exhibit Sealed Composite, # 3 Exhibit Sealed)
+Adverse Inference- Motion to MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce
+Compel- Judicial Document Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an
+Adverse Inference Instruction filed by l
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Adverse Inference- Motion to
+, re: 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
+Compel-Judicial Document
+Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and
+for an Adverse Inference Instruction filed by
+- (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+Sealed Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed Composite
+Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3)
+Motion to Compel Filings re.
+Third Parties - Other
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE to Motion re: 449 MOTION to
+Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein filed by
+Motion to Compel Filings re.
+Third Parties - Other
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey
+Epstein filed by
+(Attachments:
+# 1 Exhibit Sealed Composite)
+Motion to Compel Filings re.
+Third Parties - Other
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 449
+MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein
+filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack)
+Motion to Compel Filings re.
+Third Parties - Other
+Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of Jack Goldberger in Opposition
+re: 449 MOTION to Compel Testimony of Jeffrey
+Epstein filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Goldberger, Jack)
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 23 of 60
+Page |23
+10/24/2016 479
+10/24/2016
+| 480
+10/24/2016 481
+10/24/2016 482
+10/24/2016 483
+10/28/2016 490
+10/28/2016 491
+Adverse Inference- Motion to RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 468
+Compel- Judicial Document
+MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to Produce
+Data from Undisclosed Email Account and for an
+Adverse Inference Instruction, filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Adverse Inference- Motion to Opposition re: 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
+Compel- Judicial Document
+Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email
+Account and for an Adverse Inference Instruction
+Redacted - Ex. A-D
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #1
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
+D)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 466
+Document
+MOTION to Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based
+on Defendant's Late Production of New; Key
+Documents filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Opposition re: 466 MOTION to Reopen
+Defendant's Deposition Based on Defendant's Late
+Production of New, Key Documents filed by
+Redacted - Ex. A-E
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5
+Exhibit E)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 449 MOTION to
+Compel Testimony of Jeffrey Epstein, filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Adverse Inference- Motion to REPLY to Response to Motion re: 468 Ghislaine
+Compel- Judicial Document Maxwell to Produce Data from Undisclosed Email
+Account and for an Adverse Inference Instruction.
+REDACTED filed by
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+Adverse Inference- Motion to re: 468 MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell to
+Compel-Judicial Document
+Produce Data from Undisclosed Email Account and
+for an Adverse Inference Instruction filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 2-4
+- (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, #2
+Exhibit REDACTED, # 3 Exhibit REDACTED, # 4
+Exhibit REDACTED)
+
+
+Page |24
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 24 of 60
+10/28/2016 492
+10/28/2016 493
+11/21/2016 503
+12/09/2016 509
+12/09/2016 510
+12/16/2016 513
+12/16/2016
+11/21/2016 514
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 466 MOTION to
+Document
+Reopen Defendant's Deposition Based on
+Defendant's Late Production of New, Kev
+Documents. REDACTED filed by
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+re: 466 MOTION to Reopen Defendant's
+Deposition Based on Defendant's Late Production
+Redacted - Ex 1
+of New, Key Documents filed by l
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit REDACTED)
+[REDACTED] SEALED OPINION # 106882 re:
+215 MOTION to Quash subpoena of Sharon
+Motion to Compel - Related
+Churcher, filed by Sharon Churcher. Upon the
+Court Order
+conclusions set forth above, the motion of Churcher
+Judicial Document
+is granted and the Subpoena is quashed. The parties
+are directed to jointly file a proposed redacted
+version of this Opinion consistent with the
+Protective Order or notify the Court that none are
+necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of
+this Opinion. (9/1/16) (cla)
+Motion in Limine re.
+Admissibility of Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's
+Intentional Destruction of Evidence filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re.
+Admissibility of Evidence
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. A-D
+Motion in Limine re.
+Admissibility of Evidence
+Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on
+Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 509
+MOTION for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's
+Intentional Destruction of Evidence filed by
+Motion in Limine re.
+Admissibility of Evidence
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-6
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in
+Opposition re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based
+on Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence
+filed by
+- (Attachments: # 1
+Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit
+Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5,
+# 6 Exhibit Sealed Composite 6)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 25 of 60
+Page |25
+12/20/2016 515
+12/20/2016 516
+01/05/2017 520
+01/05/2017 521
+01/05/2017 522
+01/05/2017 523
+01/05/2017 524
+Motion in Limine re.
+Admissibility of Evidence
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 509 MOTION
+for Sanctions Based on Plaintiff's Intentional
+Destruction of Evidence filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re.
+Admissibility of Evidence
+Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 509 MOTION for Sanctions Based on
+Plaintiff's Intentional Destruction of Evidence filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. D-G
+E, # 2 Exhibit F, # 3 Exhibit G)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Chris
+filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+re: 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
+Judicial Document
+Testimony and Opinion of Chris
+filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+Redacted - Ex. A-K
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5
+Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit
+H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinions of William F.
+filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. A-B
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+byd Opinine Marwessor Terry Coonan, J.D filed
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 26 of 60
+Page |26
+01/05/2017 525
+01/05/2017 526
+01/05/2017 527
+01/05/2017 528
+01/05/2017 529
+01/05/2017 530
+01/05/2017 531
+01/06/2017 533
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
+Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan,
+J.D. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
+Redacted - Ex. A-B
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
+Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed by
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Motion in Limine re. Expert re: 528 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
+Judicial Document
+Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. A-G
+A, # 2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, #5
+Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell
+Motion in Limine-Judicial
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Document
+e: 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Exper
+Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Klimal
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
+Redacted - Ex. A-C
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+
+
+Page |27
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 27 of 60
+01/06/2017 534
+01/06/2017 535
+01/06/2017 536
+01/06/2017 538
+01/06/2017 539
+01/09/2017 541
+01/09/2017 542
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-5
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted 2, # 3 Exhibit Redacted 3, # 4 Exhibit
+Redacted 4, # 5 Exhibit Redacted 5)
+FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE
+Unsealed by Second Circuit
+SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION for
+Summary Judgment filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Modified on 1/9/2017 (01/06/2017)
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET
+ENTRY - DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger
+Unsealed by Second Circuit
+in Support re: 538 MOTION for Summary
+Judgment filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. D, G-KK, MM
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, #3
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit
+F, # 7 Exhibit G-KK, # 8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit
+MM)Modified on 1/9/2017
+Unsealed by Second Circuit MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 540
+MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Unsealed by Second Circuit
+Support re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
+Redacted - Ex. D, G-KK, MM
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
+D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G-KK, #
+8 Exhibit LL, # 9 Exhibit MM)
+
+
+Filed 09/18/19
+
+Page |28
+01/23/2017 561
+01/27/2017 562
+01/27/2017 563
+01/27/2017 564
+Trial Motion in Limine-
+Objection to Deposition
+Designations or Counter
+Designations
+Judicial Document
+Trial Motion in Limine-
+Objection to Deposition
+Designations or Counter
+Designations
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 3-4
+Trial Motion in Limine-
+Objection to Deposition
+Designations or Counter
+Judicial Document
+Motion tin Limine-
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+Trial- Objections to
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's
+Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alar
+Dershowitz filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 561 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's
+Designations of Deposition Excerpts of Alan
+Dershowitz filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, #3
+Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4)
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's
+Desienations of Deposition Excerpts of
+in an Unrelated Case filed by
+01/27/2017 565
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 563 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Defendant's
+Designations of Deposition Excerpts of
+in an Unrelated Case filed by
+. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed I)
+NOTICE of Filing Plaintiff's Objections to
+Defendant's Deposition Designations and Plaintiff's
+Cross Designations filed by
+01/27/2017 566
+Trial- Objections to
+Deposition Designations o
+Counter Designations
+Judicial Document
+Objection to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+01/27/2017 567
+Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial
+filled by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Page |29
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 29 of 60
+01/27/2017 568
+01/30/2017 569
+01/30/2017 570
+01/30/2017| 572
+01/30/2017 573
+01/30/2017 574
+Trial- Objections to
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Deposition Designations or Support re: 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In
+Counter Designations
+Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff
+Judicial Document
+for Use at Trial filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
+Redacted - Ex. A-E
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 530
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Opposition re: 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Expert Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert
+Kliman filed by
+• (Attachments:
+Redacted - Ex. 1-5
+# 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3
+Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit
+Sealed 5)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 524
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D filed
+by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
+Expert Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry
+Coonan, J.D. filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit
+Redacted Ex. 1-5
+Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed
+4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 522
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinions of William F.
+filed by
+
+
+Page |30
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 30 of 60
+01/30/2017 575
+01/30/2017 576
+01/31/2017 577
+01/31/2017 578
+01/31/2017 579
+01/31/2017 580
+01/31/2017 581
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Expert Opposition re: 522 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Expert Testimony and Opinions of William F.
+filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Sealed 2, #3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence NOTICE of Letter Reply in Support of Plaintiff's
+Judicial Document
+Letter Motion to Add New Witness re: 558 Order
+Setting Hearing on Motion, filed by l
+Motion in Limine re. Expert RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 526
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-5
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Opposition re: 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
+Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores
+filed by
+- (Attachments: # 1
+Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit
+Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed
+Motion in Limine re. Expert RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 520
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Chris
+filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Expert Opposition re: 520 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Expert Testimony and Opinion of Chris
+Redacted - Ex. 1-4
+Exed bit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Scald 2, #3 Exhibit
+Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 528
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony
+and Opinion of Dr. Bernard Jansen filed by
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 31 of 60
+Page |31
+01/31/2017
+| 582
+01/31/2017 583
+01/31/2017 584
+01/31/2017 585
+01/31/2017 586
+02/03/2017 591
+02/03/2017 592
+02/09/2017 599
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 528 MOTION in Limine To Exclude
+Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Bernard
+Jansen filed by
+| (Attachments: #
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 535
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law. Regarding Gregory B. Taylor
+and Kyle D. Jacobson filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 533
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law. Regarding Dr. Phillip Esplin
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 533 MOTION in Limine and
+Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+Unsealed by Second Circuit
+Trial Motions
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 540
+MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Appendix Rule 56.1
+Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, #3
+Exhibit Redacted 1-50)
+LETTER MOTION to Reopen re: 576 Notice
+(Other), 558 Order Setting Hearing on Motion,
+Discovery re New Witness (original filed 1/19/17)
+addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Sigrid S.
+McCawley dated 01/19/17 filed by
+Trial Deposition Designations
+or Counter Designations
+Judicial Document
+vosignations in lained DepoSition Designation
+led by Ghislaine Maxwel
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+
+
+Page |32
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 32 of 60
+02/09/2017
+600
+02/09/2017 601
+02/09/2017 602
+02/09/2017 603
+02/10/2017 606
+02/10/2017| 607
+02/10/2017 608
+02/10/2017 609
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 535 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted -Ex. 1-3
+Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Trial Motions
+Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Intent to Offer Statements Under, If
+Necessary, The Residual Hearsay Rule filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 533 MOTION in Limine and Incorporated
+Memorandum of Law filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Motion in Limine - Judicial RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 567
+Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude In Toto Certain
+Depositions Designated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial
+filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine- Judicial
+Document
+Opposition re: 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+In Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff
+for Use at Trial filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Sealed 2, #3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From
+Judicial Document
+Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an
+Adverse Inference filed by|
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 608 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony
+From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an
+Adverse Inference filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+Attachments: #1 Exhibit Sealed 1)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 33 of 60
+Page |33
+02/10/2017
+| 611
+02/10/2017 612
+02/10/2017 613
+02/10/2017 614
+02/10/2017 615
+02/10/2017 616
+02/10/2017 617
+02/10/2017 618
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 520 MOTION in
+Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion
+of Chris
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 522 MOTION in
+Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinions
+of William F.
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 528 MOTION in
+Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion
+of Dr. Bernard Jansen filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert REPLY to Response to Motion re: 524 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion
+of Professor Terry Coonan, J.D filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 524 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
+Testimony and Opinion of Professor Terry Coonan,
+Redacted - Ex. C-E
+J.D. filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
+Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 526 MOTION in
+Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion
+of Dianne C. Flores filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 526 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
+Testimony and Opinion of Dianne C. Flores filed by
+Redacted - Ex. B
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert REPLY to Response to Motion re: 530 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine To Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion
+of Doctor Gilbert Kliman filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+
+
+Page |34
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 34 of 60
+02/10/2017 619
+02/10/2017 620
+02/10/2017 621
+02/10/2017 622
+02/17/2017 630
+631
+02/17/2017
+02/17/2017 632
+02/17/2017 633
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 530 MOTION in Limine To Exclude Expert
+Testimony and Opinion of Doctor Gilbert Kliman
+tiled by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #1
+Redacted - Ex. D-E
+Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E)
+Unsealed by Second Circuit
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 540 MOTION
+for Summary Judgment filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Rule 56.1
+Statement of Facts)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Unsealed by Second Circuit Support re: 540 MOTION for Summary Judgment
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #1
+Redacted - Ex. OO-N
+Exhibit NN, # 2 Exhibit OO, # 3 Exhibit PP, # 4
+Exhibit QQ, # 5 Exhibit RR)
+Trial Submissions- Judicial
+Document
+JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Trial- Objections to
+Deposition Designations or
+Counter Designations
+Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Plaintiff's Objections to Defendant's
+Counter Designations filed by
+Motion in Limine- Judicial
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 567 MOTION in
+Document
+imine to Exclude In Toto Certain Deposition
+esignated By Plaintiff for Use at Trial filed l
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine- Judicial
+Document
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 567 MOTION in Limine to Exclude In
+Toto Certain Depositions Designated By Plaintiff
+for Use at Trial filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. F
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit F)
+Trial- Objections to
+Deposition Designations or
+Counter Designations
+Judicial Document
+Objection to Plaintiff's Cross Designation of
+Deposition Testimony filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19
+
+Page |35
+02/17/2017 637
+02/22/2017 638
+02/22/2017 640
+02/22/2017 641
+02/24/2017 644
+02/24/2017 645
+02/24/2017 646
+03/02/2017
+650
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+MOTION to Compel Philip Barden To Produce All
+Work Product and Attorney Client
+Communications filed by
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden To
+Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client
+Communications. Document filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite
+Redacted - Ex. 2-5
+Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed
+3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, #5 Exhibit Sealed 5)
+Filings Related to Third Party-
+Other- and Related Orders
+Judicial Document
+MOTION for Protective Order for Non-Party
+Witness filed by John Stanley Pottinger,
+Filings Related to Third Party- DECLARATION of John Stanley Pottinger in
+Other- and Related Orders
+Support re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for
+Judicial Document
+Non-Party Witness filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+Sealed 2)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 608
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From
+Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an
+Adverse Inference filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Opposition re: 608 MOTION in Limine to Present
+Judicial Document
+Testimony From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of
+Obtaining an Adverse Inference filed by Ghislaine
+Redacted - Ex. A-D
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
+B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE re: 601 Notice (Other) Response to
+Judicial Document
+Plaintiffs Notice Of Intent To Offer Statements
+Under, If Necessary, The Residual Hearsay Rule
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Judicial Document
+608 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony From
+Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an
+Adverse Inference filed by
+
+
+Page |36
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 36 of 60
+03/02/2017
+651
+03/02/2017 653
+03/02/2017 654
+03/02/2017 655
+03/02/2017 656
+03/03/2017 657
+03/03/2017 659
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion in Limine re. Evidencere: 608 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony
+Judicial Document
+From Jeffrey Epstein for Purposes of Obtaining an
+Adverse Inference filed by l
+Redacted - Ex.1-2
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit
+Sealed 2)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 637
+Document
+MOTION to Compel Philip Barden To Produce All
+Work Product and Attorney Client Communications
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Opposition re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip
+Barden To Produce All Work Product and Attorney
+Redacted- Ex. A
+Client Communications filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+Motion to Compel Filings
+Related to Third Party-Other
+MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce
+Judicial Document
+Documents, Respond to Deposition Questions, and
+Response to Motion for Protective Order filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion to Compel Filings
+Support re: 655 MOTION to Compel Non- Party
+Related to Third Party-Other
+Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
+Judicial Document
+Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
+Protective Order filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit
+F. # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit D)
+Filings Related to Third Party-
+Other
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Quash filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
+Epstein Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena
+Motion to Compel-Judicial
+SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine Maxwell
+Document
+to Disclose Data from Defendant's Undisclosed
+Email Account and for An Adverse Inferenc
+Instruction filed by
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 37 of 60
+Page |37
+03/03/2017 660
+03/03/2017 662
+03/03/2017 663
+03/03/2017 664
+03/03/2017 665
+03/03/2017
+| 666
+03/03/2017 667
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+re: 659 SECOND MOTION to Compel Ghislaine
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Maxwell to Disclose Data from Defendant's
+Document
+Undisclosed Email Account and for An Adverse
+Inference Instruction filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-4
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1, #2
+Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit
+Sealed 4)
+Trial Motions
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive
+Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to
+Defendants Financial Information in the Liability
+Phase filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence MOTION in Limine to Exclude Complaint and
+Judicial Document
+Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey
+Epstein filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Expert MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed
+Judicial Document
+Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and
+Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence.
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Questioning
+Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual
+Activities filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+Mei i Plainigs So Eard Evidence Barred a.
+Concessions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement
+of Plaintiff filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 38 of 60
+Page |38
+03/03/2017
+668
+03/03/2017
+03/03/2017
+669
+03/03/2017 670
+03/03/2017 671
+03/03/2017 672
+03/03/2017 673
+03/03/2017 674
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Judicial Document
+Support re: 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff filed by Ghislaine
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to
+Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Judicial Document
+Support re: 669 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+References to Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #1
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Exhibit A)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence.
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea
+and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender
+Registration filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution
+Agreement and Sex Offender Registration filed by
+Redacted - Ex. A-B
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition Testimony
+Judicial Document
+of
+and
+or Any
+Witness Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege
+tiled by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Deposition Testimony of
+and
+or Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Amendment Privilege filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 39 of 60
+Page |39
+03/03/2017
+675
+03/03/2017
+676
+03/03/2017 677
+03/03/2017 678
+03/03/2017 679
+03/03/2017 680
+03/03/2017 681
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Permit Questioning
+Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 675 MOTION in Limine to Permit
+Judicial Document
+Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History
+and Reputation filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. A-F
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence.
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police Reports and
+Other Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Jefficy S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police
+Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+Redacted - Ex. A-C
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated
+Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 679 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect
+Source filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
+Redacted - Ex. A-C
+1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)
+Motion in Limine re.
+Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim Notification
+Letter filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 40 of 60
+Page |40
+03/03/2017
+682
+03/03/2017
+| 683
+03/03/2017 684
+03/03/2017
+03/03/2017 686
+03/03/2017 687
+03/03/2017 689
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Judicial Document
+Support re: 681 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Victim Notification Letter filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. A-C
+B, #3 Exhibit C)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN
+LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS
+EVIDENCE AT TRIAL filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 683 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS
+Judicial Document
+MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK
+BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL filed by Virginia
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+L
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed
+Under Seal), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Filed Under Seal))
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN
+Judicial Document
+LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM
+CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS
+WITNESSES AT TRIAL filed by
+Motion in Limine re.
+Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES
+MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER
+MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL
+EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT
+IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX
+TRAFFICKING filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in
+Support re: 686 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
+Judicial Document
+SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE TO
+PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
+INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+AND SEX TRAFFICKING filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed Under
+Seal))
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence.
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony for
+Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference
+Instruction filed by
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 41 of 60
+Page |41
+03/03/2017
+690
+03/03/2017 691
+03/03/2017 692
+03/03/2017 693
+03/03/2017 694
+03/07/2017 697
+03/07/2017 698
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 689 MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony
+for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference
+Instruction filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite Exhibit 1)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine Omnibus filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion in Limine re. Evidencere: 691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus filed by
+Judicial Document
+Virginia L.
+| (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed
+Redacted - Ex. 1-6
+3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6
+Exhibit Sealed 6)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R.
+Evid. 404(b) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence
+Judicial Document
+Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. A-I
+B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6
+Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Document
+37 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden To Produc
+All Work Product and Attorney Clien
+Communications. Document filed by
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden To
+Document
+Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client
+Communications filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Composite Sealed 2)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 42 of 60
+Page |42
+03/07/2017
+700
+03/07/2017 701
+03/10/2017
+| 705
+03/10/2017 706
+03/13/2017 707
+03/13/2017 709
+***STRICKEN DOCUMENT. Deleted
+document number 700 from the case record.
+Motion to Compel Filings
+The document was stricken from this case
+Related to Third Parties - pursuant to 718 Order on Motion to Seal
+Document. REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in
+Other
+Support re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for
+Judicial Document
+Non-Party Witness and Opposition to (DE 655]
+MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce
+Documents, and Respond to Deposition Questions
+filed by John Stanley Pottinger. Modified on
+3/15/2017.
+Motion to Compel Filings
+Related to Third Parties -
+Other
+Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of J. Stanley Pottinger in Support
+re: 640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non-
+Party Witness filed by John Stanley Pottinger.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit
+Sealed 2)
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence NOTICE of Reply Notice of Intent to Offer
+Judicial Document
+Statements Under, If Necessary, the Residual
+Hearsay Rule re: 601 Notice (Other) filed by
+NOTICE of Sigrid McCawley Declaration in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support of Reply Notice of Intent to Offer
+Judicial Document
+Statements Under, If Necessary, the Residual
+Hearsay Rule re: 705 Notice (Other). Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+filed by
+(Attachments: # 1
+Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Motion to Compel Filings
+Related to Third Party-Other
+Judicial Document
+640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non-Party
+Witness, 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party
+Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
+Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
+Protective Order. [RE-FILED W/ ADD'L
+REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700 filed by
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Motion to Compel Filings
+640 MOTION for Protective Order for Non-Party
+Related to Third Party-Other
+Witness, 655 MOTION to Compel Non-Party
+Judicial Document
+Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
+Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
+Protective Order. [RE-FILED W/ADD'L
+REDACTION/REPLACE DE 700J filed by John
+Stanley Pottinger.
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 43 of 60
+Page |43
+03/14/2017 712
+03/14/2017 713
+03/14/2017 714
+03/14/2017 712
+03/15/2017 716
+03/15/2017 717
+03/15/2017 721
+03/17/2017 722
+Filings Related to Third Party-
+Other
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 657
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Quash. Document filed by
+. PTF Response to Jeffrey Epstein Motion to
+Quash Trial Subpoena
+Filings Related to Third Party-
+Other
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 657 MOTION to Quash filed by
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)
+Motion to Compel Filings [REPLY to Response to Motion re: 655 MOTION to
+Related to Third Party-Other Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Documents,
+Judicial Document
+Respond to Deposition Questions, and Response to
+Motion for Protective Order filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel Filings
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Related to Third Party-Other
+Support re: 655 MOTION to Compel Non- Party
+Judicial Document
+Witness to Produce Documents, Respond to
+Deposition Questions, and Response to Motion for
+Redacted - Ex. J-K
+Protective Order filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit K)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 679
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Unauthenticated
+Hearsay Document from a Suspect Source filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATON of Sigrid McCawley in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 679 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Unauthenticated Hearsay Document from a Suspect
+Source filed by
+(Attachments: #
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)
+Case Management
+- Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Redact Transcript of
+Proceedings re: 702 Transcript, filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript (Filed
+Under Seal))
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 673
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine Exclude Deposition Testimony
+of
+and
+or Any
+Witness Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege
+tiled by
+
+
+Page | 44
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 44 of 60
+03/17/2017 723
+03/17/2017 724
+03/17/2017 726
+03/17/2017 727
+03/17/2017 728
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Opposition re: 673 MOTION in Limine Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Deposition Testimony of
+and
+Lor Any Witness Invoking Their Fifth
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+Amendment Privilege filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed I)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 663
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Complaint and
+Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey
+Epstein filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 664
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed
+Supplemental Report of Dr. James Jansen and
+Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert Kliman filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Expert
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 664 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Late Disclosed Supplemental Report of Dr. James
+Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit of Dr. Gilbert
+Redacted - Ex. 1-4
+Kliman filed by
+• (Attachments:
+# 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #3
+Exhibit Sealed 3, #4 Exhibit Sealed 4)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 669
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude References to
+Crime Victims Rights Act Litigation filed by
+03/17/2017 729
+03/17/2017 730
+DECLARATION of
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Opposition re: 669 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Fierences to Crime Victims Rich menis: gation
+filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-6
+Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, #5
+Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 667
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statemen
+of Plaintiff filed bi
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 45 of 60
+Page |45
+03/17/2017 731
+03/17/2017 732
+03/17/2017 733
+03/17/2017
+735
+03/17/2017 736
+03/17/2017
+738
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of|
+in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 667 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 681
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Victim Notification
+Letter filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 681 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Victim Notification Letter filed by
+. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+Exhibit Sealed 2, #3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 693
+MOTION to Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R
+Evid. 404(b) filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Judicial Document
+Opposition re: 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence
+Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) filed by|
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2
+Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 675
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Permit Questioning
+Regarding Plaintiffs Sexual History and Reputation
+filed by
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in
+03/17/2017
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-4
+Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 46 of 60
+Page |46
+03/17/2017
+740
+03/17/2017 741
+03/17/2017 742
+03/17/2017 743
+03/17/2017 744
+03/17/2017 745
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 671
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein
+Plea and Non-Prosecution Agreement and Sex
+Offender Registration filed by l
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Opposition re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution
+Agreement and Sex Offender Registration filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 683
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN
+LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS
+EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.. Document filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Opposition re: 683 MOTION in Limine
+Judicial Document
+PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT
+THE BLACK BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
+Redacted - Ex. A-F
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
+D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 686
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES
+Judicial Document
+MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER
+MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRESENT ALL
+EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT
+IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE AND SEX
+TRAFFICKING filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Opposition re: 686 MOTION in Limine
+PLAINTIFF MS. GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence LAW IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE
+Judicial Document
+TO PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
+INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE
+Redacted - Ex. A, C-E
+AND SEX TRAFFICKING.. Document filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, #
+2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5
+Exhibit E)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 47 of 60
+Page |47
+03/17/2017 746
+03/17/2017 747
+03/17/2017 748
+03/17/2017 749
+03/17/2017 750
+03/17/2017 751
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 689
+MOTION in Limine to Present Testimony for
+Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse Inference
+Instruction filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 677
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police Reports and
+Other Inadmissible Hearsay filed by
+Motion in Limine
+Judicial Document
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Opposition re: 689 MOTION in Limine to Present
+Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse
+Inference Instruction filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. A-D
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3
+Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 691
+MOTION in Limine Omnibus filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in
+Opposition re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Police Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay
+Judicial Document
+filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1
+Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit
+Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Composite Sealed 4, # 5
+Redacted - Ex. 1-9
+Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed 6, # 7 Exhibit
+Sealed 7, # 8 Exhibit Composite Sealed 8, #9
+Exhibit Sealed 9)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Opposition re: 691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence liled by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
+Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit
+Judicial Document
+D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, #8
+Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11
+Redacted - Ex. C-F, H, M-Q
+Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14
+Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17
+Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 48 of 60
+Page |48
+03/17/2017 754
+03/21/2017 761
+03/21/2017 764
+03/22/2017 766
+03/22/2017 768
+03/22/2017 769
+03/23/2017 770
+03/23/2017 771
+Motion to Compel or Related REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition
+Motions for Protective Orders re: 637 MOTION to Compel Philip Barden To
+or Related Court Orders
+Produce All Work Product and Attorney Client
+Judicial Document
+Communications. Defendant's Surreply filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Filings Related to Third Party-
+Other
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 657 MOTION to
+Quash filed by Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffiey Epstein Reply
+ISO Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 666
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as
+a Result of Plaintiffs Summary Judgment
+Trial Motion
+Judicial Document
+Concessions filed by
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 662
+MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive
+Damages and Exclusion of any Reference to
+Defendants Financial Information in the Liability
+Phase filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 665
+Judicial Document
+MOTION in Limine to Prohibit Questioning
+Regarding Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual
+Activities filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Opposition re: 665 MOTION in Limine to Prohibit
+Judicial Document
+Questioning Regarding Defendants Adult
+Consensual Sexual Activities. Document filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-2
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Sealed 1, #2 Exhibit Sealed 2)
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 689 MOTION in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Limine to Present Testimony for Purpose of
+Judicial Document
+Obrainins an Adverse Inference Instruction. FRe
+V. Document filed by l
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Comp 1
+(Sealed), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed))
+DECLARATION of Sigrid S. McCawley in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 689 MOTION in Limine to Present
+Judicial Document
+Testimony for Purpose of Obtaining an Adverse
+Inference Instruction filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite 1 (Sealed), #
+2 Exhibit 2 (Sealed))
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 49 of 60
+Page |49
+03/23/2017 772
+03/23/2017 773
+03/24/2017 774
+03/24/2017 775
+03/24/2017 781
+03/24/2017 782
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence:
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 685
+MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN
+Judicial Document
+LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM
+CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS
+WITNESSES AT TRIAL filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in
+Opposition re: 685 MOTION in Limine
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE TO
+Judicial Document
+PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING
+PLAINTIFES ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT
+Redacted - Ex. A, F, H-J
+TRIAL filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
+# 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
+Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit
+G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Judicial Document
+683 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION
+IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK BOOK AS
+EVIDENCE AT TRIAL filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 683 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS
+MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT THE BLACK
+BOOK AS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Composite
+Judicial Document
+Sealed I)
+ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+W. Sweet from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca dated 3/22/17 re:
+Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that she be
+permitted to submit her reply by March 31, 2017.
+ENDORSEMENT: Extension to 3/30 is granted. So
+ordered. (Replies due by 3/30/2017.)
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+686 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF MS.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
+Judicial Document
+SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE TO
+PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
+INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE
+AND SEX TRAFFICKING filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion in Limine re. Evidencere: 686 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFF MS.
+Judicial Document
+GIUFFRES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
+SUPPORT OF HER MOTION IN LIMINE TO
+Redacted - Ex. 1-4
+PRESENT ALL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
+INVOLVEMENT IN EPSTEIN SEXUAL ABUSE
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 50 of 60
+Page |50
+AND SEX TRAFFICKING.. Document filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, # 3
+Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4)
+(03/24/2017)
+03/24/2017 783
+03/24/2017 784
+03/24/2017 786
+03/24/2017 788
+03/24/2017 789
+03/24/2017 790
+03/24/2017 791
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 667 MOTION in
+Limine to Exclude FBI 302 Statement of Plaintiff
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY to Response to Motion re: 669 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine to Exclude References to Crime Victims
+Rights Act Litigation filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, #2 Appendix B)
+Motion in Limine re. Expert REPLY to Response to Motion re: 664 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine to Exclude Late Disclosed Supplemental
+Report of Dr. James Jansen and Video Trial Exhibit
+of Dr. Gilbert Kliman filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re.
+Evidence
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 671 MOTION in
+Limine to Exclude Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-
+Prosecution Agreement and Sex Offender
+Registration filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 671 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Judicial Document
+Jeffrey Epstein Plea and Non-Prosecution
+Agreement and Sex Offender Registration filed by
+Redacted - Ex. C
+Motion in Limine re.
+Evidence
+Judicial Document
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, #
+2 Exhibit D)
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 675 MOTION in
+Limine to Permit Questioning Regarding Plaintiffs
+Sexual History and Reputation filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY to Response to Motion re: 681 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine to Exclude Victim Notification Letter filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Page |51
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 51 of 60
+03/27/2017 796
+03/27/2017 798
+03/27/2017 799
+03/28/2017 802
+03/28/2017 803
+03/28/2017 806
+03/28/2017 807
+03/29/2017 812
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Redact 03/09/17
+Transcript of Proceedings [DE 756| re: 756 Notice
+of Filing Transcript, filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Filed Under Seal)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus filed by
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 691 MOTION in Limine Omnibus filed by
+Virginia L.
+| (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Composite Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, #3
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+(Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Trial- Objections to
+Deposition Designations or NOTICE of Filing Plaintiff's Responses tr
+Counter Designations
+Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Deposition
+Judicial Document
+Designations filed by
+Trial- Deposition Designations
+of Counter Designations
+Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Filing Typographical Errors Relating to
+Plaintiff's Deposition Designations for Use at Trial
+tiled by
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Objection to Production of (Blank) Submitted for in
+Camera Review filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Defendant Objection to Production of Common
+Interest Agreement Submitted for In Camera
+Review)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY to Response to Motion re: 666 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine to Exclude Evidence Barred as a Result of
+Plaintil/s Summary Judgment Concessions filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY to Response to Motion re: 665 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine to Prohibit Questioning Regarding
+Defendants Adult Consensual Sexual Activities filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 52 of 60
+Page |52
+03/29/2017 813
+03/30/2017 815
+03/30/2017 816
+03/30/2017 817
+03/30/2017 818
+03/30/2017 819
+03/30/2017 820
+03/30/2017 821
+Unsealed by Second Circuit
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+NOTICE of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This
+Court's Order Denying Summary Judgment filed
+by
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Sealed 1)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 677 MOTION in
+Limine to Exclude Police Reports and Other
+Inadmissible Hearsay filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Jefirey S. Pagliuca in Support
+Judicial Document
+re: 677 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Police
+Reports and Other Inadmissible Hearsay filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, #
+Redacted - Ex. D-G
+2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit F, # 4 Exhibit G)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY to Response to Motion re: 673 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Liming Pxclude Deposition Testimony of
+or Any Witness
+Invoking Their Fifth Amendment Privilege filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY to Response to Motion re: 663 MOTION in
+Judicial Document
+Limine to Exclude Complaint and Settlement
+Agreement in Jane Doe 102 v. Jeffrey Epstein filed
+by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Judicial Document
+Support re: 663 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Complaint and Settlement Agreement in Jane Doe
+Redacted - Ex. A-B
+102 v. Jefjrey Epstein filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence.
+Judicial Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 693 MOTION to
+Exclude Evidence Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)
+tiled by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Judicial Document
+Support re: 693 MOTION to Exclude Evidence
+Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J, # 2 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. K-L
+K, # 3 Exhibit L)
+
+
+Page |53
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 53 of 60
+03/30/2017 822
+03/30/2017 823
+04/03/2017 826
+04/03/2017 827
+04/03/2017 828
+04/04/2017 830
+04/07/2017 838
+04/07/2017
+Trial Motions and Trial
+Submissions - Judicial
+Document
+REPLY to Response to Motion re: 662 MOTION to
+Bifurcate Trial Relating to Punitive Damages and
+Exclusion of any Reference to Defendants Financial
+Information in the Liability Phase filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Intent to Request Redaction of Sealed
+Opinion filed by
+- (Attachments:
+# 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)
+Objections to Deposition
+Designations or Counter
+Designations
+Judicial Document
+Objection to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations
+(AMENDED) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re:
+Judicial Document
+685 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS MOTION
+IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM
+CALLING PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS AS
+WITNESSES AT TRIAL filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+re: 685 MOTION in Limine PLAINTIFFS
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
+Judicial Document
+DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PLAINTIFFS
+ATTORNEYS AS WITNESSES AT TRIAL filed by
+Redacted - Ex. 1-3
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Sealed Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 2, # 3
+Exhibit Sealed Exhibit 3)
+OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 806 Objection (nonmotion) and Second Motion to Compel Defendant
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+to Produce Documents filed by
+(Plaintiff Response to Defendant's Objection to
+Production of Common Interest Agreement
+Submitted for In Camera Review and Second
+Motion to Compel DEF to Produce her Joint
+Defense Agreements with Jeffrey Epstein)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+NOTICE of Plaintiff's Briefing on an Adverse
+Inference Instruction Regarding Defendant's
+Failure to Comply with This Court's Order to
+Produce Her Electronic Documents and
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 54 of 60
+Page |54
+Communications filed by
+04/06/2017
+839
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1-6
+04/10/2017 840
+04/11/2017 841
+04/11/2017 842
+04/11/2017 843
+04/11/2017 844
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+Redacted - Ex. A-B
+NOTICE of Declaration in Support of Plaintiff's
+Briefing on an Adverse Inference Instruction
+Regarding Defendant's Failure to Comply with This
+Courts Orders to Produce Her Electronic
+Documents and Communications re: 838 Notice
+(Other), filed by |
+• (Attachments:
+# 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit Sealed 2, # 3
+Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed 4, # 5 Exhibit
+Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed Composite 6)
+NOTICE of Intent to Request Redactions to the
+March 16, 2017 Transcript filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)
+REPLY re: 806 Objection (non-motion) to
+Production of (Blank) Submitted for in Camera
+Review filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Defendant's Reply ISO Objection to Production of
+Common Interest Agreement Submitted for In Camera
+Review)
+DECLARATION of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca in Support
+re: 806 Objection (non-motion) filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+NOTICE of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This
+Court's April 4, 2017 Order Denying Defendant's
+Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions filed
+by
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Sealed I)
+MOTION for Reconsideration re; 837 Order on
+Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Defendant's
+Motion Requesting Ruling on Her Outstanding
+Motions filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments:
+# 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 55 of 60
+Page |55
+04/11/2017
+845
+04/11/2017 846
+04/18/2017 856
+04/18/2017 859
+04/18/2017 860
+4/20/2017 | 864
+04/26/2017 871
+04/27/2017 872
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Appoint Special
+to Preside
+Over Third Deposition of Defendant filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. A
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 845 MOTION to Appoint Special
+_to Preside Over Third Deposition of
+Defendant filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 845
+MOTION to Appoint Special
+to Preside
+Over Third Deposition of Defendant filed by
+Trial Submission- Judicial
+Document
+JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT filed by
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Plaintiff's Proposed Redactions to This
+Court's April 4, 2017 Order Denying
+Motion to Quash filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed I)
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+ENTRY - MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness
+Document
+to Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition
+Questions and to Complete Search of ES/ filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration
+of Laura Menninger, # 2 Exhibits A-F)
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 864
+Document
+MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to
+Produce Documents and Respond to Deposition
+Questions and to Complete Search of ES/ filed by
+John Stanley Pottinger.
+OPINION: Because of the existence of triable
+issues of material fact rather than opinion and
+Unsealed by Second Circuit because the pre-litigation privilege is inapplicable,
+the motion for summary judgment is denied. For the
+reasons set forth above, the motion for summary
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 56 of 60
+Page |56
+judgment is denied. The parties are directed to
+jointly file a proposed redacted version of this
+Opinion consistent with the Protective Order or
+notify the Court that none are necessary within one
+week of the date of receipt of this Opinion. Motions
+terminated: denying 540 MOTION for Summary
+Judgment, filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+NOTICE of Errata filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
+04/28/2017
+873
+04/26/2017 874
+04/28/2017 875
+04/28/2017 876
+04/28/2017 877
+04/28/2017 878
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Other
+Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Errata filed by Jeffrey Epstein.
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Other
+Judicial Document
+REDACTION Declaration by Jeffrey Epstein
+Trial Submission
+Judicial Document
+NOTICE of Pursuant to Rule 415 Of Similar Acts
+Evidence filed by
+Motion to Compel Filings re. REPLY to Response to Motion re: 864 MOTION t
+Third Parties - Other
+Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce Document
+Judicial Document
+and Respond to Deposition Questions and to
+Complete Search of ES/ filed by Ghislaine
+Filings re. Third Parties -
+Other
+Judicial Document
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 864 MOTION to Compel Non- Party
+Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
+Deposition Questions and to Complete Search of
+ES/ filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1
+Exhibit F)
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and
+Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) filed by
+Ghislaine Maxwell.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 57 of 60
+Page |57
+04/28/2017 879
+05/01/2017 882
+05/01/2017 883
+05/02/2017 885
+05/02/2017 886
+05/02/2017 886
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Support re: 878 MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed
+Judicial Document
+Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
+37(c) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
+1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4
+Redacted - Ex. A-G
+Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit
+G)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence
+FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE
+Judicial Document
+SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION in
+Limine to Exclude Philip Barden filed by l
+FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT DOCKET
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence ENTRY - DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Judicial Document
+Support re: 882 MOTION in Limine to Exclude
+Philip Barden filed by
+Redacted Ex. 1-3
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Sealed Composite 2, #3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence.
+Judicial Document
+MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from Testifying
+at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based Upon Certain
+Documents and for Adverse Inference Jury
+Instruction filed by
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion in Limine re. Evidencere: 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from
+Judicial Document
+Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based
+Upon Certain Documents and for Adverse
+Redacted Ex. 1-3
+Inference Jury Instruction filed by
+1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2
+Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in Support
+Motion in Limine re. Evidencere: 885 MOTION to Exclude Philip Barden from
+Judicial Document
+Testifying at Trial, to Exclude Defenses Based
+Upon Certain Documents and for Adverse
+Redacted Ex. 1-3
+Inference Jury Instruction filed by
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, #2
+Exhibit Composite Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3)
+05/02/2017 888
+Trial Deposition Testimony
+Judicial Document
+REDACTION Declaration of Jack Goldberger by
+Jeffrey Epstein
+
+
+Filed 09/18/19
+
+Page | 58
+05/03/2017 893
+05/03/2017 894
+05/03/2017 895
+05/04/2017 896
+05/04/2017 897
+05/05/2017 900
+05/05/2017 901
+Trial Submissions
+Judicial Document
+Case Management
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+Trial Submission
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. A-G
+Motion to Compel Filings
+Related to Third Parties -
+Judicial Document
+RESPONSE re: 875 Notice (Other) in Opposition to
+Plaintiffs Notice Pursuant to Rule 415 of Similar
+Acts Evidence filed by Ghislaine Maxwell
+NOTICE of Intent to Request Redactions to March
+30 & 31. 2017 Hearing Transcripts filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1)
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 893 Response filed by Ghislaine
+Maxwell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit
+B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, #6
+Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)
+MOTION to Compel Non-Party Witness to Produce
+Documents and Respond to Deposition Questions
+and to Complete Search of ESI (Refiled). Document
+filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (05/04/2017)
+Motion to Compel Filings
+Related to Third Parties -
+Other
+DECLARATION of Laura A. Menninger in
+Support re: 896 MOTION to Compel Non- Party
+Witness to Produce Documents and Respond to
+Deposition Questions and to Complete Search of
+ESI (Refiled) filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Redacted - Ex. A-F
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-F) (05/04/2017)
+Motion to Compel-Judicial MOTION for Order to Show Cause and to Enforce
+Document
+Court's March 22, 2017 Order filed by |
+DECLARATION of Meredith
+in Support
+Motion to Compel-Judicial
+Document
+re: 900 MOTION for Order to Show Cause and to
+Enforce Court's March 22, 2017 Order filed by
+Virginia L.
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+Sealed 1)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 59 of 60
+Page |59
+05/05/2017
+906
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 878
+MOTION to Exclude Undisclosed Witnesses and
+Judicial Document
+Exhibits Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) filed by
+05/05/2017 907
+05/05/2017 908
+DECLARATION of Sigrid McCawley in
+Opposition re: 878 MOTION to Exclude
+Undisclosed Witnesses and Exhibits Pursuant to
+Motion in Limine re. Evidence Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) filed by l
+Judicial Document
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed 1, # 2 Exhibit
+Sealed 2, # 3 Exhibit Sealed 3, # 4 Exhibit Sealed
+Redacted - Ex. 1-11
+4, #5 Exhibit Sealed 5, # 6 Exhibit Sealed 6, #7
+Exhibit Sealed 7, # 8 Exhibit Sealed 8, # 9 Exhibit
+Sealed 9, # 10 Exhibit Sealed 10, # 11 Exhibit
+Sealed 11)
+MOTION for Order Directing the FBI to Produce
+Photographs to the Court filed by
+05/05/2017 909
+06/21/2017 922
+10/19/2017 928
+11/28/2017 933
+Trial Submission re Filings
+Related to Third Parties -
+Judicial Document
+Trial Submission re Filings
+DECLARATION of
+in Support
+Related Third Parties - Other re: 908 MOTION for Order Directing the FBI to
+Judicial Document
+Produce Photographs to the Court filed by
+(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sealed A, #2
+Redacted - Ex. A-B
+Filings Related to Third
+Parties - Intervenors
+Judicial Document
+Exhibit Sealed B)
+LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
+Andrew G. Celli. Jr. dated June 21, 2017 re:
+Confidentiality Designations filed by Alan M.
+Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, #2
+Filings Related to Third
+Parties - Intervenors
+Judicial Document
+Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit
+5, # 6 Exhibit 6)
+RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 924
+LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Submitted by
+Proposed Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein and Lesley
+Groff addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
+Michael C.
+_dated October 3, 2017 filed by
+Filings Related to Third
+Parties - Intervenors
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.
+NOTICE of Notice of Intent to Request Redaction
+of November 8 2017 Hearing Transcript filed by
+• (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1
+Redacted)
+
+
+Document 986 Filed 09/18/19 Page 60 of 60
+Page | 60
+05/08/2018 947
+12/04/2018
+957
+12/18/2018 963
+Filings Related to Third
+Parties - Intervenors
+Judicial Document
+Redacted - Ex. A
+Motion to Compel- Judicial
+Document
+LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from
+Andrew G. Celli, Jr. dated May 8, 2018 re: Pending
+application of Julie
+and the Miami Herald
+Media Company to intervene and unseal filed by
+Alan M. Dershowitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -
+June 2017 Letter (Redacted)
+SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.
+MOTION for Order to Show Cause re Protective
+Order filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Motion to Compel- Judicial DECLARATION of Ty Gee in Support re: 957
+Document
+MOTION for Order to Show Cause re Protective
+Order filed by Ghislaine Maxwell. (Attachments: #
+Redacted - Ex. 1
+Sincerely,
+/s/ Sigrid McCawley
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+cc: Counsel of Record
+(via ECF)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/feb94771dc29f9df940b5554cc822469071a6d7936a831cfb2f4cca83b01580c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/feb94771dc29f9df940b5554cc822469071a6d7936a831cfb2f4cca83b01580c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b547a3e6677cc53cbd98344c2ca1cc7fe6e2351
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/feb94771dc29f9df940b5554cc822469071a6d7936a831cfb2f4cca83b01580c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -7488,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "feb94771dc29f9df940b5554cc822469071a6d7936a831cfb2f4cca83b01580c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 65,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "272999dc7eec7def1cad0db8e5f0c86eeb41975d3e92d4e73a422df6f8899117",
+  "output_sha256": "adb8673c7d99401a2968cec3827191a67601b9b9d9aa85a7befea3b1312051d0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fec62d831e263eaed5b81e6158050f5f512a388a329eb78381597452ce4a7445.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fec62d831e263eaed5b81e6158050f5f512a388a329eb78381597452ce4a7445.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b2d2751646c61ea2a00883d90b7160ac723674de
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fec62d831e263eaed5b81e6158050f5f512a388a329eb78381597452ce4a7445.md
@@ -0,0 +1,836 @@
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 24
+
+
+
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 24
+BOLES. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+40I EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD • SUITE 1200• FORT LAUDERDALE. FL FL •PH. 954,358.00|| • FAX 954.358.0022
+Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq.
+E-mail: smccawley @bsfllp.com
+May 26, 2016
+VIA E-MAIL
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, ESQ.
+HADDON,
+FAND
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+I, P.C.
+Re:
+Y. Maxwell
+Case No. 15-cv-07433-RWS
+Dear Laura:
+We are in receipt of your letter dated May 25, 2016, which is full of mischaracterizations.
+We have gone through the time and expense of properly noticing depositions and subpoenaing
+witnesses for testimony and you appear to be refusing to attend these depositions which are set to
+start on Tuesday, May 31, 2016, with the deposition of Juan Alessi which we noticed back on May
+4, 2016. Yet you have unilaterally noticed depositions without clearing dates all of which ive
+have attended without complaint, including most recently the depositions of
+and Dr. Olsen. We subpoenaed Mr. Rizzo back in April for a date a month later on May
+13, 2016, which you waited until days before to inform us you couldn't attend, and we had to make
+arrangements to cancel that deposition and reschedule for June 10, 2016. See Exhibit 1.
+You are clearly trying to obstruct our ability to take depositions within the discovery
+deadline provided by this Court, despite the fact that we met and conferred back on May 9, 2016,
+and sent you a deposition schedule in accordance with your stated availability and the proposed
+alendar on May 17, which you have now, on May 25, 2016, rejected despite knowing that w
+lave gone through the time and expense of subpoenaing all of the witnesses in accordance witl
+your stated availability.
+This conduct is inherently unfair, and while you repeatedly claim you tried to discuss a
+deposition schedule in February 25, 2016, you were at the same time refusing to allow the
+Defendant to be deposed, and forcing us to obtain court intervention to get that key deposition
+hich didn't take place until April 22, 2016, at which time we were finally able to learn what ti
+efendant was going to deny such that we could start determining what other witnesses we
+necessary to depose.
+WWW.BSFLLP.c0m
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 24
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+May 26, 2016
+Page 2
+You also wrongfully misrepresent that "1 repeated by email to Ms. McCawley on February
+20, 25, 29, March 8 and April 5. You failed to respond to a single one of those requests." This is
+patently false and if you check your e-mail correspondence you will see that your February 12'
+correspondence regarding deposition scheduling was responded to by me on February 19
+proposing deposition dates. See Composite Exhibit 2. On February 20, 2016 you said no
+depositions should take place until a protective order was in place again holding hostage our
+efforts to schedule depositions. See Composite Exhibit 2. On February 23, 2016, I again asked
+you about deposition scheduling to which you responded on February 25, 2016. See Composite
+Exhibit 2. On February 26, 2016 1 wrote again to ask you about coordinating deposition dates to
+which you responded on February 29, 2016. On March 7, 2016 I wrote to you regarding the
+scheduling of
+deposition to which you responded to me on March 8, 2016 (not
+the reverse as the above suggests). On April 5, 2016 you simply sent the Notice of Virginia's
+depo which corresponds with my prior e-mail discussing scheduling her deposition. See
+Composite Exhibit 2. The record clearly speaks for itself and you cannot change it with your
+misrepresentations.
+Please confirm you will be attending the depositions set for next week by 2:00 p.m. today
+as follows so we do not have witnesses showing up pursuant to subpoena that you are refusing to
+attend: Tuesday, May 31, 20-16 deposition of Juan Alessi, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Wednesday,
+June 1, 2016 Maria Alessi, Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Friday, June 3, 2106 Dave Rodgers
+Counsel for Dave Rodgers has confirmed he will be present at our office on Friday June 3, 2016,
+and we do not want to waste this counsel's time if you do not intend to appear. These deposition
+subpoenas and notices were served back on May 4, 2016 and we are just hearing from you on May
+25, 2016 regarding your proposed refusal to attend.
+Based on your objection to
+deposition proceeding on Saturday, June 4,
+2016, we have contacted her counsel in an effort to reschedule that deposition.
+You also indicated during our meet and confer that you intended to depose James Austrich
+in Ocala Florida on June 2, 2016 but that is not reflected on your proposed calendar. Is your
+deposition proceeding on that date? Please confirm by 2:00 p.m. today so we can plan
+accordingly.
+Finally, you mischaracterize the discovery relating to treating physicians and we have bent
+over backwards to accommodate all your reguests in that regard.
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+SS.M/ep
+Enclosure
+
+
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 24
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 5 of 24
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Thursday, May 05, 2016 7:01 PM
+Laura Menninger; Jeff Pagliuca; Brenda Rodriguez
+'brad@pathtojustice.com'; 'Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu); Meredith
+RE: Depositions
+Hello Laura,
+As is becoming clear, both sides are going to need to be coordinating a number of depositions. We have done our best
+to make ourselves available on the dates you have noticed. It would be helpful since 1 will need to coordinate with other
+witnesses counsel if you and Jeff could provide a list of 20 date options from mid-May until the end of June when you
+are available and then I can try to pull together a proposed schedule depending on witnesses availability. For example, /
+sent Mr. Rizzo's subpoena date almost a month ago and 1 am only now understanding that you have a conflict. If I start
+by going to the witnesses and then back to you - you may already have a conflict with a given date so that is probably
+not the most efficient course. If you can provide me with a grouping of date options that is likely the smoothest way to
+As to the upcoming depositions that you scheduled, 1 believe we can cover all the dates with the exception of the depo
+on May 19* in Ocala Florida. I know this scheduling stuff can be difficult but if we work together I think we should be
+able to accommodate everyone's schedules.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOTES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLE
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Port Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From: Laura Menninger [mailto:lmenninger@hmflaw.com]
+Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 4:14 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley; Jeff Pagliuca; Brenda Rodriguez
+Cc: 'brad@pathtojustice.com'; 'Paul Cassell (casselip@law.utah.edu)'; Meredith
+Subject: RE: Depositions
+Sigrid -
+Unfortunately, we are not available to be in Armonk next Friday for Mr. Rizzo's deposition. We will need to get a new
+date from you and his counsel. We did not realize that this was a firm date, as you mentioned it was tentative. Both Jeff
+and I scheduled other matters on that date in the interim. I apologize for any confusion.
+1
+
+
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 6 of 24
+I also notice that you intend to issue a number of other deposition subpoenas with deposition dates which will be
+difficult for us to attend given our other professional obligations and the necessary travel. I suggest that we have a
+conversation in which we firm up actual dates that are available for all counsel in June.
+Thank you.
+-Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon
+and
+I, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imnenninger@hmfiaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley [mailto:Smccawley@BSELLP.com]
+Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 6:23 AM
+To: Laura Menninger; Jeff Pagliuca; Brenda Rodriguez
+Cc: brad@pathtojustice.com; Paul Cassell (cassellp@law.utah.edu); Meredith|
+Subject: FW: Depositions
+; Sigrid McCawley
+Laura - Last month, on April 11*
+, we served you with the subpoena for Mr. Rizzo for his deposition Friday May 13,
+2016. See attached above and below. Brad informs me that you said yesterday after the deposition that you seemed
+unaware of the subpoena? You never raised any issue with the date we set below. Mr. Rizzo and his counsel are set to
+proceed on Friday May 13, 2016 at the BSF Armonk, New York office starting at 9:00 a.m. Armonk is located about 45
+minutes outside of NY city and was requested by Mr. Rizzo as the location of the deposition.
+Thanks,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LEP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd.. Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 7 of 24
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 4:34 PM
+To: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+Cc: Jeff Pagliuca (ipagliuca@hmflaw.com)
+Subject: Depositions
+Hello Laura,
+Per your request we re-scheduled
+travel on Monday. Attached are the revised deposition notices.
+and Johanna Sjorberg's deposition to accommodate your need to
+We have also attached a deposition notice for Rinaldo Rizzo. We have tentatively set the date for May 13, 2016 as a
+placeholder and the witness' counsel informs he is available that day so kindly let me know if that works with your
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. MeCawley
+Partner
+BOLES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLR
+401 Hast Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale. PL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 cxt. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0023
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+song 0u
+#.
+stant par
+um d
+3.11
+cmake 13
+
+
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 8 of 24
+COMPOSITE
+
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 l
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 9 of 24
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Attachments:
+Laura Menninger <Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
+Saturday, February 20, 2016 2:54 PM
+Brenda Rodriguez
+V. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Proposed Protective Order.pdf
+Sigrid
+I had not responded regarding the dates yet, in part, because you did not address the two issues | raised by email of February
+12 (below). In particular, a protective order needs to be entered prior to Ms. Maxwell's deposition to address the same
+concerns you raised prior to your client's deposition in the
+/Cassell matter. I have taken the liberty of drafting a
+proposed protective order which I attach here. Please provide any comments you propose and we can get it filed and ruled
+upon by the Court.
+Further, you did not provide your acknowledgement pursuant to Rule 30(d)(1) that this deposition, which likely will occur
+before Ms. Maxwell has filed an answer or counterclaims, will be her only deposition in this matter. If this is not your
+agreement, then we will need to seek a ruling from the Court.
+Assuming that the attached protective order is entered in a timely fashion and your agreement that you will not be seeking a
+second deposition after Ms. Maxwell files an answer and counterclaim, then I can confirm the dates which will work for me
+and for her. Right now, of the dates you propose it appears that the March 25th date is best.
+Regarding the depositions of
+I propose that we do those on consecutive days. Unfortunately, I am
+not available on March 23d as | have a sentencing in USDC Colorado that morning. I could propose March 24-25 or March 17-
+18. Also, given that these depositions are "more than 100 miles from the courthouse," I request your agreement to pay for
+my expenses for attendance at those depositions in Florida pursuant to Local R. 30.1.
+Thank you,
+Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon, l
+and
+, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it
+may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person
+responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission
+and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this
+transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 10 of 24
+telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any
+manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley <smccawley@bsfllp.com>
+Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:25 AM
+To: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>
+Subject: RE:
+• v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Hello Laura,
+I am in receipt of your email below. As you are aware, the Court already denied your client's effort to stay discovery
+pending her motion to dismiss. As you are also aware, discovery in this case closes in a few short months. We are
+proceeding with discovery and cannot agree to wait any further for Ms. Maxwell's deposition.
+You indicated you had a conflict with the original date we selected for Ms. Maxwell's deposition so we have provided
+you with alternate dates for Ms. Maxwell's deposition and would appreciate a timely response. You also stated that you
+had a conflict with the original subpoena date for Johanna Sjorberg. In an effort to accommodate the conflicts in your
+schedule, we provided you a selection of alternate dates that work for Ms. Sjorberg and her counsel and we have not
+heard back from you. Once again the dates are provided below. Please respond in a timely manner so we can schedule
+the depositions.
+Proposed Alternate Dates for Ms. Maxwell's Deposition to be taken in NY at BS's Office - Feb. 29**, March 1*, March
+14 or March 25th
+Proposed Altornate Dates for Ms. Sjorbere's Deposition to be taken in Fort Lauderdale at BF's Office - March 16** or
+March 23™d
+Presentiy Scheduled Date for Alyson
+Deposition to be taken in St. Augustine Florida - March 22™. To my
+knowledge, you have not indicated that you have a conflict with this date.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LEP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From: Laura Menninger [mailto:lmenninger@hmflaw.com]
+Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 1:21 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Subject: Re:
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Sigrid
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 11 of 24
+I'm happy to schedule a deposition for my client on a mutually agreeable date. I will check with her on these dates you
+have proposed and get back to you shortly.
+It would make some sense to me to not schedule this deposition until after the judge rules on the motion to dismiss. If
+the motion is granted, we will have wasted time and money. If the Judge denies the motion, | intend to file an answer
+with affirmatives defenses as well as counterclaims against your client.
+Given that Rule 30(d) only permits one day of deposition lasting 7 hours, in the event you choose to depose Ms. Maxwell
+prior to the filing of our affirmative defenses and counterclaims, you will have exhausted that one chance to depose her,
+and i will not agree, and will vigorously contest, your ability to schedule a second deposition.
+We should also discuss an agreed upon protective order for discovery in this case. If you have one you like, please
+forward it to me, or 1 can take the lead in drafting.
+-Laura
+Laura F. Menninger
+Haddon, (
+and
+P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley [mailto:Smccawley@BSFLLP.com]
+Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:41 PM
+To: Laura Menninger
+Cc: Brenda Rodriquez
+Subject: RE: |
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Hello Laura - I can offer the following alternate dates for Ms Maxwell's deposition -February 29th or March 1st
+or March I1th or March 14, 25 or 16.
+I will get back to you on an alternate date for Ms. Sjorberg's deposition.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 12 of 24
+----Original Message-...-
+From: Laura Menninger [lmenninger@hmflaw.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 06:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
+To: Sigrid MeCawley
+Ce: Brenda Rodriguez
+Subject:
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Sigrid -
+1 have received your Notice of Deposition for Ms. Maxwell on March 2 as well as your subpoena for the deposition of
+on February 22. I am not available on either one of those dates due to pre-existing scheduling conflicts.
+Local Rule 26.4(a) provides that "Counsel are expected to cooperate with each other, consistent with the interests of
+their clients, in all phases of the discovery process and to be courteous in their dealings with each other, including in
+matters relating to scheduling and timing of various discovery procedures."
+I respectfully request that you send me other proposed dates that would work for you to take those two depositions so
+that I can clear them with my calendar and (as pertains to her deposition), my client's calendar. Presumably,
+coordination with
+counsel also makes sense per Rule 45(d)(1).
+-Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+and
+, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+
+
+Filed 05/27/16 Page 13 of 24
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 14 of 24
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>
+Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:55 PM
+Brenda Rodriguez
+FW:
+a v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Sigrid -
+I would suggest that rather than repeated emails on the topic of scheduling the various depositions in this case, or the
+unilateral issuance of deposition notices and subpoenas, you and I have a phone conference wherein we discuss which
+depositions are going to be taken, where, and a plan for doing them in an orderly fashion that minimizes travel and
+inconvenience for counsel and the witnesses. As you are well aware from your own practice of law, attorneys have
+other clients, other court dates and other commitments to work around. The FRCP and Local Rules contemplate
+courtesy and cooperation among counsel in the scheduling and timing of discovery processes. This rule makes even
+more sense in a case such as this spanning various parts of the country where counsel must engage in lengthy travel and
+the attendant scheduling of flights, hotels and rental cars.
+I am available for such a call today or tomorrow morning before 11 a.m. MST.
+To respond to your last email:
+Defendant's Deposition
+We have not and will not accept the date of March 25, or any other date, for Ms. Maxwell's deposition until a protective
+order is in place.
+My email of February 12'# requested your position on a protective order and, receiving no response
+from you, I sent you a proposed one on February 20*. As of today's date, I still have not received your position or your
+comments to that protective order.
+Secondly, although the rules permit a party to seek leave of the court for a second deposition should new factors or
+evidence become known, you are aware in advance of Ms. Maxwell's deposition that she has yet to file an Answer or
+Counterclaim and therefore cannot be "surprised" about the fact that she will do so when and if necessary. Should you
+choose to take her deposition before such a pleading has been filed, you are acknowledging your waiver of the right to
+take a second deposition based on the filing of the answer and counterclaims because this is a fact known to you in
+advance of the first deposition.
+To reiterate, I have not accepted the date of March 25, 2016 for my client's deposition and will not agree to schedule
+such a deposition in the absence of a protective order and your acknowledgement of waiver as outlined above.
+Other Witness Depositions
+I have asked to schedule the depositions of the two Florida witnesses on consecutive days to minimize travel expenses
+for counsel and you have refused.
+Additionally, it is completely unclear to me what, if any, relevance either of the two Florida witnesses have to the
+defamation action. My client has made no statements about either woman, nor has your client's voluminous press and
+pleadings included any indication that either woman could corroborate her claims. Finally, as noted in my email to you
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 15 of 24
+yesterday.
+info nor her counsel's contact info.
+is not even among the hundred witnesses listed in your Rule 26 disciosures, nor her contact
+Please provide an offer of proof as to the relevance in this action (as compared to say, any of your client's media,
+publicity and other litigations) of either
+testimony. Also provide any contact information
+you have for them pursuant to Rule 26.
+I hope that we will be able to continue a professional dialogue regarding the timing and sequence of discovery in this
+case without the need for judicial intervention.
+-Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+and
+P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley I
+ifto:Smccawley@BSFLLP.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:46 AM
+To: Laura Menninger
+Cc: Brenda Rodriquez
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Hello Laura,
+DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION:
+As you are aware, we originally noticed your client's deposition for March 2, 2016. We then provided you with multiple
+alternative dates because you stated that you had a conflict with the date provided. You have confirmed below that Ms.
+Maxwell is available for her deposition on March 25'* in New York. The revised deposition notice is attached above. We
+understand that your client is requesting the entrance of a protective order in this case. We are in receipt of your
+proposed protective order and are reviewing and will provide you with a response to same shortly.
+With respect to your demand below that we concede that we will only seek to take one 7 hour deposition of the named
+defendant Ms. Maxwell in this case, we disagree that we have to make any such determination at this stage of the
+litigation. We are entitled under the rules to depose the defendant, without delay, for one 7 hour deposition. If after
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 16 of 24
+that deposition there are reasons that require us to seek additional time from the Court, we will do so and you can lodge
+any objections you have. You are not entitled to use your demand as a transparent delay tactic in an effort to preclude
+what is a critical deposition in this matter.
+NON- PARTY SUBPOENED WITNESSES:
+As a result of the conflict you had with our original date for Johanna Sjorberg's deposition, we provided you with
+multiple alternatives. I understand you have a conflict with March 23'° so please confirm you can be present for her
+deposition in Fort Lauderdale on March 16* in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
+1. Sjorberg's depositions cannot be taken on consecutive days because -- while they are both in the
+state of Florida - the travel distance is about 7 hours by car so it won't work to schedule them consecutively. Moreover,
+these are non-party witnesses with varying work schedules that we are attempting to work around with their counsel
+and we have provided you will dates for which they are available.
+Please confirm you can be present at Alyson|
+deposition in St. Augustine Florida on March 22. For your
+travel arrangements, it is my understanding that the closest airport to St. Augustine is the Jacksonville, Florida airport.
+As for your interpretation of Local Rule 30.1 we have reviewed the case law and it is not our understanding that this type
+of payment applies automatically to a named party. That said, you are of course able to make your application to the
+court in accordance with that rule and we will respond with our opposition, but nothing in that rule allows you to
+attempt to delay a subpoenaed deposition based on that rule.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOTES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LUP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From: Laura Menninger [mailto:Imenninger@hmflaw.com]
+Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 2:54 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Cc: Brenda Rodriguez
+Subject:
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Sigrid -
+i had not responded regarding the dates yet, in part, because you did not address the two issues I raised by email of February
+12 (below). In particular, a protective order needs to be entered prior to Ms. Maxwell's deposition to address the same
+concerns you raised prior to your client's deposition in the
+/Cassell matter, I have taken the liberty of drafting a
+proposed protective order which I attach here. Please provide any comments you propose and we can get it filed and ruled
+upon by the Court.
+Further, you did not provide your acknowledgement pursuant to Rule 30(d)(1) that this deposition, which likely will occur
+before Ms. Maxwell has filed an answer or counterclaims, will be her only deposition in this matter. If this is not your
+agreement, then we will need to seek a ruling from the Court.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 17 of 24
+Assuming that the attached protective order is entered in a timely fashion and your agreement that you will not be seeking a
+second deposition after Ms. Maxwell files an answer and counterclaim, then I can confirm the dates which will work for me
+and for her. Right now, of the dates you propose it appears that the March 25th date is best.
+Regarding the depositions of
+5, I propose that we do those on consecutive days. Unfortunately, 1 am
+not available on March 23d as I have a sentencing in USDC Colorado that morning. I could propose March 24-25 or March 17-
+18. Also, given that these depositions are "more than 100 miles from the courthouse," I request your agreement to pay for
+my expenses for attendance at those depositions in Florida pursuant to Local R. 30.1.
+Thank you,
+Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+h and
+1, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it
+may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person
+responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission
+and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this
+transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by
+telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any
+manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley <smccawley@bsfllp.com>
+Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:25 AM
+To: Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com>
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxweli - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Hello Laura,
+I am in receipt of your email below. As you are aware, the Court already denied your client's effort to stay discovery
+pending her motion to dismiss. As you are also aware, discovery in this case closes in a few short months. We are
+proceeding with discovery and cannot agree to wait any further for Ms. Maxwell's deposition.
+You indicated you had a conflict with the original date we selected for Ms. Maxwell's deposition so we have provided
+you with alternate dates for Ms. Maxweil's deposition and would appreciate a timely response. You also stated that you
+had a conflict with the original subpoena date for Johanna Sjorberg. In an effort to accommodate the conflicts in your
+schedule, we provided you a selection of alternate dates that work for Ms. Sjorberg and her counsel and we have not
+heard back from you. Once again the dates are provided below. Please respond in a timely manner so we can schedule
+the depositions.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 18 of 24
+Proposed Alternate Dates for Ms. Maxwell's Deposition to be taken in NY at BSF's Office - Feb. 29*
+"" March 1", March
+14* or March 25th
+Proposed Alternate Dates for Mis. Siorberg's Deposition to be taken in Fort Lauderdale at BF's Office - March 16** or
+March 23"
+Presently Scheduled Date for Alyson
+Deposition to be taken in St. Augustine Florida - March 22*d.
+• To my
+knowledge, you have not indicated that you have a conflict with this date.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIBS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd.. Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bstllp.com
+From: Laura Menninger [mailto:lmenninger@hmflaw.com]
+Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 1:21 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Subject: Re:
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Sigrid -
+I'm happy to schedule a deposition for my client on a mutually agreeable date. I will check with her on these dates you
+have proposed and get back to you shortly.
+It would make some sense to me to not schedule this deposition until after the judge rules on the motion to dismiss. If
+the motion is granted, we will have wasted time and money. If the Judge denies the motion, I intend to file an answer
+with affirmatives defenses as well as counterclaims against your client.
+Given that Rule 30(d) only permits one day of deposition lasting 7 hours, in the event you choose to depose Ms. Maxwell
+prior to the filing of our affirmative defenses and counterclaims, you will have exhausted that one chance to depose her,
+and I will not agree, and will vigorously contest, your ability to schedule a second deposition.
+We should also discuss an agreed upon protective order for discovery in this case. If you have one you like, please
+forward it to me, or I can take the lead in drafting.
+-Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+and
+P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Viain 303.831.7354 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+5
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 19 of 24
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley [mailto:Smccawley@BSFLLP.com]
+Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:41 PM
+To: Laura Menninger
+Cc: Brenda Rodriguez
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Hello Laura -1 can offer the following alternate dates for Ms Maxwell's deposition -February 29th or March 1st
+or March 11th or March 14, 25 or 16.
+I will get back to you on an alternate date for Ms. Sjorberg's deposition.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+•---Original Message-----
+From: Laura Menninger [Imenninger@hmflaw.com]
+Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 06:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Ce: Brenda Rodriguez
+Subject:
+v. Maxwell - [conferral concerning deposition dates]
+Sigrid -
+L have received your Notice of Deposition for Ms. Maxwell on March 2 as well as your subpoena for the deposition of
+on February 22. I am not available on either one of those dates due to pre-existing scheduling conflicts.
+Local Rule 26.4(a) provides that "Counsel are expected to cooperate with each other, consistent with the interests of
+their clients, in all phases of the discovery process and to be courteous in their dealings with each other, including in
+matters relating to scheduling and timing of various discovery procedures."
+I respectfully request that you send me other proposed dates that would work for you to take those two depositions so
+that I can clear them with my calendar and (as pertains to her deposition), my client's calendar. Presumably,
+counsel also makes sense per Rule 45(d)(1).
+-Laura
+6
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16Page 20 of 24
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+and l
+, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+to the r
+nect any
+Chira in
+21 PriL.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 21 of 24
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Laura Menninger <lmenninger@hmflaw.com»
+Tuesday, March 08, 2016 9:14 PM
+Brenda Rodriguez
+RE:
+rv. Maxwell [conferral regarding Plaintiff's deposition and IME]
+Sigrid -
+I can accept April 19 for
+deposition. It also makes sense to me to schedule her mother's deposition while
+you are already in Colorado as I understand her to live in Penrose as well, so I will schedule her for April 20"
+Please let me know if
+is represented by counsel or otherwise is amenable to waiver of service, otherwise I can
+have her formally served for that date. I will issue Notices accordingly.
+Thank you,
+Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+and
+I, P.C.
+150 East 10ch Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+From: Sigrid McCawley [mailto:Smccawley@BSFLLP.com]
+Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 9:54 AM
+To: Laura Menninger
+Cc: Brenda Rodriguez
+Subject: RE:
+v. Maxwell [conferral regarding Plaintiff's deposition and IME]
+Hello Laura,
+According to my understanding of our prior exchanges - it was my understanding that Maxwell could be made available
+for a deposition on March 25" - and per your request below, Virginia may be made available for deposition in Denver on
+April 19" or April 20" Are you in agreement that both of these depositions can proceed on that schedule?
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 22 of 24
+To the extent the Court has not been able to enter a Protective Order in advance of that date, we request that you agree
+to treat Virginia's deposition as confidential until such time as an order has been entered. As i mentioned previously
+during our conference call, we are willing to extend Ms. Maxwell the same confidential treatment of her deposition
+transcript if the Court has not entered a Protective Order prior to her deposition on March 25th.
+Kindly let me know your position. I am available to discuss at your convenience.
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL. 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 ext. 4223
+Га: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From: Sigrid McCawley
+Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 11:45 AM
+To: 'Laura Menninger'
+Cc: Brenda Rodriguez
+Subject: RE:
+Iv. Maxwell [conferral regarding Plaintiff's deposition and IME]
+Hello Laura - I am checking with the client on these proposed dates and will get back to you shortly.
+Thank you,
+Sigrid
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Partner
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdalc, FL 33301
+Phone: 954-356-0011 cxt. 4223
+Fax: 954-356-0022
+http://www.bsfllp.com
+From: Laura Menninger [mailto:Imenninger@hmflaw.com]
+Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2016 2:55 PM
+To: Sigrid McCawley
+Cc: Brenda Rodriguez
+Subject: |||| v. Maxwell [conferral regarding Plaintiff's deposition and IME]
+Sigrid -
+On a related note and subject to the same proposed protective order 1 sent you earlier, I would like to schedule
+deposition at my office in Denver. Please provide your availability for the weeks of April 11 and 18th.
+Further, I will be seeking a Rule 35 independent psychological examination of ILL based on her claims that the
+defamation caused her mental distress. Please provide her availability to meet with our psychiatrist in Denver the first two
+weeks in May.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 23 of 24
+Thank you,
+Laura
+Laura A. Menninger
+Haddon,
+and
+, P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+Itnenninper@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflasr.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail
+messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the
+intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
+you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received
+this transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
+113
+102010. 101
+and was so m
+in Filtrater :
+he denis camera scalico 7
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 173-4 Filed 05/27/16 Page 24 of 24
+Sent:
+To:
+Cc:
+Subject:
+Attachments:
+Laura Menninger < Imenninger@hmflaw.com>
+Tuesday, April 05, 2016 8:05 PM
+Sigrid McCawley, Meredith !| |
+Jeff Pagliuca
+|H v. Maxwell - [deposition notice for Plaintiff and conferral re witness deposition
+dates]
+2016.04.05 Notice of Deposition - d]
+Ill pdf; 2016.04.05 Ltr to McCawley re.
+deposition dates.pdf
+Please see attached correspondence.
+Laura A. Menninger
+Hadcion, 1
+and
+P.C.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Main 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628
+menninger@hmflaw.com
+www.hmflaw.com
+CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages
+attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended
+recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
+must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the
+information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this
+transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original
+transmission and its attachments without reading or saving it in any manner. Thank you.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fec62d831e263eaed5b81e6158050f5f512a388a329eb78381597452ce4a7445.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fec62d831e263eaed5b81e6158050f5f512a388a329eb78381597452ce4a7445.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..79c25a3bb97fb8a6010ebabc5d482ef12e60a33a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fec62d831e263eaed5b81e6158050f5f512a388a329eb78381597452ce4a7445.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -734,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fec62d831e263eaed5b81e6158050f5f512a388a329eb78381597452ce4a7445",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 28,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "02f9b0081bc235a47a4993a7b63f6b53bb9fb273e3b1c035c316e92e27a230b6",
+  "output_sha256": "f19c227b25250235293d10f314130f10fb493fdfb0666f44c700c15d42d44d04",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fecf0800a813a0457b26123db3becc57f79e110c8f09395ca7c855a71cfbb32d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fecf0800a813a0457b26123db3becc57f79e110c8f09395ca7c855a71cfbb32d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9303a9c1dbed15f5ac0ae6aa4ebd775190336fde
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fecf0800a813a0457b26123db3becc57f79e110c8f09395ca7c855a71cfbb32d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 343
+Filed 10/13/21 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED: 10/13/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Court is in receipt of Defendant's motion for an order granting individual
+sequestered juror voir dire and limited counsel-conducted voir dire. Dkt. No. 341. The
+Government is hereby ORDERED to respond by Monday, October 18, 2021.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: October 13, 2021
+New York, New York
+Alia O Notor
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fecf0800a813a0457b26123db3becc57f79e110c8f09395ca7c855a71cfbb32d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fecf0800a813a0457b26123db3becc57f79e110c8f09395ca7c855a71cfbb32d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..23fa6157733daa5ba55ad91becf2514a36446cfa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fecf0800a813a0457b26123db3becc57f79e110c8f09395ca7c855a71cfbb32d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fecf0800a813a0457b26123db3becc57f79e110c8f09395ca7c855a71cfbb32d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "00d15d5076a12f0a4b4977d042ab0cdb8e3e30116c1ca58519cfcbdf0021d481",
+  "output_sha256": "c185e5532396bfa02d26b8d088eb584c1916d5f82d78be2f8fa8603f7ec57b2d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fed756aecab767b39a2266f3199ed6cc13533782cec217c586b60b63115a40fa.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fed756aecab767b39a2266f3199ed6cc13533782cec217c586b60b63115a40fa.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b1a84b32779800b6bda185110ca10fde522fec4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fed756aecab767b39a2266f3199ed6cc13533782cec217c586b60b63115a40fa.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 401-1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fed756aecab767b39a2266f3199ed6cc13533782cec217c586b60b63115a40fa.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fed756aecab767b39a2266f3199ed6cc13533782cec217c586b60b63115a40fa.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a82df39360537830a77f71a1e95f7f9e329b225
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fed756aecab767b39a2266f3199ed6cc13533782cec217c586b60b63115a40fa.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fed756aecab767b39a2266f3199ed6cc13533782cec217c586b60b63115a40fa",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4eddb90c110aff3de38387b7508238ca169e67c08bf5089cc0243bc15034730d",
+  "output_sha256": "b991127b56fb78fe6cece140ba25acc6a7d264997d90eb000e95a2269280bce8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fedfa53f73ae603ea01f2db325c9dedabe20eb759bfead81cf7c33344c454fda.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fedfa53f73ae603ea01f2db325c9dedabe20eb759bfead81cf7c33344c454fda.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ca1d91875581239a5919887c37122472aa1d1ca0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fedfa53f73ae603ea01f2db325c9dedabe20eb759bfead81cf7c33344c454fda.md
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 134
+Filed 05/02/16
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-x
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY, FILED
+DOC #: _
+DAEPIED5216
+Plaintiff,
+- against -
+15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
+ORDER
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+----X
+Sweet, D.J.
+With respect to Plaintiff's April 28, 2016 in camera
+submissions, the Plaintiff is directed to submit a log in camera
+on or before April 4, 2016, identifying the documents at issue,
+the applicable page range and category of grouped documents
+(that is, documents spanning more than one page in their
+original form), the dates of any submission, the law enforcement
+agency to which provided, any individuals, agencies, or
+organizations to whom it has been released or made available,
+and a statement identifying the privilege claimed and any
+authorities relied upon. The statement concerning privilege and
+authorities will be provided to the Defendant.
+It is so ordered.
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 134 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2
+New York, NY
+Z: 2016
+RØBERT
+SWEET
+U.s.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/fedfa53f73ae603ea01f2db325c9dedabe20eb759bfead81cf7c33344c454fda.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fedfa53f73ae603ea01f2db325c9dedabe20eb759bfead81cf7c33344c454fda.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..48041ebca1bda1c48d8e5c0a04c6363fbb8b9ea9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/fedfa53f73ae603ea01f2db325c9dedabe20eb759bfead81cf7c33344c454fda.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "fedfa53f73ae603ea01f2db325c9dedabe20eb759bfead81cf7c33344c454fda",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "64252ff6d45a2134a5e7233add332a0063ad5a9da0f01df749983d5726dec98a",
+  "output_sha256": "7abf4b9b7e8a9e62e5f7ab481dbffc7df6cf5b3d4a0a037b83b7cd36562c4cc0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff09afd31e03db486888d324b5bef798f5a5cc5c0331c60bc3cf150538eef592.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff09afd31e03db486888d324b5bef798f5a5cc5c0331c60bc3cf150538eef592.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fcb39ff381ba86a0d13bd24da9642f9afc2ab952
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff09afd31e03db486888d324b5bef798f5a5cc5c0331c60bc3cf150538eef592.md
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 531 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-- X
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+15-cv-07433-RWS
+-- X
+Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca In Support Of Defendant's
+Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Gilbert Kliman
+1, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, declare as follows:
+1.
+I am an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to
+practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pro hac vice. I
+am a member of the law firm Haddon,
+&
+|. P.C., counsel of record for
+Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell") in this action. I respectfully submit this declaration
+in support of the Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr. Gilbert
+Kliman.
+Attached as Exhibit A (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of |
+Attached as Exhibit B (filed under seal) is a true and correct copy of |
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 531 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 3
+4.
+Attached as Exhibit C (filed under seal) are true and correct copies |
+Dated: January 5, 2017
+By: Is/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 531 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I certify that on January 5, 2017, I electronically served this Declaration Of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+In Support Of Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony and Opinion of Dr.
+Gilbert Kliman via ECF on the following:
+Sigrid S. McCawley
+Meredith
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Ste. 1200
+Pt. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz@bsfllp.com
+Paul G. Cassell
+383 S. University Street
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+49 Twin Lakes Rd.
+South Salem, NY 10590
+StanPottinger@aol.com
+JAFFE, WEISSING,
+FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Ave., Ste. 2
+Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+/s/ Nicole
+Nicole
+3
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff09afd31e03db486888d324b5bef798f5a5cc5c0331c60bc3cf150538eef592.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff09afd31e03db486888d324b5bef798f5a5cc5c0331c60bc3cf150538eef592.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..681d713fdc0296a6896daa05aaf00747b0e49a91
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff09afd31e03db486888d324b5bef798f5a5cc5c0331c60bc3cf150538eef592.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ff09afd31e03db486888d324b5bef798f5a5cc5c0331c60bc3cf150538eef592",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "086b72cf0e188c02d0fd37434c3a156a92d1648b76a8e68149498a10f9bb5cd2",
+  "output_sha256": "36878c217d8e354091f3a34c804135e63f5bdee6ceca69d8125124334298bef8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff27753f7206b3f9e8cf926c1a137145da3aef58d9d030b1e155ab023cba0cba.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff27753f7206b3f9e8cf926c1a137145da3aef58d9d030b1e155ab023cba0cba.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..668328a0842ec4f858cd6dcc7fe8906f3e4e0cb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff27753f7206b3f9e8cf926c1a137145da3aef58d9d030b1e155ab023cba0cba.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 523-1 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff27753f7206b3f9e8cf926c1a137145da3aef58d9d030b1e155ab023cba0cba.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff27753f7206b3f9e8cf926c1a137145da3aef58d9d030b1e155ab023cba0cba.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c0b79e07d9a7f8e9c0738de9d1ef2335d2d1eba7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff27753f7206b3f9e8cf926c1a137145da3aef58d9d030b1e155ab023cba0cba.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ff27753f7206b3f9e8cf926c1a137145da3aef58d9d030b1e155ab023cba0cba",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "494f962825c7d1d0b6ad3af961f3093950d9dcfa89fbfeefcd15cce2a024672d",
+  "output_sha256": "070ca81e47d91a40671f29e1da5c5da483fa60994ff99f1bb98d81fa78f7e92c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff3c09e4f4816568f569aebaf9d76519568d6ce9e5046780de49061e173bff66.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff3c09e4f4816568f569aebaf9d76519568d6ce9e5046780de49061e173bff66.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a4a2eb64fefdfcd7cd1ada698aadff2afddd5609
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff3c09e4f4816568f569aebaf9d76519568d6ce9e5046780de49061e173bff66.md
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 640 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 3
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+Plaintiff,
+Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+Defendant.
+MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR NON-PARTY WITNESS
+PAGES 1-7
+FILE UNDER SEAL
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 640 Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 22nd of February, 2017, 1 electronically filed the
+foregoing document with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I also certify that the
+foregoing document is being served this day on the individuals identified below via transmission
+of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.
+Laura A. Menninger, Esq.
+Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esg.
+HADDON,
+&
+150 East 10" Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+Tel: (303) 831-7364
+Fax: (303) 832-2628
+Email: Imenninger@hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca @hmflaw.com
+P.C.
+Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
+Meredith
+1 Esq.
+BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
+Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Tel: (954) 356-0011
+Fax: (954) 956-0022
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+mschultz/@bsfllp.com
+David Boies
+BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+333 Main Street
+Armonk, NY 10504
+dboies@bsfllp.com
+(Pro Hac Vice)
+TAFFE, WEISSING,
+, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+(954) 524-2820
+brad@pathtojustice.com
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 640 Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 3
+Paul G. Cassell (Pro Hac Vice)
+S.J. Quinney College of Law
+University of Utah
+383 University St.
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+(801) 585-52021
+cassellp@law.utah.edu
+Peter Guirguis, Esq.
+MINTZ & GOLD, LLP
+600 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10016
+(212) 696-4848
+guirguis@mintzandgold.com
+/s/ J. Stanley Pottinger
+J. Stanley Pottinger
+'This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only
+and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the University of Utah for this private
+representation.
+9
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff3c09e4f4816568f569aebaf9d76519568d6ce9e5046780de49061e173bff66.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff3c09e4f4816568f569aebaf9d76519568d6ce9e5046780de49061e173bff66.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed2cec6d8cfd48d73261d499b566a31e545446cf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff3c09e4f4816568f569aebaf9d76519568d6ce9e5046780de49061e173bff66.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ff3c09e4f4816568f569aebaf9d76519568d6ce9e5046780de49061e173bff66",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4a143794ede05c093af4924a71c3718d0bfb6e648a48e9170bd932e80471f3a1",
+  "output_sha256": "634d4b00a835a5b88feacb4f8b285ddf14a939e7c11c3a2f27141e6962b71168",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff441a772d89cdd7adb8236703e9753b28602d859531092bef5a1755febff427.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff441a772d89cdd7adb8236703e9753b28602d859531092bef5a1755febff427.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de3fd14b0a9a05dc4fe19ebbb536609dc23b6424
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff441a772d89cdd7adb8236703e9753b28602d859531092bef5a1755febff427.md
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 449
+Filed 11/12/21
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF
+GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 251, 288, 294, 313 AND 606
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+1&.
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Jenver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Christian R. Everdell
+1 & GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Gradsay, Suiti C, Sieheim
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+P.C.
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 449 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 8
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+I. The Exhibits.
+II. The Items are Not Relevant.
+III. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial
+CONCLUSION.
+1
+..2
+2
+4
+i
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 449
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 3 of 8
+TABLES OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 178 (1997)
+United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
+Rules
+Fed. R. Evid. 401
+Fed. R. Evid. 403
+Fed. R. Evid. 404...
+2,3
+3
+1,2
+1,3
+.. 1
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 449 Filed 11/12/21 Page 4 of 8
+The Government has proffered a number of exhibits that it apparently intends to
+introduce at trial. It is difficult to assess the admissibility of some of the exhibits pretrial. Others,
+however, such as the ones described below, are not relevant in the context of this case, have no
+probative value, and are extremely prejudicial. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell objects to the
+following exhibits pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403 and 404(b):
+I. The Exhibits
+Government Exhibit 251 and 288 are framed photographs
+The photographs have no nexus to Ms. Maxwell
+The photographs have no probative value to any allegation in this
+case and appear to be offered to demonstrate some character flaw in Mr. Epstein and, by
+association, Ms. Maxwell.
+Government Exhibit 294 is a box containing an item described as "Twin Torpedos." This
+box was apparently seized during the execution of a search warrant at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm
+Beach, Florida, on October 20, 2005. These items are inadmissible for the reasons discussed in
+Ms. Maxwell's Motion to Exclude Items Purportedly Seized During Search of 358 El Brillo Way
+on October 20, 2005. In addition to problems related to the evidentiary foundation of these items,
+they are not relevant to any issue in this case. The unopened boxes were purportedly seized in
+2005, after the end of any conspiracy alleged here. No witness will identify these items as having
+been in Ms. Maxwell's possession or used in connection with any crime alleged in the
+indictment.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 449 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 8
+Government Exhibit 313 purports to be a photograph of Ms. Maxwell, purportedly seized
+from a DVD disk in a binder found on a shelf in Jeffrey Epstein's house when it was searched in
+2012. There is no nexus between any allegation in this case and the photograph.
+Government Exhibit 606 is a document titled "Household Manual" which was apparently
+printed from an unidentified computer or other electronic storage device. There is no evidentiary
+foundation for this document, it is hearsay, and the one date on the document, "2/14/2005,"
+suggests that it was created after the events alleged in the indictment. Ms. Maxwell did not create
+the document and no evidence exists suggesting that she did.
+Il. The Items are Not Relevant
+Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as that which "has any tendency to make a fact more
+or less probable than it would be without the evidence," so long as "the fact is of consequence in
+determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172,
+178 (1997).
+There is no evidence that any accuser in this case saw, was aware of, or impacted by any
+of the above listed items.
+Regardless, the photographs are not probative of any material fact in this case.
+Similarly, the apparent seizure of the "Twin Torpedos" in 2005 is not probative of anything.
+Photographs of Ms. Maxwell found in a NY closet in 2019 prove no material fact in this
+case not otherwise established by less prejudicial evidence as discussed below.
+Finally, the unauthenticated 2005 "Household Manual" is outside the time frame alleged
+in the indictment and plays no role in any allegation contained in the indictment.
+II. The Evidence Should Be Excluded as Unfairly Prejudicial
+"The term "unfair prejudice,' as to a criminal defendant, speaks to the capacity of some
+concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 449 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 8
+from proof specific to the offense charged." Old Chief v. United States, at 180. Federal Rule of
+Evidence 403 provides that "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value
+is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, ... or by considerations of ...
+needless presentation of cumulative evidence." The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 403
+define "undue prejudice" as an "undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis,
+commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." See United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp.
+2d 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
+Here, any probative value of the items is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice
+to Ms. Maxwell and confusion of the issues. Introduction of Exhibits 251 and 288 will likely
+necessitate Defense production of evidence surrounding the photographs including testimony
+from
+There is no Government witness who claims that they ever saw or used the "Twin
+Torpedos" allegedly seized in 2005. To the extent the Government claims the items are relevant
+to establish that Epstein used sex toys, any probative value of this "fact" is outweighed by
+prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.
+The 2019 photograph of Ms. Maxwell have no role in any allegation here. To the extent
+that the Government claims that they intend to establish an intimate relationship between Ms.
+Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, that fact is provable by other photographs and testimony.
+The Manual contains multiple hearsay statements and reflects a lifestyle that many jurors
+may find offensive. Given the lack of foundation related to the anonymous, unsigned and
+unauthenticated document any marginal relevance is outweighed by issues of confusion,
+speculation and prejudice.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 449
+Filed 11/12/21 Page 7 of 8
+CONCLUSION
+For the above reasons Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court enter an order prohibiting the
+introduction of these proffered exhibits.
+Dated: October 18, 2021
+Respectfully submitted,
+s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+|&l
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 449 Filed 11/12/21 Page 8 of 8
+Certificate of Service
+I hereby certify that on October 18, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine
+Maxwell Motion to Preclude Introduction of Government Exhibits 251, 288, 294, 313 and 606
+with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
+the following:
+Alison Moe
+Maurene Comey
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Lara Pomerantz
+U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, NY 10007
+Alison.moe@usdoj.gov
+Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov
+Andrew.Rohrbach @usdoj.gov
+Lara. Pomerantz @usdoj.gov
+s/ Nicole
+5
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff441a772d89cdd7adb8236703e9753b28602d859531092bef5a1755febff427.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff441a772d89cdd7adb8236703e9753b28602d859531092bef5a1755febff427.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..880dff330319f15d290408c1d3942660e5288302
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff441a772d89cdd7adb8236703e9753b28602d859531092bef5a1755febff427.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -107,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ff441a772d89cdd7adb8236703e9753b28602d859531092bef5a1755febff427",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "edebb498c1faea606585805119867f981edbbca628be6b17573d17dd02fb404d",
+  "output_sha256": "758291a36b9424c83e38afea014de0541219f346ae997194a0617cbf414a88dc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff5e74e5a386f491c709cd398c7b657e15f40aaf7c33ab541ed9cdcae6d130c4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff5e74e5a386f491c709cd398c7b657e15f40aaf7c33ab541ed9cdcae6d130c4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..02b6ad776cfec440f525f93612585e1b88c7bc66
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff5e74e5a386f491c709cd398c7b657e15f40aaf7c33ab541ed9cdcae6d130c4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 660-4 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 1
+
+(File Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff5e74e5a386f491c709cd398c7b657e15f40aaf7c33ab541ed9cdcae6d130c4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff5e74e5a386f491c709cd398c7b657e15f40aaf7c33ab541ed9cdcae6d130c4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d01cd124d2400d1eeec5a9b858190397bdd91f15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff5e74e5a386f491c709cd398c7b657e15f40aaf7c33ab541ed9cdcae6d130c4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ff5e74e5a386f491c709cd398c7b657e15f40aaf7c33ab541ed9cdcae6d130c4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c776a0428db4b72099c5f8ba4c4ebaafa0cdfc47562e198cccde72cc6448df3e",
+  "output_sha256": "bc2fee60fd9c8c3da3c05fef6349e726abfcbb404ab8bb737bfa92f777e89a40",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7ba7b62508dbe6c9457f0b3092439548d94eed44d2db1fc52d44117e43114f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7ba7b62508dbe6c9457f0b3092439548d94eed44d2db1fc52d44117e43114f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ead904d3b0eccd1e573f5f9e3caea2f72d866909
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7ba7b62508dbe6c9457f0b3092439548d94eed44d2db1fc52d44117e43114f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 480-2 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 1
+REDACTED
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7ba7b62508dbe6c9457f0b3092439548d94eed44d2db1fc52d44117e43114f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7ba7b62508dbe6c9457f0b3092439548d94eed44d2db1fc52d44117e43114f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8687c6e17739cd76a44447b0a8ffce74ea225e4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7ba7b62508dbe6c9457f0b3092439548d94eed44d2db1fc52d44117e43114f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ff7ba7b62508dbe6c9457f0b3092439548d94eed44d2db1fc52d44117e43114f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6b75f43d262933345478542cac718d2d3bb41dfeea2a33819a0f7a5d48355b7a",
+  "output_sha256": "3ebcd410b94a9bda2b181563842116c151695dad29492ccc3f943104e2506e1d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7beff2114ac68ac36020f2f59fb552756763a7c1ccda241cca282f22d4e6d0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7beff2114ac68ac36020f2f59fb552756763a7c1ccda241cca282f22d4e6d0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4e04669422766881df6692835ba0b5b9fb7d66f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7beff2114ac68ac36020f2f59fb552756763a7c1ccda241cca282f22d4e6d0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,571 @@
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503
+Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 21
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+•---- X
+Plaintiff,
+-against-
+15 Civ. 7433
+SEALED
+OPINION
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+--X
+APPEARANCES:
+Counsel for Plaintiff
+BOEIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
+401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Sigrid S. McCawley,
+Esg.
+Meredith L. I
+Esq.
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 11-21-6
+Counsel for Defendant
+HADDON,
+AND
+P.C.
+150 East Tenth
+Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+By:
+Laura A. Menninger, Esg.
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq.
+Counsel for Respondent Sharon Churcher
+TREMAINE LLP
+1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21ªt Floor
+New York, NY 10020
+By:
+Eric J. Feder
+1919 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 200
+Washington, DC 20006
+By:
+Laura R. Handman
+
+
+:
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 21
+Sweet, D.J.
+Non-party Sharon Churcher ("Churcher"), a professional
+journalist, has moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45
+to quash the
+subpoena served upon her by Defendant Ghislaine
+Maxwell ("Maxwell" or the "Defendant") to testify at a
+deposition in this civil action and to produce documents (the
+"Subpoena") relying upon the New York Reporters Shield Law, N.Y.
+Civ. Rights Law § 79-h ("Section 79-h"). Upon the conclusions
+set forth below, the motion of Churcher is granted, and the
+Subpoena is quashed.
+I. Prior Proceedings
+On June 4, 2016, Churcher was served with the Subpoena
+commanding her to appear at a deposition on June 16, 2016. The
+Subpoena also commands Churcher to bring with her to the
+deposition several broad categories of documents:
+1.
+All Documents containing communications with
+2.
+All conmunications with any agent for
+,, including without
+limitation attorneys
+1, Paul
+Cassell, David Boise [sic], Sigrid McCawley,
+Meredith
+. Stanely [sic] Pottinger,
+Ellen Brockman, Stephen Zac, Brittany
+Bob Josefsberg, Katherine Ezell,
+Amy Ederi.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 3 of 21
+3.
+4.
+5.
+6.
+All Documents containing communications with
+Jason Richards.
+All Documents containing communications with
+law enforcement agency concerning
+All Documents reflecting any payment of any
+money to
+All Documents reflecting any contract
+concerning [
+II. Facts Relating to Churcher and the Parties to this Action
+Churcher is a professional print journalist who has worked
+continuously in New York since 1983. Churcher Decl. I 1. She is
+currently employed by American Media, Inc., which publishes the
+National Enquirer (the "Enquirer") and RadarOnline.com
+("Radar"), where she has worked since November 2014. Id. # 4.
+From 1992 through October 2013, she was employed as the New
+York-based Chief American Correspondent of The Mail on Sunday, a
+publication owned by Associated Newspapers of London, England.
+During the interim she worked as a freelance reporter for
+publications including The Mail on Sunday, the U.S. operation of
+its digital arm, the Mail Online, and the Enquirer. Id.
+In her capacity as a journalist, Churcher has reported on
+the events that underlie this case going back to at least April
+2
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 4 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 4 of 21
+2007, when she wrote an article published in The Mail on Sunday
+about the alleged ties between Prince Andrew, the British
+and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). See Id.
+95 & Ex. 1. Maxwell was mentioned in that article.
+Churcher first reported about the plaintiff |
+("Guiuffre" or the "Plaintiff"), then identified as
+• in March 2011, when she wrote a series of
+articles published in The Mail on Sunday and affiliated
+newspapers containing extensive interviews with and photographs
+of
+I, in which she "agreed to waive her anonymity and tell
+for the first time her deeply disturbing story." Churcher Decl.
+Ex. 2 at 3; see also Churcher Decl. Ex 3. Churcher traveled to
+Australia to meet and interview the Plaintiff in person for
+those stories. Churcher Decl. I 7(b).
+In January 2015, Churcher wrote a series of stories that
+appeared in several publications, including The Mail on Sunday,
+the Enquirer and Radar, containing extensive new details from
+the Plaintiff about her involvement with Epstein, Maxwell, and
+Prince Andrew, as well as excerpts from a handwritten "diary"
+about those experiences, which appeared on Radar's website. See
+Churcher Decl. Exs. 5-8.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP
+Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 5 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 5 of 21
+From 2011 through the present day, Churcher, in her
+capacity has a journalist, has connunicated extensively with the
+Plaintiff and in certain instances, agents for Churcher,
+including her attorneys. Churcher Decl. I 10. The 2007 and 2015
+publications were authored by Churcher (the "Articles").
+III. The Applicable Standard
+Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c) (3) (A), a
+court "must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . (iii) requires
+disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no
+exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue
+burden." "The party issuing the subpoena must demonstrate that
+the information sought is relevant and material to the
+allegations and claims at issue in the proceedings." Night Hawk
+Ltd. v. Briarpatch Itd., L.P., No. 03 CIV.1382 RWS, 2003 WL
+23018833, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) (citations omitted).
+Once that initial burden has been met, "[al party contending
+that a subpoena should be quashed pursuant to Rule
+45 (c) (3) (A) (iv) must demonstrate that compliance with the
+subpoena would be unduly burdensome." Bridgeport Music Inc. V.
+UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 6430 (VM) (JCF), 2007 WL
+4410405, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2007).
+4
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 6 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 6 of 21
+IV. The New York Shield Law Applies
+The New York Shield Law, or reporter's privilege, protects
+reporters from compelled disclosure of both confidential
+information and sources, as well as non-confidential,
+unpublished newsgathering materials and information. Under
+Federal Rule of Evidence 501, "in a civil case, state law
+governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state
+law supplies the rule of decision." Because this case concerns a
+state law claim that is in federal court because of diversity of
+citizenship, evidentiary and discovery privileges are governed
+by New York law. See
+v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433, 2016
+WL 1756918,
+at *2-*5 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016) (citing inter alia
+Fed. R. Evid. 501). Moreover, Churcher is a New York-based
+journalist. Churcher Decl. II 1, 4. Accordingly, the New York
+Reporters Shield Law applies to the Subpoena. See In re
+Application to Quash Subpoena to Nat. Broad. Co. Inc., 79 F.3d
+346, 351 (2d Cir. 1996) (applying New York Shield Law where
+subpoena in Massachusetts wrongful death suit issued out of
+Southern District of New York to a New York-based broadcaster).
+While now codified in Section 79-h of the Civil Rights Law,
+the reporter's privilege has its origins in the New York
+Constitution's free press provision (art. I, § 8), which
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 7 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 7 of 21
+provides "the broadest possible protection to 'the sensitive
+role of gathering and disseminating news of public events.'"
+O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., 523 N.E.2d 277, 281, 71 N.Y.2d 521,
+529 (1988) (quoting Matter of Beach v. Shanley, 62 N.Y.2d 241,
+256, 476 N.Y.S.2d 765, 465 N.E.2d 304 [Wachtler, J.,
+concurring]); see also In _re Daily News, L.P., 31 Misc. 3d 319,
+322, 920 N.y.S.2d 865, 868 (Sup. Ct. 2011) ("The legislature
+enacted the statute now codified at Civil Rights Law Section 79-
+h, and mooted any possible issues about the constitutional law
+conclusions of the Court of Appeals."). Indeed, "New York public
+policy as embodied in the Constitution and our current statutory
+scheme provides a mantle of protection for those who gather and
+report the news-and their confidential sources-that has been
+recognized as the strongest in the nation."
+v. Winter, 22
+n. Y.3d 300, 310, 3 N.E.3d 694 (2013) .
+Accordingly, the New York Shield Law provides protection of
+information "obtained or received in confidence" by a reporter,
+as well as for the identity of a confidential source. N.Y. Civ.
+Rights Law S 79-h(b) (McKinney). The statute also provides
+qualified protection for non-confidential newsgathering
+information, which can be overcome only with a "clear and
+specific showing" that the information is "highly material and
+relevant," "critical or necessary to the maintenance of a
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 8 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 8 of 21
+party's claim" and "not obtainable from any alternative source."
+Id. S 79-h(c). The qualified privilege is a stringent one that
+imposes a "very heavy burden" on any party seeking to overcome
+it. In re Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 189 Misc. 2d 805, 808, 735
+n.Y.S.2d 919 (Sup. Ct. 2001). For confidential information, the
+privilege can be overcome by the same showing as for nonconfidential information under the Shield Law. See
+V.
+Nat '1 Broad. Co., 194 F.3d 29, 33 (2d Cir. 1999). For nonconfidential information, the party seeking disclosure must show
+that "(1) 'that the materials at issue are of likely relevance
+to a significant issue in the case,' and (2) the materials at
+issue 'are not reasonably obtainable from other available
+sources.'" Schoolcraft V. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 6005
+RWS, 2014 WL 1621480, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2014) (quoting
+, 194 F.3d at 36) -
+A. Information Received Pursuant to Promises of
+Confidentiality is Absolutely Privileged Under the
+Shield Law
+The Shield Law provides an absolute privilege against the
+compelled disclosure of "news obtained or received in confidence
+or the identity of the source of such news." N.Y. Civ. Rights
+Law S 79-h (McKinney). The statute thus bars compelled
+7
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 9 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 9 of 21
+disclosure of "news or its source obtained in confidence."
+Baines v. Daily News L.P., 51 Misc. 3d 229, 232, 26 N.Y.S.3d
+658, 662 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015) (collecting citations); |
+V.
+Winter, 22 N.Y.3d 300, 308, 3 N.E.3d 694, 699 (2013) ("The
+Shield Law .
+• prohibits a New York court from forcing a
+reporter to reveal a confidential source"); Flynn v. NYP
+Holdings Inc., 235 A.D.2d 907, 908, 652 N.Y.S.2d 833 (1997) ("1f
+the requested documents were deemed confidential, defendants
+would be afforded unqualified protection from having to divulge
+such sources or materials").
+At a minimum, the Shield Law would absolutely preclude any
+inquiry into the identity of confidential sources on which
+Churcher relied in reporting the Articles or any information
+that may reveal those sources' identities). On their face, many
+of the Articles rely on confidential sources, including law
+enforcement sources. See, e.g., Churcher Decl. Ex. 2 at 8 ("a
+source"); id. Ex. 3 at 2 ("a law enforcement source"); id. Ex. 4
+at 3 ("[massage] therapist, who does not wish to be named"); id.
+Ex. 8 at 2 ("a legal expert"; "a source familiar with the
+case"). Churcher has stated in her declaration that, in
+reporting the Articles, she relied extensively on information
+received in confidence, as well as sources whose identities are
+confidential. Churcher Decl. Il 8-9. To the extent any
+8
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 10 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 10 of 21
+communications with those sources fall within the categories of
+the document requests, those communications are absolutely
+privileged from disclosure. Moreover, although the Plaintiff was
+plainly a non-confidential on-the-record source for several of
+the Articles, to the extent she provided Churcher with any
+information on a confidential basis, that information would also
+be absolutely privileged. See Baker v.
+Sachs & Co., 669
+F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2012) ("New York's Shield Law provides
+journalists an absolute privilege from testifying with regard to
+news obtained under a promise of confidentiality").
+B. The Information Sought by the Subpoena is Protected by
+the Qualified Privilege
+"[I]mportant interests beyond confidentiality ... are
+served by the reporter's qualified privilege," including "the
+privacy of editorial processes and the press's independence in
+its selection of material for publication in accordance with the
+broader public policy of encouraging the free flow of
+information and avoiding a chill on the press." Pugh V. Avis
+Rent A Car Sys., Inc., No. M8-85, 1997 WL 669876, at *5-6
+(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 1997). The Privilege therefore protects "the
+independence of the press and the need to allow the press to
+publish freely on topics of public interest without harassment
+9
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 11 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 11 of 21
+and scrutiny by litigants seeking to conduct 'fishing
+expeditions' into [unpublished] materials in the hope that some
+relevant information may turn up. " Id. at *5.
+In O'Neill, the New York Court of Appeals stressed the need
+for courts to exercise "particular vigilance . . • in
+safeguarding the free press against undue interference," and
+"prevent [ing] undue diversion of journalistic effort and
+disruption of press functions." 71 N.Y.2d at 528-29 (discussing
+New York Constitution, article I, § 8 from which the Shield Law
+derives). See also
+& Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Wigand,
+No. 101678/96, 1996 WL 350827, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 28,
+1996) ("Attempts to obtain evidence from [journalists] as
+nonparties would, if unrestrained, subject news organizations to
+enormous depletions of time and resources as well as seriously
+impede their ability to obtain materials from confidential
+sources."), aff'd, 228 A.D.2d 187, 187, 643 N.Y.S.2d 92 (1st
+Dep't 1996) .
+Similarly, in recognizing that the First Amendment
+reporter's privilege also applies to non-confidential
+newsgathering information, the Second Circuit has explained that
+the reporter's privilege reflects "broader concerns" beyond the
+confidentiality of a reporter's sources, noting that the
+10
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 12 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 12 of 21
+privilege is designed to protect against the burdens that would
+accrue if it were to become "standard operating procedure for
+those litigating against an entity that had been the subject of
+press attention to sift through press files in search of
+information supporting their claims."
+194 F.3d at 35.
+The court explained further that those harms include
+"burden [ing] the press with heavy costs of subpoena compliance,"
+increased requests for anonymity from sources anxious to avoid
+being "sucked into litigation," and "the symbolic harm of making
+journalists appear to be an investigative arm of the judicial
+system, the government, or private parties." Id.
+New York courts have pointed out that the legislature's
+express purpose in passing the Shield Law was "to avoid
+'problematic incursions into the integrity of the editorial
+process.'" In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on Nat. Broad. Co.,
+Inc.. 178 Misc. 2d at 1055 (quoting 1990 McKinney's Session
+Laws, Memorandum of State Executive Department, P. 2331-32)) .
+See also United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 147 (3d
+Cir. 1980) ("The compelled production of a reporter's resource
+materials can constitute a significant intrusion into the
+newsgathering and editorial processes."). Moreover, in seeking
+testimony to support their theory of the case, the plaintiffs
+"inevitably would have to ask questions regarding [the
+11
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 13 of 21
+Case 1:15-Cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 13 of 21
+reporter's] techniques for conducting his investigation, the
+backgrounds of . . . co-authors and the [publication's]
+editorial staff, and whether [the author] consulted with any
+experts or other sources in the course of the investigation-all
+inquiries into the newsgathering process protected by the Shield
+Law." Baker, 669 F.3d at 109 (internal quotation marks omitted).
+Although none of that information is confidential, the
+"unpublished details of the newsgathering process" are,
+nevertheless, protected by the Shield law, and where the
+testimony is not "critical or necessary" to maintain the
+plaintiffs' claims, a motion to quash must be granted by the
+district court. In re Eisinger, No. 09-10053-PBS, 2011 WI
+1458230, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2011), aff'd sub nom. Baker V.
+Sachs & Co., 669 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2012). In such
+circumstances, it is "virtually self-evident that the Shield Law
+would protect
+[a journalist] from compelled testimony." Baker at
+110.
+In her Response, Maxwell raises two arguments why the
+information she seeks is not protected from disclosure: (1) that
+the Shield Law does not apply at all because, at some point,
+Churcher ceased to be a reporter with respect to the Plaintiff;
+and (2) to the extent the Shield Law applies, Maxwell has met
+12
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 14 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 14 of 21
+the three elements to overcome the qualified privilege for nonconfidential materials.
+The Second Circuit instructs that, in determining whether
+the reporter's privilege applies, the Court should look to the
+nature of the "primary relationship between" the respective
+parties to determine whether it "ha[s] as its basis the intent
+to disseminate the information to the public garnered from that
+relationship." von Bulow by Auersperg v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d
+136, 145 (2d Cir. 1987). That intent must "exist|| at the
+inception of the newsgathering process." Id. at 144. Here, the
+"primary relationship" between Churcher and Plaintiff was that
+of a professional reporter gathering information from a source
+for the Articles that were, in fact, subsequently published
+under Churcher's byline over the next several years.
+In von Bulow, the court held that the reporter's
+privilege did not apply to notes that a woman, Andrea
+took while watching the criminal trial of Claus von Bulow nor to
+investigative reports she had commissioned about von Bulow's
+wife's children.
+,, an "intimate friend" of von Bulow's,
+had stated that her "primary concern" in commissioning the
+reports was "vindicating Claus von Bulow" and "[her] own peace
+of mind." Id. at 136, 139, 145. Even if she later decided to
+13
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 15 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 15 of 21
+collect the information and publish it in a book, her intent at
+the time she gathered the information was not to publish it.
+Subsequent decisions have concluded that "the relevant time
+frame is not when any fact gathering for the subject of the
+subpoena began, but when the information sought by the subpoena
+at issue was gathered." In re McCray,
+Santana, Wise,
+Salaam Litig., 991 F. Supp. 2d 464, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
+(emphasis and internal quotation marks removed). Maxwell has
+failed to overcome the evidence establishing that Churcher was a
+professional journalist, that her intent from the very beginning
+of her relationship with the Plaintiff was to gather information
+to publish news stories, or that she did, in fact, publish many
+news stories based on the information she learned from Plaintiff
+and other sources over the next several years. The "primary
+relationship" between them has always "ha[d] as its basis the
+intent to disseminate the information to the public garnered
+from that relationship." von Bulow, 811 F.2d at 145.
+Successful journalists must cultivate extensive networks of
+sources, and communicate with them regularly on a variety of
+topics. See, e.9., United States v. Marcos, No. SSSS 87 CR. 598
+JFK, 1990 WL 74521, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 1990) ("The
+underpinning of [the reporter's privilegel lies in the
+14
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 16 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 16 of 21
+recognition that effective gathering of newsworthy information
+in great measure relies upon the reporter's ability to secure
+the trust of news sources."). Indeed, frequent, often informal
+communication with sources, even if not for the immediate
+purpose of gathering information for a specific article, is an
+integral part of the overall newsgathering process. Accordingly,
+the Shield Law does not narrowly apply only to the specific
+exchanges where the source conveys "news." As the Second Circuit
+has held, the Shield law protects journalists from "inquiries
+into the newsgathering process, " as a whole. Baker v.
+Sachs & Co., 669 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming holding
+that Shield Law applied to "unpublished details of the
+newsgathering process, " such as who made calls and interviewed
+particular sources, techniques for the reporters' investigation,
+and the backgrounds of the coauthors and editorial staff) .
+In any event, the e-mails that Maxwell submits to
+demonstrate that Churcher was not acting as a journalist, in
+fact, show that even as she was consulting with the Plaintiff on
+seemingly separate topics, her overarching intent remained
+newsgathering.
+15
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503
+Filed 11/21/16
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 17 of 21
+Because Churcher has established that she was, and is, a
+journalist using Plaintiff as
+a source, the Subpoena is quashed
+as a consequence of the protections of the Shield Law.
+Maxwell's conclusory assertion that "InJone of the
+communications" between Churcher and Plaintiff's
+attorneys/agents or law enforcement "are in a newsgathering
+capacity," Response at 8, is contradicted by Churcher' s
+statements to the contrary and by the fact that individuals in
+those categories are quoted in the articles themselves (both by
+16
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 18 of 21
+Case 1:15-CV-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 18 of 21
+name and anonymously) as sources. See Churcher Decl. 99 8-10,
+and Exs. 2, 3, & 8.
+V. Maxwell Has Not Overcome the Protections of the Shield Law
+Maxwell argues that "It]he information sought from Churcher
+is highly material in proving that each time [Plaintiff's] story
+is told, new salacious detail are added." Resp. at 11; see also
+id. at 15 (arguing that the information is "critical to
+establishing" that fact). But Churcher's newsgathering materials
+and testimony are not needed to "prove" an assertion about the
+allegedly changing nature of a public "story." Similarly, to the
+extent that the Joinder Motion is inconsistent with published
+articles by Churcher, that would be apparent from the face of
+the Articles themselves, and would not justify invading the
+Shield Law-protected newsgathering process.
+Maxwell has contended that Churcher's testimony is
+"critical or necessary" to her truth defense because it is
+"relevant to Plaintiff's credibility," which is "the central
+issue in the case." Id. at 15. However, in almost any civil
+lawsuit, the credibility of a party or witness will be a
+"central issue"-all the more so in a defamation case, where
+truth or falsity of the underlying statements is at issue. this
+17
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 19 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 19 of 21
+makes Churcher's materials no more critical than any other
+evidence
+in this case. Maxwell has not cited any authority for a
+wholesale "libel exception" or a "plaintiff's credibility
+exception" to the Shield Law. Cf. In re Am. Broad. Companies,
+Inc., 189 Misc. 2d 805, 808, 735 N.y.S.2d 919 (Sup. Ct. 2001)
+("[T]he privilege may yield only when the party seeking the
+material can define the specific issue, other than general
+credibility, as to which the sought-after interview provides
+truly necessary proof.") (citing U.S. v.
+1, 700 F.2d 70 (2d
+Cir. 1983)).
+Finally, even if the information sought were as critical as
+Maxwell contends, she has not yet established that she has
+turned to Churcher "only as a last resort." In re Grand Jury
+Subpoenas Served on Nat. Broad. Co., Inc., 178 Misc. 2d at 1055
+("[Section 79-h] established the qualified privilege in both
+civil and criminal cases by requiring disclosure of
+nonconfidential material only as a last resort."). Maxwell seeks
+to reopen Plaintiff's deposition, a motion which has been
+granted, and is still awaiting further production from
+Plaintiff. See Dkt. Nos. 205, 207, 230; Minute Entry, June 23,
+2016. Epstein's motion to quash has been denied (Dkt. No. 252),
+and Cassell's motion to quash has been denied in part. And all
+that Maxwell has done to "exhaust" law enforcement sources,
+18
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 20 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 20 of 21
+apparently, is to file a single FOIA request. Resp. at 16 n.7.
+There thus remain numerous alternative sources for the
+information Maxwell seeks. She may not conscript Churcher as her
+"investigative arm" in the meantime.
+, 194 F.3d at 35.
+19
+
+
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 503 Filed 11/21/16 Page 21 of 21
+Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 440-1 Filed 09/20/16 Page 21 of 21
+VI. Conclusion
+Upon the conclusions set forth above, the motion of
+Churcher is granted and the Subpoena is quashed.
+The parties are directed to jointly file a proposed
+redacted version of this Opinion consistent with the Protective
+Order or notify the Court that none are necessary within two
+weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion.
+It is so ordered.
+New YoIk, NY
+September / , 2016
+20
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7beff2114ac68ac36020f2f59fb552756763a7c1ccda241cca282f22d4e6d0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7beff2114ac68ac36020f2f59fb552756763a7c1ccda241cca282f22d4e6d0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a311872212caa2f7c01d63cc86a46bea1c02ac61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ff7beff2114ac68ac36020f2f59fb552756763a7c1ccda241cca282f22d4e6d0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -296,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ff7beff2114ac68ac36020f2f59fb552756763a7c1ccda241cca282f22d4e6d0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 26,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "221b1f189da1ca852c4f3ee6fabcee83c35e0948def7fb988f58fe7d13bb6874",
+  "output_sha256": "1ad01ff5cf95128d25b01809a9f0e56ac1e255dcdef0f7f66d5861be55253e4a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffab60f8068d8d293ffee5591322728bc506972576bab652bca92677b32ec366.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffab60f8068d8d293ffee5591322728bc506972576bab652bca92677b32ec366.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..17e6f6cce295529e66446ec0246daec349543645
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffab60f8068d8d293ffee5591322728bc506972576bab652bca92677b32ec366.md
@@ -0,0 +1,528 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17
+Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 18
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+V.
+-
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
+S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+:
+-
+(Conspiracy to Entice MUNT oNto Iravel to Engage in
+Illegal Sex Acts)
+The Grand Jury charges:
+OVERVIEW
+1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role
+of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation
+and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In
+particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including
+at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and
+contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among
+other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately
+abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age
+of 18. The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were
+groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew
+that certain victims were in fact under the age of 18.
+2.
+As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to
+abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and
+Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 18
+Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and
+intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to
+sexual abuse.
+Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes,
+MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct,
+including in relation to some of the minor victims described
+herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016.
+FACTUAL BACKGROUND
+3. During the time periods charged in this
+Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and
+professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his
+closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and
+in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with
+Epstein and also was paid
+by Epstein to manage his various
+properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and
+Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions,
+including in the below image:
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 18
+4.
+Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to
+engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of
+means
+and methods, including but not limited to the following:
+a.
+MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of
+Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse,
+including by
+asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their
+families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building
+friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor
+victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would
+involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor
+victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending
+time alone with a minor victim.
+b.
+Having developed a rapport with a victim,
+MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim
+by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in
+front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was
+undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor
+victim and Epstein.
+C.
+MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims'
+interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the
+minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with
+Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman
+was present.
+For example,
+in some instances, MAXWELL would
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 18
+massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances,
+MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein,
+including
+sexualized massages during which a minor victim would
+be fully or partially nude.
+Many of those massages resulted in
+Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims.
+d.
+In addition, Epstein offered to help some
+minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational
+opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept
+Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel
+indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to
+help them.
+e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein
+enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In
+some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the
+sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in
+the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters..
+5.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
+Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a
+sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to
+engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's
+resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things,
+touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals,
+placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals,
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 5 of 18
+directing
+a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and
+directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals.
+MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS
+6.
+Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or
+about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated
+Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other
+things,
+inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the
+inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victins. Victims
+were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations,
+including the
+following:
+a. A a multi-story private residence on the
+Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the
+"New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following
+photograph:
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 6 of 18
+b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by
+Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the
+following photograph:
+c. A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by
+Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the
+following photograph:
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 7 of 18
+d.
+MAXWELL's personal residence in London,
+England.
+7.
+Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE
+MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as
+Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In
+particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment,
+MAXWELI engaged in the following acts, among others, with
+respect to minor victims:
+a.
+MAXWELL met Minor Victim-l when Minor
+Victim-1 was approximately
+14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently
+interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at
+Epstein's residences,
+knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the
+age of 18
+at the time. During these interactions, which took
+place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor
+Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple
+means. First, MAXWELI and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor
+Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips.
+MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her
+family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to
+normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other
+things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present
+when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the
+first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein
+began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 8 of 18
+and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL
+involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein.
+During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor
+Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and
+MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's
+residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor
+Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and
+Florida. Minor Victim-l was enticed to travel across state
+lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and
+MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
+Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's
+properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage.
+MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at
+least one occasion
+in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in
+New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Minor
+Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at
+Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or
+subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELI knew that Minor
+Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New
+Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and
+MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed
+Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim-
+2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor
+Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 9 of 18
+an unsolicited
+massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor
+Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to
+massage Epstein.
+C.
+MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor
+Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995,
+including during
+a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that
+Minor Victim-3
+was under the age of 18. Among other things,
+MAXWELI discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor
+Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and
+arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and
+Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor
+Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage
+in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor
+Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and
+during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3.
+MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with
+Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when
+Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context
+of a sexualized massage.
+MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT
+8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition
+as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant,
+repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath,
+regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 10 of 18
+abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the
+specific events and acts of abuse detailed above.
+STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS
+9. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
+including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
+and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
+Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
+did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
+each other to commit an offense against the United States, to
+wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
+Section 2422.
+10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
+GHISLAINE MAXWELI, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
+known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce,
+entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in
+interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity
+for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in
+violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422.
+Overt Acts
+11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
+the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
+others,
+were
+committed in the Southern District of New York and
+elsewhere:
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 11 of 18
+a.
+Between in or about 1994 and in or about
+1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
+participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein
+and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
+b.
+In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
+under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
+Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
+New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
+130.55.
+C.
+In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
+under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
+unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
+was topless.
+d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about
+1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELI
+encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
+London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
+Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
+(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
+COUNT IWO
+(Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts)
+The Grand Jury further charges:
+12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
+through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
+fully set forth within.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 12 of 18
+13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
+including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
+and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
+persuade, induce, entice,
+and coerce an individual to travel in
+interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for
+which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and
+attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to
+wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor
+Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on
+multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
+engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
+violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
+(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.)
+COUNT THREE
+(Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to
+Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
+The Grand Jury further charges:
+14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
+through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
+fully set forth within.
+15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
+including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
+and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey
+Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly
+did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with
+each
+other to commit an offense against the United States, to
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 13 of 18
+wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United
+States Code, Section 2423(a) .
+16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others
+known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an
+individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and
+foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in
+sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a
+criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
+Section 2423 (a) .
+Overt Acts
+17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect
+the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among
+others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and
+elsewhere:
+a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about
+1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
+participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN
+and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida.
+b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was
+under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from
+Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 14 of 18
+New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section
+130.55.
+,C.
+In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was
+under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an
+unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2
+was topless.
+d.
+Between in or about 1994 and in or about
+1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL
+encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in
+London, England, knowing
+i that Epstein intended to sexually abuse
+Minor Victim-3 during those massages.
+(Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.)
+COUNT FOUR
+(Transportation of a Minor with Intent to
+Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity)
+The Grand Jury further charges:
+18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
+through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
+fully set forth within.
+19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and
+including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York
+and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did
+transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in
+interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the
+individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be
+charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 15 of 18
+aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor
+Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on
+multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would
+engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in
+violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.
+(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.)
+COUNT FIVE
+(Perjury)
+The Grand Jury further charges:
+20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
+through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
+fully set forth within.
+21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern
+District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
+taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
+connection with a case then pending before the United States
+District Court for the Southern District of New York under
+docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material
+declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
+false testimony:
+A.
+Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit
+underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.
+I don't know what you're talking about.
+15
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 16 of 18
+List all the people under the age of 18 that you
+interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties?
+A.
+I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with,
+other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17
+at this point.
+(Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.)
+COUNT SIX
+(Perjury)
+The
+Grand Jury further charges:
+22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1
+through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if
+fully set forth within.
+23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern
+District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having
+taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in
+connection with a case then pending before the United States
+District Court for the Southern District of New York under
+docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material
+declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined
+false testimony:
+Q:
+Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or
+devices used in sexual activities in Mr.
+Epstein's Palm Beach house?
+A:
+No, not that I recall. ..
+Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex
+toys or devices used in sexual activities?
+A.
+No.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20 Page 17 of 18
+Q.
+A.
+e.
+A.
+Other than yourself and the blond and brunette
+that you have identified as having been involved
+in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr.
+Epstein have
+sexual activities?
+I wasn't aware that he was having sexual
+activities with anyone when I was with him other
+than myself.
+I wart to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your
+testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were
+not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual
+activities with anyone other than yourself and
+the blond and brunette on those few occasions
+when they were involved with you?
+That is my testimony, that is correct.
+•
+Is it your testimony that you've never given
+anybody a massage?
+A.
+I have not given anyone a massage.
+e.
+You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that
+your testimony?
+A.
+That is my testimony.
+You never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage is your
+testimony?
+A. I never gave [Minor Victim-2] a massage.
+(Title 18, United
+States Code, Section 1623.)
+FOREPERSON
+Auchey
+Strus
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+Acting Pnited States Attorney
+17
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 07/08/20
+
+Form No.
+USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58)
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
+S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+(18 U.s.C. S$ 371, 1623, 2422, 2423 (a) ,
+and 2)
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+Acting United States Attorney
+Foreperson
+18
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffab60f8068d8d293ffee5591322728bc506972576bab652bca92677b32ec366.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffab60f8068d8d293ffee5591322728bc506972576bab652bca92677b32ec366.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..905e708811fc9bea063d1a8190d638aa02328db5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffab60f8068d8d293ffee5591322728bc506972576bab652bca92677b32ec366.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -229,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ffab60f8068d8d293ffee5591322728bc506972576bab652bca92677b32ec366",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 19,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d7a42638e573ae0bda11b9814559bf98d0a09e768cf8bf0ba20bf4327b728deb",
+  "output_sha256": "4a0754cdac7c7dfe78b090cc43b3a90728f319b19b1d11b8efe430de643359eb",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffbe5661a9257ecb05b93f02a8dd549225c0e058f98c65c9fbf6b3adb46edf2a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffbe5661a9257ecb05b93f02a8dd549225c0e058f98c65c9fbf6b3adb46edf2a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4bf5a945910658bd9198b471356df74fd7803201
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffbe5661a9257ecb05b93f02a8dd549225c0e058f98c65c9fbf6b3adb46edf2a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 293-5
+Filed 05/25/21 Page 1 of 1
+
+(Filed Under Seal)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffbe5661a9257ecb05b93f02a8dd549225c0e058f98c65c9fbf6b3adb46edf2a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffbe5661a9257ecb05b93f02a8dd549225c0e058f98c65c9fbf6b3adb46edf2a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4df2413dde40bd9243b37c3549710f108ef06d8d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffbe5661a9257ecb05b93f02a8dd549225c0e058f98c65c9fbf6b3adb46edf2a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ffbe5661a9257ecb05b93f02a8dd549225c0e058f98c65c9fbf6b3adb46edf2a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e74771fbd6f980ba33b7d19bfad883d11e62b0917b6c055f28b48b2fd8eec6df",
+  "output_sha256": "8087d5e2b9e0cd25d2f0a85e707bd617500a31946f8927aedcf44320e9dba90f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd4794feebe994356de12c039213dbb2e2d925c97ca075541b476bfa9cb0b1c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd4794feebe994356de12c039213dbb2e2d925c97ca075541b476bfa9cb0b1c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b07b3cdb8e86ab2cfb4d996d6b69d9598d7bc916
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd4794feebe994356de12c039213dbb2e2d925c97ca075541b476bfa9cb0b1c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 669
+Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 2
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+June 22, 2022
+By ECF
+The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, Sitting by Designation
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, New York 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's Order dated
+June 21, 2022 directing the Government to confirm that victims have been notified of the rights
+described in the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, in advance of the
+sentencing scheduled to take place on June 28, 2022 in the above-referenced case. (Dkt. No. 665).
+Consistent with the CVRA, the Government has provided notice of the right to be heard in
+connection with sentencing to the six individuals who were proven at trial to be directly and
+proximately harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct. Specifically, the Government provided
+such notice, through counsel, to the individuals identified at trial as Jane, Annie, Kate, Carolyn,
+Virginia, and Melissa.
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 669 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 2
+Additionally, the Government has posted on its website (https://www.justice.gov/usaosdny/united-states-v-ghislaine-maxwell) the details of the Court's June 21, 2022 Order, including
+Wendy Olsen's contact information. The Government will convey any victim impact statements
+it has received to the defense consistent with the Court's June 21, 2022 Order.
+Respectfully submitted,
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney
+By:
+S/
+Maurene Comey
+Alison Moe
+Lara Pomerantz
+Andrew Rohrbach
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+Southern District of New York
+Cc: Defense Counsel (by ECF)
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd4794feebe994356de12c039213dbb2e2d925c97ca075541b476bfa9cb0b1c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd4794feebe994356de12c039213dbb2e2d925c97ca075541b476bfa9cb0b1c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f62af0e1652ee78c8b7ded7cae062f82150a928
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd4794feebe994356de12c039213dbb2e2d925c97ca075541b476bfa9cb0b1c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -26,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ffd4794feebe994356de12c039213dbb2e2d925c97ca075541b476bfa9cb0b1c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1bb51de23a27a67463a3c9d9b554395e2132a7ee274ebee7a82fb04708ae2331",
+  "output_sha256": "3db4ca859b89656d7754c5b4b4084f6f833d06306491fde7ade936f94e6b83cc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd9df72bb47002d806e81b4d59ff21c49c4dc10e3005401b48f7026121f0b62.md b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd9df72bb47002d806e81b4d59ff21c49c4dc10e3005401b48f7026121f0b62.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef7ff922db5bfffb34920a36fa69be343da4b496
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd9df72bb47002d806e81b4d59ff21c49c4dc10e3005401b48f7026121f0b62.md
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+Casase: 202060083BBAGN Document 46594 Fridet|1111156221 Pagege afaf 1
+LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+212-243-1100 • Main
+917-912-9698 • Cell
+888-587-4737 • Fax
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+bcsternheim@mac.com
+November 15, 2021
+Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+United States Circuit Judge
+United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED: 11/15/21
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+I write to inform the Court of the recurring problem regarding late delivery of mail by the
+government to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC. Today, November 15, Ms. Maxwell received
+disclosures from the government under cover letter dated November 6. This is an excessively
+long delay, especially since trial commences in two weeks. Please direct the government to send
+disclosures to Ms. Maxwell via Federal Express Next Day Delivery on the same day they are
+provided to counsel and to provide tracking information to counsel.
+Your assistance in resolving this persistent problem is greatly appreciated.
+Very truly yours,
+Is/
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+cc: All counsel of record
+It appears that the mail referenced in this letter was sent prior to the Court's
+nemo endorsement of the Government's November 8, 2021 letter. Dkt. No:
+22. 425. In any event, as this matter is less than two weeks before trial. th
+Government is ordered to send materials via FedEx and provide the tracking
+number to defense counsel. SO ORDERED
+Alia O. Matter
+11/15/21
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd9df72bb47002d806e81b4d59ff21c49c4dc10e3005401b48f7026121f0b62.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd9df72bb47002d806e81b4d59ff21c49c4dc10e3005401b48f7026121f0b62.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3d233da8b373fee4bab2fcef17811139fff2f5bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-04/ffd9df72bb47002d806e81b4d59ff21c49c4dc10e3005401b48f7026121f0b62.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "ffd9df72bb47002d806e81b4d59ff21c49c4dc10e3005401b48f7026121f0b62",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d3de1eaaba13f5edbb103e39cc5ac568fa69517bb7e8fb7e6fae3c9a920a4497",
+  "output_sha256": "77e378d1975e11089bc91c9451e2fc3be23f5c119385ce1f8a2e4ac5990bb174",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00103055458ec1d9ae1973f5e86284917db1833de58b10aee407e73854f53e0e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00103055458ec1d9ae1973f5e86284917db1833de58b10aee407e73854f53e0e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..27637ca5c5bb9660343c398b8fd456bd37cc16cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00103055458ec1d9ae1973f5e86284917db1833de58b10aee407e73854f53e0e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-89 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+From:
+To:
+Sent:
+Subject:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-89 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 2
+Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.coms
+Jes Staley sjes.staley@jpmorgan.coms
+1/19/2011 11:11:15 PM
+woody here from 7- 830,, richard axel sultan, leonwill stop by,, if you can,, also
+is now 70-30 up from
+45-55
+***************
+**************************
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com. and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00012466
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00103055458ec1d9ae1973f5e86284917db1833de58b10aee407e73854f53e0e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00103055458ec1d9ae1973f5e86284917db1833de58b10aee407e73854f53e0e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6a0082053c99066f9d3104ab8a2b19885cd24f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00103055458ec1d9ae1973f5e86284917db1833de58b10aee407e73854f53e0e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -34,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "00103055458ec1d9ae1973f5e86284917db1833de58b10aee407e73854f53e0e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "af6d0ef2e44dfbda9ca57455c2c06b2c21a81efeabe29fafeff7ca9a9a732906",
+  "output_sha256": "a02550903e77c2fe3fcac7864728a82ebab0f0804666da428cfb7be153811f93",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00130822d377d55cdc3eaf3d7fe202e4dda3a27f31af58b0dc53ce2f50971436.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00130822d377d55cdc3eaf3d7fe202e4dda3a27f31af58b0dc53ce2f50971436.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97821871818787f01b66a53765b281c59eb80ddc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00130822d377d55cdc3eaf3d7fe202e4dda3a27f31af58b0dc53ce2f50971436.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 238-2 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 1
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00130822d377d55cdc3eaf3d7fe202e4dda3a27f31af58b0dc53ce2f50971436.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00130822d377d55cdc3eaf3d7fe202e4dda3a27f31af58b0dc53ce2f50971436.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0b4de721fc0ea35f4c83c1c79c3962a670a538a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00130822d377d55cdc3eaf3d7fe202e4dda3a27f31af58b0dc53ce2f50971436.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "00130822d377d55cdc3eaf3d7fe202e4dda3a27f31af58b0dc53ce2f50971436",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9222429e0b0f4c8937b2172226555c5d0319c5c6331cf2031b4e6e672b452bd6",
+  "output_sha256": "a7a415f37ad96f0f66ba8638599674ec5bfd330152530c40f9facdd55ba48b58",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00249e0479162a45ebaa88432a70213c830458762c70fe97b003ca72178f072e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00249e0479162a45ebaa88432a70213c830458762c70fe97b003ca72178f072e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f832e39dddef8931c03a01edbb92da3d7ce84a8c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00249e0479162a45ebaa88432a70213c830458762c70fe97b003ca72178f072e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-82 Filed 09/08/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00249e0479162a45ebaa88432a70213c830458762c70fe97b003ca72178f072e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00249e0479162a45ebaa88432a70213c830458762c70fe97b003ca72178f072e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50e2bb86aa1f0d5052ec3809a53a8d533ffbb456
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00249e0479162a45ebaa88432a70213c830458762c70fe97b003ca72178f072e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "00249e0479162a45ebaa88432a70213c830458762c70fe97b003ca72178f072e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8cf864cc6bb347001520802338761c5b3c8f3f6e043079b917dc1ba8403deb08",
+  "output_sha256": "b85b91867b4913efc5e8779183c84708cd317653dc27bb2b1f7ffb3b69e6306e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00256508e5b7b810df1359ac4e42e0bae5d2320f0fa6c6c4827981739191d012.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00256508e5b7b810df1359ac4e42e0bae5d2320f0fa6c6c4827981739191d012.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ccfb7523bb5636934ed19b2af2531d06e7d58201
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00256508e5b7b810df1359ac4e42e0bae5d2320f0fa6c6c4827981739191d012.md
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715
+Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 8
+HADDON
+Haddon,
+and
+, P.C
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, Colorado 80203
+PH 303.831.7364
+FX 303.832.2628
+www.hmflaw.com
+jpagliuca@hmflaw.com
+VIA Email
+United States District Court
+Southern District of New York
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Re:
+United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan,
+I write in response to the government's untimely disclosure of expert opinion testimony
+to be offered by Computer Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of
+Investigation's Computer Analysis Response Team. As explained below, this Court should
+preclude Examiner Flatley from offering the newly-disclosed expert opinion testimony—
+everything newly disclosed in the November 26 disclosure, the December 3 email, or the
+December 5 email.
+BACKGROUND
+On September 15, the government wrote to Ms. Maxwell's counsel to describe the
+testimony it expected to elicit from Examiner Flatley. The government insisted Examiner Flatley
+would not offer expert opinions. Instead, the government claimed Examiner Flatley would offer
+fact testimony about the steps he took to extract and clone certain devices seized under a search
+warrant. This was the full description of the expected testimony:
+The Government anticipates that, if called as a witness, Examiner Flatley will
+testify about his extraction of devices seized pursuant to court-authorized search
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 8
+Page 2
+warrants; user information associated with certain of those devices; and documents
+and photographs extracted from certain of those devices. The Government further
+anticipates that Examiner Flatley will also testify that some of the devices on which
+he performed extractions were clones of device extractions that had previously been
+performed by someone else.
+Gov. Sept. 15, 2021 Letter.
+On November 26, after the pretrial conference, the government sent a new letter to
+defense counsel. Despite the substance Examiner Flatley's expected testimony, the November 26
+letter continued the refrain that Examiner Flatley was not going to offer expert opinions. Said the
+government:
+The Government anticipates that Examiner Flatley will testify regarding the
+forensic examination of the devices marked for identification as Government
+Exhibits 54 and 55, and his determination that those exhibits are clones. He is
+expected to testify that a clone is an exact copy of one piece of media to another.
+Examiner Flatley is expected to explain that he connected Government Exhibits 54
+and 55 to a write blocker and subsequently imaged, or made an exact copy, of the
+exhibits. The Government anticipates that Examiner Flatley will explain that the
+images of Government Exhibits 54 and 55 are exact copies of the original devices
+because he ran a hash, or mathematical algorithm that uniquely identifies data, on
+the original devices and the images, which are identical.
+The Government further anticipates that Examiner Flatley will testify that
+Government Exhibits 405 and 419 reflect registry software information for
+Government Exhibits 55 and 54, respectively. Examiner Flatley will explain that
+organization and registered owner, which are user input data. He is expected t
+explain that Government Exhibits 405 and 419 were generated by Access Data AI
+The Government further anticipates that Examiner Flatley will testify that
+he examined certain exhibits contained on the devices marked for identification as
+Government Exhibits 54 and 55. In particular, he is expected to testify that
+Government Exhibits 412, 415, and 424 are emails on Government Exhibit 54;
+Government Exhibits 418, 420, 421, and 422 are Word documents on Government
+Exhibit 54; and Government Exhibits 418B, 420B, 421B, and 422B contain the
+properties, or metadata, for the corresponding exhibits. Examiner Flatley is
+expected to testify that Government Exhibits 418, 420, 421, and 422 were creater
+under a user profile named "gmax." He is also expected to testify that Government
+Exhibit 417 is a Word document stored on Government Exhibit 55. Examiner
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 8
+Page 3
+Flatley is expected to testify that that the metadata
+listed on Government
+Exhibits 417, 418, 420, 421, and 422 are true and accurate reflections of the
+metadata properties for those files, such as the
+listing the author, content
+created date, date last saved, last saved by, and last printed. Examiner Flatley will
+explain that he confirmed the accuracy of metadata
+by running Access Data
+AD Lab. In the course of doing so, Examiner Flatley will explain that metadata is
+information about a file, such as the file name and when the file was created. He
+will also explain that metadata can be stored in a computer's file system or
+embedded inside certain files, like Word documents.
+Gov. Nov. 26, 2021 Letter.
+Next, at 12:10 a.m. on December 3, the government provided yet another disclosure, in
+the form of email notes apparently taken by Ms. Pomerantz during a December 2 meeting with
+Examiner Flatley:
+December 2, 2021 Meeting with Flatley
+Pomerantz
+McKay
+Young
+• GX 332 is a picture off of a compact disk or CD; GX 332 was copied from compact disk
+onto a computer; when copy file from CD onto another computer, computer will reset the
+created date to the date it was copied; access date was empty because CD did not have an
+access date: operating system put date and time that file was copied onto that computer, SF
+confirmed GX 332B is metadata of photo on computer to which photo was copied from
+compact disk
+• Once a file is burned onto a CD, can't unburn it
+• On original CD, created date would be the same date as the modified date
+• Cannot tell when photograph was taken from info on GX 332B; May 7, 2002 is when put
+on CD or put on computer and burned onto CD
+• User accounts on GX 54: 3 total; 2 are default (guest, administrator); third is ghislaine;
+default and admin logins were zero; over 400 ghislaine logins
+• gmax 1@mindspring.com on all emalls SF saw on GX 34
+• Prepared for trial testimony
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 8
+Page 4
+Finally, at 11:17 p.m. last night (December 5), the government disclosed yet more expert
+opinions from Examiner Flatley, again in the form of notes apparently taken by Ms. Pomerantz.'
+December 5, 2021 Call with Flatley
+Pomerantz
+Young
+• Checked registry file called
+file which documents users on machine, has identifiers
+for the users; checked Access Data's AD Lab
+• Re-checked 3 user accounts on GX 54: for guest account, zero logins; for administrator
+account, approximately 30 logins; ghislaine logins: 390 logins
+If there were any doubt before, the government's midnight disclosure puts to bed the notion that
+Examiner Flatley does not intend to offer expert opinion testimony.
+As elaborated below, this Court should exclude any opinion testimony first disclosed to
+Ms. Maxwell in the November 26 letter, the December 3 email, or the December 5 email.
+ARGUMENT
+In substance and in brief, here's what the government's November 26, December 3, and
+December 5 disclosures reveal about the intended substance of Examiner Flatley's testimony,
+who is expected to testify tomorrow, December 7.
+November 26: Examiner Flatley will testify that Exhibits 54 and 55 are clones,
+i.e., exact copies, of seized devices. He will testify how he cloned them and how
+he's sure Exhibits 54 and 55 are clones. He will testify that other exhibits
+(documents, photos, emails) were extracted from the clones. He will testify that
+certain of these were created under the username "gmax." He will opine about
+metadata, what it is, and what the metadata on these extracted documents, photos
+and emails shows. He will testify that he verified the accuracy of the metadata and
+how he did so.
+' Defense counsel conferred with Ms. Pomerantz on Friday, December 3 about this issue,
+after receiving the government's midnight disclosure from that day but before the government
+made yet another untimely disclosure late last night.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 8
+Page 5
+December 3: Examiner Flatley will explain metadata and its significance. He will
+opine that a photo cannot be "unburned" from a CD. He will explain the
+difference between and significance of a "created date" and a "modified date."
+and he will opine about the three user accounts on Ex. 54 (guest, administrato
+shislaine). All of this is expert opinion subject to Rule 70:
+•
+December 5: Examiner Flatley will testify about the metadata he examined
+(registry files and user account data) to be able to opine about the number of times
+"ghislaine" or the "administrator" logged in to GX54.
+All of this is newly and untimely-disclosed expert opinion testimony.
+Testimony defining metadata and translating extracted metadata for the jury is expert
+opinion testimony under Rule 702. In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 85
+(S.D.N.Y. 2017) ("However, as described above, Mr. Read's analysis involved using a forensic
+tool to convert Plaintiffs' Digital Music metadata into data readable in an Excel spreadsheet,
+reviewing hundreds of data
+, and performing a comparative analysis. Plaintiffs make no
+showing that a lay person could have performed any of these tasks without specialized
+knowledge or training. Furthermore, various courts have rejected assertions that an expert "does
+not really offer expert testimony, in the sense that he has done no more than run a search that any
+lay person could run," where, as here, the expert "offers expertise beyond that of the typical lay
+juror" that "would therefore be helpful to a jury." (citing Marten Transp., Ltd. v. Platform
+Advert., Inc., 184 F.Supp.3d 1006, 1010 (D. Kan. 2016); United States v. Ganier, 468 F.3d 920,
+926 (6th Cir. 2006) (The average layperson today may be able to interpret the outputs of
+popular software programs as easily as he or she interprets everyday vernacular, but the
+interpretation [the expert] needed to apply to make sense of the software reports is more similar
+to the specialized knowledge police officers use to interpret slang and code words used by drug
+dealers."))).
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 8
+Page 6
+The government did not timely disclose Examiner Flatley's expert opinions, waiting until
+November 26, December 3, and late last night to make the disclosures. Under Rule of Criminal
+Procedure 16(d)(2), this Court can exclude these opinions.
+Rule 16(d)(2) says:
+(2) Failure to Comply. If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court may:
+(A) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection; specify its time, place,
+and manner; and prescribe other just terms and conditions;
+(B) grant a continuance;
+(C) prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; or
+(D) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances.
+Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2).
+"IT]he government... violate[s] Rule 16 if it ... call[s] expert witnesses who were not
+timely disclosed." United States v. W.R.
+, 526 F.3d 499, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
+"When the government has failed to comply with Rule 16, the district court has broad discretion
+to determine what remedial action, if any, is appropriate." United States v.
+116 F.3d 641,
+681 (2d Cir. 1997). "It is well-settled that a court may in its discretion preclude expert
+examination pursuant to Rule 16(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding
+any topics or opinions not properly disclosed." United States v. Mahaffy, No. 05CR613(S-
+3)(ILG), 2007 WL 1213738, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2007). "A court may preclude the
+testimony as a whole, or any part that it determines was not properly disclosed to the [defense]."
+Id. "Even if the disclosure provides a sufficient summary of any opinions to be offered by the
+witness, it may be excluded if the [party] has made no attempt at all to describe the bases and
+reasons for those opinions." Id.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 8
+Page 7
+This Court should preclude the government from eliciting Examiner Flatley's expert
+opinion. As this Court explained to the government at the pretrial conference when Ms. Maxwell
+first raised this issue with the Court:
+Well, I mean, [the government's] notice should provide the opinions that
+[Examiner Flatley's] going to offer. ...
+It's not a scavenger hunt. You're required, as the first matter, to provide,
+pursuant to Rule 16, the opinions that he's going to offer.
+...
+If your notice is insufficient under Rule 16 to tell us now what opinions your
+expert is going to provide, then you may have problems down the road. But I'm not
+going to have [Ms. Maxwell] held to a different standard than what the government
+has done here.
+TR 11/23/2021, p 25-26.
+It is clear that Examiner Flatley is no longer merely providing a factual narrative of what
+he did in this case. Based on his specialized training and experience, he's defining and
+explaining the significance of technical terms and concepts for the jury, and he is using reasoning
+unfamiliar to lay individuals to describe his analyses for, and to impart his conclusions to, the
+jury.
+Ms. Maxwell has been preparing for the testimony of other witnesses and briefing other
+issues, and she has not had sufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of Examiner
+Flatley. The government's disclosure comes far too late, it's prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and the
+testimony should be excluded.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 8
+Page 8
+CONCLUSION
+This Court should restrict Examiner Flatley's testimony to the fact-based narrative
+originally disclosed in the September 15 letter and preclude him from testifying to any expert
+opinions first disclosed in the November 26 letter or the December 3 or 5 emails.
+Respectfully submitted,
+Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
+Laura A. Menninger
+HADDON,
+150 East 10th Avenue
+Denver, CO 80203
+Phone: 303-831-7364
+Christian R. Everdell
+& GRESSER LLP
+800 Third Avenue
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: 212-957-7600
+Bobbi C. Sternheim
+Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+Phone: 212-243-1100
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+P.C.
+cc: Counsel of record (via email)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00256508e5b7b810df1359ac4e42e0bae5d2320f0fa6c6c4827981739191d012.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00256508e5b7b810df1359ac4e42e0bae5d2320f0fa6c6c4827981739191d012.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..38dd10cb505c81f1bb95b8667449bd598556f762
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00256508e5b7b810df1359ac4e42e0bae5d2320f0fa6c6c4827981739191d012.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -481,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "00256508e5b7b810df1359ac4e42e0bae5d2320f0fa6c6c4827981739191d012",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4fa083ba8d4fdc5562dc520c7ec7c2557bcc049efb7012863b7fb13a7a9dc551",
+  "output_sha256": "635764aadcaa0906fc7f8064e528cee7099600f717269dadff007e48e29cdb70",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00292921d1f22c0063691b130199d798d8e1b6307c8fc636eb335c3583ebc55b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00292921d1f22c0063691b130199d798d8e1b6307c8fc636eb335c3583ebc55b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..315d2a5579ea517423f673e1e74ebbbce4230699
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00292921d1f22c0063691b130199d798d8e1b6307c8fc636eb335c3583ebc55b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 242-25 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
++
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 242-25 Filed 07/25/23
+
+Subject: NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE - TONIGHT
+From: marcus.sheridan@jpmorgan.com
+Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:19:57 +0000
+To: "mary rieth/ipmchase"
+Forwarded by Marcus Sheridan/JPMCHASE on
+10/08/2003
+06:19 PM
+Elizabeth K Weymouth
+10/08/2003 05:14 PM
+To: Tad C /JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE, Marcus Sheridan/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE, Robert
+Baynard/JPMCHASE@JEMCHASE
+cc: Shannon J Iorio/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE,
+Terry Banet/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE
+Subject: NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE - TONIGHT
+Tad, Marc and Rob,
+Thank you for your patience as we bother you in our efforts to gather data on all of
+the top investment revenue-producing clients in the Northeast. The good news is that
+the top 5 (non-fiduelary) investment-revenue clients fall in your group. They are:
+1. Mary Erdoes has asked
+that in addition to the numbers behind these accounts that we provide a qualitative
+sense of what investment activities the clients are currently doing as well as
+investment areas where there is future growth potential. I have tried to capture our
+conversations on the clients that you cover below, but want for you to make sure the
+paragraphs are accurate.
+EXHIBIT _10
+WIT: Caus
+DATER
+C.
+ADR CRR CSR #13921
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00102892
+EFTA0281 1690
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 242-25 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 3
+Please check the paragraphs below, edit as you see fit, and send back to Shannon lorio
+tonight before you leave The deadline to get this to Mary is tonight...
+Thanks for your help!
+Elizabeth
+Jeffrey Epstein (Tad -- this is your edited version)
+Jeffrey Epstein is a financial advisor to several very large clients, and works with
+multiple institutions to invest on behalf of his clients. Our investment revenue is
+derived primarily from EX trades done between Epstein and Laurie Cameron. Epstein
+invests in EX for his own account and for Les Wexner (chairman of Limited Brands). It
+is unlikely that Epstein would be interested in a discretionary IM account managed by
+JPM. He also has direct access to most hedge funds and private equity opportunities,
+and has shown limited interest in accessing those through JPM. He has helped us source
+several managers including Glen
+and steve Salzman. Future investment revenue
+opportunities are: continued FX trading, reverse-inquiry structured products, and
+opportunistic fixed income and equity ideas using leveraged structures such as options
+and total return swaps.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00102893
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00292921d1f22c0063691b130199d798d8e1b6307c8fc636eb335c3583ebc55b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00292921d1f22c0063691b130199d798d8e1b6307c8fc636eb335c3583ebc55b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1b45177f0e78653bb983a5c30362bdf4d4e87328
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00292921d1f22c0063691b130199d798d8e1b6307c8fc636eb335c3583ebc55b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -70,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "00292921d1f22c0063691b130199d798d8e1b6307c8fc636eb335c3583ebc55b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b5c1971036932055afa932755a085dd43ae0ff1cec8acb758f311c9ac5ba66fd",
+  "output_sha256": "d6bb99ec2ad60c12ed03afc74e90b499ec7ce3618255a1ed295a0df53208de77",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/004d149be693a12c8d71e0943c3303a48e29a4b41eac2ddf23b5ab8b2712fbef.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/004d149be693a12c8d71e0943c3303a48e29a4b41eac2ddf23b5ab8b2712fbef.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..503af3de1f279b1202f373636822c27f3155e7bf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/004d149be693a12c8d71e0943c3303a48e29a4b41eac2ddf23b5ab8b2712fbef.md
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 100-1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+Plaintiff,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY
+Third-Party Defendant.
+ORDER REGARDING REVIEW OF VIDEOMATERIALS
+Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and the authority of this Court to
+administer its proceedings, and finding good cause established in the stipulated motion filed by
+Jane Doe 1 and the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, the Court orders that:
+The Epstein Estate shall review the Epstein Media to determine its responsiveness
+to the subpoenas that have been issued by Jane Doe 1 and other parties to the related litigations.
+2.
+If, during the course of that review, the Estate sees a particular recording that
+appears to contain possible CSAM, it shall promptly stop further review of that recording and
+notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") or such other agency or entity as the FBI may
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 100-1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 2 of 2
+direct of the recording's existence. No CSAM shall be copied or transmitted to another party,
+except as directed by the FBI or other government agency.
+If no CSAM is observed during the review, the Responsive Media will be provided
+counsel for Jane Doe 1 and the Government in response to the relevant subpoena. To the extent
+Responsive Media is identified prior to the identification of possible CSAM, such materials also
+will be produced to counsel. Counsel for Jane Doe 1 and any other recipient of Responsive Media
+may then use this material for the prosecution or defense of the above-captioned case and make
+such further disclosures as are required by civil discovery rules (e.g., appropriate disclosures to
+opposing counsel).
+SO ORDERED.
+JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
+Dated: March
+New York, New York
+, 2023
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/004d149be693a12c8d71e0943c3303a48e29a4b41eac2ddf23b5ab8b2712fbef.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/004d149be693a12c8d71e0943c3303a48e29a4b41eac2ddf23b5ab8b2712fbef.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d1dc69feb4f576e1a3d848bd207589f31e8d968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/004d149be693a12c8d71e0943c3303a48e29a4b41eac2ddf23b5ab8b2712fbef.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "004d149be693a12c8d71e0943c3303a48e29a4b41eac2ddf23b5ab8b2712fbef",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "10fc57de1a98ce97b57b8bcbcf35cf04d691aed395b79a14f2a70afbef1b2730",
+  "output_sha256": "106a2b2436f1cfbd190fb0a4cdd45e69b00ce2372d5670cdc9c66e1736073ba5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0056c854dacbfea9ac24372b4c44fa0d4d2794dba892a4935ab73b7c559e1441.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0056c854dacbfea9ac24372b4c44fa0d4d2794dba892a4935ab73b7c559e1441.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..297fd4bebf9dd0afe18fe9b64d222a5936c0ae9c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0056c854dacbfea9ac24372b4c44fa0d4d2794dba892a4935ab73b7c559e1441.md
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 11
+Filed 11/25/19 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+-against-
+TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC #:
+DATE FILED: 11/25/2019
+19 Cr. 830 (AT)
+ORDER
+ANALISA
+Defendants.
+1, District Judge:
+It is hereby ORDERED that the conditions of Defendant Michael
+release shall be modified as follows: the time by which two financially responsible persons must
+co-sign Mr.
+I personal recognizance bond is extended to December 3, 2019.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 25, 2019
+New York, New York
+ANALISA
+United States District Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0056c854dacbfea9ac24372b4c44fa0d4d2794dba892a4935ab73b7c559e1441.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0056c854dacbfea9ac24372b4c44fa0d4d2794dba892a4935ab73b7c559e1441.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5fb539de7d89ff8a3477142cd4800cf7a21641fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0056c854dacbfea9ac24372b4c44fa0d4d2794dba892a4935ab73b7c559e1441.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0056c854dacbfea9ac24372b4c44fa0d4d2794dba892a4935ab73b7c559e1441",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a71888c3bc1a489336d7d726c13fdbbb00feb1faee27013a9f9fb1e93f09fa5b",
+  "output_sha256": "e7d2759b987e47317b7c6a61909b0ed6547473b28b3f02b8b397b79e73ae2133",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0090c7a5f4fbc799895539c0dbf3da28a512a0bf09d2bcbcd5419ee608d2e4a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0090c7a5f4fbc799895539c0dbf3da28a512a0bf09d2bcbcd5419ee608d2e4a9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9aeddf82532ab7909f1f3e58f869283b44872406
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0090c7a5f4fbc799895539c0dbf3da28a512a0bf09d2bcbcd5419ee608d2e4a9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-7 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+CC:
+Subject:
+Importance:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-7 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 2
+Cecile de Jongh [
+@yahoo.com]
+12/6/20187:21:52 PM
+Jeffrey Epstein jjeevacation@gmail.com]
+Richard Kahn !
+@gmail.com]
+Charitable Giving
+High
+Good afternoon Jeffrey,
+Albert suggested a school for autistic children (Coral Reef Academy) on STX and Junior Achievement
+(JA). I'm trying to get in touch with the head of the school and we have given to JA before. We have
+$50,000 that we must donate and 50% of that must go to public school programs or initiatives. JA is
+considered a public school initiative.
+How much would you like to give to the school and JA?
+With warm regards,
+Cecile de Jongh
+
+ESTATE_JPM016517
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0090c7a5f4fbc799895539c0dbf3da28a512a0bf09d2bcbcd5419ee608d2e4a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0090c7a5f4fbc799895539c0dbf3da28a512a0bf09d2bcbcd5419ee608d2e4a9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31d75509b3a32b33b1de0230999caacd79ee26bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0090c7a5f4fbc799895539c0dbf3da28a512a0bf09d2bcbcd5419ee608d2e4a9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0090c7a5f4fbc799895539c0dbf3da28a512a0bf09d2bcbcd5419ee608d2e4a9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b9f136e788f6afede1fd69ce5435ca80c9cf60be5e6dac236711ccf81b36e811",
+  "output_sha256": "b5ecb770c6f13b4e681c28010eb1aaf6e84a8020d0929209a9fb25363617387c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00a95449159914a1485076678a26a9c2f0e53e90d33235b61ee8487d83b8058a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00a95449159914a1485076678a26a9c2f0e53e90d33235b61ee8487d83b8058a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddffdddb94b3a889cf1f624dbd90754131179feb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00a95449159914a1485076678a26a9c2f0e53e90d33235b61ee8487d83b8058a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,345 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 14
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
+
+
+PENGAD 800-631-608
+PENT:22-Cl-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 14
+
+INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC.
+(Beneficiary)
+Pursuant to the authority vested in me as the Chairman of the Virgin Islands Industrial
+Development Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") by Title 29 Virgin Islands Code,
+Chapter 12 and in the name of the Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States, I
+do hereby issue this certificate to Financial Trust Company, Inc. hereinafter the
+"Beneficiary" whose application for industrial development benefits was accepted by the
+Director of Industrial Development on March 22, 1999. The Commission finds that the
+beneficiary is an eligible new applicant pursuant to Section 715-3 (b) of the Commission's
+Rules and Regulations. The grant of benefits hereinafter described is for the beneficiary or
+any successors approved by the Commission to conduct the business of financial and
+economic consulting, money management, investment advisory and fiduciary services for
+its clients. Such clients will include individuals, trusts, foundations and business entities.
+This certificate is subject to the acceptance of and full compliance by the beneficiary
+with all the following general, standard, and special conditions, and the timely performance
+and observance of the same by the Beneficiary:
+I. The beneficiary shall invest in this business in the Virgin Islands of the United
+States not less than the amount of U.S. $300,000 excluding inventory, no later than one year
+from April 1, 1999.
+II. The beneficiary shall employ, no later than one year from September 7, 1999
+no less than 11 persons on a full-time basis employees of which no less than 80% of all
+employees shall be "Residents of the Virgin Islands" as defined in Title 29, V.I. Code
+Section 703(e) and provided that not less than twenty percent (20%) shall be in the area
+of management, supervisory and /or technical positions filled by residents of the Virgin
+Islands. Pursuant to Title 29, Chapter 12, Section 710 (a).
+The following standard conditions shall apply:
+1.
+Beneficiary shall comply with any and all reasonable requests of the
+Commission, the Virgin Islands Departments of Finance, the Virgin Islands Bureau of
+Audit and Control, and the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue during reasonable
+business hours.
+
+VI-JPM-000017992
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 14
+(
+2. This certificate is conditioned upon the final determination of the Secretary of
+the Treasury of the United States, or his designee, of compliance of the Beneficiary
+with the requirements of section 934 and/or 936 of the United States Internal
+Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if applicable.
+3. Beneficiary shall fully and actually comply and continue to comply with all the
+applicable provisions of Title 29, Chapter 12 of the Virgin Islands Code, the regulations
+issued pursuant thereto, and all other applicable local and federal laws and regulations,
+including but not limited to those dealing with non-discrimination and veterans employment
+rights.
+4. Beneficiary shall particularly comply, and continue to comply with federal and
+local laws which establish standards of ecological and environmental compatibility, with
+rules and regulations of the Director of the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue, and
+with the rules and regulations of the Industrial Development Program (prior receipt of which
+is hereby acknowledged by the Beneficiary's acceptance of this Certificate).
+5. This certificate shall be effective only for so long as the Beneficiary
+continues to observe and perform each and every condition in this certificate.
+6. Upon a written finding by the Commission, after a hearing if required, that
+the beneficiary has failed to observe the condition in this certificate, or to comply with
+any of the time limits provided in this certificate or otherwise provided by law, and upon
+such further finding that such failure is not due to an act of God, a "force majeure," or to
+the reliance in good faith by the Beneficiary on a false statement by a third party unrelated
+to the beneficiary, then the Certificate will be of no force and effect, and the Beneficiary
+shall pay or refund as the case may be to the Government of the Virgin Islands of the
+United States, the amount of every and all benefits received under the Certificate after the
+commencement dates specified herein; provided however that the Commission may for
+good cause shown, grant extensions of any such time periods as may be permitted, such
+findings referred to shall be conducted and made in accordance with Title 29 V.I. Code
+Section 722 and Subchapter 722 of the Rules and Regulations. Nothing in this section
+Title 29 V.I. Code Section 722 or Subchapter 722 of the regulations. Nothing in this
+section shall construed to limit the Commission's rights, duties and responsibilities under
+
+VI-JPM-000017993
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 4 of 14
+7. Beneficiary shall commence the active conduct of the business for which this
+certificate was granted within five years from the date this certificate is signed by the
+Chairman of the Industrial Development Commission, unless otherwise provided or
+unless the business has already commenced.
+IV. The following special conditions shall apply:
+The applicant shall provide all employees with health care insurance,
+funded by the beneficiary.
+The applicant shall provide all employees a qualified retirement plan,
+funded by beneficiary.
+The applicant shall provide employee training and tuition reimbursement
+program for eligible employees.
+4.
+The applicant shall make annual contributions of $50,000 or one percent
+(1%) of gross receipts tax exemption value, whichever is greater, to be
+distributed annually as follows:
+(a)
+50% to educational scholarships
+(b)
+25% for charity
+(c)
+25% for co-op marketing with IDC
+However, after issuance of its certificate, applicant shall prepay the first
+five (5) years of contribution fixed at $50,000, or the sum of $250,000,
+to be distributed as follows:
+(a)
+(b)
+$187,500 to a tax-exempt entity from which annual
+distributions of not less than $25,000 to educational
+scholarship and $12,500 to charity shall be made, and
+$62,500 for co-op marketing with IDC
+
+VI-JPM-000017994
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 5 of 14
+•
+The applicant shall utilize the services of resident licensed broker dealers
+whenever possible, given market conditions.
+V.
+Specially Excluded Trade or Business:
+Services to resident of United States Virgin Islands
+THEREFORE, pursuant to the public hearing on this beneficiary's application on
+April 23, 1999 and the Commission meeting held on September 7, 1999 and based upon
+the representations of the Beneficiary made orally and in writing and as agreed to herein,
+the Commission, with the prior approval of the Governor of the Virgin Islands of the
+United States herein enters into this Agreement Certificate with the Beneficiary that if the
+Beneficiary complies with the conditions herein, the provisions of Title 29 V.I. Code,
+Chapter 12 as existing on the date of the Governor's approval, the Rules and Regulations of
+the Commission promulgated in accordance with Title 29 V.I. Code Section 705(f) and all
+applicable laws and regulations of the Territory of the Virgin Islands of the United States
+and of the United States of America, then the Commission hereby grants the benefits
+stated in Appendices and Subappendices A to C inclusive to commence and terminate as
+stated in each signed Appendix.
+IN WITNESS HEREWITH, the parties hereunto set their hands and seals on the
+dates noted below:
+(Ek
+Industrial Development Commission
+Accepted by:
+Jeffrey E.
+Name and Title
+Date:_May 16, 2000
+Witness
+
+VI-JPM-000017995
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 6 of 14
+INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE
+APPENDIX A:
+USVI INCOME GROSS RECEIPT AND EXCISE TAXES
+NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY:
+NAME: FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY
+PHYSICAL LOCATION: 6100 Red Hook Quarters, B-3,
+MAIL ADDRESS: 610 0 Red Hook Quarter, B-3, St.
+1. V. I. 00802
+TELEPHONE: (340)775-2525
+Fax: (340)775-2528
+NATURE AND EXTENT OF BENEFITS:
+USVI Income Taxes: Ninety percent exemption
+USVI Gross Receipt Taxes: One hundred percent exemption
+USVI Excise Taxes (Raw Materials): 100% exemption from excise taxes (except gasoline taxes) on
+supplies necessary for use in the construction, alteration,
+extension of the physical plant or facilities of the beneficiary.
+COMMENCEMENT DATES OF BENEFITS:
+USVI Income Taxes: April 1, 1999
+USVI Gross Receipt Taxes: April 1, 1999
+USVI Excise Taxes (Raw Materials): January 1, 2000
+USVI Excise Taxes (Equipment, Machinery): January 1, 2000
+TERMINATION DATES OF BENEFITS:
+USVI Income Taxes: March 31, 2009
+USVI Gross Receipt Taxes: March 31, 2009
+USVI Excise Taxes (Raw Materials): December 31, 2009
+USVI Excise Taxes (Equipment, Machinery): December 31, 2009
+AUTHORITY FOR BENEFITS:
+Title 29 V.I. Code Sections 713b, 713a (a) (2), 713a (a) (3);
+Title 33 V.I. Code Section 43d
+Bixecutive Director, IN GE
+
+reconstruction or
+VI-JPM-000017996
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 7 of 14
++
+INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE
+APPENDIX A1:
+USVI WITHHOLDING TAX ON DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST
+NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY:
+NAME: FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY
+PHYSICAL LOCATION: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3
+MAIL ADDRESS: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3, St. '
+V. I. 00802
+TELEPHONE: (340)775-2525 Fax: (340)775-2528
+NATURE AND EXTENT OF BENEFITS:
+Dividend Withholding Tax Exemption in accordance with Title 29 V.I. Code Section 713d
+Interest Withholding Tax Exemption in accordance with Title 29 V.I. Code Section 713d
+COMMENCEMENT DATE OF BENEFITS:
+Dividend Withholding Tax Exemption: April 1, 1999
+Interest Withholding Tax Exemption: April 1, 1999
+TERMINATION DATE OF BENEFITS:
+Dividend Withholding Tax Exemption: March 31, 2009
+Interest Withholding Tax Exemption: March 31, 2009
+AUTHORITY FOR BENEFITS: Title 29 V.I. Code Section 713d
+Executive Director, IDE Ca
+
+VI-JPM-000017997
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 8 of 14
+INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE
+APPENDIX B:
+USVI REAL PROPERTY TAXES
+NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY:
+NAME: FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY
+PHYSICAL LOCATION: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3
+MAIL ADDRESS: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3
+TELEPHONE: (340)775-2525
+Fax: (340)775-2528
+NATURE AND EXTENT OF BENEFITS:
+Real Property Taxes: 100% exemption of taxes on real property used for the business of
+financial and economic consulting, money management, investment advisory and fiduciary
+services for its clients.
+COMMENCEMENT DATE OF BENEFITS:
+Real Property Tax Exemption Starts: January 1, 2000
+TERMINATION DATE OF BENEFITS:
+Real Property Tax Exemption Terminates: December 31, 2009
+AUTHORITY FOR BENEFITS: Title 29 V.I. Code Section 713a
+(a) (1)
+
+VI-JPM-000017998
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 9 of 14
+INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE
+APPENDIX C:CUSTOMS DUTIES
+NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY:
+NAME: FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY
+PHYSICAL LOCATION: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3
+MAIL ADDRESS: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3
+TELEPHONE: (340)775-2525 Fax: (340)775-2528
+NATURE AND EXTENT OF BENEFITS:
+V.I. Customs Duties to be assessed on raw materials and component parts brought into the
+USVI by the beneficiary for the purpose of producing, creating, or assembling directly
+concerned with the business granted benefits may be imported into the USVI at a Customs
+Duty rate of no more than one percent ad valorem assessment.
+COMMENCEMENT DATE OF BENEFITS:
+Customs Duties Reduction Begins: N/A
+TERMINATION DATE OF BENEFITS:
+Customs Duties Reduction Terminates Close of Business: N/A
+AUTHORITY FOR BENEFITS:
+Title 29 V.I. Code Section 713c
+
+VI-JPM-000017999
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 10 of 14
+1,
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+_ hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the
+Rules and Regulations of the Virgin Islands Industrial Development Commission and agree
+to abide by them. A listing of all reporting forms and blank copies of each report and also
+acknowledge and accept the Industrial Development Commission Certificate for Financial
+Trust Company, Inc.
+Signature:
+Title: President
+Company: Einancial Trust Company, Inc.
+Date: May 16, 2000
+•
+VI-JPM-000018000
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 11 of 14
+-
+DEVEL
+PASSION
+FEB 1 1 2000
+OFFICE OF
+THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
+ST. CROIX, VAl. -
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+_ hereby
+acknowledge receipt of the copy of the Rules and Regulations of the
+Virgin Islands Industrial Development Commission and agree to abide
+by them.
+10
+Title: President
+Company: Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+Date: February 2, 2000
+VI-JPM-000018001
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9
+Filed 07/25/23 Page 12 of 14
+I, the undersigned do hereby accept this document transmitted on the 30" day of May,
+2000 from Frandeile L. T. Gerard, Director of the Industrial Development Commission,
+to the Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The documentation is the Industrial
+Development Certificate for Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+Signature
+6/05/7050
+Date
+BEGSIVED
+INDUCTRIAL
+DSEVELOPUENT COMMISSION!
+JUN 2 3 2000
+OFFICE DF
+THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
+ST. GROIX, VI.
+VI-JPM-000018002
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 13 of 14
+I, the undersigned do hereby accept this document transmitted on the 30* day of May,
+2000 from Frandelle L. T. Gerard, Director of the Industrial Development Commission,
+to the Director of the Real Property Tax Assessor of the Lieutenant Governor's Office.
+The documentation is the Industrial Development Certificate for Financial Trust
+oy IZ Martin
+Signature
+June 6, 2000
+Date
+Tax Assessor
+Title
+-
+RECEIVED
+INDUCTIAL
+DEVELOPMENT COMAISSION
+JUN 0 8 2000
+OFFICE OF
+THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
+ST. CROI%, VI.
+VI-JPM-000018003
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 245-9 Filed 07/25/23 Page 14 of 14
+I, the undersigned do hereby accept this document transmitted on the 30" day of May,
+200 Am endictor are D.5. Crooms Serica. The documentation is the
+Industrial Development Certificate for Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+Signature
+6/05/00
+Date
+SIS
+Title
+* Certificate indicates NA" for
+Customes Duties
+VI-JPM-000018004
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00a95449159914a1485076678a26a9c2f0e53e90d33235b61ee8487d83b8058a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00a95449159914a1485076678a26a9c2f0e53e90d33235b61ee8487d83b8058a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b754788a8bef26f53b180a991ef40ae7cf187871
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00a95449159914a1485076678a26a9c2f0e53e90d33235b61ee8487d83b8058a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1426,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "00a95449159914a1485076678a26a9c2f0e53e90d33235b61ee8487d83b8058a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 25,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "69bcb2c3de6f37909b6d041a9ae58f3b51a9636453290b25343e694e25e66703",
+  "output_sha256": "75d9d9ceecb32f51e86a1236a6758e218e725911f9ce9be9f9c9712e3d118d0a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00ae49faafe03efd334cdf33abc8239c59d44c1deb60752c9cddf01c34ef4421.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00ae49faafe03efd334cdf33abc8239c59d44c1deb60752c9cddf01c34ef4421.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec25ef3f7fb1b16e0b1ebb98405f072d7357d733
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00ae49faafe03efd334cdf33abc8239c59d44c1deb60752c9cddf01c34ef4421.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-1
+Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1
+AO 89 (Rev. 08/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal Case
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+for the
+Southern Distickof New York
+United States of America
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell
+Defendant
+Case No. S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+SUBPOENA TO TESTIEY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE
+To:
+YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States district court at the time, date, and place shown
+below to testify in this criminal case. When you arrive, you must remain at the court until the judge or a court officer
+allows you to leave.
+Place of Appearance: United States Courthouse
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10007
+Courtroom No.:
+Date and Time:
+318
+11/29/2021 9:00 am
+You must also bring with you the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects (blank if not
+applicable):
+(SEAL)
+RUBY J. KRAJICK
+CLERK OF COURT:
+Date: NOV 1 6 2021
+Sighture of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
+The name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party Ms Grislaine MAxwell
+, who requests this subpoena, are:
+Christian R. Everdell
+Cohen & Gresser L.LP.
+800 Third Are New JoRk NY 10002
+212-957-7600
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/00ae49faafe03efd334cdf33abc8239c59d44c1deb60752c9cddf01c34ef4421.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00ae49faafe03efd334cdf33abc8239c59d44c1deb60752c9cddf01c34ef4421.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2d282daca22bfcc5a2def8fbfeab5dadc58637a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/00ae49faafe03efd334cdf33abc8239c59d44c1deb60752c9cddf01c34ef4421.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "00ae49faafe03efd334cdf33abc8239c59d44c1deb60752c9cddf01c34ef4421",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "af690467a1981eb1e8a0c8646525a052f9138ee5b86cdc56622203723507f273",
+  "output_sha256": "0ed8a4c844f3ad5d01954bc3a8e4860f71eb835f21310c39f557c95504a06fbe",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/010a2ba4dfb64505f2914527bb00e4e76391cdf1dd173c1864e10dfca0f9c47c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010a2ba4dfb64505f2914527bb00e4e76391cdf1dd173c1864e10dfca0f9c47c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5078bb3998420207da5ba877484dfaeb6980781
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010a2ba4dfb64505f2914527bb00e4e76391cdf1dd173c1864e10dfca0f9c47c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1585 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 29
+3118
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-x
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+20 CR 330 (AJN)
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+Defendant.
+-x
+Before:
+HON. ALISON J. NATHAN,
+Jury Trial
+New York, N.Y.
+December 27, 2021
+10:30 a.m.
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+BY: MAURENE COMEY
+ALISON MOE
+LARA POMERANTZ
+ANDREW ROHRBACH
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+HADDON [
+AND
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA
+LAURA A. MENNINGER
+-and-
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+-and-
+& GRESSER
+BY:
+CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL
+Also Present: Amanda Young, FBI
+Paul Byrne, NYPD
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 29
+3119
+(Trial resumed; jury not present)
+THE COURT: I did receive a note.
+May we please have the following items: Different
+colored Post-Its;
+paperboard; highlighters, different
+colors; and then Matt's transcript; and then also may we have a
+definition of "enticement."
+So we're going to get started on the supplies. We'll
+get them colored Post-Its,
+paperboard. I'm not sure
+exactly what they mean but we'll try and find a large pad, and
+we'll also give them a whiteboard and dry erase markers and
+then highlighters.
+Ms. Moe, Matt's transcript you'll get printed
+immediately?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. And then I'll hear from the parties
+as to how they would like to respond to the request for a
+definition of "enticement."
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to the jury's
+question regarding enticement, our view is that the Court's
+instruction, which is on page 21, instruction number 15: "The
+terms persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced have their
+ordinary everyday meanings."
+That remain true now, and so we
+would propose referring them to that portion of the Court's
+instruction.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 29
+3120
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+Trying to get my things up and running here.
+Yes.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
+So I think there are -- if I recall, there are cases
+that do try to define those words in a little bit more detail.
+I don't have those cases at my fingertips and I'm trying to get
+them online, but I don't think we have WiFi in the courtroom.
+THE COURT: I have one. United States v. Almonte, 16
+CR 670; and United States v. Dupigny, 19 CR 528, gave a little
+bit of elaboration on that series of words.
+For "entice" -- I think this is true for both those
+cases, I'll confirm -- they provided in the charge that
+"entice" means to attract, induce, or lure using hope or
+desire. I think I recall, Mr. Rohrbach, you referenced that
+definition at one point when we were discussing an issue, if
+I'm not mistaken.
+Is that what you had in mind, Mr. Everdell?
+MR. EVERDELL: The one I was thinking of, I think, is
+the one - I'm trying to find the name, is it -- should be in
+my notes. Just give me one minute, your Honor. The one where
+we were arguing the Rule 29, which I cited to the Court,
+Broxmeyer, I think; am I correct about that?
+THE COURT: I don't know. This was the causation --
+you wanted me to define with respect to causation, is that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 29
+3121
+the --
+MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I think it was -- it was the one I was
+talking about with the issue of causation, but I believe that
+case also tried to define the words separate and apart from the
+causation issue.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government would have no
+objection to the Court providing the instructions set forth in
+Almonte and Dupigny.
+THE COURT: That's the model I have. Those charges, I
+believe, also provided the language that we did include, which
+is what the parties agreed on, which is that these words have
+their ordinary meaning.
+So on the table derived from Almonte and Dupigny is:
+"Entice" means to attract, induce, or lure using hope or
+desire. I think we would also reference them back to the line
+that you indicated, Ms. Moe.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry.
+THE COURT: Take your time.
+MR. EVERDELL: Because I don't have internet access,
+so I can't pull it up on my computer.
+THE COURT: Broxmeyer, which is 616 F.3d 120, defined
+"entice" as "to draw on by exciting hope or desire; allure."
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 5 of 29
+3122
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think then we'll just go
+with the Dupigny and Almonte one that you raised before.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+And we also now have the transcript of Matt's
+testimony. We're happy to hand that up.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+One of my law clerks will grab that
+please and take it to the CSO, while
+is getting
+the supplies; so that just goes to the CSO.
+In response to the note, I will write: Dear jury, we
+are gathering the supplies you requested. We've sent back
+Matt's transcript. As for your question regarding the
+definition of enticement -- could you give me the page and line
+again of the charge, Ms. Moe?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. It's on pages 21 and 33;
+those are instruction number 15 and also instruction number 26.
+THE COURT: Okay. So for page 21, what's the line
+number or lines?
+MS. MOE: It's on lines 5 and 6, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And for 33?
+MS. MOE: They are on the same lines, your Honor, on
+lines 5 and 6, page 33.
+THE COURT: Okay. I left my charge back there.
+So I'll refer them to pages 21 and -- page 21, lines 5
+and 6; and page 33, lines 5 and 6. I will then say: Further,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 6 of 29
+3123
+"entice" means to attract, induce, or lure using hope or
+desire.
+Ms. Moe.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: That's fine, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+I will write that note and send it back. We'll
+mark - I'm sorry, I forget what court exhibit we're on, but
+we'll mark this note as the next court exhibit once
+reminds me where we are.
+All right. Thank you.
+Yes.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I just have a quick statement,
+and I'm asking the Court's assistance.
+You mentioned on Friday that -- I guess it was
+Wednesday that we're supposed to wear N95 masks in the
+courtroom — or in the courthouse, I should say.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MS. STERNHEIM: And it's my understanding that one has
+been provided for Ms. Maxwell, but she can only wear it in the
+courtroom. And I think that that is not a correct health
+standard.
+THE COURT: The rule actually is in the courthouse.
+MS. STERNHEIM: In the courthouse.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 29
+3124
+THE COURT: Entry into the courthouse is required to
+wear an N95 or KN95.
+MS. STERNHEIM: And I would ask that the Court direct
+the marshals to permit her to wear it throughout the day.
+THE COURT: I will consult with the marshals through
+the district executive's office. But my understanding of the
+new rule as of today is that entry into the courthouse requires
+wearing at all times, except briefly when eating or drinking, a
+KN95 or N95. But I'll get confirmation of that.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you very much.
+THE COURT: Anything else?
+MS. MOE: No your Honor. Thank you.
+MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+(Recess pending verdict)
+THE COURT: We have another note, which will be Court
+Exhibit 13: May we also have Parkinson's transcript.
+Ms. Moe, you'll provide that?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We'll take care of that
+right away.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+And let me just note we have now sent back everything
+requested in the prior note in terms of supplies, Matt's
+transcript, as well as the response from me that I outlined
+last time.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 29
+3125
+Anything else, counsel?
+MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you.
+MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+(Recess pending verdict)
+THE COURT: I have a note.
+May we please have the transcript of David Rodgers.
+MS. MOE:
+Yes, your Honor. We'll take care of that
+right away.
+THE COURT: Other issues to raise?
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+MR. EVERDELL: Not from the defense.
+THE COURT: We don't know what time the jury wishes to
+deliberate to this evening. My inclination would be to -- it's
+up to them when they wish to stop, so I assume we'll get a
+note. So I think we'll wait for that. But I am inclined to
+think about, if they are not done, extending deliberations
+tomorrow for at least some amount of time. But I'll hear from
+you on that. So you can think about it or respond to it now,
+Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I would just say that I think the jury
+should basically set its own schedule. You can suggest if they
+want a longer day, but I don't think we should be pushing them.
+They seem to be working very studiously and they seem to have a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 29
+3126
+mind of their own. Because last week the Court invited them to
+sit the extra day and they declined that. So an inquiry may be
+appropriate, but I don't think telling them what they should do
+is necessarily the right thing to do.
+THE COURT: Well, I have told them previously that
+they are here till at least 5. I think the question is
+whether, in light of the circumstances we find ourselves, we
+should encourage longer, if it's available to them. But you
+think about it. I'll hear from you. I'm not intending to do
+anything just yet. I presume we will hear from them as to this
+evening, but think about the indication of at least some
+extension of hours tomorrow if they have not completed the
+task.
+All right? Thank you.
+(Recess pending verdict)
+THE COURT: I have a note.
+Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the
+transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to
+New Mexico, where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in
+sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second
+element?
+I'm going to let you take a -- if you want to just
+take a look at the note. Counsel, you're welcome to take a
+photo of it, if that helps.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+3127
+THE COURT: Mark the note as Court Exhibit 14.
+THE DEPUTY CLERK:
+15.
+THE COURT: 15.
+Counsel, soon I'll look for your proposals.
+Another note from the jury. This one says: We would
+like to end deliberations at 5 p.m. today.
+So we'll take up extending deliberations after we
+resolve the response to this question.
+(Counsel conferred)
+THE COURT: All right.
+Let me get a proposal.
+MR. EVERDELL: Happy to talk, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Counsel, are you ready?
+MS. MOE: I apologize, your Honor. Can we just have
+one more moment to confer with our supervisor?
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MOE: Thank you.
+(Counsel conferred)
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+Apologies for the delay.
+THE COURT: Defense counsel, are you ready?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.
+THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Moe.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, our proposal would be to refer
+the jurors to instruction number 21 on page 28 of the Court's
+instructions, which pertains to comprehensive instruction with
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+
+3128
+respect to the second
+element. Beyond that, we're not able to
+parse the question because we find it confusing; so we think
+the safest course is to refer the jurors to the comprehensive
+instruction with respect to the second element.
+THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the answer to this
+question is no, and I'll tell you the rationale for this.
+As to the jurors' note, they've clearly separated out
+in their minds the flight to New Mexico versus the flight back
+from New Mexico. And in their minds, there still is a
+question, it would seem, that the flight -- whatever the
+purpose of the flight to New Mexico was, whether it was for
+illicit sexual activity or not, that is different from the
+purpose of the flight back from New Mexico. And they are
+asking can she be found guilty solely on if there's some aiding
+and abetting, some helping of that flight from New Mexico,
+which presumably the flight home they're saying.
+THE COURT: So the flight from New Mexico to where?
+MR. EVERDELL: Well, there is no record of a flight
+from New Mexico. But what they are saying, I think, in this
+note is they are separating out in their minds the flight to
+New Mexico versus whatever flight she may have taken from New
+Mexico. And I would say based on the instructions in the
+Court's instructions which the government pointed to, there has
+to be -- the significant or motivating purpose of the travel
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+3129
+across state lines has to be that Jane engaged in illicit
+sexual activity. There is no significant or motivating purpose
+of a return trip where Mr. Epstein wasn't present; it's just a
+return trip from New Mexico. That would not be a significant
+or motivating purpose. She is just presumably going home, but
+is not for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity.
+The testimony, if we are to believe it, is that she
+went to New Mexico for some purpose to engage in sexual
+activity, that's if you believe Jane's testimony. But
+returning from there is not that purpose. Returning is
+returning, or it's going somewhere else; it's going somewhere
+away from where -- at least in the record, the evidence in the
+record, if there is any -- Epstein was presumably in New
+Mexico. This is her leaving New Mexico. So I don't think that
+qualifies as a significant or motivating purpose. That travel
+across state lines is for some other purpose.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I don't believe this note is
+that clear about what flight we're talking about. The note
+begins by talking about an unspecified return flight, and then
+it turns to talking about a flight to New Mexico. Then there's
+a modifying clause about intent. It is unclear which of the
+two flights we are now modifying.
+I think the safest course here is to refer the jury to
+the elements of the crime. I think guessing at what flight
+they may be talking about is sort of beyond the reach of this
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Page 13 of 29 3130
+question because they haven't identified a flight here.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think they've been fairly
+clear. They say: If the defendant aided in the transportation
+of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico. The
+only evidence we have of a flight to New Mexico with Jane is
+the one in the flight logs, and it is a flight to New Mexico.
+And so the return flight would be some other flight besides the
+flight to New Mexico.
+She is also alleged that -- and to be honest, I think
+it was a little unclear what may have happened in New Mexico
+based on her testimony; but if there was any illegal sexual
+conduct, the flight to New Mexico, this is what they are
+debating, because they say, but not the flight to New Mexico,
+where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity.
+Okay. So it seems that the jury is deliberating or at
+least trying to decide whether the flight to New Mexico was for
+the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. And they
+are confused that the return flight that happens after that,
+could that be the basis alone for a conviction on Count Four.
+Answer is no, because that return flight is not for the purpose
+of illegal sexual activity.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, at the very least, the answer to
+this can't be no, because a jury could infer intent to engage
+in sexual conduct and the return of a flight in aiding and
+abetting that.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 14 of 29|
+3131
+We can't tell which flight we're talking about, which
+leg of a potentially multi-leg trip we're talking about. And
+so I think here, again, the Court gave a thorough instruction
+about this particular element. Because we can't tell which set
+of facts they are asking about, I think the proper course here
+is to refer the jury to the particulars with respect to this
+element.
+THE COURT: It's difficult to know and to have in my
+head, based on the articulation of the question, as well as the
+testimony, exactly what they are referring to. I don't know.
+So I am inclined to follow the government's suggestion
+here and to say, I can't provide an additional response to your
+question other than to consider carefully the instructions as
+to -- I mean, I could either point them to all of the count or
+specifically to the second element, since that's what they're
+asking about.
+MR. EVERDELL: If we're going to just refer them to
+certain language, I think we refer them to the language in the
+last paragraph.
+THE COURT: Page?
+MR. EVERDELL: Page 28, instruction number 21, lines
+14 through 17.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, those particular lines don't
+appear to be what the jury is asking about. I recognize that
+the note refers to Count Four and the second element, but the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 15 of 29
+3132
+entire note seems to be about transportation of some kind. And
+so we would propose just referring them to the instruction in
+its entirety.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I don't find this note
+confusing. And I think simply saying it's confusing —-
+THE COURT: Well, I find it confusing. For example, I
+don't know if this is a question about aiding and abetting. I
+don't know.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think this is pretty -- I
+think this is a question about whether you can hold her
+accountable for a return flight, if you believe that she had
+something to do with arranging that return flight from New
+Mexico; whereas the first flight to New Mexico may have been --
+at least there's some testimony to consider about whether that
+was for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. It was not
+true of the return flight, the flight back, wherever she was
+going, home, somewhere else, somewhere away from Mr. Epstein.
+I think they are asking, Can we consider if Ms.
+Maxwell had anything to do with that flight, arranging of that
+flight, whether she can be convicted, because it's on the
+return trip from an area where Jane claims she was involved in
+sexual abuse.
+THE COURT: But it says where/if the intent was to
+engage -- for Jane to engage in sexual activity.
+MR. EVERDELL: Right. They are saying with a flight
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+to New Mexico, where/if there was an intent for Jane to engage
+in sexual activity.
+So there is still an open question in
+their minds about whether the flight to New Mexico, that
+travel, was for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual
+activity.
+3133
+But they are now considering whether the flight out of
+New Mexico, if Ms. Maxwell had any -- did anything to do with
+that flight, with arranging that flight, could we convict her
+on that count alone. Because there is no, I think, evidence
+that she arranged the flight going to New Mexico; instead, they
+are considering now whether there's any evidence that she may
+have arranged the flight out of New Mexico. And is that enough
+to provide a conviction on Count Iwo? And I think the answer
+to that is pretty clearly no -- I'm sorry, Count Four I should
+have said, not Count Iwo. Because there's no evidence of that.
+And there is also -- there is no -- in the
+instructions themselves, that would not be a significant or
+motivating purpose for that travel across state lines. That
+would simply be for her to return home. That's not travel for
+the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think this colloguy
+illustrates how confusing the note is. We are now guessing at
+what hypothetical facts the jury is talking about; and then
+guessing hypothetically what their legal question is on top of
+that. And I think we're compounding guesswork, what this
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+3134
+question is about. And so the question is about the element;
+the charge
+is about that particular element. I think more
+guesswork here makes this more confusing and not less
+confusing. I think, as the Court pointed out, some aspects of
+this note are about aiding and abetting. And so even referring
+the jury just to instruction number 21 leaves out that aspect
+of the jury's deliberations and their determination on this
+particular issue. And so we think the safest course is to
+provide the jury with applicable law in this area, and they can
+find the facts as they see fit and as they apply to these
+particular instructions.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I don't think this is a
+question about aid and abetting, broadly speaking. I think
+they are talking about the flights to and from New Mexico. I
+think that much is pretty clear from the note. And whether or
+not Ms. Maxwell had anything to do with arranging that
+travel --
+THE COURT: But your legal contention is she can't be
+found guilty of this count unless the jury concludes that she
+aided in the transportation to New Mexico.
+That's not legally accurate, is it?
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the instruction itself says
+it has to be a significant or motivating purpose for the travel
+across state lines.
+THE COURT: Right.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 29
+3135
+MR. EVERDELL: Right?
+The travel back to a place where she is presumably not
+engaging in illicit sexual activity, that is not a significant
+or motivating purpose for that travel.
+THE COURT: You didn't answer my question.
+MR. EVERDELL: Maybe I'm confused by the question,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: To be found guilty on this count, must the
+jury conclude that she aided in the transportation of Jane's
+flight to New Mexico?
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, may I interject myself
+into this conversation?
+THE COURT: If you answer the question, I would value
+it.
+MS. MENNINGER: I will.
+It has to be a place for which the travel was a
+significant or motivating purpose for illegal sexual activity.
+In this hypothetical that they've given in this
+question, they have a comma in two places. The first place
+they have a comma is after the return flight, comma, but not
+the flight to New Mexico, where the intent was for Jane to
+engage in sexual activity, comma.
+So they have excluded out
+where they're hypothetically claiming that the flight to New
+Mexico was the place for which the intent was for Jane to
+engage in sexual activity.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+
+3136
+THE COURT: Wow.
+MS. MENNINGER: And they are asking, Can we find her
+responsible for the return flight, but not that flight to New
+Mexico, where the intent was to engage in sexual activity.
+That's why I think they have written it with the commas as they
+are.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: So they have to be directed --
+THE COURT: Let me try again. Can I get a yes or a no
+to my question? Is it your legal position that the jury must
+conclude, in order to convict on this count, that the defendant
+had to aid in the transportation of the flight to New Mexico?
+MS. MENNINGER: I don't believe that -- no, no, it is
+not my contention.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: And the reason is the indictment does
+not specify New Mexico. It could be a flight to New York, for
+example. It could be a flight to New Mexico. It could be any
+place, the purpose for which was to engage in illegal sexual
+activity. So it doesn't have to be to New Mexico.
+THE COURT: I agree with that.
+This is why it's difficult to parse the question
+without assuming a variety of meanings, and I'm trying to track
+your comma argument.
+MS. MENNINGER: Had they placed the comma after New
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 20 of 29 3137
+Mexico rather than the place where they did put the comma, then
+that would have told us, can't she be responsible for aiding in
+the transportation of the return flight, comma, but not the
+flight to New Mexico, comma. That would then put the where/if
+the intent
+was --
+THE COURT: That would be an entirely different
+meaning to the question.
+MS. MENNINGER: I think so.
+THE COURT: No, I agree. What I don't know is I don't
+know what they meant and I don't know how much weight to put on
+that comma placement; because, as you've noted, that precise
+sentence without that comma has an entirely different meaning.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+And I think at the point at which we're parsing jury
+notes like statutes this finely, I think it illustrates the
+point that this note is confusing; that we're not sure what the
+jury is asking about either factually or legally.
+The question is about the second element; and so we
+think the proper course is to refer the jury to those
+particular instructions. And the jury is free to send a
+clarifying note, if they wish to do so. But I think when we
+are parsing commas this finely in a note that is unclear, it's
+unclear which clauses are modifying which clauses, or which
+flights we're even talking about, I think it's far too
+confusing to give simple answers here.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 29
+3138
+THE COURT: I can't answer this ambiguous question no.
+I don't know that the answer is no, even with the ambiguity;
+because I don't know if what they have in mind is an aiding and
+abetting question, which we haven't discussed yet.
+MS. MENNINGER: They never used the word "abet."
+THE COURT: That's true. I won't assume that's the
+question for purposes of the answer, but I also don't assume
+the meaning that you've put on it for purposes of the answer.
+So the only solution here is to say, I direct you to consider
+the full instruction on Element 2 of Count Four on page 28.
+MS. MENNINGER: Our request would be to emphasize the
+portion of that that talks about the purpose of the travel.
+Because they have highlighted the purpose of the travel in
+their question. And the way I read it is certainly that that's
+their question. If they don't have evidence that the intent on
+the return flight was for purposes of sexual activity, then I
+do think the answer, as Mr. Everdell said is, no, they can't
+convict.
+I have a moment?
+(Counsel conferred)
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to raise another
+issue, but I think we have to, given the note itself.
+One moment. Sorry. The photograph on the phone keeps
+disappearing.
+We're talking about they are referring to Count Four,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+3139
+which is the substantive transportation count, which, as we
+know, has to deal with the violation of New York law. And they
+are talking about flights to New Mexico; and can she be found
+guilty on the second element of Count Four regarding these
+flights to New Mexico.
+So I think we may have to respond to the jury on that
+score as well, which is the fact that they have to be
+considering New York events for Count Four, rather than -- or
+violations of New York law, which wouldn't occur in New Mexico
+for there to be a conviction on Count Four.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we
+proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the
+instruction, which says just that. The second paragraph of
+that same instruction reminds the jury, as the instruction does
+throughout, that we're talking about New York Penal Law,
+Section 130.55. And so I think our proposal remains the same
+that they be referred to the entirety of the instruction, which
+includes that language, among other aspects of this particular
+element.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+I be heard for a moment?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I think the fact that the jury has
+mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New
+York is not just cleared up by referring them to the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 23 of 29 3140
+instruction. Clearly they are making an error concerning which
+state begins with "New." And I suggest that if the Court
+wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up
+the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law,
+not New Mexico law.
+THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them
+to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make
+clear.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+The only illegal sexual activity identified in the
+entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There
+cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular
+charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as
+well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New
+Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly
+that reason.
+MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence
+about how there can be no possible confusion --
+THE COURT: This conversation is stopping.
+My decision is to refer them back to this charge,
+because it is a proper instruction on the second element to
+Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too
+difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking.
+So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them
+back to the count.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+
+3141
+So I'll take any requests beyond simply saying, I
+received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on
+page 28.
+Please consider carefully the full instruction.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Mr. Everdell?
+MR. EVERDELL: That's fine, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. I'll do that. And then -- well,
+let me write it, and then we'll send it back, and then we'll
+discuss -- because we have to bring them in to dismiss them.
+So I received your note. I refer you to instruction
+number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the
+instruction.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR. EVERDELL: Without waiving our prior objection.
+THE COURT: Understood.
+All right. While
+is handing that to the
+CSO, for extending deliberation times going forward.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+We've considered the matter. And the government's
+view is that is within the Court's discretion certainly to set
+a schedule for jury deliberations. Given the circumstances, we
+agree that it's prudent to advise the jury that, barring any
+scheduling complications, they should expect an extended day
+tomorrow.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+3142
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, at this point, because it
+has only been three days, we believe that any suggestion that
+they should stay later is beginning to sound like urging them
+to hurry up, when clearly they know that they can deliberate as
+long as they want and they should be able to deliberate as long
+as they want.
+They haven't expressed any hesitation. They've
+been asking for transcripts, they've been asking for materials.
+While we would not mind the Court giving an
+instruction much like it did last week, telling the jurors that
+should they choose to stay later on any given day, the Court
+can make arrangements for them to do so, we would object to
+trying to urge them to stay later if they are not asking to do
+so and aren't expressing any difficulty in proceeding with the
+deliberations that they are currently undertaking.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the Court has previously
+extended certain days or contracted certain days, depending on
+our schedule; and, in fact, I think the first day of
+deliberations we had an extended day on the consent of both
+parties. We don't believe that sends any kind of signal, other
+than that the Court is setting a schedule. And we think that's
+appropriate here given the circumstances.
+THE COURT: I think what we should do, I'll tell them
+that if deliberations are not complete starting tomorrow, I
+would like you to make yourselves available to deliberate until
+at least 6 p.m. each day. Of course, if you all agree to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+3143
+deliberate later than that, you're most welcome to do so.
+Please
+let me know by note when you wish to stop, but the
+default going forward will be 6 p.m., unless anyone indicates
+to
+that that constitutes a hardship. Okay?
+MS. MENNINGER: That would be our concern, your Honor,
+obviously, that some of them do have hardships.
+THE COURT: As I did last time, I'm going to tell them
+the default will be 6; but if it's a hardship, they should let
+know, in which case -- so, again, the language
+will be, If deliberations are not complete starting tomorrow,
+I'd like you to make yourselves available to deliberate until
+at least 6 p.m. Of course, if you all agree to deliberate
+later than that, you're most welcome to do so. Please just let
+me know by note when you wish to stop. But the default going
+forward will be 6 p.m., unless anyone indicates to
+on their way out that that is a hardship. Okay?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we would object to adding
+the "If deliberations are not complete." I think that any kind
+of suggestion that the deliberations should be resolving by a
+certain time or not resolving could potentially -
+THE COURT: That is the precise language I used last
+week in asking if they wanted to sit on Thursday. It didn't
+cause them to think that they had to complete their
+deliberations.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+
+3144
+MS. MENNINGER: But the rest of the language, your
+Honor, last Thursday was "if you want to." And this one seems
+a little bit more like we're suggesting that you do it unless
+you have a hardship.
+THE COURT: I clearly have discretion to set the
+schedule, there's no doubt about that. And I can do it over
+your objection. So I'm happy to give -- I think we should set
+it as a default, unless there's a hardship.
+MS. MENNINGER: I understand that, your Honor. I just
+would request -- and it's our request that your Honor not
+include the language "unless deliberations are complete."
+THE COURT: I will use the same language that I used
+last week. It's precisely the same language I used on multiple
+occasions without objection. And I don't want them to assume
+that I think it should take longer than that. That's the
+concern. So I don't want them to assume what I'm saying, that
+I'm suggesting it should take longer. I don't want them to
+assume it should take shorter. I'm happy to add, if you want,
+Of course, I don't mean this in any way to pressure you; you
+should take all the time you need.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, very much would appreciate that,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: Ms. Moe.
+MS. MOE: No objection, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: All right. Bring in the jury.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+3145
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: Thank you, everyone. Hi, members of the
+jury. Please be seated.
+I did receive your note asking to finish today at 5,
+so I brought you in to dismiss you.
+A few things.
+Of course, bear all of my instructions in mind.
+Please continue to take precautions in light of the increase in
+the variant. I need all of you here and healthy, of course.
+So take your masks, be cautious. I appreciate that.
+You'll begin again tomorrow at 9 a.m. Same
+instructions: Wait till everyone is there, then begin your
+deliberations.
+If deliberations are not complete starting tomorrow, I
+would like you to make yourselves available to deliberate until
+at least 6 p.m. Of course, if you all agree to deliberate
+later than that, you're most welcome to do so. Please just let
+me know by note when you wish to stop. But I'd like you to
+plan to deliberate until at least 6 p.m.
+As with the last time, if that is a hardship that you
+can't do, let
+know that on your way out and we'll
+adjust. But otherwise, please plan for 6 p.m. Of course, by
+this I don't mean to pressure you in any way. You should take
+all the time that you need.
+With that, I bid you a good night.
+
+
+Page 29 of 29 3146
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Be safe. And we'll see you tomorrow. Thank you.
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: Matters to take up?
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Nothing.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+I'll see you tomorrow.
+Be safe, everyone.
+(Adjourned to December 28, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/010a2ba4dfb64505f2914527bb00e4e76391cdf1dd173c1864e10dfca0f9c47c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010a2ba4dfb64505f2914527bb00e4e76391cdf1dd173c1864e10dfca0f9c47c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b20583cd105703a0220624fcfabff7d74fde3b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010a2ba4dfb64505f2914527bb00e4e76391cdf1dd173c1864e10dfca0f9c47c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -3146,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "010a2ba4dfb64505f2914527bb00e4e76391cdf1dd173c1864e10dfca0f9c47c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 42,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "33535c93ef343ceb571ac0c35251fd32761fb9d9e6384519256082dd04d14aba",
+  "output_sha256": "c269aefd50cc6dc9ab91b508242de121a7d994a0252e272a7b5b2fcc8735d751",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/010d7994615e3df1dbfca456e2d3e5ddf27a67a285154c0a3fcbb493087c5251.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010d7994615e3df1dbfca456e2d3e5ddf27a67a285154c0a3fcbb493087c5251.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..790e52142e3cf5880b5b9cc9d2a69ce529652cb1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010d7994615e3df1dbfca456e2d3e5ddf27a67a285154c0a3fcbb493087c5251.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-57 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-57 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 3
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+ann.borowiec@jpmorgan.com [ann.borowiec@jpmorgan.com]
+11/15/2006 1:47:40 PM
+john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+Fw: Ck siebel
+Attachments: ecblank.gif; pic07239.gif; doclink. gif; C6894824.gif; graycol.gif; pic28074.gif
+I hope you are familiar with the Jeffrey Epstein story where Bob Blanch and Barry Berger went to meet with
+him. At that meeting, Jefficy said he had other clients (besides google founders) that we could help. Howard
+Rubenstein has called Barry saying Jeffrey said he was brilliant. Howard told Barry he is currently not a client
+of the PB. I would guess this is same guy, and he has small relationship with Gloria. This is President of
+Rubenstein Associates. Thave call into Gloria, but I would guess that we need to keep these together.... let's
+discuss. Ann
+-...- Forwarded by Ann Borowice/JPMCHASE on 11/15/2006 08:44 AM -..--
+Maria
+To: Ann Borowice/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE
+ce: "Barry Berger" < barry.s. berger@jpmchase.com>, Pooja X
+Sinha/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE
+11/14/2006 11:11 Subject: Re: Ck siebell]
+AM
+There are 2 Siebel entries for Howard J Rubenstein:
+*Client - Banker is Gloria Fieldcamp - Team is Family Wealth
+* "Do not Solicit" - Law Firm Group
+> RUBENSTEN, HOWARD J.
+RUDENGTEN HOWARD J
+Rubenstein
+Rubenstein
+Howard
+Howard
+Gloria Fieldcamp
+Maria
+Executive Assistant
+JPMorgan Private Bank - New Jersey Team
+225 South Street - 3rd Floor
+Morristown, NJ 07960
+* 973-285-2219 * 212-464-1495
+Ann Borowiec/JPMCHASE
+Do Not Solict
+RUBENSTEIN,HOWA Cient
+Law Firm Group
+Family Weath
+Ann Borowiec/JPMCHASE
+11/14/2006 10:40 AM
+ToMaria
+M-JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE,
+Pooja X Sinha/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE
+ec"Barry Berger" <barry.s.berger@jpmchase.com>
+SubjectCk siebel
+Can you see what you find in siebel for howard rubenstein. Pooja, can you get basic google package together
+here also for barry. thx ann
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00390590
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-57 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 3
+Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00390591
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/010d7994615e3df1dbfca456e2d3e5ddf27a67a285154c0a3fcbb493087c5251.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010d7994615e3df1dbfca456e2d3e5ddf27a67a285154c0a3fcbb493087c5251.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1025d72f7cbbc2a9296b464e061f768ba5c2555
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010d7994615e3df1dbfca456e2d3e5ddf27a67a285154c0a3fcbb493087c5251.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -59,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "010d7994615e3df1dbfca456e2d3e5ddf27a67a285154c0a3fcbb493087c5251",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7508ff93ce9c1977dd84e0128adee2b6362d93609f604b6ba5b5feeba0118e91",
+  "output_sha256": "b8d2501dfd2fc01bb91f0ae477db21687fb853f96733e2edc781982690fffda1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/010e16093d77916bd26282c0b6b326a9d2eec6ce90624ae9890d429ee35caa16.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010e16093d77916bd26282c0b6b326a9d2eec6ce90624ae9890d429ee35caa16.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8806e2f55a93d4349a075d0b103591ed1695427e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010e16093d77916bd26282c0b6b326a9d2eec6ce90624ae9890d429ee35caa16.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 287-2 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 1
+*
+DOBAR
+COURT OF APPENE
+On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
+the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that
+John M Mcnichols
+was duly qualified and admitted on January 10, 2005 as an attorney and counselor entitled to
+practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good
+standing of this Bar.
+In Testimony Whereof.
+I have hereunto subscribed my
+name and affixed the seal of this
+Court at the City of
+Washington, D.C., on August 14, 2023.
+Gula cattle
+JULIO A CASTILLO
+Clerk of the Court
+Issued By
+David
+•- Director, Membership
+District of Colambia Bar Membership
+For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email
+memberservices@dcbar.org-
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/010e16093d77916bd26282c0b6b326a9d2eec6ce90624ae9890d429ee35caa16.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010e16093d77916bd26282c0b6b326a9d2eec6ce90624ae9890d429ee35caa16.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1f06b346e19b66e3cf7feaaf0cd8d14833ba6f9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/010e16093d77916bd26282c0b6b326a9d2eec6ce90624ae9890d429ee35caa16.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "010e16093d77916bd26282c0b6b326a9d2eec6ce90624ae9890d429ee35caa16",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4395a22fc5a76cfa19ca58560b0a2cc6d6efc0d710d820dad6cf55abc6873dda",
+  "output_sha256": "e673b31467e612cc5d2299ec5a1ab933cffce6d1cdc0213cac66af8977325214",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/011924dbd77896cabc1c137d274cc94cc7089c710aecb174e7812b1b4d093fd5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/011924dbd77896cabc1c137d274cc94cc7089c710aecb174e7812b1b4d093fd5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3d952837df0fd9b49a52521ef3e4ef6e225ca5e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/011924dbd77896cabc1c137d274cc94cc7089c710aecb174e7812b1b4d093fd5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 311-26 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+Filed Under Seal
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/011924dbd77896cabc1c137d274cc94cc7089c710aecb174e7812b1b4d093fd5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/011924dbd77896cabc1c137d274cc94cc7089c710aecb174e7812b1b4d093fd5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6778a68d004419d0723320c46d601ac3149e7bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/011924dbd77896cabc1c137d274cc94cc7089c710aecb174e7812b1b4d093fd5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "011924dbd77896cabc1c137d274cc94cc7089c710aecb174e7812b1b4d093fd5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d5fdcf2ede96fa32e784ad99558580d07a6e2ee64602fc4eb15a6e5003673051",
+  "output_sha256": "c256795b19c40e442c3d6c6c541b6d2bf012bb325cb576fc20f4a738280b3da5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01445a5fc1881dbf1a2b948a6600ebf1fef401dbe4575e0998c6e45947f05434.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01445a5fc1881dbf1a2b948a6600ebf1fef401dbe4575e0998c6e45947f05434.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e97e3490b4c2db26240e9694d96ea0fb1bd01f5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01445a5fc1881dbf1a2b948a6600ebf1fef401dbe4575e0998c6e45947f05434.md
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 226-33 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 4
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 226-33 Filed 07/24/23 Page 2 of 4
+Copyright 2010 Newstex LLC
+All Rights Reserved
+Newstex Web Blogs
+Copyright 2010 Jezebel
+Jezebel
+August 4, 2010 Wednesday 1:00 PM EST
+LENGTH: 1373 words
+HEADLINE: The Sex-Trafficking Model Scout [Predators]
+BODY:
+Aug. 4, 2010 (Gawker Media delivered by Newstex) --
+Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier who the FBI believes molested around 40 underaged girls, was assisted by
+a prominent modeling agent and scout. Here's what we know about Jean Luc Brunel.
+Jeffrey Epstein, you will no doubt recall, is the man who thought ferrying Bill Clinton on his private jet, lawyering up
+with superstar Alan Dershowitz, and making frequent $100,000 donations to the Palm Beach Police Department
+would insulate him from prosecution for his various depravities.
+Which included, for the record: buying a 14-year-old Yugoslavian named
+From her parents in
+order to kee
+s his "sex slave"; paying a retinue of women to trawi alm beach for teenagers
+economically desperate enough to agree to give Epstein "massages" that often led to sexual contact; receiving two
+12-year-old
+girls as a "birthday present; and befriending Michael Wolff.
+But as
+wrote at The Daily Beast:
+Perhaps most disturbing, in terms of possible sex trafficking, was Epstein's relationship with Jean Luc Brunel,
+owner of the MC2 modeling agency. According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
+District of Florida, an alleged victim caid that Fa
+, [assistant and girlfriend Ghislaine] Maxwell, Brunel, [house
+manager Alfredo] Rodriguez, and
+eliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring
+minor children through MC2, mosty guns under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money!'
+The FBI investigated Epstein, and identified around 40 underaged victims.
+reports that the FBI is also
+investigating MC2 and Brunel for possibly engaging in child sex trafficking. Since pleading guilty to reduced charges
+of soliciting sex with a minor and serving 13 months of part-time jail, Epstein has become the focus of numerous
+civil lawsuits from his victims. He has so far settled a dozen.
+These same civil complaints allege that young girls from South America, Europe, and the former Soviet republics,
+few of whom spoke English, were recruited for Esptein's sexual pleasure. According to a former bookkeeper, a
+number of the girls worked for MC2, the modeling agency owned by Jean Luc Brunel, a longtime acquaintance
+and frequent guest of Epstein's.
+Brunel, along with numerous young models, was a frequent passenger on Epstein's private jet, according to flight
+manifests. The agency owner also allegedly received $1 million from Epstein in 2005, when he founded MC2 with
+his partner, Jeffrey Fuller; although Fuller and Brunel denied any such payment from the billionaire pervert in 2007.
+when rumors started swirling, I
+money was a secret investment in MC2, or a payment for Brunel's services as a procurer, is unknown. Brunel also
+visited Epstein in jail.
+Confidential - This report is not to be disseminated or photocopied to any third party
+without the express consent of Global Security & Investigations.
+17
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00036596
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 226-33 Filed 07/24/23 Page 3 of 4
+So who is Jean Luc Brunel? Although he did not respond to our interview request, we spoke to a number of people
+who have worked with his agency. While MC2 isn't considered a major industry player, it isn't exactly bottom-shelf,
+either: MC2 in New York most recently launched the career of Latvian editorial star Ginta Lapina (Brunel
+"discovered" Lapina via an MC2 scouting competition for young teens) and currently represents Vogue China
+covergirl Liu Dan. Worldwide, MC2 represents such stars as Sessilee
+in Miami, and top models Candace
+Swanepoel, Marina Lynchuk, Natalia Chabanenko, and Elisa Sednaoui in Tel Aviv.
+Brunel isn't involved with the business on a day-to-day basis, although he owns an 85% stake in MC2. Instead,
+"Right now he does scouting for [the] agency and takes care of the international relations with other agencies,"
+reports one source. Scouts scour the world for un-agented teenaged girls who could make it as models; they work
+largely unsupervised and are generally paid a headhunting fee for every girl an agency signs. Even when affiliated
+for the strength of its international scouting.)
+Models we spoke to report mostly positive experiences with Brunel " one praised his sense of humor and said he is
+"lovely to all of his models," and another described him as highly intelligent and cultured, adding, "he knows a lot
+about the opera and he paints" " although it should be noted that none of the models whom we spoke to had been
+told of either his connections with Epstein, or his past.
+And what a past it is. These accounts from Michael Gross' 1995 book Model describe Brunel's activities in Paris
+from the late 1970s onwards, when he worked for, and eventually owned, the modeling agency Karins, now known
+as Karin Paris:
+"Jean-Luc is considered a danger," says Jérôme Bonnouvrier. "Owning Karins was a dream for a playboy. His
+problem is that he knows exactly what girls in trouble are looking for. He's always been on the edge of the system.
+John Casablancas gets with girls the healthy way. Girls would be with him if he was the butcher. They're with Jean-
+Luc because he's the boss. Jean-Luc likes drugs and silent rape. It excites him."
+"I really despise Jean-Luc as a human being for the way he's cheapened the business," says John Casablancas.
+"There is no justice. This is a guy who should be behind bars. There was a little group, Jean-Luc,
+Varsano...They were very well-known in Paris for roaming the clubs. They would invite girls and put drugs in their
+drinks. Everybody knew they were creeps."
+and
+It should be noted that aside from being a professional rival, Casablancas, the founder of the agency Elite, was
+eventually drubbed out of the industry for his own modelizing. How pervy do you have to be for John Casablancas
+to call you a perv?
+Pervy enough to drug and rape numerous teenagers, according to 60 Minutes and Diane Sawyer, who investigated
+Brunel in 1988. The program interviewed nearly two dozen models who said they had been sexually assaulted by
+Brunel and/or by his fellow agent, Claude Haddad. Even at that time, Brunel had a reputation as a man one could
+go to to procure a "date" with a young model. CBS spoke to five models who said that Brunel and/or his friends had
+drugged and raped them. Said producer Craig Pyes, "Hundreds of girls were not only harassed, but molested."
+When Gross interviewed Brunel, this is what he had to say for himself:
+"You get laid tonight with a model, is that a crime? I don't understand why people go into your personal life, what
+you do yourself, and to yourself, and they don't look at things that are really important."
+Since then, Brunel has been involved with a succession of agencies in New York and Paris. Although the 60
+Minutes scandal eventually led Eileen
+to stop working with him, he continued his involvement with Karins. In
+Confidential - This report is not to be disseminated or photocopied to any third party
+without the express consent of Global Security & Investigations.
+18
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00036597
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 226-33 Filed 07/24/23 Page 4 of 4
+1988, when powerhouse agency Next opened its doors, Brunel took an ownership stake. He also "discovered"
+Christy Turlington when she was 14. MC2 is only his latest venture. Because no criminal charges were ever filed by
+any of his accusers, and because the industry has a short memory " most models working today weren't even born
+when Sawyer and Pyes started looking into Brunel's activities " Brunel has been free to continue as he pleases. A
+citizen, he even avoided testifying in his friend Epstein's trial.
+And so Brunel is still criss-crossing the globe, trawling for 5'10" 13-year-olds from Eastern Europe and (the whiter
+parts of) South America. And apparently taking the occasional ride with them on Epstein's private jet. Is there any
+better argument for the regulation of the modeling industry?
+Image via Models
+Jeffrey Epstein Pedophile Billionaire and his Sex Den [TDB]
+A Sex-Crime Investigation Reveals Jeffrey Epstein's Dangerous Dream World [New York]
+Earlier:
+Pervy Billionaire May Have All The Sex-Trafficking Defense Money Can Buy
+Why Superrich Guys Feel Entitled To Keep Underaged Sex Slaves
+Newstex ID: GAWK-0016-47599781
+NOTES: The views expressed on blogs distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors ("Blogs on Demand®") are
+solely the author's and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Posts from such authors are
+provided "AS IS"
+*, with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Blogs on
+Demand® are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. No
+content on such Blogs on Demand® is "read and approved" before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its
+re-distributors make any claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the
+information contained therein or linked to from such blogs, nor take responsibility for any aspect of such blog
+content. All content on Blogs on Demand® shall be construed as author-based content and commentary.
+Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the quality of the opinions, commentary or
+anything else offered on such Blogs on Demand®. Reader's comments reflect their individual opinion and their
+publication within Blogs on Demand® shall not infer or connote an endorsement by Newstex or its re-distributors of
+such reader's comments or views. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to delete posts and
+comments at its and their sole discretion.
+LOAD-DATE: August 4, 2010
+Confidential - This report is not to be disseminated or photocopied to any third party
+without the express consent of Global Security & Investigations.
+19
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00036598
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01445a5fc1881dbf1a2b948a6600ebf1fef401dbe4575e0998c6e45947f05434.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01445a5fc1881dbf1a2b948a6600ebf1fef401dbe4575e0998c6e45947f05434.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d61a53da99a0b6878ee90a861764c24f2d827b5d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01445a5fc1881dbf1a2b948a6600ebf1fef401dbe4575e0998c6e45947f05434.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -236,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "01445a5fc1881dbf1a2b948a6600ebf1fef401dbe4575e0998c6e45947f05434",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d7673a5ed9ea2b0f7046909d8f418fec25f35dff422088a0abf3bfe96e34e419",
+  "output_sha256": "9d0396b674dff7042a74d3142798c1bf0a698e3c5aa9af7c971924dbaa6643dc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01690063dce7dbdfb7f665f0abb9ac45580a93f34f3e12ef877325e6fe388fee.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01690063dce7dbdfb7f665f0abb9ac45580a93f34f3e12ef877325e6fe388fee.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a66890f3af0ac4a38a8998c964b38c18841af3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01690063dce7dbdfb7f665f0abb9ac45580a93f34f3e12ef877325e6fe388fee.md
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 15
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+Plaintiff,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY
+Third-Party Defendant.
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS'
+REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
+DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 THROUGH &
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 15
+TABLE OF CONTENTS
+INTRODUCTION
+ARGUMENT...
+A. The Government's TVPA Parens Patriae Claims Are Public Enforcement Claims to
+Which the Prohibition of Equitable and Fault-Shifting Defenses Applies
+B. The Government's Alleged Conduct Involves Discretionary Law Enforcement and
+Administration to Which the Prohibition of Fault-Shifting Defenses Applies.
+C. Maintaining JPMorgan's Prohibited Defenses Prejudices the Government.
+CONCLUSION..
+1
+3
+3
+..5
+..9
+.... 10
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 15
+TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
+Cases
+Alfred I. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez,
+458 U.S. 592 (1982)
+City of New York v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,
+314 F.R.D. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
+Coach, Inc. v. Kmart Corps.,
+756 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
+FTC v. Crescent Publ. Grp., Inc.,
+129 F. Supp. 2d 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)
+Goldberg v. Weinberger,
+546 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1976)
+Ludwig v. Learjet, Inc.,
+830 F. Supp. 995 (E.D. Mich. 1993)..
+Nevada v. U.S.,
+463 U.S. 110 (1983)
+Specialty Minerals, Inc. v. Pluess-Staufer AG,
+395 F. Supp. 2d 109 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ....
+State of New York v. Facebook, Inc.,
+549 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C. 2021)
+State of New York v. Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc.,
+862 F. Supp. 1030 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
+State of New York v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,
+160 F. Supp. 3d 629 (S.D.N.Y.2016) ....
+United States v. Wharton,
+514 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975)
+Statutes
+15 U.S.C. § 26
+18 U.S.C. §§ 1581-1597
+18 U.S.C. § 1591
+.3
+4-5,7
+10
+. 2,7
+. 6
+..2
+.. 7
+9-10
+.. 5
+. 5
+4, 5-6
+..6
+..5
+.. 1
+1
+ii
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 4 of 15
+18 U.S.C. § 1591(d).
+18 U.S.C. § 1595(d)
+18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)
+18 U.S.C. § 2346(b)..
+14 V.I.C. § 1724(b)(4).
+17 V.I.C. § 454.
+29 V.I.C. § 543.
+29 V.I.C. § 705.
+10
+1, 3, 5, 10
+4,5
+...4
+..7
+....7
+...7
+...7
+iii
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 5 of 15
+INTRODUCTION
+Plaintiff, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (Government"), claims and
+will prove that Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan") violated the Trafficking
+Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581-1597 ("TVPA"), by knowingly participating in and
+benefitting from Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking and by obstructing investigation through its
+concealment of Epstein's suspicious transactions from law enforcement. Discovery confirms that
+JPMorgan knowingly, recklessly, and unlawfully provided and pulled the levers through which
+Epstein's recruiters and victims were paid and was indispensable to the operation and concealment
+of Epstein's trafficking. JPMorgan had real-time information on Epstein's payments that the
+Government did not and had specific legal duties to report this information to law enforcement
+authorities, which it intentionally decided not to do.
+The Government asserts its claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(d), which specifically provides
+a state attorney general a right of civil action as parens patriae for appropriate relief to protect
+residents who have been threatened or adversely affected by any person who has violated 18 U.S.C.
+§ 1591, as JPMorgan did by participating in and concealing Epstein's trafficking. After the Court
+denied its motions to dismiss, JPMorgan answered the Government's Complaint in part by trying
+to deflect blame and distract attention from its own conduct through affirmative defenses based on
+equitable and fault-shifting doctrines. Since well-established authority in this Court and elsewhere
+holds that these defenses do not apply to a government plaintiff suing to vindicate public interests,
+as here, the Government moved to strike these defenses.
+In its Opposition, JPMorgan doubles down on its efforts to distract and deflect. While the
+Government's Motion raises straightforward questions of law based on authority holding that these
+defenses do not apply to public enforcement claims, JPMorgan's only legal argument in response
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 6 of 15
+is that the Government's TVPA claims are private (not public) in nature, which contradicts both
+the Act and the Court's dismissal opinion holding to the contrary. JPMorgan's Opposition—
+including the 114 exhibits attached largely for purposes of attracting media attention—underscores
+the weaknesses of its legal arguments. A sophisticated, multinational financial organization like
+JPMorgan may not avoid the consequences of its actions by piecing emails together to concoct
+hyperbolic conspiracy theories regarding the Government's conduct. The Government activity
+JPMorgan focuses on—provision of airport security; administering notice requirements for sexoffender travel; scheduling university courses—are precisely the types of discretionary public
+functions to which the prohibition against equitable and fault-shifting defenses to public
+enforcement claims applies. See Ludwig v. Learjet, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 995, 1000 (E.D. Mich.
+1993) ("[D]efendant Fair's duty to supervise the maintenance and operation of the airport is a
+public duty and he therefore is protected from all of plaintiff's tort; claims[.J"); see generally FTC
+v. Crescent Publ. Grp., Inc., 129 F. Supp. 2d 311, 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("As a general rule ...
+neglect of duty on the part of officers of the Government is no defense to a suit by it to enforce a
+public right or protect a public interest.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
+JPMorgan's attempt to portray the Government as identically situated with respect to
+knowledge and facilitation of Epstein's trafficking is not only legally flawed, but also factually
+baseless. Documents and testimony demonstrate that JPMorgan kept Epstein as a client for over
+a decade despite having overwhelming evidence from its internal transaction monitoring of his sex
+trafficking.
+JPMorgan's senior executives broke the rules under the TVPA and otherwise to
+conceal Epstein's suspicious transaction patterns and expand his capacity by opening account after
+account without regard to the trafficking the evidence before them demonstrated. JPMorgan's
+Opposition thus has no legal or factual merit and the Government's Motion should be granted.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 7 of 15
+ARGUMENT
+A. The Government's TVPA Parens Patriae Claims Are Public Enforcement Claims to
+Which the Prohibition of Equitable and Fault-Shifting Defenses Applies.
+The Government's causes of action against JPMorgan arise under the TVPA's express
+parens patriae provision for state attorneys' general, under which:
+In any case in which the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an
+interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected
+by any person who violates section 1591, the attorney general of the state, as parens
+patriae, may bring a civil action against such person on behalf of the residents of
+the State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate
+relief.
+18 U.S.C. § 1595(d) (emphasis added). Notwithstanding the foregoing, JPMorgan's primary legal
+argument in opposition is that the Government "is acting as a private civil litigant subject to all
+applicable defenses." Opp. at 20 (emphasis added). This position is untenable and ignores the
+clear language of the TVPA and this Court's prior ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. The Court
+should summarily reject JPMorgan's attempts to rewrite both the statute and the Court's opinion.
+The TVPA makes clear that a state plaintiff like the Government here does not bring suit
+as a private litigant on behalf of itself. Rather, it sues under section 1595(d) "as parens patriae"
+(i.e., the sovereign) "on behalf of the residents of the State" to "obtain appropriate relief" for "an
+interest of [those] residents" that "has been or is threatened or adversely affected" by JPMorgan's
+prohibited conduct. In denying JPMorgan's motion to dismiss, the Court confirmed this plain
+reading of the statute, finding that the Government satisfies the requirements for parens patriae
+standing, i.e. that it "(1) allege[s] an injury to a quasi-sovereign interest that affects a sufficiently
+substantial segment of its population and (2) seek[s] relief to the territory's injury that would be
+unavailable to individual plaintiffs." Opinion and Order (Dkt. 130) at 17 (citing Alfred I. Snapp
+& Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 607 (1982)). The Court explained that the
+3
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 8 of 15
+Government's "asserted interest in assuring its residents it will act to protect them from the harmful
+effects of criminal sex-trafficking enterprises flourishing in the Islands that are their home is
+indeed general (as all interests that ground parens patriae standing must be)" and that this interest
+"directly parallels the interest that Puerto Rico successfully asserted in Snappl.J" Id. at 18 (internal
+quotation marks omitted).' The Court having found that the Government alleges a generalized
+quasi-sovereign interest and seeks relief beyond that available to individual plaintiffs, JPMorgan's
+contrary argument that the Government is acting as a private litigant necessarily fails.
+The cases JPMorgan relies on are readily distinguishable because they address statutes that
+only permit state governments to sue through private rights of action. State of New York v. United
+Parcel Service, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 629 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) held that equitable defenses were barred
+"as a matter of law" as applied to the state and city plaintiffs' Contraband Cigarette Trafficking
+Act ("CCTA") claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2346 because, "li]n the context of these statutes, the State
+and City are acting in a law enforcement capacity in their roles as government entities" where "the
+claims they assert may exclusively be pursued by local government entities, and not by private
+parties." Id. at 647. This ruling supports the Government's Motion. The Court also held, however,
+that equitable defenses were not barred as to the government plaintiffs' RICO claims, which arose
+under RICO's private cause of action provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), which is "available to any
+aggrieved private party (or local government entity) who meets standing and other requirements"
+so that the "plaintiffs are acting in a role that is more akin to that of a private actor, rather than in
+a role of a public enforcer of the public interest." 160 F. Supp. 3d at 648.2
+' JPMorgan's contention that the Court recognized the Government "as a private enforcer," Opp.
+at 23, cannot be squared with the Court's actual holding that the Government alleges injury to a
+quasi-sovereign interest for which it seeks appropriate relief.
+" See also City of New York v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 314 F.R.D. 348, 358 (S.D.N.Y.
+2016) (striking laches, unclean hands and in pari delicto defenses as to CCTA claim; denying
+4
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 9 of 15
+Here, the Government's TVPA claim under section 1595(d) is one exclusively pursued by
+state governments, and not by private parties, just as under the CCTA. The TVPA makes this clear
+by predicating a state government's claim on its showing that "an interest of the residents of that
+State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who violates section 1591[.J"
+18 U.S.C. § 1595(d).3 The dismissal opinion makes it clearer still that the Government is acting
+in a public enforcement capacity by holding that the Government "allege[s] an injury to a quasisovereign interest" and "seek[s] relief to the territory's injury that would be unavailable to
+individual plaintiffs." Opinion at 18. JPMorgan ignores this clear language and the Court's
+holding in order to smear the Government and its current and former employees. Since the
+Government is enforcing the TVPA in its traditional public law enforcement capacity, JPMorgan's
+equitable and fault-shifting defenses are barred and should be struck.
+B. The Government's Alleged Conduct Involves Discretionary Law Enforcement and
+Administration to Which the Prohibition of Fault-Shifting Defenses Applies.
+JPMorgan correctly recognizes that "defendants cannot 'challenge a government entity's
+decision-making as to when and under what circumstances to enforce a statute[.J'" Opp. at 17
+motion to strike as to RICO claim); State of New York v. Facebook, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 3d 6, 38-39
+(D.D.C. 2021) (equitable detense of laches may apply to state plaintiff's claim under tederal
+antitrust statute where Congress "drew no distinction between states and private litigants: both
+simply came within the statute's authorization of '[a]ny person' to 'sue for and have injunctive
+relief ... against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws."") (quoting 15
+U.S.C. $ 26), aff'd sub nom. State of New York v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 66 F.4th 288 (D.C. Cir.
+2023); State of New York v. Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc., 862 F. Supp. 1030, 1033 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
+(Although the State of New York is a governmental actor, it is considered a private party when
+seeking an injunction pursuant to the Clayton Act.").
+3 Contra 15 U.S.C. § 26 ("Any person, firm, corporation, or association shall be entitled to sue for
+and have injunctive relief ... against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust
+laws[.]"); 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) ("Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a
+violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor ... and shall recover threefold the
+damages he sustains and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee[J").
+5
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 10 of 15
+(quoting State of New York v. UPS, 160 F. Supp. 3d at 640). But that is exactly what it is trying to
+do. JPMorgan's assertion that it intends to use its affirmative defenses "to hold USVI to account
+for participating in and benefiting from Epstein's criminal enterprise, not its failure to prosecute,"
+Id. at 19, fails as a matter of both law and fact.
+First, JPMorgan's "participating in and benefitting from" argument does not find support
+in applicable law governing affirmative defenses to public enforcement claims. JPMorgan cites
+United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975), as purportedly "distinguishing between
+"mere neglect' and "affirmative misconduct"" by the Government. Opp. at 19 (quoting Wharton,
+514 F.2d at 409). The Second Circuit, however, long ago rejected Wharton's analysis of when
+alleged affirmative misconduct—in both cases, misrepresentations to victim plaintiffs—permits a
+party to invoke equity (estoppel) against the government:
+It is well established that estoppel cannot be set up against the Government on the
+basis of an unauthorized representation or act of an officer or employee who is
+without authority in his individual capacity to bind the Government. Although at
+least one court has evidenced a willingness to depart from this principle in certain
+circumstances, see, e.g., United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406, 412-13 (9' Cir.
+1975) [and earlier Ninth Circuit cases], we decline to do so here.
+The government could scarcely function if it were bound by its employees'
+unauthorized representations.
+Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477, 480-81 (2d Cir. 1976) (internal quotation marks and
+separate citation omitted). So too here, the Government could not function as law enforcement
+authority if every alleged misapplication of a regulation or customary practice were deemed to
+abrogate its public enforcement claims. JPMorgan's "affirmative misconduct" argument in support
+of its equitable and fault-shifting defenses thus fails as a matter of law.
+Second, this argument also fails as a factual matter. What JPMorgan characterizes as
+"affirmative misconduct"—alleged mis-enforcement of sex-offender registry travel reporting
+6
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 11 of 15
+regulations; University's scheduling of English as a Second Language (ESL) course; and alleged
+airport security failures
+—is exactly the kind of alleged government negligence or neglect in the
+performance of discretionary duties that is not a basis for a defense to government enforcement of
+public statutory rights. See Crescent Publ., 129 F. Supp. 2d at 324 (""As a general rule laches or
+neglect of duty on the part of officers of the Government is no defense to a suit by it to enforce a
+public right or protect a public interest.*") (quoting Nevada v. U.S., 463 U.S. 110, 141 (1983)
+(internal citation omitted)); City of New York v. FedEx, 314 F.R.D. at 359 ("The core premise of
+the defense is that Plaintiffs were negligent in their discretionary tax enforcement, a contention
+that is impermissible where the government seeks to vindicate the public interest via enforcement
+of a public statutory right."). Although JPMorgan seeks to predicate its defense on the fact that
+prior Attorneys General modified Mr. Epstein's notification requirements as a registered sex
+offender, it fails to advise the Court that Virgin Islands law authorizes the Attorney General to
+modify those requirements "at his discretion." See 14 V.I.C. § 1724(b)(4). Activities such as
+awarding economic development benefits, airport security and provision of classes at universities
+are also expressly permitted under Virgin Islands law. See, e.g., 29 V.I.C. § 705 (enumerating
+"powers and duties" of the Economic Development Commission); 29 V.I.C. § 543 (enumerating
+the "powers" and "purposes" of the Virgin Islands Port Authority); 17 V.I.C. § 454 (enumerating
+the "powers and duties" of the University). JPMorgan's argument amounts to little more than an
+attempt to second-guess the Government's administration of its laws, which is precisely what is
+barred in a parens patriae action like this one.
+While the foregoing suffices to grant the Motion to Strike, the Court also should reject
+JPMorgan's transparent purpose in its Opposition to publicly and misleadingly set up a strawman
+that the Government's conduct and knowledge mirrors JPMorgan's. The evidence shows
+7
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 12 of 15
+otherwise-
+-that JPMorgan had unique real-time knowledge of Epstein's trafficking and payments
+to victims and recruiters and consciously chose to continue to facilitate and conceal these
+transactions in derogation of its legal duties so that his trafficking could continue. This evidence
+includes the following:
+• October 2007.
+Ex. 1 (JPM-SDNYLIT-
+00269651 and attachments);
+• January 2008-
+Ex. 2 (JPM-SDNYLIT-00002141);
+• July 2008--
+(JPM-SDNYLIT-00269848).
+• December 2010-
+Ex. 4 (JPM-SDNYLIT-00194018);
+• January 2011—
+Ex. 3
+Ex. 5
+(JPM-SDNYLIT-00157192);
+• January 2011-
+Ex. 6 (Cutler Dep.) at 343:12-24;
+Ex. 6 (Cutler Dep.) at 363:16-365:24;
+8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 13 of 15
+• July 2011—two years before JPMorgan exited Ep
+Ex. 7 (JPM-SDNYLIT-00274561);
+July 2011
+SDNYLIT-00269848);
+• March 2012
+-over one year before JPMorgan exited Ep
+Ex. 8 (JPM-SDNYLIT-00136519);
+Ex. 3 (JPM-
+June 2013-
+Ex. 9 (JPM-SDNYLIT-00100935);
+• July 2013-
+(JPM-SDNYLIT-00100966);
+Ex. 10
+•
+Ex. 6 (Cutler Dep.) at 421:21-
+429:22.
+In light of the substantial evidence of JPMorgan's knowledge of and participation in Epstein's
+trafficking activity, JPMorgan's attempt to drag the Government into the swamp with it fails
+miserably. It also provides no justification whatsoever for the equitable and fault-shifting defenses
+at issue, which should be struck.
+C. Maintaining JPMorgan's Prohibited Defenses Prejudices the Government.
+A plaintiff is "prejudiced" for purposes of a motion to strike where inclusion of a facially
+deficient defense would require "additional discovery" and/or "expend the length and scope of the
+9
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 14 of 15
+trial." Specialty Minerals, Inc. v. Pluess-Staufer AG, 395 F. Supp. 2d 109, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2005);
+see also Coach, Inc. v. Kmart Corps., 756 F. Supp. 2d 421, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ("Increased time
+and expense of trial may constitute sufficient prejudice to warrant striking an affirmative
+defense."). Both concerns are present in abundance here, as further evidenced by JPMorgan's
+filing of 114 exhibits in response to a nine-page motion.
+JPMorgan's arguments in opposition on prejudice are not substantial. First, it argues that
+there is no prejudice from additional discovery because "fact discovery closes the same day
+briefing on this motion is complete, and USVI has already produced documents relevant to JPMC's
+affirmative defenses (as evidenced in the background provided)." Opp. at 24. The Court should
+reject this argument because depositions are ongoing and maintaining the meritless defenses also
+would expand the scope of expert discovery. Second, JPMorgan argues that Government conduct
+will be at issue at trial regardless of its defenses because it purportedly is relevant to obstruction
+and damages. Opp. at 25. This argument fails because the Government's TVPA obstruction claim
+turns on federal investigations, see 18 U.S.C. § 1591(d) (addressing "[w]however obstructs,
+attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section")
+(emphasis added), while damages are tied not to harm (or alleged benefit) to the Government, but
+to resident victims, see 18 U.S.C. § 1595(d) (Government may bring civil action "on behalf of the
+residents of the State ... to obtain appropriate relief"). Testimony and JPMorgan's 100+ exhibits
+on alleged Government conduct thus would needlessly increase the time and expense of trial, and
+for this additional reason JPMorgan's Affirmative Defenses 5 through 8 should be struck.
+CONCLUSION
+For all of the reasons set forth, the Government's Motion to Strike JPMorgan's Affirmative
+Defenses 5 Through 8 should be granted.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168 Filed 05/30/23 Page 15 of 15
+Dated: May 30, 2023
+ARIEL L
+_. ESQ.
+ATTORNEY GENERAL NOMINEE
+By counsel,
+Is/ Linda
+LINDA
+Admitted Pro Hac Vice
+Motley Rice LLC
+401 9th Street NW, Suite 630
+Washington, DC 20004
+Tel: (202) 232-5504
+Isinger@motleyrice.com
+VENETIA VELAZQUEZ
+Admitted Pro Hac Vice
+Acting Chief, Civil Division
+irgin Islands Department of Justi
+ffice of the Attorney Genera
+213 Estate La Reine, RRI Box 6151
+Kingshill, St. Croix
+U.S. Virgin Islands 00850
+Tel: (340) 773-0295 ext. 202481
+venetia.velazquez@doj.vi.gov
+DAVID I. ACKERMAN
+MIMI LIU (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
+PAIGE BOGGS (Admitted Pro Нас Vice)
+Motley Rice LLC
+401 9th Street NW, Suite 630
+Washington, DC 20004
+Tel: (202) 232-5504
+dackerman@motleyrice.com
+mliu@motleyrice.com
+pboggs@motleyrice.com
+Attorneys for Plaintiff Government of the
+United States Virgin Islands
+11
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01690063dce7dbdfb7f665f0abb9ac45580a93f34f3e12ef877325e6fe388fee.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01690063dce7dbdfb7f665f0abb9ac45580a93f34f3e12ef877325e6fe388fee.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3a37f77cf64fd482e9924792405912d994808f4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01690063dce7dbdfb7f665f0abb9ac45580a93f34f3e12ef877325e6fe388fee.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -184,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "01690063dce7dbdfb7f665f0abb9ac45580a93f34f3e12ef877325e6fe388fee",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 17,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a77b56aecc5f1f5a139f030a6b9273e83bafa9a0ed06c62b4fa914f85fe48c34",
+  "output_sha256": "c96209385ebf8457315bb9b1700cda5a1c4743a510899b33ef157dfc811ebb8e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01778f0a441818fb20c2e6750cf5228da63b8b0268464db4639cccbd9c259169.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01778f0a441818fb20c2e6750cf5228da63b8b0268464db4639cccbd9c259169.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7c59b13c588e0c47cab270c8cf60c9dd08d6a2b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01778f0a441818fb20c2e6750cf5228da63b8b0268464db4639cccbd9c259169.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 158-34 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01778f0a441818fb20c2e6750cf5228da63b8b0268464db4639cccbd9c259169.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01778f0a441818fb20c2e6750cf5228da63b8b0268464db4639cccbd9c259169.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b07abd7ddc78ce3b69402920804629dd309fab4c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01778f0a441818fb20c2e6750cf5228da63b8b0268464db4639cccbd9c259169.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "01778f0a441818fb20c2e6750cf5228da63b8b0268464db4639cccbd9c259169",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b305b076d542589a209c0acc810f5534db040a29c38f6356a197c34e50da8a37",
+  "output_sha256": "aa16be56f71512cf2d18064da40e6e0e2860a7f98665680eb46275afa3f74e0d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01a8f1ced117c97728870ecca18b1850088ce0f1adc4504d7f9095f780912f34.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01a8f1ced117c97728870ecca18b1850088ce0f1adc4504d7f9095f780912f34.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51ad5eb45d61c51965a6ccb7631e9706746b4617
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01a8f1ced117c97728870ecca18b1850088ce0f1adc4504d7f9095f780912f34.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-25 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-25 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 2
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Anne E Verdon (Anne. Verdon@chase.com|
+9/10/20107:03:47 PM
+Bonnie K
+RE: PB Felon Sponsorship
+IX EXHIBT
+-178
+Date:__
+2-1523
+MLG, CSR, RPR, CAR
+I know we got the Epstein approval. I will check for |
+From: Bonnie K
+Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 3:02 PM
+To: Anne E Verdon
+Cc: Kevin McCleerey; James Dalessio
+Subject: PB Felon Sponsorship
+Importance: High
+Hi Anne -
+With the upcoming Internal audit, I conducted a review of sponsorship approvals with regard of PB felons. There are
+two for which I could not find "formal" email documentation to support that we obtained Steve Cutler's
+approval. Please re-confirm these two with him.
+1.
+2. Jeffrey Epstein - In 2009, Mr. Epstein pled guilty and was convicted of a felony charge and served 13 months of
+his 18 month sentence and is currently serving the house arrest portion. Mr. Epstein signed a federal nonprosecution agreement under which he would not be charged with related federal crimes if he successfully
+served out his time and abided by the conditions under the state charges. He also waived his right to contest
+liability and damages in civil lawsuits by 33 minor girls identified by the non-prosecution agreement.
+a. We had an initial Rapid Response on 10/17/06. Follow-up Rapid Response on 7/15/08.
+b. Last Area Head approval - Dustin Kennedy (with a notation w/in the DDR that he confirmed with
+Catherine Keating) on 7/9/10.
+He is the DM of the relationship with total AUM of $112.4MM.
+Thanks,
+Bonnie
+Bonnie K Perry, VP, CAMS | Primate Bank Ril: Mona. &Control
+712 Mait, 4h F, House, IX
+72002 TX2-N0450
+T-l: 713.216-5136
+Fax 713.216-7970
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00731259
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01a8f1ced117c97728870ecca18b1850088ce0f1adc4504d7f9095f780912f34.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01a8f1ced117c97728870ecca18b1850088ce0f1adc4504d7f9095f780912f34.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9eef3c299132fb810d0b0fa200905b49ec0120b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01a8f1ced117c97728870ecca18b1850088ce0f1adc4504d7f9095f780912f34.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -48,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "01a8f1ced117c97728870ecca18b1850088ce0f1adc4504d7f9095f780912f34",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3b7778b9837355abe2b1f84118fbfab3ed31c3d99c68f409948b56d20a8dc8a3",
+  "output_sha256": "5433edf1e09e5418b8f2668de60e3578afc3dbcf53822aa40bfb352cc0292a9c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01b6c1b65a2610bbebf8eeac3645dc19d1e9402cd3e4db6e3628bd511d954d40.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01b6c1b65a2610bbebf8eeac3645dc19d1e9402cd3e4db6e3628bd511d954d40.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..67d3c480d8056edf7265864a6632def3be41a7f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01b6c1b65a2610bbebf8eeac3645dc19d1e9402cd3e4db6e3628bd511d954d40.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-73 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+From:
+To:
+Sent:
+Subject:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-73 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 3
+Staley, Jes <jes.staley@jpmorgan.com>
+"jeevacation@gmail.com sjeevacation@gmail.com>
+2/26/2011 1:13:13 AM
+Re: Fw:
+Family
+From: Jeffrey Epstein
+To: Staley, Jes
+Sent: Fri Feb 25 20:10:44 2011
+Subject: Re: Fw:
+boris would like to speak with
+may i forward
+email to boris
+On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Staley, Jes <jes.staley@jpmorgan.com> wrote:
+----- Original Message --
+From:
+To: Staley, Jes
+Sent: Fri Feb 25 19:47:04 2011
+Subject: RE:
+The Tides Foundation
+55 Exchange Place, #402
+New York, NY 10005-1965
+----Original Message-....
+From: Staley, Jes [mailto:jes.staley@jpmorgan.com]
+Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 6:28 PM
+To:
+Subject:
+Where does Gary work?
+This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
+conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
+securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
+confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
+available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email
+•HỡỆ đũc đưà c đũà ỏ đũệ+ đủàệỏ đủàậỏ HẠỏ đũàậỏ đHẨệỏ+HẠềỏ +HẨ+Ộ ĐũÀỘỏ đũàỆỏ đHẠỆ+ đũàÀ đũạỏ đưà+ đũàậỏ đàỆ+Ộ đũàỏ đũàỏ đũỏ đũàềỏ đũỏ đủàỏ→đôỏ đôềỏ đôềỏ đủổỏ đưôỏ đưỏ đư đà đđà.....*..**.*........********
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00013210
+
+
+he use of the addressee
+Tressee. f is The property of Document 326-13 Filled 09/08/23 Page 3 of.
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01b6c1b65a2610bbebf8eeac3645dc19d1e9402cd3e4db6e3628bd511d954d40.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01b6c1b65a2610bbebf8eeac3645dc19d1e9402cd3e4db6e3628bd511d954d40.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4c770193f4848326b6680171fa75f2d8c739c5ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01b6c1b65a2610bbebf8eeac3645dc19d1e9402cd3e4db6e3628bd511d954d40.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -58,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "01b6c1b65a2610bbebf8eeac3645dc19d1e9402cd3e4db6e3628bd511d954d40",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "030fd675f70e1d1982ed94a79756e2d856fcba8ccb283979157f61b286972b22",
+  "output_sha256": "39cc6e797164165128c7cc5ba225e76497172ef0562a8ce27b1ccaa3c16b00f0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01ee744a44de5976df62e547556c97147ce44e218a2383569446f731b922c459.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01ee744a44de5976df62e547556c97147ce44e218a2383569446f731b922c459.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cc2910142a8f71565db0f557d1b33bda0bf71c24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01ee744a44de5976df62e547556c97147ce44e218a2383569446f731b922c459.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-63 Filed 06/14/23
+_Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-63 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 2
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Cecile de Jongh
+5/26/20154:00:19 PM
+jeffrey E. [jeevacation@gmail.com]
+Re:
+@yahoo.com]
+Importance: High
+Dental Licensure - Donald says that the Rules and Regs are at the AG's office for review. I put a call into Justice
+and they will get back to me with the name of the atty working on the submission.
+Dowe - I understand from Anna that your wheels-down time is at 2:45 and Dowe said that he can meet you at the
+hangar at that time.
+With warm regards,
+Cecile
+On Tuesday, May 26, 201510:22 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:
+can you ask donald and the gov office the status of the dental licensure program, karyna is ready to
+also ask carlton if he would like to see me today at hangar around 230,, will know definit time
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/01ee744a44de5976df62e547556c97147ce44e218a2383569446f731b922c459.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01ee744a44de5976df62e547556c97147ce44e218a2383569446f731b922c459.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..208232e3ed0def8bff358db2886188fa87ea9314
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/01ee744a44de5976df62e547556c97147ce44e218a2383569446f731b922c459.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -661,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "01ee744a44de5976df62e547556c97147ce44e218a2383569446f731b922c459",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.disclaimer-removal.please-note-florida\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a787d65f8ed9c7ad2e761f9471f8a28f16ae35dd03de5a3f7cd46fb62e34a58c",
+  "output_sha256": "ab2ecdf7540ea4ef33dedf3c6305e36529095b1998af42baf817e4592204c240",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02252a6105a43ca62b19762023719e498275dafd48a69036cc7670cca3716c5f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02252a6105a43ca62b19762023719e498275dafd48a69036cc7670cca3716c5f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83df49c450b4b832f6503992834e1fee9654edbf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02252a6105a43ca62b19762023719e498275dafd48a69036cc7670cca3716c5f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-93 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-93 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 3
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+CC:
+Subject:
+Goldberg, Ira - Communication of Counsel (Exchange) [igoldberg@bear.com]
+10/24/2008 3:32:22 PM
+Munowitz, Gary (Exchange) [gmunowitz@bear.com]; Everett, Melissa (Exchange) [meverett@bear.com]
+Mallery, Clifford (Exchange) [cmallery@bear.com]; Waters, Lisa E [lisa.e.waters@jpmorgan.com]; |
+Communication of Counsel (Exchange) [jtcook@bear.com]
+RE: Jeffrey Epstein credit memo & supporting doc
+, Todd -
+Gary
+My understanding is that JPM requires top of the house ok for clients who are convicted felons. (ie PCS Legal to Asset
+Mgt Legal to Cutler to Jaime Daimnon). If you want to keep the account i can call Asset Mgt Legal and get the ball
+rolling. Am awaiting your direction.
+Thx
+From: Munowitz, Gary (Exchange)
+Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:18 PM
+To: Everett, Melissa (Exchange)
+Cc: Mallery, Clifford (Exchange); Goldberg, Ira - Communication of Counsel (Exchange)
+Subject: RE: Jeffrey Epstein credit memo & supporting doc
+The broker would like to continue to handle the accounts. The larger account indicated as having $3mm on the AML
+Diligence report is down to $20k. Let me know what else you require. If there is a firm policy regarding a specific course
+of action let me know.
+Gary F. Munowitz
+Senior Managing Director
+Bear Stearns, a division of J.P.
+383 Madison Avenue
+New York, NY 10514
+Tel: 212 272 4857
+Fax: 917 849 4436
+gmunowitz@bear.com
+www.bearsteams.com
+J.P.
+Securities Inc.
+From: Everett, Melissa (Exchange)
+Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:57 AM
+To: Munowitz, Gary (Exchange)
+Cc: Mallery, Clifford (Exchange); Goldberg, Ira - Communication of Counsel (Exchange)
+Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein credit memo & supporting doc
+Gary,
+This e-mail is a follow-up regarding the AML notification below. I have yet to receive a response regarding how this
+matter will be handled. I need a decision from you regarding this matter before the close of business on Monday, October
+27, 2008.
+If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, please feel free to contact me as soon as possible.
+Regards,
+Melissa
+From: Penzell, Abigail - Communication of Counsel (Exchange)
+Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 1:48 PM
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00892560
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-93 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 3
+To: Munowitz, Gary (Exchange)
+Cc: Goldberg, Ira - Communication of Counsel (Exchange); Mallery, Clifford (Exchange); Everett, Melissa (Exchange)
+Subject: FW: Jeffrey Epstein credit memo & supporting doc
+Good afternoon Gary,
+Attached please find a news brief prepared by the AML. Group and an article from the The Guardian. The client
+is Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Epstein has begun serving an 18-month jail term after pleading guilty to soliciting sex
+from girls as young as 14.
+Please review the attached brief and report back to Melissa Everett by Friday, September 12, 2008, as to
+whether there are any steps that you would wish to consider from a reputational harm perspective. For example,
+you may consider reviewing whether to fire the customer; or, that no further action is warranted based upon the
+current information, etc.
+Best,
+Abigail
+From:
+Estevan (Exchange)
+Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:22 AM
+To: Everett, Melissa (Exchange)
+Cc: Goldberg, Ira - Communication of Counsel (Exchange)
+Subject: Jeffrey Epstein credit memo & supporting doc
+Please find the attached credit memo for Jeffrey Epstein & the supporting article. Thank you.
+Estevan
+320 Park Ave.
+New York, NY 10022
+phone: 212-272-9034
+fax: 917-849-2697
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02252a6105a43ca62b19762023719e498275dafd48a69036cc7670cca3716c5f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02252a6105a43ca62b19762023719e498275dafd48a69036cc7670cca3716c5f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2bdabbf767f66737c1067f5423e572e29e004567
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02252a6105a43ca62b19762023719e498275dafd48a69036cc7670cca3716c5f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -59,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "02252a6105a43ca62b19762023719e498275dafd48a69036cc7670cca3716c5f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "43a1eeef5c64987ab8d8d149c2c917537045e1646fd82f72f653f9d079fc8bda",
+  "output_sha256": "584dc64db88cbe1ec0a47158fa520e231e435feacb14ad372ac745489a420843",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02262d10149f437f9667c1c161768919e03023efb89cf73870b7c01d2223b762.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02262d10149f437f9667c1c161768919e03023efb89cf73870b7c01d2223b762.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f3c12901ae16f24b37ced8a6135005c5812b539
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02262d10149f437f9667c1c161768919e03023efb89cf73870b7c01d2223b762.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 242-48 Filed 07/25/23
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02262d10149f437f9667c1c161768919e03023efb89cf73870b7c01d2223b762.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02262d10149f437f9667c1c161768919e03023efb89cf73870b7c01d2223b762.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c201d85152ba963331798ae38a504d13c9222355
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02262d10149f437f9667c1c161768919e03023efb89cf73870b7c01d2223b762.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -34,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "02262d10149f437f9667c1c161768919e03023efb89cf73870b7c01d2223b762",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6790eb71ef938210d542b867705e2ed2ecac078acd966c20247d862422e2d6b9",
+  "output_sha256": "49a2c8228036768d7072221c582b9bd0624bcd25b3e94508059a882df94effec",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0237e89509b52b92d2a19afe3abdf535c2cfbb6b5569b5dbe62de9ab803df3e8.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0237e89509b52b92d2a19afe3abdf535c2cfbb6b5569b5dbe62de9ab803df3e8.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6b18c2ff903bcf5e2f0c4fa8185777c33932e37
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0237e89509b52b92d2a19afe3abdf535c2cfbb6b5569b5dbe62de9ab803df3e8.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 671 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SNY
+DOCUMENT
+BIC TRONICALLY FILED
+DATE FILED: 6/24/22
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:
+The Government is ORDERED to provide its position on the proposed victim impact
+statements and the Defendant's objections and redaction requests by 5:00 p.m. today, June 24,
+2022. The Government's letter should be docketed with any proposed redactions.
+Defense counsel is ORDERED to docket its letter regarding proposed victim impact
+statements and accompanying exhibits with any proposed redactions by 5:00 p.m. today, June
+24,2022.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: June 24, 2022
+New York, New York
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States Circuit Judge
+Sitting by Designation
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0237e89509b52b92d2a19afe3abdf535c2cfbb6b5569b5dbe62de9ab803df3e8.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0237e89509b52b92d2a19afe3abdf535c2cfbb6b5569b5dbe62de9ab803df3e8.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d408707f235574ce5379154d6c30a9e956ce7a2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0237e89509b52b92d2a19afe3abdf535c2cfbb6b5569b5dbe62de9ab803df3e8.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0237e89509b52b92d2a19afe3abdf535c2cfbb6b5569b5dbe62de9ab803df3e8",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0fc79f48f8acce5ffde5d8403cc6881d0e0249f634c117927ace895cd2b49a23",
+  "output_sha256": "2ca93396410fcc105bf03284594b7ee6c8fb9c20d1c49dcd242c19cdbd9f4aab",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/025226a895026219804f149ccb030647debfd952f7df856c24b0e2422eae5690.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/025226a895026219804f149ccb030647debfd952f7df856c24b0e2422eae5690.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f23fb2b65863a8e72f6bab79e06943c1d752d70d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/025226a895026219804f149ccb030647debfd952f7df856c24b0e2422eae5690.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 226-13 Filed 07/24/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/025226a895026219804f149ccb030647debfd952f7df856c24b0e2422eae5690.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/025226a895026219804f149ccb030647debfd952f7df856c24b0e2422eae5690.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2afdd343b6548a9d77c9eed52f2b31b3e2443668
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/025226a895026219804f149ccb030647debfd952f7df856c24b0e2422eae5690.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "025226a895026219804f149ccb030647debfd952f7df856c24b0e2422eae5690",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4154d80f6131b0323651cb4f1abc4e131f7ac79f4b68d5c697cc38901dec51bf",
+  "output_sha256": "59eae5d9eb0539a77c9f8a84b8fd1a008e8407c0cddc5542c4527d9aaabc7dfe",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02a28a0854e9898d2eae1e86b22c6487ee760131833082d6451fdae36ea709a3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02a28a0854e9898d2eae1e86b22c6487ee760131833082d6451fdae36ea709a3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b12cfcd952dd9f5d5306ac9a3deb6cbc11bfdba1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02a28a0854e9898d2eae1e86b22c6487ee760131833082d6451fdae36ea709a3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3589 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 68
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 68
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+No. 22-cv-10904-JSR
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+Third-Party Defendant.
+THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF CECILE DE JONGH was
+taken on the 29th day of May, 2021 at the Ritz-Carlton
+Hotel, 6900 Great Bay, Nazareth, St.
+U.S. Virgin
+Islands, between the hours of 9:02 a.m. and 2:22 p.m.
+pursuant to Notice and Federal Rules of Civil
+Procedure.
+Reported by:
+DESIREE D. I
+Registered Merit Reporter
+Reporting Services
+St.
+P.O. Box 307501
+• Virgin Islands
+(340) 714-0269
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 68
+government agencies as part of your job?
+How about Port Authority? Was that one of
+16
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+them?
+I did interact with the Port Authority
+more so on the latter part because Mr. Epstein wanted
+a hangar for his helicopter. And -- so, I negotiated
+the lease with the Port Authority.
+Okay. Now, there came a time when your
+husband became governor.
+That was 2007?
+And he served two terms?
+Correct.
+Okay. Did that create any issues given
+your government-facing role for Mr. Epstein?
+I don't understand the question.
+Okay. Well, let me ask it to you this way:
+Did you change how you interacted with the government
+in any way after you had -- after your husband became
+governor?
+I don't think so. With the exception of
+the fact that I would occasionally ask him for
+direction as to who I should go to. You know, if I
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 68
+had an issue, who should I talk to to get something
+done.
+17
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Okay. All right. And did your husband
+have any process for recusing himself from issues that
+related to the company you worked for?
+I don't know if he had any process.
+Okay. You're not aware of any?
+I said I don't know.
+Okay. You're not aware of him recusing
+himself from any issue regarding Mr. Epstein?
+I'm not aware of that, no.
+Okay. All right. Now, when your husband
+became the governor, did you sort of get a second job
+result of that as the first lady of the Virgin
+Islands?
+And what did that job entail?
+Giving a lot of speeches. I mean, he ran
+twice. So he ran in 2002 and lost. I was not very
+involved in that campaign. And between 2002 and
+2006, you know, right after 2002, we discovered that
+our youngest son had some serious health issues.
+So I was very focused on that. We both
+were. And then he subsequently decided to run in
+2006, and I was very involved in making sure that our
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 68
+newsworthy at the time.
+So there was just a lot on
+my plate.
+19
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+And then I was also very involved in the
+National Governors Association.
+THE REPORTER: I'm sorry.
+THE WITNESS: The National Governors
+Association, because a lot of the first ladies
+were involved in mostly of children's
+activities.
+And the thing that I chose to do was to --
+to focus on literacy, because there are many
+children in the Virgin Islands that didn't
+have -- when we would do door-to-door, during
+the campaign, one of the things I discovered
+that a lot of the household didn't have books in
+them.
+So my big project every year was to find
+a local author and have them write a book and give
+the books away for free because I didn't want to give
+toys and I didn't want to give candy.
+And so we'd have holiday parties and
+give away the books. So I would raise money during
+the year for that. And which, you know, took up a
+lot of time. But I also got a lot of requests for -
+just give a lot of speeches.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 6 of 68
+And did you have an office as first lady?
+NO.
+Q. Did you have, like, an office address?
+No.
+Do you have, like, an official Iwitter
+feed?
+Somebody set up a, I think a FaceBook
+something for me. I'm -- I'm not on -- I'm not on
+Iwitter. I actually don't know how Iwitter works.
+And I know that I had -- I had an email
+that was set up for me that I never really used
+because I had to go into the government system and
+then do something else and something else to get into
+it. And so I just asked the head of protocol, Raul
+Carrillo, I said if anything comes in, because it was
+- it was the email address that they would give out
+to people saying, you know, if you want the First
+Lady to, you know, give a speech or show up
+somewhere, you know, email her at this email address.
+And so that was what was done. so I said
+can you just monitor it and if -- you know, just send
+me whatever and I'll see whether it fits into my
+schedule and I would either do it or not do it.
+Okay. And did you have any staff that
+helped you in your role as First Lady?
+20
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 7 of 68
+Well, I had the chief of protocol. But
+everybody -- all those people worked for Government
+House. So it was the expectation that if there was a
+social event -- if there was a social event, I was
+responsible for it. I found it sometimes very
+misogynistic.
+Sure.
+But it was what it was. That if - you
+know, if there was going to be sort of an event after
+the State of the Territory, that I should be pick the
+caterer, I should do this, you know.
+And so the chief of protocol had one or
+two staff members, and so I would have - you know, I
+would run over to Government House and say, okay,
+what are we doing? You know, who are we inviting?
+And they would sort of handle everything.
+But they worked for -- they didn't
+exclusively work for me. They worked for Government
+House.
+21
+Got it. All right. Let's 100k at
+
+•: Tab 3, Exhibit 1.
+MR. NEIMAN: Yeah, Tab 3. I will ask
+the reporter to mark as Exhibit 1 a one-page
+document.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 8 of 68
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) All right. Ms. de Jongh,
+I handed you a one-page document, which is the Twitter
+printout for ceciledeJongh@firstlady.vi. Do you see
+that?
+22
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+You recognize that?
+This is a Iwitter account?
+It is.
+Okay. But I never -- these aren't -- this
+is not something that I typed up.
+All right. So you can see in the -- at the
+sort of top half of the page there's a picture; right?
+That's you?
+That is me.
+2.
+Okay. And it says under that that it's the
+official Iwitter account of U.S. Virgin Islands' First
+Lady, Cecile de Jongh. Do you see that?
+Em-hmm.
+And then it indicates that it was joined in
+September of 2012? You see that?
+And that was during the time when you were
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 9 of 68
+the first lady?
+Correct.
+Q. And then there's a bunch of Tweets?
+Right.
+Do you know who wrote them?
+I don't.
+Would it had been somebody working for the
+government?
+the government, yeah.
+It might have been somebody working for
+Okay. You didn't hire someone separate
+from the government to manage this?
+I didn't have money to do that.
+Sure. Sure. Okay.
+Just -- I mean, there's no office of the
+first lady with a budget. There was -- there was
+nothing.
+Okay. So let's take a look at -- I show
+you another document which we will mark as Exhibit 2.
+MR. SCHIFFMAN: Is it possible to share
+these through chat at the same they're being
+introduced so that we could -- I'll look at
+them as well online.
+MR. NEIMAN: Sure.
+Okay.
+23
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 10 of 68
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. I placed in front
+of you, Ms. de Jongh, Exhibit 2, which is a printout
+from the archives of the internet of the official
+website of the Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
+Do you see that?
+Yes. Eh-hmm.
+And this announces that you had your own
+website. Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm.
+Do you recall that?
+I recall that, yeah.
+MR. SCHIFFMAN: I'm sorry, counsel, was
+there an answer to that question as to whether
+documents are going to be shared in the chat?
+MR. NEIMAN: Yeah. The answer was yes.
+MR. SCHIFFMAN: Okay. I'm sorry. I
+just missed it.
+MR. NEIMAN: And it's in the chat now.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. Sorry to
+interrupt. We were talking about the website. Tell
+us about the first lady website that was set up.
+That was something I think the P.R., that
+the governor's P.R. department, John Greaux and his
+24
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 11 of 68
+staff put up because I was, you know, I was doing
+things. So they wanted to put it out there.
+Q. Right. And you mentioned that you had to
+give a lot of speeches in this -- in this job. Did
+you have someone who could write the speeches for you?
+Yeah. Julia, I can't remember her
+last name, worked in the P.R. department. So a lot
+of times I would draft something and I would send it
+to her and say, you know, what are your thoughts.
+And she would clean it up and send it to me, and
+that's how it was done.
+Okay. And Julia was an employee of the
+government?
+Correct.
+Okay. And if you look at this little
+printout, you could see it says, "First Lady Launches
+Website."
+25
+Eh-hmm.
+And then in the second paragraph, there's a
+little quote attributed to you. Do you see that?
+And it says at the bottom, that "It's
+important that residents and other interested
+individuals have access to the ongoing work of the
+first lady on behalf of all Virgin Islanders."
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 12 of 68
+Do you see that?
+Q. Is that sort of how you saw your role as
+working on behalf of all the Virgin Islanders?
+e. Okay. All right. And you can see that to
+the left there there's a little box that says "Office
+of the First Lady."
+Eh-hmm.
+Do you see that?
+And then there's a phone number and a --
+I'm sorry, yes.
+Yeah, she can't write it down unless you
+26
+say it.
+Yes. I know, yes.
+Let me just say one other thing, very
+normal in regular conversation for us to kind of both
+be talking at the same time?
+I apologize.
+Super hard for her.
+So I will try not to -
+And I will try as well.
+Great. So you can see in this box it says
+"Office of the First Lady, " and then there's an
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 13 of 68
+27
+address listed. Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm. Yes.
+Q. And that's the address where the governor's
+office is?
+Correct.
+Okay. And there's a phone number and a fax
+number there as well. Do you see that?
+And who would answer if that phone number
+was called?
+Government House.
+That's -- that's the same number as
+Okay. That's the general switchboard
+number for Government House?
+you, eventually?
+Okay. And would that call find its way to
+Yes. I didn't work at Government House.
+THE REPORTER: I'm sorry.
+THE WITNESS: I didn't work at
+Government House.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. So if someone
+called the number that the website is saying is the
+number for the office of First Lady, what happens?
+They would probably get Raul Carrillo or
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 14 of 68
+No.
+Do you remember a person named
+The name I do recognize, yeah.
+?
+What do you remember about this person,
+42
+?
+The thing I remember correctly is there
+was a
+who was, when I was out getting my knee
+replacement in 2017, I was gone for a while, and I
+came back, and I think Jeanne told me that there was
+a
+who was going to be working with us. And I
+said, who? And then -- who -- who worked with us.
+And by the time I came back, she was off and on the
+payroll.
+You mean she had gone on the payroll and
+then off the payroll?
+weeks?
+And you were in New York for, like, two
+No. I was gone for about a month.
+About a month.
+And am I correct that you stayed in an
+apartment provided by Mr. Epstein in New York?
+Correct.
+Did you know anything about the other
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 15 of 68
+51
+THE WITNESS: Yes.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) I know it's hard. At the
+top, there's an email from you to Mr. Epstein and
+copied to Mr. Kahn, correct?
+Okay. And you will see at the bottom
+Mr. Epstein is asking you something about whether
+there's an CB5 visa regional center in the V.I. Also,
+tuition is approved. Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm. Yes.
+Okay. So what is that -- what is he
+talking about there, first, with the CB5 visa regional
+center?
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+As I sit here now, I don't know.
+Okay. And then you will see it also says
+"Also tuition is approved."
+Do you see that?
+What's that talking about?
+That's probably tuition for our kids.
+And am I correct that Mr. Epstein paid the
+college tuition of your children.
+Of mine and everybody else who had kids at
+Financial Trust, yes.
+Who else's tuitions did he pay other than
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 16 of 68
+60
+really can't do anything to influence -- can't do
+anything or influence Hancock since this the private
+sector issue.
+Do you see that?
+l. Who is Kenn Hobson?
+I think was the head of VIPA at the time.
+Q. Got it. And you say, "This is why Kenn
+gave us a possible alternative."
+Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm. Yes.
+What are you referring to there?
+Well, I think that's referring to -
+To item 2 in the previous email?
+Okay. And then you go and say, in the next
+paragraph of your email, in Exhibit 9, that, "John has
+said if you get the fuel prices together to show how
+Hancock is gouging, he can take it to VIPA board.
+Thoughts on this."
+Do you see that?
+So you're bringing up, again, the point you
+made in the prior email that one way to deal with this
+issue was to have your husband, the governor, take it
+to the VIPA board, right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 17 of 68
+anybody about getting it approved.
+It was presented, I think, by Mr. Epstein
+and Erika Kellerhals at the time.
+Q.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. I think my question
+to you was did you stay out of it entirely?
+A. I did. I did stay -- well, yes. The
+answer is yes, I stayed out of it.
+All right. Let me show you a document
+marked -- I will have the reporter mark as Exhibit 14.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 14 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) And you will see that
+Exhibit 14 is an email exchange involving Carol
+Chapman,
+Do you see that?
+Nugent-
+And Carol Chapman worked for the Economic
+Development Authority, correct?
+I don't know her.
+Clouden, though?
+I do.
+You don't know her. You know
+He was who?
+I think he was the executive director, I
+think is the right term. Right. Yeah. I think it's
+80
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 18 of 68
+81
+the right title.
+0.
+He was the executive director of the
+Economic Development --
+-- Agency?
+Yes. I believe so, at the time.
+Okay. And Jennifer Nugent-
+Development?
+Honestly, I don't know what her title was.
+She also had a role with the Economic
+But she worked there, yes.
+Okay. And let's take a 1o0k at
+Ms. Chapman's email to
+•. In the middle of the
+page she writes, "Hope you had a great Christmas and
+birthday. The CEO called a few moments ago and asked
+me to give you his best regards."
+Do you remember who the CEO was?
+No, I don't.
+Okay. All right. You certainly would have
+known at the time who the CEO of the EDC was.
+I don't recall.
+Okay. But I mean, you were a pretty senior
+person --
+-- on the island with lots of contacts.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 19 of 68
+Did you know at the time, even if you can't remember
+today who it was?
+A. I would probably know then, yes.
+Q.
+And you'll see that what
+writes is
+that, "The CEO called a few minutes ago, asked me to
+give you his best regards."
+And then it goes down to the next
+paragraph, "He asked me to let you know he had a
+call from the First Lady, and she has asked that
+Epstein be on the board agenda at the public
+hearing for the January 9th meeting."
+Do you see that?
+So, what|
+is relating is that you
+had made a phone call to the CEO of the EDC, right?
+Do you have any reason to dispute that?
+Nope.
+Okay. And the purpose of your call was to
+get an issue related to Mr. Epstein's certificate in
+front of the agency, right?
+MS. BOGGS: Objection. Mischaracterizes
+this document.
+THE WITNESS: The EDC was notoriously
+always postponing, postponing, postponing.
+82
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 20 of 68
+83
+And so I can only sitting here today assume
+that either Erika Kellerhals or -- said, can
+somebody please make a phone call to see if we
+can get on somebody's agenda so we could get
+this over with.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) And you made the call?
+I made the call.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 15 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) All right. Let's take a
+100k now at -- all right. Ms. de Jongh, I'm handing
+you a document marked Exhibit 15.
+And Exhibit 15 is a 2010 email exchange
+between you and Jeffrey Epstein.
+Do you see that?
+Yes, I do.
+And at the bottom of the page, Mr. Epstein
+is asking you who is in charge of Customs in the
+Virgin Islands.
+Do you see that?
+And am I correct that although the Virgin
+Islands is part of the United States, it's not part of
+the United States. It's customs zone.
+Correct.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 21 of 68
+And that means that even if you're coming
+from the United States and going back to the United
+States, you have to clear Customs before you get on a
+plane and go back to the United States.
+Correct.
+l. And so if Mr. Epstein had guests with him
+and they were flying on his plane back to the United
+States, they'd have to go through Customs before they
+left?
+84
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Correct.
+So Customs would see whoever was with
+Mr. Epstein on his plane?
+MR. TEAGUE: Objection, form. You could
+answer.
+THE WITNESS: I would -- I guess I would
+assume so. I mean, I never been on his plane,
+so I don't know.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Sure. But according to
+how the rules work, that's how it would work?
+I mean, whenever I leave here I have to go
+through customs.
+Okay. And Mr. Epstein is writing to you
+and asking you who was in charge of customs for the
+Virgin Islands?
+Eh-hmm.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 22 of 68
+85
+MR. TEAGUE: You to answer out loud.
+THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yes.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. I'm sorry. And
+that's a federal official?
+Okay. And he writes, "I used to have great
+relationship with Gloria Lambert, the airport
+supervisor."
+Do you know who Gloria Lambert is?
+No, I do not.
+Okay. And he writes, "I would like to know
+who is now in her place or her boss with Kenn Hobson
+now." Do you see that?
+I see that.
+"There is a Mr. Carpenter who has been
+difficult lately; not sure why."
+Do you know who Mr. Carpenter was?
+I do not.
+Okay. And then you write back on this
+request from Mr. Epstein to find out whose running
+Customs in the Virgin Islands. You say, "I spoke to
+Kenn. " Do you see that?
+A. Yes.
+Q. So Mr. Epstein had this question about who
+is running Customs and wondered whether Kenn Hobson
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 23 of 68
+would know. And you followed up with Kenn Hobson?
+Correct.
+Q. And Kenn Hobson
+was running the Port
+Authority at the time?
+Correct.
+e. And the Port Authority would have
+interactions with Customs?
+I would assume, yeah, they would.
+l. Right. And in fact, Mr. -- when you --
+withdrawn.
+86
+When you spoke to Mr. Hobson, he told
+you who was running customs in the Virgin Islands,
+this Mr. Harrigan, right?
+And then you forwarded that information on
+to Mr. Epstein. Do you see that?
+And do you know anything about what the
+nature of Mr. Epstein's relationship was with
+Mr. Harrigan?
+I do not.
+Do you know whether Mr. Epstein gave gifts
+to the folks at Customs?
+I am not aware. I was not involved. I
+know that -- I think he asked me once about my
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 24 of 68
+thoughts of giving turkeys or something, but other
+than that.
+Q. Okay. You remember Mr. Epstein asked you
+if you thought it was okay for him to give a turkey to
+all the people who work at Customs at the airport --
+I vaguely remember that.
+-- people who would see who was on his
+87
+airplane?
+Yeah. I vaguely remember that, yes.
+And you said that was okay?
+Yeah. I mean --
+Did you check with anyone first before you
+gave that advice?
+Well, down here, people usually give gifts
+to people at Department of Finance, they give, you
+know, they give gifts to people who they normally
+interact with on a regular basis.
+You know, it's similar to, you know,
+when, you know, my brother-in-law lives in a building
+where everybody gives a gift to the doorman, you
+know. So that's where I was thinking, I had no
+reason to think anything untoward was happening.
+Sure. But you would recognize that Customs
+officials are not like the doorman in your building.
+They are law enforcement officers, right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 25 of 68
+88
+Correct. But--
+And so my question to you was did you check
+with anyone before you told Mr. Epstein it was okay to
+give this gift to the Customs official who could see
+who was on his plane?
+Well --
+MR. TEAGUE: Objection to form. You can
+answer.
+THE WITNESS: No, I didn't check with
+anyone, but it doesn't matter whether I
+checked with anybody or not. It was his
+decision whether he wanted to do that or not.
+It wasn't my say-so.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. But you thought it
+was okay?
+to do.
+I just said, okay, if that's what you want
+Did Mr. Epstein have relationships with
+other governors besides your husband?
+MS. BOGGS: Objection, vague.
+MR. TEAGUE: Objection, form.
+Mischaracterization. You can answer.
+THE WITNESS: Yes.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Which other governors did
+Mr. Epstein have relationships with?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 26 of 68
+Governor Mapp and Governor Bryan.
+THE REPORTER: With who?
+THE WITNESS: Bryan.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) What was the nature of
+Mr. Epstein's relationship with Governor Mapp as you
+perceived it?
+Well, Governor Mapp was not a friend of
+mine.
+Okay.
+And which reason I am pretty sure you are
+aware. But I was just aware of the fact that he
+visited the island a few times, and that -- I think
+that I was co'd on a few emails of schedules of
+meetings and things like that. But I was never
+involved in any meetings, never, you know,
+participated in any of the meetings, and I never knew
+whatever it is they talked about.
+I do know that -- and I don't know the
+dates. I could only say that it's -- I think Mapp
+got into office in 2015 and he was out in 2018. That
+Mr. Epstein visited him at Government House once, but
+I don't know when. So that's the nature.
+Okay. And you said that Governor Mapp was
+not a friend and that I would know why. What were you
+referring to?
+89
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 27 of 68
+Well, the fact that shortly after my
+husband left office he had him arrested.
+THE REPORTER: I'm sorry.
+THE WITNESS: He had him arrested.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) For what?
+Because we decided not to live in
+Catherineberg because it was mold infested and I
+didn't want my children living there. So we decided
+to live in our own home.
+And they put up a security -- a little
+security house and a fence, and got the funding
+through -- they passed it through the legislature.
+And for political reasons, people made |
+of it.
+And my husband, you know, three or four
+years before he came out of office said, it's okay,
+when we get out of office, I'll just pay everything
+back, which we were in the process of doing, and
+Governor Mapp decided that, I believe because he
+never wanted my husband to ever run again decided to
+arrest him.
+What happened?
+And what happened was that they then said,
+well, you don't want to go to jail, just pay all this
+money, which was about a hundred and something
+thousand dollars more than what we determined was the
+90
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 28 of 68
+depreciated value. And we had a certain -- date
+certain that we had to pay it back.
+So what happened?
+We paid it back.
+Where did you get the money to do that?
+We got some money from my mother's trust
+and Mr. Epstein called me up and said, "Is everything
+okay, what's happening?" And I said this is the
+position we're in, and we're going to refinance our
+house for the rest of the money, but I don't think
+that we're going to be able to do it in time.
+So he offered to lend us the money,
+which he did immediately. I asked him if we could
+pay it back within three
+years, and he said, "No, you
+have to pay it back within a year, with interest."
+And so he did that and we paid it back.
+Okay. So about how much money did
+Mr. Epstein loan you at this time?
+200,000.
+How did you pay it back?
+We refinanced our house. We took out 150
+- we got - we were able to get $150,000 out. We
+paid. And then I for -- I had to forego any bonuses.
+And then the rest of it, we paid out of pocket.
+Okay. So a portion of the repayment was
+91
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 29 of 68
+92
+foregoing bonuses you might otherwise have earned from
+your job?
+Well, it would be just give me the bonus
+and I had to write a check and pay it back.
+Okay. About how much of the repayment came
+from these bonuses?
+20,000.
+All right.
+How about Governor Bryan, what
+was the relationship between Mr. Epstein and the
+current governor?
+I sort of had less knowledge of what was
+going on there. Erika Kellerhals was close to
+Governor Bryan. I mean, I've known Governor Bryan,
+obviously, because he was commissioner of Labor under
+my husband, and he sat on a committee that I ran.
+THE REPORTER: That I --
+THE WITNESS: Pardon.
+THE REPORTER: It sat on a committee
+that --
+THE WITNESS: That I ran. Children's
+Cabinet that I ran.
+And -- but I knew that Erika Kellerhals
+had arranged some meetings with him.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. Some meetings
+between Mr. Epstein and Mr. Bryan?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 30 of 68
+93
+Correct.
+What is this Children's Cabinet that you're
+referring to?
+It's something that other states had done
+and we tried to replicate it here where we were --
+you know, we have Department of Education, Department
+of Labor, sort of heads of all the -- all the
+departments -- not all departments, but departments
+that deal with children. Police department. And we
+would come together, like, every two months. And so
+they'd help me with my book drives.
+We did things, like, I would go to
+department of -- the police department and talk to
+the police about ADD and ADHD and how that affected
+especially young boys, and that their acting out
+wasn't necessarily something that they needed to get
+arrested for, go to juvie, but to sensitize the
+police on how to treat children with that, especially
+because, you know, it was more prevalent, especially
+with ADHD, more prevalent in boys.
+We worked with the NEEKC Foundation on
+early childhood education, and got implemented that
+all the early childhood centers, one of our goals was
+to make sure that every child caretaker, at least,
+had a high school degree, and that they worked
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 31 of 68
+towards an associate degree because, you know, in the
+Virgin Islands, at the time that we -- you know, that
+John got into office, it was felt that people would
+focus more on education in high school years, and
+that really what we should focus on is, the most
+important thing was zero to five.
+And that if we had a solid zero to five,
+then those kids could learn anything anywhere. And
+that we wanted to sort of flip the dynamic. And in
+order to do that, we had to get everybody on board
+for that.
+94
+So we held quite a few symposiums on
+that, and in acting with the NEEKC Foundation. And
+so those were some of our goals.
+Okay. And you were the chair of the
+children's Cabinet?
+And this was -- the other members of this
+cabinet were senior government officials?
+Correct.
+And then you ran it?
+Okay. And that Children's Cabinet helped
+to implement the government's policy?
+Yes. Well, we tried to make sure that we
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 32 of 68
+95
+were in sync with government's policy.
+THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, in sync?
+THE WITNESS: In sync with the
+government's policy.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) And as you were talking
+sort of this focus on early childhood, that was an
+example of kind of implementing what the government
+wanted to do?
+Correct.
+Okay. So, do you recall Mr. Epstein being
+influential in who the current governor appointed to
+various positions?
+MS. BOGGS: Objection, form.
+THE WITNESS: Of him being influential?
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Yeah.
+I would make some sort of recommendations
+of, you know, who I thought would be good in terms
+of - because what he was -- seemed to be mainly
+concerned about was being able to build whatever he
+wanted to build on Little St. James. That was always
+a point of contention for me and for Erika because,
+you know, we never went over there. So he would
+build whatever he would build. Some with permits;
+some without.
+DPNR would find out. They would get
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 33 of 68
+upset. We'd say, you know, here we are again. He
+would get fined, you know, we call it a NOVA, Notice
+of Violation.
+96
+I think he was -- got a Notice of
+Violation like three or four times under John's
+administration. I don't know about under Mapp's
+administration.
+The other thing that was very important
+to him was being able to get a hangar down at the --
+at the airport.
+He -- as I told you earlier I worked out
+a lease which took two long years to get -- for his
+helicopter, and then he subsequently wanted to be
+able to get a lease, or have a hangar built for his
+plane.
+l.
+Authority?
+hangar.
+Okay. So he cared who was running the Port
+Because he wanted to be able to build a
+All right. And you remember enlisting
+Mr. Epstein to support a particular candidate to
+become the head of the Port Authority?
+Tell me about that.
+Just, he seemed to have the ear of Albert
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 34 of 68
+97
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Bryan.
+Who seemed to have the ear?
+Jeffrey Epstein.
+Eh-hmm.
+And so I just said, you know, that Carlton
+Dowe would probably be, you know, best for you in
+terms of being able to get the hangar that you want.
+Okay. And you say that Jeffrey Epstein
+seemed to have the work of -- the ear, right --
+withdrawn.
+Let me start again.
+You said that Jeffrey Epstein seemed to
+have the ear of Governor Bryan. What did you mean
+by that?
+Well, he -- I knew that - I knew that
+they spoke. And when Governor Bryan was setting up
+his cabinet, and I knew that -- I knew that Carlton
+Dowe wanted -- I think he was there before, Mapp let
+him go, and he wanted to go back. And I thought he
+did a brilliant job when he was there before, and he
+would probably do a brilliant job again. And that he
+would probably - you know, he seemed to be more
+business friendly rather than status quo.
+When he was there before, he'd, you
+know, put in all these beautiful palm trees and
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 35 of 68
+certainly made, you know, just made the place 1o0k
+welcoming.
+98
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+And, you know, right now he's, you know,
+putting in new parking, it's -- you know, it's going
+well. And so I just thought, you know, this is
+probably the guy that you would want to talk to to be
+able to build a hangar.
+And so you suggested to Mr. Epstein that he
+talk to Governor Bryan about appointing Mr. Dowe?
+2.
+Because you thought that Mr. Epstein might
+be able to be helpful in getting Mr. Dowe appointed?
+Yeah. Yes.
+Okay. And Mr. Epstein agreed to do that?
+And he spoke to the governor about it?
+That I don't know. He didn't -- he -- he
+rarely ever came back -- circled back to me and told
+me what he spoke about.
+Got it. Okay. So let's take a 100k at
+what we will mark Exhibit 16.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 16 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Exhibit 16 is a 2018
+email exchange between you and Jeffrey Epstein,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 36 of 68
+101
+Well, yeah, I know that Carlton had been
+appointed.
+e. Do you remember --
+A. I do recall that one of the reasons why it
+was necessary to do -- well, we felt it was necessary
+to do that is because Erika Kellerhals was,
+obviously, Mr. Epstein's attorney, and Mr. Epstein
+told me that she was dead set against Mr. Dowe
+being -- going back to the Port Authority. And so
+that was why we -- you know, why I said, hey, if you
+can give him a good word, give him a good word,
+because I know that Erika Kellerhals was saying
+something else.
+Got it. So this was a situation where it
+was not a sure thing that Mr. Dowe would get this job?
+Correct?
+Correct.
+And you thought Mr. Epstein could be
+influential in getting him the job?
+Well, I knew that he listened a lot to
+Erika.
+Who listened a lot to Erika?
+A. Mr. Epstein.
+I see. So you were trying to persuade him
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 37 of 68
+102
+to back somebody that your thought Erika was trying to
+persuade him not to back?
+Right.
+I see.
+It's a small island.
+Understood. Okay. Tell me who Celestino
+is?
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+He's a former senator here. I can't
+remember how many terms. Maybe ten terms here.
+Okay.
+And he became a consultant.
+Did he do work for Mr. Epstein?
+He did.
+What was the nature of the work that
+Celestino
+did for Mr. Epstein?
+He started out doing work for - actually,
+for Andrew Farkas. The second time that John -- that
+my John ever met with Mr. Epstein was in 2014, I
+think.
+Mr. Farkas was very, very, very upset
+and livid that when taxi drivers got picked up from
+WICO dock, that they would completely bypass Yacht
+Haven Grande and go straight to town.
+And he had all these shops and every --
+you know, invested all of this money. And also that
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 38 of 68
+106
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+people.
+Okay. And that -- but Celestino
+was
+the specific recommendation of one person who might
+fit that role?
+And that Mr. Farkas and Mr. Epstein,
+therefore -- thereafter, hired Mr.
+?
+Okay. Do you know how much they paid him?
+No. That - no, I don't.
+Does your husband have any kind of
+financial relationship with Mr. I
+A. No.
+Q. Do you have any kind of financial
+relationship?
+No, I do not.
+Okay.
+But may I complete my --
+Sure. Go ahead.
+So -- and then subsequent to that,
+Mr. Epstein did hire Celestino
+to - he came up
+with the idea that he wanted to change the name of
+Little St. James to Little St. Jeff.
+And he asked me, and I said I have no
+clue how one would go about doing that. And so he
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 39 of 68
+107
+called up Celestino L
+and went and did a contract
+with him. And Celestino presented something, and my
+-- did my own --
+THE REPORTER: I'm sorry.
+THE WITNESS: Presented, did a -- did a
+written proposal or something, and it kind of
+died there.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. Did you ever
+recommend Celestine [
+to Mr. Epstein?
+I think might I have recommended it for
+the Little St. Jeff thing.
+For anything else?
+Not that I can recall.
+Okay. Let's take a look at a couple of
+documents. First, let me show you what 281.
+I'm going to ask the reporter to mark as
+page 18, a one-page document.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 18 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) All right. And this is
+an email from you to Mr. Epstein on February 11, 2015.
+Do you see that?
+Yes. This was Little St. Jeff.
+2. Let me just ask the questions so I make
+sure I got it.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 40 of 68
+108
+All right.
+So this is in February of 2015?
+And you're recommending to Mr. Epstein that
+he put Celestino on what you call a monthly retainer,
+correct?
+Eh-hmm.
+What did you mean by that?
+MR. TEAGUE: You have to answer out
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+loud.
+THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yes.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) What did you mean by a
+monthly retainer in this context?
+Because I knew Celestino wouldn't do
+anything for cheap.
+Okay. What do you mean by that?
+I just knew he wouldn't, you know -- if
+you paid him $2,000, he would be, like, he's not
+going to do anything much, but, you know, that's --
+and when he wanted to do Little St. Jeff, this is
+probably the person that you -- and, you know, the
+one thing that I knew, if you wanted to change a name
+you have to go to the legislature to do that.
+And I am just said, I'm not the person
+to go down to the legislature to convince somebody to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 41 of 68
+109
+change the name an island.
+I got it. And you write that after you say
+you should consider putting Celestino on some sort of
+monthly retainer, you write, "That will get you his
+loyalty and access." Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm. Well, he is a consultant.
+So what did you mean his loyalty and
+access?
+Usually when you pay people - you know, I
+mean -- I don't know.
+I don't know why I said that.
+Just that he would -- he would be responsive to you.
+He would -- he would, you know, make you a priority.
+All right. Do you remember Celestino doing
+any other work besides the Little St. Jeff work?
+
+He may have, but I don't recall.
+Okay. Let me show you a document marked
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 19 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Do you recognize
+Exhibit 19 as an email exchange between you and
+Mr. Epstein in August of 2015?
+I don't even know what this is referring
+to.
+Well, you see that the subject is -
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 42 of 68
+115
+You see that?
+That was true, right?
+I was for a period of time, yes.
+And it also says he pays for the education
+of the governor's children at the exclusive Antilles
+School on st. l
+1. That was true also?
+He paid for my children and everybody
+else's children, yes.
+Well, when you say everybody else's
+children, you mean other employees of FIC?
+Correct. And other EDC companies, that is
+normal par for the course for other EDCs to pay for
+their children. It was normal and customary.
+Okay.
+We were not special.
+Okay. And you see down at the bottom of
+the page, and this is good classic New York Post
+speak, it says in the last paragraph, "de Jongh's
+flack didn't return our call."
+Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm.
+Do you remember hearing that the New York
+Post was covering this issue?
+I don't read the Post. Sorry.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 43 of 68
+131
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 26 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. Let's take a 100k
+now at Exhibit 26. You see at the bottom of the page,
+Mr. Epstein writes back to you, "I can enroll |
+if that helps the school." Do you
+see that?
+Eh-hmm.
+So he's now identified a third person with
+an Eastern European name who could benefit from
+English as a second language classes, right?
+MR. TEAGUE: Objection, form. You could
+answer.
+were there.
+THE WITNESS: Yes, those three names
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Okay. Did it ever cross
+your mind to wonder whether there was something wrong
+with this convicted sex offender telling you I have
+three women who I'd like to help learn to speak
+English?
+MS. BOGGS: Objection, vague,
+argumentative.
+THE WITNESS: This is -- this is a
+person who had one offense, had to register as
+a sex offender. Didn't see him with any -
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 44 of 68
+159
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 35 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Ms. de Jongh, this is an
+email exchange between you and Jeffrey Epstein in
+September of 2015.
+Do you see that?
+Q. All right. Looking at the email at the
+bottom of the page from Mr. Epstein to you, he writes,
+"I will play any role in this you guys like. I could
+lend John the money so he immediately has it. I would
+gladly be on the phone (anonymous) with John Quinn and
+the prosecutor offering suggestions. 25 a year for 20
+yours, 490 now, with an income tax for the full
+amount. 250 now and 250 in 15 years, et cetera."
+What's going on here?
+That's the note that I told you about when
+John got arrested, with Mapp.
+Ah.
+A. So it is not John Quinn. It is John and
+Quinn. It's Mike Quinn, John's attorney.
+Ah.
+So he just didn't put a comma, I guess.
+Got it. And this reference to 25 a year
+for 20 years, 490 now with an income tax credit for
+the full amount, 250 now and 250 in 15 years, what's
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 45 of 68
+160
+that talking about?
+I actually never knew what he meant by
+that because it was just, you know, we needed like
+400,000, or a little shy of 400,000.
+So I just said I would, you know,
+discuss it with John. You know, he wanted, you know,
+to see if we wanted him -- if we wanted him to pay
+for our legal fees, and we said, no, we got that
+covered.
+It was just the issue of the Mapp
+administration at the time trying to squeeze us to
+pay immediately or go to jail, which we thought
+seemed, you know, if it's a criminal offense, why ask
+us for money, you know.
+So --
+And Mr. Epstein was giving some advice
+about how to handle this criminal problem?
+His advice was, don't go to court, just
+pay the money.
+Okay. And -- but he is offering here some
+various proposed structures for how to pay. Is that
+fair?
+That's fair.
+And one of them was to pay 490,000 now, but
+get an income tax credit for the full amount?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 46 of 68
+163
+l. And to do that as a convicted felon, he
+needed to get his supervision moved from Florida to
+the Virgin Islands, right?
+Correct.
+Q. And you were passing on information related
+to that to the governor and the attorney general of
+the Virgin Islands.
+about doing that.
+About how to go about - how one would go
+Right. And then you spoke to your husband
+about it?
+And got some advice about what the best way
+it was to proceed, right?
+Yes. Like who - who would you talk to to
+get this done.
+8.
+about it?
+Did you also talk to the attorney general
+I didn't speak directly to Vincent.
+THE REPORTER: Sorry, I couldn't --
+THE WITNESS: I don't -- I don't believe
+I talked directly to Vincent about it.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) So your husband talked to
+the attorney general?
+I think he did.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 47 of 68
+164
+And then relayed to you this information
+that you've set out in your email to Mr. Epstein?
+Yeah. What he needed to do in order to
+get transferred here.
+So you, the attorney general, and the
+governor are together helping Mr. Epstein sort through
+how he can transfer supervision from Florida to the
+Virgin Islands?
+How to legally get transferred here, yes.
+Okay. All right.
+You mentioned that he was in jail at this
+time?
+Eh-hmm.
+I don't -- I think he was on work release.
+He was -- I never spoke to him once he was in jail.
+Okay. But he was -- withdrawn. Do you
+remember him being on work release in the daytime and
+then going to jail at night?
+I didn't -- I never knew his schedule.
+Okay.
+I just know that I hadn't spoken to him
+the whole time that he was incarcerated or in -- even
+on work release.
+Okay. But at some point in 2009 you were
+speaking to him about getting his future supervision
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 48 of 68
+165
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+transferred?
+Emailing, yeah.
+Q. Well, emailing, but he says at the
+beginning of the email, "Call me when you get a
+chance, " right?
+A. Right. And usually I would call, like,
+Lesley Groth and she would --
+THE REPORTER: Who?
+THE WITNESS: Lesley Groff. Because
+tens out of -- ten times out of ten I wouldn't
+have a number for him.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) So you would call Lesley
+and she could reach him?
+And she would patch me in to him.
+Got it. Okay. All right. Let's talk
+about a topic we touched on earlier today which is the
+sex offender registry.
+Eh-hmm.
+Do you recall discussing the topic of the
+sex offender registry as it related to Mr. Epstein
+with your husband?
+Who else did you talk about that topic
+besides the governor?
+Just the governor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 49 of 68
+166
+You never talked to the attorney general
+about that topic?
+A. No, he talked to the attorney general
+about the topic.
+Okay. Tell me what he told you about his
+conversations with the attorney general on that topic?
+Just that -- I asked him -- let me start
+backwards?
+Sure.
+Darren and Erika alerted me that, you
+know, all the states and the territories had to come
+up with their own SORNA laws, and there was money
+attached to it and this was coming down the pike for
+the Virgin Islands.
+Darren then said, you know, hey, I read
+through everything, and this particular portion is
+going to work for Mr. Epstein because he's got a, you
+know, private plane, whatever, and he would like the
+notice to be shorter. How do we go about doing that?
+I talked to John about that. He says,
+well, have whoever -- whoever Epstein's lawyer is
+talk to the attorney general. And I believe at the
+time they asked Maria Hodge to do that in conjunction
+with Darren and also Erika Kellerhals.
+Okay. And there was kind of a back and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 50 of 68
+177
+Through his attorney, Maria Hodge, yes.
+And they've reached agreement with his
+attorneys on what that legislation should look like,
+correct?
+Eh-hmm.
+Yes?
+MS. BOGGS: Objection, form.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) And the attorney general
+endorsed the version that reflected the input of
+Mr. Epstein and his lawyers, correct?
+MS. BOGGS: Objection to form.
+THE WITNESS: It appears so, yes.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) And then there was a state
+senator who needed to weigh in, correct?
+Correct.
+That's Mr.
+Correct.
+Is that a first name or last name?
+Senator
+Senator
+He's the senate
+president?
+time, yes.
+A. I think he was the senate president at the
+Yeah. And you report in your email that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 51 of 68
+178
+Senator
+said this morning that he would accept
+the amendments and introduce them tomorrow. Do you
+see that?
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+How did you know that?
+A. I think I called him and I asked him if he
+got everything -- if he got this, and he said, yeah,
+yeah. And now I can't remember whether I called him
+or I saw him at the seaplane shuttle or something,
+and I brought it up and he said,
+everything and it's fine with me.
+• yeah, I saw
+Got it. So you had a conversation, a
+direct one-on-one conversation with Senator
+where he confirmed that he was okay with the version
+that had been worked out between the attorney
+general's office and Mr. Epstein's lawyers?
+Yeah. I told him that Maria Hodge wrote
+something that was amending it, and that -- and he
+said as long as the AG was fine with it. I said, it
+appears that he is, and he said, okay, well, let's
+bring it to the senate floor.
+And there came a time when Senator
+changed his mind?
+changes.
+Yeah. He had no intention of making any
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 52 of 68
+179
+Or he did something that was different from
+what he told you, is that fair?
+It was par for his course.
+Q.
+Okay. But am I correct that he told you
+one thing and then did something else?
+Correct.
+Q. And what he told you was he was okay with
+what had been worked out between the attorney general
+and Mr. Epstein, correct?
+In retrospect at the time, I realized that
+he probably read anything. He was just like, yeah,
+yeah, yeah. And then when it came down to the senate
+and he did read it, he was he just wanted to go back
+to the way it was before.
+Which --
+pushed it either.
+push it either.
+And also I don't think the AG really
+Do you know that or you're guessing?
+A. No. I'm pretty sure that the AG did not
+How do you know that?
+I just remember that, that he was not -
+you know, he was fine either way, that if -- if -- if
+it went as original, he was fine with it.
+Got it.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 53 of 68
+180
+That we shouldn't make -- necessarily make
+any special arrangements for anyone.
+Q. So there was a process of working out a
+deal with the attorney general's office that the
+attorney general signed off on, correct?
+Eh-hmm.
+Yes?
+But he didn't push for it with the
+legislature. Is that what you're saying?
+Correct.
+Okay. And then you write, you send all
+this news to Mr. Epstein and say, "Please call me when
+you have a moment." Do you see that?
+Did you talk to Mr. Epstein about it?
+A. I probably did and just told him what
+happened.
+Okay. Let's take a 1o0k at -- do you
+remember what his reaction was?
+To this?
+I don't recall what his reaction was, no.
+Okay. Let's take a look at another
+document which may help. 42.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 54 of 68
+186
+off the improvements on the house, right?
+Q. Okay.
+So that's one example. Didn't you
+also ask him to contribute to a reception for --
+-- your husband?
+Yes. You. You said campaign.
+Okay. I'm just asking the question.
+I know. And I'm just answering the
+question specifically what you're asking me.
+Well, you did ask him to raise money for a
+political event, State of the Territory reception?
+Okay. And Mr. Epstein contributed to that
+event?
+He did.
+How much did he give?
+I do not recall.
+Okay. Let's take a 100k. 131.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 44
+was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) 131 is an email exchange
+between you and Mr. Epstein, Subject: Fundraising
+Question. You see that?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 55 of 68
+187
+And you indicate in your email to
+Mr. Epstein at 10:51 a.m. on January 24th, 2014, that
+you are fund raising for the governor's final State of
+the Territory reception, correct?
+Correct.
+That's a political event.
+And you needed $35,000 to fund that event?
+Well, yeah, I needed 35,000, we had raised
+15, and we wanted to match the other 15.
+2.
+All right. So you're asking him if he
+would contribute $15,000 to this political event?
+Correct.
+For the benefit of your husband?
+And Mr. Epstein agreed to do that?
+2.
+Okay. And then let me show you next -- do
+you recall asking Mr. Epstein to contribute to the
+Democratic Party?
+my memory.
+I may have. I don't -- you'd have to jog
+Your husband was a Democrat, correct?
+Okay. So he would benefit by raising more
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 56 of 68
+funds for the Democratic Party, true?
+188
+Didn't seem to help him at the time, but,
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+yes.
+Okay. I'll ask the court reporter to mark
+the next document, Exhibit 45.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 45 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Exhibit 45 is another
+email exchange with Jeffrey Epstein, this one in
+October 2014, correct?
+Eh-hmm.
+And you asked Mr. Epstein in the middle of
+the page, "How much would you like to give to the
+St. Croix District Democratic Party?" Do you see
+that?
+Eh-hmm.
+And he says, "15K."
+e. Do you recall any other donations that
+Mr. Epstein made to the Democratic party?
+This one is not on behalf of John.
+Okay.
+This is not solicited on behalf of John.
+l. Well, it's - do you recall any other
+contributions to the Democratic party that you asked
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 57 of 68
+189
+Mr. Epstein to make other than this one?
+You'd have to refresh my memory. I'm sure
+you have other emails,
+so refresh my memory.
+Do you recall asking him to contribute to
+particular Democratic candidates?
+A. Yeah, I always did.
+Q. And how about Stacey Plaskett in
+particular? Do you remember asking Mr. Epstein to
+contribute to her campaign?
+Yeah, I did.
+Why did you do that?
+I liked her.
+All right. I'll show you another document
+I'll ask the court reporter to mark Exhibit 46.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 46 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) All right. This is an
+email exchange between you and Jeffrey Epstein on June
+19th, 2014, correct?
+All right. And you told Mr. Epstein that
+his help was needed to try to get Stacey Plaskett
+elected to congress. Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm.
+And you note that Shawn Malone, the current
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 58 of 68
+191
+All right. And so you told Mr. Epstein
+that Shawn needed to be defeated and that Stacey was a
+friend, and asked if any of his friends would give to
+her campaign.
+Do you see that?
+Eh-hmm.
+Q. Why were you asking for contributions from
+the friends instead of from Mr. Epstein personally?
+Don't I ask him for it, too?
+THE REPORTER: I'm sorry.
+THE WITNESS: I said am I -- aren't I
+asking him in this for him, too, to give?
+l. (By Mr. Neiman:) Do you read the sentence,
+"Do you think any of your friends would give to her
+campaign," as a request for Mr. Epstein to give?
+I'm reading this as you, your friends.
+That's how I'm reading this.
+So, you thought you were asking Mr. Epstein
+in his email whether he or any of his friends --
+Or any of his friends, yeah.
+Okay. Why were you asking him to give to
+Ms. Plaskett if you didn't ask him to give to your
+husband's campaign?
+I just never -- I'm -- I was notoriously
+bad about asking anybody for John's campaign.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 59 of 68
+194
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+against.
+Q. Got it. And then Mr. Epstein writes back
+to you, "I'm sure darren rich bella ana would."
+Do you see that?
+e. So he's identifying four employees of his
+who he thought could give to the campaign, correct?
+And you say, "Ok, should I ask them?" And
+he said, "Yes, individually." Do you see that?
+And did you go ask -- out and ask each of
+them?
+I think more than likely I did, yes.
+And when you did that, did you let them
+know that, you know, Mr. Epstein wanted them to give?
+And that was, I take it -- you had to let
+them know that so that they would do it.
+I didn't want them to think it was me. It
+is not something I am comfortable with, so it was
+easier for me to say Mr. Epstein said.
+Understood. And were they all willing to
+give once they heard that this is what Mr. Epstein
+wanted?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 60 of 68
+195
+l. All right.
+Do you remember also asking
+Mr. Epstein to give $13,000 to the Democratic Party
+for Ms. Plaskett's benefit?
+Yes. I think that was on behalf of Erika
+as well.
+Did he agree to do that?
+I don't recall.
+All right.
+What year was that?
+Do you recall in 2014 making that request?
+No, I don't.
+All right. How about --
+•, go ahead.
+I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
+That's fine.
+What were you going to say?
+No, I just said I know that there was a
+donation later than that that he made that was
+rejected by the Democratic Party.
+When - okay. I'm sorry.
+THE WITNESS: Did you hear what he said?
+THE REPORTER: Yes.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Yeah. Okay. When did
+you hear that?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 61 of 68
+196
+A. I think that was -- trying to think of the
+years that she ran. So she runs every two-years, so
+it might have been 2018.
+Okay.
+And --
+What did you hear?
+A. I didn't know. I didn't know anything
+about the payment, but then I heard in the office, it
+was sort of a hubbub and Richard called down and was
+like they're returning his money and then I think it
+became a story.
+And Rich said he got yelled at by
+Jeffrey about, you know, why this money was sent, and
+Jeanne
+, who worked in the office, said, you
+know, Cecile, the instructions were explicitly said
+to send the money to, you know, to this, so why is
+everybody upset at me?
+Right.
+And I said, I don't know. Sorry about
+that, but, you know, they returned the money and that
+was the end of it.
+THE REPORTER: They were --
+THE WITNESS: They returned the money
+and that was the end of it.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Did you have any
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 62 of 68
+197
+understanding as to why the Democratic party --
+Yeah, because -
+Q. I'm sorry, just let me finish the question.
+Just so that she can do her job. That's all. I know
+you anticipate what I'm asking you.
+Did you have any understanding of what
+the Democratic Party decided not to accept the
+money from Mr. Epstein?
+Because he was a registered sex offender.
+Did the fact that the Democratic Party
+wouldn't take his money give you any concern about
+whether you should continue?
+Yes, I was concerned that they were
+concerned, yeah.
+Did you do anything about it?
+No, I didn't do anything about it.
+Do you remember Mr. Epstein donation
+$75,000 to a Super PAC for Mr. Mapp?
+No -- yeah.
+Yeah?
+I don't recall that.
+Okay. Let me show you a document which I
+shall ask the reporter the mark as Exhibit 47.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 63 of 68
+198
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 47 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) All right. You see there
+an email from Mr. Epstein to you in September of 2016
+asking the check be prepared for Mr. Mapp's Super PAC
+for $75,000?
+You see that?
+Eh-hmm.
+Do you remember what this Super PAC was?
+I don't -- because I don't -- I don't cut
+checks.
+Eh-hmm.
+A. I think he -- I see Rich is on here. He's
+got Governor Mapp on here. So Rich would have been
+the one to cut the check.
+Got it. And so you're not sure who it was?
+No, I wouldn't. I, in all honesty, wanted
+to know as little as possible about Mapp as possible.
+Understood.
+MR. TEAGUE: Could we take a break in
+about five minutes? I need to take a restroom
+break, too.
+MR. NEIMAN: Absolutely.
+Ask the reporter to mark this three-page
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 64 of 68
+202
+Internal Revenue, they would deem it as like a hotel
+because he had so many buildings.
+Eh-hmm.
+Separate buildings, and we had to convince
+them that it wasn't -- it wasn't a hotel.
+And he --
+and also he would bring in so many, like, tons of
+furniture. Just a lot of supplies.
+Eh-hmm.
+And so through Customs and excise or
+whatever. And so they just kept saying,
+• this has
+got to be a hotel, or a small boutique hotel. So
+we'd always have to -- you know, Darren or Erika
+would have to write a letter saying this not a hotel,
+it's a home.
+Okay. Was part of what was raising all
+those questions the number of people who were coming
+to the island?
+No. It had more to do with the fact that
+why are you bringing in all this -- all this stuff
+that comes through Tropical and has to be cleared
+through Customs, all his trees, all his -- all
+construction supply -- materials.
+Okay. Do you remember there being times
+when the government of the Virgin Islands itself
+turned to Mr. Epstein as a potential source of cash?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 65 of 68
+203
+I vaguely remember him asking about
+collateralization or something, but --
+What do you remember about that?
+Just him asking if I could ask John about
+how one goes about collateralizing a loan to the
+government.
+So the idea was that Mr. Epstein could loan
+the government of the Virgin Islands cash in exchange
+for the government posting properties as security?
+Yes. That's the gist of it, yes.
+Are we done with this?
+Yeah. All right. So take a quick look at
+this document, which we'll have the court reporter
+mark as Exhibit 50.
+(Deposition Exhibit No. 50 was
+marked for identification.)
+(By Mr. Neiman:) So you'll see at the
+bottom of the first page of Exhibit 50, there's an
+email from Mr. Epstein to you that says the
+government -- "The vi government is desperate for
+cash. " Do you see that?
+Q. And then he asks, "Does John know of any
+asset they might have that I can use as collateral.
+Islands, etc." Do you see that?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 66 of 68
+204
+e. Where did Mr. Epstein get the idea that
+Virgin Islands government was desperate for the cash?
+It wasn't from my husband because my
+husband was not governor at the time.
+Ah, this is after your husband left. Do -
+do you have any idea where he got the idea that the
+government was desperate for cash?
+assumption?
+Well, do you want me to make an
+Tell me what you think?
+What I think is that he was probably
+speaking to Governor Mapp, and Governor Mapp probably
+said we only have X amount of money left in the
+coffers to pay, you know, payroll, et cetera, and I
+need -- we need cash. And --
+MR. TEAGUE: I just want to object to
+the extent that this calls for speculation.
+But you can continue to answer.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) You can continue.
+A. And, you know, he turned to Mr. Epstein
+and said, you're a finance guy, you know, could you
+help me out?
+The idea being maybe you, Mr. Epstein,
+could loan me some money?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 67 of 68
+205
+MR. TEAGUE: Same objection.
+THE WITNESS: Sorry, I didn't mean to
+shake my head. I am making that assumption,
+yes.
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(By Mr. Neiman:) That's what you
+understood from this email exchange you had with
+Mr. Epstein?
+Yes. Well, I didn't think that he'd want
+to take property for $50 million just for nothing.
+THE REPORTER: He wouldn't --
+THE WITNESS: He wouldn't want to
+take -- wouldn't want to take property as
+collateralization just for nothing. And he
+starts out the email by saying the V.I.
+government is desperate for cash.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) Right. So as you
+understood it from your communications with
+Mr. Epstein, the problem was that the government was
+desperate for cash, correct?
+Correct.
+MS. BOGGS: Objection. Calls for
+speculation.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) And as you understood from
+your discussions with Mr. Epstein, the potential
+solution was for Mr. Epstein to provide some cash in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-13 Filed 08/07/23 Page 68 of 68
+206
+exchange for islands as collateral?
+Or land as collateral, yes.
+Q. Okay. And being short of cash is kind of a
+perpetual problem for the Virgin Islands government,
+fair?
+MS. BOGGS: Objection, speculation.
+MR. TEAGUE: Same objection, form.
+THE WITNESS: It was until about three
+or four years ago, yes.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) What happened three or
+four years ago?
+COVID.
+Ah. And that was good for the Virgin
+Islands?
+Very good.
+MR. TEAGUE: Objection, form.
+THE WITNESS:.
+MR. TEAGUE: You can answer.
+(By Mr. Neiman:) You can answer.
+Yes. Seemed very good, yes.
+Okay. Prior to COVID, for a long time the
+Virgin Islands had been strapped for cash?
+Well, since the --
+MS. BOGGS: Objection. Speculation.
+THE WITNESS: Since the financial crash
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02a28a0854e9898d2eae1e86b22c6487ee760131833082d6451fdae36ea709a3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02a28a0854e9898d2eae1e86b22c6487ee760131833082d6451fdae36ea709a3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab378f72fc88cd18b7fdc92d96a12366c22653e2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02a28a0854e9898d2eae1e86b22c6487ee760131833082d6451fdae36ea709a3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -4161,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "02a28a0854e9898d2eae1e86b22c6487ee760131833082d6451fdae36ea709a3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 72,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ec484b53be381a26e1c98881ce0fd01fc62dbbdb5ff9aa607e19750478c00390",
+  "output_sha256": "0923e0e881b340e061c735e19a6c4ce3de3097b596cd35737a3f7164aff8037f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02aabfdaac71746a573aaef6ddec90e6e40a6468ebac31ae6ea4f01ae538f119.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02aabfdaac71746a573aaef6ddec90e6e40a6468ebac31ae6ea4f01ae538f119.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c424de9045190d826f048d4572cd3b62e119fbf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02aabfdaac71746a573aaef6ddec90e6e40a6468ebac31ae6ea4f01ae538f119.md
@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-94 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 4
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-94 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 4
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Reda, Christina M [/O=CORPEXCHANGE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=W067980]
+8/11/2011 3:01:04 PM
+McGraw,
+FW: Molecule
+Tom- not sure if this was discussed, but the "Dick" person that Jeff alludes to may be Richard Henriques, the CFO of the Gates Foundation:
+Richard Henriques
+Chief Financial Officer
+Foundation Operations
+Richard Henriques oversees Finance and Accounting, Financial Planning and Analysis, Strategic Planning, Impact Planning and Improvement, and several special initiatives.
+Before joining the foundation, Henriques was senior vice president of finance and corporate controller at Merck. His areas of expertise include corporate controllership and
+governance, strategic planning, performance measurement, and cost management, particularly in the pharmaceutical and pharmacy benefit management industries. Henriques has
+also served on the boards of several nonprofits in the Philadelphia area.
+Henriques holds a
+of Business Administration degree from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
+Christina M. Reda
+Private Bank at J.P.|
+| Advice Lab
+270 Park Avenue, 26th Floor | New York, NY 10017
+Telephone: (212) 464-0789
+Email: christina.m.reda@jpmorgan.com
+From: Racanelli, Janine A.
+Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:40 AM
+To: Reda, Christina M
+Subject: Fw: Molecule
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00016652
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-94 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 4
+From: Treyz, Debra
+To: Racanelli, Janine A.
+Cc: Bunn, Margot R
+Sent: Wed Aug 10 06:41:12 2011
+Subject: Molecule
+We will need to regroup on this to address the more comprehensive list of Qs. The meeting is set for Ag 31.
+I will talk to Mary and target a meeting for late today/tomorrow with the following: (anyone else?):
+You, me, Jackie E, Monica
+Thanks, Deb
+Debra B. Treyz
+Managing Director
+J.P.
+Wealth Advisory
+270 Park Avenue, FL 16
+New York, New York 10017
+From: Treyz, Debra
+To: Erdoes, Mary E
+Sent: Wed Aug 10 06:19:43 2011
+Subject: Re: gates DAF
+Thanks. This is more comprehensive than what we have reviewed and prepared. I'll give you a call today.
+Debra B. Treyz
+Managing Director
+J.P.
+_ Wealth Advisory
+270 Park Avenue, FL 16
+New York, New York 10017
+From: Erdoes, Mary E
+To: Treyz, Debra
+Sent: Wed Aug 10 04:55:24 2011
+Subject: Fw: gates DAF
+Let's discuss
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00016653
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 285-94 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 4
+From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
+To: Jes Staley 1
+P; Erdoes, Mary E
+Sent: Wed Aug 10 04:19:42 2011
+Subject: gates DAF
+for the meeting with Dick, we should have a complete presentation.. IT needs to address how it enhances current giving by GF. vaccines,
+maternal care,, These should be two of the donor silos.. IT should have a structure, that for example purposes only, has, the best investors in the
+role of advisors. (we should decide whether being on the investment commitee, automatially disqualifies an investment in ones particular fund, for
+example if
+I sat on the advisory board, should there be no apollo investments. (legal issue as well as optical ).. JPM acts as fiduciary in every
+capacity,,It should deal with hard to value assets.. appreciated real estate., ( a real estate group, should be available). valuation firms, trust and
+estate experts.. The web based, investor access to information, could set an example for simple user interface. click or touch an investment silo
+to retrieve all relevant data, in many forms. This will be very HIGH profile. I propose a minimum of 100 million donation . It will be the most
+exclusive of clubs, In addition , though membersip in the "club" could be known . the gifts can be given anonymously. This will fulfill the wishes of
+many that have spoken to bill about wanting to do things but not wanting the publicity. For example funding Gay, Aids, Jewish, orgs, that otherwise
+might bring unwanted attention to the giver by both the press and its competing groups. For example, If someone wants to give money to a program
+that in any way competes with their self or perceived image. Another school. , program etc. many have expressed reservations that giving publicily
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00016654
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02aabfdaac71746a573aaef6ddec90e6e40a6468ebac31ae6ea4f01ae538f119.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02aabfdaac71746a573aaef6ddec90e6e40a6468ebac31ae6ea4f01ae538f119.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a29aa9be1bf5091ec071cd6621630eb774eae313
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02aabfdaac71746a573aaef6ddec90e6e40a6468ebac31ae6ea4f01ae538f119.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -95,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "02aabfdaac71746a573aaef6ddec90e6e40a6468ebac31ae6ea4f01ae538f119",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "16f537bf0b584820aed8c306a58690e84c0c2c8c65cbf57457a5942e3f082ba7",
+  "output_sha256": "435af3d12adef5366b1af4bf5f77d875eccb4ef73e964b1e46c43571e79d040b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02ae66ed1096ec7f941566cd5b7457275a81b3075831b068925c480daf486a24.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02ae66ed1096ec7f941566cd5b7457275a81b3075831b068925c480daf486a24.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..079d7c6a91bcdd429b834226c7614de036e53b39
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02ae66ed1096ec7f941566cd5b7457275a81b3075831b068925c480daf486a24.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Casse1122260/1D9904JSSR Doccumeet 27993 FreeD88209283 Faggel10622
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+Case No. 22-cv-10904-JSR
+[PROPOSED| ORDER GRANTING
+MOTION FOR ADMISSION
+PRO HAC VICE
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+V.
+Third-Party Defendant.
+The motion of Bethany I. Biesenthal for admission to practice pro hac vice in the above
+captioned action is granted.
+Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bar of the State of
+Illinois and that her contact information is as follows:
+Bethany I. Biesenthal
+I DAY
+110 N. Wacker Drive
+Suite 4800
+Chicago, Illinois 60606
+Phone: (312) 269-4303
+bbiesenthal@jonesday.com
+Applicant having requested admission pro hac vice to appear for all purposes as counsel
+for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the above-entitled action;
+
+
+Casse1122260v1D9904JS5R Doccumeet 27993 FfidelD88208283 Fagge220022
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bethany Biesenthal is admitted to practice pro hac
+vice in the above-captioned action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
+New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court,
+including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.
+Dated: 8/24/2023
+Jed S. Rakoff, U.S.D. g
+Honorable Jed S. Rakoff
+United States Distriet Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02ae66ed1096ec7f941566cd5b7457275a81b3075831b068925c480daf486a24.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02ae66ed1096ec7f941566cd5b7457275a81b3075831b068925c480daf486a24.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b37b65f6561f2d7a2fabb4af8700ad428ff2f905
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02ae66ed1096ec7f941566cd5b7457275a81b3075831b068925c480daf486a24.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "02ae66ed1096ec7f941566cd5b7457275a81b3075831b068925c480daf486a24",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9118fae874214df755567e09991e68375a3334bf99a4db2c07c0933c27efa205",
+  "output_sha256": "8dd07bbe59549c539c33ecf3cdafca671cbf1178554dc8df23116fb8d072adbc",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02d0d4ae8680351bdad308d39c72e7ed00fbf3618de17d4353e384b00573e6bd.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02d0d4ae8680351bdad308d39c72e7ed00fbf3618de17d4353e384b00573e6bd.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..41b9e2e75c008f02a2873716539aee8b806e6865
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02d0d4ae8680351bdad308d39c72e7ed00fbf3618de17d4353e384b00573e6bd.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-27 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-27 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 2
+Date: Wednesday, September 7 2011 09:21 PM
+From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
+To: Jes Staley
+no word form mary on prososal or duffy on cash.
+....
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thercof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
+
+Estate_006622
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02d0d4ae8680351bdad308d39c72e7ed00fbf3618de17d4353e384b00573e6bd.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02d0d4ae8680351bdad308d39c72e7ed00fbf3618de17d4353e384b00573e6bd.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c87862c2601a1f4e162eeda30b68713941a8afe3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02d0d4ae8680351bdad308d39c72e7ed00fbf3618de17d4353e384b00573e6bd.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -46,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "02d0d4ae8680351bdad308d39c72e7ed00fbf3618de17d4353e384b00573e6bd",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "17ae1ee6fae0a28fd9b294aace72bf10976913379c2310b0a98782d95f3759ba",
+  "output_sha256": "9108137a877533936c63bac87b08e785cec9d5ff11079f4885c6d1a5743aa751",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02e75a5573bc3e66429e9dabd7bb7657d20d3c97e68788ab1275e3178e704b0c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02e75a5573bc3e66429e9dabd7bb7657d20d3c97e68788ab1275e3178e704b0c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bff52e734da3afb529fe1e2e2b473eb96485e38b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02e75a5573bc3e66429e9dabd7bb7657d20d3c97e68788ab1275e3178e704b0c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 53
+Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 2
+U.S. Department of Justice
+United States Attorney
+Southern District of New York
+The Silvio J. Mollo Building
+One Saint Andrew's Plaza
+New York, New York 10007
+May 21, 2021
+BY ECF
+The Honorable Analisa
+United States District Judge
+Southern District of New York
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, New York 10007
+Re: United States v. Noel and
+, 19 Cr. 830 (AT)
+Dear Judge L
+The Government submits this letter to inform the Court that the parties have entered into
+deferred prosecution agreements (the "Agreements"), which have been approved by Pretrial
+Services and are included for the Court's consideration.' After a thorough investigation, and based
+on the facts of this case and the personal circumstances of the defendants, the Government has
+determined that the interests of justice will best be served by deferring prosecution in this District.
+The proposed Agreements contemplate an additional six-month term of supervision by Pretrial
+Services and, in addition to the standard terms of pretrial supervision, the proposed Agreements
+include the additional salient terms:
+• The defendants will cooperate with a pending Department of Justice Office of Inspector
+General review by providing truthful information related to their employment by the
+Bureau of Prisons, including about the events and circumstances described in the
+Indictment; and
+• The defendants will complete 100 hours of community service, preferably in an area related
+to the criminal justice system.
+The defendants have consented to the entry of the Agreements and have also admitted that
+they is ildly and in the Specimousied tait ily ale touri and round inal eating aired
+9, 2019 and August 10, 2019."
+The Government respectfully requests, with the consent of the defendants, through counsel,
+that the Court schedule a hearing date for entry of the Agreements. Having conferred with defense
+counsel, all parties are available to proceed by video conference on Tuesday, May 25, 2021, should
+' As the deferred prosecution agreements are not final until they are approved by the Court, the
+Government has not filed them publicly with this letter.
+
+
+Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 53
+Filed 05/21/21 Page 2 of 2
+Page 2
+that date be convenient for the Court. If that date is not convenient for the Court, or if the Court
+wishes to proceed in person, the parties can propose alternative dates.
+By:
+Respectfully submitted,
+AUDREY STRAUSS
+United States Attorney
+/s/
+Jessica Lonergan
+Nicolas Roos
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+(212) 637-1038/-2421
+Cc:
+Defense Counsel
+Pretrial Services
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/02e75a5573bc3e66429e9dabd7bb7657d20d3c97e68788ab1275e3178e704b0c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02e75a5573bc3e66429e9dabd7bb7657d20d3c97e68788ab1275e3178e704b0c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..10a7e819420814a538be4772dfc21f714f0a0d58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/02e75a5573bc3e66429e9dabd7bb7657d20d3c97e68788ab1275e3178e704b0c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "02e75a5573bc3e66429e9dabd7bb7657d20d3c97e68788ab1275e3178e704b0c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f5df2328130a518d275d7d3667247da2546e7be2d27edc184c469e14caef0b59",
+  "output_sha256": "f63b6c97bdd220254e155c5fc5e3c24cea37fed9432e90f0a83967cd3a1cfc07",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/031c64f57afe376a5e834064c27f19ae3a7ce036541aa8e527454a1782abd32d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/031c64f57afe376a5e834064c27f19ae3a7ce036541aa8e527454a1782abd32d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3743f81a2be0518b0cd27be995d3c0ac1c0f103a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/031c64f57afe376a5e834064c27f19ae3a7ce036541aa8e527454a1782abd32d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 311-36 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+Filed Under Seal
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/031c64f57afe376a5e834064c27f19ae3a7ce036541aa8e527454a1782abd32d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/031c64f57afe376a5e834064c27f19ae3a7ce036541aa8e527454a1782abd32d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e21039d224ad5b8f4e2f207e1e7f81a426eb3ada
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/031c64f57afe376a5e834064c27f19ae3a7ce036541aa8e527454a1782abd32d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "031c64f57afe376a5e834064c27f19ae3a7ce036541aa8e527454a1782abd32d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "95d3cd13284d4ba180d72d02227f4f89ccd2a93e7a501d2d3ac4b1b3040a8e76",
+  "output_sha256": "3cd787ead9ac5bc055fdf06c3b6f92b91605e9083155986b74f4193802d0e46a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0340f4dbd0ee3c2d93416c7f265f54cdff4456607acefd2658eb33c4f94d9e95.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0340f4dbd0ee3c2d93416c7f265f54cdff4456607acefd2658eb33c4f94d9e95.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..553260f5ac872b2703d1fd06db141da388049a36
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0340f4dbd0ee3c2d93416c7f265f54cdff4456607acefd2658eb33c4f94d9e95.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 243-10 Filed 07/25/23
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0340f4dbd0ee3c2d93416c7f265f54cdff4456607acefd2658eb33c4f94d9e95.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0340f4dbd0ee3c2d93416c7f265f54cdff4456607acefd2658eb33c4f94d9e95.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f6a0a77b9cbf1dff20589104d3045a3865d519e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0340f4dbd0ee3c2d93416c7f265f54cdff4456607acefd2658eb33c4f94d9e95.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -34,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0340f4dbd0ee3c2d93416c7f265f54cdff4456607acefd2658eb33c4f94d9e95",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2ba3aeb85ce78f82874a7c194a45bb712dcd52d1e81a43f59d3c2bc1b4220ea6",
+  "output_sha256": "b2d9def1f4f6537f61565cfd6a0916df741af8fc5fe57bb9bfe426668e2c1864",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03524908e5ef0b6c3a06127102381ae997ffb5883f0fb603ed2e4334cf531254.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03524908e5ef0b6c3a06127102381ae997ffb5883f0fb603ed2e4334cf531254.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..499f8570efc5b1419c7c72c1658d8eea59a1107a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03524908e5ef0b6c3a06127102381ae997ffb5883f0fb603ed2e4334cf531254.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 268-28 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03524908e5ef0b6c3a06127102381ae997ffb5883f0fb603ed2e4334cf531254.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03524908e5ef0b6c3a06127102381ae997ffb5883f0fb603ed2e4334cf531254.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0381db809dfae2ea1b652fe9e47043f2c946a313
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03524908e5ef0b6c3a06127102381ae997ffb5883f0fb603ed2e4334cf531254.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "03524908e5ef0b6c3a06127102381ae997ffb5883f0fb603ed2e4334cf531254",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8a2a4627b0bd889de8fc8eec512bef472a78ca0e99e24686dce939f16854b41f",
+  "output_sha256": "9ea41fadcba54f6282843c1ef234d9c0106caa9fc7be4ee6c0c96683cd2b2dd0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03a288edff3d72ba74f6af129161cce6b99997ed7f839f95be250bd8b3a16b98.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03a288edff3d72ba74f6af129161cce6b99997ed7f839f95be250bd8b3a16b98.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..50406c3fc82eaab6e61119e1a95b664429f25a5b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03a288edff3d72ba74f6af129161cce6b99997ed7f839f95be250bd8b3a16b98.md
@@ -0,0 +1,481 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 17
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:_
+DATE FILED:11/22/21
+United States of America,
+-V-
+Ghislaine Maxwell,
+20-CR-330 (AJN)
+MEMORANDUM
+OPINION & ORDER
+Defendant.
+ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
+The Defense on November 1, 2021, noticed eight expert witnesses. Def. Br., Ex. 1
+("Notice"). Two of those experts, Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, are expected to offer
+opinions that rebut opinions of the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio. The
+Government on November 8, 2021, filed a motion to partially preclude the testimony of Dr.
+Dietz and Dr. Loftus. Dkt. No. 424. The Court has already addressed that motion.
+On November 15, 2021, the Government moved to fully or partially preclude the
+testimony of the remaining six experts. The Defense filed a response on November 19, 2021.
+The Court addresses the motion to preclude Dr.
+in this separate opinion. It will
+address the other five experts in public rulings.
+1.
+Legal standard
+Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule
+states:
+A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
+education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
+1
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 2 of 17
+(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier
+of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
+(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
+(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
+(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
+The Court exercises a "gatekeeper function" in assessing the admissibility of expert
+testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an
+expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme
+Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been
+subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and
+whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d
+259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94
+(1993)).
+But Rule 702 ultimately sets a "liberal" and "permissive" standard of admissibility.
+Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert
+admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with "the exactness of hard
+science methodologies." E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL
+3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v.
+, 470 F.3d
+1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)).
+Additionally, the procedure for disclosing expert witnesses is governed by Federal Rule
+of Criminal Procedure 16. That rule states that when the Government makes a request, the
+Defense "must ... give to the government a written summary of any testimony that the
+defendant intends to use under Rules 702. ... This summary must describe the witness's
+opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications." Fed. R.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 17
+Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C). The purpose of this rule is to "minimize surprise that often results from
+unexpected expert testimony, reduce the need for continuances, and to provide the opponent with
+a fair opportunity to test the merit of the expert's testimony through focused cross-examination."
+Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(C) advisory committee's note to 1993 amendment. Thus, to satisfy Rule
+16, a notice must not merely describe the "general topics" on which experts will testify but
+actually "summarize the experts" opinions about those topics" and "describe the bases for the
+experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added);
+United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013)
+("Merely identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is insufficient; rather,
+the summary must reveal the expert's actual opinions.").
+If the Defense's disclosure of an expert witness does not satisfy Rule 16, the Court has
+"broad discretion" to fashion an appropriate remedy. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115. That discretion
+is guided by factors including "why disclosure was not made, the extent of the prejudice, if any,
+to the opposing party, the feasibility of rectifying that prejudice by a continuance, and any other
+relevant circumstances." Id. (quoting United States v. Lee, 834 F.3d 145, 159 (2d Cir. 2016)).
+When a disclosure merely lists general topics on which the expert might testify, the Second
+Circuit has several times held that the district court has discretion to exclude the expert entirely.
+See id. at 118; United States v. Vaccarelli, No. 20-3768-CR, 2021 WL 4805218, at *2 (2d Cir.
+Oct. 15, 2021).
+Il.
+Discussion
+As a preliminary matter, the Defense argues that the Government's motion is
+"premature" because the Government's arguments are about the relevance and prejudice of the
+witnesses' testimony, not their qualifications or the reliability of their methods under Rule 702.
+3
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 17
+Def. Br. at 1, 5-6. But one aspect of the Rule 702 and Daubert inquiry is "fit," which asks
+"whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it
+will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute." Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV-
+09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at
+591). Fit is satisfied if the expert's opinion would assist the jury's decision on a relevant
+question of fact without "usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to
+the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it." Id. (quoting
+United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). The Court finds that at least some of
+the Government's arguments that go to fit are ripe for preliminary resolution now. Other aspects
+of the Government's motion can be resolved only with additional information and the context of
+trial.
+A. The Court will preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan
+The Government moves to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan
+Dr.
+was
+retained
+The Defense anticipates that Dr.
+will testify as
+to approximately four opinions. First, "[hle will offer the opinions and diagnoses contained in
+his report." Notice at 12. Second, he will testify on "the bases for those opinions ] and the
+significance of the diagnoses and opinions." Id. Third, "[h]e will testify about the facts and
+circumstances surrounding the evaluation" and "disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4]." Id. And
+fourth, he will testify to "the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a
+perpetrator of any abuse." Id.
+4
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 17
+The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr.
+training and experience as a psychiatrist and so are expert opinions subject to Rule 702.
+The latter two opinions are not expert opinions but instead testimony of fact that may or may not
+be admissible under other rules of evidence.
+The Court will address the expert opinions first. The Government argues that Dr.
+testimony on psychological diagnoses is irrelevant and prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403. The
+Second Circuit has set out controlling case law to guide the Court's decision:
+Evidence of a witness's psychological history may be admissible when it goes to
+her credibility. In assessing the probative value of such evidence, the court
+should consider such factors as the nature of the psychological problem, the
+temporal recency or remoteness of the history, and whether the witness suffered
+from the problem at the time of the events to which she is to testify, so that it may
+have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately.
+United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 347-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up); see also United States
+v. Hamlett, No. 19-3069, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021); United States v.
+Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2006).
+Even if psychological history is probative according to these factors, the Court still
+retains discretion to exclude the evidence if it is substantially prejudicial under Rule 403. Sasso,
+59 F.3d at 347-48.
+Dr.
+report lists the following [
+5
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 17
+The Court will preclude Dr.
+testimony on these psychological diagnoses.
+Applying the considerations in Sasso, the diagnoses have little probative value. First, the report
+is now over 12 years old. Courts in this circuit regularly find that diagnoses more than 10 years
+old lack probative value. E.g., United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984)
+(finding that more than 10 years is too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d
+Cit. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264
+(E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (13
+years too remote); United States v. Paredes, No. 99-CR-290 (PKL), 2001 WL 1478810, at *1
+(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2001) ("A psychological condition from ten years earlier, however, is likely
+to be irrelevant."). The diagnoses are therefore too remote to bear on Alleged Victim 4's
+credibility as a witness at trial.
+Second, the nature of the conditions and their effect on memory or perception at the time
+of the events in question do not favor admission. Dr.
+report does not delineate clearly
+which conditions existed at the time of Epstein's abuse, but it appears that at least
+But at no point in his report does Dr.
+suggest that these
+conditions or any other diagnosed conditions may have affected Alleged Victim 4's
+perception of events or her recollection of those events. Like in Sasso, "there was no indication
+that [the witness] was delusional or paranoid, or had any difficulties in memory or perception."
+59 F.3d at 348.
+In its response, the Defense homes in first on
+6
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 7 of 17
+But none of these traits affect
+memory or recall, which is the primary purpose for admitting evidence of mental conditions
+identified in Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348.
+The Defense also emphasizes the diagnosis for
+But based on the current
+record, Dr.
+description falls short of demonstrating that this
+"affect[s] her ability
+to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately." Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196 (quoting Sasso,
+59 F.3d at 348); see United States v.
+611 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir. 1979) ("[M]any psychiatric
+problems ... which a witness may have had are without any relevancy to the witness" credibility,
+concerned as it is with whether the witness' mental impairment is related to his capacity to
+observe the event at the time of its occurrence, to communicate his observations accurately and
+truthfully at trial, or to maintain a clear recollection in the meantime." (cleaned up).
+7
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692
+Filed 11/22121
+
+The Defense also argues that Dr. diagnosed Alleged Victim 4 with
+In a similar line of cases, courts in
+this circuit have held that expert diagnoses of depression are not probative of credibility. E.g.,
+Sasso, 49 F.3d at 348 (finding that a diagnosis of depression lacked probative value); United
+8
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 9 of 17
+States v. Giovinco, No. 18-CR-14 (JSR), 2020 WL 832920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020)
+(finding that depression did not impact the witness's "ability to accurately perceive or recall"
+relevant events); see also United States v.
+• No. 15-CR-152 (RMC), 2017 WL 11496709,
+at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017) (excluding diagnosis of major depressive disorder).
+Last, the Defense points to the diagnosis for
+But, again, this is not a basis for impeaching Alleged Victim 4's ability to
+testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also
+v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576
+TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must
+"bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately
+recollect and report his perceptions").
+In assessing the relevance of each of these diagnoses, the Court also takes account of Dr.
+conclusion that despite her several conditions, Alleged Victim 4 has no "psychotic
+believes [sic], hallucinations or delusions." Report at 92; see also id. at 80 ("she reports no
+period of ... hallucinations"). Further, Dr.
+several times commented that Alleged Victim
+4's memory was very accurate. E.g., id. at 85 ("No... alterations in memory, or changes in
+orientation or level of attention."); 92 ("Her memory was impeccable and at multiple times
+during the evaluation she pointed out to the examiner questions he did or didn't ask. She reported
+her memory is 'perfect' and that she will remember every detail of the room in which the
+evaluation was done." (emphases in original)). On review, the Court cannot identify any point in
+the report at which Dr.
+doubts Alleged Victim 4's account of events. Instead, he appears to
+summarize and accept her story of sexual conduct with Epstein. Id. at 100-01. In short, none of
+9
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 10 of 17
+the diagnoses in Dr.
+report are adequately tied to Alleged Victim 4's credibility as a
+witness. See Hamlett, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2.
+Even if any diagnosis were probative, the Court further finds that Rule 403 prejudice
+outweighs. First, the testimony may confuse jurors with old diagnoses that have little connection
+to the conduct at issue or Alleged Victim 4's credibility today. See id. Confusion is particularly
+likely here given that Dr.
+report is at times unclear and even contradictory, as with the
+confusion over
+explained above. Id. Second, the Court takes account of the risk
+that jurors will stereotype a witness with
+or incorrectly assume that a
+diagnosed mental condition renders the witness untrustworthy. See
+1, 2011 WL
+2117611, at *5. Third, mental health diagnoses are of a particularly sensitive nature and, if not
+relevant, the witness's privacy should not be invaded. Paredes, 2001 WL 1478810, at *2 (citing
+In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325, 1328-29 (2d Cir. 1992)).
+And fourth, Dr.
+testimony would be cumulative and cause undue delay. The
+Government anticipates that several aspects of Alleged Victim 4's mental health history will be
+admitted either on direct or cross-examination, including that Alleged Victim 4 currently
+The
+Second Circuit has previously held that where relevant issues of mental conditions can be aired
+on cross-examination, the district court may preclude the witness's medical records and expert
+testimony. Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196; Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d at 265 (applying Vitale and Sasso).
+The Court concludes that here, the cross-examination identified by the Government on Alleged
+Victim 4's current medication for
+, along with lines of cross-examination
+unrelated to mental health, will provide the jury a sufficiently "discriminating appraisal" of
+Alleged Victim 4's credibility such that Dr.
+testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 11 of 17
+, 547 F. Supp. 2d 253, 266-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting United States v. Roldan-Zapata,
+916 F.2d 795, 806 (2d Cir. 1990)). The Court therefore concludes that the minimal probative
+value of each of Dr.
+diagnoses of Alleged Victim 4 is substantially outweighed by the risk
+of unfair prejudice.
+But this balancing of Rules 401 and 403 is based on the present record. It is conceivable
+that an additional proffer from the Defense that raises the probative value of a diagnosis, such as
+that for
+, would change the Court's calculation. Cy.
+1, 532
+F.3d at 937 ("We do not foreclose the possibility that testimony by an expert... could have
+shown evidence of [the witness's] condition to be relevant to her credibility .... But without
+such testimony, [defense] counsel had only words such as 'episodes of rage' and 'racing
+thoughts."); Hamlett, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2 (affirming exclusion of a psychological witness
+that failed to show a "clear link between any particular mental health diagnosis and a witness's
+credibility").
+The Defense argues that apart from diagnoses of her mental health conditions, the
+Defense should be permitted to admit Dr. L
+conclusion as to Alleged Victim 4's substance
+abuse
+Def. Br. at 12-13 (collecting cases). The Second Circuit instructs:
+It is, of course, within the proper scope of cross-examination to determine
+whether a witness was under the influence of drugs or narcotics or alcohol at the
+time of observation of events in dispute or at the time the witness is testitying. As
+Wigmore points out, however, a general habit of intemperance tells us nothing of
+the witness's testimonial incapacity unless it involves actual intoxication at the
+time of the event observed or at the time of testifying.
+United States v. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d 225, 229-30 (2d Cir. 1986) (cleaned up) (cited in Gov't Br.
+at 11 and Def. Br. at 12); accord United States v.
+1, 583 F.3d 1265, 1272 (10th Cir.
+2009) (*Illegal drug use does not merely bear on the [confidential informant's] veracity but also
+on his capacity as a witness.").
+11
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 12 of 17
+The Court will therefore permit the Defense to cross-examine Alleged Victim 4 about her
+use of substances during and after the conduct in question. Indeed, the Court was already under
+the impression that the Defense intended to pursue this line of cross-examination after the
+Daubert hearing. Nov. 10 Tr. at 157 ("[D]o you intend to impeach any witnesses based on
+substance abuse? ... Yes.").
+But the extensive case law cited by the Defense about cross-examining witnesses on their
+substance use does not justify the request to admit Dr.
+testimony on substance use and
+For example, in United States v. Vitale, the district court gave the defense "wide
+latitude when cross-examining [the witness] about his drug use and rehabilitation, including
+questions about the effects that the drugs had on his ability to perceive events when they
+occurred as well as on his memory at the time of trial." 459 F.3d at 196. The district court did
+not, however, permit the defense to admit the witness's drug rehabilitation treatment records into
+evidence. Id. Citing Sasso, the Second Circuit affirmed, explaining that through crossexamination alone, "the jury was well aware of ... [the witness's] drug abuse and treatment
+history." Id. The Second Circuit has made such a distinction permitting cross-examination on
+drug use but excluding a formal diagnosis of
+-in several cases. E.g., DiPaolo, 804
+F.2d at 230; Dobson v.
+150 F. App'x 49, 52 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining that crossexamination about a witness's drug use before witnessing a murder would be admissible, but the
+general fact that the witness uses drugs is not). The Defense does not cite any case law to the
+contrary. Even the nonbinding authority that the Defense refers to as "instructive," Def. Br. at
+13, held only that a defendant had the right to review a witness's medical records and crossexamine the witness about his drug use,
+, 583 F.3d at 1271-75.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 13 of 17
+In addition to diagnosing Alleged Victim 4's mental conditions, Dr. |
+also concluded
+that
+The Government moved to exclude this conclusion and the Defense does not make a case for
+admitting it. The Court will also preclude the opinion. In this circumstance, the lasting mental
+impact of a crime is at best "minimally probative" of whether that crime was committed. United
+States v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320, 329 (2d Cir. 2019). It also carries a high risk of Rule 403
+prejudice by suggesting that the psychological impact on Alleged Victim 4 is relevant to Ms.
+Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would also cause substantial delay by opening the
+door to rebuttal evidence by the Government on Alleged Victim 4's mental health, which would
+likely lead to mini-trials on irrelevant issues.
+Next, the disclosure states that Dr.
+will testify to the "significance" of Alleged
+Victim 4's diagnoses. Notice at 12. First, the Court understands that Dr.
+could not testify to
+the "significance" of mental health diagnoses without first testifying to what those diagnoses are.
+Because the Court is precluding Dr.
+testimony on Alleged Victim 4's diagnoses, the Court
+will also preclude Dr.
+testimony on their significance. Additionally, the current disclosure
+on this point does not satisfy Rule 16's requirement that the Defense provide Dr.
+opinion
+rather than just the general topic of the testimony. Even if the Court admitted Dr.
+testimony as to Alleged Victim 4's diagnoses, the Court would preclude his testimony on
+significance until more specific opinions are disclosed to the Government.
+Next, the Defense anticipates that Dr.
+will testify to the "bases for those opinions" in
+his report. Id. Dr.
+report refers not only to what Alleged Victim 4 told him during their
+in-person interview but also other records like
+. E.g., Report at 29-
+13
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 14 of 17
+63. These out of court statements would be hearsay if admitted for their truth, and so are
+presumptively inadmissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 802. The Defense identifies several means by
+which it may admit these hearsay statements. Def. Br. at 14-17.
+First, "[u]nder Rule 703, experts can testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence,
+including hearsay, if 'experts in the field reasonably rely on such evidence in forming their
+opinions.'" United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d Cir. 2008). But Rule 703 does not
+permit an expert to "simply transmit that hearsay to the jury." Id. Rather, those underlying facts
+and data that would otherwise be inadmissible may be disclosed to the jury "if their probative
+value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect."
+Fed. R. Evid. 703. Here, the hearsay underlying Dr.
+diagnoses, including
+, would have little probative value unless the
+Government were to challenge the accuracy of Dr.
+diagnoses. See United States v. Chai,
+No. 13-CR-290 (PAC), 2015 WL 293995, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015). The Government
+represents in its brief that it would not do so in the event that Dr.
+diagnoses are admitted.
+Gov't Br. at 13. And admitting the underlying hearsay, without a relevant need to substantiate
+the accuracy of Dr.
+conclusions, would result in significant prejudice, including confusing
+the jury and delaying the trial with a large volume of unnecessary details. The Court therefore
+concludes that, based on the parties' current proffers, the facts and data underlying Dr.
+opinions are not admissible via Rule 703.
+Second, the Defense says that Alleged Victim 4's statements are admissible under one of
+two hearsay exceptions in Rule 803. Def. Br. at 15. It says the statements were statements of
+her "then-existing state of mind ... or emotional, sensory, or physical condition." Fed. R. Evid
+803(3). But while a number of Alleged Victim 4's statements to Dr.
+may pertain to motives
+14
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 15 of 17
+or emotional condition, her statements made to Dr.
+in
+about events that took place
+years earlier cannot be said to be "then-existing." Id. The Defense also says Alleged Victim 4's
+statements were "made for medical diagnosis or treatment." Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). The Court
+finds that this may be a permissible basis for admitting some of Alleged Victim 4's statements,
+though they must be "made for ... medical diagnosis or treatment," must "describe[ ] medical
+history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause," and must
+otherwise satisfy Rules 401 and 403. Fed. R. Evid. 803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange
+Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187
+(2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).' But without additional detail from the Defense on which
+portions of Dr.
+testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court cannot
+make a definitive ruling.
+The Defense does not mention Alleged Victim 4's
+cited by Dr.
+in
+his report. The Court concludes that Alleged Victim 4's
+are inadmissible under
+Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Dr.
+report is not clear on the details of Alleged Victim 4's
+These incidents,
+however, are now all over 10 years old, none appear to require proving "a dishonest act or false
+statement," and, for
+_, admitting the evidence is not necessary to fairly
+determine the guilt or innocence of Ms. Maxwell. Fed. R. Evid. 609 (a), (b), (d).
+' The Defense also argues that Alleged Victim 4's statements would be "admissible for their
+effect on Dr. in forming his opinion." Def. Br. at 15. But, like Rule 703, this justification is
+a relevant basis for admission only if the validity of Dr.
+diagnoses is put in question.
+15
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 16 of 17
+B. The Court reserves judgment on the admissibility of Dr.
+fact testimony
+Finally, two of Dr. |
+_anticipated opinions are fact testimony not subject to Rule 702.
+Specifically, Dr.
+_would testify that Alleged Victim 4 told him that she previously disclosed
+other sexual abuse to a prior mental health provider,
+by Epstein to
+Def. Br. at 16.2 Further, Dr.
+, but did not disclose abuse
+would testify that in their interview
+Alleged Victim 4 "did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse." Notice at 12.
+The Defense argues these statements are admissible as prior inconsistent statements. Def. Br. at
+16-17. The Government concedes that Dr. |
+testimony here would be admissible, including
+potentially as a prior inconsistent statement, if relevant and not otherwise excludable. Gov't Br.
+at 16, 18.
+The Court reserves judgment on this question, but provides this guidance. The Defense
+will cross-examine Alleged Victim 4 and, as the Court has previously ruled, it may ask whether
+Alleged Victim 4 on previous occasions implicated Ms. Maxwell in the alleged sexual abuse by
+Epstein. Nov. 1 Tr. at 27. Whether the Defense may then admit any of Dr.
+testimony will
+depend on Alleged Victim 4's response to that question, whether any prior statement is actually
+"inconsistent" with her response, see United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019, 1024-25 (2d Cir.
+1997) (reversing a district court's admission of prior statements that were not inconsistent), and
+whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior
+inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613.
+" From the parties' briefing, the Court understands that the Defense would not seek to admit Dr.
+testimony about what Alleged Victim 4 told
+Victim 4's statements to
+in which this statement could be used to contradict Alleged Victim 4' testimony without
+assuming the statement's truth.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 17 of 17
+ILl.
+Conclusion
+The Court therefore grants the Government's motion to preclude Dr. J
+expert
+testimony. Because this is a preliminary pre-trial ruling, it is possible that facts and
+circumstances at trial would alter the Court's analysis. In that event, the Defense must re-raise
+its request to admit Dr.
+as an expert witness.
+SO ORDERED.
+Dated: November 22, 2021
+New York, New York
+ALISON J. NATHAN
+United States District Judge
+17
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03a288edff3d72ba74f6af129161cce6b99997ed7f839f95be250bd8b3a16b98.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03a288edff3d72ba74f6af129161cce6b99997ed7f839f95be250bd8b3a16b98.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b42538a050986f60607904ebd51ea64d5572248
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03a288edff3d72ba74f6af129161cce6b99997ed7f839f95be250bd8b3a16b98.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -222,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "03a288edff3d72ba74f6af129161cce6b99997ed7f839f95be250bd8b3a16b98",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 21,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e3f0d26b20423a6ec41244b39f6bb3bd20d8dfef39aa053a2cb40cb4f9fae668",
+  "output_sha256": "f1daac39f90f9a51cda7346fb774a0ebaa8a1735b92bcecac2c34185404e5aa4",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03b2453ff301fdbd0e46ef16ae8e268445667563e519d3d8e22b0fa8c57757ce.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03b2453ff301fdbd0e46ef16ae8e268445667563e519d3d8e22b0fa8c57757ce.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9657624e7adfff6bca3745028f6f98771e028ee3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03b2453ff301fdbd0e46ef16ae8e268445667563e519d3d8e22b0fa8c57757ce.md
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 122-2 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 2
+Supreme Court of the Virgin Islami
+PREME COURS
+IN THE SUPREME COURT
+OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+FILED
+April 21, 2023 03:33 gM
+SCI-Cog-2023-0084
+VERONICA HANDY, ESQUIRE
+CLERK OF THE COURT
+Certificate of Good Standing
+1, VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQUIRE, Clerk of the Supreme Court
+of the United States Virgin Islands, do hereby certify that:
+VENETIA H. VELAZQUEZ, (VIBA NO. 786)
+was duly admitted and qualified as an Attorney and Counselor-At-Law in the
+United States Virgin Islands on May 24, 2001 and as such, has been admitted
+to practice before the Supreme Court and all other courts of this Territory
+according to its laws, rules and customs.
+I further certify that as of this date, the above-named is an Attorney at
+Law in Good Standing. For the purposes of this Certificate, a member is in
+"good standing" if he or she is not presently suspended or disbarred for any
+reason and is current with his or her annual registration and licensing
+obligations under Rule 203(e).'
+Please note that records of professional discipline, if any, are not
+covered by this certification.
+In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and
+affixed the Seal of said Court this 21st day of April, 2023.
+Veronica daly
+VERONICA J. HANDY, ESQUIRE
+Clerk of the Supreme Court
+of the Virgin Islands
+1 This certification expires forty-five days from this date, unless sooner revoked or rendered invalid by
+operation of rule or law.
+Revised: 01/2019
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 122-2 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 2
+Supreme Court of the Virgin Islani
+OFFICE OF BAR ADMISSIONS
+IN THE SUPREME COURT
+OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+FILED
+April 21, 2023 03:34 9M
+VERONICA HANDY, ESQUIRE
+CLERK OF THE COURT
+JANELL--......-
+DIRECTOR OF BAR ADMISSIONS
+April 21, 2023
+Venetia H. Velazquez, Esquire
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice
+213 Estate La Reine, RR1 Box 6151
+Kingshill, VI 00850
+VIA: USPS Certified Mail Receipt No.: 91 7108 2133 3932 6738 2587
+Dear Attorney Velazquez:
+Enclosed please find the requested Certificate of Good Standing evidencing the status of
+your membership in the Virgin Islands Bar.
+Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office at (340) 774-
+2237, extensions 6220 or 6221.
+Sincerely,
+Director of Bar Admissions
+Enclosure: As Stated
+P.O. Box 590 St.
+U.S. Virgin Islands 00804-0590 • Telephone: (340) 774-2237 • Facsimile: (340) 774-2258
+Email: BarAdmissions@vicourts.org
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03b2453ff301fdbd0e46ef16ae8e268445667563e519d3d8e22b0fa8c57757ce.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03b2453ff301fdbd0e46ef16ae8e268445667563e519d3d8e22b0fa8c57757ce.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d81093f4e06563ea0af6ad933e547ef8b94ab10c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03b2453ff301fdbd0e46ef16ae8e268445667563e519d3d8e22b0fa8c57757ce.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "03b2453ff301fdbd0e46ef16ae8e268445667563e519d3d8e22b0fa8c57757ce",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "521152c326328e99e373f48c3d0683a8cc0f66dd3b90b15f9399140069eee124",
+  "output_sha256": "64b9256a25dabd498bb1645f86e612817a05c32af71f4badc46373d4c15a89d1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03daceac636f39f3dda4cadb83509e869ce3335957f97735a7179044afe5c097.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03daceac636f39f3dda4cadb83509e869ce3335957f97735a7179044afe5c097.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b537aec8c1dd5d689e7c57a5ddee2789ce47f6ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03daceac636f39f3dda4cadb83509e869ce3335957f97735a7179044afe5c097.md
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 191-7 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 191-7 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 3
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+DeLuca, Phillip A [phillip.a.deluca@jpmchase.com]
+1/10/2011 2:35:25 PM
+Langford, William D [william.d.langford@jpmchase.com]; Nichols, Nina A [nina.a.nichols@jpmchase.com]
+RE: Jeffrey Epstein
+Will do
+ok. Can you all assemble prior email on the facts and include any relevant press reports so we can get
+all the facts asap in advance is any meeting with Jes?
+Thanks.
+W
+Sent with Good (www.good.com)
+-----Original Message-----
+Deluca, Phillip A
+Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 07:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
+To:
+Nichols, Nina A
+Langford, William D
+subject:
+FW: Jeffrey Epstein
+Nina,
+hel i provide some color round this matter crazy fats into the never aeny modent a thoryith william
+he'll provide some color around this matter.
+Please see below. I can also fill you in with additional details when we speak. In essence:
+JPMC maintains the Private Banking (PB) relationship for this individual, Jeffrey Epstein.
+le is alleged to be involved in the human trafficking of young girls and law enforcement i
+lso allegedly investigating his involvement in this activity
+He is also an alleged personal associate of the CEO of the Investment Bank (Jes Staley)
+relationship.
+AML operations went to a PB risk meeting late last week requesting that we exit this
+and PB management of wis fes staley to regendup recent at unsate wiverdon suggest that william
+Tet. Pyrane yan 3 math ye di dussesses the deguest as el as and your era read to spen
+Please let me know when you have a few moments to discuss.
+Thanks,
+Phil
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00152756_R
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 191-7 Filed 06/20/23 Page 3 of 3
+---Original Message
+From: Ryan, Maryanne X
+Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:33 PM
+To: DeLuca, Phillip A
+Middlemiss, Arthur
+Subject: Jeffrey Epstein
+Phil-
+This email is a summary of the Rapid Response meeting regarding Jeffrey Epstein. It involves an ask of
+william so I am sending to you first.
+The RR meeting attended by Catherine Keating, Ann Verdon, the current and former banker, Kevin, Jim ano
+Bonnie
+from Risk and Art and I.
+exposed could have a potential serious impact.
+Epstein was released in July from house arrest and the Palm Beach Post carried two articles saying DOJ
+I think Catherine
+criminal investigations.
+in the bank and some in JPMS (old Bear PCS)
+I asked legal and asked on the call about if we were ever subpoened and seems it is NO which I find very
+interersting as Bear was.
+I also spent a good deal of
+time looking at his assistant or young lady he
+She was involved in some of the detailed
+brought over from praqued or some place like that) accoul my were her debit transactions enlighting as
+She opened accounts in PB sponsered by him.
+compared to countless stories related to his escapades.
+palm beach and in st
+other shops not fit for my good catholic upbringing!
+sod a hate pornon he tranaction are old 05 re e Besto Freuen.
+frequent spa like charges it has died down. Surprised she was never subpoened.
+Bottom line we need W to meet with Jes to explain HT and then Jes could decide the next steps.
+Typed on my bb so sorry for typos. I do have a PB rapid response memo I can forward as well.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00152757_R
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03daceac636f39f3dda4cadb83509e869ce3335957f97735a7179044afe5c097.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03daceac636f39f3dda4cadb83509e869ce3335957f97735a7179044afe5c097.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a246cab2e5c6e5a7dafbaa269b83fd0dc53da7b7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03daceac636f39f3dda4cadb83509e869ce3335957f97735a7179044afe5c097.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -69,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "03daceac636f39f3dda4cadb83509e869ce3335957f97735a7179044afe5c097",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3b9cef49f1adceed1bd007395e23610abe819568501e5459547ce892f66129e3",
+  "output_sha256": "8222a212a5ff027c8a103c7d5dddd1bcd0625151241a9be0d31c143d8d3db78f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03de605430d079c5f38fd45a87b858e56fae6f9f91b7826f1274b8271271be42.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03de605430d079c5f38fd45a87b858e56fae6f9f91b7826f1274b8271271be42.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..afc64712bed2bdfe6a2229fef9fbfc909c972e9f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03de605430d079c5f38fd45a87b858e56fae6f9f91b7826f1274b8271271be42.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-60 Filed 06/14/23
+
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-60 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 3
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+jeffrey E. ljeevacation@gmail.com]
+11/11/2015 3:21:31 PM
+Richard Kahn [l
+@gmail.com]; Karyna Shuliak
+@yahoo.com]
+Subject:
+Fwd: VI Dental License Approval
+Attachments: DR. Shuliak, DDS.pdf; Tax Clearance Instructions0001.pdf
+@icloud.com]; Cecile de Jongh
+next hurdle
+---- Forwarded message --
+From: Karyna Shuliak <
+Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:06 PM
+Subject: Fwd: VI Dental License Approval
+To: Jeffrey <jeevacation@gmail.com
+@icloud.com?
+Begin forwarded message:
+From: Deborah
+-Peter
+Date: November 11, 2015 at 9:44:41 AM EST
+To: "
+@icloud.com" <
+Subject: VI Dental Lieense Approval
+- peter@doh. vi. gov»
+@icloud.com?
+Good Day Dr. Shuliak,
+have any questions.
+A copy of your approval package is attached including the tax clearance instructions. Please let me know is you
+Best Regards,
+Deborah
+Peter.
+MPA
+Director, Professional Licensure & Health Planning
+3500 Estate Richmond
+Christiansted, VI 00820-4370
+Tel. (340)718-1311 xt. 3047
+deborah.richardson-peter@doh.vi.gov
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/03de605430d079c5f38fd45a87b858e56fae6f9f91b7826f1274b8271271be42.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03de605430d079c5f38fd45a87b858e56fae6f9f91b7826f1274b8271271be42.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6c26e64aeefb11504e842a94a35487fc2bd26548
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/03de605430d079c5f38fd45a87b858e56fae6f9f91b7826f1274b8271271be42.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -784,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "03de605430d079c5f38fd45a87b858e56fae6f9f91b7826f1274b8271271be42",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.disclaimer-removal.please-note-florida\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "6e7d53b65ad3287b0df91ba3d75254d0ece317b5283a53b49dbf9a673b33f3ac",
+  "output_sha256": "7a52c79831c79774a23ed02ab4d2eee0f9f1bb5b76b826955a9bd121df6c5a4d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/045ca7ad279e5e60925ab08876d3cbcc08cc090d88e783834bd3b06ffa4add55.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/045ca7ad279e5e60925ab08876d3cbcc08cc090d88e783834bd3b06ffa4add55.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f41dbed23fd326fccb360e681f6ce7ada8ad8875
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/045ca7ad279e5e60925ab08876d3cbcc08cc090d88e783834bd3b06ffa4add55.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 242-19 Filed 07/25/23
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/045ca7ad279e5e60925ab08876d3cbcc08cc090d88e783834bd3b06ffa4add55.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/045ca7ad279e5e60925ab08876d3cbcc08cc090d88e783834bd3b06ffa4add55.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cb7e58bf0118f242e6cad409d9d150d481989f3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/045ca7ad279e5e60925ab08876d3cbcc08cc090d88e783834bd3b06ffa4add55.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -34,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "045ca7ad279e5e60925ab08876d3cbcc08cc090d88e783834bd3b06ffa4add55",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "214e1d3be1ed8c6f9f059b568d21f8328b939ebacb7ad75b1e9638dd227bd016",
+  "output_sha256": "5538bd36b390fa3192bc3ab78f5d9d8823de44f261bc7a876f7e4e1bb776871d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/04cc089535594578c33d3b2edadb973686784079badf04705abe0f29f3323fba.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04cc089535594578c33d3b2edadb973686784079badf04705abe0f29f3323fba.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..086796fc18def15f49c31a8d7b0ac8853f85e3b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04cc089535594578c33d3b2edadb973686784079badf04705abe0f29f3323fba.md
@@ -0,0 +1,200 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-4 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-Cv-10904-JSR Document 194-4 Filed 06/20/23 PageD CEIVED
+ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ANNUAL
+REPORT
+OCT 152003(
+Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2002
+Company Name & Address:
+Teleplone No.:
+Name / Signature of Preparer:
+Financial Trust Company Inc, 6100 Red Hook Quarter B-3 St.
+LUSVE 00802
+1340) 775-2525
+Jeanne Brennan
+Goddau
+Gross Sale (Incligible Sales ) Eligible for Tax Benefits
+Gross Wages Paid In the V.I. (Include vacation & sick pay, bonuses, overtime, elc.)
+Average No. of Employecs: Full Time & (Part Time)
+Average No. of Residents; Full Time & ( Part Time)
+C=
+Average No. of Non-Residents; Full Time & Part Time
+Other Employee Cost (Unemployment & Health Insurance, Pension, Allowances, ctc.)
+Employce Income Taxes Paid and Withheld
+TAXES AND DUTIES (Provide dollar amount paid, and value of exemption / refund for each tax)
+Gross Receipts:
+Amount Paid
+Dollar Value of Exemption
+Real Property Tax:
+Amount Paid
+Dollar Value of Exemption
+Excise Taxes:
+Total Paid
+Dollar Value of Exemption
+Income Taxes:
+Total Paid
+Dollar Value of Exemption
+Customs Duties:
+Total Paid
+Dollar Value of Exemption
+Other:
+Hotel room taxes paid
+Other Taxes, Fees Paid to V.I. Government
+95.687.311
+657,994 /
+126,013
+188.685
+3,827,492
+3.085.634
+37.080.724
+TOTAL TAXES PAID:
+TOTAL VALUE OF EXEMPTIONS AND/OR REFUNDS
+EXPENDITURES FOR GOODS, SERVICES, PLANT & EQUIPMENT
+Eligible Suppliers
+V.I. Suppliers
+Non-Local
+135.84+= 300D + 132.844
+3.218,478
+40.908.216
+Goods And Services
+Raw Malerials,
+Components
+Food, Beverages
+Freight Charges
+Insurance
+Legal / Accounting
+.27.424,09
+Advertising / Promotion
+67.73
+4.752.00
+23,881.00
+2,757.00
+Utilities (Tel., Water,
+Elect., cic.)
+91.49
+Interest and Other
+Banking Charges
+Supplies
+Repairs / Maintenance
+Other (List Separately )
+Sub-total, Goods and
+Services:
+5.972,66
+1.187.50
+13054:21605920
+
+55.275.89
+1.841.84
+4.718.94
+5,393.00
+w254.933.53
+453,620.93
+Capital Expenditures:
+Buikling & Improvement
+Leasehold Improvements
+Machinery / Equipment
+Furniture / Fixtures
+572.00
+21,860.00
+Vehicles
+Other (List Separately)
+Subiotal, Capital Expend.
+- 572.00
+GRAND TOTALS
+51.206.82
+..21.869.00
+475.450.91
+CUMULATIVE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE UNDER IDC CERTIFICATE
+Total
+234.24
+16.204.12
+_072288.99
+30127 Me
+21.056.32 x/ #738
+188.523.99
+2.757.00 /
+56.25441 v€
+887.05
+20.43
+1.47919
+1.920.42
+80.268.85
+238.420.49
+J.872.27
+_12.070.79
+8.507.92 k
+448261-58-45120138
+739676•27
+-2661
+413.c0
+505.29
+.22.937.22
+505.22
+238.925.78
+..22.937.22
+765.013.56
+587.468.22
+HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+VI-JPM-000012850
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-4 Filed 06/20/23 Page 3 of 3
+ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ANNUAL
+REPORT
+Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2002
+Orber Expenditures
+Eligible Supplier
+V.I. Suppliers
+Non-Local
+131.80
+$48.00
+3.760.66
+174.17
+1.045.60
+63.161.08
+Total
+045)
+Goods And Services
+Dues
+Postage and delivery
+Airfare
+market services
+Start up costs
+Charitable contributions
+Company
+Foundatic
+Co-op
+fee/compliance fees
+Lodging and
+transportation
+Rent
+Sub-total Other
+12,500
+
+427.40
+
+$/ 3099-20
+600.00
+265,589.78
+11.507.49
+72,927.60
+_ 354,933.53
+15.888.00
+80.268.85
+722.17
+4.938.06
+63.161.08.
+600,00
+281,477.78
+12,500."
+15,500-00
+11.934.89
+72,927.60
+151-20135
+4478,261.58
+COMPLANCE FEES _ # 3000.-
+# 15,500 ≤ 00-Op MAKT. FEES - #12,500-
+HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+VI-JPM-000012851
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/04cc089535594578c33d3b2edadb973686784079badf04705abe0f29f3323fba.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04cc089535594578c33d3b2edadb973686784079badf04705abe0f29f3323fba.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddc41e374da713f002a26c62e7dced14964f63bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04cc089535594578c33d3b2edadb973686784079badf04705abe0f29f3323fba.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -73,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "04cc089535594578c33d3b2edadb973686784079badf04705abe0f29f3323fba",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "991d5c595ba1b149d11f054f64793319174a03ae4a920680c550798635838b26",
+  "output_sha256": "56fe3ed0683eb96941f8f270a75a7a2a27ebb03ca5b9bfbe514b83ae8c098222",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/04d50ffc1adbe64abca7cb8af480b51dac66accb702a9ec62caeca19b21a453a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04d50ffc1adbe64abca7cb8af480b51dac66accb702a9ec62caeca19b21a453a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69404c4ae5de33dfc149f58f3b87698d39ace3da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04d50ffc1adbe64abca7cb8af480b51dac66accb702a9ec62caeca19b21a453a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 33-1 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+PLAINTIFF,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904 JSR
+AFFIDAVIT OF
+SARA D. AGUIÑIGA
+V.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+DEFENDANT.
+1, Sara D. Aguiñiga, declare and state the following:
+I have never been convicted of a felony;
+I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or
+readmission by any court; and
+3.
+there are no disciplinary proceedings presently against me.
+I make this Affidavit in support of my Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice to appear as counsel
+for Plaintiff, Government of the United States Virgin Islands, in the above-captioned action.
+Dated: January 24, 2023
+San
+SARA D. AGUIÑIGA
+aji
+Motley Rice LLC
+401 9th Street NW, Suite 630
+Washington, DC 20004
+(202) 386-9628 phone / (202) 386-9622 fax
+saguiniga@motleyrice.com
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 33-1 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 2
+DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
+SWORN to and subscribed before me this 24 day of January 2023.
+My Commotion spies: 0 14/2227
+KELL,
+NOTARYS
+EXP.
+10-14-2
+0F
+...
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/04d50ffc1adbe64abca7cb8af480b51dac66accb702a9ec62caeca19b21a453a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04d50ffc1adbe64abca7cb8af480b51dac66accb702a9ec62caeca19b21a453a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..60ab0b8636a4bc94c4ca570711c68a023763590d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04d50ffc1adbe64abca7cb8af480b51dac66accb702a9ec62caeca19b21a453a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "04d50ffc1adbe64abca7cb8af480b51dac66accb702a9ec62caeca19b21a453a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "4bae64fc62b465b6c3770217253bd8335c08dd7ff04ae35ffc52cf0471d13249",
+  "output_sha256": "3930d015047e38ecda17b781c19ccd9144e0b1c5575d30dcf4b504a16ee64f1b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/04f1a8c31ef48f27c588eecae16d2f7d0267e70b138921c984cf30a2664834b5.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04f1a8c31ef48f27c588eecae16d2f7d0267e70b138921c984cf30a2664834b5.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90148be8880552cea8c3bae675c0b160536ad34e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04f1a8c31ef48f27c588eecae16d2f7d0267e70b138921c984cf30a2664834b5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,903 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 16
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP|
+Chase
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+CASE NO. 22-cv-10904
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+May 24, 2023
+V.
+JP
+CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+/
+*CONFIDENTIAL*
+VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
+FORMER GOV. KENNETH E. MAPP
+Wednesday, May 24, 2023
+9:48 a.m. - 5:03 p.m.
+Conducted at
+Losey, PLIC
+1420 Edgewater Drive
+Orlando, Florida 32804
+Reported by:
+Janet
+Job No.:
+RPR, CRC, FPR
+J9718146
+ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+25
+Virgin Islands.
+e.
+And then as the program evolved, you
+mentioned the pre-financial age in your prior
+testimony?
+A. Yes.
+l. Can you explain what you mean by that?
+A.
+Well, it was generally created starting as
+a manufacturing operation. And then, you know, I
+guess as the sophistication of artificial intelligence
+and technology took place and financial work and
+investment took place from a global nature, the law
+was amended; the Congressional act, I believe, as well
+as the local statute was amended to create management
+of varying things. Like financial certainly was one
+of them.
+And so we began to see folks who were
+involved in financial management. Small -- well,
+large companies that were doing small, unsecured loans
+and things of that nature, moving their operations
+into the territory.
+At one point we saw -- we were successful
+in getting the parent entity for the Cancer Treatment
+Centers of America to put its corporate sort of
+operations there to manage its health facilities
+throughout the country. And that generated, you know,
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+26
+high-level, high-quality folks that had to have a
+really diverse and high education for that level of
+work in and out the Virgin Islands in the
+Virgin Islands.
+And that leads into my next question, which
+is:
+What is the -- what are the benefits that the
+Virgin
+Islands received from having financial
+companies participate in this EDA program?
+A. Well, you got - you got the high-worth
+employment. You got high-worth individuals. Because,
+ultimately, when a person -- when an entity moves in
+and - let's say a financial adviser, an investment
+adviser gets a -- comes in as an EDC entity, not only
+they get the benefit of the tax exemptions on what
+they're doing from their management operations in the
+Virgin Islands, the owners or partners of those
+entities who are now residents of the
+Virgin Islands -- and Congress enacted what defined as
+a resident of the Virgin Islands —- their total income
+became subject to now Virgin Islands' tax law. Which
+Virgin Islands' tax law for all the purposes of this
+conversation is a mirror of the Internal Revenue Code.
+The Virgin Islands doesn't have any independent income
+tax statute.
+Pursuant to the Revised Organic Act, we
+mirror the Internal Revenue Codes and all of the
+→ ESQUIRE
+800.211. DEPO (3376)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+27
+operations of the Internal Revenue -- the Bureau of
+Internal Revenue mirrors the activities of the
+Internal Revenue Service and is literally subject to
+supervision of the Internal Revenue Service over the
+operations of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
+And so that entity, that person who may
+have -- let's say had 100% of the shares or a majority
+of the shares who are now residents of the
+Virgin Islands, they would have to file their taxes in
+the Virgin Islands pursuant to all of their income.
+And so for those portions of the income
+that were not benefiting from the tax exempt status,
+taxes applied to them would be collected and put,
+deposited into the treasury of the government of the
+Virgin Islands.
+So the EDC program, the IDC program, as we
+envisioned it and put it together with the blessing of
+the US Congress, was generally created to drive jobs.
+Expand the economy.
+You create high-worth individuals
+who are now investing, living in the Virgin Islands,
+building homes,
+having those homes needing to be
+serviced, creating employment in their varying
+activities.
+Manufacturing. Industrial operations.
+Now financial management.
+Then generating a community
+that have the ability and is required pursuant to
+→ ESQUIRE
+800.211. DEPO (3376)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+28
+their EDC certificates to make a significant level of
+charitable contributions to stated charities in the US
+Virgin Islands.
+And during the time that you were governor,
+from 2015 to 2019, Mr. Epstein's financial trust
+company was a participant in the EDC program?
+A.
+Yes.
+Q. And was their oversight by the government
+of the Virgin Islands during your tenure as
+government -- excuse me -- governor from 2015 through
+2019 over the participants in the EDC program?
+MR. ACKERMAN: Object to form.
+A. Generally, yes; by the Economic
+Development Authority. Because prior -- and I'm
+searching, just to make sure I'm kind of accurate in
+the years. I can't give the months. But certainly
+during the tenure of Gov. Turnbull a number of members
+of Congress raised some serious exception. Because
+high-worth operations within the varying states were
+relocating their corporate activities and operations
+within the US Virgin Islands. And so it was depleting
+revenues from some of the state and city and county
+governments where they were operating. And there were
+some operations, that the Economic Development
+Authority was giving tax exemptions to certain
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 7 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP |
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+34
+l. Sorry. Let me reask the question.
+In 2014, do you know how much Mr. Epstein
+or one of his entities contributed to your campaign
+fund?
+A. If he contributed to the campaign, he would
+have been limited to contributing $1,000. Now there
+were PACs out there were giving support to the
+campaign. And, you know, the PACs don't have
+limitations in terms of the contributions. And so I
+can't speculate beyond that.
+But, generally, when you go meet some
+entity, some businessperson, generally you will get
+some contribution to the campaign. But that's, again,
+limited to the $1, 000 mark.
+e. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein contributed
+to a PAC that was sporting you in the 2014
+gubernatorial campaign?
+A.
+I don't know, but I would say I believe so.
+l. And then you mentioned the inaugural
+committee and your understanding or belief that
+Mr. Epstein or one of his companies contributed to the
+inaugural committee. Do you know how much was
+contributed to that?
+A.
+No, I do not.
+2. After you became governor, did you receive
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 8 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+40
+BY MS. ELLSWORTH:
+Gov. Mapp, we were, just before we broke,
+talking about the lunch that you had on Mr. Epstein's
+island. And, again, that was at some point between
+2015 and 2019.
+Correct?
+A. Yeah. Yes. It may -- maybe sometime in
+2016.
+What was the purpose of that lunch?
+A. Well, he - I believe at that time we were
+attempting to do, float municipal bonds. And he had
+been trying to assist me. I actually asked for his
+help; as an investment person and a person that I
+believed to, you know, be very connected to the
+market.
+We were having tremendous difficulty with
+the issuance of the bonds. Because at that time on
+the national stage Congress was really involved in the
+debt crisis in Puerto Rico. So there was a bill that
+was constructed, generally known as PROMESA, which
+stands for some long label of words. But it was
+dealing with what would happen, how it would sort of
+protect the bondholders, the persons holding notes in
+Puerto Rico, and how Puerto Rico would have to manage
+what was expected to be a default on its debt.
+MR. DUNN: Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt,
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 9 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP |
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+41
+but the witness is muted.
+We can't hear
+anything on the Zoom.
+VIDEOGRAPHER: I apologize. I must have
+muted that.
+MS. ELLSWORTH: Sorry.
+Sorry, Jonathan. You're unmuted now.
+A. And while the PROMESA conversations were
+taking place between the House and the US Senate, it
+was driving a lot of consternation in the market about
+the debt of the territories. And so we were trying to
+keep territories out of the PROMESA language and keep
+the PROMESA discussion and language specifically
+directed to Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico's financial
+issues.
+And there was literally a collaboration
+that all of the territories should be -- PROMESA
+shouldn't be Puerto Rico specific. It should be all
+of the territories.
+And so the territories, we were concerned
+about that. But more specifically I was concerned.
+Because I'm now going into the market trying to get, I
+believe, $200-something-million for varying financial
+needs. And so we were dealing with that and trying to
+see how we would structure this bond deal. And one of
+the options that were on the table was that, if a
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 10 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+42
+natural issuance of bonds were going to run into -
+was going to be hampered by the PROMESA debate and
+activity, what opportunities would we have for what is
+known as a private placement of the bonds? Because at
+the end of the day, the amount was $200-somethingmillion. And, again, the interest earnings on
+Virgin Islands debt
+is about 90% tax exempt, if not
+all exempt.
+We didn't believe we had a problem
+establishing our ability to pay the debt. Because
+we've never had any issue in paying Virgin Islands
+debt, given the structure that we use.
+And so I think in that collaboration, I
+asked for Jeffrey Epstein -- I was seeking
+Jeffrey Epstein's advice. I was seeking
+Mosler's advice, another EDC entity who does
+investment banking. And I believe Dave
+from
+capital markets. Who also do financial management. I
+was seeking their input and advice in terms of how to
+get -- how to be successful in issuing what was some
+really critically-needed bonds for financing some
+critical financing needs of the territory.
+(By Ms. Ellsworth) And at the lunch meeting
+that you had with Mr. Epstein, was the subject of
+discussion focused on this bond issuance issue?
+A. It was focused on that. But Mr. Epstein
+& ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 11 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+120
+cables directly into Florida and into New York. That
+could benefit such a business.
+So to the extent of making that well-known
+and looking for recommendations and spreading the word
+that the Virgin Islands had this unique attribute that
+it was pushing for business investment, that would be
+the extent of the conversations.
+e.
+(By Ms. Ellsworth) Is it fair to say that
+one of your campaign platforms when you ran for
+governor was to increase business investment in the
+Virgin Islands?
+A. Significantly.
+l. And one of your key platforms as governor
+was to increase business investment in the
+Virgin Islands?
+A. Yes.
+l. And you did discuss those platforms with
+Mr. Epstein as a business owner on the Virgin Islands.
+Correct?
+A.
+Yes.
+Did you discuss Mr. Epstein's advice about
+increasing government -- excuse me -- business
+investment in the US Virgin Islands?
+A.
+Mr. Epstein. Members of the Chamber of
+Commerce. Other members of the EDC Community. Local
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 12 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP|
+Chase
+businesses.
+Members of Congress. Members of the
+Senate.
+May 24, 2023
+121
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Any advice, any way that folks felt the
+Virgin Islands lacked in its approach to its messages
+about the Virgin Islands being open for business and
+how to help facilitate business investment. And even,
+you know, a number of folks had a lot of
+recommendations about some of the failures within the
+Virgin Islands's public system in terms of
+facilitating business growth and development in terms
+of how we handle registering businesses, licensing
+businesses. Just the time involved and the
+bureaucratic - the bureaucracy, and how it impacted
+and delayed and frustrated people.
+You know. I was just open to all of that.
+l. And so the answer is yes, you did seek
+Mr. Epstein's advice about how to increase business
+investment in the Virgin Islands?
+A.
+Yes. Yes.
+MR. ACKERMAN: Object to form.
+(By Ms. Ellsworth) What advice do you
+recall receiving from Mr. Epstein about how to
+increase business investment in the Virgin Islands?
+A.
+Some of the bureaucracy issues. Some of
+the limitations that EDC businesses faced. And I
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 13 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+145
+A.
+Uh-hum.
+Q.
+Are you familiar with the limitations on
+contributions to multicandidate political committees
+imposed by the Virgin Islands Code?
+A.
+Well, I know that election committees, such
+as my gubernatorial campaign, contributions I believe
+are limited to $1,000.
+Do you know anything about limitations for
+donations to political action committees?
+A. They are not -- I do not believe political
+action committees are covered by the same statute as a
+campaign committee.
+2. Do you have any familiarity with these
+sections of the Virgin Islands Code?
+A. I do not.
+MR. ACKERMAN: Objection to form.
+e.
+(By Ms. Ellsworth) Does this refresh your
+recollection as to who Darren Indyke is?
+MR. ACKERMAN: Objection to form.
+A. No. I do not know who Darren Indyke is.
+(By Ms. Ellsworth) And you see that this
+email, Mr. Indyke's email to Mr. Epstein was forwarded
+to you. Correct?
+A. Yes.
+l. Do you recall receiving this email?
+2 ESQUIRE
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 14 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+216
+e. Did you ask Mr. Epstein from time to time
+for advice on spurring investment interest in the
+USVI?
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A. I go back to the original responses to this
+deposition. And you asked me about why I was having
+conversations with Jeffrey Epstein. And as I
+indicated, given
+his role in the financial market, his
+portrayal as an investment banker, the apparent
+success of his business operations; as I did with
+other EDC beneficiaries, we wanted to grow the
+program. We wanted to expand the program. We wanted
+to enhance the benefits of the program. And who best
+to give you reactions and advice to doing that but the
+people who were experiencing the program and using the
+program to their benefit?
+MS. ELLSWORTH: Why don't we take a break?
+MR. ACKERMAN: Okay.
+VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at
+3:23.
+(Recess)
+VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at
+3:43 p.m.
+MR. ACKERMAN: So the record is complete,
+the Government is not going to claw back
+
+ESQUIRE
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 15 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP L
+Chase
+afternoon.
+May 24, 2023
+256
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+The first question I have for you is this.
+We have looked at emails with
+Mr. Epstein -- or between you and Mr. Epstein today.
+You have testified about meetings that you
+had with Mr. Epstein.
+In any of your contacts with Mr. Epstein
+did you have, ever have any indication that
+Mr. Epstein was engaged in sex trafficking or human
+trafficking in the Virgin Islands?
+A. I had no knowledge that he was engaged in
+human trafficking or sex trafficking anywhere.
+Q. (By Ms. Ellsworth) Did anything about your
+communications or meetings with Mr. Epstein ever
+suggest to you that he was engaged in sex trafficking
+or human trafficking in the Virgin Islands?
+A. Nothing.
+l. Did you as Governor provide any special
+treatment to Mr. Epstein?
+MS. ELLSWORTH: Object to the form.
+A.
+None.
+l. (By Mr. Ackerman) Did you as Governor give
+Mr. Epstein any favors or benefits that you would not
+have afforded any other resident of the
+Virgin Islands?
+2 ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 283-5 Filed 08/14/23 Page 16 of 16
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+257
+MS.
+ELLSWORTH: Object to the form.
+A.
+None.
+Q. (By Mr. Ackerman) Okay. When you met with
+Mr.
+Epstein did you know where his money came from?
+A. I did not.
+l. Okay. When you met or conversed with
+Mr. Epstein did you know when and to whom he was
+making money transfers?
+A. I did not.
+2. Did you have any access to that
+information?
+A. None.
+2. When you met or conversed with Mr. Epstein
+did you know the amounts of money transfers he was
+making and receiving?
+A. No.
+MS. ELLSWORTH: Object to the form.
+None.
+A.
+e.
+(By Mr. Ackerman) Did you have access to
+that information?
+A. I did not.
+2. When you met or conversed with Mr. Epstein
+did you know how often he withdrew cash from his
+accounts?
+MS. ELLSWORTH: Object to the form.
+ESQUIRE
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/04f1a8c31ef48f27c588eecae16d2f7d0267e70b138921c984cf30a2664834b5.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04f1a8c31ef48f27c588eecae16d2f7d0267e70b138921c984cf30a2664834b5.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..87409d9236c9bb70d046580f551e5bb1a3ed0ce8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/04f1a8c31ef48f27c588eecae16d2f7d0267e70b138921c984cf30a2664834b5.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1707,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "04f1a8c31ef48f27c588eecae16d2f7d0267e70b138921c984cf30a2664834b5",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 20,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "879a7754f576809c0920d5bff4d8a8960b94a659a708b22d3b1a535aff4fee0a",
+  "output_sha256": "9cd475413a8e3212ab34c6397e3c6e7949edaf70468b979c67e139a10dd63a53",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/055cf601c2b5e126f225fa249cd076d518ed16734e94423a5f50dfc7836b0400.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/055cf601c2b5e126f225fa249cd076d518ed16734e94423a5f50dfc7836b0400.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d198922250ebd954283a24a9de53eca811597f4a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/055cf601c2b5e126f225fa249cd076d518ed16734e94423a5f50dfc7836b0400.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 341-6 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/055cf601c2b5e126f225fa249cd076d518ed16734e94423a5f50dfc7836b0400.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/055cf601c2b5e126f225fa249cd076d518ed16734e94423a5f50dfc7836b0400.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a7a74a6017296fcfae7dbf93405ed202d0918423
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/055cf601c2b5e126f225fa249cd076d518ed16734e94423a5f50dfc7836b0400.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "055cf601c2b5e126f225fa249cd076d518ed16734e94423a5f50dfc7836b0400",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "d7d132607d4f2e46538c26de0b37864bcda2def8e50579d1b8e4f3bf203d649e",
+  "output_sha256": "62209309f9af3354f7169da9aa018e7f2d4c863083511fe9c1b25501e24b706c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/05a437dd5df3b00ae5fa7c9a1573a13f36c5e9d678e9c3e84296a3bf7b6024d7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05a437dd5df3b00ae5fa7c9a1573a13f36c5e9d678e9c3e84296a3bf7b6024d7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eda5be09c206e1297e0e37cc080241fc2f682e6e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05a437dd5df3b00ae5fa7c9a1573a13f36c5e9d678e9c3e84296a3bf7b6024d7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 54-3 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 1
+DOBAR
+COURT OF APPENE
+On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
+the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that
+Meghan Shea Blaszak
+was duly qualified and admitted on July 8, 2005 as an attorney and counselor entitled to
+practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good
+standing of this Bar.
+In Testimony Whereof.
+I have hereunto subscribed my
+name and affixed the seal of this
+Court at the City of
+Washington, D.C., on February 06, 2023.
+Gula cartele
+JULIO A CASTILLO
+Clerk of the Court
+Issued By:
+David
+•- Director, Membership
+District of Columbia Bar Membership
+For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email
+memberservices@dcbar.org-
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/05a437dd5df3b00ae5fa7c9a1573a13f36c5e9d678e9c3e84296a3bf7b6024d7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05a437dd5df3b00ae5fa7c9a1573a13f36c5e9d678e9c3e84296a3bf7b6024d7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4be38ab345a5d5f4bd2e0e6f061d2d1bb7b04588
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05a437dd5df3b00ae5fa7c9a1573a13f36c5e9d678e9c3e84296a3bf7b6024d7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "05a437dd5df3b00ae5fa7c9a1573a13f36c5e9d678e9c3e84296a3bf7b6024d7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "122b6f6a3eec3d6ad60488de79ec5e9836b6ab5d46dc2dd48c7647e6771dc127",
+  "output_sha256": "0812b4b04ff264953b425d784d5134598fdea3cb123b9b61124e8e10f291af7d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/05b8acb2704015eb621634a69a7e67de9a917779186db94bae2c875d3056a6a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05b8acb2704015eb621634a69a7e67de9a917779186db94bae2c875d3056a6a9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..19339598317600e93721c74be6a59449501f21ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05b8acb2704015eb621634a69a7e67de9a917779186db94bae2c875d3056a6a9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 243-2 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 243-2 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 3
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Duffy, John R [john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com]
+8/15/2013 12:31:01 AM
+Erdoes, Mary E [mary.erdoes@jpmorgan.com]
+Re: JE
+Doubt it,
+John R. Duffy
+J.P.
+CEO, U.S. Private Bank
+270 Park Avenue
+New York, NY 10017
+Tel: 212-464-1468
+Email: john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+J.P.
+Securities LLC
+doesn't have it. only discussed potential
+debt deal.
+----- Original Message
+From: Erdoes,
+магу E
+Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 05:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
+To: Duffy, John R
+Subject: Re: JE
+I5
+]going to give him poa?
+PENGAD 900-631-6905
+
+2rdoes -49
+31523
+- Original Message
+From: Duffy, John R
+Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 03:12 PM
+To: Erdoes, Mary E
+Subject: Re: JE
+He can wait with swill beco
+•s primary advisor and will be calling the shots. Wants to be sure
+work with us on
+and others.
+John R. Duffy
+J.P.
+CEO,
+D.S. Private Bank
+270
+Park Avenue
+New York, NY 10017
+Tel: 212-464-1468
+Email: john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+J.P.
+Securities LLC
+original Message
+5 0 4 Me 21, 201 0015 an easter standard tree
+From: Duffy, JoMes sage m
+sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 03:21 AM
+To: Erdoes, Mary E
+subject: JE
+He called yesterday.
+Still looking for closure. Understands better now the impact of his cash
+activities - sticking to aviation needs.
+Separately, he maintains he will be
+She future, I told him e would work with primas lodg as and shrough the other lent as, tents ins
+would not be acceptable.
+That's ok right?
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00101010
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 243-2 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 3
+John R. Duffy
+J.P.
+CEO,
+.S. Private Bank
+270 Park Avenue
+New York, NY 10017
+Tel: 212-464-1468
+Email: john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+J.P.
+Securities LLC
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/05b8acb2704015eb621634a69a7e67de9a917779186db94bae2c875d3056a6a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05b8acb2704015eb621634a69a7e67de9a917779186db94bae2c875d3056a6a9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0709a9c4eef036dcc23455c2e74471d39b74903
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05b8acb2704015eb621634a69a7e67de9a917779186db94bae2c875d3056a6a9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -78,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "05b8acb2704015eb621634a69a7e67de9a917779186db94bae2c875d3056a6a9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "b1961cd9810f065ad0bca288535e743ffcebc99c45da20745906d0afa9510d90",
+  "output_sha256": "464328720b53542965ef4ae5f2c51b0aa48a31c691805570e18d90c3adcc280d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/05e90b4ac39bff8a333b3f7704ee336a3c756b1523ab9793b84a1f3fb15c8d0b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05e90b4ac39bff8a333b3f7704ee336a3c756b1523ab9793b84a1f3fb15c8d0b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..62079ad9d43e86833ac1c2d4bd6142e0aad69d1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05e90b4ac39bff8a333b3f7704ee336a3c756b1523ab9793b84a1f3fb15c8d0b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2852 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 99
+ATTACHMENT B
+PART 3
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 99
+Figure 11: Indirect Payments for the benefit Women from the Epstein Accounts
+Steven D. Kaplan, DMD
+Total
+Amount
+$1,260.00
+S1,260.00
+Spanish American Institute
+Total
+$840.00
+$840.00
+International Center of Photography
+Total
+$1,290.00
+$1,290.00
+Castle Worldwide Inc.
+Pacific College of Oriental Medicine
+Steven D. Kaplan, DMD
+Total
+$250.00
+$21,245.86
+$5,700.00
+$27,195.86
+Laguardia College
+The World's Community College
+Total
+$2,425.85
+$4,135.85
+S6,561.70
+New York Film Academy
+Steven R. Erle, MD, PC
+Total
+$6,040.00
+$450.00
+$6,490.00
+Bloomingdales
+Express
+$532.77
+$380.87
+121
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 99
+I C Systems
+Target
+Victoria's Secret
+Total
+Amount
+$329.00
+$352.10
+$211.04
+$1,805.78
+Alan Barnett DLP, LLC
+The International Culinary Center L
+Total
+$10,400.00
+$42,000.00
+$52,400.00
+Samuel C. Klagsbrun M.D.
+Total
+$2,000.00
+S2,000.00
+ATP USA, Inc.
+Total
+$26,000.00
+$26,000.00
+New York Film Academy
+Total
+$3,500.00
+53,500.00
+Alliance Nursing
+Dr. David Price
+Dr. Gerald Imber
+Dr. Jane Recant
+Office Based Surgery Care
+Total
+S2,275.00
+$412.00
+$20,000.00
+$2,000.00
+$1,500.00
+$26,187.00
+Fashion Institute of Technology
+122
+$2,020.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 99
+Total
+Amount
+$2,020.00
+ALCC American Language
+Grand Total
+$1,408.00
+$1,408.00
+$158,958.34
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by
+USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador. Disputed that this information was available to
+JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Disputed as
+to whether the persons listed were minors when they received the payments as their age is
+not provided in the cited source. Disputed as to materiality to the extent this summary
+fails to put Epstein's transactions in the appropriate context. See JPMC Ex. 60 1 22, 23,
+91,92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+233. JPMorgan also handled $5,600 in legal fees from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts for the
+benefit of three women-
+Ex. 56 at 40-41
+and Figure 12 (copied below).
+Figure 12: Legal Fees Payments for Women from the Epstein Accounts
+Date
+Check #
+1/30/2009
+1/11/2012
+2691
+3359
+Payee
+Vincent A. Fuller, Jr., Esq
+M. Arda Beskardes, Esq.
+Amount
+Memo line:
+$4,500.00
+$600.00
+8/21/2012
+3412
+M. Arda Beskardes, Esq.
+$500.00
+Total
+$5,600.00
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document and chart are summaries of
+transactions prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador. Disputed that this
+123
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 99
+information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client
+of JPMorgan. Further disputed as to materiality. See JPMC Ex. 60 191 & n.166
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+Smaller Dollar and "Gift" Payments to Girls or Women and $100,000 Payments
+234.
+Ex. 156 (2012 Jeffrey E.
+Epstein Gift Tax Return).
+124
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 99
+125
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 7 of 99
+126
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 8 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by
+USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador. Disputed that this information was available to
+JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Disputed as
+to whether the persons listed were minors when they received the payments as their age is
+127
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 9 of 99
+not provided in the cited source. Disputed as to materiality to the extent this summary
+fails to put Epstein's transactions in the appropriate context. See JPMC Ex. 60 M 22, 23,
+91, 92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+235.
+Date
+Amount
+Payee
+128
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 10 of 99
+129
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 11 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by USVI.
+Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time
+Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Further disputed as to materiality of these payments
+based on the amounts or that they are provided to attorneys and law firms. See JPMC Ex.
+60 € 91 & n. 166
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+236.
+130
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 12 of 99
+131
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 13 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by USVI.
+Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time
+Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Disputed as to whether the persons listed were minors
+when they received the payments as their age is not provided in the cited source.
+Disputed as to materiality to the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in
+the appropriate context. See JPMC Ex. 60 11 22, 23, 91, 92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+237.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by USVI.
+Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time
+Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Further disputed as to materiality of these payments
+132
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 14 of 99
+from Epstein to a communications and reputation management firm to any of USVI's
+claims against JPMC. See JPMC Ex.64.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+238. From September 2006 through December 2006, JPMorgan handled $883,750.00 in
+payments from Epstein's accounts to Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black, Gerald Lefcourt, and Jack
+Goldberger (relevant transactions identified and summarized in the chart below).
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by USVI.
+Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time
+Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Further disputed as to materiality or relevance of
+payments from Epstein to his attorneys and law firms to USVT's claims in this matter.
+See JPMC Ex. 60 € 91 & n.166
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19 108-169.
+239.
+Date
+1/2/2007
+2/7/2007
+4/3/2007
+5/9/2007
+Payee
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
+ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
+133
+Amount
+$178,000.00
+$78,292.50
+$137,458.00
+$75.000.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-1SR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 15 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by USVI.
+Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time
+134
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 16 of 99
+Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Further disputed as to materiality or relevance of
+payments from Epstein to his attorneys and law firms to USVT's claims in this matter.
+See JPMC Ex. 60 1 91 & n. 166
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+240. From 2006 through 2013, JPMorgan handled $50, 909,656.04 in payments from Epstein's
+JPMorgan accounts to various law firms, including $9,505,547.91 in payments from January 2006
+through September 24, 2007; $5,597,358.02 in payments from September 25, 2007 through June
+30, 2008; and $35,806, 750.11 from July 1, 2008 through December 2013 (relevant transactions
+identified and summarized in the chart below).
+135
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 17 of 99
+136
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 18 of 99
+137
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 19 of 99
+138
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 20 of 99
+139
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 21 of 99
+140
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Pane 22 of 99
+141
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 23 of 99
+142
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 24 of 99
+143
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 25 of 99
+144
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 26 of 99
+145
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 27 of 99
+146
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 28 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that this is a summary of transactions prepared by USVI.
+Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time
+Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Further disputed as to materiality or relevance of
+payments from Epstein to his attorneys and law firms to USVI's claims in this matter.
+See JPMC Ex. 60 1 91 & n. 166
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+241. JPMorgan Private Bank's Client Cash Transaction Guidelines states: "The receipt of
+large cash deposits and disbursements of cash withdrawals for other than client casual spending
+needs to be discouraged. It is the primary responsibility of the Banker to obtain explanations on
+the source of the cash and acceptability of the intended use of the case, and to assess the
+plausibility of these explanations for large cash transactions. " Ex. 157 at -224.
+147
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 29 of 99
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited document.
+JPMorgan's Client Cash Transaction Guidelines, last review date November 20, 2012,
+state "The receipt of large cash deposits and disbursements of cash withdrawals for other
+than client casual spending needs is discouraged." See USVI Ex. 157 at -1227.
+Otherwise, undisputed that cited document contains quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+242. From September 2003 through November 2013, JPMorgan recorded cash withdrawals
+from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts totaling $5,018,472. Ex. 56 at 24-26 and Figure 8 (copied
+below).
+Year
+2003
+2004
+2005
+2006
+2007
+2008
+2009
+2010
+2011
+2012
+2013
+Total
+Epstein
+#0438
+$175,310
+$840,000
+$901,337
+$935,265
+$520,000
+$460,000
+$100,011
+$223,397
+$200,000
+Figure 8: CTRs Relating to Epstein Accounts By Year
+Epstein
+#0663
+Hyperion
+#4332
+NYSG
+116 East 65th
+St LLC#4235
+#3130
+$3,000
+$3,000
+$6,000
+$9,000
+$60,000
+$30,000
+$5,000
+$4,355,320
+$90,000
+$60,000
+$290,000
+$197,152
+S547,152
+$21,000
+$5,000
+Total
+$175,310
+$840,000
+$904,337
+$938,265
+$526,000
+$469,000
+$165,011
+$253,397
+$260,000
+$290,000
+$197,152
+$5,018,472
+148
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 30 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador. Disputed that this information was
+available to JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan.
+Disputed as to materiality to the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in
+the appropriate context. See JPMC Ex. 60 11 22, 88, 92.
+Disputed insofar as US VI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 91 108-169.
+243. From 2006 through 2013, JPMorgan recorded $3,098,825 in cash withdrawals from
+Epstein's JPMorgan accounts. Ex. 56 at 24-26 and Figure 8.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador. Disputed that this information was
+available to JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan.
+Disputed as to materiality to the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in
+the appropriate context. See JPMC Ex. 60 91 22, 88, 92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 911 108-169.
+244. From 2003 to 2007, JPMorgan recorded $3,383,912 in cash withdrawals from Epstein's
+JPMorgan accounts. Ex. 56 at 24-26 and Figure 8.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador. Disputed that this information was
+available to JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan.
+Disputed as to materiality to the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in
+the appropriate context. See JPMC Ex. 60 91 22, 88 92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19 108-169.
+245.
+From 2005 to 2006, JPMorgan recorded $1,842,602 in cash withdrawals from Epstein's
+JPMorgan accounts. Ex. 56 at 24-26 and Figure 8.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+repared by US VI's proffered expert Jorge Amador. Disputed that this information wa
+vailable to JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgar
+Disputed as to materiality to the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in
+the appropriate context. See JPMC Ex. 60 99 22, 88 92.
+149
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 31 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19 108-169.
+246. From August 2006 through June 2008, JPMorgan recorded $1,134,000 in cash
+withdrawals from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts (relevant transactions identified and summarized
+in the chart below).
+Transaction Date |
+8/10/2006
+8/24/2006
+9/7/2006
+9/21/2006
+10/19/2006
+11/10/2006
+11/20/2006
+12/15/2006
+1/18/2007
+2/20/2007
+3/1/2007
+4/5/2007
+4/5/2007
+5/2/2007
+6/11/2007
+7/10/2007
+7/10/2007
+8/2/2007
+Acct#
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+150
+Amount
+$60,000.00
+$25,000.00
+$3,000.00
+$3,000.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-Cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 32 of 99
+Transaction Date |
+9/4/2007
+9/19/2007
+10/24/2007
+11/27/2007
+12/14/2007
+1/7/2008
+2/13/2008
+2/13/2008
+3/5/2008
+4/1/2008
+4/24/2008
+5/21/2008
+Acct#
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Amount
+$3,000.00
+6/16/2008
+Grand Total
+$1,134,000.00
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+prepared by USVI. Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this
+format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Disputed as to materiality to
+the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in the appropriate context. See
+JPMC Ex. 60 19 22,88,92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+247. From August 2006 through November 2013, JPMorgan recorded $2,485,560.00 in cash
+withdrawals from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts (relevant transactions identified and summarized
+in the chart below).
+151
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 33 of 99
+8/10/2006
+8/24/2006
+9/7/2006
+9/21/2006
+10/19/2006
+11/10/2006
+11/20/2006
+12/15/2006
+1/18/2007
+2/20/2007
+3/1/2007
+4/5/2007
+4/5/2007
+5/2/2007
+6/11/2007
+7/10/2007
+7/10/2007
+8/2/2007
+9/4/2007
+9/19/2007
+10/24/2007
+11/27/2007
+Acct#
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+152
+Amount
+$60,000.00
+$25,000.00
+$3,000.00
+$3.000.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 34 of 99
+12/14/2007
+1/7/2008
+2/13/2008
+2/13/2008
+3/5/2008
+4/1/2008
+4/24/2008
+5/21/2008
+6/16/2008
+7/10/2008
+7/10/2008
+8/22/2008
+9/10/2008
+10/2/2008
+10/7/2008
+11/13/2008
+12/11/2008
+12/11/2008
+1/13/2009
+3/5/2009
+3/30/2009
+6/17/2009
+Acct#
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0663
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0663
+153
+Amount
+$3,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$3,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$20.000.00
+$3.000.00
+$20,011.00
+$30.000.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 35 of 99
+8/20/2009
+11/19/2009
+11/19/2009
+3/2/2010
+4/1/2010
+4/21/2010
+7/19/2010
+7/23/2010
+8/19/2010
+9/27/2010
+10/29/2010
+12/30/2010
+2/14/2011
+4/12/2011
+5/27/2011
+7/8/2011
+8/5/2011
+10/6/2011
+12/13/2011
+2/21/2012
+3/19/2012
+5/29/2012
+Acct#
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+116 East 65th St LLC
+#4235
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0663
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+154
+Amount
+$20,000.00
+$5,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$13,397.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 36 of 99
+7/9/2012
+7/31/2012
+9/10/2012
+9/28/2012
+10/23/2012
+12/7/2012
+2/28/2013
+6/4/2013
+8/1/2013
+11/1/2013
+Grand Total
+Acct#
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Amount
+$20,000.00
+$97,152.00
+S2,485,560.00
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+prepared by USVI. Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this
+format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Disputed as to materiality to
+the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in the appropriate context. See
+JPMC Ex. 60 11 22, 88 92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1 108-169.
+248.
+From September 2008 through November 2013, JPMorgan recorded $1,308,560 in cash
+withdrawals from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts (relevant transactions identified and summarized
+in the chart below).
+9/10/2008
+10/2/2008
+10/7/2008
+Acct#
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+155
+Total Cash
+$20,000.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 37 of 99
+11/13/2008
+12/11/2008
+12/11/2008
+1/13/2009
+3/5/2009
+3/30/2009
+6/17/2009
+8/20/2009
+11/19/2009
+11/19/2009
+3/2/2010
+4/1/2010
+4/21/2010
+7/19/2010
+7/23/2010
+8/19/2010
+9/27/2010
+10/29/2010
+12/30/2010
+2/14/2011
+4/12/2011
+5/27/2011
+Acct#
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+NYSG
+#3130
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0663
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epsteil
+·0663
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+| 116 East 65th St LLC
+#4235
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+10138
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0663
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+156
+Total Cash
+$20,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$3,000.00
+$20,011.00
+$20,000.00
+$5,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$20,000.00
+$13,397.00
+$40.000.00
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 38 of 99
+7/8/2011
+8/5/2011
+10/6/2011
+12/13/2011
+2/21/2012
+3/19/2012
+5/29/2012
+7/9/2012
+7/31/2012
+9/10/2012
+9/28/2012
+10/23/2012
+12/7/2012
+2/28/2013
+6/4/2013
+8/1/2013
+11/1/2013
+Grand Total
+Acct#
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Epstein
+#0438
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Total Cash
+$20,000.00
+$97,152.00
+S1,308,560.00
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+prepared by USVI. Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this
+format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Disputed as to materiality to
+the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in the appropriate context. See
+JPMC Ex. 60 19 22, 88 92.
+157
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 39 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11 108-169.
+249.
+From August 2013 through November 2013, JPMorgan recorded $117,152 in cash
+withdrawals from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts (relevant transactions identified and summarized
+in the chart below).
+8/1/2013
+Acct#
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Hyperion
+#4332
+Total Cash
+$20,000.00
+11/1/2013
+Grand Total
+$97,152.00
+S117,152.00
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document is a summary of transactions
+prepared by USVI. Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this
+format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan. Disputed as to materiality to
+the extent this summary fails to put Epstein's transactions in the appropriate context. See
+JPMC Ex. 60 11 22, 88 92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99 108-169.
+250.
+206-210.
+Ex. 158 at -133-134, -
+Id. at - 134.
+Ex.
+159 at -001002, -175-182.
+Id. at -001.
+158
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 40 of 99
+See SUMF 122.
+See JPMC Ex. 60 11 121-23.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+participated in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19 108-169.
+JPMorgan Benefited from Participation in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture
+JPMC Response: This is a header to which no response is warranted. Disputed insofar
+as USVI contends that the statements and documents cited below establish as a matter of
+law that JPMorgan benefited from participation in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking
+venture.
+251. JPMorgan first opened an account for Epstein in 1985. Ex. 39 at Resp. 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Epstein opened an account with one of JPMC's
+predecessor entities in 1985.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+252. JPMorgan admits that it earned fees and revenue from providing banking services to
+Epstein. Ex. 39 at Resp. 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that JPMorgan earned fees and revenue from providing
+banking services to Epstein.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+253. One of the factors impacting bonuses for JPMorgan Private Bankers was the revenies that
+clients brought into the bank. Ex. 160 at 46:11-18; 48:4-49:18.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Morris testified that revenues were one factor that
+was taken into account to determine the discretionary bonus a Private Banker would
+receive.
+159
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 41 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+In 2003, Epstein brought in over $8.1 million in revenue to the Private Bank. Ex. 161 at -
+254.
+088.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that the $8.1 million in revenue in 2003 was from Epstein's
+accounts at the JPMorgan Private Bank. USVI mischaracterizes the document, the $8.1
+million includes revenue from other Private Bank clients, primarily
+USVI Ex. 163 at -030.
+JPMC Ex. 65 at
+123:19-125:12.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+255. Epstein's $8.1 million in revemie in 2003 was the most investor revenue for JPMorgan
+Wealth Management. Ex. 161 at -088.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+responsible for "the most investor revenue for JPMorgan Wealth Management" in 2003.
+The cited document reflects revenues from only a small subset of JPMorgan Private Bank
+clients, specifically just the Private Bank clients who were categorized as "investors."
+Moreover, the revenues related to Epstein include those derived from other clients.
+principally
+- See USVI Ex. 163 at -030..
+JPMC Ex. 65 at 123:19-125:12.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+256. Epstein's $8.1 million in revenue in 2003 was nearly double the amount of JPMorgan
+Wealth Management's second-highest client. Ex. 161 at -088.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+responsible for revenues "nearly double the amount of JPMorgan Wealth Management's
+second-highest client" in 2003. The cited document reflects revenues from only a small
+subset of JPMorgan Private Bank clients, specifically just the Private Bank clients who
+were categorized as "investors." Moreover, the revenues related to Epstein include those
+derived from other clients, principally
+. See USVI Ex. 163 at -030.
+160
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 42 of 99
+JPMC Ex. 65 at 123:19-125:12.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+257. In 2003, "Jeffrey Epstein, through the trading of his accounts and that [sic] of
+• generates one of the largest annual revenue flows of private clients in the private bank."
+Ex. 162 at -098. In 2004, Epstein's JPMorgan Banker considered the Epstein/Wexner relationship
+a "crucial relationship to the private bank. " Ex. 163 at -030.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited documents contain quoted the text. Disputed to
+the extent that USVI contends that Epstein was the primary driver of the revenue flows or
+was the "crucial relationship."
+accounts were the driver of the revenue
+and the key part of the relationship.
+Q: And you believe that [the
+relationship to the private bank; is that fair?
+] relationship was a, quote, crucial
+A: Mr.
+was a crucial relationship to the private bank, yes.
+Q: And Mr. Epstein?
+A: Mr. Epstein was the money manager for Mr.
+was part of an important relationship.
+, yes. So, therefore, he
+JPMC Ex. 66 at 117:20-118:7.
+JPMC Ex.
+T65 at 123:19-125:12.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+258. Leading up to Epstein's indictment in 2006, he was one of JPMorgan's "very big clients."
+Ex. 164 at -615.; Ex. 46 at 85:9-86:18.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited documents contain the quoted text. Disputed
+that Ep
+was one of JPMorgan's "very big clients."
+JPMC Ex. 65 at 122:2-
+161
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 43 of 99
+123:18
+see also JPMC Ex. 65 at 123:19-125:121
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+259. In October 2006, Epstein's JPMorgan accounts totaled approximately $32 million. Ex. 76
+at -953.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that as of October 17, 2006 a Rapid Response Team
+document states that "[the Epstein relationship ... consists of banking, asset and credit
+accounts with balances totaling approximately $32 million." USVI Ex. 76 at -953.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+260. At the October 2006 Rapid Response Team meeting, "[a]fter internal discussion with Jes
+Staley, Mary Erdoes, Catherine Keating, John Duffy and Mary L
+it was decided that we will
+keep Mr. Epstein solely as a banking client and on a 'reactive', client service basis." Ex. 39 at
+Resp. 44 (citing JPM-SDNYLIT-00127953 (Ex. 76)).
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the quoted document. The
+document states "[a]fter internal discussions," not "discussion." USVI Ex. 76 at -953.
+Otherwise, undisputed that cited document contains quoted text. JPMorgan lacks
+knowledge as to whether the referenced internal discussion in fact occurred.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+261. Kevin McCleerey testified that these conditions were imposed to "mitigate[] the risk"
+presented by Epstein by capping "the number of accounts and relationships with him." Ex. 35 at
+119:2-120:5.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that McCleerey testified that these conditions were imposed
+to "mitigate|] the risk" presented by Epstein by capping "the number of accounts and
+relationships with him." McCleerey testified that "limiting Mr. Epstein to banking and
+162
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 44 of 99
+custody... mitigat[ed] the risk presented by Mr. Epstein" because JPMorgan was "not
+expanding the relationship based on the reputational risk that we knew of at the time in
+October of 2006." USVI Ex. 35 at 119: 2-16. McCleerey further testified that "limiting
+[Epstein] to being a banking-only client" should have "limit[led the risk presented by Mr.
+Epstein" because "we would cap the number of accounts and relationships with him." Id.
+at 119:17-120:1-4.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+262.
+In October 2007, JPMorgan continued doing "business as usual with Epstein's office."
+Ex. 102 at -963.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that JPMorgan continued doing business as usual with
+Epstein's office in October 2007. JPMorgan did not continue doing business as usual
+with Epstein's office following his 2006 indictment and instead limited Epstein primarily
+to banking services. See USVI Ex. 76 at -953. The cited document is an October 25,
+2007 email from
+,, sent after the decision was made to limit Epstein to banking
+services, that contains the text "[m]y current understanding is that we are business as
+usual with Epstein's office" in the context of whether to authorize a new Letter of Credit
+for Epstein's office. See USVI Ex. 102 at -963.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+263.
+At the time, Mary Erdoes wanted to "move forward based on our earlier decision to
+continue doing business " with Epstein. Ex. 102 at -962; Ex. 32 at 264:16-265:2; 273:24-274:22.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document regarding the decision whether to
+authorize a new Letter of Credit for Epstein in October 2007 contains the quoted text.
+isputed that Erdoes "wanted" to move forward with authorizing a new letter of cred
+or Epstein in October 2007. JPMorgan lacks knowledge as to Erdoes' state of mir
+regarding whether or not to authorize a new Letter of Credit for Epstein in October 2007.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 111
+264.
+By July 2008, Epstein's JPMorgan accounts had increased to total approximately $121.5
+million. Ex. 165 at 944; Ex. 32 at 309:8-311:3
+163
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 45 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that a July 15, 2008 Rapid Response Meeting document
+contains quoted text "[the Epstein relationship ... mainly consists of banking and asset
+accounts with balances totaling approximately $121.5 million." USVI Ex. 165 at -944.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+265. On August 28, 2008, Mary L
+emails Marcus Sheridan, subject: "Re: '09 plan" and
+said: "Also, I would count Epstein's assets as a probable outflow for '08 ($120mm or so?) as I
+can't imagine it will stay (pending Dimon review). " Ex. 301 at-706_R.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document contains quoted text. Disputed as to
+the underlying suggestion that Dimon was involved in any Epstein review.
+testified that she intended her email to reference Cutler, "and [she] did not mean it to be
+Jamie Dimon, as he had nothing to do with this." JPMC Ex. 66 at 341:12-24. Mr.
+Sheridan, the recipient of the email, also testified
+JPMC Ex. 67 at
+129:8-23.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+266. On September 3, 2008, Epstein's JPMorgan accounts had a PCN Market Value of
+$156,218,451.45. Ex. 166 at -758; Ex. 39 at Resp. 3.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document identifies a "PCN Market Value" of
+$156,218,451.45.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+267. JPMorgan admits that in October 2010 Epstein was one of JPMorgan's top 20 clients in
+the Closely Held Business Group. Ex. 39 at Resp. 4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Epstein was one of JPMorgan's top 20 clients in the
+Closely Held Business Group as of October 2010.
+164
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 46 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+268.
+Ex. 167 at -654.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+269.
+Ex. 167 at -654.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+270.
+Ex. 167 at -654.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+271. By 2011, Epstein was JPMorgan Private Bank's "GIO's biggest revenue producer." Ex.
+168 at -977.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document contains quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+272. By July 2013, Epstein was still actively trading through the GIO. Ex. 169 at -230.
+165
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 47 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document, a July 3, 2013 email from Nelson to
+McCleerey and Duffy states, "The assets [Epstein] keeps at J.P.
+are his own
+money, which he actively trades through our Global Investment Opportunities desk with
+Paul
+team." USVI Ex. 169 at - 230.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+273.
+At the time, Epstein's Banker (Justin Nelson) described Epstein as "one of the most active
+and sophisticated investors on the GIO desk." Ex. 169 at -230.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Epstein's banker described Epstein as "one of the
+most active and sophisticated investors on the GIO desk." USVI Ex. 169 at -230.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 911
+274.
+In September 2013, JPMorgan noted the impact of exiting Epstein roughly equated to
+"SO.5MM YoY revenue decrease in 2013. In 2014 it will be roughly a -82MM revenue impact."
+Ex. 170 at -016. JPMorgan further noted, "He currently has $176MM with us and actually has
+TCP flows of +$72MM this year." Id.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that JPMorgan "noted the impact" of exiting Epstein
+equated to "$0.5MM YoY revenue decrease in 2013. In 2014 it will be roughly a -$2MM
+revenue impact." The quoted text appears in a September 24, 2013 email from Carmen
+Zee to
+K. Southmayd, which was sent after the decision was communicated to
+Epstein in August 2013 that JPMC would be exiting his relationship. See JPMC Ex. 68.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 919
+275.
+In or about the year 2000, Douglas "Sandy" Warner, then CEO of JPMorgan, said to
+Staley (then Head of Private Bank), "..[YJou should meet [sic] Epstein. He's one of the most
+connected people I know of in New York. " Ex. 46 at 45:18-47:4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Staley testified as to the quoted text. Disputed to the
+extent the underlying fact requires a credibility determination.
+166
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 48 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 919
+276.
+JPMorgan admits Epstein introduced and referred potential clients to JPMorgan Private
+Bank. Ex. 39 at Resps. 5, 6.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Epstein introduced and referred clients Robert Lee
+Burch III, Kathryn Ruemmler, and Ghisliane Maxwell to the JPMorgan Private Bank.
+See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 29; JPMC Ex. 69 at Resp. 3.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+277. Epstein referred a number of ultra-high net worth clients to JPMorgan over the years. Ex.
+48 at Resp. 17; Ex. 46 at 86:19-23.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Epstein referred Robert Lee Burch III, Kathryn
+Ruemmler, and Ghislaine Maxwell to JPMC. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 29; JPMC Ex.
+69 at Resp. 3.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 91
+278.
+One of the factors impacting bonuses for JPMorgan Private Bankers was new client
+acquisition. Ex. 171 at 83:18-84:4.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that one of the factors impacting bonuses for JPMorgan
+Private Bankers was new client acquisition. The cited document does not support the
+proposition as Nelson testified that new client acquisition was "one of the factors that
+could be considered for compensation." USVI Ex. 171 at 83:21-25; 84:1-4.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+279.
+One of the objectives that was instilled in JPMorgan Private Bankers was to acquire new
+clients. Epstein referred Bill Gates as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 88:3-4.
+167
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 49 of 99
+280.
+281.
+JPMC Response: Disputed that "[o]ne of the objectives that was instilled in JPMorgan
+Private Bankers was to acquire new clients." The cited testimony does not support this
+proposition. Disputed to the extent Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17 ("I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral.").
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+Epstein referred Sergey Brin as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 87:2-4.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17) ("I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral."). See also JPMC Ex 62 at Resp. 18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+Epstein referred Google LLC as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 87:5-6.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17 (*1 don't think
+[Epstein| referred chients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral."). Disputed that Ep
+referred Google LLC as a client to JPMorgan.
+See JPMC Ex. 71 at 53:3-18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 14
+282.
+Epstein referred the Sultan of Dubai, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem as a client to JPMorgan.
+Ex. 46 at 87:7-8.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17 (*I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral."). See also JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26.
+168
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 50 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+283.
+Epstein referred Mort Zuckerman as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 87:15-16.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17 ("I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral."). See also JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 28.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+284.
+Epstein referred the
+as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 87:17-18.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17) ("I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral.").
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+285. Epstein referred David Gergen as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 88:8-9.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17 ('I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral.").
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+286. Epstein referred Boris Nikolic as a client 1o JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 88:10-11; Ex. 160 at
+17:13-18:4.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17) ("I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral."). See also JPMC Ex. 72 at -701
+169
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 51 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 111
+287.
+Boris Nikolic was a medical advisor, who ran a venture fund. Ex. 160 at 17:13-18:4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Morris testified during his deposition that, "Boris
+Nikolic was a medical advisor. He was an entrepreneur, runs a venture fund." See USVI
+Ex. 160 at 17:22-25.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 911
+288.
+Boris Nikolic was "somehow related to Bill Gates. " Ex. 160 at 17:13-18:4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited deposition contains the quoted testimony.
+See USVI Ex. 160 at 18:2-4.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+289.
+Epstein referred Larry Summers as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 46 at 88:12-13.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17 ("I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral.").
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+290.
+Epstein referred
+Pritzker, chairman and CEO of the Pritzker Organization, as a
+client or for additional activities or funds to JPMorgan. Ex. 172 at Resp. 49; Ex. 46 at 310:19-
+311:4.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Staley's testimony does not support the assertion that
+Epstein referred any clients to JPMC. See JPMC Ex. 70 at 386:14-17 (*I don't think
+[Epstein] referred clients to the bank. I met clients through him, but I don't think he was
+making a referral.""). See also USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 31.
+170
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 52 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 9191
+291.
+Epstein facilitated meetings between Staley and Ehud Barak. Ex. 46 at 89:11-16.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent the cited testimony does not support the
+contention that Epstein facilitated meetings between Staley and Barak. Staley testified
+that he met Barak. USVI Ex. 46 at 89:11-16.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 111
+292. In January 2008, Epstein facilitated an introduction between JPMorgan executives and
+Ehud Barak, and Staley directed his assistant to arrange the meeting through Jamie Dimon's
+office. Ex. 173 at - 152.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. JPMorgan Chase did not need Epstein to facilitate a
+meeting with Barak (or others). As JPMC's CEO testified: "I don't think Jeff Epstein
+ever arranged for me to meet with anybody, to my knowledge. And I knew Ehud Barak.
+We did not need introductions to anybody." JPMC Ex. 55 at 253:1-4. Further disputed
+to the extent that USVI contends that there was an introduction through Epstein or that he
+facilitated a meeting between JPMC executives and Mr. Barak. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 911
+293.
+Epstein facilitated meetings between Staley and Peter Mandelson. Ex. 46 at 90:20-24.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Staley testified that Epstein facilitated meetings
+between Staley and Peter Mandelson. USVI Ex. 46 at 90:20-24. Disputed as to
+materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Mandelson to the Private Bank.
+See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 19.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSME 99
+294.
+Lord Peter Mandelson was a senior member of the British Government. Ex. 144 at -009.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document states that Lord Peter Mandelson
+is a "senior member of the British Government." Disputed as to materiality in light of the
+171
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 53 of 99
+fact that Epstein did not refer Mandelson to the Private Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp.
+19.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+295.
+On June 5, 2009, Epstein wrote to Staley, "well, [sic] for all intends [sic] and purposes
+peter mandelson is now deputy prime minister. " Ex. 174 at -959; Ex. 144 at -009; Ex. 175 at 6.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted language.
+Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Mandelson to the
+Private Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 19.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+296.
+On June 17, 2009, Epstein wrote to Staley, "peter will be staying at 71 st over weekend,
+do you want to organize either you, or you and Jamie, [sic] quietly, [sic] up to you." Ex. 176 at
+-005; Ex. 144 at -009; Ex. 175 at 6.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted language.
+Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Mandelson to the
+Private Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 19 .
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 91
+297.
+In January 2009, Epstein wrote to Staley, "david gergen is coming to see me today.. [sic]
+we should talk before twelve." Ex. 177 at -763; Ex. 144 at -006; Ex. 175 at 4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted language.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 411
+298.
+David Gergen is a former adviser to Presidents Nixon,
+Reagan, and Clinton. Ex.
+144 at - 006.
+172
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 54 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document states, "David Gergen is the name
+of a former adviser to Presidents Nixon,
+Reagan and Clinton through 1994." USVI
+Ex. 144 at -006.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 9191
+299.
+Epstein facilitated meetings between JPMorgan employees and Prince Andrew. Ex. 46 at
+96:13-16.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Staley testified, "[yJes" when asked, "[b]ut Jeffrey
+Epstein at least facilitated meetings between persons working at the bank and Prince
+Andrew; is that fair?" USVI Ex. 46 at 96:13-16. Disputed as to materiality in light of the
+fact that Epstein did not refer Prince Andrew to the Private Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at
+Resp. 23; JPMC Ex. 73 at Resp. 36.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+300. On April 15, 2010, Epstein wrote to Prince Andrew the |
+of York,
+"jes staley will be in London on thurs the 22.. [sic] i think you should meet if you are in town..
+[sic]. " Ex. 178 at -534; Ex. 144 at -011; Ex. 175 at 6.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the quoted document.
+Epstein's email to Prince Andrew states "london," not "London." See USVI Ex. 178 at -
+534. Otherwise, undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. Disputed as
+to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Prince Andrew to the Private
+Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 23 ; JPMC Ex. 73 at Resp. 36.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 919
+301.
+On May 18, 2010, Epstein wrote to Staley, "anadrew [sic] will try to see you on your trip
+to london." Ex. 179 at -970; Ex. 144 at -011; Ex. 175 at 6.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. Disputed
+as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Prince Andrew to the Private
+Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 23 (JPMC Response to USVI RFA No. 23); JPMC Ex.
+73 at Resp. 36.
+173
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 55 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+302. On September 2, 2010, Lesley Groff wrote to Epstein, "Jes Staley's office called saying
+last night Jes met up with Prince Andrew and Tim
+"Ex. 180 at-703; Ex. 144 at -011; Ex.
+175 at 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. Disputed
+as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Prince Andrew to the Private
+Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 23; JPMC Ex. 73 at Resp. 36.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+303.
+Ex. 181 at -071.
+Id.
+Id.
+. See USVI Ex. 181 at -
+071. Otherwise, undisputed that the cited email contains the quoted text. Disputed as to
+materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Prince Andrew to the Private
+Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 23 ; JPMC Ex. 73at Resp. 36.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+304. On December 22, 2010, Prince Andrew wrote to Staley, "Wishing you a very happy
+Christmas and New Year. Sorry to have missed you this week. Hope to catch up sometime after
+the New Year. I will be at Davos as usual. " Ex. 182 at -808; Ex. 144 at -011; Ex. 175 at 7.
+174
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 56 of 99
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the quoted document, which
+fails to use ellipses between each sentence contained in the quote. See USVI Ex. 182 at -
+808. Otherwise, undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. Disputed
+as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Prince Andrew to the Private
+Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 23; JPMC Ex. 73 at Resp. 36.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 111)
+305.
+In November 2013, Prince Andrew hosted Jamie Dimon for dinner and performances at
+Buckingham Palace. Ex. 183 at -462-63.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the Financial Times reported that Prince Andrew
+hosted an event in November 2013 that "had a guestlist that included up to 100 corporate
+and political heavyweights, ranging from Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general,
+to Indian industrialist Ratan Tata." See USVI Ex. 183 at -462-63. Disputed to the extent
+the document does not suggest there was a connection between this event and Jeffrey
+Epstein. In fact, the document states that David Mayhew, a UK financier and adviser to
+JPMC at the time, was "[k]ey to organising the night." JPMC Ex. 74). Disputed as to
+materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Prince Andrew to the Private
+Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 23; JPMC Ex. 73at Resp. 36.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 111
+306.
+Epstein facilitated meetings between Staley and Bill Gates. Ex. 46 at 92:20-23.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent the underlying fact, which is supported only by
+Staley's deposition testimony, requires a credibility determination.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSME 99
+307.
+Epstein introduced his JPMorgan banker (Paul Morris) to Andrew Farkas. Ex. 160 at
+15:23-17:12.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Morris testified that Epstein introduced him to
+Farkas. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Farkas did not become Morris's
+client, USVI Ex. 160 at 16:22-24, and Epstein did not refer Farkas to the Private Bank.
+See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 13; JPMC Ex. 73 at Resp. 28.
+175
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 57 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+Andrew Farkas is a major real estate investor who founded Island Capital Group. Ex. 144
+308.
+at -006.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document states "Andrew Farkas is a major
+real estate investor who founded Island Capital Group." See USVI Ex. 144 at -006
+Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Farkas did not become Morris's client
+USVI Ex. 160 at 16:22-24, and Epstein did not refer Farkas to the Private Bank. See
+JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 13; JPMC Ex. 73 at Resp. 28.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 919
+309. Epstein introduced JPMorgan to David Mitchell, a real estate developer. Ex. 160 at 14:20-
+15:5.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Morris testified that Epstein introduced him to
+Mitchell. USVI Ex. 160 at 14:20-15:2. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that
+Mitchell did not become Morris's client. USVI Ex. 160 at 15:3-5.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+310. Epstein referred Robert Lee Burch II, former CEO of Jonathan Engineered Solutions and
+member of A.W.
+advisory board, as a client to JPMorgan. Ex. 184 at -986; Ex. 39 at Resp.
+29.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 99
+311.
+In 2003, Epstein's JPMorgan Private Banker (
+several managers, including Glenn
+noted that Epstein "helped us source
+and Steve Saltzman. " Ex. 185 at -893.
+176
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 58 of 99
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited document. The cited
+document was not written by Mary L
+and states "Glen
+and Steve Salzman,"
+not "Glenn
+and Steve Saltzman." See USVI Ex. 185 at -893. Otherwise,
+undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. Disputed that Epstein did in
+fact refer Saltzman to the Private Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 30; JPMC Ex. 73 at
+Resp. 48.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+312.
+Ex.
+186 at - 184_R.
+See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 12; JPMC Ex. 73 at Resp. 27.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+313.
+Ex. 187 at -559.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+314.
+Ex. 188 at -001-003; Ex. 189 at -008.
+177
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 59 of 99
+USVI Ex. 188 at -001-003; USVI Ex.
+189 at -008. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Brin
+or Page to the Private Bank. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resps. 17, 18; JPMC Ex. 71 at 53:3-18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+315. Sergey Brin became a client of JPMorgan's San Francisco Private Bank in 2004. Ex. 190
+at - 710.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Brin became a client of the Private Bank in 2004.
+Disputed as to the inference that Epstein referred Brin. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 18;
+JPMC Ex. 71 at 53:3-18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+316. Staley referred Brin to Robert
+, JPMorgan Banker/Managing Director in San
+Francisco. Ex. 189 at -001; Ex. 190 at -709.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Brin was referred to L
+I by Staley. Disputed as to
+the inference that Epstein referred Brin. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 18; JPMC Ex. 71 at
+53:3-18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+317.
+1 Ex. 191 at -185.
+Ex. 191 at - 185.
+USVI
+178
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 60 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+318.
+Ex.
+192 at - 575.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 192 at - 515.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+319.
+Ex. 193 at -516.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 193 at -516.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+320.
+Ex. 194 at -517.
+179
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 61 of 99
+USVI Ex. 194 at - 517.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+321.
+Ex. 195 at - 519.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 195 at - 519.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+322. On October 26, 2006, Ann Borowiec emailed Jes Staley, "Catherine spoke to me about the
+need to have a NY team for Jeffrey Epstein, as the advisor to the Google founders. " Ex. 196 at -
+356.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 196 at -356.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+323.
+180
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 62 of 99
+the Times since I knew he was a client. I had it on my desk and gave it to Pooja." Ex. 197 at -
+520.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document. Borowiec's
+email states "Which," not "which." USVI Ex. 197 at -520. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+324.
+Ex. 198 at -522.
+USVI Ex. 198 at -522.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+325.
+Ex. 199 at - 590.
+SVI Ex. 199 at -590.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+181
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 63 of 99
+326.
+Ex. 200 at -423.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 200 at -423.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+327.
+Ex. 201 at -152.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 201 at -152.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+328.
+Ex. 202 at -668.
+Ex. 203 at -670.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 203 at -670.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+182
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 64 of 99
+329.
+Ex. 204 at -671.
+USVI Ex. 204 at -671.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+330.
+Ex. 205 at -720.
+USVI Ex. 205 at -720.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+331. In July 2014, JPMorgan noted "[t]he overall Brin relationship is one of the largest in the
+Private Bank, of +$4BN. " Ex. 190 at -710.
+183
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 65 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 190 at -710. Disputed as to the inference that Epstein referred Brin. See JPMC Ex.
+62 at Resp. 18; JPMC Ex. 71 at 53:3-18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1
+332. Brin and the CEO, CFO, and CIO of his family office, Bayshore Global, met with Mary
+Erdoes, Kelly Coffey, John Duffy and other JPMorgan regional executives. Ex. 190 at -709.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document states, "Sergey, as well as
+members of his family office: CEO, CFO and CIO have met with Mary Erdoes, Kelly
+Coffey, John Duffy and other regional executives." USVI Ex. 190 at -709. Disputed as
+to the inference that Epstein referred Brin. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 18; JPMC Ex. 71 at
+53:3-18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+333.
+Ex. 61 at -033.
+SVI
+Ex. 61 at -033. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to JPMorgan. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+334.
+Ex. 61 at -033.
+USVI
+Ex. 61 at -033. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to JPMorgan. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26.
+184
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 66 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+335.
+Ex. 206
+at -037; Ex. 207 at 1.
+Ex. 206 at -
+037.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI omits text from the cited quote. See
+USVI Ex. 206 at -037. Otherwise, undisputed. Disputed as to materiality in light of the
+fact that Epstein did not refer Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to JPMorgan. See
+JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+336. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, was a senior United Arab Emirates official involved in
+ownership of the Dubai Ports. Ex. 144 at -009.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document states, "Sultan Ahmed bin
+Sulayem ... is a senior UAE official involved in ownership of the Dubai Ports." USVI
+Ex. 144 at -009. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to JPMorgan. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+337. On December 7, 2009, Epstein wrote to Staley, "if you can have a one on one off the record
+with sultan , [sic] he will meet you. " Ex. 208 at -724; Ex. 144 at -012; Ex. 175 at 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 208 at -724; USVI Ex. 144 at -012; USVI Ex. 175 at 7. Disputed as to materiality in
+185
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 67 of 99
+light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to
+JPMorgan. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+338. On December 8, 2009, Epstein wrote to Staley, "no to china /ports yet.. [sic] sultan will
+meet you privately to give you guidance. ... " Ex. 209 at -897; Ex. 144 at -012; Ex. 175 at 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 209 at -897; USVI Ex. 144 at -012; USVI Ex 175 at 7. Disputed as to materiality in
+light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to
+JPMorgan. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+339. On December 8, 2009, Epstein wrote to Sultan bin Sulayem, copying Staley, "sultan , [sic]
+jes is free thurs,, [sic] from 5-10 p.m. where and when,, [sic] only the two of you please." Ex. 210
+at -727; Ex. 144 at -012; Ex. 175 at 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 210 at -727; USVI Ex. 144 at -012; USVI Ex. 175 at 7. Disputed as to materiality in
+light of the fact that Epstein did not refer Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to
+JPMorgan. See JPMC Ex. 62 at Resp. 26.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+340. On December 9, 2009, Epstein wrote to Staley, "sultan is laying the groundwork for you
+to establish a serious presence.. [sic] jpm reputation in the region is poor." Ex. 211 at -729; Ex.
+144 at -012; Ex. 175 at 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 144 at -012; USVI Ex. 175 at 7. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that
+Epstein did not refer Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as a client to JPMorgan. See JPMC Ex.
+62 at Resp. 26.
+186
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 68 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+341. Epstein's client,
+Black, was a customer of JPMorgan Private Bank. Ex. 39 at Resp.
+192.; Ex. 212 at -010; Ex. 160 at 38:4-41:13.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Black was a customer of the Private Bank.
+Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Black as a
+client to JPMorgan. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 11.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+342. One of Epstein's JPMorgan Bankers testified, "1
+Black had a very significant net worth
+and he was a CEO of a large investment firm, and I looked at him as a priority prospect." Ex.
+160 at 53:15-54:2.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Morris testified to the cited information. USVI Ex.
+160 at 53:15-54:2. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Black as a client to JPMorgan. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 11.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+343. Epstein occasionally brought opportunities to JPMorgan for them to "deepen" their
+relationship with Black. Ex. 171 at 46:9-15.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Nelson testified to the cited information. USVI Ex.
+171 at 46:9-15. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Black as a client to JPMorgan. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 11.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+344. In July 2012, Epstein sought a loan through JPMorgan on behalf of|
+Black for an art
+purchase. Ex. 213 at -569; Ex. 160 at 173:8-21.
+187
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 69 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited email from Duffy to Erdoes discusses a loan
+"Jeffrey is pursuing [...J on
+| behalf," USVI Ex. 213 at -569, and that Morris
+testified that Epstein wanted to bring him on an art loan for
+Black, USVI Ex. 160 at
+173:8-21. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Black as a client to JPMorgan. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 11.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+345.
+Ex. 214 at -112.
+USVI Ex. 214 at -112.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+346.
+Ex. 215 at -892.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 215 at -892. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Black as a client to JPMorgan. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 11.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+188
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 70 of 99
+347.
+Ex. 216 at -912.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 216 at -912. Disputed as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer
+Black as a client to JPMorgan. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 11.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+348.
+Ex. 217 at -423.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI omits text from the cited quote.
+USVI Ex. 217 at -423. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+349.
+Ex. 218 at -646.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 218 at -646.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+189
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 71 of 99
+350. On March 23, 2011, Roy Navon wrote Jacob Frenkel and Staley, "Against all odds, we
+have been granted a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. " Staley forwarded the email from
+Navon to Epstein and said, "Thanks. " Epstein responded to Staley, "surprisee [sic] surprise."
+Ex. 219 at -841; Ex. 144 at -008; Ex. 175 at б.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited documents. Epstein's
+response to Staley states, "surprisee [sic] suprise [sic]." USVI Ex. 219 at -841.
+Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+351. On April 10, 2011, Epstein wrote to Staley, "I will be back tomorow. [sic] Karim Wade
+son of the senegalese president and one of the most important players in africa, will be at the house
+this week, i think you will enjoy him." Ex. 220 at -260; Ex. 144 at -008; Ex. 175 at 6.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 220 at -260; USVI Ex. 144 at -008; USVI Ex. 175 at 6.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+352. On September 16, 2011, Epstein wrote to Staley, "co founder of facebook, [sic] and
+founder of spotify, sean
+1, [sic] will be at the house for dinner on sunday —come." Ex. 221
+at -368; Ex. 144 at -009; Ex. 175 at 6.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 221 at -368; USVI Ex. 144 at -009; USVI Ex. 175 at 6.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+353.
+Ex. 222 at Resp. 5.
+190
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 72 of 99
+USVI Ex. 222 at Resp. 5.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+354. In August 2013, after JPMorgan informed Epstein of the decision to exit him from the bank,
+Duffy and Erdoes decided it was okay to continue working with Epstein as long as it was through
+his client accounts. Ex. 212 at -010; Ex. 171 at 174:19-175:23.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Erdoes and Duffy selectively permitted further engagement
+where the client directed that JPMC interact with Epstein, but Epstein could not have
+decision making authority over the accounts. See JPMC Ex. 75. See also JPMC Ex. 61
+at 302:19-303:11 ("[W]e can't stop someone from being affiliated with somebody else.
+But we wouldn't be taking direction from [Epstein] ...."); see also JPMC Ex. 76 at
+175:2-177:11; JPMC Ex. 77 at 382:23-383:9.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+355. JPMorgan continued to work with Epstein on accounts for Black, CEO of Apollo, a
+private equity group. Ex. 223 at -344; Ex. 224 at -434-35; Ex. 225 at -511; Ex. 226 at -218-19;
+Ex. 171 at 45:8-13.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent the USVI mischaracterizes JPMorgan as
+"work[ing] with Epstein on accounts for |
+[Black." Disputed to the extent the cited
+documents do not support the assertion that JPMorgan "continued to work with Epstein
+Black." In the cited deposition testimony, Nelson is asked, "[w]as
+there ever a point in time where Jeffrey Epstein was communicating with you on behalf
+Black related to any investment vehicles?" Justin Nelson replies, "I don't
+remember." USVI Ex. 171 at 45:4-8. See also JPMC Response to 9 354, supra.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+170-175. 1
+356. Duffy gave Epstein's JPMorgan Banker (Nelson) permission to continue a relationship
+with Epstein as a potential source of referrals. Ex. 171 at 172:2-175:9.
+191
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 73 of 99
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that during his deposition, Justin Nelson responded, "yes"
+when asked if, after Jeffrey Epstein had been terminated, Nelson got "the permission of
+John Duffy to continue a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein where he will be a potential
+source of future referrals?" USVI Ex. 171 at 172:2-175:9. Disputed as to the scope of
+the relationship implied by USVI's proposition. See JPMC Response to 1 354.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+357. Nelson maintained a relationship with Epstein after he was terminated as a client. Ex. 171
+at 43:0-24.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed as to the cited deposition testimony. USVI Ex. 171 at
+43:6-24.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+358. Nelson met with Epstein 8 to10 times after Epstein was terminated. Ex. 171 at 177:12-18.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed as to the cited deposition testimony. USVI Ex. 171 at
+177:12-18.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+359. JPMorgan admits that Mary L
+met with Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse two or
+three times between 2000 and before Epstein's arrest in 2006. JPMorgan admits that Mary
+also met with Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse once in 2011 and once in the summer of 2013.
+Ex. 227 at Resp. 21.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent the USVI misstates the cited document.
+Response 21 states that Erdoes, not |
+1. "met with Epstein twice at his Manhattan
+townhouse in 2011 and in the Summer of 2013." USVI Ex. 227 at Resp. 21. Undisputed
+that the cited document states that Mary L
+I met with Epstein "at his Manhattan
+townhouse on two or three occasions between 2000 and prior to [Epstein's] arrest in
+2006." Id.
+192
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 74 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+360.
+Ex. 228 at -644.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. Disputed
+as to materiality in light of the fact that Epstein did not refer L
+Black as a client to
+JPMorgan. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. I1.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+361.
+Ex. 229 at -300.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document contains quoted text. USVI Ex. 229
+at - 300.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+362.
+Ex. 230 at - 592.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document contains quoted text. USVI Ex. 230
+at -592.
+193
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 75 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+363.
+Ex. 231 at -975.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document contains quoted text. USVI Ex. 231
+at -975.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+364.
+Ex. 232 at -177.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+365.
+Ex 233 at -618.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 233 at -618.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+194
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 76 of 99
+366. JPMorgan admits Epstein was involved in the establishment of a customer relationship
+with Kathryn Ruemmler. Ex. 234 at Resp. 3.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document states that "Mr. Epstein had some
+involvement in the establishment of customer relationships between JPMC's private bank
+and Ghislaine Maxwell and Kathryn Ruemmler." USVI Ex. 234 at Resp. 3.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+367.
+Ex. 235 at -394.
+SVI Ex. 235 at -394.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+368.
+Ex.
+236 at - 392.
+USVI Ex. 236 at - 392.
+See
+Ta.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+195
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 77 of 99
+369.
+Ex. 237 at 467.
+USVI Ex. 237 at -467.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+370.
+Ex. 238 at -063.
+USVI Ex. 238 at -063.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+371. Epstein was close friends with Glenn _
+L the billionaire co-founder of Highbridge, and
+godfather to one of
+'s children. Ex. 239 1 3; Ex. 240 at -164; Ex. 123 at 173:19-74:1.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent the USVI inserts the word "close" to describe
+the relationship. Undisputed that in the cited deposition testimony, Erdoes states, "I
+understood Mr. Epstein to be -- to have had a past relationship with Mr.
+wife.
+And I understood that Mr. Epstein was the godfather of one of the
+- the oldest of
+the
+children. That was my understanding." USVI Ex. 123 at 73:19-74:1.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+372. Epstein advised JPMorgan regarding the acquisition. Ex. 241 at 590; Ex. 242 at -149-50.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent the USVI mischaracterizes Epstein's role
+regarding the acquisition. On June 16, 2004, von Moltke emails Staley and Brigstocke,
+copying other JPMC employees. The email summarizes observations from a meeting the
+196
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 78 of 99
+previous day with Highbridge. One of the items under "Next steps" states, "We continue
+to be concerned about the role Jeffrey Epstein is or is not playing. One concern that we
+have is that Jeffrey has been educating Glenn & Henry about our structure and valuation
+thoughts behind our backs such that their expectations for yesterday's were higher. This
+is clearly not in our interest." USVI Ex. 242 at -150. This information does not support
+the proposition that Epstein "advised" JPMC.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+373. Epstein also advised Highbridge regarding the acquisition. Ex. 241 at -590; Ex. 242 at -
+149-50
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the February 15, 2005 email sent from Shepherd to
+Staley and Brigstocke, copying
+1, sets out a "strawman proposal [sic] for the
+economics of a consulting arrangement at Highbridge for Jeff Epstein." USVI Ex. 241 at
+-590. Disputed as to the extent the USVI characterizes this proposal as representative of
+any final advising arrangement between Highbridge and Epstein or Epstein and JPMC.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+374. On June 16, 2004, James Von Moltke emailed Jes Staley and David Brigstocke with the
+subject line, "Thoughts on the 6/15/04 meeting with Highbridge, " stating, "The good news is that
+we did not leave any money on the table and that, based on the 9-11x multiple range we discussed
+with Dimon et al ... They should be encouraged to go ahead with the Dimon and Coulter lunch. .
+.. This would be a good part of a follow-up discussion, ideally with you and prior to the
+Dimon/Coulter meeting. We continue to be concerned about the role Jeffrey Epstein is or is not
+playing. One concern that we have is that Jeffrey has been educating Glenn & Henry about our
+structure and valuation thoughts. " Ex. 242 at -149-50.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text although
+the underlying document is formatted as a series of distinet bullet points and not as
+continuous text, as this paragraph presents it. USVI Ex. 242 at -149-50. Disputed to the
+extent the cited document is selectively quoted and without appropriate context. For
+instance, the language that USVI quotes suggests Highbridge "should be encouraged to
+197
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 79 of 99
+go ahead with the Dimon and Coulter lunch" because of the "9-11x multiple range we
+discussed with Dimon et al." These statements, however, appear in different, unrelated
+sections of von Moltke's email. USVI Ex. 249 at -50 (emphasis added).
+Further disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that
+JPMorgan benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See
+CSMF 11 170-175.
+375. On January 14, 2004, the New York Times reported that JPMorgan had agreed to acquire
+Bank One and stated: "The combined company will be headed by William B.
+60, who
+is currently the chairman and chief executive of J.P. |
+Chase. James Dimon, 47, the
+chairman and chief executive of Bank One, will become president and chief operating officer of
+the combined company. He is to succeed Mr.
+_ as chief executive in 2006, although Mr.
+will remain as chairman." Ex. 243 at 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 243 at 1.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+170-175. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+376.
+Ex. 244 at -985, -987, -996, -998.
+244 at -985, -987, -996, -998.
+USVI Ex.
+198
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 80 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+377.
+Ex. 245 at - 780.
+SVI Ex. 245 at - 780.
+USVI Ex. 245 at 780.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+378.JPMorgan JPMorgan admits that
+& Swieca Holdings, Inc. paid Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+a fee related to JPMorgan's acquisition of a majority interest in Highbridge Capital Management
+in 2004. Ex. 39 at Resp. 9.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that
+_ & Swieca Holdings, Inc. paid Financial Trust
+Company, Inc. a fee related to JPMorgan's acquisition of a majority interest in
+Highbridge Capital Management in 2004. USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 9.
+199
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 81 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+379.
+Ex.
+246 at -246-47.
+USVI Ex. 246
+at -246-47.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+380. Highbridge managed $7 billion in assets at the time JPMorgan acquired the majority
+interest. Ex. 247 at 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document, a New York Times article dated
+September 28, 2004, states that "Highbridge manages $7 billion in assets." USVI Ex.
+247 at 1.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+381. On June 11, 2009, JPMorgan completed its purchase of Highbridge and touted it as "one
+of the largest and most significant strategic alliances in the hedge fund industry. " Ex. 248 at 1.
+JPMC Response: Disputed as to USVI's characterization that the cited document
+"touted" anything. Undisputed that the cited document, dated June 11, 2009, contains the
+quoted text. USVI Ex. 248 at 1.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+200
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 82 of 99
+382. At the October 2006 Rapid Response meeting, the Private Bank imposed a condition on
+Epstein's accounts—he could remain a "banking" but not an investment client. Ex. 76 at -953.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. USVI misstates the conclusion of the meeting and the cited
+document. The cited document does not support the conclusion that the Private Bank
+imposed a condition that Epstein could not remain an investment client. The cited Rapid
+Response Team memorandum states that "it was decided that we will keep Mr. Epstein
+solely as a banking client and on a reactive', client service basis. We will not
+proactively solicit new investment business from him." USVI Ex. 76 at -953. JPMC
+decided that it would not "proactively solicit new investment business" from Epstein, not
+that Epstein could not be an investment client. Id.; see also JPMC Ex. 71 at 66:17-67:12
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+383. At the time, Epstein's brokerage business was at Bear Stearns, not JPMorgan. Ex. 124 at
+- 175; Ex. 249 at -787.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents support that Epstein had a
+brokerage relationship with Bear Stearns. USVI Ex. 124 at -175; USVI Ex. 249 at -787.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan or
+Bearn Stearns benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+See CSMF 11 170-175.
+384. JPMorgan considered him "problematic" from an investment standpoint. Ex. 250 at -254;
+Ex. 32 at 97:3-100:1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document and testimony support that JPMC
+considered Epstein "problematic" from an investment standpoint. USVI Ex. 250 at -254;
+USVI Ex. 32 at 97:30-100:1. Disputed that this fact is at all material to the issues of this
+case. The cited email shows that JPMC employees are discussing Epstein's
+"problematic" behavior in the context of his failure to pay fees and because "every
+transaction becomes problematic." USVI Ex. 250 at -254. This discussion has nothing to
+do with Epstein's arrest in 2006. L
+testified that the cited email related to "the
+challenges of covering Jeffrey because he was a difficult investment client" and that the
+reference to Epstein being "problematic" was in connection with "an investment-related
+concern." USVI Ex. 32 at 98:16-23.
+201
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 83 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+385.
+Ex. 167 at -654. By 2011, Epstein was the Private
+Bank's investment arm's "biggest revenue producer:." Ex. 168 at -977.
+SVI Ex. 76 at -953.
+Id.
+See USVI Ex. 167 at -654.
+See JPMC Ex. 78 at -968; USVI Ex. 168 at -977.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+386.
+Ex. 251 at -223.
+USVI Ex. 251 at -223.
+See
+JPMC Response to 1 138, supra.
+202
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 84 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+387. On March 16, 2008, JPMorgan purchased Bear Stearns. Ex. 122 at 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that on March 16, 2008, JPMorgan Chase and Co.
+purchased Bear Stearns.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan or
+Bear Stearns benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+See CSMF 11 170-175.
+388.
+The purchase kept Bear Stearns, which was heavily in mortgage-backed securities
+investments, from bankruptcy following the housing market crash that led to the 2008 Great
+Recession. Ex. 122 at 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document provides the cited information.
+USVI Ex. 122 at 1. Disputed that the cited document is competent evidence on the
+impact of the purchase of Bear Stearns or what led to Bear Stearns' bankruptey.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan or
+Bear Stearns benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+See CSMF 11 170-175.
+389.
+Ex. 252 at 1-2.
+_USVI Ex. 252 at
+1-2.
+See JPMC Ex. 79 at 272:3-8 (Q: "And it's also consistent that JPMorgan retained Jeffrey
+Epstein as a client to deal with the Bear Stearns litigation that Jeffrey Epstein had,
+correct?" A: "I don't know that."); id. at 275:7-22 (explaining reasons JPMC retained
+Epstein around this time as "Mr. Staley felt very strongly that Mr. Epstein had paid his
+debt to society, had served his time, and was someone that a lot of other people trusted. I
+think Mr. Staley didn't agree with the notion that we shouldn't have him as a client.").
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan or
+Bear Stearns benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+See CSMF 11 170-175. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at
+trial in admissible form.
+203
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 85 of 99
+390. In August 2009, Epstein sued Bear Stearns for "fraudulently overstating) the value of
+Bear Stearns' mortgages, mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities and other derivative
+financial instruments, the adequacy of its liquidity and capital reserves, and the quality of Bear
+Stearns' risk management. " Ex. 253 9 15.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that on August 5, 2009, Epstein's entity, Financial Trust
+Company, Inc., filed a complaint against The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and the
+complaint contains the quoted language.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan or
+Bear Stearns benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+See CSMF 11 170-175. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at
+trial in admissible form.
+391. On July 19, 2011, JPMorgan offered Epstein a proposal to settle his High Grade Fund and
+Bear Stearns claims together for $21 million. Ex. 254 at -561. The following day, Cutler
+responded, "This is not an honorable person in any way. He should not be a client." Id.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. USVI misstates the cited document. The document does
+not support the contention that "JPMorgan offered Epstein a proposal to settle" his claims
+for $21 million. Rather, the cited document shows that JPMC responded to Epstein's
+proposal to settle his claims for $21 million. See USVI Ex. 254 at -561. On July 19,
+2011, James Condren wrote to Staley, Erdoes, Cutler, and Shenker, "I just conveyed to
+Mr. Epstein our response to his proposal to settle his High Grade Fund and Bear
+claims together for $21 million." Id. (emphasis added). Undisputed that on July 20,
+2011, Cutler responded to Condren's email and Cutler's response contains the quoted
+text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+392. On July 21, 2011, Cutler wrote to Erdoes regarding a settlement offer to Epstein, "I would
+like to put it and HIM behind us. Not a person we should do business with - period." Ex. 255 at -
+958
+_R.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Cutler emailed Erdoes on July 21, 2011 and that
+email contains the quoted text. USVI Ex. 255 at -958_R. Disputed to the extent USVI
+contends that this fact supports an inference this litigation had any relevance to JPMC's
+204
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 86 of 99
+retention or exit decisions with respect to Epstein. See JPMC Ex. 79 at 272:3-8 (Q: "And
+it's also consistent that JPMorgan retained Jeffrey Epstein as a client to deal with the
+Bear Stearns litigation that Jeffrey Epstein had, correct?" A: "I don't know that."); id. at
+275:7-22 (explaining reasons JPMC retained Epstein around this time as "Mr. Staley felt
+very strongly that Mr. Epstein had paid his debt to society, had served his time, and was
+someone that a lot of other people trusted. I think Mr. Staley didn't agree with the notion
+that we shouldn't have him as a client.").
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+393. On August 4, 2011, JPMorgan met for a fourth Rapid Response Meeting regarding Epstein
+and concluded that "Duffy to reach out to Jes Staley and advise that we exit while things are a bit
+settled." Ex. 256 at 31.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that a Rapid Response meeting was held on August 4,
+2011 and the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI Ex. 256 at 31.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+394. On April 8, 2011, Nina Shenker emailed Kevin McCleerey with the subject, "Rapid
+Response." Shenker wrote, "If you could break down between ddas, brokerage and fund
+holdings and others (sic) categories. So that we can understand the process for offboarding the
+account." Ex. 257 at -025. Kevin McCleerey responded with the attachment, "Rapid Response
+Team - Jeffrey Espstein [ sic ] 3r Mig - Jan 2011 - March 2011 update-doc.zip." Employees
+were working to collect information to "understand the process for offboarding the account." Id.
+at -025.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. USVI misstates the cited document. Undisputed that on
+April 8, 2011, Shenker emails MeCleerey and the email contains the quoted text.
+McCleerey does not, however, respond to Shenker with the cited attachment. Rather,
+McCleerey forwards Shenker's email to James Dalessio, attaching the file titled "Rapid
+Response Team - Jeffrey Espstein [sic] 3r Mtg - Jan 2011 - March 2011 update-doc.zip,"
+and states "Lets [sic] discuss her request." USVI Ex. 257 at -025.
+205
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 87 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+395. In July 2011, when Epstein approved the settlement, Nina Shenker, then GC to the Private
+Bank, wrote to Erdoes, "Steve [Cutler] at conclusion of JE approval [of Bear Stearns settlement],
+asked when we are offboarding JE. I reminded him that we have the other matter outstanding."
+Ex. 258 at -982; Ex. 99 at 268:12-272:24.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Shenker emailed Erdoes on July 22, 2011 and that
+email contains the quoted language. USVI Ex. 258 at -982.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+396.
+Ex. 259 at -106.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 259 at - 106.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+397.
+Ex. 252 at 1-2; Ex. 260 at -610.
+See Ex. JPMC Ex. 79 at
+274:17-275:5 ("I also don't know that we were not off-boarding Mr. Epstein because of
+[the Highbridge] litigation or litigation claim."); id. at 273:1-15 ("We did not, also,
+offboard him once the Zwirn matter was resolved."); id. at 275:7-22 (explaining reasons
+JPMC retained Epstein around this time as "Mr. Staley felt very strongly that Mr. Epstein
+had paid his debt to society, had served his time, and was someone that a lot of other
+people trusted. I think Mr. Staley didn't agree with the notion that we shouldn't have him
+as a client.").
+206
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 88 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+170-175. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+398.
+Ex. 261 at -948_R.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 261 at -948_R.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+399.
+Ex. 202 at -561.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 262 at -561.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan or
+Bear Stearns benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+See CSMF 11 170-175.
+400.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 262 at - 560.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+207
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 89 of 99
+401. "The Talented Mr. Epstein" states: "in his early 20s (Epstein] got a job teaching physics
+and math at Dalton, the elite Manhattan private school. While there he began tutoring the son of
+Bear Stearns chairman Ace Greenberg and was friendly with a daughter of Greenberg's. Soon he
+went to Bear Stearns, where, under the mentorship of both Greenberg and current Bear Stearns
+C.E.O. James Cayne, he did well enough to become a limited partner-a rung beneath full
+partner. " Ex. 49 at 5.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 49 at 6.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan or
+Bear Stearns benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+See CSMF 11 170-175. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at
+trial in admissible form.
+402. In August 2010, Alan "Ace" Greenberg, who was now at JPMorgan, wanted to continue
+to do business with Epstein so he went to Cutler for an exception to the felon policy. Ex. 263 at
+910-11.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited email states that "Ace Greenberg wants to do
+business with [Epstein]" and Todd L
+asks, "Did Ace go to him for an exception to the
+felon policy," to which Melissa Getler states, "That's my understanding." USVI Ex. 263
+at - 910-11.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+403. In his deposition, Jes Staley agreed that Greenberg was "a fairly important person" with
+"heft" at JPMorgan around 2010. Ex. 46 at 173:13-24.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI mischaracterizes Staley's testimony. See
+USVI Ex. 46 at 173:13-24. Undisputed that Staley testified that "Greenberg was
+important." Id. at 173:23-24.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+208
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 90 of 99
+404. Beginning in 2011, Staley and Erdoes had "regular communication with Jeffrey Epstein
+relating to certain strategic initiatives and business proposals." Ex. 144 at -012; Ex. 175 at 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 144 at -012; USVI Ex. 175 at 1.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+405.
+Ex. 302 at -555-56; Ex. 303 at - 548-49.
+USVI Ex. 302 at - 548-49; USVI Ex. 303.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+406. JMorgan admits that Epstein and JPMorgan personnel discussed a potential donor
+advised fund relating to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates. Ex. 39 at Resp.
+14.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Epstein and JPMorgan personnel discussed a potential
+donor advised fund relating to The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bill Gates.
+USVI Ex. 39 at Resp. 14.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+407. On February 6, 2011, Epstein wrote to Staley regarding a potential donor advised fund for
+The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, "you could tie it initially just to the gates program, [sic]
+minimum [sic] gift. 100 million. it could then be opend [sic] up later. IT will be the largest
+foundation in the world .... done right its [sic] 100 billion dollars in 2 years.... Farming the
+209
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 91 of 99
+investments to a highbridge is no brainer. ...It will be the most sort [sic] after board in the
+country." Ex. 264 at -591; Ex. 144 at -012; Ex. 175 at 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 264 at -591; USVI Ex. 144 at -012; USVI Ex. 175 at 7.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+408. In August 2011, Epstein wrote to Staley and Erdoes regarding
+noting it will be a "very HIGH profile" opportunity and recommending it require a minimum $100
+million donation. Ex. 265 at -652; Ex. 144 at -013; Ex. 175 at 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Epstein emailed Staley and Erdoes on August 10,
+2011 and wrote, "This will be very HIGH profile. I propose a minimum of 100 million
+donation." USVI Ex. 265 at -654.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+409.
+Ex. 266 at -924.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 266 at -924.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1
+410.
+Ex. 267 at -666.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 267 at -666.
+210
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 92 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+411.
+Ex. 268 at -028.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 268 at -028.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+412.JPMorgan admits it had communication with Epstein about a fee for Epstein in connection
+with a proposed donor advised fund. Ex. 39 at Resp. 15.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that JPMC had communication with Epstein about a fee
+for Epstein in connection with a proposed donor advised fund. Disputed as to materiality
+in light of the fact that, as provided in the full cited response, the donor advised find was
+never established and JPMC did not pay Epstein any such fee. See USVI Ex. 39 at Resp.
+15.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+413.
+211
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 93 of 99
+Ex. 269 at -931-32.
+-931.
+USVI Ex. 269 at
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+414. On April 27, 2009, Epstein emailed Staley,
+can meet have dinner lunch a weekend
+[sic] with any of the following seth Lloyd mit quantum computing.. (sic]
+|gell-man, santa-
+Je institute quarks , [sic] brian
+• Columbia -string theory,, [sic] leonard Susskind ,. (sic]
+strings theory,
+Krause,, [sic] origins institute phoenix Arizona.. [sic] lee smolin
+perimeter institute, loop quantum gravity, (sic] she can see the large adron [sic] collider in
+switzerland. private tour." Ex. 270 at-844; Ex. 144 at -004; Ex. 175 at 4.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document, the quoted text
+states,
+can meet have dinner lunch a weekend [sic] with any of the following seth
+lloyd mit quantum computing.. [sic]
+I gell-man , santa- fe institute, quarks , [sic]
+brian
+columbia - string theory, [sic] leonard susskind „ [sic] strings theory,
+krause, [sic] origins institute phoenix arizona.. [sic] lee smolin perimeter
+institute, loop quantum gravity, [sic] she can see the large hadron [sic] collider in
+switzerland. private tour." USVI Ex. 270 at -844. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+415.
+Ex. 144 at -004.
+212
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 94 of 99
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture.
+416. On September 24, 2010, Staley forwarded an email chain between him,
+. and Staley's wife,
+,, regarding a professor at Columbia to Epstein,
+"can u [sic] get to this professor at Columbia?" Ex. 271 at -121; Ex. 144 at -004; Ex. 175 at 4.
+On September 25, 2010, Epstein responded,
+, "in a snap." Id.
+IPM Besponse: Disputed to the xen US VT mistates the quoted document Staley's
+and the quoted email from Staley reads, "Can u
+get to this professor at Columbia?" USVI Ex. 274 at -121. Otherwise, undisputed
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+417. On December 12, 2008, Erdoes wrote to Staley regarding Bernie Madoff. "... glenn and
+I have been going back and forth all night. This is terrible. Just terrible.
+has over 1b.
+Nicole has another client with Ib. We have HUNDREDS of clients with some. The ny/palm beach
+community will be in shock. Can you call JE to get scoop from down there?"' Ex. 272 at -627.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text. USVI
+Ex. 272 at - 627.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+418. On April 7, 2023, in a CNN interview Jamie Dimon, in response to a question about
+whether "JPMorgan should have acted more quickly after Epstein pleaded guilty to one of these
+charges in 2008" said "Hindsight is a fabulous gift." Ex. 273 at 21.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Dimon provided the quoted response. USVI Ex. 273
+at 21.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+213
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 95 of 99
+419. In the same CNN interview, Jamie Dimon was asked, "[the U.S. Virgin Islands is] alleging
+that your bank helped facilitate payments to Epstein's victims and benefited from human
+trafficking while ignoring warnings. Do those allegations have merit? " Dimon responded, "(Wle
+have some of the best lawyers in the world-compliance, out of the DOJ, out of SEC important
+divisions who review all of these things and make decisions at the time based on what they know,
+as best as they know." Ex. 273 at 20.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Dimon provided the quoted response. USVI Ex. 273
+at 20.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+benefited from participating in Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+JPMorgan Obstructed Enforcement of the TVPA
+420. Shaun O'Neill, former Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI"),
+states that "the FBI relies on financial institutions as a key partner to ... obtain the information
+necessary to answer the questions of who, what, when, where, and wlly." Ex. 274 at 17. The
+information in JPMorgan's possession "warranted a constant stream of information from JPMC
+to the FBI about Epstein's
+.. Human trafficking is an ongoing crime,
+with harm incurred every day that the crime continues. " Id. at 18. "It shocks the conscience that
+it was not until Epstein's death in prison that JPMC suddenly recognized Epstein's prior banking
+transactions as
+Id. at 25. O'Neill further states that "When it became public that
+Jeffrey Epstein had been arrested and that he had used cash to commit his sexual crimes against
+children, JPMC's
+impaired the government's ability to prosecute the
+crimes that it was investigating against Epstein." Id. Further,
+"the sheer amount of cash being dispersed,"
+214
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 96 of 99
+"more than S3 million was paid by Epstein to women, many of whom had Eastern European
+surnames," and Epstein's loan to modeling agency MC2—"Epstein would have been federally
+charged at a much earlier date." Id. at 18-25. "Had the FBI been notified of this
+banking activity all being related to Epstein... (Epstein/ would not have been able to continue
+his criminal activity from 2008 onward." Id. at 20-21.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. JPMC does not dispute that the quoted text is included in
+the report of USVI's proffered expert Shaun O'Neill. However, JPMC disputes the
+underlying conclusions and O'Neill's misstatement of the record.
+ee JPMC Exs. 42, 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. 48
+IPMC Ex. 80 at 59:8-60:10.
+See JPMC Ex. 81
+115.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+obstructed enforcement of the TVPA. See CSMF 11 176-179. Further contended that the
+cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible form.
+421.
+Ex. 275 at -683.
+215
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 97 of 99
+See USVI Ex. 421 at -683
+Id. (emphasis added)).
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+obstructed enforcement of the TVPA. See CSMF 11 176-179. Further contended that the
+cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible form.
+422.
+NEx. 270 at -422.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted language.
+USVI Ex. 276 at -422.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+obstructed enforcement of the TVPA. See CSMF 11 176-179.
+423.
+In 2019, Brunel was arrested and charged with rape of minors and sexual harassment and
+was under investigation for human trafficking. Ex. 277.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Brunel was arrested in December 2020, not 2019. See
+USVI Ex. 277; JPMC Ex. 82 ("Brunel was arrested at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport in
+December 2020 on counts of "'rape and sexual assault, rape and sexual assault on a
+minor under 15, rape and sexual assault on a minor over 15, sexual harassment, criminal
+associations and human trafficking to the detriment of minor victims for the purposes of
+sexual exploitation."').
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+obstructed enforcement of the TVPA. See CSMF 1 176-179. Further contended that the
+cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible form.
+424.
+216
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 98 of 99
+Ex. 69 at - 545.
+USVI Ex. 69 at -545-550.
+See USVI Ex. 69 at - 545; JPMC Ex. 831
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+obstructed enforcement of the TVPA. See CSMF 11 176-179.
+Facts Concerning Epstein's Registration as a Sex Offender in the Virgin Islands
+425. Shani Pinney, coordinator for the sex offender registry, and former Attorney General
+Vincent Frazer both testified that they were not responsible for and did not enable Epstein's
+crimes. Ex. 278 at 266:17-268:8; Ex. 280 at 12:9-21, 455:24-456:20.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Pinney and Frazer testified as such. Disputed that
+such testimony establishes as a legal conclusion that they "were not responsible for and
+did not enable Epstein's crimes." See, e.g., CSMF 19 261-288, 290-320.
+426. Epstein never failed to register as a sex offender. Ex. 280 at 85:2-87:2; 442:15-17.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Pinney testified that Epstein never failed to register in
+the USVI. See USVI Ex. 280 at 442:15-17.
+427. Shani Pinney, coordinator for the sexual offender registry, testified that news reports were
+not sufficient basis to initiate an investigation because they did not contain the requisite "concrete
+allegations" of wrongdoing. Ex. 280 at 12:9-21; 415:1-20; 446:5-447:9; 447:16-449: 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Pinney testified as such. Disputed as to the
+underlying fact that news reports were not sufficient basis to initiate an investigation into
+Epstein. See CSMF 11 252-255.
+217
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-4 Filed 08/14/23 Page 99 of 99
+428. Former Attorney General Denise C
+similarly testified that she couldn't rely on "news
+reports, " "rumor'" or "innuendo" to initiate an investigation into Epstein. Ex. 282 at 167:3-
+170:3
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that |
+testified as such. USVI Ex. 282 at 167:3-
+170:30. Disputed as to the underlying fact that news reports, rumor, or innuendo could
+not be used to initiate an investigation into Epstein. See CSMF 11 252-55, 257-58.
+429. As witnesses testified, absent an actual complaint from a victim or eyewitness evidence
+brought to the Department of Justice's attention, the Department could not initiate investigations.
+Ex. 280 at 415:1-20; 446:5-447:9; 447:16-449:1; Ex. 282 at 167:3-170:3.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Pinney and
+testified as such. Disputed as to
+the underlying fact that absent an actual complaint from a victim or eyewitness evidence
+brought to the Department of Justice's attention, the Department could not initiate
+investigations. See CSMF 11 255, 257-58. Further disputed that the USVI lacked actual
+complaints from a victim or eyewitness. See CSMF 11 244-48, 251, 315.
+430. Ms. Pinney and Attorney L
+both confirmed they received no concrete complaints of
+misconduct by Epstein. Ex. 280 at 206:6-208:17; Ex. 282 at 164:3-167:2.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Pinney and
+testified as such. Disputed insofar
+as USVI contends that the cited testimony establishes that the USVI lacked sufficient
+evidence to investigate Epstein or that no information about Epstein's misconduct ever
+reached USVI officials. See SUMF 11 24, 26; CSMF 11 244-55.
+431. Upon assuming her role as Attorney General, Attorney
+inquired of various
+agencies to confirm whether they had received any complaints regarding Epstein. She found no
+evidence that any complaints had been received. Ex. 282 at 164:3-167:2.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that |
+| testified that she inquired with the local VIPD
+and the USVI Department of DOJ as part of a general "inquiry to find out do we have
+cases? Do we have a record of ... anyone complaining about seeing something that
+looked suspicious on Little St. James or - or with respect to Jeffrey Epstein in particular."
+USVI Ex. 282 at 164:16-165:5. Disputed to the extent USVI suggests that
+inquired about Epstein with any other agencies. See id. at 165:5-13 ("I didn't [inquire]
+with the federal authorities who were also there because they're - you know, they're not
+going to disclose if there's a pending investigation or anything like that."); see also
+CSMF 11 253, 257.
+218
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/05e90b4ac39bff8a333b3f7704ee336a3c756b1523ab9793b84a1f3fb15c8d0b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05e90b4ac39bff8a333b3f7704ee336a3c756b1523ab9793b84a1f3fb15c8d0b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5b6504d94baf1dcbd6868209cd82c54cfc5092cf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/05e90b4ac39bff8a333b3f7704ee336a3c756b1523ab9793b84a1f3fb15c8d0b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -4494,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "05e90b4ac39bff8a333b3f7704ee336a3c756b1523ab9793b84a1f3fb15c8d0b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 100,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "8f66b1a7095cb9dbcc02bec4ede8d4862ef9fc6bbb3f619fb2d9052e8b11af1b",
+  "output_sha256": "4503448f6c49d9e5aa39ba167888b2ba7145a34baa735d42b01fe3e9d824ecf7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/062679984bacce8294135e911053bc7d6a45ab8769a665883f2e9e276e66f939.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/062679984bacce8294135e911053bc7d6a45ab8769a665883f2e9e276e66f939.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99b6f344706cd44d9b0beccfad18ec3b5b8aa440
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/062679984bacce8294135e911053bc7d6a45ab8769a665883f2e9e276e66f939.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 21-2 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 1
+COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
+SUFFOLK, SS.
+BE IT REMEMBERED, that at the Supreme Judicial Court holden at Boston
+within and for said County of Suffolk, on
+June 20, 2006,
+said Court being the highest Court of Record in said Commonwealth:
+Felicia H. Ellsworth
+ST
+being found duly qualified in that behalf, and having taken and subscribed
+the oaths required by law, was admitted to practice as an Attorney, and, by virtue
+thereof, as a Counsellor at Law, in any of the Courts of the said Commonwealth:
+that said Attorney is at present a member of the Bar, and is in good standing
+according to the records of this Court*.
+In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
+seal of said Court, this twelfth
+day of January
+in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty-three.
+D
+ManasDage
+MAURA S
+* Records of private discipline, if any, such as a private reprimand imposed by the Board of Bar Overseers or by any court, are not covered by this certification. X3116.
+Amended January 2022, effective February 2022 for digital and or electronic attestation for the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/062679984bacce8294135e911053bc7d6a45ab8769a665883f2e9e276e66f939.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/062679984bacce8294135e911053bc7d6a45ab8769a665883f2e9e276e66f939.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3282600db5e827783f3442785be150a4442030ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/062679984bacce8294135e911053bc7d6a45ab8769a665883f2e9e276e66f939.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "062679984bacce8294135e911053bc7d6a45ab8769a665883f2e9e276e66f939",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "cc99cd87c94162ce4a3c8019a5fa203bf3f13c373c31e57fd8419a6362d7ad2d",
+  "output_sha256": "6f7f0a2d91f081e351899c76d45d839cb9a16e6c95c109b1f9bfc2982756fff0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/065fc488567ed3fe547739eedb0c961a0d74de05454495f13ac26aca5e27b0bc.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/065fc488567ed3fe547739eedb0c961a0d74de05454495f13ac26aca5e27b0bc.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5c077023b51f4fa86db1488763e4a31e71689d68
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/065fc488567ed3fe547739eedb0c961a0d74de05454495f13ac26aca5e27b0bc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,222 @@
+CaSe112221909041§5R Dø6umaeh119921 rfile 607037233 pagge11opt2
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+Plaintiff,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY
+Third-Party Defendant.
+ORDER REGARDING REVIEW OF VIDEOMATERIALS
+Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and the authority of this Court to
+administer its proceedings, and finding good cause established in the stipulated motion filed by
+Jane Doe 1 and the Government of the United States Virgin Islands, the Court orders that:
+1.
+The Epstein Estate shall review the Epstein Media to determine its responsiveness
+to the subpoenas that have been issued by Jane Doe 1 and other parties to the related litigations.
+2.
+If, during the course of that review, the Estate sees a particular recording that
+appears to contain possible CSAM, it shall promptly stop further review of that recording and
+notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") or such other agency or entity as the FBI may
+
+
+Case 11222110904158 B06019110921 Ffila47037233 pageezz*2
+direct of the recording's existence. No CSAM shall be copied or transmitted to another party,
+except as directed by the FBI or other government agency.
+If no CSAM is observed during the review, the Responsive Media will be provided
+counsel for Jane Doe 1 and the Government in response to the relevant subpoena. To the extent
+Responsive Media is identified prior to the identification of possible CSAM, such materials also
+will be produced to counsel. Counsel for Jane Doe 1 and any other recipient of Responsive Media
+may then use this material for the prosecution or defense of the above-captioned case and make
+such further disclosures as are required by civil discovery rules (e.g., appropriate disclosures to
+opposing counsel).
+SO ORDERED.
+RO Rosel
+S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.
+Dated: Maren 4/5. 2023
+New York, New York
+
+
+Ease 1:22-EV-10904 JR Document 192 Filed 03/83/23 Page 3 ofF
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY
+Third-Party Defendant.
+STIPULATED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL FOR REVIEW OF
+VIDEOMATERIALS AND PHOTOGRAPHS FOR THE PRESENCE OF POTENTIAL
+CHILD SEX ABUSE MATERIALS AND FOR DISCLOSURE OF THOSE MATERIALS
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and the Government of the United States Virgin Islands
+("'Government"), by their respective counsel, move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
+26(c), and the authority of the Court to administer proceedings before it, for approval of an agreedupon protocol authorizing counsel for the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein (the "Epstein Estate") to
+review videorecorded materials and photographs in the possession, custody, or control of the
+Epstein Estate (the "Epstein Media") in response to subpoenas previously issued by Jane Doe 1
+and, to the extent responsive to those subpoenas, disclose relevant portions of the Epstein Media
+
+
+Ease 1:22-6V:10994-JSR Dosument 199 Filed 93/33/23 Page 4 efF
+(the "Responsive Media") to Jane Doe 1's counsel and to other parties in the litigations pending
+before the Court involving claims related to Jeffrey Epstein.
+Factual Background
+The Court is aware of the general nature of this case from earlier proceedings. For purposes
+of this Motion, it is relevant to note that Jane Doe 1 has alleged that she was the victim of coerced
+commercial sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. Jane Doe 1 has issued a
+subpoena to the Epstein Estate, seeking certain videorecorded materials and photographs within
+the Epstein Media, and the Estate has agreed to produce Responsive Media in the Estate's
+possession to the extent that the production is not inconsistent with federal or state law, and to the
+extent that the videos or photographs were not downloaded or otherwise obtained at the time
+through publicly-available sources.'
+On March 14, 2023, counsel for the Epstein Estate notified counsel for Jane Doe 1 that it
+had located materials within the Epstein Media that may be responsive to her subpoenas. The
+Estate also advised counsel for the Government and Jane Doe 1 of its concern that some of the
+Epstein Media might contain child sex abuse imagery (CSAM'). The knowing accessing,
+possession, or distribution of CSAM is forbidden by federal law. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252, 2252A.
+The Estate has expressed concern that its counsel's review of the Epstein Media could subject
+counsel to criminal investigation or charges or civil claims in light of the possibility that the review
+' Videos or photographs that were not obtained at the time through publicly-available sources is
+meant to include Responsive Media that may consist of movies or You Tube videos, for example,
+but does not extend to Responsive Media relating to Epstein activities or properties that may have
+been publicly disclosed at any time.
+2 In this motion, the parties use the term "child sex abuse imagery" or CSAM as a synonym for the
+inappropriate term, "child pornography." See United States v. Larson, No. 5:19-CR-50165-RAL,
+2023 WL 196171, at *1 (D.S.D. Jan. 17, 2023) ("Pornography connotes a certain aspect of consent
+that is impossible when the images or videos depict children.").
+
+
+Case 1:22-6V=10904 JSR Document 192 Filed 03/85/23 Page § 0F $
+of the Epstein Media could involve accessing CSAM. The Epstein Estate has advised that it does
+not have any specific knowledge that any of the Epstein Media does, in fact, contain CSAM, but
+wishes to put in place an appropriate procedure in case its counsel encounters such material.
+Proposed Review Protocol
+Against that backdrop, counsel for the Government and Jane Doe 1 and the Epstein Estate
+have conferred and have agreed that the Government and Jane Doe 1 would move the Court for
+the entry of an order approving the following protocol for the Epstein Estate's review of the Epstein
+Media for potential production to parties in the litigations pending before the Court:
+The Epstein Estate shall review the Epstein Media to determine its responsiveness
+to the subpoenas that have been issued by Jane Doe 1 and other parties to the related litigations.
+If, during the course of that review, the Epstein Estate sees a particular recording
+that appears to contain possible CSAM, it shall promptly stop further review of that recording and
+notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") or such other agency or entity as the FBI may
+direct of the recording's existence. No CSAM shall be copied or transmitted to another party,
+except as directed by the FBI or other government agency.
+If no CSAM is observed during the review, the Responsive Media will be provided
+to counsel for Jane Doe 1 and the Government in response to the relevant subpoena. To the extent
+Responsive Media is identified prior to the identification of possible CSAM, such materials also
+will be produced to counsel. Counsel for Jane Doe 1 and any other recipient of Responsive Media
+may then use this material for the prosecution or defense of the above-captioned case and make
+such further disclosures as are required by civil discovery rules (e.g., appropriate disclosures to
+opposing counsel).
+The attached proposed Order reflecting this protocol is intended to:
+
+
+Case 1:22 EV Document Document Filed Filed Page Paged ofF
+1.
+Provide the Epstein Estate with an approved protocol for reviewing the Epstein
+Media for purposes of this litigation only without fear of criminal or civil liability;
+2.
+Provide Jane Doe 1 with Responsive Media that may be relevant to her case;
+Protect against disclosure or dissemination of CSAM; and
+4.
+Follow the directive of 18 U.S.C. 3509(m) against reproduction of CSAM.
+Conclusion
+This Motion has been agreed to by the parties.
+Date: March 27, 2023
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Linda
+Linda
+(pro hac vice)
+Mimi Liu (pro hac vice)
+David I. Ackerman
+Paige Boggs (pro hac vice)
+MOTLEY RICE LLC
+401 9th Street NW, Suite 630
+Washington, DC 20004
+Tel: (202) 232-5504
+Fax: (202) 232-5513
+Isinger@motleyrice.com
+mliu@motleyrice.com
+dackerman@motleyrice.com
+pboggs@motleyrice.com
+/s/
+POTTINGER LLP
+425 N. Andrews Ave.., Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
+Tel: (954) 524-2820
+Fax: (954) 524-2822
+brad@epllc.com
+Brittany N.
+Carol
+(pro hac vice)
+Acting Attorney General of the
+United States Virgin Islands
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice
+34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
+St.
+1. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
+Tel: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10101
+Counsel for Plaintiff Government
+of the United States Virgin Islands
+POTTINGER LLP
+1501 Broadway, Floor 12
+New York, NY
+Tel: (954) 524-2820
+Fax: (954) 524-2822
+brittany@epllc.com
+David Boies
+Andrew Villacastin
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+55 Hudson Yards
+New York, NY
+Tel: (212) 446-2300
+Fax: (212) 446-2350
+dboies@bsfllp.com
+avillacastin@bsfllp.com
+
+
+Case 1 22-64 1090439R Donment 199 Flee 8385/28 ge
+Sigrid McCawley (pro hac vice)
+BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
+401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
+Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
+Tel: (954) 356-0011
+Fax: (954) 356-0022
+smccawley@bsfllp.com
+Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe 1
+STIPULATED AND AGREED TO BY:
+/s/John Butts
+John Butts
+Felicia H. Ellsworth
+WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
+HALE AND DORR LLP
+60 State Street
+Boston,
+02109
+Tel: (617) 526-6687
+Fax: (617) 526-5000
+john.butts@wilmerhale.com
+felicia.ellsworth@wilmerhale.com
+Counsel for Defendant
+JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
+Is/ Zachary K.
+Zachary K.
+(pro hac vice pending)
+& CONNOLLY LLP
+680 Maine Avenue SW
+Washington, DC 20024
+Tel: (202) 434-5252
+Fax: (202) 434-5029
+zwarren@wc.com
+Counsel for Third-Party Defendant
+James Edward Staley
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/065fc488567ed3fe547739eedb0c961a0d74de05454495f13ac26aca5e27b0bc.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/065fc488567ed3fe547739eedb0c961a0d74de05454495f13ac26aca5e27b0bc.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4db7bda42de50318f09e22b9e5e4b71b6f801cfc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/065fc488567ed3fe547739eedb0c961a0d74de05454495f13ac26aca5e27b0bc.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -86,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "065fc488567ed3fe547739eedb0c961a0d74de05454495f13ac26aca5e27b0bc",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "77250d6fc1f7082f1d6b5efb58a71e0150e6e7ac0162ea1e0ad673d4bdbc7ba5",
+  "output_sha256": "2c3c87e1b624d67fa9aad33fdcf942be4d323a78364a4a86ad406a7fb0ea2946",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/06c4bfd3f4f5a5ba0f25b7a7ef448b3a67d707b8552871b9469e39b9d2250cc3.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/06c4bfd3f4f5a5ba0f25b7a7ef448b3a67d707b8552871b9469e39b9d2250cc3.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c153bd10cc1b7760e14049bda2c067f7d382004
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/06c4bfd3f4f5a5ba0f25b7a7ef448b3a67d707b8552871b9469e39b9d2250cc3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-8 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-8 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 2
+Date: Wednesday. September 2 2009 11:46 AM
+From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
+To:
+jes staley is staying at the berkeley hotel in london tonight
+******:
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jettrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments.
+
+ESTATE_JPM002773
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/06c4bfd3f4f5a5ba0f25b7a7ef448b3a67d707b8552871b9469e39b9d2250cc3.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/06c4bfd3f4f5a5ba0f25b7a7ef448b3a67d707b8552871b9469e39b9d2250cc3.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6354eb582a5720522f99399fe34d911aeb6ddea2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/06c4bfd3f4f5a5ba0f25b7a7ef448b3a67d707b8552871b9469e39b9d2250cc3.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "06c4bfd3f4f5a5ba0f25b7a7ef448b3a67d707b8552871b9469e39b9d2250cc3",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3399f6d0e2146fdb0e1dfc8ff5beedd66dcbea2703f5bb1e95e50d3a5a26be61",
+  "output_sha256": "42faa0a1e6f913cc2b570c7302a2667330e9646a32bc989cb9fa894faade525b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0704dfc9793a0012461ffdeb5ee53f610ce5ab8423836038656aefb55c738504.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0704dfc9793a0012461ffdeb5ee53f610ce5ab8423836038656aefb55c738504.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b98eadf8e51e94ef643f68d3c4944b7d77f2d852
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0704dfc9793a0012461ffdeb5ee53f610ce5ab8423836038656aefb55c738504.md
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT
+Document 63
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+-against-
+TOVA NOEL and MICHAEL
+Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 1
+USDC SDNY
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED: 12/15/2021
+19 Cr. 830 (AT)
+ORDER
+ANALISA
+Defendants.
+, District Judge:
+The status conference scheduled for December 16, 2021, is ADJOURNED sine die.
+SO ORDERED
+Dated: December 15, 2021
+New York, New York
+ANALISA |
+United States District Judge
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0704dfc9793a0012461ffdeb5ee53f610ce5ab8423836038656aefb55c738504.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0704dfc9793a0012461ffdeb5ee53f610ce5ab8423836038656aefb55c738504.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4e39dfb7040509dfd633dfbb1af1b7f9cf25ddb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0704dfc9793a0012461ffdeb5ee53f610ce5ab8423836038656aefb55c738504.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0704dfc9793a0012461ffdeb5ee53f610ce5ab8423836038656aefb55c738504",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "2a265105f4cad39e531afe5252b5d8d36b7cdd2235842bde59b86aa2f2dd078c",
+  "output_sha256": "a9ce3cc7deff5efd1012f2d4fb7ade1f1ea9997d6263a71fdb7c5f1ffb90c30f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0715e6293f588f0ca5844882ebcf272dbb641cd929846a39b64688f170823c8b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0715e6293f588f0ca5844882ebcf272dbb641cd929846a39b64688f170823c8b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ec60b1738c3f01066f46638755c7abe9669df6c2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0715e6293f588f0ca5844882ebcf272dbb641cd929846a39b64688f170823c8b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,245 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 126-1 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 9
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documentel 26vlof thaleck@4/24/23 Page 2 of 9
+EX-99.4 4 dex994.htm BY-LAWS OF THE TRUSTEE
+Exhibit 4 to Form T-1
+By-Laws
+GypMorganChase
+JPMorgan Chase Bank
+Office of the Secretary
+270 Park Avenue, 35th floor
+New York, NY 10017-2070
+CERTIFICATE
+1, Anthony J. Horan, Corporate Secretary of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association do hereby certify that attached is a true and
+correct copy of the By-laws of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a banking organization organized under the laws of the State
+of New York, and that said By-laws, as approved by the Board of Directors to be effective upon conversion of the Bank to a National
+Association, will be in full force and effect on the date of conversion.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of JPMorgan Chase Bank as of this 16" day of
+September 2004.
+Anthony J. Horan
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+1/8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documente|26~of tiled@4/24/23 Page 3 of 9
+JULY 12.2004
+
+BY-LAWS
+JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association
+November _, 2004
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+2/8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documentel26v1of tiled@4/24/23 Page 4 of 9
+BY-LAWS
+OF
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
+ARTICLE I
+Meetings of Shareholders
+Section 1.01. Shareholders' Meetings. The regular annual meeting of the shareholders of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
+Association (the "Bank") for the election of directors and the transaction of whatever other business may properly come before the
+meeting shall be held at the main banking office of the Bank or any other convenient place the Board of Directors may designate, on such
+date as may be designated by the Board of Directors. Special meetings of the shareholders may be called by the Chairman of the Board,
+the Chief Executive Officer, the President, or the Secretary. The time and place of each special meeting shall be designated by the Board
+and shall be included in a notice of meeting.
+Section 1.02. Consent in Lieu of Meeting of Shareholders. Except as otherwise required by applicable laws and regulations, any
+action that may be taken at the annual meeting or any special meeting of the shareholders may also be taken without a meeting if a written
+consent to the action is signed by all of the persons who would be entitled to vote thereon and is filed with the Secretary of the Bank as
+part of the corporate records.
+ARTICLE I
+Board of Directors
+Section 2.01. Number. The business and affairs of the Bank shall be managed by or under the direction of a Board of Directors, of
+such number as may be fixed from time to time by resolution adopted by the Board, but in no event less than 5 or more than 25. Each
+director hereafter elected shall hold office until the next annual meeting of the shareholders and until his successor is elected and has
+qualified, or until his death or until he shall resign or shall have been removed.
+Section 2.02. Qualifications. During his entire term of service, cach director of the Bank, unless otherwise permitted under the laws
+of the United States, must be a citizen of the United States and must own, in his own right, capital
+in the Bank or in a company that
+controls the Bank, in such amounts as required by applicable statute or regulation.
+Section 2.03. Oath. Each person appointed or elected a director of the Bank must, prior to exercising the functions of such office,
+take the oath of such office in the form prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency.
+
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+3/8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documentel 26vlof Filed@4/24/23 Page 5 of 9
+Section 2.04. Vacancies. In case of any increase in the number of directors, the additional director or directors, and in case of any
+vacancy in the board due to death, resignation, removal, disqualification or any other cause, the successors to fill the vacancies shall be
+elected by action of the shareholders or, subject to the limits specified in 12 CFR Part 7, a majority of the directors then in office.
+Section 2.05. Annual Meeting. An annual meeting of the directors shall be held each year at such time and place as shall be
+designated by the Board. At such meeting, the directors may elect from their own number a Chairman of the Board, a Chief Executive
+Officer, and a President, and shall elect or appoint such other officers authorized by these By-laws, and appoint such Committees
+consistent with Article III hereof, as they may deem desirable.
+Section 2.06. Regular Meetings. The Board may hold regular meetings, without notice, at such times and places as the Board may
+from time to time determine.
+Section 2.07. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called by the Chairman of the Board, the Chief
+Executive Officer, the President, or a majority of the directors then in office. Unless waived, each member of the Board of Directors shall
+be given notice by telephone, in person, or in writing by facsimile transmission, hand delivery, courier service, first-class mail, certified
+mail, express mail, email or other electronic means, stating the time and place of each special meeting.
+Section 2.08. Quorum; Majority Vote. Except as otherwise provided herein or as required by applicable law, a majority of the
+members of the entire Board (or the next highest integer in the event of a fraction) shall constitute a quorum, and a majority of those
+present and voting at any meeting of the Board of Directors shall decide each matter considered. If less than a quorum be present, a
+majority of those present may adjourn any meeting from time to time and the meeting may be held as adjourned without further notice.
+ARTICLE HI
+Committees of the Board
+Section 3.01. Committees. Except for those duties that by law or regulation must be performed by at least a majority of the full
+Board of Directors, the performance of such duties as the Board deems appropriate may be assigned to one or more committees of' one or
+more persons. Membership in each such committee shall be as established from time to time by the Board. All acts done and powers
+conferred by any Committee from time to time shall be deemed to be, and may be certified as being done or conferred under authority of
+the Board. A Committee may delegate its duties to one or more subcommittees composed of'one or more members of the Committee. Each
+Committee may fix its own rules and procedures, in the absence of which the provisions of the Articles of Association and these By-laws
+with respect to meetings of the Board shall apply to Committees and their members. The minutes of the meetings of each Committee shall
+be submitted at the next regular meeting of the Board at which a quorum is present, or, if impracticable, at the next such subsequent
+meeting.
+
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+4/8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documente126~of teled@4/24/23 Page 6 of 9
+Section 3.02. Examining Committee. The Audit Committee of J.P. L
+_Chase & Co. shall be the Examining Committee of the
+Bank and shall have full and complete authority to act for and on behalf of this Bank in the exercise of the authority granted to it by the
+By-laws and the Board of Directors of J.P.
+Chase & Co.
+ARTICLE IV
+Officers and Agents
+Section 4.01. Officers. The officers of the Bank may include a Chairman of the Board, a Chief Executive Officer, and a President,
+each of whom must be a director and shall be elected by the Board; and such other officers as may from time to time be elected by the
+Board or under its authority, or appointed by or under the authority of the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer, or the President.
+Section 4.02. Other Employees. The Board of Directors may delegate others to appoint agents and employees, define their duties,
+fix their compensation and dismiss them.
+Section 4.03. Term of Office. All officers, agents, and employees appointed by the Board of Directors, or under its authority, shall
+hold office at the pleasure of the Board.
+Section 4.04. Chairman of the Board. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and at all meetings of the
+Board. The Chairman of the Board shall have the same power to perform any act on behalf of the Bank and to sign for the Bank as is
+prescribed in these Bylaws for the Chief Executive Officer. He shall perform such other duties as from time to time may be prescribed by
+Section 4.05. Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer shall be the chief executive officer of the Bank and shall have,
+subject to the control of the Board and the Chairman, general supervision and direction of the policies and operations of the Bank and of
+its several officers other than the Chairman. In the absence of the Chairman, he shall preside at all meetings of the shareholders and at all
+meetings of the Board. He shall have the power to execute any document or perform any act on behalf of the Bank, including without
+limitation the power to sign checks, orders, contracts, leases, notes, drafts and other documents and instruments in connection with the
+business of the Bank, and together with the Secretary or an Assistant Corporate Secretary execute conveyances of real estate and other
+documents and instruments to which the seal of the Bank may be aflixed. He shall perform such other duties as from time to time may be
+prescribed by the Board.
+Section 4.06. President. The President shall, subject to the direction and control of the Board, the Chairman and the Chief Executive
+Officer, participate in the supervision of the policies and operations of the Bank. In general, the President shall perform all duties incident
+to the office of President, and such other duties as from time to time may be prescribed by the Board, the Chairman, or the Chief Executive
+Officer. In the absence of the Chairman or the Chief Executive Officer, the President shall preside at meetings of shareholders and of the
+Board. The President shall have the same power to sign for the Bank as is prescribed in these By-laws for the Chief Executive Officer.
+
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+5/8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documentel 26vlof Filed@4/24/23 Page 7 of 9
+Section 4.07. Powers and Duties of Other Officers. The powers and duties of all other officers of the Bank shall be those usually
+pertaining to their respective offices, subject to the direction and control of the Board and as otherwise provided in these By-laws.
+Section 4.08. Fidelity Bonds. The Board, in its discretion, may require any or all officers, agents, and employees of the Bank to give
+bonds covering the faithful performance of their duties or may obtain insurance covering the same, in either case in form and amount
+approved by the Board, the premiums thereon to be paid by the Bank.
+ARTICLE V
+Indemnification
+Section 5.01. Right to Indemnification. The Bank shall to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law as then in effect indemnify
+any person (the "Indemnitee") who was or is involved in any manner (including, without limitation, as a party or a witness), or is
+threatened to be made so involved, in any threatened, pending or completed investigation, claim, action, suit or proceeding, whether civil,
+administrative or investigative (including, without limitation, any action, suit or proceeding by or in the right of the Bank to procure a
+judgment in its favor, but excluding any action, suit, or proceeding brought by such person against the Bank or any affiliate of the Bank (a
+"Proceeding") by reason of the fact that he is or was a director, officer, or employee of the Bank, or is or was serving at the request of the
+Bank as a director, officer or employee or agent of another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise against all
+expenses (including attorney's fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him in
+connection with such Proceeding. Such indemnification shall be a contract right and shall include the right to receive payment in advance
+of any expenses incurred by the Indemnitee in connection with such Proceeding, consistent with the provisions of applicable law as then in
+effect.
+Section 5.02. Contracts and Funding. The Bank may enter into contracts with any director, officer, or employee of the Bank in
+furtherance of the provisions of this Article V and may create a trust fund, grant a security interest or use other means (including, without
+limitation, a letter of credit) to ensure the payment of such amounts as may be necessary to effect indemnification as provided in this
+Article V.
+Section 5.03. Employee Benefit Plans. For purposes of this Article V, references to "other enterprises" shall include employee
+benefit plans; references to "fines" shall include any excise taxes assessed on a person with respect to any employee benefit plan; and
+references to "serving at the request of the Bank" shall include any service as a director, officer, employee, or agent of the Bank which
+imposes duties on, or involves services by, such director, officer, employee, or agent with respect to an employee benefit plan, its
+participants, or beneficiaries; and a person who acted in good faith and in a manner he reasonably believed to be in the interest of the
+participants and beneficiaries of an employee benefit plan shall be deemed to have acted in a manner not opposed to the best interests of
+the corporation.
+Section 5.04. Indemnification Not Exclusive Right. The right of indemnification and advancement of expenses provided in this
+Article V shall not be exclusive of any other rights to which a person seeking indemnification may otherwise be entitled, under any statute,
+by-law, agreement, vote of shareholders or disinterested directors or otherwise, both as to action in his
+
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+6/8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documentel26vlof tFiled@4/24/23 Page 8 of 9
+official capacity and as to action in another capacity while holding such office. The provisions of this Article V shall inure to the benefit of
+the heirs and legal representatives of any person entitled to indemnity under this Article V and shall be applicable to Proceedings
+commenced or continuing after the adoption of this Article V whether arising from acts or omissions occurring before or after such
+adoption.
+Section 5.05. Advancement of Expenses; Procedures. In furtherance, but not in limitation, of the foregoing provisions, the
+following procedures and remedies shall apply with respect to advancement of expenses and the right to indemnification under this Article
+(a) Advancement of Expenses. All reasonable expenses incurred by or on behalf of the Indemnitee in connection with any
+Proceeding shall be advanced to the Indemnitee by the Bank within twenty (20) days after the receipt by the Bank of a statement or
+statements from the Indemnitee requesting such advance or advances from time to time, whether prior to or after final disposition of
+such Proceeding. Such statement or statements shall reasonably evidence the expenses incurred by the Indemnitee and, if required by
+law at the time of such advance, shall include or be accompanied by an undertaking by or on behalf of the Indemnitee to repay the
+amounts advanced if, and to the extent, it should ultimately be determined that the Indemnitee is not entitled to be indemnified
+against such expenses.
+(b) Written Request for Indemnification. To obtain indemnification under this Article VII, an Indemnitee shall submit to the
+Secretary of the Bank a written request, including such documentation and information as is reasonably available to the Indemnitee
+and reasonably necessary to determine whether and to what extent the Indemnitee is entitled to indemnification (the "Supporting
+Documentation"). The determination of the Indemnitee's entitlement to indemnification shall be made within a reasonable time after
+receipt by the Bank of the written request for indemnification together with the Supporting Documentation. The Secretary of the
+Bank shall, promptly upon receipt of such a request for indemnification, advise the Board in writing that the Indemnitee has
+requested indemnification.
+(c) Procedure for Determination. The Indemnitee's entitlement to indemnification under this Article V shall be determined (i) by
+the Board by a majority vote of a quorum (as defined in Article II of these By-laws) consisting of directors who were not parties to
+such action, suit or proceeding, or (ii) if such quorum is not obtainable, or, even if obtainable, a quorum of disinterested directors so
+directs, by independent legal counsel in a written opinion, or (ili) by the sharcholders, but only if a majority of the disinterested
+directors, if they constitute a quorum of the Board, presents the issue of entitlement to indemnification to the shareholders for their
+determination.
+ARTICLE VI
+By-laws
+Section 6.01. Inspection. A copy of the By-laws shall at all times be kept in a convenient place at the principal office of the Bank,
+and shall be open for inspection by shareholders during banking hours.
+Section 6.02. Amendments. These By-laws may be added to, amended, altered or repealed by action of the shareholders, or by vote
+of' a majority of' the entire Board at any meeting of'
+
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+7/8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Documentel 26vlof haleck@4/24/23 Page 9 of 9
+the Board. No amendment may be made unless the By-laws, as amended, are consistent with the requirements of the laws of the United
+States and of the Articles of Association of the Bank.
+Section 6.03. Construction. The masculine gender, where appearing in these Bylaws, shall be deemed to include the feminine
+gender.
+ARTICLE VII
+Miscellaneous
+Section 7.01. Seal. The corporate seal of the Bank shall be in the form of a circle and shall bear the full name of the Bank and the
+words "Corporate Seal" together with the logo of J.P. |
+Chase & Co.
+Section 7.02. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Bank shall be the calendar year.
+Section 7.03. Waiver of Notice. Unless otherwise provided by the laws of the United States, notice of any Board or Board
+committee meeting, need not be given to any person who (a) submits a signed waiver of notice, whether before or after the meeting, or (b)
+is present at such meeting; and any meeting shall be a legal meeting without any notice thereof having been given, if all the members are
+present.
+Section 7.04. Electronic Meetings. Subject to the provisions required or permitted by these or the Articles of Association of the
+Bank for notice of meetings, members of the Board of Directors, or members of any committee of the Board, may participate in and hold a
+meeting of the Board of Directors or such committee by means of conference telephone or other communications equipment by means of
+which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other. Participation in such a meeting shall constitute presence in person at
+such meeting, except where a person participates in the meeting for the express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any business on
+the ground that the meeting is not lawfully called or convened.
+Section 7.05. Consent in Lieu of Meeting of Directors. Except as otherwise required by applicable laws and regulations, any action
+that may be taken at a meeting of the Board of Directors or any committee of the Board may also be taken without a meeting if a written
+consent to the action is signed by all the directors, or by all members of such committee, and is filed with the Secretary of the Bank as part
+of the corporate records. (
+Section 7.06. Governing Law. To the extent not inconsistent with applicable Federal banking statutes and regulations, or safety and
+sound banking practice, the Bank shall follow the corporate governance procedures, including indemnification standards, of the Delaware
+General Corporation Law, as amended.
+
+https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1062336/000119312504207055/dex994.htm
+8/8
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0715e6293f588f0ca5844882ebcf272dbb641cd929846a39b64688f170823c8b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0715e6293f588f0ca5844882ebcf272dbb641cd929846a39b64688f170823c8b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..462bb3823a97b43f6e58429a494b3d8eafe438b9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0715e6293f588f0ca5844882ebcf272dbb641cd929846a39b64688f170823c8b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -329,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0715e6293f588f0ca5844882ebcf272dbb641cd929846a39b64688f170823c8b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 18,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7ce0bf34187acd601b88e8074dd445277210d28e77330bb556ee8ca7c2cb72ce",
+  "output_sha256": "19b0022aea17baa7fad290cb886a004f6fb5f80bb8204e288580863412a43925",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/072a30ddfe0a01e5c10f01b98119273077ffa8eedf383449d0899d9ceffbb7e6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/072a30ddfe0a01e5c10f01b98119273077ffa8eedf383449d0899d9ceffbb7e6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..548c019b5e9547ef6863d3126e9923f3cfef43dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/072a30ddfe0a01e5c10f01b98119273077ffa8eedf383449d0899d9ceffbb7e6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,393 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 15
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 15
+VIRGIN ISLANDS SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRY
+SEX OFFENDER COMPLIANCE CHECK
+Geffrey Epstein
+SSN:
+REG. #:
+NAME:
+DOB:
+RESIDENCE:
+ADDRESS:
+DATE: 01/18/3
+IS THIS ADDRESS WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF A CHILD-CARE FACILITY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL, A
+PRIVATE SCHOOL OR A PAROCHIAL SCHOOL?
+• YES
+• NO
+IF SO, PLEASE LIST ALL FACILITIES AND/OR SCHOOLS:
+IS THERE A COMPUTER WITH INTERNET ACCESS IN THE HOME?
+EMAIL. 1:
+EMAIL 2:
+HOME PHONE:
+CELL PHONE:
+OWN:
+RENT: L
+OTHER:
+HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANTS (Name and Age):
+• YES
+WORK PHONE:
+VEHICLES: Escalade parked down by amport
+MAKE: Dodae
+MODEL: Caravan
+MAKE: Cherrdlet
+MODEL:
+Silkuhan
+WORK:
+COMPANY NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+VI-JPM-000012616
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 3 of 15
+L NO
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE:
+COMMENTS/NOTES:
+Off island until August 2013.
+TELEPHONE:
+• COMPLIANT • NOT IN COMPLIANCE • NOT LOCATED • NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+SIGNATURE:
+DATE:
+VIDOU/SOR-11
+VI-JPM-000012617
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 4 of 15
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE:
+COMMENTS/NOTES:
+Off island until August 2013.
+TELEPHONE:
+• COMPLIANT L NOT IN COMPLIANCE L NOT LOCATED O] NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+SIGNATURE:
+DATE:
+VI-JPM-000012618
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 5 of 15
+VIRGIN ISLANDS SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRY
+SEX OFFENDER COMPLIANCE CHECK
+NAME: Jeffrey Epstein
+DOB:
+RESIDENCE:
+ADDRESS: Little St. James
+DATE:
+2014
+SSN:
+REG. #:
+IS THIS ADDRESS WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF A CHILD-CARE FACILITY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL, A
+PRIVATE SCHOOL OR A PAROCHIAL SCHOOL?
+• YES
+I NO
+IF SO, PLEASE LIST ALL FACILITIES AND/OR SCHOOLS:
+IS THERE A COMPUTER WITH INTERNET ACCESS IN THE HOME?
+EMAIL. *Emails on file
+EMAIL 2:
+*all
+contact #i in tile
+HOME PHONE:
+CELL PHONE:
+OWN:
+RENT:
+OTHER:
+HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANTS (Name and Age):
+2 aduet employees
+$ YES
+WORK PHONE:
+L NO
+VEHICLES: * onfile
+MAKE:
+MAKE:
+MODEL:
+MODEL:
+WORK:
+L YES
+COMPANY NAME: STC
+ADDRESS:
+Amerian Yacht Harbor
+VI-JPM-000012619
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 6 of 15
+Ef NO
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE:
+COMMENTS/NOTES:
+Jeffrey Epsten
+TELEPHONE:
+E COMPLIANT • NOT IN COMPLIANCE LI NOT LOCATED L] NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+SIGNATURE:
+pray
+DATE:
+07/27/2014
+VI-JPM-000012620
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 7 of 15
+E NO
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE:
+Jeffey Spoten
+COMMENTS/NOTES:
+TELEPHONE:
+EP COMPLIANT
+SIGNATURE:
+• NOT IN COMPLIANCE • NOT LOCATED • NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+laur
+DATE:
+07/27/2014
+VI-JPM-000012621
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 8 of 15
+GRIMENT BR
+VIRGIN ISLANDS SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRY
+SEX OFFENDER COMPLIANCE CHECK
+Celprey
+NAME:
+DOB:
+RESIDENCE:
+ADDRESS:
+Epskin
+DATE: 2015
+SSN:
+REG.#:
+LST
+IS THIS ADDRESS WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF A CHILD-CARE FACILITY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL, A
+PRIVATE SCHOOL OR A PAROCHIAL SCHOOL?
+• YES
+• NO
+IF SO, PLEASE LIST ALL FACILITIES AND/OR SCHOOLS:
+IS THERE A COMPUTER WITH INTERNET ACCESS IN THE HOME?
+EMAIL 1:
+EMAIL 2:
+HOME PHONE:
+CELL PHONE:
+OWN:
+RENT:
+OTHER:
+HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANTS (Name and Age):
+• YES
+WORK PHONE:
+VEHICLES:
+MAKE:
+MAKE:
+WORK:
+COMPANY NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+L YES
+MODEL:
+MODEL:
+• NO
+VI-JPM-000012622
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 9 of 15
+LI NO
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE:
+TELEPHONE:
+COMMENTS/NOTES: (000 island)
+@first
+Epstein not present on LST, + Staff gured to us entry.
+Epstein ceutacted by stapo and stapo was allamed to escort
+us an island. (limited).
+LI COMPLIANT L NOT IN COMPLIANCE • NOT LOCATED C NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+SIGNATURE:
+DATE: 07/16/15
+VI-JPM-000012623
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 10 of 15
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE:
+TELEPHONE:
+COMMENTS/NOTES: (000
+island)
+@first
+Epstein not present on LST, + Stagg used un us entry.
+Epstein contacted by stapo and stapo was allaned to escort
+us an island. (limited).
+• COMPLIANT L NOT IN COMPLIANCE • NOT LOCATED • NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+SIGNATURE:
+DATE: 07/16/15
+VI-JPM-000012624
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 11 of 15
+CANT OR
+VIRGIN ISLANDS SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRY
+Amn Rediquer
+monday
+NAME:
+Jeffrey
+Epstein
+DOB:
+RESIDENCE:
+ADDRESS:
+SEX OFFENDER COMPLIANCE CHECK
+SSN:
+REG. #:
+DATE: May 13, 2016
+IS THIS ADDRESS WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF A CHILD-CARE FACILITY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL, A
+PRIVATE SCHOOL OR A PAROCHIAL SCHOOL?
+• YES
+• NO
+IF SO, PLEASE LIST ALL FACILITIES AND/OR SCHOOLS:
+IS THERE A COMPUTER WITH INTERNET ACCESS IN THE HOME?
+EMAIL 1:
+EMAIL 2:
+HOME PHONE:
+CELL PHONE:
+OWN: L
+RENT:
+OTHER:
+HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANTS (Name and Age):
+E YES
+WORK PHONE:
+VEHICLES:
+MAKE:
+MAKE:
+WORK:
+COMPANY NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+_ YES
+MODEL:
+MODEL:
+VI-JPM-000012625
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 12 of 15
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+¿pateri not on istand. Left earlies for lost minute tracel.
+NAME (printed):
+DATE:
+SIGNATURE:
+COMMENTS/NOTES:
+TELEPHONE:
+Veriquation not completed as Epsteri 170 intend
+COMPLIANT • NOT IN COMPLIANCE • NOT LOCATED • NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+SIGNATURE A
+Ha
+DATE: 05/13/2010
+VI-JPM-000012626
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 13 of 15
+VIRGIN ISLANDS SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRY
+SEX OFFENDER COMPLIANCE CHECK
+NAME:
+Seppey
+DOB:
+Epstein
+SSN:
+DATE: 07/10/18
+REG. #:
+RESIDENCE:
+ADDRESS:
+* iris us denid entry begand let
+IS THIS ADDRESS WITHIN A ONE-MILE RADIUS OF A CHILD-CARE FACILITY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL, A
+PRIVATE SCHOOL OR A PAROCHIAL SCHOOL?
+• YES
+ENO
+IF SO, PLEASE LIST ALL FACILITIES AND/OR SCHOOLS:
+IS THERE A COMPUTER WITH INTERNET ACCESS IN THE HOME?
+EMAIL 1:
+EMAIL. 2:
+HOME PHONE:
+CELL PHONE: 2ld-533•3739 WORK PHONE:
+775-2595
+OWN:
+RENT:
+OTHER:
+HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANTS (Name and Age):
+Karen laduet enplanest-As Oti undran
+Bryce
+(aduet emplayer) - Age time Unknoun
+VEHICLES:
+MAKE:
+MODEL: _
+MAKE:
+WORK:
+COMPANY NAME:
+MODEL:
+• NO
+southern Trust compans
+ADDRESS:
+VI-JPM-000012627
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 14 of 15
+LI NO
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS:
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+SIGNATURE:
+Tyla apter
+COMMENTS/NOTES:
+DATE: 7/10/15
+TELEPHONE:
+L COMPLIANT LINOTIN COMPLIANCE
+SIGNATURE:
+O NOT LOCATED O NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+DATE: 07/10|18
+VI-JPM-000012628
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 194-34 Filed 06/20/23 Page 15 of 15
+• YES
+SCHOOL:
+SCHOOL NAME:
+ADDRESS
+WITNESS STATEMENT:
+NAME (printed):
+aptein
+DATE: 7/10/15
+SIGNATURE:
+COMMENTS/NOTES:
+TELEPHONE:
+• COMPLIANT
+SIGNATURE:
+* NOT IN COMPLIANCE L NOTLOCATED C NEEDS INVESTIGATION
+Mane
+DATE:
+07/10/18
+VI-JPM-000012629
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/072a30ddfe0a01e5c10f01b98119273077ffa8eedf383449d0899d9ceffbb7e6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/072a30ddfe0a01e5c10f01b98119273077ffa8eedf383449d0899d9ceffbb7e6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..838416008f6a9b899b15eeb1b4707b40fe70bcad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/072a30ddfe0a01e5c10f01b98119273077ffa8eedf383449d0899d9ceffbb7e6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1372,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "072a30ddfe0a01e5c10f01b98119273077ffa8eedf383449d0899d9ceffbb7e6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 17,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "b62f0231aba2ae136f2d3e42773a9ebb81001f0e641dfcef33ba916b59397330",
+  "output_sha256": "65f490c635c11984157eac4a0c953ac658d8cd057c540e5b55c2808f7c212d50",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0755a546c80a82e27a1344bf6ac982e2e0c0b2b7c9781d8f34590e8f72ce8eb6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0755a546c80a82e27a1344bf6ac982e2e0c0b2b7c9781d8f34590e8f72ce8eb6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ae3915c34211e4fdff48b363fe5c13cbb7bff450
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0755a546c80a82e27a1344bf6ac982e2e0c0b2b7c9781d8f34590e8f72ce8eb6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2149 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 75
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant/Third-Party
+Plaintiff.
+Case No. 22-cv-10904 (JSR)
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A..,
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+Third-Party Defendant.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S LOCAL CIVIL RULE 56.1(B) RESPONSE TO
+STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH GOVERNMENT OF THE
+UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS CONTENDS THERE IS NO GENUINE DISPUTE
+Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Civil Rule 56.1, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
+JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMC" or "JPMorgan") hereby responds to the Statement of
+Material Facts as to which Government of the United States Virgin Islands Contends There is No
+Genuine Dispute ("USVI SUMF") filed by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands
+("USVI"). See Dkt. 219. To avoid repetition, JPMC incorporates by reference herein JPMorgan
+Chase Bank, N.A. 's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 75
+Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("SUMF"), Dkt. 229, and JPMorgan Chase
+Bank, N.A. 's Local Civil Rule 56.1(b) Counterstatement of Additional Material Facts ("CSMF")
+and the supporting exhibits cited therein. JPMC further incorporates into its responses its
+objection that USVI's cited materials cannot be presented at trial in a form that would be
+admissible as evidence and has stated further specific objections below. All allegations
+contained in headings, which are not supported by a citation to admissible evidence and thereby
+fail to comply with the Local Rules, are also disputed for the reasons set forth in the
+accompanying responses to paragraphs.'
+Epstein Engaged in a Sex-Trafficking Venture
+JPMC Response: This is a header to which no response is warranted. Disputed insofar
+as USVI contends that the statements and documents cited below establish this fact as a
+matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sextrafficking venture as a matter of law.
+1. In the May 26, 2023 class certification hearing, counsel for JPMorgan stated, "I think the
+way the Court could use those grand jury findings would be to ascertain something not contested,
+which is Mr. Epstein was engaged in horrendous criminal activity, including sex trafficking
+That's not something being contested at all by JPMorgan." Tr. Class Certification Hr'g at 19:3-
+7, Doe 1 v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 22-cv-10019 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2023); see also id.
+at 33:10-14 ("Your colleague has just acknowledged, as indeed JPMorgan has repeatedly, that
+they do not dispute, you do not dispute that Mr. Epstein was engaged in a longtime trafficking
+venture that involved emmerable young women and that required money to make it work."
+(emphasis added)).
+' Unless otherwise specified, all citations in JPMC Resp. USVI SUMF and JPMC CSMF to "JPMC Ex. _"
+refer to exhibits filed by JPMC in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to USVT's motion
+for summary judgment. Citations herein to "USVI Ex. _" refer to exhibits submitted by USVI in support of its
+motion for summary judgment.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 75
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the quoted language is from the cited transcript.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited statement establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+2. In statements to the press following JPMorgan's settlement with Doe, JPMorgan stated:
+"We all now understand that Epstein's behavior was monstrous, and we believe this settlement is
+in the best interest of all parties, especially the survivors, who suffered unimaginable abuse at the
+hands of this man." "Any association with him was a mistake and we regret it. We would never
+have contimied to do business with him if we believed he was using our bank in any way to help
+commit heinous crimes. " Ex. 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that JPMC made the quoted statements.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited statements establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 111 1-107.
+Ex. 2 at -196.
+3
+
+
+5.
+460.
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF H 1-107.
+Ex. 3 at - 195.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+Ex. 4 at -
+4
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF M 1-107.
+6. In 2019, a grand jury found that Epstein "sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor
+girls at his homes in Manhattan, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, among other locations."
+Sealed Indictment at 1, United States v. Epstein, 19-cт-490 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019), ECF No. 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that in July 2019 a grand jury charged that Epstein
+"sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at his homes in Manhattan, New
+York, and Palm Beach, Florida, among other locations."
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+7.
+Ex. 5 at -364. The article stated that federal prosecutors had charged Epstein with sex trafficking
+in July 2019, Epstein was arrested on July 6, 2019, and Epstein died on August 10, 2019. Ex. 6.
+La New York Times article titled "Jeffrey
+Epstein Dead in Suicide at Jail, Spurring Inquiries" which stated that federal prosecutors
+had charged Epstein with sex trafficking in July 2019, Epstein was arrested on July 6,
+2019, and Epstein died on August 10, 2019.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+5
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 6 of 75
+8.
+Ghislaine Maxwell was indicted and arrested in 2020 by the United States Attorney's
+Office for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in
+illegal acts, enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport
+minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and transportation of a minor with intent
+to engage in criminal sexual activity. Sealed Indictment, United States v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330
+(S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020), ECF No. 1. Maxwell was convicted on June 28, 2022.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed to the extent that Maxwell was indicted in 2020 by the
+United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York for conspiracy to
+entice minors to travel to engage in illegal acts, enticement of a minor to travel to engage
+in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual
+activity, and transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+9. JPMorgan admits that Epstein pled guilty to "felony solicitation of prostitution and
+procurement of minors to engage in prostitution, " "was sentenced to 18 months in jail," and "was
+required to register as a sex offender. " Def. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Answer to 2d Am.
+Compl. and Statement of Affirmative Defenses, 1 38, ECF No. 124.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the quoted language is from JPMC's Answer to 2d
+Am. Compi. and Statement of Affirmative Defenses.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+10. A Level 3 sex offender is the highest risk level and poses a "high risk of repeat offense and
+threat to public safety. " Ex. 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that in New York state a "Level 3 sex offender is the
+highest risk level and poses a 'high risk of repeat offense and threat to public safety.""
+6
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 7 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. CSMF
+111-107.
+11. In November 2011, Epstein's Level 3 sex offender status was unanimously affirmed by the
+New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. The court found that "Ic]lear and convincing
+evidence... supported the assessment of points for risk factors sufficient for a level three sex
+offender adjudication."
+The evidence before the (Sex Offender Registration Act] hearing
+court established that defendant committed multiple offenses
+against a series of underage girls. The girls were brought to
+defendant's home to provide 'massages' that led to very serious sex
+crimes. These facts were established by ... Florida law enforcement
+authorities after their investigation . ... The probable cause
+affidavit was extremely detailed. It set forth the sworn, taperecorded statements of the victims. The victims' detailed accounts
+of defendants' crimes corroborated each other, and were also
+corroborated by other evidence, including declarations against
+penal interest made by defendant's accomplice.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed as to the contents of the cited decision. Disputed to the
+extent USVI suggests that Epstein was classified as a Level 3 sex offender in all
+jurisdictions. See CSMF 11 304-306.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+12.
+Ex. 8 at -006.
+7
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 8 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPM knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+13. At Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial, a victim testified under oath, using the pseudonym
+"Kate." Kate testified that, starting when she was 17 years old, Maxwell and Epstein flew her "to
+Palm Beach, to New York, and to the island," and Kate gave Epstein sexualized massages in each
+of those locations. Trial Tr. at 1195:7-25, 1198:2-19, 1203:4-9, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-
+ст-330 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2021), ECF No. 751.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed as to the contents of the cited document.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+14.
+Bridgette Carr, an expert in human trafficking for the U.S. Virgin Islands,
+Ex. 9 at 65-66.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that USVI's proffered expert Bridgette Carr
+8
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 9 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+15.
+U.S. District Judge Marra stated in an opinion in February 2019:
+From about 1999 and 2007, Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more
+than 30 minor giris, including Petitioners..., at his mansion in
+Palm Beach, Florida and elsewhere in the United States and
+overseas. Because Epstein and his coconspirators knowingly
+traveled in interstate and international commerce to sexually abuse
+Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and others, they committed violations of not
+only Florida law, but also federal law. In addition to his own sexual
+abuse of the victims, Epstein directed other persons to abuse the
+girls sexually. Epstein used paid employees to find and bring minor
+girls to him. Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors
+not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual
+gratification of others.
+Jane Doe 1 & Jane Doe 2 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1204 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
+(internal citations omitted).
+JPMC Response: Undisputed as to the content of the cited document.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+16.
+After Epstein's death, Judge Berman held a hearing at which several of Epstein's victims
+gave statements. Victim
+testified: "On my third or fourth time meeting [Epstein
+and Maxwell], they brought me to Jeffrey's island for the first time, and on the first night there,
+came tapping on my door late at night to inform me Jeffrey was ready for another
+9
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 10 of 75
+massage." That night, Epstein sexually assaulted her. Hr'g Tr. at 44:4-22, United States v.
+Epstein, No. 19-c1-490 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019), ECF No. 53.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the quoted language is from the hearing transcript in
+the cited case.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF M 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+17. At the same August 27, 2019 hearing, Jane Doe No. 9 testified: "|I]n 2004, when I was 15
+years old, I flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane to Zorro Ranch, where I was sexual [sic] molested by
+him for many hours. " Id. at 75:10-12.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the quoted language is from the hearing transcript in
+the cited case.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+18.
+Ex. 10 at -003.
+Id. at -018.
+Id. at -019-20.
+10
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 11 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+19.
+Ex. 11
+at -036.
+Ex. 12 at -029.
+Id.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+20.
+Ex.
+13 at -440-41.
+Id. at -462.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+21.
+Ex. 15 at -458.
+11
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 12 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+22.
+filed a creditor's claim in the Epstein estate probate proceeding, alleging
+that Epstein sexually abused her in New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands "[b)eginning in 2004
+and continuing for years thereafter: " Ex. 1692.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+23.
+filed a creditor's claim in the Epstein estate probate proceeding, alleging
+that Epstein sexually abused her in New York, New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands from 2002
+to 2004. Ex. 17 41 42-59.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF M 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+24. Dozens of Epstein's victims filed private civil suits against him and his coconspirators,
+including but not limited to:
+a.
+Jane Doe No. 2, who alleged that in 2004 or 2005 when she was 16 years old,
+Epstein sexually assaulted her during a massage in Epstein's Palm Beach
+residence. Ex. 18 98.
+12
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 13 of 75
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that a plaintiff proceeding under the pseudonym Jane Doe
+No. 2 filed the cited private civil suit and made these allegations in the cited private civil
+suit.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+b.
+who alleged that in 2002, when
+was 16 years old, Epstein sexually
+assaulted her more than 20 times during massages in his Palm Beach residence.
+Ex. 19 at 11 24-37. Epstein paid
+$300 each time. Id. at 1 36.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that a plaintiff proceeding under the pseudonym
+made these allegations in the cited private civil suit.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+Jane Doe No. 102, who alleged that Epstein abused her for four years starting in
+1998 when she was 15 years old. She traveled with Epstein to locations including
+New York City, Santa Fe, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis, Europe, the
+Caribbean, and Africa, and in each location Epstein "abused her to serve his every
+sexual whim." Ex. 20 99 17-20.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that a plaintiff proceeding under the pseudonym Jane Doe
+No. 102 made these allegations in the cited private civil suit.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 19 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+13
+
+
+25.
+26.
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 14 of 75
+Jane Doe 43, who alleged that she was recruited into Epstein's sex trafficking
+scheme beginning in October 2006 and continuing through April 2007. Ex. 21 911
+34, 38. Epstein and his recruiters told Doe 43 that Epstein would secure her
+admission to fashion school in New York City. Doe 43 was coerced into engaging
+in sexual acts with Epstein both in New York and in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Id. "
+45. While in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Epstein maintained control of Doe 43's
+passport and once conducted a search party to find Doe 43 after she attempted to
+escape the island. Id. 1 49.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that a plaintiff proceeding under the pseudonym Jane Doe
+No. 43 made these allegations in the cited private civil suit.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+Ex. 9 at 74.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited expert report of Bridgette Car contains the
+stated information.
+See JPMC Ex. 54 at 259:24-261:13 .
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+Ex. 22 at -454.
+14
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 15 of 75
+ld. at -464.
+Id. at -466.
+Id. at -474.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF M 1-107.
+27.
+Ex. 22 at -500.
+Id. at -536.
+Id.
+at -566.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+28.
+Ex. 23 at -570.
+la. at -
+15
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 16 of 75
+571.
+Id. at -572.
+Ex. 24 at - 256-57.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes hat Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of' law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+29.
+Ex. 24 at - 205-06.
+Ex. 25 at -
+401-02.
+Id. at 391-92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+30.
+Ex. 25 at -381-82.
+Id. at -362-63.
+16
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 17 of 75
+Id. at -339-40.
+Ex. 26 at - 491-92.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+31.
+. 26 at -473-74.
+Id. at -429-30.
+Id. at -423-24.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 111 1-107.
+32. JPMorgan processed wire payments from Epstein to women in years that coincided with
+the women's trips to the U.S. Virgin Islands with Epstein:
+a.
+Ex. 27 at -408.
+17
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 18 of 75
+Id.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 111 1-107.
+b.
+Ex. 27 at -406.
+Id.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+C.
+Ex. 27 at -403.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+18
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 19 of 75
+d.
+Ex. 27 at -403.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+CSMF 111 1-107.
+e.
+Ex. 27
+at -406.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+J.
+Ex. 27 at -407.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+19
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 20 of 75
+g.
+Ex. 27 at -407.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that the cited document establishes that Epstein was
+engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law or that JPMC knew or recklessly
+disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law. See
+JP
+| Knew or Recklessly Disregarded that Epstein Ran a Sex-Trafficking Venture
+JPMC Response: This is a header to which no response is warranted. Disputed insofar
+as USVI contends that the statements and documents cited below establish that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law.
+33. JPMorgan admits Mary Erdoes, Catherine Keating, and Mary l
+were aware in 2006
+that Epstein was arrested for solicitation of prostitution. Ex. 28 at Resps. 90, 147, 112.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Erdoes, Keating, and L
+2006 arrest for solicitation of prostitution.
+were aware of Epstein's
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 11 1-107.
+34. An internal JPMorgan document defines Know Your Client (KYC) as a "due diligence
+process that ensures we 'know' the clients we deal with and understand how and why they use our
+products and services. Without KYC, we become vulnerable. Unknowing to us, our clients could
+easily use PCS as a vehicle to perpetrate illegal activities." Ex. 29 at -026.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited document. The
+document defines KYC as "Know Your Customer." USVI Ex. 29 at -026. Otherwise,
+undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+20
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 21 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 19 1-107.
+35.
+Ex. 30 at -915.
+Otherwise, undisputed that
+the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of law.
+See CSMF 11 1-107.
+36. Red Dot information "is any derogatory information identified by Global Security Services
+which warrants the attention of the banker. " Ex 31 at -574.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 11 1-107.
+37. JPMorgan's due diligence process required that it research and review news publications
+about clients or clients" businesses. Ex. 32 at 42:13-19.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that
+testified that the review of news reports or
+publications with respect to the client or the client's business were part of her due
+diligence review. USVI Ex. At 42:13-19. Disputed to the extent USVI asserts that this
+testimony about
+own due diligence work establishes a fact about JPMC's overall
+due diligence process and policies.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 11 1-107.
+38. Negative news media was one of the main categories of information reviewed as part of
+JPMorgan's ongoing due diligence monitoring. Ex. 33 at 53:3-54:3; 60:8-20.
+Ex. 34 at 31:14-32:10.
+21
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 22 of 75
+JPMorgan's Global Security Services searched databases for negative media regarding clients to
+escalate to bankers and risk management. Ex. 35 at 340:6-341:3. JPMorgan Private Bank
+conducted negative media reviews as part of its approach to determine whether a client's activity
+was suspicious. Ex. 36 at 187:25-188:22.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent this paragraph consists of USVI's summary of
+Pearn, Sheridan, McCleerey, and Ryan's testimony. Disputed that cited USVI Ex. 33
+supports the proposition that "[n]egative news media was one of the main categories of'
+information reviewed as part of JPMorgan's ongoing due diligence monitoring."
+USVI Ex. 34 at 31:23-25; 32:1-3. Disputed that JPMorgan's Global Security Services
+searched databases for negative media regarding clients. Undisputed that JPMorgan
+Private Bank conducted negative media reviews as part of its approach to determine
+whether a client's activity was suspicious.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 11 1-107.
+39. A JPMorgan Due Diligence Report for Epstein's entity YHS, LIC includes a section for
+news publications. Ex. 37 at - 185-199.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited Due Diligence Report for YHS, LLC
+includes a section titled "Publications." USVI Ex. 37 at -185.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 11 1-107.
+Another JPMorgan Due Diligence Report for Epstein includes a section for news
+publications. Ex. 38 at -558-567.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited Due Diligence Report for Jeffrey Epstein
+includes a section in the "Table of Contents" titled "Publications." USVI Ex. 38 at -551.
+Disputed to the extent that the cited pages were not provided with Ex. 38.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 11 1-107.
+22
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 23 of 75
+41.CJPMorgan admits certain JPMorgan employees received, reviewed, or read articles
+covering Epstein's 2006 arrest in Florida. Ex. 39 at Resps. 32, 33.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that certain JPMorgan employees received, reviewed, or
+read articles covering Epstein's 2006 arrest in Florida.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 11 1-107.
+42. JPMorgan admits certain JPMorgan employees received, reviewed, or read a 2006 Palm
+Beach Post article stating that Epstein was indicted on one count of felon[y] solicitation of
+prostitution. Ex. 39 at Resp. 41.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that certain JPMorgan employees received, reviewed, or
+read a 2006 Palm Beach Post article stating that Epstein was indicted on one count of
+felony solicitation of prostitution.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 19 1-107.
+43. The 2006 Palm Beach Post article states: "Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein paid to
+have underage girls and young women brought to his home, where he received massages and
+sometimes sex" and "police thought there was probable cause to charge Epstein with unlawful
+sex acts with a minor and lewd and lascivious molestation. " Ex. 40 at 1. The article lays out in
+detail evidence from the Palm Beach Police Department Probable Cause Affidavit, including:
+a.
+A college student gave Epstein a naked massage and then "brought him six girls,
+ages 14 to 16, for massage and sex-tinged sessions" at Epstein's home. Id. at 2.
+b.
+A 27-year-old Epstein employee,
+would arrange the sessions and
+prepare the massage table. Id. at 2.
+Police obtained statements from five alleged victims and 17 witnesses. Police
+contend Epstein "had sex with the girls" on three occasions. Id. at 2.
+23
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 24 of 75
+d.
+met Epstein at age 17 and was recruited to massage him. Epstein
+told her he would "pay her to bring him more girls—-the younger the better. " She
+stated she once brought a 23-year-old woman to him and "Epstein said she was
+too old... " She brought six girls to Epstein and said the girls were paid $200 for
+each session.
+told police, "I'm like a Heidi Fleiss." Id. at 3.
+e.
+One 14-year-old victim recounted the details of her encounter in February 2005
+including being paid $300 for a massage in her bra and panties. For bringing this
+child to Epstein,
+received $200. Id. at 3.
+f.
+Police scoured the trash from Epstein's house and found notes with names and
+phone numbers, sex toys and female hygiene products. Notes stated that one female
+could not "come over at 7 p.m. because of soccer. Another said a girl had to work
+Sunday— 'Monday after school?' And still another note contained the work hours
+of a girl, saying she leaves school at 11:30 a.m. and would come over the next day
+at 10:30 a.m." Id. at 4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed the 2006 Palm Beach Post article contains the cited
+information. Disputed as to the USVI's characterization that the article "lays out in detail
+evidence" the Palm Beach Police Probable Cause Affidavit.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture as a matter of
+law. See CSMF 19 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented
+at trial in admissible form.
+44. The 2006 Palm Beach Post article also states, "Palm Beach police often conducted
+surveillance... at Palm Beach International Airport to see if his private jet was there... " Ex.
+40 at 4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed the cited 2006 Palm Beach Post article contains the quoted
+text.
+24
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 25 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+45. The 2006 Palm Beach Post article said that Epstein paid $200 or $300 cash to the girls
+and $200 cash to
+for recruiting the girls. Ex. 40 at 3.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed the cited 2006 Palm Beach Post article contains the cited
+information. The cited document speaks for itself.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein engaged in a sex-trafficking venture as a
+matter of law. See CSMF 11 1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be
+presented at trial in admissible form.
+46. JPMorgan admits the 2006 Palm Beach Post article mentioned
+Ex. 39 at
+Resp. 42.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the 2006 Palm Beach Post article mentioned
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+47. The Palm Beach Police Department Probable Cause Affidavit discussed in the 2006 Palm
+Beach Post article was filed May 1, 2006. Ex. 41 at 24.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited Probable Cause Affidavit from the Palm
+Beach Police Department was dated May 1, 2006.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1I
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+48. JPMorgan admits certain of its employees received, reviewed, or read one or more articles
+that reference
+JPMorgan otherwise refers to those articles for their contents.
+Ex. 39 at Resp. 43.
+25
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 26 of 75
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that certain of JPMC's employees received, reviewed, or
+read one or more articles that reference
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+49. A July 28, 2006 ABC News article, "Warrants Were Prepared to Arrest Others in
+Millionaire Ser Scandal," states: "Palm Beach police were planning to arrest two women in
+connection with their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ...
+Epstein's assistant ...
+and
+... who police say was paid by Epstein to bring over young and underage girls
+to his house to massage Epstein .... Another woman involved in the scandal was Epstein's
+girlfriend
+.... Though the documents do not mention that any charges were
+being sought against
+one girl, who began massaging Epstein when she was 16 years
+old, told police that she was paid by Epstein to have sex with
+as he watched. The girl
+also told police that 'Epstein bragged he brought her
+/ into the United States to be
+his Yugoslavian sex slave, ' according to the documents. " The article also states that the police
+submitted arrest warrant requests for
+and
+. According to the report,
+was to be arrested ... on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with certain minors and
+... on one count of lewd and lascivious molestation.
+warrant was for lewd and lascivious
+acts on a victim under 16 years of age." Ex. 42 at -657.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1I
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+forn.
+50. On August 14, 2006, Doreen
+emailed Maria Hornak, Mary
+and other
+JPMorgan employees, subject: "Re: Article of J Epstein's Arrest" with the link
+26
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 27 of 75
+http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/mystery_moguls_teen_sex_secret_bared_in_probe_r
+egionalnews_dan_mangan.htm. Ex. 43 at -859. The article states:
+"... According to one girl, 'Epstein asked for her real age, [and she] stated she
+was 16. Epstein advised her not to tell anyone her real age,' the records say. The
+girl alleged Epstein paid her to have sex with his girlfriend,
+.. Epstein would then watch the women have sex and take photos of their trysts to
+display at home, the records claim. The teen told cops she always refused to have
+intercourse with Epstein.... But one time... Epstein allegedly grabbed her and
+forced himself on her. When the girl became upset and screamed, 'No!' Epstein
+apologized, and he later paid her $1,000 for the visit, the records allege. Palm
+Beach cops prepared an arrest-warrant request proposing that Epstein be charged
+with unlawful sexual activity with certain minors and with lewd and lascivious
+molestation. Instead, in a rare move, prosecutors brought the evidence to a grand
+jury, which indicted Epstein only on the prostitution charge. The frustrated police
+now have given their evidence to the FBI's Miami division, which is considering
+whether to investigate Epstein for possible federal crimes involving underage girls,
+said Special Agent Judy Orihuela."
+The article also states that Epstein's "assistant,
+helped arrange the
+sessions" and that "[sJeveral girls allege that
+26, led them to Epstein's
+bedroom, where she would set up a massage table and give them oils to rub
+on Epstein. Cops wanted to charge
+and
+for their roles in procuring
+the girls...." Ex. 43 at 3-4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that
+sent an email dated August 14, 2006,
+containing the link to the cited article and that the article contains the quoted text.
+27
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 28 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+51. In "AML Operations Human Trafficking Overview, A "Reference Document on Inman
+trafficking prepared by JPMorgan Corporate AML Compliance," dated August 5, 2008,
+JPMorgan states: "Sexual Slavery" means "the coercion of the unwilling into various sexual
+practices." Ex. 44 at -052.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to extent USVI misstates the document, which is described
+as a "Reference Document on human trafficking prepared by JPMC Corporate AML
+Compliance." USVI Ex. 44 at -047. Undisputed that the cited document states, "Sexual
+Slavery is a term that describes any coercion of the unwilling into various sexual
+practices." Id. at -052.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+52.
+Ex. 45 at - 395-97.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11|
+53.
+On July 25, 2006, Staley met with Epstein in person at Epstein's home. In that visit, Epstein
+admitted to the alleged "conduct of engaging in sex for money with young women"—only denying
+the "ages"—10 Staley. Ex. 46 at 796:11-799:6.
+28
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 29 of 75
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Staley testified as to the quoted text. Disputed as to
+the underlying fact to the extent it requires a credibility determination.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+54. On July 26, 2006, Staley wrote Erdoes: "I went and saw him last night. I've never seen
+him so shaken. He also adamantly denies the ages. " Ex. 47 at -334.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that cited document contains quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+55. Staley admits that in 2006 Jamie Dimon communicated with him regarding Epstein's arrest
+on charges of procuring a minor for prostitution and solicitation of a prostitute. Ex. 48 at Resp.
+111. Staley also testified that on or about July 26, 2006, he spoke to Dimon about Epstein's
+indictment because Dimon was his boss and the indictment of Epstein, a client of the bank, "was
+a very public event." Ex. 46 at 17:2-19:16.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Dimon clearly and repeatedly testified that he did not speak
+to Staley about Epstein's indictment in 2006:
+Q: Did you speak with Jes Staley about the fact that Mr. Epstein had been
+indicted?
+A: I did not.
+Q: Did you receive a report from Jes Staley that he had visited with Mr. Epstein
+the day or so after the indictment?
+A: I did not.
+Q: Did Mr. Staley inform you what Mr. Epstein said with respect to the
+indictment which had been returned a day or two before?
+A: Nope.
+Q: Did you speak with Mr. Staley at all in the year 2006 about Mr. Epstein?
+29
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 30 of 75
+A: I don't recall ever having a conversation with him about Jeff Epstein.
+JPMC Ex. 55 at 11:12-12:4; see also JPMC Ex. 56 at No. 69 (denying that Dimon was
+aware in 2006 that Epstein had been arrested for prostitution and/or sexual misconduct).
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+56.
+JPMorgan admits that certain of its employees received, reviewed, or read the 2003 Vanity
+Fair article, "The Talented Mr. Epstein" and refers to the article for its content. Ex. 39 at Resp.
+3б.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that JPMC admits that certain of its employees received,
+reviewed, or read the 2003 Vanity Fair article, "The Talented Mr. Epstein".
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11|
+57. In May 2003, L
+(then Rieth) sent the Vanity Fair article along with the Due Diligence
+Report ("DDR") for Epstein's Financial Trust Company, Inc. to JPMorgan employee Paul Lahiff
+so he would "get everything at once." Ex. 49 at-281.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. The cited email does not support the contention that "
+(then Rieth) sent the Vanity Fair article along with the Due Diligence Report ... to Paul
+Lahiff." The cited email states, "Just got the DDR back this morning; will have it
+approved by the afternoon. I was waiting to pull everything together before sending
+down Vanity Fair article, so you'll get everything at once." USVI Ex. 49 at -281.
+Neither the Vanity Fair article nor the cited DDR are attached to the email from Rieth to
+Lahiff nor does the email establish that I
+in fact sent these materials to Lahiff.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+58.
+"The Talented Mr. Epstein" states: "Epstein is known about town as a man who loves
+women—lots of them, mostly young. Model types have been heard saying they are full of gratitude
+to Epstein for flying them around, and he is a familiar face to many of the Victoria's Secret girls.
+One young woman recalls being summoned by Ghislaine Maxwell to a concert at Epstein's town
+30
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 31 of 75
+house, where the women seemed to outnumber the men by far. 'These were not women you'd see
+at Upper East Side dinners,' the woman recalls. 'Many seemed foreign and dressed a little
+bizarrely.' This same guest also attended a cocktail party thrown by Maxwell that Prince Andrew
+attended, which was filled, she says, with young Russian models. Some of the guests were
+horrified,' the woman says. " Ex. 49 at p. 7-8.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+59. "The Talented Mr. Epstein" states: "There are many women in his life, mostly young, but
+there is no one of them to whom he has been able to commit. He describes his most public
+companion of the last decade, Ghislaine Maxwell, 41, the daughter of the late, disgraced media
+baron Robert Maxwell, as simply his "best friend." Ex. 49 at 3-4.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+60.
+Id. at -790_003.
+31
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 32 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+61.
+Ex. 51 at-792-792_003.
+Id. at -792_003.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+62.
+Ex. 52 at-791-791_003.
+Id. at 791_003.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+63. A JPMorgan training document "What is Human Trafficking" identified "structured
+transactions" as a "Key Indicator/Red Flag/] of potential Human Trafficking activity. " Ex. 53 at
+-918; Ex. 33 at 186:3-188:13, 191:23-192:7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that a JPMC document titled "Human Trafficking" states
+"structured transactions, particularly those conducted via MSBs" are "Key indicators/Red
+flags of potential Human Trafficking activity". Disputed as to materiality. The cited
+document was created in May of 2018 and JPMC terminated Epstein as a client in 2013.
+32
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 33 of 75
+See SUMF | 48. JPMC's policies and trainings evolved in line with industry standards
+with respect to AML and human trafficking, see JPMC Ex. 57 at 137:5-25, but post-exit
+training materials are immaterial to JPMC's conduct related to Epstein and cannot be
+used to establish the prevailing standards at JPMC or the industry during the relevant
+time period.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+64. The JPMorgan training document also states: "Previous AML history, while not
+necessarily HT-related, may be associated with an investigation related to suspicious activity, such
+as interstate, excessive, or structured cash activity." Ex. 33 at 191:23-192:7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the quoted portion of the cited deposition in which the
+questioner purports to be reading from a JPMC training document contains the quoted
+language. Disputed to the extent that testimony establishes what the document in fact
+says as USVI has not provided a cite to the document and, assuming USVI is referring
+herein to the document submitted as USVI Ex. 53, disputed for the reasons discussed in
+response to 1| 63.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+65.
+Ex. 54 at -390.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+33
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 34 of 75
+66.
+Ex. 55 at -475.
+USVI Ex. 55 at -475.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+67. From October 1999 through July 2006, JPMorgan handled $25,146,955.30 in payments
+from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts to Ghislaine Maxwell. Ex. 56 at 45-46 and Figure 15.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited Figure. Figure 15
+shows transactions totaling the amount cited by USVI occurring between October 1999
+and July 2005. Otherwise undisputed that the cited Figure 15, which is a summary of
+transactions prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador, shows the cited
+transactions. Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format
+during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+68.
+Ex. 61 at -033.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+34
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 35 of 75
+69.
+was a customer of JPMorgan. Ex. 62 at Resp. 7.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that
+was a customer of JPMorgan.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+70.
+had a credit card with the Retail Bank. Ex. 63 at 651.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that
+had a credit card with the Retail Bank.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+71. In 2005, JPMorgan made two separate $25,000 payments from Epstein's JPMorgan
+accounts To
+Ex. 56 at 34, 36, and Figure 9.3.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited Figure 9.3, which is a summary of
+transactions prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador, shows two $25,000
+transactions to
+• Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this
+format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+72. From August 2006 through August 2013, JPMorgan handled $678,741.57 in payments
+from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts to
+Ex. 56 at 34, 36, and Figure 9.3.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited Figure 9.3 which is a summary of
+transactions prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador, shows transactions to
+totaling $678,741.57 from January 2008 through August 2013. Disputed that this
+information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client
+of JPMorgan.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+73.
+was a customer of JPMorgan. Ex. 62 at Resp. б.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that
+was a customer of JPMorgan.
+35
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 36 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+74. In 2004, sponsored by Epstein, JPMorgan opened accounts and credit cards for two
+reenagers,
+and
+"models in NYC and friends of Jeffrey Epstein." Ex.
+65 at -316; Ex. 66 at -804; Ex. 36 at 230:6-231:20.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that in 2004 JPMorgan opened DDA accounts and credit
+cards for
+and
+and that Ep
+was the guarantor. Disputed as to
+US VI's characterization that
+and
+were teenagers at this time. See
+USVI Ex. 66 (indicating that
+and
+were 18 years of age). Undisputed
+that USVI Ex. 65 contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+75.
+The DDR for
+was originally approved in February 2004. Ex. 67 at -700.
+Ex. 67 at -700.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+76.
+The DDR for
+was approved by the Private Bank even though there was no
+birthdate, passport number, driver's license number, or "confirmed" social security number. The
+Private Banker (
+I never met
+as JPMorgan's process contemplated. Ex. 68 at -
+567.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. Additional documentation completed in connection with the
+opening of
+JPMC account included her birth date, which indicated that her
+account was opened when she 18 years old. See JPMC Ex. 58 at 1. That document also
+shows that|
+Is application was verified by two forms of identification, her
+passport and a Florida's driver's license. Id. at 2. Additional documentation also
+confirms that JPMC personnel did meet
+in person. See JPMC Ex. 59.
+36
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 37 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+77. The DDR stated that
+is a Slovakian citizen who has come to the US
+for modelling work. Jeffrey Epstein knows the model personally." and "Jeffrey Epstein often
+provides support to emerging models. In this case,
+has arrived from the Slovak
+Republic and Epstein has asked us the favor of opening a checking account for her and he will
+guarantee her credit card application." Ex. 68 at -567.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+78. The DDR represented
+net worth as $100,000 "earned" from "modeling
+assignments." Ex. 68 at -566.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document. The document
+states that
+earned her wealth through "modelling assignments." USVI Ex.
+68 at -566. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+79. The DDR listed
+address as
+Ex. 68 at -565; Ex. 69 at -545.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited DDR lists
+USVI Ex. 68 at -565.
+37
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 38 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+80.
+In 2004, 2005, and 2006, JPMorgan handled $36,565.56, $67,754.28, and $82,897.80,
+respectively, in payments from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts to
+Ex. 56 at 34-35 and
+Figure 9.2
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited Figure 9.2, which is a summary of
+transactions prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador, shows transactions to
+with the cited amounts in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Disputed that this
+information was available to JPMorgan in this format during the time Epstein was a client
+of JPMorgan.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+81. On January 7, 2011, Ryan (AML Compliance) emails DeLuca (AML Compliance), copying
+Middlemiss (AML Compliance): "I also spent a good deal of time looking at his assistant or young
+lady he brought over from Praquel [sic] or some place like that) account. She was involved in
+some of the detailed escapades. She opened accounts in PB sponsored by him. my were her
+debit transactions enlighting (sic] as compared to countless stories related to his escapades. Lots
+of salon, lingerie shops, drug stores ny palm beach and in st
+I (his places of residence).
+Plus lots of video like girls gone and some other shops not fit for my good catholic upbringing!
+The transactions are old 05 to 08. Besides frequent spa like charges it has died down. Surprised
+she was never subpoenaed. " Ex. 70 at-749 _R.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document. The last two
+sentences of the quoted language state, Besides frequent frequent spa like charges it has
+died down. Surprised she was never subpoened [sic]." USVI Ex. 70 at - 749_R.
+Otherwise, undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted language.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF MI
+38
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 39 of 75
+82. JPMorgan's own Human Trafficking L
+I paper, "Human Trafficking Finance: Nature,
+Scope and Control Project," discussed "upscale" sex-trafficking operations "incurr(ing]
+expenses such as jewelry, lingerie, cosmetics, [and] sex toys. " Ex. 71 at -983.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document, dated November 2010, stated that
+a source who provided background for the initiative stated, "upscale operations incurred
+expenses such as jewelry, lingerie, cosmetics, sex toys, as well as airlines, hotels, casinos,
+ground transportation services, sporting events and concerts." USVI Ex. 71 at -983.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+83. From August 2006 through January 2013, JPMorgan handled $607,804.30 in payments
+from Epstein's JPMorgan accounts to
+. Ex. 56 at 34-35 and Figure 9.2.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited Figure. Figure 9.2
+shows transactions to
+totaling $607,804.30 occurring from September 2006
+through January 2013. Otherwise undisputed that the cited Figure 9.2, which is a
+summary of transactions prepared by USVI's proffered expert Jorge Amador, shows the
+cited transactions. Disputed that this information was available to JPMorgan in this
+format during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+84.
+Ex. 2 at -196.
+39
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 40 of 75
+Id. at -
+190.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+85.
+The article cited
+. "Meet
+Star Girl of the Raunchiest
+Part of Epstein Scandal, " first published on July 28, 2006, referred to
+as "star girl
+of Epstein scandal" and "an unknown Czech sex puppet" of Epstein's. Ex. 72 at 1-2.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI suggests that anyone at JPMC received,
+reviewed, or read the cited article when it was first published on July 28, 2006 as
+unsupported by the citation.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+86. On March 8, 2007, Maria Hornak forwards an email from Rich Kahn (Epstein's
+accountant) to Mary |
+subject "FW: New Chase Credit Cards" with the attachment "JE -
+Chase Credit Cards.xls." Ex. 73 at -494. The attachment lists "Jeffrey Epstein Chase Credit
+Cards" for
+and
+through NES LIC c/o Jeffrey Epstein. Expected charges on
+the credit cards were for "travel|] through Paris, Europe and US Virgin Islands and US monthly."
+Id. at -496.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Hornack forwarded the email to
+on March 8,
+2007, and that the attachment lists
+and
+as "Cardholders" through NES
+40
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 41 of 75
+LLC. Disputed to the extent USVI characterizes "travel|] through Paris, Europe and US
+Virgin Islands and US monthly" as "expected charges on the credit cards" as unsupported
+by the cited document. The quoted language is included in a column titled "Notes" and
+provides no indication that these are the "expected charges." USVI Ex. 73 at -496.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1I
+87. The attachment also lists credit cards for Larry Visoski and David Rodgers,
+, through Jege, LLC. Ex. 73 at -496; Ex. 24 at -198.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document. The cited
+document includes Rodgers and Visoski as "Cardholders", but the listed Epstein entity is
+"JEGE Inc." not "Jege LIC." USVI Ex. 73 at -496. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+88. On Jume9, 2010, Bonniel
+(in Private Bank Risk Management) emailed Epstein's thenbanker (Paul Morris): "3 entities within the relationship do not currently have DDRs ...116 East
+65' St LLC[.J NES, LLC[, and] Zorro Trust." Ex. 74 at -237.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that
+document contains the quoted text.
+emailed Morris on June 9, 2010, and the cited
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+89.
+Ex. 75 at - 318.
+90.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+On October 17, 2006, JPMorgan held a "Rapid Response Team" meeting. Ex. 76 at -953.
+41
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 42 of 75
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the document indicates that JPMC held a Rapid
+Response Team meeting on October 17, 2006.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+91. Rapid Response meetings were "escalations of ... derogatory information to management
+... [who would] review it and make a determination on how they want to proceed." Ex. 77 at
+53:21-54:4.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent that USVI misstates the quoted language.
+testified that a rapid response meeting is "an escalation of information that was brought to
+us, derogatory information, where it seems something that should be escalated up to
+management and they just - we give them the facts, they review it and make a
+determination on how they want to proceed." USVI Ex. 77 at 53:21-54:4.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+92. The Rapid Response meeting memo notes: "Derogatory Information reported by Security
+Services.... Several newspaper articles were found that detail the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein
+in Florida on felony charges of soliciting underage prostitutes. " Ex. 76 at -953.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+93.
+The memo from the Rapid Response meeting stated that Epstein had accounts "with
+balances totaling approximately $32 million. " The Rapid Response memo also noted: "Cash
+withdrawals are routinely made in amounts for $40,000 to $80,000 several times a month, which
+total over $750,000 year to date." Ex. 76 at -953.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+42
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 43 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+94.
+Ex. 78 at -995.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+95. In 2004 and 2005, JPMorgan recorded cash withdrawals from Epstein's JPMorgan
+accounts totaling $1,744,337. Ex. 56 at 24-26 and Figure 8.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited report of USVI's proffered expert Jorge
+Amador includes a chart that asserts that the CTRs generated by JPMC relating to Epstein
+in 2004 and 2005 were $840,000 and $904,337, respectively, and that together those
+amounts equal $1,744,337. Disputed as to USVI's characterization that JPMC "recorded
+cash withdrawals" or that this information was available to JPMorgan in this format
+during the time Epstein was a client of JPMorgan.
+43
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 44 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+96.
+Ex. 80 at -718-19 (emphasis added); Ex. 36 at 19:13-19.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+97.
+Id. at -937.
+Id. at -936.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF MI
+44
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 45 of 75
+98. On July 18, 2013, Ryan (AMI compliance) emailed DeLuca (AML compliance), subject
+Epstein more info found, and states: "Issue is he really never stopped the large cash withdrawals."
+Ex. 82 at -965. DeLuca responds, "Shouldn't the business have been telling us this?" Id. at -965.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Ryan emailed DeLuca on July 18, 2013 and that the
+cited emails contain the quoted language.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+99. On July 19, 2013, John Duffy (then CEO US Private Bank) emails Erdoes (then CEO
+AWM), subject JE talking points, and asks what Erdoes thinks of three talking points for Epstein's
+exit conversation: "I. The repetitive nature of your cash transactions is a problem for us and our
+relationship with you[:] 2. The regulatory standards in the banking industry continue to evolve
+with a very low tolerance for cash activity when combined with your personal historyl:/ 3. So,
+given the intersection of these circumstances we are in a uniquely challenged situation.
+Remediation is required and we need to ask you - in an orderly manner - to find another bank for
+your needs. " Ex. 83 at -966. Erdoes replies, "I think that is fine, " Id.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document, the subject of
+the cited email is "JE talking pts.". See USVI Ex. 83 at -966. Disputed as to the
+proposition that the draft three talking points were in fact used "for Epstein's exit
+conversation" as not supported by the cited document. Otherwise, undisputed
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+100. The Rapid Response Team memo states: "Conclusion from follow-up Rapid Response of
+1/07/11: Further meetings held with Jes Staley to discuss LOB decision for reapproval. Banker
+Paul Morris spoke with Mr. Epstein with regard of large cash withdrawals. Mr. Epstein withdraws
+anywhere from $20K to $40K in cash to pay for fuel expenses when he travels to foreign countries.
+45
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 46 of 75
+Banker Paul Morris was instructed by the Committee to update the entity KYC which holds the
+operating account for Mr. Epstein's personal airplane, Hyperion, to document the purpose of the
+cash withdrawals. Further, Paul Morris informed Mr. Epstein that the SBLC (Stand By Letter of
+Credit to MC2] would not be renewed. Mr. Epstein will continue to be a banking only client."
+Ex. 84 at -932.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+101.
+Ex. 85 at -825.
+Id. at - 826.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+46
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 47 of 75
+102.
+Ex. 86 at -885, -890.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+103.
+47
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 48 of 75
+Ex. 87 at -089-93, -096.
+la. at -094.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+104.
+Ex. 88 at 176:12-
+177:10, 344:23-346:17.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+48
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 49 of 75
+105. The Rapid Response memo states: "During the period of March 2010 to December 2010,
+there were eight large cash withdrawals totaling $240,000 where Currency Transaction Reports
+were filed. " Ex. 84 at -930.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+106. Epstein was in jail from June 30, 2008 to July 2009 (13 months) and on house arrest from
+July 2009 to July 20, 2010. Ex. 89 at -049; Ex. 90 at -814-815.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent that the cited portions of the documents do not
+provide the exact dates of Epstein's incarceration and house arrest. USVI Ex. 89 at -049;
+Ex. 90 at -814-815. Undisputed that Epstein was in jail from June 30, 2008 to July 2009
+and on house arrest from July 2009 to July 20, 2010.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+107. The Rapid Response memo includes excerpts from the press and quotes a Palm Beach Post
+article dated August 1, 2010: "According to the news website The Daily Beast, the feds are also
+checking whether a modeling agency run by a friend of the Wall Street investor Epstein fed his
+appetite for underage foreig" girls. Epstein was known to fly young women from Eastern Europe
+to Palm Beach, where they'd massage him, among other services. Because of double jeopardy
+rules, Epstein - now a registered sex offender - can never be prosecuted again for crimes covered
+by the state charges. He pleaded guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring a person
+under 18 for prostitution, also a felony. Child trafficking, however, would offer two advantages
+to federal prosecutors: The charge would not be covered by double jeopardy; and there's no
+statute of limitations. " Ex. 84 at -930.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+49
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 50 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+108. In 2006, JPMorgan's due diligence included multiple news reports that Epstein
+"assembled] a team of star lawyers" including Alan Dershowitz, Jack Goldberger, Roy Black,
+and Gerald Lefcourt-to "look into the backgrounds of his young accusers" and "to undermine
+the credibility of the 14- to 17-year-old girls. " Ex. 37 at-188, -196. The same set of reports explain
+that another of Epstein's lawyers, Jack Goldberger, said Epstein "would never knowingly break
+the law. " Id. at -192. Gerald Lefcourt, "one of Epstein's high-powered lawyers, " says his client
+is innocent[J" Id. at -194. "Epstein's camp was ready 'to get their story out.' They did that
+Monday via Goldberger and ... attorney Roy Black, who also has represented Epstein in the case.
+'We just think there has been a distorted view of this case in the media presented by the Palm
+Beach Police. " Id. at - 197.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that JPMC's Due Diligence Report for YHS, LLC
+contained copies of new articles concerning Jeffery Epstein that included the quoted
+language.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+109. On July 26, 2006, Philip Schlakman emailed
+(then Epstein's banker), subject:
+"epstein press" and states "it gets worse" with a link to a Palm Beach Post Article that notes the
+Palm Beach police spent months monitoring the Palm Beach International Airport to keep tabs on
+Epstein's private jet. Ex. 91 at -335, 1.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited email contains the quoted text, and the Palm
+Beach Post article reported that Palm Beach police watched the Palm Beach International
+Airport to keep tabs on Epstein's private jet.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+50
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 51 of 75
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+110.
+Ex. 45 at -395, - 397-98.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M9
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+111.
+51
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 52 of 75
+Ex. 45 at -397.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in
+admissible form.
+112. In September 2007, Lisa Waters (then Managing Director AWM) emails Erdoes an article
+about Epstein from Page Six that stated: "Sources tell Page Six that Epstein's high-powered
+lawyers - including Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black and Kenneth Starr - have been
+negotiating a deal with federal prosecutors who are probing, among other things, whether the
+gray-haired money manager paid West Palm Beach girls for sex or transported them across state
+lines. " Ex. 92 at -501.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Waters emailed the quoted text to Erdoes.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+113. In a June 17, 2013 internal risk assessment matrix, JPMorgan acknowledged allegations
+that Epstein "supposedly bought his way to a lesser sentencing" and "paid a whole series of girls
+to stay quiet." Ex. 93 at -344 (Name Risk tab).
+JPMC Response: Disputed as to the characterization that JPMC "acknowledged" the
+allegations. Undisputed that the cited document was attached to an email sent among
+JPMC employees and includes the quoted language.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+52
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 53 of 75
+114. On September 24, 2007, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state
+court, including the solicitation of a minor to engage in prostitution, in exchange for a federal
+non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") providing him with immunity from federal child sextrafficking charges. Ex. 94 at -010-011.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent that the language of the NPA does not support
+the proposition that the NPA provided Epstein "with immunity from federal child sextrafficking charges." The NPA was based on the "authority of R. Alexander Acosta,
+United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida" and does not purport to bind
+the United States as a whole from bringing any charges against Epstein and was limited
+"to offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States from in
+or around 2001 through in or around 2007." See USVI Ex. 94 at -010-011. Further,
+Epstein was in fact indicted with federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019. See SUMF 1
+22.
+Undisputed that on September 24, 2007 Epstein executed the NPA in which he agreed to
+plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution in violation of Florida law and
+solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution in violation of Florida state law. USVI
+Ex. 94 at -012, -020; see also SUMF 9 11. In exchange for Epstein's completion of the
+terms and conditions of the NPA, the United States agreed not to institute charges on any
+offenses that were the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of
+Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from
+the Federal Grand Jury investigation and the charges against Epstein, if any, would be
+dismissed. USVI Ex. 94 at -011, -014. These potential offenses that the government
+declined to charges Epstein for included "knowingly, in and affecting interstate and
+foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person knowing
+that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a
+commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(c)(1); in violation of Title 18, United
+States Code, Sections 1591(a)(1) and 2." Id. at -011.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+115. JPMorgan's due diligence on Epstein in October 2007 contained a news article discussing
+Epstein's plea deal. Ex. 95 at -527; Ex. 63 at -652.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that on October 10, 2007, Dalessio emailed McCleerey
+attaching an October 1, 2007 article from the New York Post that discussed Epstein's
+plea deal. See USVI Ex. 95 at -526-527. Undisputed that this article was also included in
+an email from Dalessio to Verdon, copying McCleerey, Waters, and Meisner, on October
+19, 2007. See USVI Ex. 63.
+53
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 54 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+116. On July 1, 2008, Keating, L
+1. Sheridan, and Waters received a July 1, 2008 NYT article
+titled "Financier Starts Sentence in Prostitution Case." The article reported: "But then the United
+States attorney's office in Miami became involved. Last summer, Mr. Epstein got an ultimatum:
+plead guilty to a charge that would require him to register as a sex offender, or the government
+would charge him with sexual tourism, according to people who were briefed on the discussions.
+David Weinstein, an attorney in the government's Miami office, declined to discuss the specifics
+of the case. But he did address the subject of Mr. Epstein's means and prominent legal team, and
+dismissed a proposal by Mr. Epstein's lawyers—who opposed the application of the federal
+statutes in the case—-that he be confined to his house in Palm Beach for a probationary period."
+Ex. 96 at -954.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the July 1, 2008 New York Times article was
+forwarded to Keating,
+. Sheridan, and Waters and that the cited document contains
+the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+117. On July 15, 2008, L
+circulated to Verdon, Dalessio, McCleerey, Waters, Sheridan, and
+(all Private Bank personnel) "for the 2:00 pm EST Rapid Response Meeting on Jeffrey
+Epstein" an article titled "Rich Man Fought the Law - and He Mostly Won" and dated July 7,
+2008. The article stated: "But that plea deal ... does not account for all of the girls, one as young
+as 14, who alleged that Epstein sexually abused them. The slow, dissatisfying resolution of the
+case sends a message to the public that there's a different system of justice for the wealthy who
+54
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 55 of 75
+hire high-powered lawyers .... The plea deal also drops a federal investigation of Epstein." Ex.
+97 at -028.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document. The quoted
+portion of the cited document states, "But that plea deal ... does not account for all five
+of the girls, one as young as 14, who alleged that Epstein sexually abused them .... The
+slow, dissatisfying resolution of the case sends a message to the public that there's a
+different system of justice for the wealthy who hire high-powered lawyers.... The plea
+deal also drops a federal investigation of Epstein." USVI Ex. 97 at -028. Otherwise,
+undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+118. The NPA stated that "the US Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
+have conducted their own investigation in Epstein's background and any offenses that may have
+been committed by Epstein against the United States from in or around 2001 through in or around
+September 2007, including ... knowingly, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce,
+recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that the person had not
+attained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in
+18 U.S.C. §1591(c)(I); in violation of Title 19, United States Code, Section 1591(a) (1) and 2" Ex.
+94 at -010-011.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document. The quoted
+portion of the cited document states, "the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal
+Bureau of Investigation have conducted their own investigation in Epstein's background
+and any offenses that may have been committed by Epstein against the United States
+from in or around 2001 through in or around September 2007, including ... knowingly,
+in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting, enticing, and obtaining by
+any means a person, knowing that the person had not attained the age of 18 years and
+would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1591(c)(1);
+in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1591(a)(1) and 2." USVI Ex. 94 at -
+010-011. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF MI
+55
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 56 of 75
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+119. The NPA stated: "The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of
+individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 ... If any of the
+individuals referred to [above| elects to file suit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255 ... Epstein waives
+his right to contest liability and also waives his right to contest damages ... and agrees to waive
+any other claim for damages..." Ex. 94 at -013.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+120. The non-prosecution agreement identified
+and
+as
+potential co-conspirators of Epstein. Ex. 94 at -014.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the NPA identified
+potential co-conspirators of Epstein.
+and
+as
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+121. The non-prosecution agreement identified Lesley Groff as a potential co-conspirator of
+Epstein. Ex. 94 at -014.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the NPA identified Groff as a potential coconspirator of Epstein.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+122. On September 9, 2010, l
+emailed McCleerey, copying Dalessio, stating: "Epstein
+signed a federal non-prosecution agreement under which he would not be charged with related
+56
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 57 of 75
+federal crimes if he successfully served out his time and abided by the conditions under the state
+charges. He also waived his right to contest liability and damages in civil lawsuits by 33 minor
+girls identified by the non-prosecution agreement. " Ex. 98 at -703.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that |
+emailed McCleerey, copying Dalessio, on
+September 9, 2010, and the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+123. Steve Cutler testified, "I know at a certain point I understood that there was a federal
+nonpros agreement" and that sometime before 2011, "I think we would have seen the non-pros
+agreement." Ex. 99 at 150:4-6; 264:10-265:2.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Cutler testified that "I know at a certain point I
+understood that there was a federal nonpros agreement." USVI Ex. 99 at 150:4-6.
+Cutler's full testimony from that cited portion of the transcript, however, states, "I know
+at a certain point I understood that there was a federal non-pros agreement. I can't tell
+you exactly when. And I can't tell you that I knew precisely what the terms of it were."
+Id. at 150:4-9. Undisputed that Cutler testified that "by this date in 2011", by which he is
+referring to an email dated July 20, 2011 (see id. at 261:20-24, 262:21-263:2), "I think we
+would have seen the non-pros agreement." Id. at 264:14-24.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+124. On March 15, 2011, Jonathan Schwartz (then General Counsel Investment Bank) e-mailed
+Cutler: "Spoke with Jay [Lefkowitz]. He represented Epstein in state plea/fed NPA process ....
+Believes any pre-plea conduct is subsumed within plea/NPA. " Ex. 100 at -278.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI cites to the wrong page of the document.
+USVI Ex. 100 at -528 contains the quoted text. Otherwise undisputed that on March 15,
+2011, L
+emailed Cutler and the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+57
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 58 of 75
+125. On October 19, 2007, Dalessio (Private Bank Risk Management) emailed Verdon (then
+General Counsel Private Bank), copying McCleerey (Private Bank Risk Management) and Waters
+(Managing Director AWM), Subject Epstein. Dalessio stated: "Anne [Verdon], Lisa asked me to
+send to you a list of PB entities in Epstein relationship with current balances .... Notable activity
+in Epstein personal account: Cash withdrawals - CTRs filed --> 2007 ytd $400,000 (10 $40,000
+withdrawals), 2006 $914,796 (18 $40,000 withdrawals, 1 $60,000, 1 $30,000, 1 $25,000) 2007
+transaction activity>=$50,000. " Ex. 63 at - 651.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI cites to the wrong page of the document.
+USVI Ex. 100 at -528 contains the quoted text. Otherwise undisputed that on October 19,
+2007 Dalessio emailed Verdon, copying McCleery, Waters, and Meisner and the cited
+document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+126. Dalessio further stated in his email: "One of the accounts in the Epstein relationship is for
+his 'girlfriend / model' -l
+- funds into her account are transfers from Epstein -
+3/19/07 for $25,000, 6/8/07 from $50,000. See attached article. The two others mentioned in the
+article,
+are not PB clients. Thely/ do appear to have Retail
+credit cards (
+- active, |
+- revoked). " Ex. 63 at -651 (emphasis added).
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+127. Dalessio attached to his email a document "Epstein 2007 transactions.xls.zip" which
+included millions of dollars in payments from Epstein accounts at JPMorgan to Epstein's lawyers
+and their law firms, including Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black (Black Srebnick), and
+58
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 59 of 75
+Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland & Ellis). Ex. 63 at -655. It also included twenty payments from Epstein
+accounts for $100,000. Id. at 655.
+JPMC Response: Disputed as to the materiality of these statements to the claims at
+issue in this case. See JPMC Ex. 60 191 & n.166
+Undisputed that the cited email from Dalessio
+includes a document titled "Epstein 2007 transactions.xls.zip" and that the cited
+document includes transactions from Epstein accounts to his attorneys, including Alan
+Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black (Black Srebnick), and Jay Lefkowitz (Kirkland
+& Ellis). Undisputed that the cited document contains transactions in the amount of
+$100,000.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11|
+128. On October 6, 2007, the New York Post reported: "THE owners of MC2 models are
+denying industry speculation that massage maven Jeffrey Epstein is a secret financial backer of
+the agency being run by scandal-scarred Jean-Luc Brumel, who was once accused of taking
+advantage of underage models. Epstein, who this week agreed to plead guilty to soliciting
+underage prostitutes at his Florida mansion in a deal that will send him to prison for about 18
+months, reportedly gave 'millions' to start MC2, which opened in October 2005 with offices in
+New York, Miami and Tel Aviv. One of the girls Epstein, 54, was accused of soliciting massages
+from was described in court documents as being just 14. 'E equals MC squared ... get it, like the
+equation? E equals Epstein. He just thinks everyone is too dumb to figure it out, ' said a model
+industry insider. 'He's a desperate old man that fantasizes and takes advantage of young girls.".
+... MC2 president Jeffrey Fuller confirmed Brunel was a partner in the company, but denied any
+working relationship with either Epstein or l
+'We have no relationship business-wise with
+Gerald
+Jeffrey Epstein has no ownership or involvement in our company and never has.
+Jean-Luc Brunel and I are the only two partners and owners of MC2 Model Management, ' Fuller
+59
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 60 of 75
+said. Epstein's rep said he was not involved in the agency. "He has no business relationship with
+them, ' said Howard Rubenstein. " Ex. 101 at -593.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+tomn.
+129. JPMorgan admits that in 2005 JPMorgan approved a $1 million Stand By Letter of Credit
+("SBLC") in Epstein's name to support a loan from Mellon United National to MC2 Model
+Management, LLC. Ex. 39 at Resp. бб.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that JPMorgan approved a S1 million Stand By Letter of
+Credit ("SBLC") in Epstein's name to support a loan from Mellon United National to
+MC2 Model Management, LLC.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 191
+130. JPMorgan admits that a S1 million letter of credit in Epstein's name to backstop a loan
+from Mellon United National to MC2 Model Management, LLC was subject to amual review. Ex.
+39 at Resp. 67.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the SBLC was subject to annual review.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+131. JPMorgan admits that it renewed the SBLC in Epstein's name to support a loan from
+Mellon United National to MC2 Model Management, LIC until March 2011. Ex. 39 at Resp. 68.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. The cited response states that "JPM admits that it did not
+renew a Stand by Letter of Credit in Epstein's name to backstop a loan from Mellon
+United National to MC2 Model Management, LLC in March 2011." USVI Ex. 39 at
+Resp. 68.
+60
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 61 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+132. On October 25, 2007,
+emails Mary
+subject: "Re: Jeffrey
+Epstein new LOC" and states in response to L
+request to open a new line of credit for
+Epstein: "we do still have an existing SIMM LC that we issued a few years ago... supporting the
+Modeling Agency's loan to Mellon." Ex. 102 at -962-63.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document. The quoted
+language states "we do still have an existing SIMM IC that we issued a few years ago..
+• supporting the Modelling Agency's loan to Mellon." USVI Ex. 102 at -962-63.
+Disputed that the cited document establishes that Mary!
+_ was requesting a new line
+of credit for Epstein. In the cited document, it is clear |
+is passing along the request
+from Richard Kahn at Jeffrey Epstein's office and asking for advice on how to proceed.
+USVI Ex. 102 at -962-63.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+133.
+Ex. 103 at - 155.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+134. In a July 31, 2010 email, Erdoes tells Staley, describing a July 31, 2010 NY Post article:
+"The feds many not be quite done with (JE). Having just completed 13 months in a fl jail for
+solicing/sic] prost [sic] from a minor, he now might be under investig [sic] for other possible
+61
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 62 of 75
+crimes, inclduing [sic] whether there's any evidence of child trafficking. E has settled several
+lawsuits by teens who say they were lured to his palm beach mansion for massages or s* [sic].
+The us AG in fl wouldn't comment. E's lawyer, jack goldberger, says he know nothing of any
+probe, and they are not and should not be any pending criminal investigations. '' Ex. 104 at -251.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+135. The July 31, 2010 NY Post article "Jeffrey Epstein may face child trafficking probe" states:
+The Feds may not be quite done with Jeffrey Epstein. Having just
+completed 13 months in a Florida jail for soliciting prostitution from
+a minor, he now might be under investigation for other possible
+crimes, including whether there's any evidence of child trafficking,
+reports The Daily Beast. Epstein has settled several lawsuits by
+teens who say they were lured to his Palm Beach mansion for
+massages or sex. The US attorney general in Florida wouldn't
+comment. Epstein's lawyer, Jack Goldberger, says he knew nothing
+of any probe and, "There are not and should not be any pending
+criminal investigations."
+Ex. 90 at - 814.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document, the NY Post
+article is titled "Epstein Probe". See USVI Ex. 90 at -814. Otherwise undisputed that the
+cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+136. The July 29, 2010 Daily Beast article cited in the NY Post article states: "The Justice
+Department is investigating Jeffrey Epstein for child trafficking ... and has widened the scope of
+its probe to include a famous modeling agency. " "Federal investigators continue to investigate
+Epstein's activities, to see whether there is evidence of child trafficking—a far more serious charge
+62
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 63 of 75
+than the two in his non-prosecution agreement, the arrangement between Epstein and the
+Department of Justice allowing him to plead guilty to lower level state crimes. Trafficking can
+carry a 20-vear sentence." "The FBI is also investigating Epstein's friend Jean Luc Brunel, whose
+MC2 modeling agency appears to have been a source of girls from overseas who ended up on
+Epstein's private jets. " Ex. 105 at -902-903.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+137. JPMorgan admits that in 2010, certain of its employees received, reviewed, or read a
+Newstex Web Blog, Jezebel, article ("2010 Newstex article") identifying "MC2" as "the modeling
+agency owned by Jean Luc Brunel. " Ex. 39 at Resp. 70.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that, in 2010, certain JPMC employees received.
+reviewed, or read a Newstex Web Blog, Jezebel, article identifying "MC2" as "the
+modeling agency owned by Jean Lue Brunel."
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+138. The 2010 Newstex article states:
+"Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier who the FBI believes molested around 40
+underaged girls" Ex. 106 at 596.
+Buying a 14-year old Yugoslavian girl named
+from her parents in
+order to keep her as his "sex slave" Id.
+C.
+Paying women to bring him "economically desperate" teenagers to give him
+massages "that often led to sexual contact" Id.
+d.
+Receiving two 12-year old
+girls as a "birthday present" Id.
+63
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 64 of 75
+e.
+Flagging Epstein's relationship with Jean Luc Brunel, owner of MC2 Modeling,
+and that Epstein, Maxwell, Brunel, Alfredo Rodriguez, and
+used the
+agency to "lure minor children ... mostly girls under the age of 17... to engage
+in sexual play for money" Id.
+f. References that the FBI is investigating MC2 and Brunel for "possibly engaging in
+child sex trafficking" Id.
+Mentions Epstein's plea of soliciting sex with a minor and settling a dozen civil
+lawsuits from victims Id.
+h.
+"These same civil complaints allege that young girls from South America, Europe,
+and the former Soviet republics... were recruited for Epstein's sexual pleasure"
+Id.
+1.
+"Brunel, along with numerous young models, was a frequent passenger on
+Epstein's private jet, according to flight manifests" Id.
+j.
+"The agency owner also allegedly received S1 million from Epstein in 2005, when
+he founded MC2 ... [but] denied any such payment from the billionaire pervert in
+2007, when rumors started swirling" Id.
+k.
+"Whether the money was a secret investment in MC2, or a payment for Brunel's
+service as a procurer, is unknown" Id.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited document. The
+sentence quoted in 1 138(b) states, "buying a 14-year-old Yugoslavian named
+from her parents in order to keep
+as his "sex slave'[-J" USVI
+Ex. 106 at -596. The sentence quoted in 9| 138(e) states, " luring minor children...
+mostly girls under the age of 17 .... to engage in sexual play for money and the
+sentence quoted in 9 138(k) states, "Whether the money was a secret investment in MC2,
+or a payment for Brunel's services as a procurer, is unknown." See USVI Ex. 106 at -
+596. Otherwise, undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+64
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 65 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+139. A DDR regarding Epstein approved by Morris (then banker), Sheridan (then overseeing
+Morris); and Keating (then CEO U.S. Private Bank) stated: "As of 3/4/2011: Numerous articles
+detail various law enforcement agencies investigating Jeffrey Epstein for allegedly participating
+in child trafficking and molesting underage girls. Jeffrey Epstein is required to register as a sex
+offender. Jeffrey Epstein has settled a dozen civil lawsuits out of court from his victims regarding
+solicitation for an undisclosed amount. MC2 Model Management received S1 million from Epstein
+in 2005. It is unknown if the money was given as a secret investment or payment for services as a
+procurer. Jean Luc Brunel, owner of MC2 Model Management and Jeffrey Epstein engaged in
+racketeering that involved luring in minor children for sexual play for money. In addition, Brunel
+was a frequent passenger on Epstein's private jet and often visited Epstein in jail. MC2 Model
+Management was issued a citation by the Florida Business and Professional Regulation for acting
+as a talent agent without a license. MC2 Model Management LLC has two outstanding federal
+tax liens totaling $593,789 ($443,728 + $150,061)." Ex. 31 at -574. Global Security &
+Investigations, Due Diligence Unit circulated "A Red Dot Memo for Jeffrey Epstein" containing
+the same information that was circulated to Morris,
+• Dalessio, and
+, among others, in
+early March 2011. Er. 107 at -499-500.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Morris, Sheridan, and Keating approved the cited
+DDR and that the cited DDR contains the quoted text. Undisputed that a Red Dot Memo
+for Jeffrey Epstein was circulated to Morris,
+1, Dalessio, and
+, among others,
+on March 7, 2011 containing the quoted language from the DDR.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+65
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 66 of 75
+140.
+Ex. 91|
+206.
+la. 1206.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+141. JPMorgan's own due diligence process also required that it research and review civil and
+other lawsuits that may be filed by or against clients. Ex. 32 at 42:20-24.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. The cited testimony for this proposition does not support
+the conclusion the JPMorgan's due diligence process required that employees research
+and review civil lawsuits involving its clients. In response to questions about her
+personal review of civil lawsuits that may be filed by or against a client,
+. a JPMC
+Private Banker and not a member of JPMC's compliance function, testified that "[t]hey
+are included within the due diligence review." USVI Ex. 32 at 42:20-24. This testimony
+relates only to
+understanding regarding the conducting of due diligence and does
+not reflect an overall policy by JPMC to affirmatively require review of civil lawsuits.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M1
+142. In 2007, news reports stated Epstein was "bracing for a slew of lawsuits from as many as
+40 young women who came to his Palm Beach mansion for massage sessions. " Ex. 63 at -652.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document, an October 15, 2007 article from
+the New York Post's "Page Six" gossip column, contains the quoted text.
+66
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 67 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+143.
+Ex. 108 at - 685.
+USVI Ex. 108 at -685.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 191
+144.
+Ex. 109 at -686.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+145. The February 7, 2008 New York Post article stated that "the teen - identified only as 'Jane
+Doe No. 2' - says she was lured to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and then sexually assaulted in
+his massage room .... He then paid her $200.... " Ex. 110 at 1. The article further states: "..
+Jane Doe No. 1 ... says she was 14 when she went to Epstein's home to give him a massage and
+wound up getting sexually assaulted by him" and that Epstein is "currently only facing criminal
+charges related to Jane Doe No. 1." Id. at 1-2.
+67
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 68 of 75
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent that USVI's citation for the quoted text in its
+first quotation is only to page 1; the quoted text appears on pages 1 and 2. See USVI Ex.
+110 at 1-2. Otherwise undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted language.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+146. On June 30, 2008, Epstein pled guilty to felony solicitation of prostitution and procurement
+of a minor to engage in prostitution on June 30, 2008 and was "sentenced to 18 months in jail"
+and "required to register as a sex offender. " Def. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'S Answer Second
+Am. Compl. ("Answer") 1 38.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent the citation does not support the proposition
+that Epstein plead guilty on June 30, 2008. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+147.
+the victim was a 14-year-old girl. Ex. 109 at -686; Ex. 110 at 1-2.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19|
+68
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 69 of 75
+148.
+Ex. 2 at -196; Ex. 3 at -523.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 91
+149. In 2011, Langford commicated to Cutler "concern" about retaining Epstein as a client.
+Cutler testified: "Those concerns are heightened, if you will, by the human trafficking initiative
+that we're doing, given that he was convicted of these crimes. " Ex. 99 at 343:12-24.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. In the cited testimony, Cutler testified that Langford
+communicated to him "concern about the reputational issues". USVI Ex. 99 at 343:19-
+21 (emphasis added).
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 1l
+150.
+Ex. 55 at -475.
+69
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 70 of 75
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+151. The August 5, 2008 AML Operations Human Trafficking Overview states that "nearly twothirds of the women trafficked for prostitution worldwide come from Eastern Europe" and "former
+Eastern bloc countries such as Albania, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Belarus and
+Ukraine have been identified as major trafficking source countries for women and children." Ex.
+44 at -053.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+152. In 2010, additional "news stories ... connects Jeffrey Epstein to human trafficking." Ex.
+112 at - 262.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI characterizes the news stories as
+"additional". Undisputed that the cited document contains the quoted text and states that
+these news stories appeared during 2010.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+153. On November 8, 2010, Dalessio emails Morris and l
+with a ce to McCleerey, Subject:
+Excerpt from recent articles. Dalessio writes: "See below new allegations of an investigation
+related to child trafficking - are you still comfortable with this client who is now a registered sex
+offender?'" Ex. 90 at-814. Dalessio attaches excerpts from four articles:
+1.
+The Palm Beach Post 8/1/10 "Epstein may be under new sex crime scrutiny
+from feds": "Epstein... may be under investigation for other sex crimes,
+including child trafficking ... According to the news website The Daily Beast,
+70
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 71 of 75
+the feds are also checking whether a modeling agency run by a friend of the
+Wall Street Investor Epstein fed his appetite for underage foreign girls. Epstein
+was known to fly young women from Eastern Europe to Palm Beach, where
+they'd massage him, among other services." Id.
+2. NY Post 7/31/10 "Epstein Probe": "The Feds may not be quite done with
+3.
+4.
+Jeffrey Epstein ... (HJe now might be under investigation for other possible
+crimes, including whether there's any evidence of child trafficking, reports The
+Daily Beast. Epstein has settled several lawsuits by teens who say they were
+lured to his Palm Beach mansion for massages or sex. " Id.
+Palm Beach Daily News 7/18/10 "House arrest nears home stretch for
+Epstein": "Epstein has settled more than two dozen lawsuits and claims
+against him by teenagers who say they were lured to his Palm Beach mansion
+to give him sexually charged massages and/or sex in exchange for money ... A
+secret deal with federal prosecutors revealed Epstein could have been charged
+with multiple federal counts of sexual exploitation of minors, resulting in much
+harsher penalties. But the feds deferred to two state charges that got him an
+18-month sentence. " Id. at -814-815.
+Palm Beach Daily News 9/19/10 article "Woman sues Epstein for $50 M,
+alleging abuse as teen":
+"alleges repeated sexual abuse by Epstein" and
+that "she was coerced into prostitution as a minor by Epstein, assisted by his
+employee
+alleges Epstein has transferred and is
+transferring his assets overseas and elsewhere to conceal them from her and to
+71
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 72 of 75
+prevent
+from obtaining those assets in any judgment she may receive
+against him." Id. at -815.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Dalessio emailed Morris and |
+, copying
+McCleerey, on November 8, 2010, and the email contained the quoted language.
+Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the document with respect to the inclusion of the
+four article excerpts as attachments; the excerpts are copied into the body of McCleerey's
+email. Otherwise, undisputed that the document contains the quoted excerpts of the listed
+articles.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+1-107. Further contended that the cited material cannot be presented at trial in admissible
+154. The JPMC Corporate AML Compliance Human Trafficking Finance: Nature, Scope and
+Control Project, November 2010, states that one of the results achieved from the program was
+that JPMorgan "Led effort to draw industry attention to human trafficking as an AML-related
+issue" and notes multiple industry presentations given by JPMorgan related to human trafficking
+issues and/or its human trafficking project findings. Ex. 71 at -975, -977-78. On December 21
+2010, Ryan writes to DeLuca : "My fear is will all our touting of good will on the HT work, if
+anyone should ever say yet we bank Epstein, a known child sleaze. " DeLuca responds: "That is
+what I was thinking when I read this. I'll call you." Ex. 113 at -018.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that the cited documents contain the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+155. "HT" in Ryan's email refers to a project "within investigations related to human
+trafficking and certain typology work that they were looking to dig through to identify human
+trafficking." Ex. 36 at 56:14-57:6.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Ryan testified that "the HT work" referred to in the
+email cited as USVI Ex. 113 was "a project that was going on within investigations
+72
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 73 of 75
+related to human trafficking and certain typology work that they were looking to dig
+through to identify human trafficking." USVI Ex. 36 at 56:25-57:6.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+156. On December 22, 2010, DeLuca writes Langford again and states: "This will be raised to
+the Rapid Response team (Catherine Keating) after the first of the year. McCleerey agrees this
+customer should go. " Ex. 114 at -738.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that DeLuca emailed Langford on December 22, 2010
+and the cited email contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+157. On December 23, 2010, DeLuca writes Langford and states: "... I sent you an e-mail
+yesterday on that scum Epstein. That looks good to. I reminded McCleerey that he listened to 2
+days of HT at the forum and this account could be problematic in several ways. " Langford
+responds: "Good. Let me know if McCleerey waffles on Epstein. No patience for this. " Ex. 115 at
+-777.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that DeLuca emailed Langford on December 23, 2010
+and the cited email contains the quoted text.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+158. On Jamuary 4, 2011, Dalessio e-mails Morris, with a ce to |
+1. and McCleerey,
+Subject: Rapid Response meeting this Thursday, stating: "See attached draft document for the
+Rapid Response meeting this Thursday (sic] We were asked by the firms AML Compliance
+Director, William Langford, to re-evaluate our sponsorship of Epstein and request re-approval
+from Steve Cutler if we wanted to retain. " Morris responds: "I thought we decided this was not
+73
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 74 of 75
+necessary." Dalessio responds: "william langford requested that we responsor this client in light
+of the new allegations of human trafficking which the firm has been actively assisting law
+enforcement in uncovering others engaged in this practice." Ex. 116 at -967.
+original email from Dalessio to Morris, copying
+1. and McCleerey, is sent on
+January 3, 2011. USVI Ex. 116 at -967. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 19
+159. On January 5, 2011, Ryan wrote to DeLuca: "BTW, 4 tomorrow is the rapid response
+meeting on Epstein, the sleazy PB client. " DeLuca responded the next day: "This is the guy who
+likes young girls, correct? Hope they do not cave!"' Ex. 117 at -062; Ex. 36 at 68:11-69:18.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited document. DeLuca's
+response to Ryan's email on January 6, 2011 states, "This is the guy who likes young
+girls, correct? Hope that they do not cave!!" USVI Ex. 117 at -062. Otherwise,
+undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+160. By "sleazy PB client," Ryan was referring to the allegations against Epstein of sexual
+misconduct with children. Ex. 36 at 68:11-19.
+JPMC Response: Disputed. USVI mischaracterizes Ryan's testimony in which she
+stated it was likely, but not definitive, that her use of "sleazy PB" client referred to the
+allegations against Epstein of sexual misconduet with children. See USVI Ex. 36 at
+68:11-15 (Q: When you say, the sleazy PB client, are you referring to the allegations of
+sexual misconduct with children that you had referred to in a previous email? A: Likely,
+yes.).
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+74
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 271 Filed 08/07/23 Page 75 of 75
+161. On January 7, 2011, Ryan emails DeLuca, copying Middlemiss, writing, "Epstein was
+released in July from house arrest and the Palm Beach Post carried two articles saying that DOJ
+may be investigating for child trafficking via a modeling agency he is part owner in." Ex. 118 at
+-066_R; Ex. 36 at 88:24-90:2.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates the cited document. The cited
+text reads, "Epstein was released in July from house arrest and the Palm Beach Post
+carried two articles saying DOJ may be investigating for child trafficking via a modeling
+agency he is part owner in." USVI Ex. 118 at -066_R. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF 11
+162. Ryan testified: "So, Phil was of the mindset, as was I, that (Epstein] had to go." Ex. 36 at
+70:19-71:3.
+JPMC Response: Undisputed that Ms. Ryan testified, "So, Phil was of the mindset, as
+was I, that [Epstein] had to go." Disputed to the extent USVI contends that Ryan's
+testimony establishes DeLuca's mindset with respect to Epstein's status as a client. The
+cited testimony was provided in response to a question on what Ryan understood an
+email from DeLuca to mean and is not supported by her personal knowledge of DeLuca's
+views about Epstein. See USVI Ex. 36 at 70:19-71:3.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+163. Langford testified: "We were pushing it. I had asked for this to be redone, to push again,
+to say it's time that we exit Epstein. " Ex. 119 at 278:17-21.
+JPMC Response: Disputed to the extent USVI misstates Langford's testimony.
+Langford testified, "We were pushing it. I had ask that this be redone, to push again, to
+say it's time that we exit Epstein." USVI Ex. 119 at 278:17-21. Otherwise, undisputed.
+Disputed insofar as USVI contends that this fact supports an inference that JPMorgan
+knew or recklessly disregarded that Epstein ran a sex-trafficking venture. See CSMF M
+75
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0755a546c80a82e27a1344bf6ac982e2e0c0b2b7c9781d8f34590e8f72ce8eb6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0755a546c80a82e27a1344bf6ac982e2e0c0b2b7c9781d8f34590e8f72ce8eb6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..192dc856e96a73e301e7d65fea16b9f02e4c2efa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0755a546c80a82e27a1344bf6ac982e2e0c0b2b7c9781d8f34590e8f72ce8eb6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2593,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0755a546c80a82e27a1344bf6ac982e2e0c0b2b7c9781d8f34590e8f72ce8eb6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 83,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "106bdf901aa1a27bb3063b6b2491021cf69f1756047232f56dac197b0fd7ad45",
+  "output_sha256": "f75300a0951070703d1faa722293a87e7790491109942a002126e2793c2690e0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0766148c91f87183dfe0e079f163235b0af5e61c0c3de8030408e9e33dd25f5a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0766148c91f87183dfe0e079f163235b0af5e61c0c3de8030408e9e33dd25f5a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b82db80e4886a2abe7381831d12fe142767d30d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0766148c91f87183dfe0e079f163235b0af5e61c0c3de8030408e9e33dd25f5a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 798-1
+Filed 08/01/25
+
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+- against -
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+X
+20 Cr. 330 (PAE)
+DECLARATION OF CHRISTIAN R.
+EVERDELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
+TO WITHDRAW AS CO-COUNSEL
+Defendant.
+1, CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL, declare as follows:
+I am a partner at the law firm
+& Gresser LLP (*C&G"), co-counsel for
+defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. I am fully familiar with the facts set forth herein and respectfully
+submit this declaration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.4, Local Criminal Rule 1.1(b) (making
+Local Civil Rule 1.4 applicable to criminal proceedings), and Local Criminal Rule 1.2, in support
+of C&G's motion to withdraw as co-counsel for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell in the abovecaptioned matter.
+2.
+Ms. Maxwell retained C&G to represent her in the above-captioned matter. Mark
+and I filed notices of appearance on July 8, 2020. C&G represented Ms. Maxwell at trial
+and through her sentencing on June 28, 2022.
+Ms. Maxwell's sentencing concluded her district court proceedings. Ms. Maxwell
+filed a notice of appeal on July 7, 2022. C&G did not represent Ms. Maxwell in her appellate
+proceedings.
+On July 18, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared in this case
+on behalf of the government and filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 798-1 Filed 08/01/25 Page 2 of 2
+5. On July 22, 2025, David Markus and Melissa Madrigal of Markus | || PLLC
+(Markus | ) appeared as counsel of record in this case for Ms. Maxwell.
+6.
+I have spoken with Mr. Markus who has confirmed that Ms. Maxwell has retained
+Markus 1 |
+to handle the government's unsealing motion and that he is prepared to meet any
+deadlines imposed by the Court.
+Mr. Markus has also informed me that he has discussed this motion with Ms.
+Maxwell and she consents to C&G's withdrawal from this matter.
+C&G is not asserting any liens in this matter and will share its files with Markus
+upon request, subject to the conditions imposed by the protective order in this case (Dkt.
+8.
+No. 36).
+9.
+C&G has served a copy of this declaration and its notice of motion to withdraw
+on Ms. Maxwell via Mr. Markus.
+I declare under a penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that the foregoing is true
+and correct.
+Dated: August 1, 2025
+New York, New York
+Respectfully submitted,
+& GRESSER LLP
+lish
+Christian R. Everdell
+800 Third Avenue, 21" Floor
+New York, NY 10022
+Phone: (212) 957-7600
+Fax: (212) 957-4514
+ceverdell@cohengresser.com
+Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0766148c91f87183dfe0e079f163235b0af5e61c0c3de8030408e9e33dd25f5a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0766148c91f87183dfe0e079f163235b0af5e61c0c3de8030408e9e33dd25f5a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..82fbd52533dd8ff7fe7da206557819f45d8269ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0766148c91f87183dfe0e079f163235b0af5e61c0c3de8030408e9e33dd25f5a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -37,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0766148c91f87183dfe0e079f163235b0af5e61c0c3de8030408e9e33dd25f5a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1b27ad9b55b49b59b7ca1669a6004fd11eb6868850d1c1d92b6935fcb8ea6357",
+  "output_sha256": "1cdc8e9a704ddac8f94ee474567c01e3d3864109772817b8abf62ad458964a4a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07690962ee761edf47d071ec3ac8a1728460bc94b8c831af955368d4d8e96242.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07690962ee761edf47d071ec3ac8a1728460bc94b8c831af955368d4d8e96242.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34c44fcc347be39887dccda2db5cf3fcf3788f72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07690962ee761edf47d071ec3ac8a1728460bc94b8c831af955368d4d8e96242.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2277 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 39
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP |
+Chase
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+CASE NUMBER:
+22-CV-10904-JSR
+ACTION FOR DAMAGES
+July 18, 2023
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+JP
+)
+CHASE BANK,
+N.A.,
+Defendant.
+VIDEO RECORDED DEPOSITION OF
+SHANI A. PINNEY
+30 (B) (6) WITNESS
+TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2023
+REPORTED BY:
+DENISE D. HARPER-FORDE
+Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR)
+Certified RealTime Reporter (CRR)
+Certified LiveNote Reporter (CLR)
+Registered Professional Reporter (RPR)
+Notary Public (FLORIDA)
+→ ESQUIRE
+800.211. DEPO (3376)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+door." Did we want to do it that
+way? No.
+You know, we would have loved
+to. And it was actually, you know
+-- like I said, we would love to
+be able to go into the home of
+every offender, including Epstein,
+when -- when he was registering.
+But we came to the -- you
+know, the decision that his dock
+had to essentially be considered
+as his -- as his front door.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. Why weren't you on the Friday
+call with
+July 18, 2023
+54
+, I've been on family
+vacation. I just came back yesterday
+evening. I've been gone since July
+5th. So I wasn't available for the
+call on Friday. Actually Ms. -- the
+E-mail invite for -- for that
+meeting.
+l. Okay. So you were invited to
+the meeting by your counsel, but you
+didn't see the invite, and so didn't
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+attend?
+A. I wasn't able to -- I didn't
+see the invite. So I wasn't able to
+attend.
+Q. Okay. And so your counsel
+took notes of the meeting and provided
+them to you?
+A. I guess this goes back to who
+actually prepared this document. I'm
+not sure. But this was provided to me
+Attorney Ackerman.
+And it was a -- and it is a
+brief write-up of the meeting on
+Friday with -- with Attorney Carbon.
+Q. How much time did you spend
+going over this document, prior to the
+deposition this morning?
+A. We met for about a half hour
+yesterday, and then I received the
+document afterwards.
+Had a long day
+of traveling. I reviewed for about
+five, ten minutes yesterday evening
+after -- after our meeting last
+night.
+July 18, 2023
+55
+l. Did you ask any follow-up
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+that he based that based on what was
+presented to him about Jeffrey
+Epstein.
+July 18, 2023
+61
+I want to think he never met
+with Epstein in regards to, you know,
+prior to making that decision. I want
+to think that paperwork or documents
+were provided to him from Epstein's
+attorneys to show that he was a
+business man, a financial advisor,
+financial business man who had to
+travel frequently.
+e. So you said you want to think
+that that's the answer.
+A. If I want to remember
+correctly from that meeting, that is
+what was discussed or that was what
+was related from Attorney Frazer.
+Q. Okay. So Attorney Frazer told
+you that he was provided with
+documents by Epstein's counsel --
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. -- and that's what he based
+the determination that he was a
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+62
+business man on, which was then also
+the reason for granting the waiver; is
+that correct?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form.
+THE WITNESS: Okay. So he
+never -- I remember him saying
+that he never met with Epstein
+individually, but he did meet with
+Epstein's attorneys.
+I'm not sure if during those
+meetings that they provided
+documents. But prior -- or after
+his meeting with Epstein's
+attorneys, he was satisfied
+enough, you know, to conclude that
+Epstein was a business man and he
+granted him that permission.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+l. Okay. So he was satisfied
+after a meeting with his attorneys,
+but you don't actually know what he
+was provided to support the business
+man conclusion?
+A. I'm not 100 percent sure what
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 7 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+63
+he was providing. No, I'm not.
+Q. Okay. And that didn't come up
+with your -- in your conversation with
+Mr. Frazer?
+A. Overall what I remember is
+that he never met with Epstein. But
+when he met with his attorneys and
+upon his review of Epstein and his
+businesses, he felt confidence that he
+was a business man who had to travel
+frequently.
+Q. What other topics were covered
+in your meeting with Mr. Frazer?
+A. It was primarily that, you
+know, since he was the AG who was
+there when Epstein first began
+registering and he was the first AG to
+use his discretion, it was primarily
+-- it was primarily based on that.
+l. So it was primarily that. But
+what other topics were covered?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, asked and answered.
+THE WITNESS: If I remember it
+correctly, that was it.
+Nothing
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 8 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+126
+You know, so by -- by enhancing our
+laws in 2012, that made us eligible to
+-- us being the Virgin Islands --
+eligible to receive funding for
+employees to -- to monitor offenders
+in the Virgin Islands.
+Q.
+Was that funding adequate to
+do the job that you guys had to do?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, scope.
+THE WITNESS: If it was the
+pos- -- that funding was used for
+salaries.
+other -- and funding
+was also received from US Marshals
+Services as well too, you know, to
+purchase like iPads, you know, for
+us to use to be able to monitor
+offenders outside of the office.
+You know, to be able to update the
+registry, the online registry
+outside the office as well too.
+So from -- from V- -- from US
+DoJ, that funding was used for
+salaries, the salaries being, you
+know, for the three positions.
+& ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 9 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+127
+And then VI DoJ also -- the
+funding was also used to purchase
+a SORNA vehicle as well too.
+So, you know, that vehicle was
+used to do com- -- was used to do
+compliance checks, one for St.
+and one for St. Croix.
+So I would say yes, that that
+funding was able to allow us to --
+to allow DoJ to hire adequate
+staff and then to also to purchase
+vehicles to go out to do the
+address verifications for the
+offenders.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+e. So US DOJ wasn't constrained
+by resources in its monitoring of
+offenders, correct?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, scope, misstates prior
+testimony.
+THE WITNESS:
+NO.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+l. No, it wasn't constrained or
+no, you disagree?
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 10 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+128
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Same
+objection.
+THE WITNESS: Repeat the
+question for me, please. You're
+saying if funding constraints VI
+DoJ from perform -- from
+adequately monitoring offenders in
+the Virgin Islands?
+ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN: Yes.
+THE WITNESS: And to that
+question, I would say no, that we
+were able to monitor the offenders
+that were here in the Virgin
+Islands.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+l. Okay. So resource constraints
+did not limit VI DoJ's ability to
+monitor the individuals who were
+registered with it?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection
+to form.
+Misstates prior
+testimony, and scope.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN)
+e.
+Correct?
+A. We were not limited, no.
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 11 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+129
+l. Okay. In any way?
+A. In any way.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Same
+objection.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+e. Okay. When did DoJ first
+become aware of Jeffrey Epstein?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection
+to form, scope.
+THE WITNESS: VI DoJ first
+became aware of Epstein, that
+would have been before I came on.
+But like any offender, once they
+notify DoJ that they -- that they
+are moving here or working here.
+So I will assume that -- and
+also from the -- from the
+documents that -- that they were
+first notified of Epstein when he
+was living here in the Virgin
+Islands.
+(BY ATTORNEY O' LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. So was it when he was -- just
+when he was living here or when he
+registered as a sex offender?
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 12 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+207
+investigation can only be launched
+if someone launches -- if someone
+files a criminal Complaint. I'm
+understanding that to be a
+Complaint being filed locally, you
+know, with VI DoJ or you know,
+with VIPD.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+e. Why does it need to be a
+locally filed Complaint?
+A. I'm saying that's what I
+understand and --
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Hold on.
+Objection, scope. You can go
+ahead.
+THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm saying
+that's what I understand, you
+know, the AG's meaning to be here
+in this sentence. Nothing was
+ever filed directly with VI DoJ or
+VIPD to launch an investigation.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. And DoJ's position is that
+unless something was filed directly
+with them, there was no need to do any
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 13 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+208
+kind of investigation into Epstein?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection
+to form, scope.
+THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know,
+it cannot be a -- no hearsay. It
+cannot be rumors, whispers. It
+has to actually be someone
+actually filing a Complaint.
+That would have been the
+means, you know, for any sexual
+offender to start spark an
+investigation or you know, if
+information was shared directly,
+you know, with the victim you know
+to VI DoJ. It would have to have
+been dir- -- it would have had to
+have been direct communication.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. Did anyone within DoJ ever
+push for more to be done with respect
+to investigating Epstein?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN:
+Objection
+to form, scope.
+THE WITNESS:
+NO.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 14 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+222
+disposition, it wasn't easy for me to
+get information, to get that basic
+information.
+So I'm not sure if I had
+reached out for this sort of
+information, if it would have been,
+you know, granted to VI DoJ. So I
+really cannot say. I'm not sure what
+lengths EDA went to get this
+information. I'm not sure.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. Okay. There's -- if you keep
+flipping, page 31 in the document,
+there's a section of the investigation
+that says "Online media search:
+Jeffrey Epstein."
+A. Uh-huh.
+l. And the summary says, "The
+investigation revealed numerous online
+negative references to Jeffrey Edward
+Epstein, but the following two
+negative online sources provided
+current" substantive -- "substantive
+overview of the nature of those
+reports."
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 15 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+223
+Is there any reason that DoJ
+could not have run searches to look at
+public media reports?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection
+to form, scope, foundation.
+THE WITNESS: If there's any
+reason why VI DoJ could not have
+conducted this same search and got
+this same information? Any one can do
+a search.
+(BY ATTORNEY O' LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. Okay.
+A. If it's -- if it's leaning --
+, sorry.
+A.
+I'm sorry.
+Q. No. I didn't --
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Finish
+your answer, please.
+THE WITNESS: I was going to
+say if it's leaning into a Yahoo or a
+Google search would have been enough
+to trump an investigation, I still --
+I can't say that would have been
+enough. I don't think that that would
+have been enough.
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 16 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+230
+l. And it's dated June 30th,
+2008, correct?
+A. Yes.
+l. So earlier when you testified
+that USVI Dou made a request to
+Florida for certain information about
+the underlying criminal case, was --
+were these the documents that came
+back?
+A. Yes.
+Q. Okay. And what did you learn
+from these documents?
+A. We learned what -- we learned
+what he was found guilty of, the
+crime.
+l. And what crime was that?
+A. Procuring person under 18 for
+prostitution.
+l. Is that a serious crime?
+A. I would say all sexual
+offenses are serious crimes regardless
+of what tier they fall into.
+l. Are some more serious than
+others?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN:
+→ ESQUIRE
+Object to
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 17 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+form.
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+231
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE WITNESS: According to the
+statute, they determine which tier an
+offense falls into. What I want to
+say, more serious because I think all
+offenses, all sexual offenses are all
+serious alike.
+But according to the victim's
+age, according to if it was forcible
+rape or, you know, statutory rape,
+that will determine what tier it falls
+into. So I don't want to say ser- --
+I think, like I said before, all
+offenses are serious.
+But according to the details
+of the case, the details of the
+offense, you will see certain cases at
+the higher tier levels.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+l. Is this one of those cases?
+A. At a high --
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN:
+Object to
+form.
+THE WITNESS:
+that, please?
+→ ESQUIRE
+Can you repeat
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 18 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+294
+Q. Do you know if Epstein was
+involved at all in the legislation in
+2012?
+A. No.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, scope.
+question, please.
+THE WITNESS: Repeat the
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+l. Do you know if Epstein was
+involved at all in the passage of the
+2012 legislation?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, scope. You can answer.
+THE WITNESS: No.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+e. Do you know whether drafts of
+the legislation were provided to
+Epstein?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Same
+objection.
+You can answer.
+THE WITNESS: No.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+e. Do you know whether he
+commented or expressed a view on what
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 19 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6
+sov. U.S. Virgin Islands vS JF
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+295
+the legislation ought to contain?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Same
+objection. You can answer.
+THE WITNESS: No.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+l. Would you be surprised if
+drafts were shared with him?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection,
+form, scope.
+You can answer.
+THE WITNESS: If I would be
+surprised? Definitely.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. Why?
+A. Because that was within DoJ.
+That was something that we were
+working on within DoJ. If it was --
+if it was shared with anyone outside
+of DoJ, that would have been a
+surprise to me.
+e. Would it have been
+problematic?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, scope.
+THE WITNESS:
+If an offender
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 20 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+296
+saw the draft that was being created
+by VI DoJ for the sex offender
+registration laws, if that would have
+been problematic? I would say -- I
+would say anyone seeing that draft
+would -- would have been a problem
+definitely.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Good time
+for a break? Whenever you're ready.
+ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN: Sure.
+Let's pause there.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Okay.
+VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record
+at 3:26.
+(Off the record)
+(Back on the record)
+VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record.
+The time is 3:43 P.M.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. So we were looking at Exhibit
+12 before we took a break. And I'd
+like to refer you
+12263 within
+
+This is a letter dated July
+25th, 2012, from Attorney General
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 21 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+306
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. No you don't know or you don't
+think they were?
+A. If other offenders were
+granted this, I would have been aware,
+since I was registering the
+offenders.
+Q. Okay. And you're not aware of
+any other offenders that got these
+sorts of waivers?
+A. NO.
+e. Okay.
+A. I do want to say though -- you
+said if they -- if anyone ever made
+requests.
+We got complaints all the
+time, you know.
+So offenders, you know,
+complain about the frequency,
+everything all the time.
+So it was --
+just wasn't to the extent, you know,
+of this.
+e. What was the reason for the
+original regime of having the 21-day
+notice requirement?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN:
+Object to
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 22 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+324
+offense, correct?
+A. I don't agree with the last
+part. Because I cannot say what it
+was classified as, because it simply
+wasn't just looking at the crime, the
+title of the crime was also -- I
+remember it was also looking at the
+breakdown of the statute as well too,
+where it detailed, you know, exactly,
+you know, what that crime entailed.
+e. So who within the USVI
+Government knows the answer to the
+question of why Jeffrey Epstein was
+classified as a Tier 1 offender?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form.
+THE WITNESS: Who would know
+why?
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+e. Yes.
+A. I am not sure.
+I remember
+that we passed them on to attorneys,
+namely Attorney Carbon. That --
+that's who we passed them on. I'm not
+sure if she had an assistant who
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 23 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+assisted her in regards to the
+classifications, another attorney who
+assisted her.
+Q.
+So you're not aware of any
+person who would know the answer to
+why the USVI Government classified
+Epstein as Tier 1?
+July 18, 2023
+325
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form.
+THE WITNESS: No.
+(BY ATTORNEY O' LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. Okay. Let's look at
+12283 within Exhibit 12.
+A. Exhibit 12.
+Can you repeat
+the page number, please?
+l. Yeah. It's 12283.
+So this is a legal memorandum
+to you from Darren Indyke, Epstein's
+attorney, copying Monica Carbon, dated
+September 6, 2012. And the subject is
+"Jeffrey Epstein's qualification as a
+Tier 1 sex offender."
+Do you see that?
+A. Yes, I do.
+Q. If you look at the last
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 24 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+329
+do not recall or having to request a
+memorandum explaining why Epstein
+would have been a Tier 1 offender,
+according to his review.
+e. So your testimony today is
+that -- do you recall asking for the
+passports, the copies of the
+passports?
+A. I would have quicker asked for
+that. That sounds more practical, you
+know, because we needed to collect
+from offenders all of their -- all of
+their official IDs, you know.
+So that was a part of what we
+did for all offenders. I would have
+needed his two passports.
+l. And so your testimony sitting
+here today is that what you likely
+requested from Mr. Epstein was copies
+of the U.S. passports, and then they,
+his counsel, voluntarily submitted a
+memorandum regarding Mr. Epstein's
+qualification as a Tier 1 offender?
+A. They were very proactive. So
+I'm saying that to say with all the
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 25 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+330
+E-mails that, you know, is included,
+yeah. I think they probably took it
+upon themselves to review their -- the
+laws on their own, and then to
+determine on their own what they felt
+Epstein's classification should have
+been.
+e. So USVI DoJ never requested a
+memorandum from Epstein's attorneys
+regarding his classification as a Tier
+1 offender?
+A. I never did. And I don't
+think anyone else from U.S. -- from VI
+DoJ requested that from Epstein's
+attorneys.
+l. Do you know if the memorandum
+sent on September 6, 2012, was
+considered by USVI DoJ as part of its
+determination of what tier to assign
+to Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. What page is that again,
+please? I'm shuffling back and forth.
+Q. 12283.
+A. 12283. So backwards now. All
+right.
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 26 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+A. I think they did that outside
+of this memorandum from Indyke.
+Q. Even though the E-mail says,
+Here's the memo you requested?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, misstates prior testimony.
+THE WITNESS: To me, the
+E-mail says, As requested, the two
+U.S. passports. English is a very
+funny language. I think that he just
+threw that part in there. Not saying
+that I requested a memorandum.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+July 18, 2023
+333
+e.
+Okay. And that's your
+testimony here today?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection.
+Of course it's her testimony. I mean
+--
+ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN: That's
+not an objection.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Okay.
+Fine.
+Objection to form, improper
+question.
+THE WITNESS:
+, yes, that's
+a yes.
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 27 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+400
+A. How frequent the sweeps occur?
+There was no set-intime for the
+frequency of the sweeps to occur. It
+would be something where we were in
+constant communication with the US
+Marshals Services. And they will let
+us know, Hey, you know, this will be
+the time for an upcoming sweep.
+e. Do you have an estimate of how
+frequently they occurred?
+A. I would say perhaps once a
+year depending on funding.
+l. Okay. Funding from where?
+A. Funding that the US Marshals
+Services received. So the US Marshals
+is Federal funding to conduct the
+operational sweeps.
+Q. Okay. And during a sweep,
+what was the objective?
+A. The objective was to verify
+the address of the -- that the sex
+offender had on record as their
+permanent residence.
+Q. What does verify mean?
+A. Verify, verification process
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 28 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+407
+follow-up. We would have -- we might
+have circled back. Remember, so we
+went from Sunday to Sunday. If during
+that -- if we went on Monday and we
+weren't able to verify, we might
+circle back because again, you know,
+sometime during the days of the rest
+of the week, yes, we would have.
+l. Okay. And if you weren't able
+to make contact during the sweep
+week, would there be further
+follow-up?
+A. There would be further
+follow-up.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form, scope.
+You can answer.
+THE WITNESS:
+okay.
+So after
+the -- so yes, we -- efforts would
+have been made to follow up again. If
+you are speaking pertaining to Jeffrey
+Epstein, that's a different scenario
+because VI DoJ does not own a vessel.
+And to confirm the address for
+Epstein, US Marshals Services, they
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 29 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+408
+would go about setting up, you know,
+the necessary accommodations that --
+that would have been needed to go out
+to Epstein's island.
+So if there was an incident
+where we attempted to complete a
+compliance check with Epstein and he
+was not on the island or he was not at
+work. Let's say he was off island,
+and that incident did happen at one
+time.
+It wouldn't have -- it would
+have not been easy to just simply get
+another boat, you know, two days later
+to go back to verify his address.
+Q. Did you try?
+A. Did we try? The US Marshals
+Services, it was -- it was their
+efforts.
+So if they tried afterwards,
+US Marshals Services, they were --
+they were typically employed -- their
+team came from Florida and from the
+southern US. So they were here at a
+time within a time frame.
+So if they weren't able to
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 30 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+409
+confirm with Epstein to complete his
+compliance check within that time
+period, they would have tried. But
+once they went back, that was it. You
+know, the operation ended at that
+point.
+e. And there wouldn't have been
+any further follow-up, correct?
+A. Further follow-up in regards
+to verifying his address?
+Q. Yeah.
+A. Well, if we go there and
+Epstein -- remember I said before
+another person in the home can, you
+know, confirm that the offender was
+living there. Ideally we do want to
+see the offender in person.
+However, an offender not being
+at the address does not -- does not
+immediately mean that they are in
+noncompliance or, you know, it -- it
+wouldn't immediately mean they were in
+noncompliance if -- within the team if
+it was agreed that, okay, you know,
+he's off island right now or, you
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 31 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+know, we can meet him at his office,
+then that would have been enough to,
+you know, to -- at the time for, you
+know, during the week of the checks.
+l. You testified earlier that
+USVI DoJ SOR unit purchased a car?
+A. Uh-huh.
+e. Why?
+A. I testified earlier that the
+vehicle was used to conduct the
+verification checks --
+Q. So --
+A. -- the compliance checks.
+e. So the car was only used
+approximately once a year?
+A. No. Remember I also said
+July 18, 2023
+410
+that -- that during the year, we
+would
+also verify the addresses of
+offenders, you know, if they
+relocated, if they had a new address.
+Within that time, I think it's seven
+days, that we would also go out to
+verify their addresses.
+e. Were there any other reasons a
+car would be used?
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 32 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+419
+this -- these pictures or evidence.
+ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN: Yes.
+THE WITNESS: I never did, but
+I did share this
+E-mail with investigators and also
+with the criminal defense attorney.
+ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN: Let's
+enter Tab 23 as Exhibit 23.
+(Whereupon, Defendant's
+Exhibit No. 23, E-mail, dated
+February 25, 2019, was marked
+for identification)
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+l. This is an E-mail from you,
+and it's a forward of the E-mail we
+were just looking at to an Anola
+Duncan, Quincy McRae, Carol |
+copying Kevin Augustin; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. Was this what you were just
+talking about as -- when you passed
+this information along?
+A.
+Yes.
+e. Who are you to the people on
+this distribution list?
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 33 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+A. Anola Duncan was the AG's
+secretary. Quincy McRae was the
+criminal -- the chief over the
+criminal division. Carol
+--
+Carol
+, she -- I don't see
+Denise in here.
+So Carol must have been the
+acting AG, and Kevin Augustin was the
+-- Kevin Augustin was the investigator
+for SORNA.
+July 18, 2023
+420
+l. Do you know what, if any,
+follow-up they did in response to you
+passing this information along?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form.
+THE WITNESS: I am not sure if
+anything was done, followed up. I'm
+not sure if anything was done. It --
+I wasn't aware of it.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+e.
+okay.
+So as far as you know,
+you E-mailed it, but there was no
+further follow-up?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form.
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 34 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+THE WITNESS: As far as I
+know, nothing else was relayed back to
+me about a follow-up to this E-mail.
+(BY ATTORNEY O'LAUGHLIN) :
+Q. Okay. And did you follow up
+with any of them to be like, Hey, what
+happened with this?
+July 18, 2023
+421
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Object to
+form.
+THE WITNESS: There were other
+follow-ups, but it was -- it was
+pertaining to the same offender
+sending threatening E-mails as well
+too, referring to me as
+a monkey,
+referring, you know -- you know, to us
+being -- you know, very harsh
+explicatives, you know, within the
+E-mail.
+So within this -- within this
+-- this offender's file, there are
+several other E-mails that he -- he
+would send E-mails 3:00, 4:00 in the
+morning. But, you know, nonetheless,
+I still forwarded this E-mail on
+because he spoke about him having
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 35 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+437
+asked which works best for us. But it
+was the Marshals Service who would
+essentially, you know, decide which
+dates were best.
+l. Okay. And by the way, are the
+address verifications the same thing
+as the sweeps that you described, that
+you -- it was a term you used
+earlier?
+A. Yes. So the US Marshals
+Services, they titled those.
+They
+called the operation as Operation
+Island Sweep.
+e.
+Okay. And when -- what is the
+purpose of the sweep or the address
+verification?
+A. The purpose is to confirm that
+what the offender has provided as
+their permanent residence, and also
+instances may also be their employer
+address, that that is true and -- and
+correct.
+l. Okay. When you performed or
+when the DoJ performed sweeps to
+verify Mr. Epstein's address, did DoJ
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 36 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+441
+compliance because a search of their
+home was not required to complete that
+address verification.
+Q.
+Okay.Thank you.
+You testified earlier one of
+the things you did in preparation for
+this deposition was to review the
+testimony of Inais Borque, right?
+A. Yes.
+l. Okay. There was testimony in
+Ms. Borque's deposition about
+performing weekly checks of offenders.
+Do you recall that testimony?
+A. I do recall reading that in
+her -- in her deposition, yes.
+l. okay.
+Was it the practice of
+the Virgin Islands DoJ SORNA office to
+conduct weekly checks of sex offenders
+during the time period that you worked
+in that office?
+A. No, it was not.
+e. Thank you.
+I want to go through a few
+exhibits, and I'll try to just go
+quickly. But let's start with Exhibit
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 37 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+443
+But do you know who the sex offender
+is?
+A. Yes.
+l. Okay. First let's 1ook at the
+bottom E-mail. What was the sex
+offender demand -- or was the sex
+offender demanding something from the
+DoJ SORNA office?
+A. He was demanding to be removed
+from the registry.
+l. Okay. Was this a frequent
+demand from this individual?
+A. Yes.
+l. Did you consider this
+individual's statements
+• regarding
+claiming to have audio and video of
+things going on on Little St. James
+credible?
+A. I personally made the decision
+to forward it on. If it was
+creditable, it may have been, but the
+offender was very questionable. He
+was an habitual drug user, you know.
+And a lot of his other E-mails would
+come 3:00, 4:00, 2:00, 5:00 o'clock in
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 38 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+444
+the morning, and very belligerent, you
+know, very broken up, very cut-up
+language, you know. So anything can
+be creditable. That's why I forwarded
+it on, you know. But his -- as
+an individual, he was very
+questionable.
+e. Okay. Thank you.
+You can put
+that aside.
+There was a lot of discussion,
+or there was some discussion today
+about warrants. And I want to ask, in
+your capacity in your work for the
+SORNA unit, were you involved in
+attempting to obtain warrants from
+magistrate judges in the Virgin
+Islands?
+A. Yes.
+Q. Describe just generally what
+the nature of your involvement was.
+A. It wasn't always easy to get
+those warrants.
+That is why we
+created that notification need to
+register so it can be a clear document
+that we attach along with the
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-38 Filed 08/14/23 Page 39 of 39
+SHANI A. PINNEY 30(b)(6)
+Gov. U.S. Virgin Islands vs JP
+Objection.
+Chase
+July 18, 2023
+450
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE WITNESS: Directly, no.
+The AG entrusted that the SORNA --
+that the SORNA employees and the
+investigators, that we were doing
+that. And of course, you know, we
+will meet with her if need be.
+(BY ATTORNEY ACKERMAN) :
+l. Okay. A lot of discussion
+today about waiver of travel
+requirements. Do you recall that, all
+that testimony?
+A. Yes.
+e. Are you aware of any other sex
+offender in the Virgin Islands who
+requested a more permanent waiver
+similar to what Mr. Epstein
+requested?
+A. Io my knowledge, no.
+e. There was discussion about the
+tiering, the tier classification of
+Mr. Epstein, correct?
+A. Yes.
+e. Okay. Does the tier class --
+under Virgin Islands law, does the
+→ ESQUIRE
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07690962ee761edf47d071ec3ac8a1728460bc94b8c831af955368d4d8e96242.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07690962ee761edf47d071ec3ac8a1728460bc94b8c831af955368d4d8e96242.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ddf7b20f04ba83f0ef2bc09be1abfe48335e5b7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07690962ee761edf47d071ec3ac8a1728460bc94b8c831af955368d4d8e96242.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2829,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "07690962ee761edf47d071ec3ac8a1728460bc94b8c831af955368d4d8e96242",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 43,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "6367ec5b808517815343e51bf23eaaa7fc52715cf37fb52c1c9f4b4346c37938",
+  "output_sha256": "504cf26c002a6884e89623271c96ccf2b8b1730517e1f9ec90e73360e050fa17",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07838cdce68edab16faca4d6bc37a64c2f40c4f0fb164b10a900b9a8625a7228.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07838cdce68edab16faca4d6bc37a64c2f40c4f0fb164b10a900b9a8625a7228.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1cdf54d20aa48cff1290ccbeef406b910a3ad9ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07838cdce68edab16faca4d6bc37a64c2f40c4f0fb164b10a900b9a8625a7228.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+212-243-1100 • Main
+917-912-9698 • Cell
+888-587-4737 • Fax
+225 Broadway, Suite 715
+New York, NY 10007
+bcsternheim@mac.com
+June 25, 2022
+Honorable Alison J. Nathan
+Sitting By Designation
+United States District Court
+40 Foley Square
+New York, NY 10010
+Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell
+S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
+Dear Judge Nathan:
+This letter is submitted in response to the motion and exhibits filed by counsel for
+and
+requesting permission for both individuals to give oral victim impact
+statements during Ms. Maxwell's sentencing hearing. See Dkt. 675, 675-1, 675-2. We oppose the motion
+for the reasons stated in our previous submissions on this issue and incorporated herein (Dkt. 667, 672):
+Neither
+qualify as statutory crime victims under the CVRA. The motion
+should be denied in its entirety.
+Very truly yours,
+/s/
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+cc: Counsel of Record
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07838cdce68edab16faca4d6bc37a64c2f40c4f0fb164b10a900b9a8625a7228.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07838cdce68edab16faca4d6bc37a64c2f40c4f0fb164b10a900b9a8625a7228.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..99656ed4ba8a9305f1a6abe861debced2c610a40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07838cdce68edab16faca4d6bc37a64c2f40c4f0fb164b10a900b9a8625a7228.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "07838cdce68edab16faca4d6bc37a64c2f40c4f0fb164b10a900b9a8625a7228",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0517534023ea08cad8b0a4efa62dbcf27bc4ed10425d9d42343957499c2637a9",
+  "output_sha256": "42419d8323109e12ec65ac3f5e69dcd95efa8c0393404538c17ea74061bfbde7",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/078df70b39d60074a9195dfac6765d759997cc78dadfe3c5440797985d63bdba.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/078df70b39d60074a9195dfac6765d759997cc78dadfe3c5440797985d63bdba.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa19e22662451fb71d19022137f881778034a143
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/078df70b39d60074a9195dfac6765d759997cc78dadfe3c5440797985d63bdba.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+ORDER AUTHORIZING
+ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF
+SUBPOENA TO THIRD PARTY
+ELON MUSK
+V.
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY
+Third-Party Defendant.
+The Motion of Plaintiff, Government of the United States Virgin Islands, for an Order
+authorizing the Government to arrange alternative service of its Subpoena to Produce Documents
+upon third party Elon Musk in the above-captioned action is granted.
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government is authorized to arrange alternative
+service of its Subpoena to Produce Documents by serving Elon Musk via service upon Tesla, Inc.'s
+registered agent.
+New York, NY
+May 17. 2023
+LAKOFF, U.S.+
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/078df70b39d60074a9195dfac6765d759997cc78dadfe3c5440797985d63bdba.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/078df70b39d60074a9195dfac6765d759997cc78dadfe3c5440797985d63bdba.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6804d7ab45be43215e227ec179ec4af1b277a91d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/078df70b39d60074a9195dfac6765d759997cc78dadfe3c5440797985d63bdba.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "078df70b39d60074a9195dfac6765d759997cc78dadfe3c5440797985d63bdba",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "283e7388fb7c38cdac6f6aca1e83afc9a1066134c041b14a1b49b9c37cf68d86",
+  "output_sha256": "fb423148b9855ef42ba6fa7ea620908463d0d877db9f9821fe14ce115b66f0d6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07d7d77bbebddaac09c6736295b9e3ada1299443fb4ea72563d6d9b4c949b211.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07d7d77bbebddaac09c6736295b9e3ada1299443fb4ea72563d6d9b4c949b211.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..71000cd12e58b2778f1288a5b7aa39e9f40416b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07d7d77bbebddaac09c6736295b9e3ada1299443fb4ea72563d6d9b4c949b211.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2456 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 43
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 43
+1
+GOVERNMENT OF
+THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
+ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
+---
+PUBLIC HEARING
+THURSDAY, November 15, 2012
+12:43 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.
+Port Authority Conference Room
+st.
+1. Virgin Islands
+---
+MEMBERS PRESENT
+ALBERT BRYAN, Chairman
+NATHAN SIMMONDS, Vice Chairman
+• MILLIN MADURO, ESQ., Member
+RANDOLPH
+1, Member
+JOSE PENN, Member
+STAFF PRESENT
+NUGENT-
+HENRY SMOCK, ESQ., Legal Counsel
+FRED HANDLEMAN, ESQ., Director of legislative
+& Legal Affairs
+MARGARITA [
+Director of Applications
+STEPHANIE BERRY, Director of Compliance
+BETH HOFFMAN, ESQ.,
+Investigator
+SEMELE
+1, Public Relations
+DORENE
+Board Liaison
+PORTER'S COURT REPORTING, INC.
+P.O. Box 11303
+st.
+I, Virgin Islands 00801
+VI-JPM-000016206
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 3 of 43
+2
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+ITEM
+No. 1
+No. 2
+No. 3
+No. 4
+IN DE X
+DESCRIPTION
+Meeting Called to Order
+Roll Call
+Review and Approval of Agenda
+Cases for Public Hearing
+a. Southern Trust Company, Inc.
+DIAM Management
+c. Asset Recovery Management,
+Inc.
+(Hearing Adjourned.)
+- --
+PAGE
+3
+3
+4
+6
+41
+65
+-TRANSCRIPT BY PORTER'S COURT REPORTING, INC.
+(340) 775-2428
+VI-JPM-000016207
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 4 of 43
+3
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+PROCEEDINGS
+THE CHAIR:
+Good morning. I'd like
+to call to order the Economic Development Commission Public
+Hearing.
+Can I have a roll call, please?
+MR. PENN:
+THE CHAIR:
+MR. PENN:
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+THE CHAIR:
+MR. :
+MR. PENN:
+Commissioner Bryan.
+Present.
+Commissioner Simmonds.
+Here.
+Commissioner
+Here.
+Commissioner Penn,
+present.
+Commissioner
+THE CHAIR:
+MR. PENN:
+Excused.
+Commissioner Millin
+Maduro.
+THE CHAIR:
+MR. PENN:
+members present.
+THE CHAIR:
+quorum are there any changes to the agenda?
+Late.
+Mr. Chair, you have four
+Having established a
+Mr. Chairman, good
+afternoon. I'd like to thank all of the board members for
+being here. I'd like to acknowledge the presence of the
+VI-JPM-000016208
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 5 of 43
+4
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+staff that's here relating to the EDC Public Hearing and to
+introduce starting with introducing our new Director of
+Compliance, Miss Stephanie Berry. And we'd like to welcome
+her to the team. And she is bringing to the table a great
+deal of skills and we look forward to her adding to the EDC
+program with a very varied background that she brings.
+She
+is a Ph.D. candidate in industrial psychology and management
+and is quite familiar with the government processes.
+So we
+want to welcome our new Director of Compliance and to also
+acknowledge -- I know that my counsels have all been
+introduced to her by e-mail. Welcome, Stephanie Berry.
+Attorney Smock is here, Counsel to the Board,
+Attorney Beth Hoffman, our investigator, and our Public
+Relations representative, Semele
+, and of course our
+Executive Assistant to the Board is with us today. We are
+happy that she's here. She's feeling better. Glad that you
+are here.
+And, Mr. Chairman, in response to your question
+with regards to changes on the agenda, the agenda as is
+presented to you is as it is. The original document you had
+in your drop box were amended because counsels have all
+agreed, Counsel Erika Kellerhals and Attorney
+agreed
+to shift their clients presentations. So we will start with
+Asset Management, sir, as you deem appropriate.
+THE CHAIR:
+Asset that's what's on
+VI-JPM-000016209
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 6 of 43
+5
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+the agenda.
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+go first, Southern Trust.
+I think we are going to
+I thought we had
+agreed
+You are going to go
+first?
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+Yes.
+That's right. I
+apologize. You did say that.
+:
+to go before Asset Recovery.
+And we would like DIAM
+That's the reorder of
+the agenda. Thank you.
+MR. PENN:
+Mr. Chair, I'd like to
+move that the agenda be amended that Southern Trust
+Management Company be the first item for public hearing to
+be followed by DIAM Management, Inc. and then Asset Recovery
+Management, Inc. So moved, Mr. Chair.
+THE CHAIR:
+Second?
+MR. I
+THE CHAIR:
+Second.
+Properly moved and
+seconded. All those in favor?
+(Chorus of Ayes)
+THE CHAIR:
+opposed?
+VI-JPM-000016210
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 7 of 43
+6
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(No Response)
+THE CHAIR:
+Abstention?
+(No Response)
+THE CHAIR:
+Motion carries.
+Motion to accept the agenda as amended.
+MR. PENN:
+So moved, Mr. Chair.
+THE CHAIR:
+Second?
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+THE CHAIR:
+seconded. All those in favor?
+(Chorus of Ayes)
+Second.
+Properly moved and
+THE CHAIR:
+Opposed?
+(No Response)
+THE CHAIR:
+Abstentions?
+(No Response)
+THE CHAIR:
+The agenda stands
+approved.
+Cases for Public Hearing, Southern Trust Company.
+Who speaks to this matter?
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+THE CHAIR:
+I do.
+Mr. Smock, could you
+swear in the testifiers?
+(Thereupon Erika Kellerhals, Esq. and Jeffrey
+Epstein were duly sworn in by Attorney Smock.)
+VI-JPM-000016211
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 8 of 43
+7
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+Good afternoon,
+Chairman, Commissioners and Staff. I appreciate the
+opportunity to come before you today and speak with you
+regarding my client, Southern Trust Company, Inc.
+I'm here today with Mr. Jeffrey Epstein who is
+the President of Southern Trust. And after a brief
+introduction covering the business and its compliance with
+the statutory requirements of the EDC program, I'm going to
+turn the floor over to Mr. Epstein and he will talk to you a
+little bit about the new business model.
+Island of St.
+Southern Trust, which will be located on the
+is applying for benefits under Category
+Ila as a designated service business. And once it gets up
+and running it will provide cutting edge consulting services
+to companies around the world lying in part upon the use of
+biomedical and financial informatics. The client base for
+this company is going to range from individual consumers to
+scientist, to investment companies looking to create new
+strategies using what's called mine information. I want to
+get a few housekeeping out of the way and on the record
+before Mr. Epstein explains to you exactly what it is they
+are going to be doing.
+Southern Trust is going to meet all the statutory
+requirements including that with respect to capital
+investment. In fact Southern Trust has indicated in their
+VI-JPM-000016212
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 9 of 43
+8
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+application will exceed the statutory investment requirement
+of $100,000.00.
+We've also set out a detailed employee benefit
+plan. And one of the things that's noted about the plan
+itself is in addition to providing generous lead packages,
+life insurance and a donated leave program, the company
+actually includes one hundred percent employee and dependent
+coverage for health insurance. So the company will absorb
+the cost of all health insurance. And they have agreed to a
+minimum $50, 000.00 per year charitable contribution in
+addition to the mandatory contributions to the Territorial
+Scholarship Fund and the Department of Labor database. And
+those of you who know Mr. Epstein he has been a long-term
+resident of the Virgin Islands know that he has given
+generously over the course of the last 11 years to various
+charities in the Virgin Islands.
+We did request as part of the application a
+waiver of the employee requirement for the first five years
+down to five employees. There were a couple of different
+reasons for doing that. One is as Mr. Epstein explains and
+as we explained in the application, there are some very
+specialized job positions needed by virtue of the business
+model and what the business itself would be doing. And it's
+anticipated that getting to maximum capacity and finding the
+right employees will take a significant period of time. And
+VI-JPM-000016213
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 10 of 43
+9
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+as a result of asking for that waiver of the employment
+requirement down to five, we are also asking that the
+percentage residency requirement also be amended from 80
+percent to 50 percent for the first five years.
+I'm now going to turn the floor over to Mr.
+Epstein and he can talk to you a little bit about his
+background in this business in particular.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Thank you.
+What's happening in today's environment is the
+fact that most everyone here has a computer in front of
+them. Most of the time if you look back 25 years if you
+wanted to know whose genetics determined your current
+circumstance, if you wanted to get financial advice, if you
+wanted to get medical advice you would go to one doctor.
+You would, hopefully, choose the right doctor and he would
+according to his experience say, fine, maybe you have a
+stomach ache and we have in response to your problems three
+or four solutions.
+In fact if you were going to go into the Army
+years ago they classified your health like only five
+categories. Were you sort of very healthy, healthy or were
+you F-4. Everything was very general and very broad
+categories.
+As you all are aware everything nowadays has
+become personalized. You have your clothes that you wear
+VI-JPM-000016214
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 11 of 43
+10
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+can be custom made. Everyone has many options on how to set
+up their computers. What's happening in the world is that
+many decisions that used to be made by one single individual
+now it's impossible to get accurate information without
+accessing vast numbers of databases. What Southern Trust
+will do will be basically organizing mathematical algorithms
+so that if I want to know what my predisposition is for
+cancer we can now have my genes specifically sequenced.
+Unfortunately, it hit home as of yesterday for me
+exactly what my company does. One of my closest friends was
+diagnosed two days ago with a terminal cancer. Now he's at
+the best hospital. I've known him since I was six years
+old. His tumor needs to be sequenced. We will spend time
+going through the DNA of his exact tumor.
+Now that was the first step that's available
+today. It hasn't been available ever before. But that's
+only the first step. Now we know specifically what type of
+cancer he has.
+In the past unless you are lucky enough to have
+the right doctor when you went to diagnose that problem and
+he can say, well, Jose or Albert I've seen this before and
+you were out of luck. Now what we'll do is we'll use this
+one sequence, his own DNA and the specific problem he has
+with his cancer and access worldwide databases of every
+drug, every single drug across the world that's been tested
+VI-JPM-000016215
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 12 of 43
+11
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+on all different types of cancers that specifically have his
+DNA sequence involved. So the chances of a successful
+treatment are now viable where before as he said last night
+he would be dead in four weeks.
+So as of medical advance you are able for the
+first time to have custom made medicine but you can't do
+that without accessing a vast database of information. Even
+if you are the best doctor in New York or California or
+here, you can only read what you can read. You have 24
+hours a day. The new sequences in biomedicine will allow
+you to access every publication that affects your area and
+you don't have time to read it.
+So my company's algorithms will in fact digest
+the information as best as they can currently and then spit
+out its recommendations. So you'll have computer generated
+solutions for medical problems, which is the next century's
+work on how to get people healthy.
+My real business has always been money. People
+want to know which companies to invest in and you might have
+been lucky enough -- I was poor but if your parents had any
+money and they wanted to simply find the
+to buy or how
+to invest their money, again they had to find a stockbroker
+or a local banker or someone they could go to and ask their
+advice. And that one person's advice was only as good as
+the college they went to or their experience in the
+VI-JPM-000016216
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 13 of 43
+12
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+business.
+Now, just as I -- with my friend or as a simple
+example years ago if you had asked me what is the name of
+Washington's horse? I lived in Coney Island.
+Washington's horse, okay, what would I have to do? I'd have
+to get on the bus and go to the library. I'd have to ask
+the librarian for a book on
+Washington. Hopefully,
+somewhere in the appendix would be a note that said |
+Washington's horse or otherwise I was in trouble. I'd have
+to actually read the book.
+I would then go back, make a report, come to my
+school. And as you all know right now we go to Goggle and
+in a nanosecond Goggle searches 10 billion documents for the
+names of
+Washington's horse. And you can find out
+what the horse ate for breakfast on a certain day.
+So my company will then take the concept of
+building these search algorithms but not searching the
+information for the name of
+Washington's horse but in
+fact searching the world's databases for what is the best
+investments. I can't spend 24 hours a day going through all
+the investments around the world but my computer can do it
+in a nanosecond.
+Unbeknownst to most people today again when I
+first started on Wall Street I was a school teacher. The
+exchange traded a couple of million shares per day and
+VI-JPM-000016217
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 14 of 43
+13
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+that was a big -- and if you had a 100 million shares a day
+it was a calamity. Now everyday, every minute those numbers
+of shares are traded but not by people. Seventy-Five or
+Eighty percent of all the trading around the world -- when I
+say trading, all the statistics you read about how many
+shares traded today is done by a computer. In fact some of
+the computers trade thousands of times per second buying and
+selling at small increments.
+So the speed at which decisions are made you have
+speed by computers but you need a search engine, just like
+Goggle has a search engine for documents, a method to search
+the financial arena for the best investments in my financial
+arm of Southern Trust and the best medicine. So again if it
+was me personally -- this again it hits very close to home.
+I'm leaving for New York after this meeting to go sit with
+the sequencers to see if I can save my friend. And this is
+the first time in history that it's probably a chance
+because most people don't know when they say you have lung
+cancer, cancer is not really a thing. It's not like -- you
+see we used to -- the past 30 years we know we had a
+disease. You had the flu or you had some type of liver
+disorder. Cancer is very different. Cancer is not a thing.
+It's a process. It's a process.
+What do I mean by that? It doesn't mean I have
+something in my lung that has a little "C" that says cancer.
+VI-JPM-000016218
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 15 of 43
+14
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+It means that my lung is doing something. It is a process.
+It is cancering. My lung is cancering or my prostate is
+cancering. In my friend's case his brain, bones and liver
+are cancering.
+So in the past -- unfortunately anyone diagnosed
+with a disease for lung cancer you could only treat them
+with a lung cancer approved drug. Like I have a breast care
+center in New York. So now it turns out that many females
+for breast care you can treat it with things that were only
+used before for prostate. And the only way they got to that
+is they realized that in certain studies in the Netherlands
+just by these search engines there had been good results
+based on the computers being able to search the database,
+the solutions for specific types of problems.
+Why the Virgin Islands? Again we have high speed
+connections in St. Croix. So I have to beg both servers to
+hold my database information. The high level people that
+Erika mentioned is I need high level mathematicians to come
+down and help program the computers. Some people actually
+have to be here and monitor the computers. And these
+algorithms -- it's amazing but true -- much of the work
+hopefully to be done later in life.
+So that five, ten years away is the computers
+themselves will help redesign some of the computer programs.
+Just like in the cars we first built some computers to help
+VI-JPM-000016219
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 16 of 43
+15
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+us manufacture cars. Now the computers are helping to
+design.
+They in fact design their own little parts.
+In the new version you can actually printout just
+like a fax machine started 20 years ago, you could have the
+computer design the part and make it. It actually prints
+parts.
+So Southern Trust will be basically building up a
+database searching mechanism to search things on an
+individual basis both in the medical field and the financial
+field.
+Again it's an exciting area that the idea is that
+the diseases that affect the local population -- I do lots
+of work in Africa. To backup Africa is for me a fertile
+ground for experimentation because it has been so
+underdeveloped it is not burdened with the current system.
+What do I mean?
+When telephone companies now come to places like
+Senegal where I was a couple of months ago, they don't put
+copper in the ground. They don't have to worry about laying
+cables and going to everyone's house. They leapfrog the old
+systems going directly to cellular.
+So though Senegal and Ivory Coast are poor
+countries, 70 percent of the people have cell phones because
+they were able to not deal with the local in-breaded
+telephone companies who had to charge a ridiculous sense of
+money because they had already laid all this pipe and copper
+VI-JPM-000016220
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 17 of 43
+16
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+in the ground. The same thing here, Africa has almost no
+medicine. It's difficult. But with searching as opposed to
+testing people everyone is not the same, not everyone needs
+an aspirin and not everyone needs the same aspirin or the
+same amount of aspirin. The idea would be to build up a
+personal
+medical database for lots of people.
+That's it. And ask as many questions about the
+subject. I enjoy it.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+Good afternoon. I get
+the financial part. I mean you got a billion dollars to
+invest. You search for the best investments and you invest
+other people's money.
+The medical part I'm not sure I get as yet. I
+mean I'm not going to ask you how much something like that
+would cost because it sounds like it would be really
+expensive. But who are you catering too? I mean people are
+going to come to you and say, you know what, I have an
+ailment. I need you to search and see if there is a cure.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+No, it's the drug
+companies. To develop a new drug now cost a billion dollars
+because you sort of start from scratch and it's really like
+trial and error in your backyard, trying to figure out which
+piece fits in this screw. So the drug companies spend the
+first five years testing all the different parts to see if
+it will work on this drug -- on this disease. The drug
+VI-JPM-000016221
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 18 of 43
+17
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+companies would much rather have my computer do the trials
+and errors.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+But you are not testing
+anything. You are basically just searching for already
+tested products.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+The algorithms
+themselves will be almost like a chemistry lab in the
+computer. In the old days when you had to test for
+something you had to actually build it to see if it would
+work. When the
+Brothers built their airplane they
+flew it and it crashed. They flew it and that's when they
+changed the wing.
+And now what you do is you design it in the
+computer. The computer inside all the new space ships are
+all designed by saying here is the wind, here is the gravity
+and the product comes out at the end. So there is big drug
+companies that want to know what's the most likely pathway
+to hit this type of disease.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+Why would it take five
+years before local folks could be trained in doing this sort
+0f --
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+It won't take five. It
+will be growing simultaneously because the mathematics it's
+like the new programs. For example, the last Windows
+program that came out last week, Windows 8, took 600 people
+VI-JPM-000016222
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 19 of 43
+18
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+six years to do. Now it's not that many people but you need
+high level programmers.
+So I would like to have young people -- I'm a
+teacher by heart -- engaged early on. But the programming
+initially will take time to get up and running and been
+testing it until it sort of becomes a model for its
+performance.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+Thank you.
+THE CHAIR:
+Mr.
+MR.
+Good afternoon, Mr.
+Epstein. I've been listening to you quite intense.
+You are asking for five years exemption and you
+need instead of 80/20, you need 50/50. You know that's
+going to take going back to the Legislature to change the
+statute?
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+we are aware that they
+did bring in an amendment to go to the Legislature -- that
+the Legislature actually passed legislation that would
+reduce the number of employees to five. I understand that
+it was vetoed by the Governor. But based upon my
+discussions with the EDC staff it was my understanding that
+at this time based on the circumstances of each applicant it
+would be considered.
+MR.
+it's in this proposal?
+That's the reason why
+VI-JPM-000016223
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 20 of 43
+19
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+It's in the proposal in
+part because it fits the business model better. It allows
+them as Mr. Epstein explained there is that ramp up while
+they are getting the programs together.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I much rather it be
+shorter frankly.
+MR.
+You much rather it be
+shorter?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Sorry. I would like to
+get it done as fast as possible.
+MR.
+Yes, I understand that.
+But some of the computer models that you discussed it's so
+way out. Is this your thinking or this is something that is
+on the market that you are trying to tap into?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I am not a mad man. So
+it might appear that way.
+MR.
+No, I'm just asking if
+this is your thought brand new or there is something out
+there that you are trying to bring it here.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Both. There are
+products just beginning. They have not yet been fully
+developed. Database mining is a very -- product is probably
+the wrong word. The database mining which mining means as
+in the past you got to dig into the ground. Here the
+concept of database mining is very well established but not
+VI-JPM-000016224
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 21 of 43
+20
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+in these two areas.
+Normally, for example, as you know when you go in
+your computer it might target you for a specific type of
+advertisement because it knows that after you've been
+searching for
+fries. So they mine all the people in
+the area who is looking for
+fries and said, you know,
+Randolph seems to like that. So we'll send him a message.
+So the concept itself is very well established,
+using the medical really the next couple of years.
+MR.
+I have no more
+questions.
+THE CHAIR:
+How do you get around
+all the proprietary medical information, though? I mean how
+does that --
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Because you initially
+start out -- most people they opt in or opt out. Sometimes
+they, even for the first sequencing, potentially to answer
+your question, when the human geno project is first begun a
+question came in if they sequence my geno, my personal geno,
+is that information tied to Jeffrey Epstein or will it be
+anonymous? And everyone whose genes get sequenced has the
+right to say I don't want my name associated with my gene
+because maybe if I have something that's bad I might have a
+rocker gene from a woman pre-deposing me to breast cancer I
+won't get health insurance.
+VI-JPM-000016225
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 22 of 43
+21
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+So the decision of having your name associated
+with the sequence is your decision. However, the sequence
+then goes into a big pile and says the person who had that
+sequence was responsive to this drug. So there is no name
+attached. So there is no privacy issue.
+If it turns out that most people don't mind
+having their names I was surprised. But most people say,
+look, if I'm doing something good for society and it's
+helpful you say, yes, I've had a problem and if I can help
+others my name could be attached. That's a decision I would
+make.
+THE CHAIR:
+Goggle that --
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+THE CHAIR:
+So it's a biomedical
+Yes.
+-- that tracks genes,
+preference gene receptivity to different medications in
+order to make doctors more efficient.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes, and drugs more
+efficient.
+THE CHAIR:
+But how do you get paid?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+The drug companies
+instead of having -- as I said imagine having your own
+little chemistry lab in a computer as opposed to having a
+thousand people. So they pay me for the algorithm.
+THE CHAIR:
+so they pay you a
+VI-JPM-000016226
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 23 of 43
+22
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+membership fee to access your server or they pay you for an
+algorithm that you actually sell them instead?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+There will be just like
+in any other product because there are different algorithms.
+Some will be outright purchases, probably the simple ones.
+There will be leases for longer runs and most people will be
+coming back. Sometime if you want to know -- just like a
+search engine in answer to one question. So you get paid
+for that one piece of advice, ongoing advice or exclusive
+rights like drug companies might want to have for a specific
+answer.
+THE CHAIR:
+And these mathematicians
+build these algorithms to build themselves or they build
+algorithms specifically for whatever question is posed
+because I know you mentioned -- I still want to know why you
+have a server here, though?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I'd like to have
+everything here for security purposes. As you know
+everybody is hacking servers. The only way really
+unfortunately to make sure you are secure is to have
+location wise. Once you put your server --
+THE CHAIR:
+So your server will be
+more or less your vault rather than a server to power
+anybody else anywhere else?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes, yes. The systems
+VI-JPM-000016227
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 24 of 43
+23
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+everything is interconnected. But again the only real way
+to have certain types of things is servers that are not
+connected to the Internet directly.
+THE CHAIR:
+How do you anticipate
+that this business will grow so that it would actually
+affect employment?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Because if things go as
+I planned it will need a significant number of people,
+hopefully, again, probably between five to ten years or
+maybe more operate a virtual laboratory. So you need lots
+of people. You need to watch and help the mathematicians.
+It's accessing the computers and training people to operate
+the systems.
+As you know if you thought about it years ago, 20
+years ago if we said we are going to have to program a
+computer, it's impossible. I can't do it. I'm a pretty
+good mathematicians. But now students coming up can program
+things that were unthinkable years ago.
+THE CHAIR:
+will there be an office space?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+THE CHAIR:
+And the office space or
+Yes, sir.
+It will be in st.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+THE CHAIR:
+Yes, sir.
+But the server will be
+VI-JPM-000016228
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 25 of 43
+24
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+on the level three establishment on St. Croix?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Don't know yet.
+THE CHAIR:
+Because I know I heard
+you mention St. Croix and the access to the band. But you
+are figuring you can tap in a fiber anywhere and
+get there?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes.
+You want the
+access. So that's really for the trading aspects.
+It turns out -- and again it's an interesting
+fact, that computers that trade, the algorithms that's a
+different part of the business, the computers that trade it
+makes a tremendous difference if you have fiber and high
+speed fiber but not high speed fiber.
+So just as a silly example there was a company in
+New York that moved its offices three streets closer to the
+exchange and paid millions of dollars to upgrade their
+space so they can be three streets closer because then they
+get an edge.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+follow-up on something that you asked?
+THE CHAIR:
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+as the economic benefit to the territory?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Mr. Chair, if I might
+Sure.
+So what then do you see
+Well, obviously,
+hopefully --
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+I mean you are
+VI-JPM-000016229
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 26 of 43
+25
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+suggesting that it will be at least five years, maybe even
+longer before you start ramping up employment.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I think there will be
+revenues of a considerable number of millions of dollars at
+the end of the fifth year. But the ramp up these are high
+dollar revenue items to the company. So obviously in terms
+of the taxes and in terms of employment.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+I'm sorry, taxes for the
+five or so individuals that --
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+No, no, the business
+taxes.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+The business taxes?
+Yes, sir.
+But you are getting an
+exemption.
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+Right, but the
+exemptions are only 90 percent on eligible income.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+So you are saying that
+the 10 percent would be substantial for the territory?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes. The answer is
+"yes". And combined with employment it's a little down
+side.
+THE CHAIR:
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+resident of the Virgin Islands, right?
+How was this --
+You are already a
+VI-JPM-000016230
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 27 of 43
+26
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes, sir. I also have
+homes in New York and Florida. Most people prefer -- I
+prefer to be down here. This is my favorite place to be.
+It's a more difficult business environment but I prefer to
+be here. I prefer to have my employees here. I've had a
+very successful time here.
+THE CHAIR:
+How is this different,
+the financial side than what you were doing before?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+What I was doing before
+was really financial advice which is almost I don't want to
+say antiquated but somewhat. You would come to me and say
+what should I buy? And I'll use my judgment based on 30
+years in the business of what you should buy. I didn't
+really use computer search engines to find it. It's a very
+different business. This is not financial advice. This is
+the mathematics and the product of financial algorithms for
+sale.
+THE CHAIR:
+So you have clients that
+have invested in this and these algorithms produce not
+information but -- they do produce information but it
+actually trades based on that information.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+That's correct.
+THE CHAIR:
+The computer.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes, the computer can
+trade. And the client they can either buy its position in
+VI-JPM-000016231
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 28 of 43
+27
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+the algorithm or can have advice but I prefer only the
+algorithm. I don't want to do financial advice. This is
+much more sophisticated.
+THE CHAIR:
+When you say they buy a
+position in the algorithm, you can invest in an algorithm?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes.
+So if you go on,
+for example, many trading sites you, yourself, can sign up
+as a subscription and say I get the Albert Bryan newsletter.
+when you think about that what was that? That was someone
+who is willing to pay you a monthly fee for your personal
+advice. Here we do the same thing except it's not a person.
+It's a computer.
+THE CHAIR:
+Why isn't this a Tech
+Park business, though?
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+We couldn't come to an
+agreement with the Tech Park. So there is an understanding
+that we could go to the EDC.
+THE CHAIR:
+Because I was trying to
+figure out if there was a distinctive difference because it
+is a little different. It is an Internet provided service
+but your core business is not really Internet.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+No, it's database.
+THE CHAIR:
+It's data.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes, data and it's
+management.
+VI-JPM-000016232
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 29 of 43
+28
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE CHAIR:
+Right, I go it.
+MR. PENN:
+In the projections you
+have two revenue lines, fee income and investment income.
+It seems that -- is the fee income both the medical and the
+financial?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+It's a mixture. Again
+according to what the client wants to do, whether they want
+to have a single -- you can invest, for example, in the
+follow-up in only the bond algorithm. So you would then be
+paying for your piece of a bond algorithm. If you wanted to
+have more you would be fee for the entire business.
+MR. PENN:
+I was just trying to get
+a feel for how much of the business you estimated because
+your estimate would have been medical versus financial.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I think it will move.
+I
+think it will start off being more financial because the
+medical is much more sophisticated. But in terms of overall
+sort of doing good thing, hopefully, I think the medical
+area would be more exciting.
+MR. PENN:
+And how many people
+would you say would you need to do what you project for year
+five? I'm not going to put numbers on the record but I see
+nearly a doubling of your estimates between year one and
+year five and I'm just trying to figure out --
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I wanted to be
+VI-JPM-000016233
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 30 of 43
+29
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+conservative. If things go well we'll meet a lot of people.
+MR. PENN:
+But I mean I guess with
+the question you had before about the mix 50/50 --
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes.
+MR. PENN:
+-- in year five what do
+you project that to be to generate what you project even
+though it's conservative? How many bodies are you
+considering?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Again I would like as
+many as possible frankly. But the idea is how well will a
+product this mechanism take. Especially because it's
+medical you don't want to sell something before it's ready.
+And once it's ready then there would be people in the
+marketing department. There will be a bunch of other
+things. So it's difficult to put a number on it.
+MR. PENN:
+How do you market that?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+well, for the medical
+things through the drug companies as well as certain medical
+NIH, the hospital divisions, the medical countries. Iceland
+is one of the few countries -- and that's another discussion
+at some point because Iceland is an isolated community and
+they have 50 years of genetic information. So everyone in
+Iceland has a genetic sequence and you can then see what's
+happening, the children, what was really inherited. Is
+breast cancer inherited, not inherited. Is schizophrenia by
+VI-JPM-000016234
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 31 of 43
+30
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+simply looking at all the data that was accumulated?
+Places, frankly, like St.
+are the perfect
+place to sequence people because it's so isolated. You are
+able to get much better data than ever before. And it also
+ends up -- and that's one of the advantages of being here as
+opposed to New York.
+THE CHAIR:
+But when I think of
+genetic sequencing -- and I know we are getting way out on a
+limb.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+No, ask.
+THE CHAIR:
+I mean I would think
+that you would have to have some DNA sampling of these
+people going back for 50 years and 50 years ago we didn't
+have that type of technology. So how do you -- I mean
+people have died. How do you trace that? How do you do
+sequencing of somebody who is no longer here?
+In Iceland they've kept
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+the sequencing. They started taking blood. So they have
+kept blood samples from everyone. That was very forward
+thinking. So they were simply able to get the sequence out
+of the blood.
+THE CHAIR:
+Got you. That was
+confusing.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes, it's 50 years of
+data. It's the only country. It doesn't make them any
+VI-JPM-000016235
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 32 of 43
+31
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+healthier at the moment but they have tremendous amounts of
+data but almost no information.
+THE CHAIR:
+WOW!
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Because now they have
+300,000 people and all their ancestors.
+Now what do we do
+with it?
+It was the same problem when we had the human
+geno. It was a book of three billion letters and it took
+ten years to do and three billion dollars to do it, three
+billion dollars to do it only ten years ago. That same
+sequence you can now walk into your doctor and have it done
+for $65.00. You can sequence your entire geno for $65.00.
+MS. MADURO:
+I have one question for
+Legal Counsel. So through the Chair may I ask my question
+to Legal Counsel?
+With respect to the fact that the Governor has
+vetoed the proposed legislation, how will that impact us
+inasmuch as we are in a public hearing and this board is
+going to have to later decide moving this application
+forward without the approved legislation?
+MR. SMOCK:
+You'll have to remind me
+which legislation are you talking about?
+MS. MADURO:
+On the amount of
+employees that the companies may have. Traditionally we
+would approve an application with a minimum of 10 and move
+VI-JPM-000016236
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 33 of 43
+32
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+forward in the event that the applicant cannot ramp up to 10
+we would do a modification or a waiver of employees. But in
+this instant we are going to start out knowing that we are
+not going to have 10 employees.
+MR. SMOCK:
+So we'll be dealing with
+the old legislation.
+THE CHAIR:
+But the law allows for
+us to waive the employment in any case.
+MR. SMOCK:
+THE CHAIR:
+If we wish.
+For due cause only
+because those employees are not needed.
+MR. SMOCK:
+If we wish to.
+MS. MADURO:
+True. But we
+traditionally do it by coming back to public hearing. So in
+the interest of time and because we now know that the
+applicant is not intending to ramp up to that I think it
+should be notated on the record so that we don't have to
+come back in the event that the applicant is approved to a
+waiver process or a modification process on it.
+MR. SMOCK:
+I believe it's already a
+part of the application.
+THE CHAIR:
+How many more people are
+doing this?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+There is a couple doing
+it in California. Steve Jobs had a group that was trying to
+VI-JPM-000016237
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 34 of 43
+33
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+help him and it was a little too short. They didn't get it
+done in time but they were getting there. In fact the last
+day of his life they thought they were able to sequence his
+gene in a way and maybe find a useful drug and he had
+enough. They said we think we can try a new one that's
+specifically tailored for your specific problem and he said
+I can't do this anymore. And then they had a big meeting.
+They tried to convince him to try it and he said I'm done.
+THE CHAIR:
+Where are you getting
+your mathematicians from?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Usually from the United
+States.
+THE CHAIR:
+That's a big place.
+:
+I'm sorry, where?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+United States. I had
+hoped to get some from Europe just like engineers but it
+turns out that they don't exist anymore and anybody in this
+level of mathematics anywhere, they don't exist in China
+because you need a bit of a creative person as opposed to
+simply a copy cat. They don't exist in Europe. And if you
+are really good you are already here. So the universities
+usually.
+THE CHAIR:
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+THE CHAIR:
+So you already have one?
+I've had one.
+And what was his profile
+VI-JPM-000016238
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 35 of 43
+34
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+like?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Harvard. It's usually
+Harvard, MIT. But this is Harvard and he used to be at the
+institute of advanced studies at Princeton.
+THE CHAIR:
+So in your five-year
+plan you are going to send some Virgin Islanders to Harvard?
+MR. BRYAN:
+No, I want to train them
+here.
+THE CHAIR:
+How do you do that,
+though?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Because it's much -- you
+have to start off thinking that, for example, Algebra is not
+as important as it used to be. Programming is important.
+And you don't have to -- in the old days you have to
+actually poke holes in the card to program. And now the
+younger people can have their little abortage (phon) do
+things simply by typing in and raise the abortage
+right-hand. You type it in and it already programs.
+So advance programming is very different. It's
+nothing -- I'm sure if you have children how they text, for
+example, they speak in B2B, see you soon. You could ask me
+five minutes ago how am I going to teach -- one of the
+problems is how do you teach kids to talk because in fact
+they are starting to talk as they text. So adults don't
+understand it.
+VI-JPM-000016239
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 36 of 43
+35
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE CHAIR:
+Is that what it is?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes.
+THE CHAIR:
+So are you planning --
+and I know you have contributed generously before. So are
+you planning to do -- I know we have one applicant that
+started our Junior Achievement Program and we have some
+others that did a financial piece that seems to be
+successful at Charlotte Amalie High. Junior Achievement has
+gone viral. It's all over the Virgin Islands now.
+Are you going to do any programs to start to
+build that type of interest and expose young people to that
+kind of --
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I'm willing to do any of
+those things. Again I come from a background where I had no
+money and it was only by understanding math and science that
+I was able to live the life I currently lead. So I would
+love to do it.
+THE CHAIR:
+Any other questions?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I'll be more than happy
+in some other forum to sit down and say fine. In fact in
+some of the scholarship money that I have given before here
+in st.
+was to try to find children to go to visit
+Harvard, encourage them.
+One of the things I did five years ago is I
+brought a whole bunch of Noble Prize winners here to St.
+VI-JPM-000016240
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 37 of 43
+36
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+for lectures at the university again so kids can see
+they don't have to be in the music business. Science is as
+fun and exciting.
+MR. SIMMONDS:
+One of our board members
+is the Provost at UVI. So we certainly will have him get in
+touch with you and see what kind of programs could be
+developed in conjunction with UVI to train mathematicians.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Not only mathematicians,
+in fact it's a longer discussion. I'm willing to have as
+many discussions anybody here would like to have on the
+record, off the record. But that Apple computer sitting in
+front of the Chairman has more teaching ability than all the
+teachers in St.
+but people don't understand how to
+use it yet still, not only here but most places because the
+teacher unions don't like that
+idea.
+There is something that I would always encourage
+adults to do as I would encourage all children is something
+that some people know about and some might not. It's called
+the Khan Academy, K-h-a-n, Academy. Now if you haven't seen
+it you should go on line. It teaches every subject you
+learn in high school. You can watch it when you want. It's
+simple. You don't feel embarrassed if you don't understand
+it the first time because you can play it over and over
+again. You can blog with other children or people your own
+age to learn the same subject or maybe having the same
+VI-JPM-000016241
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 38 of 43
+37
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+problems you have. I don't understand how miosis works or
+mitosis in bio-medicine.
+So I can blog now and say who else? Can someone
+explain to me how the chromosome split and they get answers.
+So, yes, it's a tremendous amount of things to be done.
+THE CHAIR:
+You know we were having
+that discussion the other day and that's a serious shift
+now.
+Because the most important thing is teaching kids how
+to learn on the Internet because all of the information is
+already there. They don't need to sit. Florida has this
+future school I think it's called Florida Virtual School.
+And they have their whole high school curriculum on line for
+anybody in the nation to go on and do it. But in the Virgin
+Islands like Iceland we are in the middle of nowhere.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+You see that's sort of
+insensibly the same thinking I grew up with. But the middle
+of nowhere just like Africa you have an Apple computer
+sitting on the Internet. So in fact you are not in the
+middle of nowhere. You are in the middle of everything.
+You are in the middle of everything. You just have to
+understand how to use this thing. And it's not taught in
+the school.
+And not only are the computers now used to say so
+you can learn Algebra but it turns out -- and if again let's
+1ook ten years down the road if I'm successful it turns out
+VI-JPM-000016242
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 39 of 43
+38
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+that with 14 people in the room everyone has a different
+learning skill and they learn differently. Some people are
+very visual. Once they see a motorcycle part they can put
+it together. I can't.
+Some people need to hear it verbally
+because they learn verbally. Some people learn visually.
+Some people have a combination of the two.
+If you go back 500 years there was not one person
+that sat in the classroom and said to the people in the
+field sit in here and let me lecture you and don't move
+while I do it. In fact as I described it the thing that
+everyone learns to do and really learns well is to walk and
+no one taught them. No one taught you to walk.
+THE CHAIR:
+So what you are
+suggesting is in 10 years we may be able to have a -- your
+same product that would be able to take a genetic code of
+how somebody is, figure out what is the best way for them to
+learn and put it on the Internet for them?
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+I don't want to say --
+that's pushing it but yes. It's the Frankenstein version
+but it's true, yes. In fact it will turn out that certain
+people can learn certain things. Certain people can move
+through space differently.
+So your skill set if you think about it the
+questions that people ask are questions they have to find
+the right person to ask. You want to find the best doctor.
+VI-JPM-000016243
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 40 of 43
+39
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+If you got sick and I got sick we go to the best doctor.
+The best doctor for a 100 percent likelihood is
+connected on that machine somehow.
+So how can you find that
+person in the right place that's connected with that
+information? It's really exciting.
+THE CHAIR:
+That is.
+MR. EPSTEIN:
+Yes, but things like the
+Khan Academy you don't need -- if you want to learn
+mathematics you don't really need to go to high school.
+THE CHAIR:
+So why can't we fix the
+LEAC, man, if we can do all of that?
+Anymore questions?
+MR. SMOCK:
+Mr. Chairman, for the
+record to follow-up on Commissioner Millin's question and
+comments, this application did request fewer than 10
+persons. But Section 708 of Title 29 Subsection F does
+provide for the record that:
+To be eligible for the granting of
+benefits you must employ at least
+10 persons on a full-time basis.
+And such enterprise and all employees
+and such enterprise shall be subject
+to the exceptions contained in Section
+711 of this subchapter be residents
+VI-JPM-000016244
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 41 of 43
+40
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+of the United States Virgin Islands
+provided however that the applicant may
+employ fewer than 10 such persons upon
+demonstrating to the Commission that the
+employment of this number of persons in
+his particular enterprise would not be
+economically feasible or practical. And
+upon a further finding by the Commission
+that the desirability of the proposed
+enterprise outweighs the fact that it is
+not labor intensive.
+I believe this application also ask for a
+residency reduction also. But it is permitted under the
+code if this commission so finds.
+And if I may, Mr.
+Chairman, the amendment to the legislation to reduce the
+five, we have submitted to Senator Malone the appropriate
+wording. And my understanding is that that amendment is to
+be dealt with on Monday by the Committee of the Whole to
+address the EDC requirements. So we should be okay.
+THE CHAIR:
+Fantastic. Maybe we
+don't have to do anything.
+Anymore questions?
+(No Response)
+VI-JPM-000016245
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 42 of 43
+41
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE CHAIR:
+MS. KELLERHALS:
+Thank you.
+Thank you.
+VI-JPM-000016246
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 186-40 Filed 06/14/23 Page 43 of 43
+83
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+CERTIFICATE
+This is hereby certified to be
+a true and accurate transcript
+of the foregoing proceedings.
+Verdell Porter
+Shorthand Reporter
+-TRANSCRIPT BY PORTER'S COURT REPORTING, INC.
+(340) 775-2428
+VI-JPM-000016247
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07d7d77bbebddaac09c6736295b9e3ada1299443fb4ea72563d6d9b4c949b211.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07d7d77bbebddaac09c6736295b9e3ada1299443fb4ea72563d6d9b4c949b211.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ecf994e2859bd3d4e9f97e733526af18ae200f7b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07d7d77bbebddaac09c6736295b9e3ada1299443fb4ea72563d6d9b4c949b211.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -4649,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "07d7d77bbebddaac09c6736295b9e3ada1299443fb4ea72563d6d9b4c949b211",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 45,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "bdd3e80c1db53042c2c66b7d3e20aa8eed8bae5fdb404c10b10f24120834e7d5",
+  "output_sha256": "c14467c2014c75d264c66d83f697e9d1c9efd99e8f33353c83a7b3fa68389e5c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07da49e860d6c858eb12dcfead6a11b2c7d941d863d4e43ee75c79afacee1c14.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07da49e860d6c858eb12dcfead6a11b2c7d941d863d4e43ee75c79afacee1c14.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ed57ab8af4fa69c4f0ec7d50a066522b7ab74949
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07da49e860d6c858eb12dcfead6a11b2c7d941d863d4e43ee75c79afacee1c14.md
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 191-3 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+To:
+From:
+Rale one a cument 191-3 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 2
+Sent:
+Mon 10/28/2019 11:45:17 AM (UTC)
+Subject: FW: Project Jeep Current Review
+JE Summary (9.17.2019) - Privileged docx
+FYI.....
+From: Filbert, Brian D (Compliance, USA)
+Sent: Sunday, October 21, 20198:11 PM
+To:
+• Rachel (Compliance, USA) <
+Cc: Maleton, Howard (Compliance, USA) <Howard.Maleton@chase.com>
+Subject: Project Jeep Current Review
+Hi, attached is a summary of the e-comms review that Trade Surveillance conducted regarding Epstein and Staley. Esther has
+created a timeline combining the e-comms with the relevant transactional activity. From that analysis we've identified the two
+items below and these are the ones I've discussed with you. Please let us know if you have questions, etc. Our analysis is
+continuing. Thanks, Brian
+Page 8, under section that states: Jeffrey Epstein makes limited references to his interest in women but no explicit references to
+age. There are also some comments which, while unconfirmed, may have the appearance of relating to inappropriate behavior
+with one reference between Epstein and Staley to a modeling agency:
+• On August 27, 2009 Jes Staley writes to Epstein that he is on his (Staley's) boat and that he will be "In London with Jamie, mid
+week." Epstein writes "how long london? Do you need anything there?" Staley replies on August 29, 2009 with "Yep."
+• On August 29, 2009; 1 wire payment for $3,000 is sent from Epstein's JPMC account to a women by the name of
+in Lithuania. The women appears to be associated with a ballet company in Lithuania
+called Baltic Ballet.
+Page 1-2, under section that states: Jes Staley appears to have a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, regularly communicating
+with him and seeking advice from him including while Epstein is incarcerated. Other employees also communicate with Epstein
+intermittently on a variety of matters.
+• On December 30, 2008 Epstein writes to Staley, "sunday will not work for me., everyone is gone except the housekeepers,
+you are more than welcome to use the house. you will be well looked after. the chef from paris is there." Staley replies the
+next day, I think | will head back. If something changes, let me know. Otherwise I've asked Rosa to make a date free in
+early January for me to visit the Palm Beach office and spend some time with you."
+• This same women,
+7, received a prior wire for $2,000 from Epstein on January 8, 2009.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00901997
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/07da49e860d6c858eb12dcfead6a11b2c7d941d863d4e43ee75c79afacee1c14.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07da49e860d6c858eb12dcfead6a11b2c7d941d863d4e43ee75c79afacee1c14.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cd3117d0fbd4d14b16ca3468fefa418e916dc690
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/07da49e860d6c858eb12dcfead6a11b2c7d941d863d4e43ee75c79afacee1c14.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "07da49e860d6c858eb12dcfead6a11b2c7d941d863d4e43ee75c79afacee1c14",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "55d030d811e175f54f4a1667a1142cf7ae16fa3fc11558cc47a1100cf1118fa1",
+  "output_sha256": "74d4520a96e4334a4c4a9171a1ec8c9592b76a2fbc46705ef4e4b1ce68f0d5a1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/08099d93d21e7b7154fef94f241e52468f13328211b1b158c2fdfbe787fee893.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/08099d93d21e7b7154fef94f241e52468f13328211b1b158c2fdfbe787fee893.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd725df28f3c5f4dc1baf504a418eb29d8c8c317
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/08099d93d21e7b7154fef94f241e52468f13328211b1b158c2fdfbe787fee893.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 268-71 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/08099d93d21e7b7154fef94f241e52468f13328211b1b158c2fdfbe787fee893.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/08099d93d21e7b7154fef94f241e52468f13328211b1b158c2fdfbe787fee893.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6fe2c100591b00d4e460cb1ed06ffb5175da143f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/08099d93d21e7b7154fef94f241e52468f13328211b1b158c2fdfbe787fee893.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "08099d93d21e7b7154fef94f241e52468f13328211b1b158c2fdfbe787fee893",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "62892cb092df266879521b1e46fa2996bceb7458f9efb9119cdab6a87e4092fe",
+  "output_sha256": "e1db2d1062f2f60e99d52462bfec09c2d8893de95d2aefad4a6f18e0906b4031",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0823ee57aa80a436e32d6b0e86d30ffa5a018cb86bae398b6c0e91c0f6c58557.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0823ee57aa80a436e32d6b0e86d30ffa5a018cb86bae398b6c0e91c0f6c58557.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..14e3ebc17620b893bbfa82d9a3f9c78e62ed9432
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0823ee57aa80a436e32d6b0e86d30ffa5a018cb86bae398b6c0e91c0f6c58557.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 48
+Filed 03/10/21 Page 1 of 1
+The Law Offices of
+MONTELL FIGGINS, Lc
+17 Academy Street, Suite 305
+Newark, New Jersey 07102
+Phone: (973) 242-4700
+Fax: (973) 242-4701
+www.figginslaw.com BRANCH
+DESICES:
+140 East Ridgewood Avenue
+Paramus, NJ 07640
+Reply to Newark Office [X]
+30 Wall Street g" Floor
+New York, NY 1005
+Of Counsel
+Jouglas Mitchell, Esq
+inda Childs, Esc
+March 10, 2021
+SENT VIA ECE
+Honorable Analisa
+U.S. Southern District of NY
+500 Pearl Street
+New York, NY 10007
+Re: USA v Michael
+I et al.
+Docket No.: 1:19-cr-00830
+Request for Emergency Out of State Travel
+Your Honor,
+This firm represents Defendant, Michael
+eeking the courts permission for Michae
+1. in the above-captioned matter. We are
+to take an emergency trip to the State of
+¡corgia to tend to his sick father
+Kristen McKeown, his pre-trial services officer, does not oppose his emergency travel.
+Respectfully yours
+Is/ Montell Figgins
+Montell Figgins, Esq.
+Attorney for Defendant Michael
+cc:
+Nicolas Roos, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff
+Rebekah Donaleski, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff
+Jessica Lonergan, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff
+Jason Erroy Foy, Esq, Counsel for Defendant Noel
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0823ee57aa80a436e32d6b0e86d30ffa5a018cb86bae398b6c0e91c0f6c58557.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0823ee57aa80a436e32d6b0e86d30ffa5a018cb86bae398b6c0e91c0f6c58557.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dc14f77211ec282dd4342ba839137d8eb22b9e13
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0823ee57aa80a436e32d6b0e86d30ffa5a018cb86bae398b6c0e91c0f6c58557.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0823ee57aa80a436e32d6b0e86d30ffa5a018cb86bae398b6c0e91c0f6c58557",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a70db8b45e0506bce595b7705f4f4800b0f9d48295499190c599ec3231dc21bc",
+  "output_sha256": "3d93cafdfe163d04c069149cc8d474185f01e34a631744e71ee04e93e0f052ae",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0894ed736ca4ac42b1c16bef6edf3fa3efbc1072c88184f8acab9761debe823c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0894ed736ca4ac42b1c16bef6edf3fa3efbc1072c88184f8acab9761debe823c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a423471162f59ab3c7900ca0b6df5033f308ba07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0894ed736ca4ac42b1c16bef6edf3fa3efbc1072c88184f8acab9761debe823c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 158-90 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0894ed736ca4ac42b1c16bef6edf3fa3efbc1072c88184f8acab9761debe823c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0894ed736ca4ac42b1c16bef6edf3fa3efbc1072c88184f8acab9761debe823c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b639704c1917ef8c65952d60dcfb349df90d41b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0894ed736ca4ac42b1c16bef6edf3fa3efbc1072c88184f8acab9761debe823c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0894ed736ca4ac42b1c16bef6edf3fa3efbc1072c88184f8acab9761debe823c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1d43766a5c62877ab6004bc7e16587c0b287e02153cff9d82d8c8dcadffdb023",
+  "output_sha256": "c8aecd392b03472ae6bbc5728d28558be671afc7bb042386faac1d9b8bb29c31",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0916c9b9d6f405b04ccca8640a426011e3f60477cc469c9be5c5a733f8bdf216.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0916c9b9d6f405b04ccca8640a426011e3f60477cc469c9be5c5a733f8bdf216.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..05414ce02079a3dde150f41c27c7b2bc08770aa4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0916c9b9d6f405b04ccca8640a426011e3f60477cc469c9be5c5a733f8bdf216.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 313-2 Filed 08/31/23 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY
+Third-Party Defendant.
+[PROPOSED| ORDER GRANTING JAMES EDWARD STALEY'S MOTION FOR
+LEAVE TO WITHDRAW JONATHAN DUNN AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
+Third-Party Defendant James Edward Staley's Motion for Leave to Withdraw Jonathan
+Dunn as Counsel of Record filed in the above-captioned action is GRANTED.
+IT IS HERBY ORDERED that the pro hac vice admission granted to and the
+appearance of Jonathan Dunn as Counsel of Record for Third-Party Defendant in the abovecaptioned action is withdrawn, and the Clerk shall promptly remove Jonathan Dunn from the list
+of attorneys receiving electronic notices of filings and proceedings in this action.
+New York, NY
+Dated:
+, 2023
+The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff
+United States District Judge
+1
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0916c9b9d6f405b04ccca8640a426011e3f60477cc469c9be5c5a733f8bdf216.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0916c9b9d6f405b04ccca8640a426011e3f60477cc469c9be5c5a733f8bdf216.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ba81fd2f9c33fdad190e78390f721f68795fab9a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0916c9b9d6f405b04ccca8640a426011e3f60477cc469c9be5c5a733f8bdf216.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0916c9b9d6f405b04ccca8640a426011e3f60477cc469c9be5c5a733f8bdf216",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "70cd549a59834bddbea1165de3fa37463af91dc241cdc14f1b306a67ddec3f9d",
+  "output_sha256": "c1f87047061239be531f4827096ea39500d5999ae6e44082cc143d24ca931dd4",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0950609f408a62e8cece7f0856169943f1192daf0c2e1c3fb7d9fc98b6f63f8d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0950609f408a62e8cece7f0856169943f1192daf0c2e1c3fb7d9fc98b6f63f8d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..88741275b50c2551716458c6109a69aea6ab2b31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0950609f408a62e8cece7f0856169943f1192daf0c2e1c3fb7d9fc98b6f63f8d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 273 Filed 08/09/23 Page 1 of 3
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+Case No. 22-ev-10904-JSR
+MOTION FOR ADMISSION
+PRO HAC VICE
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+V.
+Third-Party Defendant.
+Pursuant to Rule 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the
+Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, I, Bethany K. Biesenthal, hereby move this Court for
+an order for admission to practice pro hac vice to appear as counsel for Defendant JPMorgan Chase
+Bank, N.A.., in the above-captioned action.
+I am admitted, practicing, and in good standing as a member of the Bar of the State of
+Illinois. There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court. I
+have never been convicted of a felony. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied
+admission or readmission by any court. I have attached the requisite affidavit pursuant to Local
+Rule 1.3.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 273 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 3
+Dated:
+August 9, 2023
+Respectfully submitted,
+Is/ Bethany K. Biesenthal
+Bethany K. Biesenthal
+DAY
+110 North Wacker Drive
+Suite 4800
+Chicago, IL 60606
+Telephone: (312) 269-4303
+Email: bbiesenthal@jonesday.com
+Attorney for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
+2
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 273 Filed 08/09/23 Page 3 of 3
+CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+I, Bethany K. Biesenthal, certify that on August 9, 2023, 1 caused the foregoing Motion for
+Admission pro hac vice to be filed with the Clerk of the Court and served upon all counsel of record
+via the Court's CM/ECF system.
+/s/ Bethany K. Biesenthal
+Bethany K. Biesenthal
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0950609f408a62e8cece7f0856169943f1192daf0c2e1c3fb7d9fc98b6f63f8d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0950609f408a62e8cece7f0856169943f1192daf0c2e1c3fb7d9fc98b6f63f8d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3c5ffed17804706b887233d65161fd2d2dd1fb45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0950609f408a62e8cece7f0856169943f1192daf0c2e1c3fb7d9fc98b6f63f8d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0950609f408a62e8cece7f0856169943f1192daf0c2e1c3fb7d9fc98b6f63f8d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "956dd4112bd1d846345de05285c6e73d1791afab83e486eed7a8adb1a5386aed",
+  "output_sha256": "c2b04ec546e7560063bf7b83dca9c7f48e26070d4ca0ed33c967f8b22cda7847",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/098843919205ee3b5ec3bc5c5aec5dd6a50d15a3fc7ed65c4d8f2ef226e3aed2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/098843919205ee3b5ec3bc5c5aec5dd6a50d15a3fc7ed65c4d8f2ef226e3aed2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bb132dd4ffa1b02d0e07ccb2fdc90c9ab37b604
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/098843919205ee3b5ec3bc5c5aec5dd6a50d15a3fc7ed65c4d8f2ef226e3aed2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 242-29 Filed 07/25/23
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/098843919205ee3b5ec3bc5c5aec5dd6a50d15a3fc7ed65c4d8f2ef226e3aed2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/098843919205ee3b5ec3bc5c5aec5dd6a50d15a3fc7ed65c4d8f2ef226e3aed2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bf574bd3b520f3519147aae87e336d0360aa5ee7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/098843919205ee3b5ec3bc5c5aec5dd6a50d15a3fc7ed65c4d8f2ef226e3aed2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -34,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "098843919205ee3b5ec3bc5c5aec5dd6a50d15a3fc7ed65c4d8f2ef226e3aed2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f1e7dccd04acd371e3b33e6cc01f9f0e01d52e5f7f645d8ff53a8498c724eea9",
+  "output_sha256": "05d5d5d2273d895a75a646256c3defce2cfc752b99c98dea842bf5e6ccbdd589",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0996d34448f6b70b55d3cc81092ec0cce6cd811940e2e045feff84c1edead87d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0996d34448f6b70b55d3cc81092ec0cce6cd811940e2e045feff84c1edead87d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..56aa358012d68b14441c0ab36920efab45854c5f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0996d34448f6b70b55d3cc81092ec0cce6cd811940e2e045feff84c1edead87d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,390 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 237-18 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 7
+
+
+
+Case 9085€4182229-K0904-D9Run etum Ente8ad10h ilsø Q02540210382088f Page drotsl
+:
+FILED by V1
+ELECTRONIC
+February 6, 2008
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+CASE NO.:
+08-CV-80119-MARRA-
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
+Defendant.
+COMPLAINT
+Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2 ("Jane" or "Jane Doe"), brings this Complaint against Jeffrey
+Epstein, as follows:
+Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
+Jane Doe No. 2 is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui
+juris.
+This Complaint is brought under a fictitious name to protect the identity of the
+Plaintiff because this Complaint makes sensitive allegations of sexual assault and abuse upon a
+minor.
+3.
+Defendant Jeffrey Epstein is a citizen and resident of the State of New York.
+4.
+This is an action for damages in excess of $50 million.
+This Court has jurisdiction of this action and the claims set forth herein pursuant to 28
+U.S.C. §1332(a), as the matter in controversy (i) exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs;
+and (i) is between citizens of different states.
+6.
+This Court has venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) as a substantial
+HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A.
+- 1 -
+1o18
+
+
+Case 9і©ås£V18919-K090409Rtum&t₴87d1 Filed 0₴6732032088f Page 2 of 6
+part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.
+Factual Allegations
+At all relevant times, Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") was an adult male, 52
+years old. Epstein is a financier and money manager with a secret clientele limited exclusively to
+billionaires. He is himself a man of tremendous wealth, power and influence. He maintains his
+principal home in New York and also owns residences in New Mexico, St.
+and Palm Beach,
+FL. The allegations herein concern Epstein's conduct while at his lavish estate in Palm Beach.
+8.
+Upon information and belief, Epstein has a sexual preference and obsession for
+underage minor girls. He engaged in a plan and scheme in which he gained access to primarily
+economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually assaulted these girls, and then gave
+them money. In or about 2004-2005, Jane Doe, then approximately 16 years old, fell into Epstein's
+trap and became one of his victims.
+Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Epstein carried out his scheme and assaulted
+girls in Florida, New York and on his private island, known as Little St. James, in St.
+10.
+Epstein's scheme involved the use of young girls to recruit underage girls. (Upon
+information and belief, the young girl who brought Jane Doe to Epstein was herself a minor victim of
+Epstein, and will therefore not be named in this Complaint). Under Epstein's plan, underage girls
+were recruited ostensibly to give a wealthy man a massage for monetary compensation in his Palm
+Beach mansion. The recruiter would be contacted when Epstein was planning to be at his Palm
+Beach residence or soon after he had arrived there. Epstein or someone on his behalf would direct the
+recruiter to bring one or more underage girls to the residence. The recruiter, upon information and
+belief, generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach
+Herman & Mermelstein, P. A.
+- 2-
+
+
+Case 9:Case-B2219VK1090 DusamentlmenteRed-aB FESEN DZERZB/OGgOBoffage 3 of 6
+County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage"
+session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain to authorities or have credibility if
+allegations of improper conduct were made. This was an important element of Epstein's plan.
+11.
+Epstein's plan and scheme reflected a particular pattern and method. Upon arrival at
+Epstein's mansion, the underage victim would be introduced to
+Epstein's assistant,
+who gathered the girl's personal information, including her name and telephone number.
+would then bring the girl up a flight of stairs to a bedroom that contained a massage table in addition
+to other furnishings. There were photographs of nude women lining the stairway
+and in the
+bedroom. The girl would then find herself alone in the room with Epstein, who would be wearing
+only a towel. He would then remove his towel and lie naked on the massage table, and direct the girl
+to remove her clothes. Epstein would then perform one or more lewd, lascivious and sexual acts,
+including masturbation and touching the girl's vagina.
+12.
+Consistent with the foregoing plan and scheme, Jane Doe was recruited to give
+Epstein a massage for monetary compensation. Jane was brought to Epstein's mansion in Palm
+Beach. Once at the mansion, Jane was introduced to
+, who led her up the flight of stairs
+to the room with the massage table. In this room, Epstein told Jane to take off her clothes and give
+him a massage. Jane kept her panties and bra on and complied with Epstein's instructions. Epstein
+wore only a towel around his waste. After a short period of time, Epstein removed the towel and
+rolled over exposing his penis. Epstein began to masturbate and he sexually assaulted Jane.
+13.
+After Epstein had completed the assault, Jane was then able to get dressed, leave the
+room and go back down the stairs. Jane was paid $200 by Epstein. The young girl who recruited
+Jane was paid $100 by Epstein for bringing Jane to him.
+HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A.
+- 3-
+
+
+14.
+As a result of this encounter with Epstein, Jane experienced confusion, shame,
+humiliation and embarrassment, and has suffered severe psychological and emotional injuries.
+COUNT I
+Sexual Assault
+15.
+Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above.
+16. Epstein tortiously assaulted Jane Doe sexually. Epstein's acts were intentional,
+unlawful, offensive and harmful.
+17. Epstein's plan and scheme in which he committed such acts upon Jane Doe were done
+willfully and maliciously.
+18. This sexual assault was in violation of Chapter 800 of the Florida Statutes, which
+recognizes as a crime the lewd and lascivious acts committed by Epstein upon Jane.
+19.
+As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's assault on Jane, she has suffered and will
+continue to suffer severe and permanent traumatic injuries, including mental, psychological and
+emotional damages.
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey
+Epstein for compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other and further relief as this
+Court deems just and proper.
+COUNT II
+Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
+Plaintiff Jane Doe repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 above.
+20.
+21.
+22.
+23.
+Epstein's conduct was intentional or reckless.
+Epstein's conduct was outrageous, going beyond all bounds of decency.
+Epstein's conduct caused severe emotional distress to Jane Doe. Epstein knew or had
+HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P. A.
+- 4-
+
+
+reason to know that his intentional and outrageous conduct would cause emotional trauma and
+damage to Jane Doe.
+24.
+As a direct and proximate result of Epstein's intentional or reckless conduct, Jane
+Doe, has suffered and will continue to suffer severe mental anguish and pain.
+WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe No. 2 demands judgment against Defendant Jeffrey
+Epstein for compensatory damages, costs, punitive damages, and such other and further relief as this
+Court deems just and proper.
+JURY TRIAL DEMAND
+Plaintiffs demand a jury trial in this action.
+Dated: February 5, 2008
+Respectfully submitted,
+HERMAN & MERMELSTEIN, P.A.
+Suite 2218
+Miami, Florida 33160
+Tel: 305-931-2200
+By:
+Jeffrey M. Herman
+jherman@hermanlaw.com
+Florida Bar No. 521647
+Stuart S. Mermelstein
+smermelstein@hermanlaw.com
+Florida Bar No. 947245
+Adam D. Horowitz
+Florida Bar No. 376980
+ahorowitz@hermanlaw.com
+Herman & Mermelstein, P. A.
+- 5-
+
+
+Case 9:08ase80229 KAD90D@SOMERSHEER 023/03/0B/2908 0Page 6 of 6
+The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing, and service of pleading or other papers as required by law
+except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk o
+the Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
+(a) PLAINTIFFS
+DEFENDANTS
+JANE DOE NO. 2,
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF
+OUT OF STATE
+COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT NEW YORK
+(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
+(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
+(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER)
+Herman & Mermelstein, P.A, 18205 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2218, Miami,
+FL 33160, (305) 931-2200
+ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
+(d) CIRCLE COUNTY WHERE ACTION AROSE: PALM BEACH
+IL. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
+(PLACE AN X ONE BOX ONLY)
+• 1. U.S. Government
+• 3. Federal Question
+Plaintiff
+(U.S. Government Not a Party)
+• 2. U.S. Goverment
+X 4. Diversity
+Defendant
+(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item
+Il)
+9:08CV 80119-KAm. Johnsm
+III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
+(For Diversity Case Only)
+DEF
+0404
+Citizen of This State
+Citizen of Another State
+X2 x 2
+Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country O 3 0 3
+AND ONE FOR DEFENDANT
+Incorporated of Principal Place of
+Business in This State
+Incorporated and Principal Place of 0 5 0 5
+Business in Another State
+Foreign Nation
+06 06
+IV. CAUSE OF ACTION
+(CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.
+DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY.)
+DIVERSITY ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
+IVa. _5 days estimated (for both sides) to try entire case
+V. NATURE OF SUIT
+(PLACE AN X IN ONE BOX ONLY)
+A CONTRACT
+A TORTS
+00000
+110 Insurance
+120
+130
+140
+Act
+regotiable instrument
+150 Recovery of Overpayment
+& Enforcement of
+• 151 Medicare Act
+• 152 Recovery of Defaulted
+Student Loans (Excl
+Veterans) B
+• 153 Recovery of Overpayment
+of Veteran's Benefts B
+• 160 Stockholder's Suks
+190 Other Contract
+105 Contract Product Liability
+PERSONAL INJURY
+• 310 Airplane
+• 302 Personal Injury-Med Malpractic
+• 315 Airplane Product Liability
+3 385 Personal Injury Product Lisbilly
+• 320 Assault, Libel & Slander
+• 388 Asbestos Personnel
+• 330 Federal Employers" Liability
+Injury Product Liabilty
+• 340 Marine
+• 345 Marine Product Liability
+PERSONAL PROPERTY
+• 350 Motor Vehicle
+3 355 Meter Vehicle Product Liabilty O 37D Other Fraud
+X 380 Other Personal Injury
+• 171
+Truth in Lending B
+0 380 Other Personnel
+Property Damage
+• 385 Property Damage
+Product Liability
+B FORFEITURE
+PENALTY
+• 810 Agriculture
+© 620 Over Food & Drug
+© 625 Drug Related Seizure
+of Property 21 USC 691
+© 630 Liquor Laws
+• 840 RR 4 Truck
+© 650 Alrine Regs
+• 000 Ocoupational
+Safety Health
+0 890 Ober
+A BANKRUPTCY
+A OTHER STATUS
+• 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
+• 423 Withdrawal 20 USC 157
+A REAL PROPERTY
+A CIVIL RIGHTS
+B PRISONER PETITIONS
+A PROPERTY RIGHTS
+• 820 Copyrights
+© 830 Palent
+© 840 Trademark
+B SOCIAL SECURITY
+• 861 HIA (1395H)
+• B62 Black Lung (023)
+0863 DIWC/DW(405(g1)
+US SENI
+0 865 RS (405(g1)
+• 400
+Starus Reappointment
+• 410
+430
+Banks and Banking
+450
+CommerceCC Rates/etc. B
+450
+Deportation
+• 470
+Racketeer influenced and
+Corrupt Organzations
+• B10
+850
+Selective Service
+Securtes/ Commodtes
+Exchange
+• 875
+Customer Challenge
+12USC3410
+• 891
+Agriculural Acts
+892
+Economic Stabilization Act
+Eneronmental Matters
+Energy Allocation Ac
+Freedom of information Act
+Appeal of Fee Determinson
+Under Equal Access io
+Justice
+• 050
+Consitutionality of State
+Statutes
+O 800 Other Statutory Actions"
+8 220 Port sure naton
+220 Foreclosure B
+230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
+240
+Torts to Land
+0441 Meting
+• 442 Employment
+• 443 Housing/Accommodations
+• 444 Wellare
+O 440Other Call Rights
+• 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence
+Habeas Corpus
+530 General*
+535 Death Penaty
+40 Mandamus & One
+• 550 Civil Right
+A LABOR
+42O For Later Standards.
+© 720 Labor Managemert
+• 730 Labor Management
+Reporting & Disclosure
+• 740 Railway Labor Act
+• 700 Other Labor Ligaton
+• 791 Employee Ret. inc
+Security Act B
+A FEDERAL TAX SUITS
+Declaratory relief and stale law claims
+for defamation
+1870 Taxes (U.S. Planet or Delendar
+871 RS-Third Party 26 USC 760
+FILED by.
+HINTAKE
+_D.C.
+VI. ORIGIN
+× 1. Original
+Proceeding
+Il. REQUESTE
+N COMPLAIN
+• 2. Removed from • 3. Remanded from • 4. Refilled
+• 6. Multidistrict Litigation
+Appeal to District Judge from
+State Court
+Appellate Court
+© 5. Transferred from another district
+(Specify)
+Magistrate Judgment
+• CLASS ACTION DEMAND $
+FEB -6 2008
+CLARENCE MADDOX
+CLERK tra. DisT.
+complaint
+JURY DEMAND:
+• NO
+VIII. RELATED
+CASE(S) IF ANY
+(See Instructions):
+(SEE ATTACHED)
+JUDGE
+DOCKET NUMBER
+DATE fel. 5, 20"8
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR
+S/F 1-2
+REV. 9/94
+FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Receipt No.
+Date Paid:
+Mifp
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0996d34448f6b70b55d3cc81092ec0cce6cd811940e2e045feff84c1edead87d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0996d34448f6b70b55d3cc81092ec0cce6cd811940e2e045feff84c1edead87d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6001ffaa5e27573bb3b171a80212e3fa9e539d25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0996d34448f6b70b55d3cc81092ec0cce6cd811940e2e045feff84c1edead87d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -191,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0996d34448f6b70b55d3cc81092ec0cce6cd811940e2e045feff84c1edead87d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 10,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "106c4e4a70544ee821d84b29480a095577e78a4060b2f4267e85c0bf4dbff45d",
+  "output_sha256": "6a4d8c12f566bd9c33db043a01bc330ca2be638d75411ff223ad11b00ea4e741",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/09a63cf7b0a51db6e415b9a5e0368e59ff2ec08d5e66b55b7712317fe8beee93.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09a63cf7b0a51db6e415b9a5e0368e59ff2ec08d5e66b55b7712317fe8beee93.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0c580c79d4e4a8cd6bd130423b3d4b58fb39c8aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09a63cf7b0a51db6e415b9a5e0368e59ff2ec08d5e66b55b7712317fe8beee93.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 168-3 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+(FILED UNDER SEAL)
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/09a63cf7b0a51db6e415b9a5e0368e59ff2ec08d5e66b55b7712317fe8beee93.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09a63cf7b0a51db6e415b9a5e0368e59ff2ec08d5e66b55b7712317fe8beee93.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8e857e0bfd471827df513fd4323939137026eaf4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09a63cf7b0a51db6e415b9a5e0368e59ff2ec08d5e66b55b7712317fe8beee93.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -21,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "09a63cf7b0a51db6e415b9a5e0368e59ff2ec08d5e66b55b7712317fe8beee93",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c9f17101a99ea8f3aeea9dae7570eb85f4ce428b3b2bf1dddb4034edca6af9d7",
+  "output_sha256": "d8351e48daaf9efc8652af9bf3cb9c52a4d6e018d1ac8c8853ecc5b3f28ab784",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/09adb6acf868bb97b25975f91328b70777142336fb1588d21ba36b5e4204c86b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09adb6acf868bb97b25975f91328b70777142336fb1588d21ba36b5e4204c86b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9bf04e89edc35dd712e0f4ac988462824bb04026
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09adb6acf868bb97b25975f91328b70777142336fb1588d21ba36b5e4204c86b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 267-42 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/09adb6acf868bb97b25975f91328b70777142336fb1588d21ba36b5e4204c86b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09adb6acf868bb97b25975f91328b70777142336fb1588d21ba36b5e4204c86b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..34cf15edf4045b7e63fc032471349569499c3296
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/09adb6acf868bb97b25975f91328b70777142336fb1588d21ba36b5e4204c86b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "09adb6acf868bb97b25975f91328b70777142336fb1588d21ba36b5e4204c86b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e5e64fd55e4908dacb1086056c2f1f743a33aad4291cb8d4f3ffc33a81d94478",
+  "output_sha256": "d7f0d2ff233a5290182a8d8161a170bf20c915b601fe6e576cef76e82d9fd0cf",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a000845a15a70c4e9dc9f55861bc5ae17e1c587bde16a7689730425c9d1a1e2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a000845a15a70c4e9dc9f55861bc5ae17e1c587bde16a7689730425c9d1a1e2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..075540e323fb9d1733ee067863eb8d6f4c5deb87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a000845a15a70c4e9dc9f55861bc5ae17e1c587bde16a7689730425c9d1a1e2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3632 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 77
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 77
+GOVERNMENT OF
+THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
+- 0-
+CHARLOTTE AMALIE, ST.
+C-111-99
+Ju All Jn Mhom Thesr Presents Shall Came:
+I, the undersigned. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. do hereby certify that
+of the Virgin Islands filled in my office on - November 6, 1998. as provided
+for by law, Articles of Incorporation, duly acknowledged:
+WHEREFORE the persons named in the said Articles and who have
+signed the same. and their successors. are hereby declared to be from the
+date aforesaid. a corporation by the name and for the purposes set forth in
+said Articles, with the right of succession as therein stated
+Witness my hand and the Seal of the Government
+of the Virgin Islands of the United States. at Charlotte Amalie, St.
+this
+30th
+day of
+November, A.D.
+., 19-98
+STATES
+THEN
+Katined
+KENNETH E. MAPP
+Leutenant Governor for the Virgin Islands
+VI-JPM-000013479
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 77
+ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
+OF
+We, the undersigned, for the purposes of associating to establish a corporation for the
+transaction of the business and the promotion and conduct of the objects and purposes hereinafter
+stated, under the provisions and subject to the requirements of the laws of the Virgin Islands of the
+United States (hereinafter called the Virgin Islands), and particularly the General Corporation Law
+of the Virgin Islands (Chapter 1, Title 13, Virgin Islands Code), as the same may be amended from
+time to time, do make and file these Articles of Incorporation in writing and do certify:
+ARTICLE I
+The name of the corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation") is FINANCIAL TRUST
+COMPANY, INC
+ARTICLE II
+The principal office of the corporation in the Virgin Islands is located at 41-42 Kongens Gade,
+| VI 00802, and the name of the resident agent of the corporation at that address is Paul
+ARTICLE MI
+con Vito, inhing in any nd ther the ope in generairy of the ling ple set is of the.
+1.
+To provide financial counseling and investment advice to clients both within and
+without the United States Virgin Islands, including serving as trustee and/or fiduciary
+for such clients and others.
+2.
+To engage in any commercial, industrial, agricultural, marketing, transportation, or
+service activity, business, or enterprise calculated or designed to be profitable to the
+corporation.
+3.
+operate laboratories and testing facilities of every kind and to carry on the business
+of analysts, testers, examiners, advisors, and technical consultants with respect to
+experiments with respect thereto.
+VI-JPM-000013480
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 77
+Articles of Incorporation,
+Page 2
+4.
+5.
+6.
+7.
+8.
+9.
+10.
+To acquire, hoid, maintain, and operate such plants, workshops, offices, stores,
+buildings, equipment, vehicles, and vessels as may be desirable for the proper conduct
+of the business herein referred to, and to do and perform every other act that may be
+legally performed by a corporation engaged in such business.
+To apply for, acquire, register, use, hold, sell, assign, or otherwise dispose of (either
+absolutely or by way of lease, mortgages, pledge, or license), to grant licenses with
+respect to and otherwise turn to account any letters patent of the United States or of
+any foreign country, or pending applications therefor, and any inventions,
+improvements, devices, trade secrets, formulae, processes, trademarks, trade names,
+brands, labels, copyrights, and privileges and any right, title, or interest therein.
+To purchase, or otherwise acquire, take by devise, hold, own, mortgage, pledge, sell,
+enjoy or otherwise turn to account, assign, and transfer and to invest, trade, and deal
+in goods, wares, and merchandise, and real and personal property of every kind.
+To acquire all or any part of the good will, rights, property, and business of any
+person, firm, association, or corporation and to pay for the same in cash or in
+or bonds of this corporation or otherwise and to hold or in any manner dispose of the
+whole or any part of the property so purchased, and to assume in connection
+therewith any liabilities of any such person, firm, association, or corporation, and to
+conduct in any lawful manner in any place the whole or any part of the business thus
+To purchase, hold, sell, assign, transfer, mortgage, pledge, or otherwise dispose of the
+shares of the capital
+of, or any bonds, securities, or evidences of indebtedness
+created by any other corporation or corporations of the Virgin Islands or any other
+jurisdiction and, while the owner of such stocks, bonds, securities, or evidences of
+indebtedness, to exercise all the rights, powers and privileges of ownership, including
+the right to vote any thus owned.
+To borrow or raise money to any amount permitted by law by the sale or issue of
+bonds, notes, debentures, or other obligations of any kind and to secure the same by
+mortgages or other liens upon any and all of the property of every kind of the
+corporation.
+To enter into and carry out any contracts including entering into joint ventures or
+partnerships, limited or general, as limited or general partner, or both, for or in
+relation to the foregoing business with any person, firm, association, corporation, or
+government or governmental agency.
+VI-JPM-000013481
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 77
+Page 3
+To conduct its business in the Virgin Islands and elsewhere in the United States and
+foreign countries and to have offices within or outside the Virgin Islands and to hold,
+purchase, mortgage, and convey real and personal property within or outside the
+Virgin Islands.
+12.
+To do all and everything necessary, suitable and proper for the accomplishment of any
+of the purposes or the attainment of any of the objects or the exercise of any of the
+powers herein set forth, either alone or in connection with other firms, individuals,
+associations, or corporations in the Virgin Islands and elsewhere in the United States
+and foreign countries, and to do any other acts or things incidental or appurtenant to
+or growing out of or connected with the said business, purposes, objects, and powers
+or any part thereof not inconsistent with the laws of the Virgin Islands, and to exercise
+any and all powers now or hereafter conferred enumerated herein or not.
+The purposes, objects, and powers specified in this Article shall not be limited or restricted
+by reference to the terms of any other subdivision or of any other Article of these Articles of
+ARTICLE IV
+The total number of shares of I which the corporation is authorized to issue is 100
+shares of common
+of no par value; no preferred stock is authorizer
+S1,00. The minimum amount of capital with which the corporation will commence business is
+ARTICLE V
+follows:
+The name and place of residence of each of the persons forming the corporation are as
+Barbara Mignon Weatherly
+Jennie-lynn Falk
+Dale R. Michael
+VI-JPM-000013482
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 6 of 77
+Articles of Incorporation,
+Page 4
+ARTICLE VI
+The corporation is to have perpetual existence.
+• ARTICLE VII
+The corporation is to be unlimited in the amount of indebtedness to which it shall at any time
+be subject.
+ARTICLE VIII
+For the management of the business and for the conduct of the affairs of the corporation, and
+in further creation, definition, limitation, and regulation of the powers of the corporation and of its
+directors and stockholders, it is further provided:
+The number of directors of the corporation shall be fixed by, or in the manner
+provided in the By-Laws, but in no case shall the number be less than three. The
+directors need not be stockholders.
+In furtherance and not in limitation of the powers conferred by the laws of the Virgin
+Islands, and subject at all times to the provisions thereof, the Board of Directors is
+expressly authorized and empowered:
+a)
+Subject to the right of a majority of the stockholders to amend, repeal, alter
+b)
+corporation, the governing of its affairs, and the manner of certification and
+transfer of its
+To authorize and issue obligations of the corporation, secured and unsecured,
+to include therein such provisions as to redeemability, convertibility or
+c)
+To determine whether any, and, if any, what part of the net profits of the
+corporation or of its net assets in excess of its capital shall be declared in
+dividends and paid to the stockholders, and to direct and determine the use
+and disposition thereof.
+VI-JPM-000013483
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 7 of 77
+Page 5
+d)
+e)
+f)
+g)
+To contract in the name of the corporation with individual members of the
+Board of Directors in their individual capacity or as representatives of any
+firm, association or corporation.
+To sell or otherwise dispose of the real or personal property of the
+corporation.
+To set apart a reserve or reserves, and to abolish such reserve or reserves, or
+to make such other provisions, if any, as the Board of Directors may deem
+necessary or advisable for working capital, for additions, improvements and
+betterments to plant and equipment, for expansion of the business of the
+corporation (including the acquisition of real and personal property for thi
+Jurpose) and for any other purpose of the corporation
+To establish bonus, profit-sharing, pension, thrift and other types of incentive
+h)
+To issue, or grant options for the purpose of shares of l of the
+i)
+To enter into contracts for the management of the business of the corporation
+for terms not exceeding five (5) years.
+corporation, upon the stockholders
+ARTICLE IX
+VI-JPM-000013484
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 8 of 77
+Page 6
+actually and necessarily incurred by or imposed upon him in connection with such action, suit or
+proceeding, or in connection with any appeal therein, except in relation to matters as to which it shall
+be adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding, or in connection with any appeal therein, that such
+officer or director is liable for wilful misconduct in the performance of his duties. The provisions of
+this Article shall not be deemed exclusive of any other rights respecting indemnification to which one
+seeking indemnification may be entitled and shall not be read to limit or restrict any applicable
+provisions of law, nor to further limit the corporation as respects indemnification. The rights
+respecting indemnification referred to herein shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors and
+administrators of any person entitled to indemnification.
+ARTICLE X
+The corporation reserves the right to amend, alter, change, or repeal any provisions contained
+in The Articles of Incorporation in the manner now or hereafter prescribed by statute and all rights
+conferred upon stockholders herein are granted subject to this reservation.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have made, signed and acknowledged these Articles of
+Incorporation this L day of Not beer
+, 1998
+Barbara Mignon Weatherly
+no Treat
+TERRITORY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+DIVISION OF ST.
+& ST. JOHN
+Jennie-
+Falk
+Rebrit
+Dale R. Michael
+)
+)sS:
+day of Not t
+Notary Public
+Paul Hoffman
+Commission Expines June 27, 2000
+Notary Public Commission No. LNP 13-96
+VI-JPM-000013485
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 9 of 77
+Consent of Agent for Service of Process
+This witting witneseth that the undersened Pat ear trans amon
+having been designated by the
+Name of Corporation
+as agent of the said company upon whom service of process may be made in all suits arising
+against the said company in the Courts of the Virgin Islands, do hereby consent to act as
+the Virgin Islands Code.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my signature this.
+November
+..............19.98
+day oficited
+547"
+(Signanie de
+6th
+at. St:
+Subscribed and sworn to before me this.
+VI
+day of .
+November
+., 1998.
+Bhan
+112
+Barbara MignO: & -asieriy
+Commission Expires Now, ner 2: 2005
+Notary Public Commission No 1NP13-•
+VI-JPM-000013486
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 10 of 77
+CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT
+OF RESIDENT AGENT OF
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY, INC
+I, Jeffrey Epstein, President of Financial Trust Company, Inc. ("The Corporation"') certify
+that the board of directors of the Corporation on June lIk, 2005, did unanimously consent to the
+adoption of the following resolution:
+RESOLVED, that Maria Tankenson Hodge, 1340 Taarneberg, St. |
+• Virgin Islands,
+(340) 774-6845, be and hereby is duly appointed to serve as resident agent for service of legal
+process in the U.S. Virgin islands with full authority to accept the service of legal process on behalf
+of the Corporation.
+DATED: 4/23/65
+Jeffrey Epstein,
+, Presiden
+A TRUE COPY
+ATTEST
+Cult
+Cecile DeJongh, Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013487
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 11 of 77
+CONSENT of AGENT for SERVICE of PROCESS
+******
+This writing witnesseth that the undersigned MARIA TANKENSON HODGE
+having been designated by the corporation known as
+as agent of the said company upon whom service of process may be made in all suits
+arising against the said company in the Courts of the Virgin Islands, does hereby consent
+to act as such agent, and that service of process may be made upon me in accordance with
+Title 13 of the Virgin Islands Code.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my signature this 24# day of June,
+2005.
+Maria Tankenson Hodge
+HODGE & FRANCOIS
+1340 Taareberg
+St.
+IL. VI 00802
+Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24" day of June, 2005 at Charlotte
+Amalie, St. I
+|. U.S. Virgin Islands.
+Duire Ramos
+Notary Public
+Denise BE. Francois
+My Comnission Explan: October 17, 2041
+LMP-002-03
+VI-JPM-000013488
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 12 of 77
+THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
+ENTERES
+DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS AND TRADEMARKS
+5049 Kongens Gade
+Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands 00802
+Phone - 340.776.8515
+Fax - 340.776.4612
+2013
+1105 King Street
+Christionsted, Virgin islands 00820
+Phone - 340.773.6449
+Fax - 340.773.0330
+FRANCHISE TAX REPORT - DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+CORPORATE FILINGS AND REQUISITE TAXES ARE DUE, EACH YEAR. ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30h
+AVOID PENALTIES AND INTEREST BY PAYING ON TIME
+6/30/2013
+12/31/2012
+TODAY'S DATE
+TAX CLOSING DATE
+EMPLOYER DENTIFICAJON NO. (ENI
+SECTION 1
+CORPORATION NAME
+PHYSICAL ADDRESS
+MALING ADDRESS
+DAIE OF INCORPORATION
+MATURE OF BUSINESS
+Financial Trust Company, inc.
+6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St.
+6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St.
+11/6/1998
+Services
+U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
+U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
+SECTION 2
+CAPIT L 510
+CAPITAL
+CE AUTHORED ON LAST FLED REPORT
+AUTHORIZED ON THIS DATE
+1900 shares no par value
+1000 shares no per value
+SECTION 3 - PAID-IN CAPITAL
+USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS
+AS SHOWN ON LAST FLED REPORS
+ADDIONAL CAPITAL PAID SINCE LAST REPORT
+SUM OF'A" AND 'E' ABOVE
+PAID-IN CAPITAL WITHDRAWN SINCE LAST REPORT
+E.
+PAID-IN CAPITAL
+iL AI DATE OF THIS REPORT
+HIGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+DURING REPORTING PERIOD
+578480/
+ACTION 4 - COMPUTATION OF TAX
+AT RATE OF $1.50 PER THOUSAND (PLEASE ROUND DOWN TO THE NEAREST THOUSAND!
+ON HIGHEST TOTAL PAID IN CAPITALI
+• AS REPORTED ON LINE 3F ABOVE
+8.
+TAX DUE (4A OR $150.00 [WHICHEVER IS GREATER|]
+51147.21
+s1455
+3
+ECTION 5- PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT
+PENALTY - 20%, OR $50.00 (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) OF 48
+B.
+INTEREST - 15 COMPOUNDED ANNUALLY FOR EACH MONTH.
+OR PART THEREOF, BY WHICH PAYMENT IS DELAYED BEYOND
+THE JUNE 30° DEADUNE
+C.
+TOTAL PENALTY AND INTEREST
+R# 2286073
+#1147.21
+C#/002
+ECTION & - TOTAL DUE (TAXES, PENALTY, INTEREST)
+SUM OF 48 AND 5C
+
+ECLARE, UNDER PENALTY OF PER/URT, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS, THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IM THES APPUCANON, AND ANY ACCOMPANTING DOCUMENTS
+E TRUE AND CORRECT, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL STATEMENTS MA DE IN THIS APPUCAIION ARE SUBJECT TO INVESEGATION AND THAT ANY BALSE OR DISHONESLANSWEE 10 ANY QUESTION
+AY BE GROUNDS FOR DENLAL OR SURSIQUENT REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION.
+TREASURE
+Juanne Frenzar
+4/30/13
+VI-JPM-000013489
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 13 of 77
+THE UNITEO StATES VIRGIN ISLANOS
+OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
+DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS AND TRADEMARKS
+504P Kongers Cade
+Chariotle Amole, Virgin IMards 00802
+Prone - 3407768515
+Fox: 340.776.4612
+1105 ding ireet
+Christionated, Virgin islandh 00620
+Phone - 340.773.6449
+Рак - 340.773 0330
+ANNUAL REPORT - DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATION
+CORPORATE FLINGS AND REGUISITE TAXES ARE DUE, EACH YEAR, ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30°, AVOID PENALTES AND INTEREST BY PAYING ON TIME.
+TODAYS DATE
+6/30/2013
+TAX CICSING DATE
+12/31/2012
+_EMPLOTER IDENTIFICATION NO. (EN)
+SECTION 1
+CORPORATION NAME
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE
+ADDRESS OF PRINCIPLE USV OFFICE
+DATE OF INCORPORATION
+COUNTRY/STATE OF INCORPORATION
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK
+AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+Financial Trust Compary, Inc
+6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St
+U.S. Virgin istands 00802
+8100 Red Hook Quarter. 83. Si. Thomas. U.S. Virgin islande 0C802
+11/6/1998
+U.S. Virgin istande
+1,000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL CAPITAL
+AI CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+764,808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCING
+BUSINESS WITHIN THE USVI DURING THE ASCAL YEAR 764,80B
+SECTION 2
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL DIRECTORS AND OFICERS OF THE CORPORATION AT THE CLOSE OF ESCAL YEAR ANDEXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE -
+NAME/TIME
+ADDRESS
+Jeffrey E Epstein President/Director 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St.
+TERM EXPIEATION
+USVI 00802) Seras until successor elected
+Jeanne Greshan Vice President/TreasurenDinacio
+Cecile de Jongh Vice President Secretary Director
+Served unti gupcessor elected
+sarves unti sutcessor elected
+=
+I DECLARE, UNDER FEMALTY OF PERJURT, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN SLANDS, THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS APPUCATOM, AND ANT ACCOMPANTING DOCUMENTS, •
+TRUE AND CORRECT, WITH FILL KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE IN THIS APPLICATION ARE SUBJECT ID INVESNGATION AND THAT ANY FALSE OR DISHONEST ANSWER TO ANY QVESTION MAY
+GROUNDS FOR DENIAL DE SUBSEQUENT EVOCATION OF BOISTRATION.
+TREASUR
+SIGNAT
+conse Dura y/30/13
+Jeanne Brennan
+PRINTED PRST NAME AND LAST NAME
+Jeffrey Epstei
+FRNTED NET HAME AND LAST NAME
+DATE
+DONE GOES NEED EATE RECENE THE REPORT POD COVEREO BY THS REPORT, A SUPPIEMENTART REPORT ON THE SAME MUST BE MLED.
+ORDON SALES CORPORATIONS THAT ARE REGISTERED WEH THE SECURTY AND ENCHANGE COMMISSION MUST FRNISH EVIDENCE OF SUCH RECISTRAIION AND COMPLY WTH BALANC
+*EET AND PRONT AND LOSS STATEMENTS. ROSS THAT ARE NOT RECISTERED WITH THE COMMISSON ARE EXEMPT FROM FUNG THE GENERAL BALANCE SMEET AND THE PRONT AND LO
+STATEMENT
+VI-JPM-000013490
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 14 of 77
+(Due on or before June 30 of each year.)
+-0-
+ursuant to Title 29, Chapter 12, Section 716 (a) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring th
+ting stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Governo
+NAME OF ENTITY Pinancial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENIXTY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+D
+Domestic Limited Liability Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Domestic Corporation
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+MAILINGADDRESS 6100 Red Hook Qtr Suite B-3 St.
+3, VI 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION 2009 to March 2012
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES OWNING WERE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE
+OR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Name
+Address
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+6100 Red Hook Otr Ste B-B
+E: VI 00802*
+Perceni
+%
+100%
+Hona fide
+Residedes:
+• 5:
+Mote: This report must also ioclade the names and addresses of all legal or equitable owners of such benefited business
+who have or will claim beefits under this chapter as bona fide residents of the Virgin Islands, pursuant ta.Act No.
+6748.
+DATED
+2/30/13.
+VERIFIED President or Nice Presidese
+Secretary or Asst. Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013491
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 15 of 77
+HE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
+GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF The UNITED STATES
+REPORT
+DIVISION OF CORPORATION AND TRADEMARAS
+TEL (340y 776-8505 + FAX, (346) 774-4412
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(THIS REPORT IS DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30TH OF EACH YEAR)
+EMPLOYER ED. Na.:
+Date of Report June 30, 2012.
+Das or la Repon has 10.201.
+This Report is fo the Peried Ended hase 0.301...
+1923792°
+#114721
+chech#3912
+1) NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+Address: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, 83 St
+%. Date of incorporation: November 6, 1508
+€. Kind of Business. Services
+• USVI 00502
+2) AMOUNT OF CAPIEAL
+AUTHORIZED:
+On date of
+On date El reporte
+, герок
+3) AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL
+USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS:
+t.
+As shown on last report filled
+Additonal capital paid in since last report
+Sum of (a) and (b)
+Paid-in Capital withdrawn since last report.
+Paid-in Capital
+. at date of this report
+HIGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+PERIOD...
+DURING REPORTING
+4) COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+At rate of5l.50 per M (fractions of a thousand disregarded) or
+highest soul paid-in capital
+as reported on Line 3(t) above $.I147.2
+b. TAX DUE: (Above figure, or 5150 whichever is greater)
+5) PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+• =
+20% or $50:00 whichever is greater penalty for failure to pay by June 30°
+1% es o lue melt oral on or par best by which parent le
+delayed beyond June 30ª
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+TOTAL DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sum of (4) (b) and (S) (c)
+(Attach checis payable to The Gevernment of the Virgin Islands and mail documents to the Office of the I.
+Corporation and Trademarks, 5049 Kongens Gade, St
+,VI 09802-6487)
+. 5.7648ДВ
+Certified Correct
+Guare tressa
+Treasurer
+Prestdest
+VI-JPM-000013492
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 16 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St. |
+. USVI 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3. St. || |L. USVI 00802
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI Maria Hodge, 1340 Taareberg St. | | VI 00802
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin Islands
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31, 2010
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31, 2011
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL I
+| AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1,000 shares common
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764.808
+no par value.
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+VEAR: 764,808
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E, Epstein, Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+St. I
+, VI 00802-1348: Serves until successor elected
+Cecile de Jongh. Director/Vice President/Secretary PO Box 8361
+St.
+| VI 00801. Serves until successor elected
+Jeanne
+Director/Vice President/Treasurer 6501 Red Hook Quarter Suite 201
+St
+1. VI 00802, Serves until successor elected
+DATED: June 30, 2012
+VERIFIED
+~ (PRESIDENT OR VICE PESIDENT)
+MARASURER OR AST FREASURER
+1. Hate spont tie ones foe cler the priod play receding hi period covered by his report a supplementary report.
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE SHEE
+AND
+PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGI
+ISLANDS CODE. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT.
+VI-JPM-000013493
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 17 of 77
+GOVERNMEN: JF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF CHE UNITED STATES
+REPORT
+DVISEN CE CORNIA AND IN MAS
+TEl.[340, 774.4313 • PAN 40 70 4403
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13. SECTION 531. VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE TERED 5 1 3 2011
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+THIS REPURE IS DUION OR HERNE JUNE MEN IN BACH VILA:
+EMPLOYER I.D. No.:
+this of Report Bus 30. 2011.
+The Rope is for the Perked Toned June MAR
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Hinancial Trest Cantury. Ins
+Audress: 6100 Rol Hink Quarter 13-3 Sa. Thomas USVI 00312
+Date of Incorporalion: Notebor 6, 199%
+Kind of Havince: Services
+2I AMOUNT OF CAPITAL
+AUTHORIZED:
+When last supon filed
+On date w this open.
+30 AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL/
+USED IN CONDUCTING RUSINESS:
+As shown on las roper filed .... ....
+h.
+Audilional capital pail in since lest ecport..
+Sam of tal and sha-
+Paid-in Capital withdrawn singe last rupert.
+Paid-in Capital Sanct at dak of this roport
+HIGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+PERIOD•••••
+4) COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+DURING REPORTING
+1. TAX IPLE: JAtome figure. or $150 whichever is greater)
+5) PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+2004 or 55000 whichever is greater potally for failure is pay hy June 30"
+14 inces compromied annually for cath month or per choco hy which paymen is
+adayed Payund June 7I°
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+3=
+• TOTAL DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sum of 14) thi and (5 (e)
+$.1142.21
+(Allach checks payable to The Gonernment of the Virgin Islands and mail documents to the Office of the Lieutenant Covernor, Division of
+Corporation and Trademarks, 5049 Kongtas Cade, St.
+VE 008U2-6487.)
+Certified Correct
+Manne Sunras
+Treasurer
+VI-JPM-000013494
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 18 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE.
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St. Thomas. USVI 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI: Maria Hodse, 1340 Taamsters St. | VI 00802
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin Islands
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31, 2009
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31, 10
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL
+AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1.000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL. AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764.808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL. IISED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL.
+YEAR: 764.808
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E. Epstein, Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter. B.
+SI. MI
+VI 00802-1348; Serves unil successor elected
+Cecile de Jongh. Director/Vice Presidenu/Secrelar|
+_VI 00801. Serves until successor elected
+Jeanne
+Dirccior/Vice President/Treasurer
+Se Thomas. VI 00802. Serves until successor elected
+DATED: June 30,2011
+VERIFIED
+(PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT,
+horilatio
+(TREASURER OR ASST. TREASURER:
+#last report led does not cover the period immediately preceding this period covered by this report, a supplementary reg
+the same lom must be fed, bridging the gap, It any, between the two repo
+2. THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE SHEET
+AND
+PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN
+ISLANDS CODE. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT.
+VI-JPM-000013495
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 19 of 77
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMBANY, INC.
+EIN
+As of December 31, 2012
+CASH AND CASH EQLIVALENTS
+ACCOUNTS AECEIVABLE
+RELATED INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY
+PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, not of depresiation
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+LIABILITIES ON SECURITIES SOLD NOT YET PURCHASED
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
+Comman and paid in capital
+Retained earnings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+TATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNING
+or the year ended December 31, 201
+29,428,408
+105,787,562
+72,238,145
+264,732
+4.070,632
+211,789,480
+1,230
+1,263,226
+1204,456
+784,800
+209.760.211
+210,525.024
+
+Fae income
+Relalated investment losses
+Total revenues
+Investment expenses
+General and administraive expenses
+Total expenses
+NET LOSS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, beginning of year
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, end of year
+(42.277251)
+113277267)
+E 88,500
+1,658,291
+1718.700
+(13.984,055)
+243.449,791
+19,695,520
+- 300, 760 216.
+VI-JPM-000013496
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 20 of 77
+EIN # O
+As of December 31, 2011
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
+RELATED INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDLARY
+PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, net of depreciation
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+LIABILITIES ON SECURITIES SOLD NOT YET PURCHASED
+TOTAL LIABILITES
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common and paid in capital
+Retained earrings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+For the year ended December 31, 201
+$
+29,608,037
+3,743,963
+109,811,863
+$7.110,019
+304,946
+4,095,397
+244,674225
+18,109
+441,517
+459.026
+764,808
+
+Fee income
+Relaiated investmert losses
+Total revenues
+investment expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET LOSS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, begining of year
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, end of year
+100,000
+(9.228,140)
+- 0728140)
+- Ad6 495
+2633,460
+- 3441.954
+(12,570,084)
+273,469,8B6
+17,450,000
+243.449,.791
+VI-JPM-000013497
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 21 of 77
+FINANCIAL, TRUST COMPANY, INC
+EIN «
+As ol December 31, 2010
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
+RELATED INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY
+PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, net of depreciation
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+LIABILITIES ON SECURITIES SOLD NOT YET PURCHASED
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common slock and pad in capital
+Retained earings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+TATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNING
+or the year ended December 31, 201
+28.173,321.80
+1,456,637:30
+126,843,024
+114,453,570
+340,673
+3,889,312
+225.155.550
+845
+920,000
+920,845
+764,808
+Fee income
+Relatated invessment losses
+Total revenues
+Investment expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET LOSS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, beginning of year
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, end of year
+100.000
+(18.008.043)
+1172900,0431
+5,365,105
+2.124,682
+7.480,787
+(25.397.8390)
+333,445,836
+34.578,120
+273,468.846
+VI-JPM-000013498
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 22 of 77
+(Due on or before June 30" of each year.)
+ursuant to Title 29, Chapter 12, Section 716 (a) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring tl
+ing stockholders, the tollowing statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Govern
+NAME OF ENTITY - Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Exempt Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+0
+MAILINGADDRESS _ 6100 Red Hook Qur Suite B-3 St. L
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited Liability Partnership
+Domestic Corporation
+Foreign Corporation
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+1 VI 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION_Ten (10) years
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE I
+OR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Name
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+Address
+Perent
+S100 Red How Or Se B-3 100%
+VI 00802
+Bona fide
+Residents
+Г
+Г
+Note: This report must also include the names and addresses of all legal or equitable owners of such benefited business
+who have or will claim benefits under this chapter as bons fide residents of the Virgin Islands; pursuant to Act-Mo
+6748.
+DATED June 30, 2007
+VERIFIED
+President or Vice President
+Secretary, or Asst Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013499
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 23 of 77
+FILE TENANT COVERNOR
+GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF Tia: UNITED STATES
+REPORT
+DIVISION OF CAPERATON AND TRAMARKS
+TE3.(446) 7N-4319 + 1 AT. c340) 770-4662
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 53I, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+THIS KIRIT IS DUEON OR BEHE JUME WITH IN LACH YEAR»
+EMPLOYER LD. Nº.:
+ENTERED SEP 0 7 2010
+Bate of Rupert: Juex.23.20...
+Date of Ram Maper: Jese 11,242
+This Report in for the Foried Finded June W.3010....
+1) NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trun Company, Inc
+Puke: 6100 Red Hook Charter 13-3 5l. Thana USVI00M12
+Date of Incorporation: Novemhr 6. 1998
+Kind of Hosiness: Survices
+21 AMOUNT OF CAPITAL
+AUTHORIZED:
+Whon best ropert file
+3 AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL
+USED IN CONDUCTINC BUSINESS:
+As stown in last rupurt filed
+Audional cupital paid in sance law nopen
+Sum ce cal and she-
+Pak-in Capital edib drawn since lass supoet.
+Pre in Capies/
+tal date of this rupunt.
+HICHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+DURING REPORTINO
+PERIOD......
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+At rade ol$1.50 por M (rations of a dresand disnegardads on
+highest stal paid-in capital suest as pertad on time trating $14771.
+h. TAX INDE: (Ahome figane: or 51.50 whichevor la grouters
+SI PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+30i we $50.00 whichever is grcus penalty foe failura to pay hy June 30°
+h.
+a cArs companied anally is sach march or per there by which paymem
+dclayod beyond June 30°
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+6) TOTAL DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH ‹Sum of (4) (h) and (5: (e)
+(Acach checks payable to The Government of the Virgin Istands and mail documents to the Office of the Lieu
+Corporation and Trademarks, 5049 Kongers Gade, St.
+V1 00802-6447.3
+,S7041
+1,14
+1147.21
+Governer, Daisien a
+E put 3123
+Certified Correct
+Cucase Duanor
+Treasurer
+VI-JPM-000013500
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 24 of 77
+Particulars of Franchise Tax and Annual Report Filing 2019
+SOUTHERN TRUST COMPANY, INC. (581871)
+Filing Date
+07/31/2019 7:41 PM
+Changed
+Handling Option
+Standard Processing
+Capital
+Used in Conducting Business in USVI
+Amount of Capital
+Additional Capita
+revious Valu
+Total Capital
+Previous Value
+Perial Valderamn
+Amount of Capital at Date of
+his Repor
+Previous Valu
+lighest Capital Amoun
+uring the reporting Perio
+Handling Option
+Annual Report for Filing Year
+Tax Identifier Number
+1,000.00
+2,248,643.00
+2249643.00
+0.00
+2,249,643.00
+2,249,643.00
+Standard Processing
+2019
+Business Mailing Addresses
+Principal Office or Place of
+Business
+Mailing Address
+9053 Estate
+1, Ste 101, Charlotte Amalie, United States Virgin
+Islands, 00802, United States
+Mailing Address is the same as the Physical Address
+Directors/Officers
+VI-JPM-000013501
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+. Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 25 of 77
+Name
+Status
+Physical Address
+Mailing Address
+Email Address
+Position
+Term Expiration
+Name
+Status
+Physical Address
+Mailing Address
+Email Address
+Position
+Term Expiration
+Name
+Status
+Physical Address
+Mailing Address
+Email Address
+Position
+Term Expiration
+Jeffrey EPSTEIN
+Active
+5100 Red Hook Qir, B3, Charlotte Amalie, United States Virgin Islands
+D0802, United States
+Mailing Address is the same as the Physical Address
+Ekellerhals@kellfer.com
+Perpetual
+Darren INDYKE
+Active
+Mailing Address is the same as the Physical Address
+Secretary
+Perpetual
+Richard KAHN
+Active
+Mailing Address is the same as the Physical Address
+Treasurer
+Perpetual
+Documents
+Did the entity have Economic
+Activity during the reporting
+Previous Value
+Balance Sheet
+Income Statement
+Yes
+BALANCE SHEET.doex07/31/2019 7:22 PM
+Created
+Created
+INCOME STATEMENT.doex07/31/2019 7:22 PM
+VI-JPM-000013502
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 26 of 77
+Signature(s)
+Name
+Position
+On Behalf Of
+Name
+Date
+Name
+Position
+Date
+I DECLARE, UNDER
+PENALTY OF PERJURY,
+UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
+UNITED STATES VIRGIN
+ISLANDS, THAT THIS
+OFFICER HAS AGREED BY
+RESOLUTION TO THE
+CHANGES MADE IN THIS
+APPLICATION.
+Daytime Contact
+Name
+Telephone
+Email
+I DECLARE, UNDER
+PENALTY OR PERJURY,
+UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
+UNITED STATES VIRGIN
+ISLANDS THAT ALL
+STATEMENTS CONTAINED
+IN THIS APPLICATION,
+AND ANY
+ACCOMPANYING
+DOCUMENTS, ARE TRUE
+AND CORRECT, WITH
+FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT
+ALL STATEMENTS MADE
+HALS
+Attorney in Fact
+Jeffrey EPSTEIN
+07/31/2019
+Richard KAHN
+Treasurer
+07/31/2019
+Yes
+Ms. Erika Kellerhals
+(1) 340-779-2564
+Yes
+VI-JPM-000013503
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 27 of 77
+IN THIS APPLICATION
+ARE SUBJECT TO
+INVESTIGATION AND
+THAT ANY FALSE OR
+DISHONEST ANSWER TO
+ANY QUESTION MAY BE
+GROUNDS FOR DENIAL,
+SUBSEQUENT
+REVOCATION OF
+REGISTRATION, OR
+OTHER FINES AND
+PENALTIES PURSUANT TO
+THE FRAUDULENT
+CLAIMS STATUTE AS SET
+FORTH IN 14 V.I.C. § 843.
+Submitted By
+ekellerhals
+107.72.178.96
+ERIKA KELLERHALS
+Receipt Date
+Time Zone
+Locale
+07731/2019 7:41 PM
+Atlantic Standard Time
+English
+VI-JPM-000013504
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 28 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE.
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 5100 Red Hook Quarter. B3, St. TH USVI 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI: Maria Hodes. 1340 Tharehere St. IM
+I VI 00802
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin Islands
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31. 2008
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 3L, 2009
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL |
+AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1,000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764,808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+YEAR: 764.808
+MAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E. Epstein, Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+I VI 00802-1348; Serves until successor elected
+Cecile de Jongh, Director/Vice President/Secretary/
+StI
+Leanne
+I| VI 00801. Serves until successor elegra
+StI
+_Director/Vice President/Treasurer
+I VI 00802, Serves until successor clected
+DATED: June 30,2010
+VERIFIED
+TROAUHENONAS PRESEN
+If last report filed does not cover the period immediately preceding this period covered by this report, a supplementary rep
+the same lom must be filed, bridging the gap, if any, between the two repor
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE SHEET
+AND
+PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN
+ISLANDS CODE. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT.
+VI-JPM-000013505
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 29 of 77
+EIN AI
+December 31, 2007
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+$
+4,732.504
+278,443,231
+133,395,223
+337,839
+59.671,409
+476,580,206.
+79
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common and paid in capital
+Retained earnings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNING:
+Year ended December 31, 200
+Fee income
+Investment income
+Total revenues
+Investmant expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Totai expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+764,808
+475.815.319
+476,580.127
+476.590,206
+2030.
+CORPU.
+g
+3965,864
+47853,611
+
+233,615
+1.452,706
+1.666.321
+49.333,154
+475,211,165
+48.729.000
+5= 475815,319
+VI-JPM-000013506
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 30 of 77
+GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
+THE LEMAN COME
+REPORT
+INVISIN O CEMPURATION AND MEMDEMARKS
+11.00 776-8505*FAX :340 775-4602
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13. SECTION 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+THIS RENT IS DUE ON OR SEEN JUNE TUTH CN EACH YEAR:
+EMPLANER I.D. Nig
+Dose of Rope: 30---
+Die of has Report June 301, 3tAK
+This Report is for the Period taded Jon N" 20...
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trus Company, Inc.
+Adings: 600 Red Hork Quarter H. 3 St
+Duld of Incorporation: Novumhor o, 1998
+Kind of Business: Servacy
+2* AMOUNT OF CAPITAL S
+AUTHORIZED:
+Whee last report filcd
+On date of this spen
+3› AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL!
+LISED IN CONDUCTING BESENESS:
+As shown on last super liked
+Audional capital paid in since last rupert
+Sam of tal and thi
+Pad-in Cupital wihdrawn since last sport.
+Paid-in Captial Stock at date of this ropert
+HIGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+OL RING REPORTING
+4) COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+a. A rake o$1.50 per M (fractines of a thoused disregarded: on
+highest intal pood in captal sack as reper on line 3u above 5.1142.21
+h.
+TAX DUE: (Ahave figar, or 5150 whichover is grcaler)
+5) PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+2052 or 550.00 which set is greater parally for fandore to pay hy June Tor
+B.
+delayed heyund Jane 3r*
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+
++ 5:
+TOTAL DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sum of (4) (bi and (5) (c)
+SITAL
+LAllach checks payable to The Gortrement of the Virgin Islands and mail documents to the Office of the Lieulenant Centreer, Division of
+Corperation and Trademarks, 5049 Kongens Gade, St.
+VI 00902-6487.5
+Certified Correct
+Goss Guaran
+Treasurer
+Taunt ishe
+VI-JPM-000013507
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 31 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE.
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6102 Red Hook Quarter, B3. St. Thomas, USVI 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI: Maria Hodes, 1340 Taamebers St. I1| VI 00802
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin Islands
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31, 2007
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31, 2008
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL
+AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1,000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764.808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTINC BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL.
+VEAR: 764.808
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL VEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Darren Indyke, Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+SL.
+VI 00802-1348; Serves until successor elected
+Cecile de longh, Director/Vice President/Secretary |
+St.'
+VI 00801, Serves until successor electer
+Leanne
+Director/Vice President/Treasurer
+SeThomas, VI. 00802, Serves until successor electer
+DATED: June 30. 2009
+VERIFIED-
+ESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT›
+LONN
+Quitar
+TREASURER OR ASST. TREASURER,
+* last son the does for led the giri play receding the red covered by is ra, a seemery pr
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE SHEE
+AND
+PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN
+ISLANDS CODE. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT.
+VI-JPM-000013508
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 32 of 77
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY. INC
+EIN =
+As of December 31, 2008
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
+RELATED INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY
+PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, net of depreciation
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+145,493,041
+5,040,548
+57,717,468
+141,165,001
+308,736
+14,495.336
+364.220, 131
+8,972
+8.972
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common I and paid in capital
+Retained earings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+TATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNING
+or the year ended December 31,200
+Fee income
+Relalated investment incorne
+Other related losses
+Total revenues
+Investment expenses
+General and administraive expenses
+Total expenses
+NET LOSS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, beginning of year
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, end of year
+5
+764,808
+63.446,350
+64,211.158
+384,220,131
+GOI
+JEE:
+5д0.000
+2580,006.
+(105.j2g,459)
+(95,446,770)
+3,440,476
+1.981.721
+3.422,197
+(100.868,968)
+475,815.319
+11,500,000
+383,446,350
+VI-JPM-000013509
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 33 of 77
+GOVERNMENT C
+HE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF' ¿ UNITED STATES
+THE LIUTENANT GOVERNOR
+REPORT
+P CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DI
+URSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODI
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(THES REPORT IS DUE ON OR SUITORS JUNE 30™ OF BACH YBAR)
+EMPLOYER I.D. Na.
+Dele of Report Ivre 30, 2008
+Delo of Last Report June 30 2007
+This Report in for the Period Faded June 30%, 2008.
+2.)
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+(a) Address: 6100 Red Hook Otr. B3, St Il
+(b) Dole of Incorporation: November 6, 1998
+(c) Kind of Business: Services
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AUTHORIZED:
+LUSVI 00802
+(a) When last report filed
+(b) On date of this report
+3) AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS,
+4)
+(a) As shown on last report filed
+(b) Additional capital paid in since last report
+(c)
+Sum of (a) and (b) ... ........
+(d) Paid-in Capital withdrawn since last report .....
+(e) Paid-in Capital
+st date of this report "....-..
+(* IICHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK DURING REPORTINO
+PERIOD
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+(a) Al rate of $1.50 per M (fractions of a thousand disregarded) on
+highes total pachin capital stock as reported on Line 3(D) above S.!147......
+(b) TAX DUE: (Above figure, or 5150 whichever is greater )
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+(a) 10% penalty for failure to pay by June 30*.............
+(b) 1% interest for cach month or part thereof by which payment is
+delayed beyond June 30°............
+(c)
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+......°
+......
+OTAL, DUE AND FORWARDED WEREWTTH (Sam of (4) (b) and (f (c)
+uttach check payable to The Lieutenant Governor.
+Certified Correct
+$ 1000 shames of common 1 no par value
+$ 1900 shares of common stock no par value
+$ 754.808
+S.....
+S....
+5 78A30
+8 704,808 8
+5: 14721
+
+Treasurer
+Re. 0/71
+VI-JPM-000013510
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 34 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Ins.
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6100 Red Hook Quarter. B3. Sr. I
+I USVI 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI: Maria Hodes, 1340 Teameber St. I VI 00802
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin Islands
+FISCAL VEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31, 2006
+FISCAL VEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31, 2007
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL
+AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1,000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764.808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+YEAR: 764.808
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Darren Indyke, Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+SL. I
+L. VE 00802-1348:
+Serves until successor elected
+Cecile de longh, Director/Vice President/Secretary
+St.
+VI 00801 Serves until successor elected
+Jeanne
+Director/Vice President/Treasurer
+St
+VI 00802, Serves until successor elected
+2000.
+DATED: June 27, 2008
+VERIFIED_ sMe
+(PRESIDENT OR VICE RESIDENT,
+TREASURE ASSET EASUREM
+1. Iflast report fied does not cover the period immediately preceding this period covered by this report, a supplementary report
+on the same fom must be liled, bridging the gap, if any, between the two reports
+VI-JPM-000013511
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 35 of 77
+HE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
+GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES
+REPORT
+DIVISION OF CORPORATION AND TRADEMARKS
+TEL 0409736-4313+ FAX 134097364412
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 53I, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+OMESTIC CORPORATIO
+IS REPORT IS DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE JETH OF EACH VE
+EMPLOYER L.D. Ne:
+Date of Riper: tune 29.2007.
+Date of Last Rigort: Jane 30. 3000,
+This Report is for the Period Ended June 3*:3001...
+GO.
+.tSpretee.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+Address. 6100 Red Hook Quarter B-J St
+B. Dete af iscorporatien Neventer 5, 1998
+c.
+Kind of Business: Services
+USV: 00802
+2) AMOUNT OF CAPITAL
+AUTHORIZED:
+When last report filed
+On date of this repon
+3) AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS:
+As shown on last report filed ........
+Additional capital paid in since last report
+Sum of (a) and (b)
+P'aid-in Capital withdrawn since last report.
+Paid-in Capital Stock at date of this report
+HIGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+PERIOD...
+DURING REPORTING
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+Al mic
+highes
+1.50 per M (fractions of a thousand disregardod) on
+I paid-in capital sock as reported on Line 3(l) above
+TAX DUE: (Above figure, or 5150 whichever is greaier)
+S.LIAZ2L
+5)
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+20% or $50.00 whichever is greater penalty for failure to pay by June 30%
+S...
+b.
+1 % interest compounded antually for each month or part thereof by which payment is
+delayed beyond June 30°
+5......
+€ Total Pemalty And Interest:
+3.7048U2
+.3.764808
+S1721
+6) TOTAL DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sam of (4) (b) and (5) (c)
+5114721,
+(Attach checks payable to The Ceveramest of the Virgin Islands and mail dacuments to the Office of the Lieutenant Geverner, Division of
+Corporation and Trademarks, 5049 Kongens Cade, St. Thomas, VI 00802-6487.)
+Certified Corne
+Treasurer
+VI-JPM-000013512
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 36 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company. Inc.
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St.)
+. USVI 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI: Maria Holes, 1340 Taameters St. VI 0080252
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin [slands.
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31,2005
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31. 2006
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL
+¿ AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1,000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764,808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+YEAR: 764.808
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E, Epstein, Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+St.
+. VI 00802-1348; Serves until successor elected
+Cecile de Jongh, Director/Secretary/ Treasurer!
+St.
+i. VI 00801. Serves until successor ere»
+Ghislaine Maxwell, Director,
+St
+VI 00802-1348. Serves until successor elected
+DATED: June 27, 2007
+VERIFIED
+"PRESIDENT OR VICE FRESIDENT)
+(TREASURER OR ABST. TREASURER)
+• I last report filed does not cover the period immediately preceding this period covered by this report, a supplementar
+port on the same form must be filed, bridging the gap, if any. between the two repon
+2. THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE SHEET AND
+PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT.
+VI-JPM-000013513
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 37 of 77
+EIN S
+BALANCE CHEET
+December 31, 2006
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+RECEIVABLES
+INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+LIABILITIES ON SECURITIES SOLD NOT VET PURCHASED
+DUE TO BROKER
+I SUBSCRIPTION PAYABLE
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common #ll and paid in capital
+Retained earrings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+TATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNING
+aar ended December 31, 20
+55,700.201
+72,092
+303.000,394
+117,067,802
+316.672
+11.050.034
+
+2,434
+11,184,465
+43,404
+1,000
+11.251,303
+764, BaB
+475.211,165;
+475.975.973
+481201216.
+Fee income
+Investment income
+Total revenues
+Investmen: expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+65.984,569
+8.051.002
+744.005.971
+1,954.568
+1.337.239
+3201,806
+70.744,165
+474,967,000
+70,500,000
+478,211.165
+VI-JPM-000013514
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 38 of 77
+OFFICE OP
+THE LISUTENANT OOVERNOR
+GOVERNMENT O HE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF 1 & UNITED STATES
+REPORT
+OP CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DIE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIROIN ISLANDS CODI
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(TES REPORT IS DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 1O OF SACH YEAR)
+EMPLOYER LD. No.
+Date of Report: June 30, 2005
+Dale of Laur Report: June 30, 2004
+This Report in for the Period Baded Juse 304, 2005..
+1)
+3)
+4)
+5)
+NAME OF CORPORATION:..
+Financial Trust Company, Inc
+(a) Addresa: 5100 Red Hook Qor. B3, 51
+(b) Date of Incorporation: November 6,1998
+(e)
+Kind of Business: Services
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL
+K AUTHORIZED:
+3. USVI 00802
+(a) When last report filled
+()
+On dale of this report
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL
+CURED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS
+(a) As shown on last report filed
+(b) Additional capital paid in since lest report
+(c)
+Sum of
+(b) ....
+(d) Paid-in Capital withdrawn since last report
+(e) Paid-in Capital
+at date of this report
+(9) SIGIEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+DURING REPORTING
+PERIOD
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+(a) Al rate of $1.50 perM (tractions of a thousand disreganded on
+highest solel perist in capital shock as reportad on Line 3(2 above f2.19693
+(b) TAX DUE: (Above figure, or 5150 whichever is greater )
+$.....
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+(a) 10% perally for [silure to pay by June 30'..............
+(b) 1% interen for each month of part thereof by which payment is
+delayed beyoed Jus 30%........
+(c)
+Total Penalty And interest:
+5.
+....$.
+OTAI, DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sum of (4) (6) and (f) (e)
+Allach check payable to The Lieutenant Gevernor.
+Certified Correct
+$ 1000 shares ef semon slock no par value
+s 1999. shares.of commer no par vaiue
+5.28.79788
+$...
+**....
+• 28,033.0
+1704.00
+-... 0
+.....
+3.43, 196.83
+Treasurer
+Re. 0299
+VI-JPM-000013515
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 39 of 77
+IDUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St. 1
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+I USYI 00802
+KESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI: Paul Hoffman 41-42 Kongens Gade St. THI
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin Işlands
+T VI 00802
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31, 2003
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31. 2004
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL MILAT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1.000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764,808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+YEAR: 28,797.888
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL VEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E. Epstein, Director/President, 5100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+St. 1
+VE 00802-1348: Serves until successor elected
+Ghislaine Maxwell, Director, Treasurer, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+/ VI 00802-1348. Serves until successor elected
+GORPORATIONS
+Cecile de jongh, Secretary;
+St. IMI
+I VI 00801, Serves until successor elected
+2095 JUN 294 P 1: 39
+LT. GOV.
+ILE
+RECEIVED
+DATED: June 27, 2005
+VERIFIED
+"PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT)
+EITREASURER OR ASST. TREASURER)
+if last report filed does not cover the period immediately preceding this period covered by this report, a supplementi
+port on the same form must be filed, bridging the gap, if any, between the two repe
+. THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE SHEET AN
+PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN ISLANDS COD
+FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.
+VI-JPM-000013516
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 40 of 77 -
+(Due on or before June 30 of each year.)
+0-
+Ping to to olders, the following su ferent is tied the ice i earn ear
+, Section 4102 (b) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring the
+NAME OF ENTITY
+Financial Trust Company, Inc
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please sclect one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partership
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited Liability Partership
+(Domestic Corporation)
+Forcign Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+MAILING ADDRESS
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION
+6100 Red Hook Quarters B-3 St.
+Ten (10) years
+VI. 00802
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+6100 Red Hook Quarterai B-3
+American Yacht Harbor
+St.
+VI 00802
+DATED June 30, 2005
+VERIFIED
+President or Vice President
+Secretary or Asst. Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013517
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 41 of 77
+December 31, 2004
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+INVESTMENTS
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+LIABILITIES ON SECURITIES SOLD NOT YET PURCHASED
+LIABILITIES ON REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
+Common All and paid in capital
+Retained earnings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+Year ended December 31, 2004
+157,181,657
+405,285,955
+363,332
+383,762
+563.214,706
+9,753
+75.726,397
+11,978,000
+87.714,150
+764,808
+27 20 20
+1073
+Fee income
+Investment Income
+Total revenues
+Investment expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+$
+=
+**82.104.082
+73,581,555
+126.685,607
+16,018,008
+2,216,906
+18.234,994
+108.450,613
+366.285,135
+474.735.748
+VI-JPM-000013518
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 42 of 77
+GOVERNMEN 9 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS (E UNITED STATES
+THE LINUTENANT OVERNOR
+REPORT
+FCORPORATION PRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 331, VIROIN ISLANDS CODI
+DIVISION OF CORPORATIOM AND TRADEL
+TILL 04) 775-AS13 BAX (346) 776
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(TES XEPORT IS DUE OM OR BEFORE JUNE 20* PRACH YEAR)
+EMPLOYER LD. Ns.
+Date of Report: ivre 30, 2004
+Daze of Last Report June 30.2003
+This Reper in for the pend anded fun 30, 2002.
+1.)
+MAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Ine.
+(a) Address: 6100 Red Hook Our B3, St. 1
+(8) Date ef Incorporation: November 6, 1998
+(e) Kind of Business: Services
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL I
+AUTHORIZED:
+USVI 00802
+(e) When last report Filed..
+1)
+(6)
+On date of this report
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL
+USED IN CONDUCTINO BUSINESS:
+(a) As ahown on last report filed
+(b) Additional capital paid in since last report .....
+(c)
+Sum of (a) and (b) ..........
+(d) Paid-in Capital withdrawn since last report
+(a) Paid-in Capital Stock at dale of this report ....
+(0) SISCHEJ TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL LIL
+I DURING REPORTING
+PERIOD
+4) COMPUTATIOLI OF TAX:
+(a) Al rsie of 51.50 per M (fractions of a thousand disregarded) on
+Risha total parch in capital nock as reported on Lino 3) above s. 82,946.3...
+(b) TAX DUE: (Above figure, or 5150 whichever in greater)
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+(8) 10% perally for failure to pay by June 10*.............
+.......... 1.
+(b) 13% interest for each month of part thercof by which payment is
+delayed beyond June 30*..........
+...$.
+(c)
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+0
+0
+) TOTAL, DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sum of (4) (8) and (5) (e)
+Attach check payable to The Lieutenant Coveraor.
+Certified Carpect
+-6
+Treasurer
+Res. 43/79
+20
+09
+$ 1000 shares of common no par value
+$ 1000 shares of common Mine par value
+s.55.207.804
+....
+s.55.97.888
+§92046.89
+......
+, 82,945.83
+VI-JPM-000013519
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 43 of 77
+IDUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEARI
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company, Inc
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6J00 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St. Thomas, USVI 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: USVI
+90 R
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31. 2002
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31. 2003
+AMOUNT OF ALTHORIZED CAPITAL HIM/AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1,000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 28.797.888
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+YEAR: 55.297.888
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E. Epstein, Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, _B3
+St. Thomas. VL 00802-1348; Serves until successor elected
+Ghislaine Maxwell, Director, Treasurer, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+St 1
+VI 00802-1348, Serves until successor clected
+Cecile de longh, Secretary;
+St.
+VI 00801. Serves min successor elected
+DATED: June 25, 2004
+VERIFIED
+-PRESIDEN
+PRESIDENT)
+SEASURER OR ASST. TREASURER)
+. If last report filed does not cover the period inmediately preceding this period covered by this report, a supplementar
+eport on the same form must be filed, bridging the cap, if any, between the two reports
+2. THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE SHEET AND
+PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE.
+FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.
+VI-JPM-000013520
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 44 of 77
+(Due on or before June 30th of each year.)
+Pursuant to Title 29, Chapter 12, Section 716 (a) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring the filing
+stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
+NAME OF ENTITY Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Exempt Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+X
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited liability Partersh e
+Domestic Corporation
+oreign Corporatio
+oreign Limited Liability Compan
+1P
+VI 00802
+MAILINGADDRESS 6100 Red Hook Qtr Suite B-3 St.
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION Ten (10) years
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR MORE
+PERCENT OF THE I
+OR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Name
+Address
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+6100 Red Hook Qtr Ste B-3 St.
+Percent Bona fide
+%
+Residents
+VI 00802
+100%
+Note: This report must also include the names and addresses of all legal or equitable owners of such benefited business -
+who have or will claim benefits under this chapter as bona fide residents of the Virgin (slands, pursuant to Act No.578
+DATED June 30 2008
+VERIFIED
+Grease
+President or Vice President-Teanne
+CHET
+Secretary or Asst. Secretáry - Cecile de Jongh
+CHik
+Manager or Managing Paftner - Cecile de Jongh
+VI-JPM-000013521
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 45 of 77
+F PORT OF STOCKHOLDERS
+G.. TAX EXEMPTED ENTITIE:
+(Due on or before June 30" of each year.)
+Pursuant to Title 29, Chapter 12, Section 716 (a) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring the
+filing stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
+NAME OF ENTITY . Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited Liability Partnership
+•
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Domestic Corporation
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Corporation
+0
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+MAILINGADDRESS 6100 Red Hook Qtr Suite B-3 St. |||||: VI 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION _
+Ten (10) years
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OE ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE
+OR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Name
+Address
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+Percent
+%
+100%
+Bond Tide
+Residents
+6100 Red Hook Our Ste B-3
+St.
+I. VI 00802
+rai
+Note: This report must also include the names and addresses of all legal or equitable owners of such benefited business
+whe have or will claim benefits under this chapter as bons fide residents of the Virgie Işlands; pursuart to Aef No.
+DATED
+4/30/09
+VERIFIED
+Crasse
+Busia
+President or Rice President
+Secretaryor Asst Secretary
+Managg or Mahaging Partner
+VI-JPM-000013522
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 46 of 77
+GOVERNMENI 7 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF T'
+UNITED STATES
+THE LIKENNANT GOVERNOR
+REPORT
+DIVISIOM OF CORPORATION AND TRADIOLAAL
+CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DI
+TIL. (340) 7764515 FAX (340) 776-461:
+URSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIROIN ISLANDS COD
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(THES REFORT IS DUE ON OR ERY'ON UNE 39" OF BACH YEAR)
+EMFLOYER ID. Na
+(a)
+Address 6100 Red Hook Quarter
+83, S1.
+(b)
+Dose of Incarperation: Noverber 6, 1993
+(e) Kind of Businesa:
+Services
+2.)
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AUTHORIZED.
+When last report filed
+On dete of this report
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL. STOCK
+IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS
+4)
+(0)
+As shown on last report filed
+(b)
+Additional capital prud in since last report
+(c)
+Sam of (a) and (b) ...
+(d) Paid-in Capital widhdrawn since last report
+(4)
+Paid in Copilal Stock at date of this report
+I HIGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL |
+PERIOD
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+I DURING REPORTING
+(a) Al rate of $1.50 per M(iracdions ofa thousand disnegarded 1 O
+highes total paid-in capitel stock an reported on Lise 3(D) above 5.
+(a) TAX DUE: (Above figure, or 51S0 whithe ver is greater )
+S.
+PENALTY AND INTENEST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+(a) 10% perally for failure so pay by Juse 30"..
+(h) 1% interes fer each month of part theroof by which payment is
+delayed beyond June 30%.
+(c)
+Total Penaliy And latcrest:
+5..
+TOTAL, DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sam of (*) (b) and (9 0))
+Attach check payable to The Lieutenant Gaveraor.)
+Certified Correct
+
+Dose of Roport... June 38g 2003.
+Dale of LarRopon: 7. 5g...
+This Report is for the Period Baded Juae(04, 2003
+3
+Sm
+USVI 008G2
+~ 3: 49
+1000
+shares of corror
+3 stock no par. value....
+$ 1000
+staces of concon
+no par value
+$.60,827,413.......
+1.ip277+.122
+$.55,297.888.
+s.25.FFL.833
+......
+3. 100.241.A7.
+100, 241.42
+Treasurer
+Rm. 0/78
+*-Restated lo adjust for prior years distribations.
+VI-JPM-000013523
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 47 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSCANT TO SECTIONS 171 AND IT, CHAPTER L TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE.
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL, REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATIMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUIEIANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION FinaNCel Ixust Gongany...Inc..
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE 6100 894. Hook.Quarter.. 81..st...Thonas, USXI. 0д802:1348...
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIY ISLANDS ...Sane...
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICE INCORPORATID YSVI..
+FISCAL VEAR COVERED IT LAST IPORT FILED:.:December. 31...2001.
+FISCAL YEAII COVERED HY THIS REPORT: ... December. 21.. 2042..
+MOUNT OF AUTHORIED CAPTAINED IT CLOSE OF SCAL YEAR 1 ADD SLAKO2. NO. AGE VETS
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR 55.227,988
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIBGIY ISLANDS DURING TE FISCAL
+YEAR....*•
+.66.827..513.
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRAIION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrex. FrEestein. Rixester/President..6100 Red.Hook. Quarter).B3..
+S5. Thomas. YI 00892:1248 Serves. 405th successor elected.
+Darren K: Indyke. Director» Areasurer. and Secretary-
+New York: NY 10921
+Jeffrex A: Schantz. Direc
+Director
+New York,
+NY 10022
+Serves until successor
+elected.
+DATED: JuDe.25. 2003
+VERIFIED:
+Terri
+I. It last report filed does not cover the period immediately preceding the period corered by this report, a supple
+mentary report on the same form must be fled, bridging the gap, if any, between the two reports
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE
+SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN
+ISLANDS CODE. FIMANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INGEPENDENT PUBLIC
+ACCOUNTANT.
+VI-JPM-000013524
+
+
+OFFICE OP
+THE LEUTRHANT GOVERNOR
+EMPLOYER LD. No.
+REPORT
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(TES REPORT IS DUE ON OR REPORS JUNE 30 OF BACH YEAR)
+Dete oCReport THRA 28. 2002.
+Dato of LatRoper: June 30,.2001...
+This Repert in for the Period Ended June 308, 20.0
+USVI 00802
+NAME OF CORPORATION:. Financial TxASt Company.Inc
+(a) Address 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St.
+(b) Dete of Incorporation: November 6, 1998
+(c) Kind of Business:
+2) AMOUNT OF CAPITAL
+AUTHORIZED:
+(a) When las report filed
+(b) On date of this report
+3) AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL
+USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS.
+4)
+(a) As shown on last report filed
+(b) Additional capital paid in since last report
+(c)
+Sum of (a) and (b) •.....
+(d) Paid-in Capital withdrawn since last report
+(e) Paid-in Capital Stock at date of this report
+(* HIGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+PERIOD
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+DURING REPORTING
+(a) Al rale of $1.50 per M (fractions of a thousend disreganded) on
+highest total paid-in capital
+as reported on Line 3(D abore 5..
+(b) TAX DUE: (Above figure, or $150 whichever is grealer )
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+(a) 10% penalty for failure to pay by June 30°.....
+(b) 1% interest fer each month of part thereol by which payment in
+delayed beyond June 30°.............
+(c)
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+.....5..
+TOTAL DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Sum of (4 (b) and (S) (c)
+Attach ebeck payable to The Lieutenant Governor.
+Certified Correct
+$1000 shares of connor
+no par value
+s..88.279.478
+3. 89,279.478
+s...88.279.478.
+• 88.279.478
+S...
+...
+.. O
+...... 0
+132,419
+Res. 53/19
+VI-JPM-000013525
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 49 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSCANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND J73, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE.
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL HEPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITTI THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
+NAME OF CORPORATION FinanCiAL Trust Company.. Ioc...
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE ..8109Red..V00k.Quartor.. B3..St...Ibonas, USVI.DABA)........
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS .....SADe.
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI Paul. Voffnan..
+• Thorosz
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED ...USVI
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December.. 31...2000.
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: ... December. 31. 2991
+AMOUNT OF ALTHOSIZED CAPITAL
+AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR ..1,000..shares.no. DAI. value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR ...8.8..27.9,.47.9..
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+YEAR.....
+...8.8.279.A7&..
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+JeFErRY E FDAtRInA RiTAStOr/RIesident, 6100 Red HoRk Quarter... A3.
+St. Thomas...VI. 40802.. seryes until. successor Alected
+Darren. K.. Indyke, Director, Ireasurer. and Secretary.
+New York...NY. 10921. sarxea. until. successor, Alected.
+Jeffrey As Schantin Diractor..
+serves until successor elected.
+DATED: ..sune..28,..2002......
+VERIFIED:
+. Мен. хо. NX. 10022
+RECEIVE
+or (Vie
+Attims:
+(Treasurer) or (Asst.
+Treasurer)
+1. IE last report fled does not cover the period immediately preceding the period corered by this report, a supplementary report on the same form must be fled, bridging the gap, if any, between the two reports.
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE
+SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN
+ISLANDS CODE. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIGNED BY AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC
+ACCOUNTANT,
+VI-JPM-000013526
+
+
+1698a1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/97/63, Rage, 59 of 77
+PINANCIAL TRUST GOMEADY. INC
+December 31, 2005
+CASH AND CASH EQUALENTS
+RECEIVABLES
+INVESTMENTS
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+LIABLITIES ON SECURITIES |
+DUE TO BROKER
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+NOT YET PURCHASED
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common Ill and paid in capital
+Relained enmings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+TATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNING
+aar ended Decembar 31, 20
+24,682,395
+55,225
+473.416,997
+310,207
+11,099.766
+302,584,380
+958
+33,788,422
+43,404
+33.832,781
+a Sa
+5.964,80g
+Fee income
+Investmen: income
+Total revenues
+Inves:ment expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+30,879.818
+56.854.920
+87.734735
+42.103.84B
+2,149.935
+78.22405
+43,481.252
+474,735,748
+43.250,000
+474,567.000
+VI-JPM-000013527
+
+"Cafse"1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23'1 Page 51 of 77
+REFURT OF STOCKHOLDER
+(Due on or before June 30 of each year.)
+-0-
+Pursuant to Title 33, Chapter 201, Section 4102 (b) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring the
+filing stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
+NAME OF ENTITY Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please scloet one)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Forcien Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited Liability Partnership
+[Domestic Corporation)
+Foreign Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+MAILING ADDRESS: 6100 Red Hook Ovarters B-3 St J
+I VT 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION: Ten (10) Years.
+AMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) O
+TORE PERCENT OF THE
+TOR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Leffrey E. Epstein
+6100 Red Hook Quarter B-3 AXHLSt Thomas, VI 0O801
+2095 J0130 MIlI: 27
+DATED June 27,2006
+VERIFIED
+President or Vice Pr
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+Secretary or Asst. Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013528
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 52 of 77
+Balance Sheet
+As of December 31, 1998
+ASSETS
+LIABILITIES & EQUITY
+Equity
+JEE Funding
+Not Income
+Total Equity
+TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY
+Dec 31, 98
+0.00
+13,172.60
+-13,172.60
+0.00
+0.00
+VI-JPM-000013529
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 53 of 77
+Profit and Loss
+January through December 1998
+Jan - Dec '98
+0.00
+Total Legal & Professional
+Total Expense
+Net Income
+13.172.60
+13,172.60
+13.172.60
+-13,172.60
+RECEIVED
+301550 AL.: 17
+1999 0: 30 0 12 52
+VI-JPM-000013530
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 54 of 77
+07-0-2001
+09:22am
+From
+T-E21
+P.001/001
+OTICE OP
+THE LISUTEMANT GOVSFIDE
+REPORT
+OF CORPORATION YRANCHISE TAX DUR
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+TOES ASSORT IS DUE ON OR BEYONE IS A OF BACH YEAR
+/VISION OF CORPORATIOH AND TRAD
+EMPLOYER LD. Na.
+DeleoClopat: Tune 30, 2001
+Dale of Last Report Tune 30.2000.
+Thia Report in for the Period Boded Juan 30ª, 2!
+MAME OF CORPORATION. ....
+Financial Trust Companx..InG.
+(a) Address: 6100 Red Hook Quarter B-3, St.
+• USVI 00802
+(b) Doic of Incerporation:
+Novenber 6, 1998
+(•) Kind of Вмілева:
+Services
+2)
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AUTHORIZED:
+(a) When lad report Filed
+(b) On date of this report
+3)
+AMDUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL, STOCK UIED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS
+...
+(8) Asahow on last repon filed -....
+(b) Additional capital paid in since hast report
+Bum of (a) and (b) ..........
+(4) Paid-in Capilal withdrawn since last report .....
+(e) Paid-in Capital Stock at date of this repon .....-
+) ISCHIRST NOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK DURING REPORTING
+PERJOD
+COMPUTATION DF TAN:
+3 June 30, 2000
+-****
+of
+2000nbeseR o
+par valde
+3... 300,000
+≤ 97/.979.478
+s88.278.978
++ 88,279.478
+• 88, 279,478
+5)
+(a) Al rate of 51.50 per M (fractions of a thousand duregarded) on
+bighest total puid-in capital rock un reported on Line 300 above S..
+(5) TAX DUN: (Abore figure, or $150 whichever is greater)
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+132.419
+(a) 10% parally for failure la pay by June 30* .........
+1.
+(6) 1% interest for east manch or part themso by which payment in
+delayed beyond June 30°.....
++....5.
+(e)
+Total Penalty And laterest:
+•- 0
+0
+TOTAL DUE AND FORWARDED BEREWITH (Sum of (40 (b) and (9) (7)
+(Attach check payable to The Ileutenant Gevernor.)
+: 132, 419
+Certified Correct
+Desser Kalog
+Rm. 0299
+societaing
+*Fraident
+20'd 100º ON 22:6
+00,80 NNE
+: dI
+VI-JPM-000013531
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 55 of 77
+Jшn-28 2001
+05:04pm
+From
+T-472
+P.003/003
+f-172
+ANNUAL REPOST
+Ot: DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
+(GUE. ON CH DEFORR TUNE JO LE EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 173, CHAPLER 1, TITLE I5, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUTRING THE FILING OF ANHUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FORSION CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STA: IMENT IS FF.ED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENAN: GOVERNOR.
+LAME OF CORPORATION Financial Trust Company, Inc
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OSPICE 6100 Red Honk Qarter, Suite. BJ,.St-Thomas,..LISVI. 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIA JIN ISLANDS... Same..
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZE GENT IN THE V.. HaHosen
+Prr.Thaues, UBVI 0080:
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH NOCRPORATED LSVI.....
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED HY LAST REPORT FILED'. December 31. 1999
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT
+•Decamber 31., - 2000..
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL I
+AT CLOSE OF PISCAL YEAR 1,000. shames, fo-per value
+AMOUNT OP PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL 18AR... 88,279, 478
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+DURING THE FISCAL EEAR.......
+.88..279.478
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIREL TORS AND OFFICERS OF THA COMPANY AT THE CLOSE
+OF FISCAL YEAR AND 3XP'RATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Jeff. En. Epstein,, Director. and Presidart. 6100 Red bak Qortery c/o-Anarican. Yacht. Hutur
+Site 2St. Three, LEVL 00892, erves it stocs elected
+ww.Yock 10021ewtil, successor elected
+Jeffre. Ar chactia Director,.
+until successor elected
+DATED: June 29. 2001...
+Now: kark, New 304k 70028,
+VERLFIED:
+nD or bica Presiden
+1.
+2
+(Phobiss) or (hast. Trassure
+my procling; tie pried sumered ay this rope, a supplan
+IS HEPORT IS NOT COMPLES SICK ACCEPTABLE UNLAS ACCOM" INTED BY OBNERAL BALAN
+HEET AND PROF 1 AND ON JATEMEN 7: ALT PICAS FAR AS EQUIRED BY THE VIRGI
+ISLANU CODE. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE SIE NE JB: IN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC
+ACCOUNTANT.
+£0'd 100 ON 82:6
+00. 80 NDL
+: CT
+VI-JPM-000013532
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 56 of 77
+RECEIVED
+EIN#
+LT. COV. CEFICE December 31, 2001
+2007 UN 2" A 0 59:
+:0 301S
+CASH
+INVESTMENTS
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+OTHER LIABILITIES
+S
+$
+46,968,234
+179,004,937
+437,151
+114,013
+226.524.334
+20,460
+1,534.007
+1.554,46T
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common and paid in capital
+Retained earnings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+$
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+Year ended December 31, 2001
+66,827,613
+158,142,255
+224,969,868
+226,524,334
+Investment income
+Fee income
+Total revenues
+General and administrative expenses
+Investment expenses
+Total expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+20,995,777
+46,842,367
+67.838,144
+1,649,037
+3,786,144
+5.435,181
+62.402,963
+95.739.292
+158,142,255
+EE9EL0000-Wd
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 57 of 77
++
+(Due on or before June 30 of each year.)
+'ursuant to Title 33, Chapter 201, Section 4102 (b) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring th
+ling stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Governo
+NAME OF ENTITY Binancial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partuership
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+- Domestic Limited Liability Partership
+Domestic Corporation
+Foreign Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+MAILING ADDRESS 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3, St.
+VI 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION
+Ten (10) years
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE
+| OR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Jeffrey F. Epstein, 6100 Red Hook Quarter
+c/e American Yacht Harbor, #2
+St. Thomas, VI 00802
+DATED
+June 25, 2002
+VERIFIED
+(President or Vice President
+Secrelary or Asst. Secretary
+Manager or Managing Panner
+VI-JPM-000013534
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 58 of 77
+CIFICE OF
+IURUPEMANT GOVERMON
+REPORT
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHEE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 11, SECTION 531, VIRGIN SLANDS
+DIVISOR OF CORPOBATICRN AND TRADES
+TIL ONLY T7S8TES FAI CHAY?
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(THUS RIDICAT IS DUE ON OR NEPORS IS 30% OP RACE VINE)
+ROVER LD. No
+Doss of Report.
+June 30, 2000
+Data of Last Repor ...
+1999
+June 22, 1995
+This
+Mar opened End luna so....
+Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+6100 Red Hook Quarter B-3, St.
+November 6, 1998
+-
+Services
+NAME OF CORPORATION:
+(8) Address:
+(b) Date of Incorporation
+(e) Kied of Busines
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AUTRORIZED:
+(a) When lut report fled
+(b) Ca date of this reper ...
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CARITAL STOCK UBED IN CONDUCTEYO BUSTES
+(9) As shown on last report fa...
+(b) Addidions capital paid in since lest repos
+(e)
+Susa of (a) and().......
+(d) Paid-in /
+mises alace last report -...
+(e) Pric-in Capital Stock at date of dia rapart.......
+IGHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK DURING REPORTING
+PERIOD
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+(a) Al rate of $1.50 per M (factions of a thousand disregarded) on
+highess total paid in capital stock as reported a Line 3(D) above $.4.50..
+(by TAX DUR (Above figura or 5130 wichever in grater)
+$..450
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYSINTI
+(a) 10%% penalty for lulure to pay by Juse 30"......
+..5....
+(b) 1% intact for west tonect or part thermol by which paymens is
+delayed beyond Jun 30".....
+(C)
+.s..d
+Tetal Penalty And Interent:
+OTAL. BUR AND FORWARDED HEREWTTH (Sea of (0)() and and (e) (c)1
+(Arzach check payable to The Lleutenans Geversor.)
+4 Correct
+S
+M/A.
+1000 shares of
+• valuen stock, no Dia
+3... NA...
+- 30R.000
+300,000
+......
+-209.000
+5.....150
+450
+VI-JPM-000013535
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 59 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+" PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND $T3, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING THE FILING OR ANNUAL, SEPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING BIATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIZUTENANT GOVERNOR
+NAME OF CORPORATION ...
+Pinancial. Trust Company.
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFPICE•..................
+6100 Red Hook Quarter. B=3:
+St
+USVI 00802.
+FRICIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ....
+Same
+RESIDENT OB AUZEORIZED AGENT IN THE VI Past. Hoffpani.
+Thor
+0Si00
+COUNTLEY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED ....
+FISCAL TEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED! .
+DecE
+1998
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT:.. December. 31. 1999
+AMOUNT OR AUTORIZED CATAL STOCE AT CLOSE OF TISCAL TEAR 1. 00l abarag. de. ppE. value
+AMOUNT OF PAIDEY CAPTIAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR...9..
+AMOUNT OY CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WIKIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FIS-
+CAL TEAR....!
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DISCIORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL
+YEAR AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Director
+Hook Quarter
+üntif success
+•elected..
+Darren
+NY, NY 10021, setves un
+Jeffrey.A. Schantz. Directors..
+until successor elected
+DATED:
+19z. 29-00
+Successot
+elected
+NX. NX. 10022. nerves
+VERIFIED:
+Presidenis
+(Treasurer)
+1. It latt report filed dow not cover the period tramediately preceding the period corered by this report. a
+supplementury report on the same form must be fled, bridging the gap, it any, between the two mporta
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE
+SHEİST AND PROPIT AND LOSS STATEMENT POR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR
+AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+VI-JPM-000013536
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 60 of 77
+Financial Trust Company, Inc
+December 31, 2000
+CASH
+INVESTMENTS
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+OTHER LIABILITIES
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUIT
+common and Pard-in-Capita
+Retained eamings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+Year Ended December 31, 2000
+$ 83.682,149
+101.643,311
+555,875
+1,090,097
+3186.971.432
+$0,101
+2.862,561
+2.952,062
+88,279,478
+18500,20.
+J166.971,432
+Investment income
+Fee Income
+Total revenues
+General and administrative expenses
+Investment expenses
+Total expensas
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+$ 30,746,043
+44.208,405
+75.042,448
+1,271,258
+1,305,809
+2.577.087.
+72,485,381
+23,273,911
+3 95739,292
+VI-JPM-000013537
+
+"Case 1.22-Cv-10904-JSR 'Document 268-52 Filed 08/07123va®age 61 af. 77
+GOVERNMEN
+-HE VIRGIN ISLANDS ON.
+UNITED STATES
+THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
+REPORT
+IF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+DIVISON OF CORPORATICH AND TRADELAK
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODI
+TEL CHATIASIS FAX CANTIN
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(THIS REPORT IS DUE ON CR BEFORE JUNE 30% OF EACH YEAR)
+EMPLOYER LD. Na
+1.)
+Date of Report June 22:
+1999
+Date of Last Report. ....
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company.
+Inc.
+This Roper is for tie Penal Endel sue 30%
+(a) Address C/O Paul Hoffman, P.C.,
+P.O.
+Box 870, St.
+USVI
+(b) Dase of lacorporation: November 6,
+1998
+00804-0870
+(c) Kind of Busine: Services
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AUTHORIZED:
+(a) When last report filed •..
+(b)
+On date of this report ....
+3)
+INT OF PAID IN CAPITAL STOCK USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS.
+(a)
+As shown on last report filed
+(b) Additional capital paid in since last repor
+(c)
+Sum of (a) Had ..........
+(d)
+Paid in Capical withhows since las report
+(e) Paid-in Capital Stock at date of this repart
+HICHEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL
+PERIOD
+DURING REPORTING
+4) COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+N / A
+$...
+s..1,000 shares of commo
+stock, no par vatue
+:: 300,000
+: 300.000
+= 300,000
+(a) Al rac of 31.50 per M (fractions of a thousad disregarded) re
+highest total pid ta capital stock as reported on Line 3(D) abore $.45.0.
+(b) TAX DUR: (Abore igure, or 5150 whicherer is greater )
+'s 450
+PENALTY AND INTEREST POR LATE PAYMENT:
+3.450.
+(a) 10% petalty for fsilure to pay by Juse 30".....
+(b) 1% interest for each uponth or part thereof by which payment is
+delaynd beyond June 30....
+3.°
+(c)
+Total Penaity Aed Interest:
+TAL DUE AND FORWARDED HEREWITH (Seas af (4) (6) and (5) f
+Attach check payable to The Lieuteasat Governor
+$ 450
+ertified Correct
+Dank Mot
+Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013538
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 62 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+RISQUIING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS HY DOMESTIC AND FOUGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATIMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVINOR g
+NAME OF CORPORATION Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+ADDRESS OF JAY OVIE /o Paul Hoffman, P.C., P.Ö. Box" 870, "St:" Thomas, USU
+90804-087
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Sane.
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI. Paul Hoffmany
+St. Thom
+USV1 00802
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WEDCH INCORPORATED ..USVI.
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED ' N/ A
+PISCAL YEAR COVERED BY THIS BEPORTI... December. 31e. 1999
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK AT
+OF FISCAL YEAR 1,000 sbares, no. par value
+AMOUNT OP PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF PISCAL YEAR .....Q..
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE F15-
+CAL I
+. Д
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFYICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL
+YEAR AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TEAMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E. Epstein,
+USVI;
+barten. Ko
+serves
+ant 119...
+Pirector and secretary.
+succeSSor
+elected
+NY, NY 100
+Amanda. J.. Ellison, Director..
+serves until successor electe
+Palm Beach, FL 33480,
+DATED:
+VERIFIED
+→aysecretary
+%. If let report fled dots unt cover the period immediately preceding the period carered by this repert •
+supplementary report on the same form must be illed, bridging the cap, if any, betwees the too reporte
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTABLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE
+SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSE STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR
+AS REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE.
+VI-JPM-000013539
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 63 of 77
+(Due on or before June 30 of each year.)
+Pursuant to Title 33, Chapter 201, Section 4102 (b) of the Virgin Islands Code, Tequiling the
+fling stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Goyeroz e
+NAME OF ENTITY
+Financial Trust Company, Inc..
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limiled Liability Partnership
+Domestic Corporation
+Foreiga Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+MAILING ADDRESS
+6100 Red Hook Quarter, B-3, st.
+_VI. 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION -
+Ten (10) years
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE I
+LOR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Jeffrey F. Epstein, 6100 Red Hook Quarter
+c/o American Yacht Harbor, Suite 2
+st.
+T. VI 00802
+DATED
+VERIFIED
+President or Vice President
+Secretary or Asst. Secretary
+1
+VI-JPM-000013540
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 64 of 77
+Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+EIN #
+December 31, 1999
+ASSETS
+LIABILITIES
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common and Paid in Capital
+Retained eamings
+LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME
+Year Ended December 31, 1999
+CORPORATIONS
+2000 JUN 30 A II:
+24,472,690
+898,779
+300,000
+23,273,911
+23,573,911
+24.72,690
+REVENUES
+EXPENSES
+NET INCOME
+43,965,458
+264,268
+43,701,190
+STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS
+Year Ended December 31, 1999
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+NET INCOME
+DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTIONS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+43,701,190
+(20.427,279)
+23,273,911
+VI-JPM-000013541
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 65 of 77
+FINANCIAL TRUST GOMPANY. INC.
+December 31, 2003
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+INVESTMENTS
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+LIABILITIES ON SECURITIES SOLD NOT YET PURCHASED
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+CURPORATI
+JUN 30
+E 0д12 054
+335330,706
+357,117
+75,899
+395,646,418
+8,906
+554,489
+563.395
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common #ll and paid in capital
+Retained earnings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+Year ended December 31, 2003
+$
+28,797,888
+366,285,135
+395,083,023
+395,046.418
+Fee income
+Investment income
+Total revenues
+Investment expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+$
+58,954,853
+34.282,912
+83237,165
+1,4B0,406
+1,806,023
+3.286,429
+89.951,336
+276,333,799
+366.285.135
+VI-JPM-000013542
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 66 of 77
+Balance Sheet
+As of December 31, 1998
+ASSETS
+LIABILITIES & EQUITY
+JEE Funding
+Net Income
+Total Equity
+TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY
+Dec 31, '98
+0.00
+13,172.6
+13,172.6
+0.00
+0.00
+VI-JPM-000013543
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 67 of 77
+Profit and Loss
+January through December 1998
+Jan - Dec '98
+Income
+Expense
+Legal
+Total Legal & Professional
+Total Expense
+Net Income
+0.00
+13,172.60
+13,172.60
+13,172 60
+-13,172.60
+VI-JPM-000013544
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 68 of 77
+(Due on or before June 30" of each year.)
+Pursuant to Title 29, Chapter 12, Section 716 (a) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring the
+filing stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
+NAME OF ENTITY - Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+00
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Exempt Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+MAILINGADDRESS _ 6100 Red Hook Qtr Suite B-3 St.
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited Liability Partnership
+Domestic Corporation
+Foreign Corporation
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+VI 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION 2009 to March 2012
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE
+OR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Name
+Address
+Percent
+%
+Bona fide
+Residents
+Jeffrey E. Epstein
+_6100 Red Hook Our Ste B-3.
+_ 100%
+St.
+, VI 00802
+Г
+Г
+Note: This report must also include the names and addresses of all legal or equitable owners of such benefited business--
+who have or will claim benefits under this chapter as bona flde residents of the Virgin Isleft pursuant to Act No.
+6748.
+DATED
+40,15,12
+VERIFIED
+- Secretary or Asst. Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013545
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 69 of 77
+• PORT OF STOCKHOLD: >
+(Due on or before June 30" of each year.)
+-D-
+Pursuant to Title 29, Chapter 12, Section 716 (a) of the Virgin Islands Code, requiring the
+filing stockholders, the following statement is filed the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.
+NAME OF ENTITY
+Fenencial Trust Company, Inc.
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited Liability Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Domestic Corporation
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Corporation
+U
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+MAILINGADDRESS 4100 Led Hoot. Querte B3 St. Thomes USVI 00802
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION
+_.Five Leers
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE
+LOR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Name
+Jeffrey E. Epsten.
+Address
+GioD Red Hook Otr 83
+37. Thames, VI
+Percent
+%
+100
+Bona fide
+Residents
+F
+Note: This report must also include the names and addresses of all legal or equitable owners of such benefited business
+who have or will claim benefits under this chapter as bona fide residents of the Virgin Istands, pursuant to Act No.
+6748.
+DATED
+4/30/10
+VERIFIED
+Président or Vice President
+Secretary or Assy Secretary,
+ка
+(Manager or Managing Partner
+VI-JPM-000013546
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 70 of 77
+PORT OF STOCKHOLDER:
+(Due on or before June 30" of each year.)
+ENTER:-
+-0-
+Pure stoke Tiers, the haper 17 salemen 16 (g) of thrice of the Lieute Cant seming theM
+NAMEOFENTITY : Financial Trust Company, Inc..
+TYPE OF ENTITY: (Please select one.)
+1 9 2011
+Sole Proprietor/Partnership
+Domestic Limited Partnership
+Foreign Limited Partnership
+Domestic Limited Liability Partnership
+Foreign Limited Liability Partnership
+Domestic Corporation
+•
+Exempt Corporation
+Foreign Corporation
+Domestic Limited Liability Company
+Foreign Limited Liability Company
+MAILINGADDRESS 6/00. Red Hook Querts- B3 St. Thomas
+usvl
+00052
+PERIOD OF TAX EXEMPTION. Five Years
+NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS (ENTITIES) OWNING FIVE (5) OR
+MORE PERCENT OF THE
+OR EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP:
+Name
+JefFrey E. Epatein
+Address
+490. Red Ha, We
+Percent
+%
+100%
+Bona fide
+Residents
+Г
+ГС
+Note: This report must also include the names and addresses of all legal or equitable owners of such benefited business
+who have or will claim benefits under this chapter as bona fide residents of the Virgin Islands, pursuant to Act No.
+6748.
+DATED
+60/30/14
+VERIFIED
+Began Asy Secretary
+Manager or Manging Partner
+VI-JPM-000013547
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 71 of 77
+GOVERNMENT & THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF YE UNITED STATES
+THE LISTENANI GOVERNOR
+REPORT
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTION 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(THIS REPORT IS DUB ON OR EFORE INE 30% OF SACH YEAR)
+EMPLOYER L.D. No.
+Date of Report: dune 30, 2008
+Date of Last Report: June 30, 2007.
+This Report is for the Fariod Ended Juse 304, 2
+1.3
+2)
+3)
+4)
+NAME OF CORPORATION: .....
+Financial Trust Company, Inc
+Address: 6100 Red Hook Gtr. B3, St. Thomas, USVI 00802
+Dole of Incerporation: November 6, 1958
+(a)
+Kind of Businesa: Services
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL
+AUTHORIZED:
+(a) When last report Filed
+On date of this report
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL
+]USED IN CONDUCTINO BUSINESS.
+(a)
+As shown on last report filed
+(b) Additional capital paid in since last report ......
+(C)
+Sum of (a) and (b)....................
+(d) Paid-in Capilal withdrawn since last report ........
+(a) Paid-in Capilal Stock at date of this report ...........
+(9 IIGIEST TOTAL PAID-IN CAPITAL STOCK DURING REPORTING
+PERIOD
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+(a) Al rateof 51.50 per M (fractions of a thousand disregarded) on
+highest total paid in espital i un reported on Line 3(1) abere S.1147.21.....
+(b) TAX DUE: (Above figure, or $150 whichever is greater)
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+(a) 10% peralty for failure to pay by June 30"...................... S
+(b) 19% interen for euch month or part thereof by which peyment is
+delayed beyond June 30°.............
+(c)
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+TOTAL, DUE AND FORWARDED IIEREWITH (Sur of (4)0) | (5)(0)
+(Attach check payable to The Lieutenant Governor.)
+Certified Correct
+1000 shares ofesson. no pa
+$ 1900 shares of common stock no par ve
+5.764,809
+3...
+
+3.764,808
+5:14724
+0
+0
+
+Ireasurer
+Ros. 398
+VI-JPM-000013548
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 72 of 77
+EIN S
+December 31, 2007
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+4,732,504
+278,443,231
+133,395,223
+337,839
+59,671,409
+476,580,206
+79
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common land paid in capital
+Retained earnings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+Year ended December 31, 2001
+F2 764,000
+:475.815319
+2765.80,127
+2376.560,206
+Fee income
+Investment income
+Total revenues
+investment expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+:
+$]
+3,965,864
+47,053,611
+51.019,475
+233,615
+1,452,706
+1.686.321
+49,333,154
+475,211,165
+48,729,000
+475.815,319
+VI-JPM-000013549
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 73 of 77
+FINANCIAL TRUST COMPANY. INC
+EIN #
+As of December 31, 2009
+CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
+ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
+RELATED INVESTMENTS
+INVESTMENT IN SUBSIDIARY
+PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, net of depreciation
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+TOTAL LIABILITIES
+134,328,728
+55,417
+53,631,852
+131,432,901
+289,829
+14,495,336
+331,24,045
+23,400
+23,400
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common and paid in capital
+Retained eamings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+For the year ended December 31, 200
+764,800
+13,445,8
+K210.64
+3334224,045
+Fee income
+Relalated investment losses
+Other related losses
+Total revenues
+Investment expenses
+General and administrative expenses
+Total expenses
+NET LOSS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, beginning of year
+Less: DISTRIBUTIONS
+RETAINED EARNINGS, end of year
+$
+2900.000
+(11.014.238)
+(10.8142362
+5,752
+1,767,524
+1.774216
+(12,68B,515)
+363,446,350
+17.312,000
+333 445,836
+VI-JPM-000013550
+
+ase GOVEKNMENT 8F THocument 260-52 Fled 08/0123 Page 14ot r
+VIRGIN ISLANDS OF: E UNITED STATE
+THE LICUTEHANT GOVERNOR
+REPORT
+OF CORPORATION FRANCHISE TAX DUE
+DEVISCH OF CORPORATIIN AND TRADEM
+PURSUANT TO TITLE 13, SECTIIN 531, VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE
+TIL C4AT76E3IS FAX 340)770
+DOMESTIC CORPORATION
+(THES REPOSIT IS DUE ON OR ESPONS JUNS 3P'* OP LACE TEAR)
+EMPLOYER LD. No
+2)
+1)
+Diac of Report June 22,
+1999
+Date of Let Report. N/A
+NAME OF CORFORATIOM Einancial Trust Company
+Inc.
+This Report is for the Period Ended June 30ª
+(a) Addresz c/o Paul Hoffman, P.C.,
+P.O. Box 870, St. Thomas,
+USVI
+(b) Date of Incarporation: November 6, 1998
+00804-0870
+(e) Kind of Business Services
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL STOCK AUTHORIZED:
+(a) When last repcat filed
+(b) On date of this report ...
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IY CATTAL STOCK USED IN CONDUCTING BUSYRS.
+1000 shares of com
+(a)
+As sbown on last report filed
+(b)
+(c)
+Additional capital paid in since last report
+Sumn of (a) and (b) .....
+(d)
+Paich in Capitml wibaran sisce
+(e)
+repart
+Paid-in Capital Stock at dese of this report.......
+ICIEST TOTAL PAID IN CAPTTAL STOCK DURING REPORTING
+FEROD
+COMPUTATION OF TAX:
+s...N/A
+: 300,000
+: 300,000
+5. 300,000
+(a) At rate of 51.50 per M (fractions of a thousad disregarded) on
+highest total paid la capital stock as reported on Line 3(D) abore $.450...
+(b) TAX DUE: (Above figurc, or 5150 whicbener is prenter)
+s.450
+PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR LATE PAYMENT:
+$.450.
+(a) 10% penalty for failure to pay by Juse 30...
+....
+(b) 1% isterest for each massh or past thereof by which payment is
+delayed beyand June 30............
+...°
+(c)
+Total Penalty And Interest:
+OTAL DUE AND FORWARDED HESWITZ (lem ef (4) (b) mad (5) (c
+Attach check payable to The Liestenant Governer
+$ 450
+tified Correct
+Secretary
+VI-JPM-000013551
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 75 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+"PURSUANT TO SECIONS J7 AND JTA, CHAPTER 1, TILE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING TIES FILING OF ANNUAL BEPOETS BY DOMESTIC AND YORKIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE POLLOWING STATEMENT IS PILED WITE THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
+MANT OF COE financial Trust Company, Inc.
+ADDRESS OF MADE ORICE 9/0 Paul Hoffman,
+man, P.c.,
+'P.O. "Box 870, "St: Thomas, U:
+00804-01
+PRINCIPAL OFYICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Same.
+RESIST OR SO AGENT IN THE VI Paul Hoffman,
+..41-42 Kongens Gade, St. The
+*•UST- 00802
+COUNTRY OB STATE: IN WHICE INCORPORATED ..USVI
+FISCAL YEAR COVENED BY LAST REPORT FILED" S/A
+PISCAL YEAR COVERED BY IS REPORT... December. 31...1998
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPTIAL STOCK AT CLOSE OF FISCAL TEAR 1, 000.. shares, na. par valur
+AMOUNT OP PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR .
+...Q
+AMOUNT OF CAPTIAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FIS-
+CAL YEAR ....D.
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL
+YEAR AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TEAMS OF OFFICE
+Jeffrey E. Epstein,
+USVI;
+00804; Serves 11
+Berves UntIl successor elected Secretary...
+serves
+SucCeSsOr
+NY 11
+Amanda, J-. Ellison, Director.,
+serves until successor electe
+Pala Bedchy g° 3348C
+- DATED:
+2799
+VERIFIE
+Keel
+/secretary
+I. I lut report fled does not corer the period hamediately preceding the peried corered by this repert. ,
+supplementary report on the same form must be fied, brideing the cap, it any, betmens the too report
+2 THIS REPORT IS NOT COMPLETE NOR ACCEPTARLE UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY GENERAL BALANCE
+MEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT FOR THE LAST FISCAL YE
+S REQUIRED BY THE VIRGIN ISLANDS COD
+VI-JPM-000013552
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 76 of 77
+(DUE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR)
+PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 371 AND 373, CHAPTER 1, TITLE 13, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CODE,
+REQUIRING THE FILING OF ANNUAL REPORTS BY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS,
+THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
+NAME OF CORPORATION: Financial Trust Company. Inc.
+ADDRESS OF MAIN OFFICE: 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3, St.
+LUSV/ 00802
+PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS: Same
+RESIDENT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IN THE VI: Maria Hodge, 1340 TamelsiR St. 1
+COUNTRY OR STATE IN WHICH INCORPORATED: United States Virgin Islands
+T VI Q0802
+FISCAL YEAR COVERED BY LAST REPORT FILED: December 31, 2006
+FISCAL VEAR COVERED BY THIS REPORT: December 31, 2007
+AMOUNT OF AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 1.000 shares no par value
+AMOUNT OF PAID-IN CAPITAL AT CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR: 764.808
+AMOUNT OF CAPITAL USED IN CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITHIN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DURING THE FISCAL
+YEAR: 764.808
+NAME AND ADDRESSES OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE COMPANY AT THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR
+AND EXPIRATION DATES OF TERMS OF OFFICE
+Damen Indyke. Director/President, 6100 Red Hook Quarter, B3
+St. Thomas, VI 00802-1348; Serves until successor elected
+Cecile de Jongh, Director/Vice President/Sccretary 1
+St.
+VI 00801, Serves until successor elected
+Jeanne
+Director/Vice President/Treasurer
+SE.
+VI 00802, Serves until successor electeu
+DATED: June 27, 2008
+(PRESIDENT OR VICE RESIDENT,
+Busine
+(REASURER OR ASST. TREASURER)
+1. If last report filed does not cover the period immediately preceding this period covered by this report, a supplementary report
+on the same form must be filed, bridging the gap, if any, between the two repons.
+VI-JPM-000013553
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-52 Filed 08/07/23 Page 77 of 77
+LT.
+EIN #4
+December 31, 2002
+CASH
+INVESTMENTS
+FIXED ASSETS
+OTHER ASSETS
+TOTAL ASSETS
+ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
+OTHER LIABILITIES
+$
+106.092,128
+280,140,608
+389,697
+95,096
+386.707.529
+5,328
+55.070,514
+55.075,842
+STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+Common M and paid in capital
+Retained earnings
+TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY
+STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS
+Year ended December 31, 2002
+$
+55,297,888
+276.333.799
+331.631.887
+386.707.529
+Investment income
+Fee income
+Total revenues
+General and administrative expenses
+Investment expenses
+Total expenses
+NET INCOME
+BEGINNING RETAINED EARNINGS
+ENDING RETAINED EARNINGS
+44.720,327
+77.680,429
+122,400,756
+1,842,476
+2,366,736
+4,.209.212
+118,191,544
+158.142,255
+276,333.799
+VI-JPM-000013554
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a000845a15a70c4e9dc9f55861bc5ae17e1c587bde16a7689730425c9d1a1e2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a000845a15a70c4e9dc9f55861bc5ae17e1c587bde16a7689730425c9d1a1e2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9509f3fab399b2e2f6e0c5e81aa6a68c558b7951
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a000845a15a70c4e9dc9f55861bc5ae17e1c587bde16a7689730425c9d1a1e2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -6639,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a000845a15a70c4e9dc9f55861bc5ae17e1c587bde16a7689730425c9d1a1e2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 80,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "ce33aecf07c17c4259cb876e319807fd52a5a4eb64fb3d917956b5f413d7019f",
+  "output_sha256": "a7bfb4c863f6296008aface429664e9a2e93d479b8e7eae1c9f71ae8cf56493f",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a02c42e0b3a125c2c10ee860af548234ed1d8729db47c34f3168937100d4ff7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a02c42e0b3a125c2c10ee860af548234ed1d8729db47c34f3168937100d4ff7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eed526edf7b7e3826766eb4b3ef8f575f9c97623
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a02c42e0b3a125c2c10ee860af548234ed1d8729db47c34f3168937100d4ff7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 158-18 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a02c42e0b3a125c2c10ee860af548234ed1d8729db47c34f3168937100d4ff7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a02c42e0b3a125c2c10ee860af548234ed1d8729db47c34f3168937100d4ff7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8833e6522a346ea4f6a93491c4fe3b613f61589
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a02c42e0b3a125c2c10ee860af548234ed1d8729db47c34f3168937100d4ff7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a02c42e0b3a125c2c10ee860af548234ed1d8729db47c34f3168937100d4ff7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "1c6d6d4efcff155929d69ee14baa3fd4cd5039954fe417966e015687cc696069",
+  "output_sha256": "20f42bc31740fbab3c1f6880909ec666d759011afa54ca3d3746f9e8506f5925",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a19f084894a8fa0b57032efa9a9924178afde935c1f7532fb32d431f3a0f8a7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a19f084894a8fa0b57032efa9a9924178afde935c1f7532fb32d431f3a0f8a7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ead9d8047ae056cf5bee23f7004e504ffc31d0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a19f084894a8fa0b57032efa9a9924178afde935c1f7532fb32d431f3a0f8a7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-60 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-60 Filed 09/08/23
+Page
+EXHIBI 6 9
+DATE: 4-11 =
+C. Campbell, ADR CRR CER #13921
+GENERAL RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMEN!
+This
+by and amon
+(the "Epsteit
+Settlement Agreement is made this 28 day of April, 2022
+siman:") and the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jetfrey E. Epstein
+er with Claimant, the "Parties").
+WHEREAS, Claimant asserts she is a victim of sexual abuse and sex trafficking by Jeffrey
+E. Epstein;
+WHEREAS, Claimant has accepted a settlement amount of Seven Million Four Hundred
+Thousand Dollars (S7,400,000) to be paid solely by the Epstein Estate (the "Settiement Amount")
+in exchange for this General Release and Settlement Agreement; and
+WHEREAS, Claimant waives and reieases certain individuais and entities from any and
+all claims or causes of action arising from Mr. Epstein's conduct
+NOW THEREFORE, Claimant, for and on behalf of herself and her heirs, devisees,
+legatees, distributees, executors, administrators, trustees, personal representatives, successors and
+assigns, for and in consideration of the Settlemen: Amount, the adequacy and sufficiency of which
+are hereby acknowledged, hereby releases and forever discharges the Co-Executors of the Estate
+of Jeffrey E. Epstein, in both their capacity as Co-Executors and individually, the Co-Trustees of
+The 1953 Trust, the Epstein Estate, any entities owned or controlled in whole or part by Jeffrey
+Epstein or the the Epstein Estate (the "Epstein Entities") and their respective current and former
+principals, officers. directors, stockhoiders, managers, members, partners, limited partners.
+trustees, beneficiaries, administrators, agents, employees, attorneys, predecessors, successors,
+assigns and affiliates, and any entities or individuals who are or have ever been engaged by
+(whether as independent contractors or otherwise), employed by, or worked in any capacity for
+Jeffrey E. Epstein and/or the Epstein Estate Gointly and severaily, the "Releasees"), from any and
+all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts,
+variances, trespasses, damages and judgments, whether sounding in equity, tort, common law,
+contract, statute,
+regulation or otherwise and whether now existing, hereafter existing or revived
+in the future whatsoever in law, admiraity, equity or otherwise, including without limitation any
+and all claims or causes of action that arise or may arise from or which otherwise concern acts of
+sexual abuse or sex trafficking by Mr. Epstein (the "Claims") which against the Reieasees,
+Claimant ever had, now has or hereafter can, shail of may have, for, upon, or by reason of any
+matter, cause or thing whatsoever from the beginning of the world through the date of this General
+Release and Settlement Agreement.
+This Generai Release and Settlement Agreement is a broad release of any and ail Claims
+of Claimant against any and all Releasees, including without limitation any and all causes of action,
+lawsuits, claims, demands, damages and liability whatsoever, and also including without limitation
+to the extent of their respective liability for the same, any and all such claims against any and all
+Releasees as co-conspirators or for contribution as to any other person or persons who may be
+determined to have been joint tortfeasors arising out of or in any way related to any and ail known
+and unknown personal injuries, and also including without limitation any derivative claims for loss
+of consortium, under any federal, state or local law, without limitation. Tnis General Reiease and
+Settlemen: Agreement is all-encompassing and is specifically made and given on the premise that
+
+JDoe_DBAG_009963
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 326-60 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 6
+any and all Claims by Claimant against Releasees are hereby released and extinguished, whether
+said Claims arose in Florida, New Mexico, New York, the United States Virgin Islands, France or
+any other country, state, territory, possession or jurisdiction, or otherwise.
+This General Release and Settlement Agreement extends to released Claims that Claimant
+does not know or suspect to exist in her favor, which, if known by Claimant, would have materially
+affected her decision to enter into this General Release and Sertiment Agreement, and Claimant
+understands and agrees that she is releasing any and all such unknown or unsuspected Claims in
+Releasees' favor. Claimant acknowledges that she is familiar with Section 1542 of the California
+Civil Code, which provides as follows
+A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
+THAT THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT
+KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT
+THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF
+KNOWN BY HIM OR HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY
+AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR
+OR RELEASED PARTY
+Claiman: expressly waives and relinquishes any right or benefit that Claimant has or may
+have under Section 1542 of the California Civil Code and under any other statute or legal principle
+with similar effect. In connection with such waiver and relinquishment, Claimant acknowledges
+that she is aware that, after executing this General Release and Settlement Agreement, Claimant
+or Claimant's attorneys or agents may discover released Claims or facts in addition to, or different
+from, those which they now know or believe to exist with respect to the subject matter of this
+General Release and Settlement Agreement, but that it is Claimant's intent hereby to fuily, finally
+and forever settle and release all of the Claims, whether known or unknown, suspected or
+unsuspected, which now exist, may exist, or heretofore may have existed. In furtherance of this
+intent, this General Release and Settlement Agreement be, and remain in effect as, a full and
+complete release of the Claims notwithstanding the discovery or existence of any such additional
+or different Claims or facts.
+Claimant represents and acknowledges that she is voluntarily and freeiy granting this
+General Release and Settlement Agreement in exchange for payment of the Settlement Amount,
+and that she is legally competent to execute and deliver this General Release and Settlement
+Agreement. Claimant further represents that she is represented by legal counsel and has received
+legal advice prior to entering into this General Release and Settlement Agreement and that she has
+been advised by said attorney regarding the terms and conditions of this General Release and
+Settiement Agreement, which she has compietely read and fully understands, inciuding that
+accepting the Settlement Amount and signing this General Release and Settlement Agreement is a
+full and final compromise, adjustment and resolution of any and al! Claims that Claimant may now
+have or ever will have against Releasees
+Neither Ciaimant nor the Epstein Estate shail make any disclosure of this General Reiease
+and Settlement Agreement or any correspondence precedent to this General Release and
+Settlement Agreement, or provide an original or copy of all or any portion hereof to anyone else.
+except. (i) to the United States Virgin Islands Attorney General in order to request the lien reiease
+2
+
+JDoe_DBAG_009964
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 326-60 Filed 09/08/23 Page 4 of 6
+for the Settlement Amount; (ii) in compliance with a lawful order or process of a court of
+competent jurisdiction or governmenta: agency (provided that Claimant shail promptly inform the
+Epstein Estate so it may seek a protective order or other appropriate relief); (iii) as may otherwise
+be required by law or regulation; (iv) to Claimant's attorneys, accountants, banking representatives
+or advisors who have a need to know and are informed of and agree to comply with the
+confidentiality of this General Release and Settiement Agreement; (v) with the written consent of
+the other party; or (Vi) to the extent that, in the opinion of counsel, disclosure is required to enforce
+this General Release and Settlement Agreement or in response or rebuttal to a previous breach by
+the other party. Should Claimant or the Epstein Estate breach these provisions of this paragraph,
+such a breach shall not entitle the Epstein Estate to rescission or termination of this General Release
+and Settlement Agreement or any provision hereof. The remedy for breach of this section by either
+party shail be a claim by the non-breaching party for injunctive relief to prohibit any threatened or
+future breach and/or a claim for actual damages proven to have been caused by the disclosure
+Neither this General Release and Settlement Agreement nor anything contained herein
+shall be construed as a Party's or Releasee's admission of liability or wrongdoing. Nor shali this
+General Reiease and Settlemen: Agreement be admissible in any proceeding as evidence of a
+Party's or Releasee's liability or wrongdoing. However, this General Release and Settlement
+Agreement may be introduced in any proceeding concerning or arising from it, including as
+evidence of liability or wrongdoing on the part of a Party alleged to have breached the terms hereof
+While the Parties do not believe there is any reasonable interpretation that this General
+Release could be construed to release James ("Jes") Staley,
+Black, or their respective entity
+affiliations,
+for clarity, this General Release and Settlement Agreement specifically does not
+include Jes Staley
+Black, or any company or entity which either is or was beneficially owned
+or controlled by Jes Staley or
+Black, as a Releasee or released party under this General
+Release and Settlement Agreement. All Parties expressly acknowledge agree, and understand that
+any and all claims that Claimant has or may have against Jes Staley.
+Black, or any company
+or entity beneficially owned or controlled by Jess Staiey or
+Black, are expressly preserved
+Claimant represents and warrants that she has not assigned any Claims released pursuant
+to this General Reiease and Settlement Agreement
+Within seven (7) days of full execution of this General Reiease and Settlement Agreement,
+the Co-Executors will request that the lien on certain Epstein Estate accounts) and/or assets be
+lifted in order to pay the Settlement Amount pursuant to this General Release and Settiement
+Agreement.
+Within fifteen (15) days of the lifting of the aforementioned lien, the Epsrein Estate will
+pay the Settlement Amount by wire transfer or ACH payment using the following instructions
+3
+
+JDoe_DBAG_009965
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 326-60 Filed 09/08/23 Page 5 of 6
+Pottinger LLC Trust Account
+Iberia Bank
+1201 South Andrews Ave., Fort Landarial BL 33316
+Bank Routing Number
+Bank Account Number:
+Claimant waives any and
+claims against the Co-Executors and all other Releases
+arsing out or or otherwise concerning the payment of the Settlement Amount in accordance with
+the foregoing instrictions
+This General Reiease and Setlemen: Agreement contains the Parties entire understanding
+concering the subject matre: hereof Ary and all prior negotiations and or term sheets or the like.
+made orally or in writing, are hereby integrated into this General Release and Setlemen:
+Agreement.
+Any modification of the terms of this General Release and Settiement Agreement shall be
+effective only if made in a writing executed by all Partes
+Execution of this General Release and Settiement Agreement by PDF, copy, facsimile cr
+otherwise is equivaient and with the full force and effect of an origina!
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Claumant has executed this General Release and Settlentent
+Agreement on the date below her signature
+Bare
+STATE OF
+COUNTY OF
+mstrument was acknowledged before me this @Den day of ApriL.... 2022
+by
+• is personally known to me or who has produced State Bied. as
+identrication and wie did/did not take an oaths
+NOTARY PUBLIC
+ROBERT O REINHARD
+Printed Name Robert C. Reinha:?
+Commission Expires 013112024
+
+JDoe_DBAG,
+_009966
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 326-60 Filed 09/08/23 Page 6 of 6
+:
+REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
+POTTINGER
+425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+Counsel for Claiman
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Co-Executors of the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein have executed
+this General Release and Settlement Agreement on the date below their respective signatures.
+By:_
+Darren K. Indyke, Co-Executor of the
+Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein
+Date:
+By
+Richard D. Kahn, Co-Executor of the
+Estate of Jeffrey E Epstein
+Date
+5
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a19f084894a8fa0b57032efa9a9924178afde935c1f7532fb32d431f3a0f8a7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a19f084894a8fa0b57032efa9a9924178afde935c1f7532fb32d431f3a0f8a7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..91590ff80d70eb7e10d40fdda0e84541b8bf3968
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a19f084894a8fa0b57032efa9a9924178afde935c1f7532fb32d431f3a0f8a7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -130,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a19f084894a8fa0b57032efa9a9924178afde935c1f7532fb32d431f3a0f8a7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 11,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ba80f1b2fc417bfafcdb51e922b2e8459d4fb53ff3a312aac2bad262b910ce00",
+  "output_sha256": "a8088a51d28bd7c99dacb071ba8acca5001f1a7d62e25427217dfdd6289a73a1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a38ee5bc0d2a2388dae2e0344c3441afa6e588c7b69ec7bbd04e32362872cfb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a38ee5bc0d2a2388dae2e0344c3441afa6e588c7b69ec7bbd04e32362872cfb.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11abb824b1707236957f2f95ddc2b3af778845e9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a38ee5bc0d2a2388dae2e0344c3441afa6e588c7b69ec7bbd04e32362872cfb.md
@@ -0,0 +1,376 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 240-20 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 8
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10891r 1Sfen@9cment 240t20r1l9g 07/25/23 P9992 of 8
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+vS.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+Case No.
+1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Third-Party
+Plaintiff,
+vS.
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+Third-Party
+Defendant.
+Wednesday, April 19, 2023
+CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
+Videotaped deposition of Phillip Deluca, held
+at the offices of Ulmer & Berne, 65 East State Street,
+Columbus, Ohio, commencing at 9:06 a.m., on the above
+date, before Carol A. Kirk, Registered Merit Reporter,
+Certified Shorthand Reporter, and Notary Public.
+GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES
+877.370. DEPS
+deps@go1kow.com
+Page 1
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1999/1 188en@98ment 440t201 15ừ00 07/25/235 P99y of 8
+1
+And then you say, "I hope they do
+not cave."
+3
+What did you mean by that?
+4
+A. I hope the Private Bank exits the
+5
+relationship.
+6
+We've all signed the
+7
+NDA now, right?
+Has everybody signed
+8
+it?
+9
+Okay.
+10
+11
+(Deluca Deposition Exhibit 12 marked.)
+12
+13
+BY
+14
+Mr. Deluca, I'm handing you what
+15 has been marked as Exhibit 12. Take a look at
+16 that.
+17
+A.
+Okay.
+18
+e.
+This is an e-mail chain involving
+19
+you, Ms. Ryan, and Arthur Middlemiss, correct?
+20
+A.
+Yes.
+21
+l. Who is Arthur Middlemiss?
+22
+A. Art was a direct report of mine.
+23
+2. Did he have the same -- what was
+24
+his job?
+Page 155
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1989/r 18fen@9a4ment 440t20r 1Fừę007/25/23 PAgEA of 8
+1
+A. At this point in time, Art was the
+2 person who was responsible for more of that
+3
+proactive work that we were doing.
+4
+Q. On human trafficking?
+5
+A. On typologies.
+6
+e. So if you could look -- start with
+7
+the e-mail that's at the bottom half of that
+8 first page from Ms. Ryan to you with a CC to Art
+9
+Middlemiss, "Subject: Jeffrey Epstein."
+10
+Do you see that?
+11
+A.
+I do.
+12
+2.
+And then at the end of the first
+13
+14
+paragraph, it says, "It involves an ask of
+William, so I'm sending to you first."
+15
+William is William Langford?
+16
+A.
+Wait a minute. I'm lost here.
+17
+The end of the first paragraph.
+18
+MR. KRAUSE: Before you do that,
+19
+I have just have a question for you.
+20
+At the end of the page, it appears
+21
+to end in the middle of a sentence. Is
+22
+there -- it's on the back. Thank you.
+23 BY
+24
+So the end of the first paragraph
+Page 156
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Case 1: 22•cv•1989 88en99ment 9ment 20r üe0785/63 89 f8
+says, "It involves an ask of William, so I am
+sending to you first."
+A.
+• I see that.
+William is William Langford there?
+A. Yes.
+Q. The next paragraph she lists
+attendees at the rapid response meeting,
+correct?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+Catherine Keating, Anne Verdon.
+Do you know who Anne Verdon was?
+A.
+Anne was an attorney for the bank.
+I believe she was specifically assigned to the
+Private Bank.
+l. The current and former banker, do
+you know if that -- do you know who that was?
+A.
+No, I really don't.
+e.
+Kevin, that's Kevin McCleerey,
+right?
+A.
+A.
+A.
+I believe that's Kevin McCleerey.
+Jim is Jim Dalessio?
+I believe that's Jim Dalessio.
+And Bonnie
+from risk?
+Yes.
+Page 157
+EFTA0281 1369
+
+Case 1: 22-cv•19895 H88enRament 4401201 5880078583 898 0f8
+1
+e.
+And Art - do you understand that
+2 to be Art Middlemiss?
+3
+A. Art Middle- -- Art handled the
+4 rapid response meetings.
+5
+l. All of them?
+6
+A. For a period of time.
+7
+Q. How often were the rapid response
+8
+meetings?
+9
+A. I don't know. There was no set
+10 schedule, that I recall.
+11
+Were rapid response meetings
+12 unique to Private Bank, or did other segments of
+13 the bank have them?
+14
+A.
+They happen for any line of
+15
+business.
+16
+17
+e.
+Do you know if Anne Verdon was
+general counsel of the Private Bank at this
+18 point in time?
+19
+A.
+General counsel of the Private
+20 Bank? I'm not sure if that was a term -- I know
+21 there was a general counsel, and that was
+22 Cutler. But I don't know if -- I don't know if
+23 she was general counsel of Private Bank. I knew
+24
+she was affiliated with Private Bank somehow.
+Page 158
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1989/r 18fen@9ament 440t20r rfừęą07/25/23 PAgEY of 8
+1
+Why does Ms. Ryan keep e-mailing
+articles if the recommendation had been made
+lots and lots of months
+• earlier and still
+4
+nothing had been done?
+Does the
+5
+investigation
+-- does her investigation just
+6
+remain ongoing at that point?
+7
+MR. KRAUSE: Objection.
+8
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+9
+A.
+You'll have to ask Maryanne that
+10 question.
+11
+8.
+Well, as a matter of procedure,
+12
+I'm trying to understand --
+13
+A.
+That wouldn't be a part of
+14
+procedure.
+15
+e.
+Keeping the investigation open?
+16
+A.
+No.
+17
+MR. KRAUSE: Objection.
+18
+A. No. Sending e-mails wouldn't be a
+19 part of procedure.
+20
+e.
+So did you have an understanding
+21 about why she was doing it?
+22
+A. Maryanne was all -- as I mentioned
+23 before, Maryanne was all over this, and like
+24
+myself and William, Maryanne wanted to see this
+Page 204
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10891r 1Sfen@9cment 240t20r1lgg 07/25/23 Pagey of 8
+1
+client gone, the relationship terminated.
+2
+So was there -- did you or ALM
+3
+investigations generally ever receive word, "No,
+4
+we are not exiting Mr. Epstein"?
+5
+MR. KRAUSE: Objection.
+6
+You can answer.
+7
+A. I don't know if we ever received
+word specific to that.
+9
+e.
+But all this information that
+10 she's e-mailing is part of her ongoing
+11
+investigation into Mr. Epstein, correct?
+12
+MR. KRAUSE: Objection.
+13
+A.
+It appears to be.
+14
+And does there come a point in
+15
+time at which she's supposed to stop her
+16
+investigation?
+17
+A.
+Good luck. Try to tell Maryanne
+18
+to stop.
+19
+- - -
+20
+(DeLuca Deposition Exhibit 21 marked.)
+21
+- - -
+22
+BY
+23
+I've handed to you what has been
+24
+marked as Exhibit 21.
+Page 205
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a38ee5bc0d2a2388dae2e0344c3441afa6e588c7b69ec7bbd04e32362872cfb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a38ee5bc0d2a2388dae2e0344c3441afa6e588c7b69ec7bbd04e32362872cfb.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..118ce554c5fe6b22af072e1ad1da80ebec9cfcb8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a38ee5bc0d2a2388dae2e0344c3441afa6e588c7b69ec7bbd04e32362872cfb.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -285,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a38ee5bc0d2a2388dae2e0344c3441afa6e588c7b69ec7bbd04e32362872cfb",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "5d37fa02550f94466c76584229cd132eccdddf7cd731219619ab240c33a7d280",
+  "output_sha256": "1c9a10b09e753f2477c0cbc5a7ea265e6ef7e80c88e46023686e8514a60044f1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a614c18cd316e1ac101b1e07d01203c0bbf51db337f760545c6fe8c91f7d78f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a614c18cd316e1ac101b1e07d01203c0bbf51db337f760545c6fe8c91f7d78f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..678cdaae9cf188c2a3c6aa1b97aacbd1bb9da55c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a614c18cd316e1ac101b1e07d01203c0bbf51db337f760545c6fe8c91f7d78f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1977 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-15 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 42
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Case 1:2₴ 6Yr#92en/SRa Document 32âne Eiled090823t Page Belater
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE
+UNITED STATES VIRGIN
+ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
+N.A.,
+Defendant/Third Party
+Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
+N.A.,
+Third Party Plaintiff,
+v.
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+:
+CASE NO.
+1:22-CV-10904
+-JSR
+:
+:
+:
+:
+:
+Third Party Defendant.
+CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+July 13,
+2023
+Videotaped deposition of
+JOHN R. DUFFY, taken pursuant to notice,
+was held at Wilmer Hale, Seven World
+Trade Center, New York, New York,
+beginning at 9:17 a.m., on the above
+date, before
+L. Gray, a
+Registered Professional Reporter,
+Certified Shorthand Reporter, Certified
+Realtime Reporter, and Notary Public.
+GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES
+877.370.3377 ph | 917.591.5672 fax
+deps@golkow.com
+Page 1
+
+
+Case 1:22 6Yr#99en SPa Document 32are Eled 090823t Page 3eter
+1
+Personal relationship, as --
+2 as you are posing the question, to me,
+feels like something beyond business.
+4
+And rapport is an
+5
+understanding and a dialogue that flows
+6 freely where you understand that person,
+7 they understand you, and it helps in
+8 business to be well understood and to
+understand the person you're trying to
+10 serve.
+11
+12
+13
+14
+Did you have any personal
+relationships with any of your clients
+at -- while you were at JPMorgan?
+I had rapport with many
+15
+clients.
+16
+e.
+Did you have any personal
+17
+relationships with them?
+18
+I would -- I'd probably say
+19 I don't have relationships that I would
+20 have called personal. I think all was
+21 business.
+22
+e.
+Did you ever have a social
+23 dinner with a client?
+24
+Not that I can think of.
+Page 21
+
+
+Case 1:22 6Yr#99en SPa Document 32are Eled 090823t Page beter
+1
+anybody else?
+2
+Not that I recall.
+3
+Jes was the senior person on
+4 that relationship, and for me, that was
+the right person to raise that with.
+6
+What do you mean "senior
+7
+person on that relationship"?
+8
+Jes was involved with, to my
+knowledge, Mr. Epstein's relationship
+10 with JPMorgan right from the very
+11
+beginning, whenever that was.
+12
+And to my knowledge, it
+13
+continued after he was outside of the
+14
+Private Bank. And Jes kept in touch with
+15
+many clients in the Private Bank, post
+16
+his days in the Private Bank.
+17
+Q.
+Do you know whether Jes had
+18 a formal role in approving Mr. Epstein's
+19 retention by the bank as a client when he
+20
+was in charge of the Private Bank?
+21
+MR.
+: Objection.
+22
+THE WITNESS: Sorry, can you
+23
+24
+say that again.
+BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+Page 62
+
+
+Case 1:2Z 6Yr#99en/SPa Document 32are Eled090823t Page beter
+1
+Sure.
+2
+As far as you know, did
+3 Mr. Staley have any formal role in
+4 deciding whether Mr. Epstein should
+5
+remain a client of the Private Bank while
+6 he was in charge of the investment bank?
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+MR.
+: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: As a senior
+member of the firm and a member of
+the operating committee, who
+continued to work on that account
+in some way or fashion, some of it
+visible to me, some of it not
+visible to me, Jes was a part of
+that relationship. And I would
+have expected, if there was
+something that I should have
+known, he would have told me.
+We relied upon Jes, in this
+instance and in -- and in others,
+as it related to his judgment
+about an account. And in this
+case we're talking about
+Mr. Epstein's account.
+Page 63
+
+
+Case 1:22 6Yr#99en SPa Document 32ane Eled090823t Page Geter
+1 BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+2
+And you say "we."
+Who do
+3 you mean by "we"?
+4
+Broadly speaking, the
+5 Private Bank. Coverage team, CEO of the
+6 asset and wealth management business,
+7 myself.
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+Q.
+There were other people also
+responsible for the relationship with
+Mr. Epstein, right?
+, for sure. There are
+people who are doing the work, day in and
+day out.
+14
+15
+16
+17
+l.
+So at most, Mr. Staley was
+part of a broader team that was in charge
+of deciding whether Mr. Epstein should
+remain a client?
+18
+Most senior member,
+19
+operating committee member. Little bit
+20 different than everybody else on the
+21 team.
+22
+23
+24
+What do you mean by that?
+Most senior person and, you
+know, a person who you look up to, to
+Page 64
+
+
+Case 1:22 6Yr#99en SPa Document 32âre Eld 090823t Page bettr
+hold up the code of conduct of the firm,
+2 and fiduciary responsibility to clients
+and shareholders.
+4
+Q.
+Do you think other members
+of the team also had an obligation to
+6 uphold the code of conduct?
+7
+Well, everyone does.
+8
+Do you think other members
+of that team also had a fiduciary
+10
+responsibility to clients and
+11
+shareholders?
+12
+Yes, I do.
+13
+Q.
+And as you said, those other
+14
+members of the team were doing the work,
+15
+day in and day out, right?
+16
+Yes.
+17
+e.
+And those other members of
+18 the team were closer to Mr. Epstein's
+19 actual account activity, right?
+20
+Yes.
+21
+And you'd agree that those
+22
+other members of the team also had an
+23 important role in the decision of whether
+24
+Mr. Epstein should remain a client?
+Page 65
+
+
+Case 1:22 6Yr#99en SPa Document 32are Eled 090823t Page Settr
+time frame, situation.
+It's just not that cut and
+3 dry. It was a heavy influence.
+What was the basis for that
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+influence?
+Seniority, history with the
+client.
+Going to your next
+conversation with Mr. Staley about
+10 Mr. Epstein, I think you testified that
+11
+in -- you had another conversation with
+12 him in 2011 after you became CEO of the
+13
+investment bank?
+14
+Of the Private Bank.
+15
+e.
+Yes, sorry, Private Bank.
+16
+Yes, that's correct.
+17
+e.
+And do you remember how long
+18
+after your elevation to CEO of the
+19 Private Bank you had that conversation?
+20
+Yeah. It was pretty quickly
+21 after. Weeks.
+22
+e.
+And where was that
+23
+conversation?
+24
+In his office at the
+Page 67
+
+
+Case 1:2Z6Yr#99en SPa Document 33are Eled090823t Page Geter
+investment bank, arranged by his
+assistant.
+3
+Q.
+Did he arrange that meeting
+4 or did you?
+5
+I did. I asked for it. And
+6 it was in follow-up to discussions with
+7
+colleagues.
+8
+What --
+9
+Concerns for Mr. Epstein's
+10 reputation and, again, looking to raise
+11 the question with Jes. Don't understand
+12
+why -- why we are retaining him, on a
+13
+reputational basis, as a client.
+14
+l.
+And what did you say to
+15
+Mr. Staley at that meeting?
+16
+A. I said, Jes, I really don't
+17
+understand why Mr. Epstein is still a
+18
+client at the bank. From a reputational
+19 perspective, it just doesn't fit. And
+20
+like, you know, we had previously talked
+21
+a couple years back, probably, whenever
+22 that last was.
+I said, this feels to me
+23 like it's time.
+24
+e.
+Do you remember anything
+Page 68
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 1910e}
+1
+else that you said to him?
+2
+I do.
+3
+What else did you say to
+4 him?
+5
+So Jes rebuffed me, said,
+6 don't see the need for that. I would
+• trust Jeffrey with members of my family,
+8
+his daughters.
+9
+And the last thing I said to
+10 Jes about it was, well, Jes, if I were
+11
+asked why is Jeffrey Epstein a client of
+12
+the bank at this stage, I would have to
+13
+answer, because of Jes Staley.
+14
+Q.
+Do you remember anything
+15
+else that Mr. Staley said to you during
+16
+that meeting?
+17
+No.
+18
+e.
+What was Mr. Staley's
+19 reaction to your statement that, if
+20 you -- if you were asked why Mr. Epstein
+21 is a client of the bank, your answer
+22
+would be Jes Staley?
+23
+24
+The meeting was over. Jes
+was on to other things. That was it. It
+Page 69
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|23tRage Wie}
+1
+was kind of the last word in that
+meeting, that I recall.
+3
+Do you remember whether you
+4 gave Mr. Staley additional detail about
+5 your specific concerns for Mr. Epstein's
+6 reputation?
+7
+I shared with you what I
+8
+recall.
+9
+e.
+Do you recall giving him any
+10 details about Mr. Epstein's account
+11
+activity?
+12
+13
+14
+I do not recall that. The
+basis of the conversation was reputation.
+Did you write any of --
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+well, withdrawn.
+Did you ever write down what
+happened in that meeting?
+I don't recall.
+Q.
+Did you tell anybody about
+that conversation?
+21
+Colleagues in the Private
+22
+Bank.
+23
+24
+Who -- which colleagues?
+We -- I had an obligation to
+Page 70
+
+
+Case 1:2208n40996 8R a Document 32fatt Filgd 09/88|23 tRage 1310e₴
+1 go back to the due diligence committee
+2 and report back on the conversation with
+3
+Jes.
+4
+Q.
+And you did that orally?
+5
+I did that orally.
+6
+Did you send any follow-up
+7
+e-mails, based on this --
+8
+9
+10 try to let me finish my sentence.
+11
+e.
+Not that I recall.
+Just again, I'd ask you to
+Sure.
+12
+Did -- in your view, did
+13
+Mr. Staley hear out your concerns?
+14
+Well, he heard them.
+15
+Q.
+Did he try to get you to
+16
+stop sharing your concerns?
+17
+No. He tried to convince me
+18 that he was right, briefly.
+19
+l. Do you remember anything
+20
+else about his statement that he would
+21
+trust Mr. Epstein with members of his
+22
+family?
+23
+No.
+24
+e.
+What was your reaction to
+Page 71
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 0V/88/23 tRage 13rde₴
+1
+hearing him say that he would trust
+2 Mr. Epstein with members of his family?
+3
+I was surprised and felt
+4 like this conversation was going the same
+5
+way as the previous, so I was frustrated.
+6
+Did you believe -- well,
+7
+withdrawn.
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Did he succeed in changing
+your mind about whether Mr. --
+Mr. Epstein should remain a client of the
+Private Bank?
+No.
+Q.
+So after this meeting it was
+still your opinion that Mr. Staley --
+that Mr. Epstein should no longer be a
+member of the Private Bank -- or a client
+of the Private Bank?
+Correct. And it was also
+clear that Jes wanted him to remain a
+client.
+Did Jes order you to
+continue approving Mr. Epstein as a
+client?
+I shared with you what I
+Page 72
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098€78R a Document 3Zfaht Filgd 0V08zetRage de}
+recall.
+1
+2
+So you don't remember him
+ordering you to retain him as a client?
+I shared with you what I
+4
+5
+6
+recall.
+l.
+not recall.
+And you don't recall that?
+Those specific words, I do
+9
+10 that effect?
+11
+12
+what I recall.
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+Do you recall anything to
+I've -- I've shared with you
+So you don't recall him
+saying anything to the effect of, I'm
+ordering you to --
+I don't recall.
+e.
+I'm sorry, I just --
+Okay.
+e.
+-- I just want to make my
+record clear.
+Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead.
+I understand this can be
+frustrating. Sometimes I have to ask the
+question multiple times to get it clear.
+Page 73
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|23tRage 15r0e₴
+1
+Yes.
+2
+So you don't recall him
+3
+saying anything to the effect of, I'm
+4 ordering you to keep Mr. Epstein as a
+5
+client?
+6
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+e.
+like that.
+2.
+I don't recall those words.
+Or anything to that effect?
+I don't recall hearing words
+Okay.
+MR.
+time for a break?
+Is this a good
+THE WITNESS: I do --
+MR.
+Sorry, John.
+THE WITNESS: Yeah, yeah.
+MR. SCHIFFMANN: Yeah, we
+can -- we can go off the record --
+MR. BOUCHOUX: John, do you
+have something to add?
+THE WITNESS: Yeah, I
+said -- well --
+MR. BOUCHOUX: He was in the
+middle of his answer.
+THE WITNESS: What I do
+Page 74
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098€78R a Document 32faht Filgd 0V883tRage toá}
+1
+2
+recall, it was very clear from
+that conversation with Jes, Jes
+3
+wanted Mr. Epstein to remain a
+4
+client.
+5
+And it wasn't in Jes's
+6
+7
+nature to order anybody anything,
+to do anything. That's just not
+8
+9
+the way he conducted business.
+He just said this shouldn't
+10
+change.
+11 BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+12
+Q.
+Did you understand him to be
+13
+implicitly telling you what you should
+14
+do?
+15
+16
+17
+18
+Basically. Retain Jeffrey
+as a client. Yes.
+That's how -- that's
+what I left that meeting with.
+Mr. Epstein remains a client.
+19
+Did you leave that -- well,
+20
+withdrawn.
+21
+MR. SCHIFFMANN: We can take
+22
+a break now.
+23
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time
+24
+right now is 10:13 a.m.
+We're off
+Page 75
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 13rºe}
+1
+Did Mr. Staley ever say
+2 anything else to you, similar to that he
+would trust Mr. Epstein with his family?
+4
+I just recall that one
+5
+instance.
+6
+e.
+Did you consider escalating
+7
+your concerns about Mr. Epstein to other
+senior leaders at JPMorgan?
+9
+That's what I was doing when
+10 I went to see Jes.
+11
+12
+13
+14
+But after Mr. Staley
+disagreed with you, did you consider
+raising your concerns about Mr. Epstein
+with other senior leaders at the bank?
+15
+16
+final word on that.
+I -- I felt like Jes was the
+17
+Did you raise your
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+concerns -- well, withdrawn.
+At the time that you were
+CEO of the U.S. Private Bank, who did you
+report to?
+Phil Di orio.
+23
+24
+Who did he report to?
+Mary Erdoes.
+Page 82
+
+
+Case 1:2208n409968R a Document 32fatt Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 1910€₴
+1
+And you, as CEO of the U.S.
+2 Private Bank, ultimately were the final
+3 approver on the -- in the KYC process,
+4 right?
+5
+On the last step of the
+6 process.
+7
+And as part of that process,
+you have to grant your approval to the
+retention of the relationship, right?
+I would have to give an
+answer, yes.
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+And -- okay. If you did not
+approve a high-risk client for retention,
+what would happen to that client account?
+It would probably get
+debated again.
+17
+And, ultimately, if you
+18 still did not approve the retention of
+19 the -- of that client, would the client
+20 then be exited?
+21
+22
+23
+24
+No, not necessarily.
+l.
+So a client could be
+retained even if you refused to approve
+the KYC on the client?
+Page 110
+
+
+Case 1:2208n409968R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 190€₴
+1
+I don't know what the rules
+2 say on that.
+3
+Q. Are you aware of any
+4 situation in which the CEO of the U.S.
+5 Private Bank refused to approve a client
+6 retention KYC and, yet, the account
+7
+remained open?
+8
+I wouldn't have enough
+9
+information to answer that.
+10
+Q.
+Well, when you were CEO of
+11 the U.S. Private Bank, did you ever
+12
+refuse to approve a high-risk client's
+13
+retention?
+14
+I don't recall. But I do
+15
+recall wanting to exit clients, other
+16
+clients, and they were not exited.
+17
+And do you recall whether,
+18 in those situations, you ultimately
+19 approved the retention of the client
+20 through the KYC process?
+21
+I can't recall whether, at
+22
+that point in time, I had KYC
+23 responsibility.
+24
+e.
+Well, do -- when you were --
+Page 111
+
+
+Case 1:2208n4099618R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 29100€₴
+1
+to continue to have Mr. Epstein as a
+2 client.
+3
+MR. BOUCHOUX: John --
+4 BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+5
+You mean Mr. Staley --
+6
+Mr. - Sorry, Mr. Staley.
+7
+Thank you.
+8
+Yeah.
+9
+But ultimately you were the
+10 one who had to give approval?
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+The way the process works, I
+had to -- in order for Mr. Epstein to
+remain a client,
+I had to be part of that
+process, and part of that process, for
+me, was talking to Mr. Staley. And the
+basis of my approving that DDR was my
+conversation with Mr. Staley.
+But you could have decided
+19 not to approve a DDR?
+20
+Any DDR I could have -- I
+21
+could decide not to approve, yes.
+22
+l.
+So you may not always like a
+23 client, but that doesn't necessarily mean
+24
+that you're going to refuse to sign their
+Page 117
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23tRage We₴
+1 DDR?
+2
+It means I'm going to follow
+3 through on, to the best of my abilities,
+4 on understanding that client, raising
+5 concerns about that client, as I did with
+6 Mr. Staley as it relates to Mr. Epstein.
+7
+And in the case of
+8 Mr. Epstein, I felt like Mr. Staley was
+the final court of appeal on that.
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+2.
+So - -
+So my -- my signing off on
+that DDR reflects my conversations with
+Mr. Staley as an operating committee
+member and someone who has a fiduciary
+responsibility to the bank, its clients,
+its shareholders.
+17
+e.
+You testified earlier that
+18
+your conversation with Mr. Staley was
+19 about reputational risk, right?
+20
+Correct.
+21
+As part of the KYC process,
+22
+though, you have access to other
+23 information about Mr. Epstein's accounts,
+24
+right?
+Page 118
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 3Zfaht Filgd pV883tRage Z3ráé}
+1
+But you were the one signing
+2 the DDR, were you not?
+3
+Yes.
+4
+e.
+You could have declined to
+5
+sign it?
+6
+I don't know what would have
+7 happened after that, to be honest. I
+8 don't know what the process does after
+the CEO of the business declines it.
+10
+11
+But I know I signed that,
+based upon Jes wanting the client to be
+12
+retained.
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+Q.
+But you could have declined
+to sign it. You say you do not know what
+would have happened, but you could have
+declined to sign it, right?
+There are one of two answers
+18 here, yes or no, on the DDR form.
+19
+e.
+And you could have answered
+20
+no?
+21
+I suppose.
+22
+As CEO of the U.S. Private
+23 Bank, did you have authority to fire a
+24
+client from the Private Bank?
+Page 122
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 3Zfaht Filgd pV883tRage Z3rºáé}
+1
+I don't know that any one
+2 person has the authority to fire a client
+3 from the bank. '
+That' s not been my
+4 experience.
+5
+Well, if you refused to
+6 approve a client's retention in the
+• Private Bank, that client would be
+8 exited, right?
+9
+No. The process of
+10
+retaining a client or exiting a client is
+11
+never that simple.
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+So, in your view, a -- you,
+as the CEO, could have refused to approve
+the retention of Mr. Epstein and
+Mr. Epstein still could have remained a
+client of the Private Bank?
+17
+It's possible. Like I said,
+18 as it relates to exiting clients, no one
+19 person holds that authority.
+20
+These relationships with
+21 clients span different businesses, and as
+22 a result of that, there's usually a
+23 widening of the circle and a broader
+24
+team-based decision about exiting a
+Page 123
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n409967|8R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 20100€₴
+client.
+1
+2
+e.
+But I'm saying, if you stuck
+3 to your guns and refused to approve
+4 Mr. Epstein for retention as a client of
+5 the Private Bank, your testimony is that
+6 he might have just remained?
+7
+MR.
+: Objection.
+8
+9
+THE WITNESS: I don't know.
+That would be speculation on my
+10
+11
+part. I don't know.
+BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+12
+Well, why didn't you --
+13
+well, withdrawn.
+14
+15
+If -- if you could have
+declined to sign the DDR and initiated a
+16
+broader conversation about whether to
+17
+keep Mr. Epstein as a client, why didn't
+18 you do that?
+19
+We felt like we had that
+20
+conversation. I felt like I had that
+21
+conversation with Jes.
+22
+e.
+Mr. Staley didn't convince
+23
+24
+you that Mr. Epstein was a good
+reputational bet for JPMorgan, did he?
+Page 124
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|23tRage 25r0e₴
+1
+2
+e.
+Rephrase that, please.
+At the end of your
+conversation with Mr. Staley, you still
+4 thought Mr. Epstein should be exited.
+5
+I was of the opinion his
+6 reputational risk was not worth having
+7 him as an account, that's correct.
+8
+Q.
+And, nevertheless, you
+signed the DDR allowing him to remain.
+10
+I did.
+11
+Q.
+And if you had declined to
+12
+sign that, a widening of the circle would
+13
+have occurred, at which more people would
+14
+have discussed what to do with this
+15
+business, right?
+16
+The -- I felt like that had
+17
+already happened.
+18
+Did you involve the CEO of
+19 the entire Private Bank in that
+20
+conversation?
+21
+I don't recall.
+22
+Did you involve Phil
+23
+Di Iorio in that conversation?
+24
+They are one and the same.
+Page 125
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n409848R a Document 32faht Filgd 0V/883tRage 26°đ4Z
+1
+angry call from Jeffrey?"
+2
+Do you see that?
+3
+I do.
+4
+5
+What -- do you know what
+Mr. Schlakman is referring to when he
+6 refers to a
+"usual angry call from
+7
+Jeffrey"?
+8
+MR.
+Objection.
+THE WITNESS: I do not know
+10
+what he means by that.
+11
+But the first part of that
+12
+paragraph, "the only sensitivity
+13
+is his relationship with Jes,"
+14
+that is simply consistent with
+15
+what we all believe, which was Jes
+16
+was the senior relationship person
+17
+with Mr. Epstein.
+18 BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+19
+But Mr. Schlakman wasn't
+20 suggesting that because of that
+21 relationship you would make an exception
+22 to the callback policy, right?
+23
+He wasn't, I don't believe
+24
+that.
+Page 143
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 32faht Filgd pV/88ZtRage 23râ4}
+AFTERNOON SESSION
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+8
+THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time
+right now is 12:37 p.m.
+We're
+back on the record.
+- - -
+CONTINUED EXAMINATION
+-- -
+BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+10
+Q.
+Mr. Duffy, at any point
+11 during your time as CEO of the U.S.
+12 Private Bank, did you become concerned by
+13
+Mr. Epstein's use of cash from his
+14
+JPMorgan accounts?
+15
+I wasn't concerned about his
+16
+use of cash. Large clients use cash in
+17 different ways. They are different than,
+18 you know, the average person on Main
+19 Street.
+20
+But I did speak with
+21 Mr. Epstein about his use of cash and
+22 what it was for and made suggestions to
+23 him as it related to his response, which
+24
+was for aviation fuel, to use his
+Page 174
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 2910€₴
+1
+aviation account.
+2
+So your answer is no, you
+3 were not concerned about his use of cash?
+4
+It wasn't -- it wasn't
+5 outsized in relation to what clients of
+6 MI. Epstein's net worth or asset base
+- has. And it wasn't unusual, as it
+8 related to what was expected in that
+account, and he was pretty consistent in
+10 the use of that.
+11
+So we are always concerned
+12
+about people who use cash and might be
+13
+carrying cash around, because it's a
+14
+liability for them.
+15
+Q.
+So other than the size of --
+16
+well, strike that.
+17
+So you've just testified
+18
+that you weren't concerned about the size
+19 of the withdrawals.|
+Did anything else
+20 about the cash withdrawals concern you
+21 while you were CEO of the U.S. Private
+22 Bank?
+23
+MR.
+24
+: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: We -- clients
+Page 175
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098€78R a Document 32faht Filgd 0V/883tRase 29°á4}
+1
+2
+who take out cash regularly, we
+look for it to be consistent with
+what was expected for that
+4
+account. And the DDR is the
+5
+6
+mechanism for setting the
+expectation of activity in an
+7
+account. And Mr. Epstein's cash
+8
+withdrawals were consistent with
+9
+the expectations as set by his
+10
+11
+DDR.
+BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+Q.
+So to answer my question,
+you did not -- you were not concerned
+about any aspect of his cash usage while
+you were CEO of the U.S. Private Bank?
+I was curious about it. I
+asked him about it.
+18
+But you were not concerned
+19 about it?
+20
+No. We spoke about it. He
+21 gave me an answer, which was it was for
+22 jet fuel. I took him at his word and
+23 felt like I covered that with him.
+24
+And when he told you that,
+Page 176
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 32faht Filgd 0V/883tRage 39°đ4}
+you believed him?
+2
+I did.
+3
+Did you ever think he was
+4 being dishonest with you?
+5
+No, I did not.
+6
+So did you always take
+7
+Mr. Epstein at his word?
+8
+We didn't talk that often.
+9
+But on that -- on that matter in
+10 particular, yes.
+11
+Do you remember ever not
+12
+13
+taking him at his word during any of your
+conversations?
+14
+15
+Q.
+They were limited, so no.
+Did you ever discuss your
+16
+17
+18
+concerns -- well, withdrawn.
+Did you ever discuss
+Mr. Epstein's use of cash with Mary
+19 Erdoes?
+20
+Yes.
+21
+22
+23
+And what do you remember
+about -- well, when was that
+conversation?
+24
+I don't recall.
+Page 177
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n409967|8R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|2tRage 32rºde₴
+1
+didn't think that it was appropriate?
+2
+If I thought there was
+3 something inappropriate that Mr. Epstein
+4 was doing, then I wouldn't have approved
+5 it.
+6
+7
+If it was your
+responsibility to continue the
+8 relationship, why did you initially
+decline to approve the account?
+10
+In this review?
+11
+e.
+Yes.
+12
+More information, from my
+13
+perspective, since we had -- I had a
+14
+discussion with Mr. Epstein about his use
+15
+of cash to pay for fuel out of a Hyperion
+16
+account. I was looking for consistency.
+17
+e.
+And if you found out more
+18 information that made you think that
+19 approving Mr. Epstein's account was
+20 inappropriate, you would have declined to
+21 approve it, right?
+22
+If I thought there was
+23 anything he was doing that was wrong, a
+24
+crime, illicit, I would not have approved
+Page 207
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|2tRage 33rºde₴
+1
+e-mail, do you remember between --
+2 whether between 6:03 p.m. on March 27th
+3 and 6:25 p.m. on March 27th you had a
+4 conversation with Mr. Epstein about this
+5 particular cash withdrawal?
+6
+MR.
+: Objection.
+7
+THE WITNESS: I did not have
+8
+a conversation with him that I
+9
+recall on that day.
+10 BY MR. SCHIFFMANN:
+11
+So it stands to reason that
+12
+when you wrote, "I previously spoke with
+13
+Jeffrey Epstein about this activity, "
+14
+what you're referring to is his overall
+pattern of cash withdrawals, not this
+16
+particular cash withdrawal?
+17
+I don't -- I had a
+18
+conversation with him about his cash
+19 withdrawals and aviation fuel. That's
+20
+what I'm referring to there.
+21
+Do you remember ever
+22
+speaking with him specifically about the
+23
+24
+August Ist -- sorry, about the one
+payment that
+references?
+Page 212
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098€78R a Pocument 32faht Filgd pV883tRage 33rºбé₴
+1
+It was.
+2
+e.
+And, obviously, it was
+3 before this -- these events transpired,
+4 right?
+5
+It would -- it would have.
+6
+Yes.
+7
+Did you -- do you remember
+if it was a long time before or had you
+just had that conversation?
+10
+I don't recall.
+11
+What prompted you to speak
+12 to Mr. Epstein about his cash usage?
+13
+Cash is a funny asset. It
+14
+brings liability to clients when they
+15
+carry it around. Large clients often
+16
+take large cash at different times of the
+17
+year.
+Sometimes it's for household
+18
+19
+staff. Sometimes it's for holiday gifts.
+Sometimes it's for building personnel.
+20
+So it's not uncommon to talk
+21
+to a client about their cash.
+22
+And with Mr. Epstein, as
+23
+24
+I've said to you previously, in gaining a
+broader picture of his account, I asked
+Page 225
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n40996|8R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|23 tRage 30100€₴
+1 him about his cash and its usage, and he
+2 mentioned aviation fuel, particularly in
+3 parts of the world that can be a little
+4 bit more difficult to travel through.
+5 And where a U.S. bank card would
+6 typically not be accepted for payment,
+7 hence the OFAC.
+8
+9
+And as I previously
+mentioned, I took him at his word for
+10 that.
+11
+12
+13
+14
+e.
+So after this deep dive by
+, why did you think you needed
+to speak to him again about the cash
+withdrawals?
+15
+I don't recall. And I don't
+16
+think we did. That's my recollection.
+17
+The last long sentence in
+18 this e-mail is, "Perhaps the best next
+19 step is for us to speak with Harry, who
+20 we know, and ask Harry about the cash
+21 withdrawals."
+22
+23
+24
+l.
+Do you see that?
+I do.
+And this is Harry Beller?
+Page 226
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 32faht Filgd 0V883tRage 35rºбé₴
+1
+Mr. Staley --
+2
+Which is what happened after
+3 Mr. Staley left JPMorgan.
+4
+Did it happen while
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+Mr. Staley was there?
+No, it happened after
+Mr. Staley left JPMorgan.
+Q.
+You still could have chosen
+not to approve any of these KYCs, right?
+True.
+Q.
+And in your prior testimony,
+that would have kicked off a process of
+additional conversations about what to do
+with Mr. Epstein's account, right?
+Yes.
+16
+And you chose to approve
+17
+these accounts?
+18
+Based upon having had a
+19 conversation with Mr. Staley about his
+20
+wishes to retain Mr. Epstein.
+21
+So your testimony is
+22
+Mr. Staley did not order you to maintain
+23 the relationship, correct?
+24
+Mr. Staley did not order me.
+Page 242
+
+
+Case 1:2208n4099618R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 350€₴
+1
+And you had discretion to
+refuse to approve these account retention
+3
+4
+5
+requests, right?
+retention requests?
+I'm sorry, the account
+6
+Yeah. You had discretion to
+7
+decline to approve these KYCs.
+8
+• In light of
+9
+Mr. Staley's request to keep Mr. Epstein
+10 as a client, I didn't see that I had --
+11 there was a -- there was another avenue
+12 there.
+13
+And that would appear, as we
+14 just looked at, a conversation about
+15
+Mr. Staley and Mr. Cutler, that that was
+16
+another affirmation by Mr. Staley that
+17
+Mr. Epstein remains a client at JPMorgan.
+18
+When you say Mr. Staley's
+19 request to keep Mr. Epstein as a client,
+20
+what do you mean?
+21
+When I said to Jes at the
+22
+23
+24
+end of our conversation, if I'm asked why
+Mr. Epstein is a client, my response is,
+because of Jes Staley.
+Page 243
+
+
+3
+4
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+24
+Case 1:22c8n4098€78R a Document 32faht Filgd pV/883tRage 33rđé₴
+1
+Do you see in the next
+e-mail you write, "Okay"?
+Yes.
+So Mr. Walden was asked to
+5 approve a $50 million line of credit for
+6 Mr. Epstein, right?
+He was.
+And he raised reputational
+concerns, right?
+He did.
+And Mr. Nelson asked you
+whether you were okay moving forward,
+based on the reputational concerns,
+right?
+e.
+Correct.
+And then you said okay?
+I did.
+And by this time, Mr. Staley
+was out of JpMorgan?
+Yes.
+Who was Kevin McCleerey?
+Kevin was part of the risk
+23 and control team.
+e.
+Did you have any
+Page 255
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n409967|8R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|23 tRage 38rº€₴
+received the cash for fuel explanation --
+2 or you never looked into whether or not
+3 that explanation made sense, given that
+4 he had spent a considerable number of
+5
+years in jail and then on house arrest?
+6
+MR.
+: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: Could you
+8
+repeat your question, please.
+9
+MS. LIU: Can I have that
+10
+question read back.
+11
+12
+13
+14
+(Whereupon, the court
+reporter read back the requested
+portions of the transcript.)
+THE WITNESS: That
+15
+16
+explanation, to me, was taken at
+face value and post the
+17
+18
+19
+conversation with Mr. Epstein.
+Many of his cash activities, as
+recommended to him for his
+20
+21
+aviation fuel needs, were switched
+to his aviation account, Hyperion.
+22
+BY MS. LIU:
+23
+24
+Taken at face value, meaning
+you didn't do any digging into whether or
+Page 345
+
+
+Case 1:2208n40996 8R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 391º€₴
+1 not that explanation made sense? You
+2 just took Mr. Epstein at his word,
+3 correct?
+4
+I took Mr. Epstein at his
+5
+word. And then following that, his cash
+6 activity for fuel came out of the
+• Hyperion account, and that made sense.
+8
+It came out of the Hyperion
+account at your suggestion, correct?
+10
+Well, it came -- if he is
+11
+using money, his money for aviation
+12
+purposes, it's common sense and good
+13
+advice to give a client advice to make
+14
+sure that money comes out of your
+15
+aviation account so that when you're
+16
+accounting for your aviation expenses,
+17
+they are well documented.
+18
+But you knew that the money
+19
+was simply being transferred into the
+20
+aviation account a few days before it was
+21 then taken out of the aviation account,
+22 correct, Mr. Duffy? That's what the
+23 documents in this case show?
+24
+MR.
+: Objection.
+Page 346
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 4010€₴
+trafficking business?
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+MR.
+: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: I had no
+reason to believe that
+Mr. Epstein -- and at no point in
+time did I believe Mr. Epstein was
+committing criminal acts through
+JPMorgan, such as sex trafficking.
+9 BY MS. LIU:
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+so, therefore, you didn't
+look or have any of the people working
+for you at the Private Bank look at his
+transactions to see if any might have
+matched up with the allegations of sex
+trafficking; is that fair?
+No, that's not fair. Our
+risk and control teams monitor client
+cash activity.
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+All right. So let's pull up
+Tab 12, please.
+THE COURT REPORTER: Is that
+something you're putting in the
+chat?
+Page 365
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88/23 tRage 4rºe}
+from my own position on that.
+2
+Mr. Staley had left the
+3 bank. He was no longer a sponsor or
+4 vouching for Mr. Epstein. And we chose
+5 to terminate the relationship at that
+6 point in time.
+7
+8
+MR. SCHIFFMANN: Objection,
+and move to strike.
+9
+BY MS. LIU:
+10
+What were the reputational
+11 risks that you had about Mr. Epstein,
+12
+including when you exited him in 2013?
+13
+Sorry?
+14
+e.
+What were the reputational
+15
+risks that had been known about
+16
+Mr. Epstein for a long time by the time
+17
+you exited him in 2013, Mr. Duffy?
+18
+MR.
+:
+Objection.
+19
+THE WITNESS: The two
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+specific elements of Mr. Epstein's
+life, of being a felon and a sex
+offender, were the points of focus
+for me.
+BY MS. LIU:
+Page 370
+
+
+Case 1:22c8/n4099678R a Document 32fatit Filgd 09/88|23tRage 43rºd€}
+1
+3
+4
+And the bank had known he
+was a felon and sex offender since 2008,
+correct?
+6
+If that was when he was
+convicted, yes. I don't recall.
+And, yet, the bank waited
+until sometime in 2013 to exit
+Mr. Epstein's account from the bank; is
+that correct?
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+That's factual.
+Why did it take you almost a
+year from the time Mr. Staley left and
+clearly could no longer be vouching, as
+you said, for Mr. Epstein to exit his
+accounts from the bank?
+MR.
+Objection.
+THE WITNESS: There was a
+process. It takes time. And
+that's what it became.
+20
+BY MS. LIU:
+21
+l. But Mr. Staley had already
+22 been demoted from his position as CEO of
+23 the investment bank in early 2012 related
+24
+to the London-Wales scandal, correct,
+Page 371
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a614c18cd316e1ac101b1e07d01203c0bbf51db337f760545c6fe8c91f7d78f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a614c18cd316e1ac101b1e07d01203c0bbf51db337f760545c6fe8c91f7d78f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bd8eec45b6c23c8f63e416d42410f8064b76a7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a614c18cd316e1ac101b1e07d01203c0bbf51db337f760545c6fe8c91f7d78f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -2006,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a614c18cd316e1ac101b1e07d01203c0bbf51db337f760545c6fe8c91f7d78f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 44,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "a0e857701a5f253930fcf16a34daa5ee7b983c5be5bc89e932908b9d32a4abaa",
+  "output_sha256": "bd625e56ff35d45e4aad4a6a4a205e7b8a0cb6a3276b2eb4e4ec230278267393",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a683e046350e5492f9bf6d9c05923b4dba89b9714f4f84f605da733dbe21c78.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a683e046350e5492f9bf6d9c05923b4dba89b9714f4f84f605da733dbe21c78.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cf75b285e1dc1923adf957dd7b844c9226642879
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a683e046350e5492f9bf6d9c05923b4dba89b9714f4f84f605da733dbe21c78.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 226-17 Filed 07/24/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a683e046350e5492f9bf6d9c05923b4dba89b9714f4f84f605da733dbe21c78.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a683e046350e5492f9bf6d9c05923b4dba89b9714f4f84f605da733dbe21c78.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..11126bff45dc142523963c94c5eebadecd242280
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a683e046350e5492f9bf6d9c05923b4dba89b9714f4f84f605da733dbe21c78.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a683e046350e5492f9bf6d9c05923b4dba89b9714f4f84f605da733dbe21c78",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "48b38369d5b9b0e8c7e3170b0d164c7fe20994cdc28515459b1b9ffb57ba90b2",
+  "output_sha256": "5124d353c8c5844a0c9bdfb0a502ca581b1e9b44e15b79584afd855e8478d04d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a68ad9f8894e12989273ec923cf743d5fee5636585226e6ffb1a7a956f3c6be.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a68ad9f8894e12989273ec923cf743d5fee5636585226e6ffb1a7a956f3c6be.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..707596841d14b69ec6a1122facb99d1e6225df96
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a68ad9f8894e12989273ec923cf743d5fee5636585226e6ffb1a7a956f3c6be.md
@@ -0,0 +1,14232 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-x
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+
+2028
+20 CR 330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+-x
+Before:
+HON. ALISON J. NATHAN,
+Jury Trial
+New York, N.Y.
+December 10, 2021
+8:55 a.m.
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+BY: MAURENE COMEY
+ALISON MOE
+LARA POMERANTZ
+ANDREW ROHRBACH
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+HADDON I
+AND
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA
+LAURA A. MENNINGER
+-and-
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+-and-
+& GRESSER
+BY:
+CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL
+Also Present: Amanda Young, FBI
+Paul Byrne, NYPD
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+2029
+THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Good to see
+everyone.
+Matters to take up, counsel?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. Just a
+housekeeping matter with respect to Government Exhibit 52. We
+just wanted to clarify, before we offered the excerpts, that we
+would be offering
+Government Exhibit 52 and its subparts
+pursuant to a stipulation that they are true and accurate
+photocopies. I just wanted to make sure we clarified that
+before we offered it at the beginning of the court day.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm not sure if we're saying the same
+thing. I understood that 52 was being offered foundationally,
+which is the entire document, and that then there are the
+excerpts that were being offered into evidence for the jury.
+That was my understanding of the process that we were doing.
+THE COURT: Ms. Moe, it's your exhibit.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. I think the way in
+which we're proposing handling this would be similar in the way
+we handled the message pads, which is part of the
+authentication, involves the message pads themselves. So those
+exhibits were offered and also the subparts as marked
+exhibit --
+THE COURT: I think you are then saying the same
+thing.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. So you'll move 52 in its
+entirety. There is a stipulation as to the accuracy of the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+2030
+copies on the subset of exhibits by letter, and you'll move
+those, as well.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I guess my question, your Honor, is
+what's going --
+THE COURT: Hang on a second.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: -- to the jury is really the question.
+My belief, when we address this with the witness, was the
+government was not offering the entirety of 52, the government
+was offering the photocopies of the various pages, and that was
+the exhibit that was being admitted to the jury, and that's, I
+think, a significant distinction here.
+THE COURT: So you're opposing movement of the --
+obviously, you've objected. Io any event, I've overruled, but
+even after that, you have an objection to moving the whole
+thing to the jury or you just think it's inconsistent with how
+it's been discussed or I suppose inconsistent with how it was
+discussed at the time it was moved?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
+We had this colloquy. The
+government simply moved to admit the -- I think it's five
+pages. That was the extent of the admission. My suggestion,
+because we were dealing with the foundation issues, was that we
+would have that exhibit, we would agree to the copies being
+admitted per the government's request, but I wanted the actual
+exhibit as part of the record for any necessary appellate
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 267
+2031
+issues. And that's how I understood this was being addressed.
+THE COURT: Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for
+the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of
+52?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there are a couple of problems.
+Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52,
+because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being
+admitted. So I think that's problem number 1.
+There are also problems, I think, simply with
+relevance related to the rest of the exhibit, and there were
+discrete portions that the government said the government was
+contending were relevant and not the other portions. So the
+book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of
+what was appropriate for cross examination at the time.
+THE COURT: My clerk is sending me the portion of the
+transcript.
+I can't tell if you're in disagreement yet or not,
+Ms. Moe.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think the issue is more
+that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has
+now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would
+evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order
+to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object
+itself. That's what we wanted to clarify about whether that
+would be part of the record.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+LCACmax1
+
+2032
+THE COURT: You say now it's been put in dispute. It
+was certainly in dispute at the time you moved. So we'll see
+what was moved and go from there.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: I have the parties proposed limiting
+instruction, which looks just right to me. So thank you.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. And aside from this
+matter, there are no additional matters this morning.
+MS. MENNINGER: I was going to propose that your Honor
+handle the limiting instruction for
+testimony in
+the same way that we handled it for Kate in that she would be
+brought into the witness stand and the Court would read that
+limiting instruction so the jury can identify the person about
+who the limiting instruction is being given.
+THE COURT: I think we indicated yesterday before the
+break that we would do it the same way.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: There
+is another issue, your Honor, to
+a newly disclosed witness as of last night or yesterday
+evening. The witness's name is William
+, as I understand
+it. He is a, I would say, record custodian for DMV related to
+the identity of an individual that has the same name.
+THE COURT: Same first name?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct.
+THE COURT: As Jane?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+LCACmax1
+2033
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. So we are objecting to the late
+endorsement and the calling of the witness, first on simply
+disclosure issues, but second, I'm unclear of the relevance,
+given the lack of any, I'll call it, tying to any actual
+testimony.
+We're going to get a DMV record, as I understand it,
+from this witness that no one else who has testified has ever
+done any comparator between whatever is in the DMV record and
+either photographs or other information about the witness that
+Mr. Rodgers talked about. So I don't think there has been a
+linkup for relevance purposes.
+So we object on the basis of relevance to this witness
+being called, as well.
+THE COURT: Who will handle this one?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. This exhibit and this
+evidence is directly responsive to an issue raised by the
+defense in their cross examination of both pilots in this case.
+As the Court may recall, defense counsel suggested
+that the Jane in the records in the 1990s could potentially be
+the person with the first name Jane from the 2000s. We have
+produced in discovery, and is nontestifying witness materials,
+ample material that makes it clear that could not possibly --
+and in response to the suggestion that it might be this
+different person, we now need to clarify the record on that.
+As defense counsel knows, the second Jane from the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+2034
+2000s wasn't even in the United States in the 1990s. In fact,
+her date of birth and age makes clear that she could not be an
+adult in the 1990s on that flight --
+THE COURT: It's a rebuttal witness.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: On the disclosure front, I suppose if they
+want to make you wait and do it in rebuttal -- why you want to
+do that, I'm not sure, but on the disclosure front, it's
+clearly a rebuttal witness. I don't think someone that they
+could have anticipated needing but for the arguments put
+forward by the defense, you tell me if I'm wrong, but I'd
+certainly let -- on the disclosure front, I'd let the
+government call the person as a rebuttal witness. Whether we
+do that now or in rebuttal, I suppose, is -- I'll hear from
+both sides on that question.
+And then relevance, I think you've indicated the
+rebuttal relevance of the evidence you're seeking to get in?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. On the disclosure front, I
+want to make clear we produced this exhibit the same day we
+received it. We were on equal footing with the defense here.
+In terms of the content of the testimony in the exhibit, it's
+just a picture and date of birth, which is information the
+defense has had or for a very long time now. It's a person
+that the defendant herself knows.
+So I don't think there is any surprise or mystery
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22
+
+2035
+about a photograph of this defendant -- of this person which is
+the same as the photograph the defense has already offered and
+connecting that up with her date of birth, which is information
+that is not a mystery to the defense, they've been in
+possession of that information for a long time now through
+discovery. So we're both on equal footing.
+We promptly
+complied with our discovery obligations. There is no surprise
+in the substance of this testimony or the exhibit.
+So we would like to correct the record before the jury
+now because there is no basis to suggest to this jury that the
+person in the 1990s flights is Jane. That is misleading and we
+would like to clarify that today.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, if the Court is going to
+allow it on rebuttal, it makes sense to do it now. I don't see
+why we would need to delay the witness. So if the Court is
+going to allow it, I would just --
+THE COURT: I'll allow it. It is rebuttal. The
+relevance is that the defense has suggested that, with both
+pilot witnesses, that the person they either remember to have
+the first name -- same first name as Jane or listed on
+Mr. Rodgers' 1og as having the same first name as Jane wasn't,
+in fact, Jane.
+I understand the government's proffer to be that they
+have evidence that shows this other person who has the same
+first name as Jane would not have been -- whose age and also
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+2036
+presence in the U.S. -- is that part of it or just the age?
+MS. MOE: Just the age.
+What we're offering is not a
+travel record. I think the photograph that was offered by
+defense counsel is of an adult. The testimony with that person
+was a person -- so her date of birth makes clear that she
+couldn't have been a personal assistant as an underage girl
+given her date of birth and given the timing. This would have
+been in the 2000s.
+THE COURT: Rebuttal relevance, I think, is apparent.
+So I will allow it and we can do it now.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: What else can I take up?
+MS. MOE: Nothing from the government, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+will check on the
+juror members.
+While we're gathering that, I would like to speak to
+the parties at sidebar just as to how to address the jury about
+the followup from the break yesterday.
+(Page 2037 SEALED)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 10 of 267
+2038
+(In open court)
+THE COURT: I've looked at the transcript, and the
+government expressly said it wasn't moving 52 in its entirety.
+So that's what's in issue and that's what I reserved on. So
+it's the subletters. Then 52, what's been marked for
+identification as 52 should be part of the record for purposes
+of the 901 issue. Okay?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: But what's been moved are the sub-sheet
+copies.
+If nothing else, I'll step down until we have our
+jury.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+(Recess)
+THE COURT: We have our jury. Any reason not to bring
+them in, counsel?
+MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Please bring in the jury.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 267 2039
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: Thank you so much, members of the jury.
+Appreciate your patience yesterday. I'm very pleased to report
+all the attorneys are here.
+Everyone is doing well. So we can
+continue.
+Ms. Moe, the government may call its next witness.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. At this time, we
+would like to read a stipulation between the parties.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+For the record, your Honor, the stipulation is marked
+Government Exhibit 1009. The stipulation is regarding
+Government Exhibit 52.
+THE COURT: Just, without objection?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Without objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MS. MOE: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and
+among the United States of America, by Damien
+United
+States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and
+Maureen Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach,
+Assistant United States Attorneys of counsel, and defendant,
+Ghislaine Maxwell, by and with the consent of her attorneys,
+Christian Everdell, Laura Menninger, Jeffrey Pagliuca, and
+Bobbi Sternheim, that Government Exhibits 52A, 52D, 52E, 52F,
+52G, and 52H are true and correct photo copies of six pages of
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 12 of 267
+2040
+Government Exhibit 52.
+Your Honor, pursuant to this stipulation, the
+government offers the following exhibits under seal:
+Government Exhibits 52A, 52D, 52E, 52F, 52G, and 52H.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Subject to our previous record, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I am admitting the
+exhibits just indicated with a limiting instruction.
+(Government's Exhibits 52A, 52D, 52E, 52F, 52G, and
+52H received in evidence)
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, the exhibit is being
+offered for a limited purpose. They were not being offered for
+the truth of the matters asserted therein, and you may not
+consider it for that purpose. Rather, you may consider them
+only to the extent you believe it is relevant to show a link,
+if any, between Ms. Maxwell and the names and phone numbers
+listed and how, if at all, the information was organized.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. And may these
+exhibits be received under seal to protect the identities of
+witnesses testifying under pseudonyms and the privacy of third
+parties?
+THE COURT: No objection to the sealing?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
+THE COURT: For the reasons indicated, they are
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+admitted under seal.
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 13 of 267
+2041
+the jurors turn to what's now in
+evidence under seal as Government Exhibits 52G, which is in
+their binders.
+THE COURT: Without objection?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
+THE COURT: Large binders, GX52G, please.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. May the jurors have
+a moment to read this exhibit. In particular, we would direct
+the jurors' attention to the entries under massage, Florida,
+for --
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I object to the direction
+here.
+THE COURT: Sustained. They can review the document.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. May we give the
+jurors a few minutes to read the document in full?
+THE COURT: Just G?
+MS. MOE: 52G, your Honor, yes.
+THE COURT: They can take a moment for 52G, yes.
+(Pause)
+Okay.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Finally, we would
+offer Government Exhibit 1009. This stipulation is a public
+exhibit.
+THE COURT: Without objection and on stipulation, 1009
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+- direct
+is admitted.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Jurors may put the binders down and the
+government may call its next witness.
+MR. ROHRBACH: The government calls William
+THE COURT: William
+may come forward.
+2042
+WILLIAM
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. I
+• You may be seated
+and you may remove your mask and please state and spell your
+name for the record.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you. My name is William
+w-i-1-1-i-a-m B-r-o-w-n.
+THE COURT: Mr. Rohrbach, you may inquire.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MR. ROHRBACH:
+l. Good morning.
+A. Good morning.
+Q. Mr.
+, where do you work?
+A. I work for the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles,
+Division of Field Investigations.
+Q. What is your position there?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 15 of 267
+- direct
+A. My position is a supervisor/investigator.
+Q. As part of your job, are you familiar with the process by
+which people obtain identification cards?
+A. Yes,
+I am.
+l. Are you familiar with the Department of Motor Vehicles'
+business
+practices
+around the issuing of identification card?
+A. Yes,
+I
+am.
+Q. How does someone get an identification card?
+A. A person would have to go to a DMV office, fill out an
+application, take a picture, then provide original
+documentation to their identification to the motor vehicle
+representative.
+Q. What sort of information do they provide to the Department
+of Motor Vehicles?
+A. They provide name, date of birth, social security number.
+l. And what, if anything, does the Department of Motor
+Vehicles do to verify that information?
+A. We verify the original documents' security features.
+l. What original documents do you 100k at?
+A. Social security cards, possible U.S. passport, birth
+certificate.
+l. Does that happen at or near the time the information is
+provided?
+A. Yes, it does.
+Q. You mentioned that a photograph is taken. Who takes that
+2043
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 16 of 267
+- direct
+photograph?
+A. A motor vehicle representative will take that photograph at
+the counter.
+Q. Is making identification cards a regular practice of the
+Department of Motor Vehicles?
+A. Yes, it is.
+l. I'd like you to pick up the folder next to you. Would you
+please look at what's been marked for identification as
+Government Exhibit 21.
+A. Okay.
+l. Do you recognize this?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. Have you reviewed it before today?
+A. Yes, I have.
+Q. Without saying any names, what is it?
+A. It is a database -- New York State DMV compass database.
+l. What is the compass database or what records are stored?
+A. ID cards, driver's licenses.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate report from the compass
+database?
+A. Yes, it is.
+l. Is the data stored in the compass database kept in the
+ordinary course of business?
+A. Yes, it is.
+MR. ROHRBACH: The government offers Government
+2044
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 17 of 267
+- direct
+Exhibit 21 as a sealed exhibit to protect the identities of
+witnesses testifying under pseudonyms.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Subject to the previous record, your
+2045
+Honor.
+THE COURT: GX21 is admitted for the reasons I
+previously indicated under seal to protect the identity of the
+witnesses.
+BY MR. ROHRBACH:
+l. Supervisory Investigator
+I. would you please turn to
+what's been marked for identification in your folder as
+Government Exhibit 22.
+A. Okay.
+l. Do you recognize this?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. Have you reviewed it before today?
+A. Yes, I have.
+l. What is it?
+A. This is an image capture that was taken of the person who
+received an ID card.
+l. Is it the same person as the person in Government Exhibit
+21 that we were just looking at?
+A. Yes, it is.
+Q. How is this record stored at the DMV?
+A. This record is stored in a photosystem database.
+Q. Is it kept in the regular courts of business?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 267
+2046
+- direct
+A. Yes, it is.
+Q. Is that document a fair and accurate copy of the image from
+the DMV's database?
+A. Yes, it is.
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 22 under seal for the pseudonym reason.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: Subject to the previous record, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. For the reasons indicated, I will
+admit Government Exhibit 22. It's admitted under seal to
+protect the identity of the testifying witness.
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, with the Court's
+permission, I would ask the jurors first turn in their binders
+what's already in evidence under seal as Defense Exhibit LV3A.
+THE COURT: Without objection, Mr. Pagliuca? Without
+objection to directing the jurors to turn to LVA?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: That's fine, your Honor.
+THE COURT: It's in the binder or the folder?
+MR. ROHRBACH: Front of the binder.
+THE COURT: Front of the binder, LV3A.
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, now with the Court's
+permission, I direct the jurors and the witness to turn to
+what's in evidence under seal as Government Exhibit 22.
+THE COURT: Just admitted GX22, so you may turn to
+that.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 19 of 267 2047
+- direct
+Q. Supervisory Investigator
+1, what is the date that this
+photo was taken?
+A. This photo was taken on April 28th of 2004.
+MR. ROHRBACH: Now, your Honor, I would ask that the
+witness and the jury turn to Government Exhibit 21.
+THE COURT: I just admitted GX21, so you may turn to
+that, members of the jury.
+Q. Directing your attention to the middle of the page, what is
+the box titled nondriver ID history?
+A. This box states the date that the nondriver ID was issued
+and the date that it expires.
+2. What is the date that this nondriver ID was issued?
+A. It was issued on April 28th of 2004.
+Q. And is that the same date as the date on the photograph we
+just looked at?
+A. Yes, it is.
+l. Directing your attention to the top of the page, again,
+without saying any names, do you see where it says DOB?
+2. What does that stand for?
+A. Date of birth.
+I. What is the year of this date of birth?
+A. The year of this date of birth is 1985.
+l. How old was someone born in 1985 in 1996?
+A. Someone born in 1985 in 1996 would be 11 years old.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCACmax1
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 20 of 267
+- direct
+MR. ROHRBACH: No further questions, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I have no questions of this witness,
+2048
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you, Mr.
+You may step down.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you.
+(Witness excused)
+THE COURT: Government may call its next witness.
+MS. POMERANTZ: The government calls
+may come forward. Good
+morning,
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+THE COURT: You may be seated. You can remove your
+mask and please state and spell your name for the record.
+THE WITNESS: My name is
+, A-n-n-i-e
+F-a-I-m-e-r.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, I have a limiting
+instruction.
+I anticipate that you'll hear testimony from the next
+witness about physical contact that she says she had with
+Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that
+the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein
+and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual
+activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 267 2049
+- direct
+indictment. I'll give you more instructions on the legal term,
+quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the
+case.
+However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony
+is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but
+you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection
+on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to
+commit any of the crimes charged in the document.
+I. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+e. Good morning.
+A. Good morning.
+e. How old are you?
+A. I'm 42 years old.
+MS. POMERANIZ: Your Honor, at this time, I would ask
+that the jurors be permitted to take out their binders and turn
+to Government Exhibit 13, which is in evidence under seal, and
+I would ask that the witness also look at Government Exhibit
+13.
+THE COURT: Ms. Menninger, without objection?
+MS. MENNINGER: Sorry, your Honor. One moment.
+THE COURT: That's okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, you could open your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 267
+- direct
+2050
+binder to GX13 and direct the witness to open to GX13.
+Q. What
+is Government Exhibit 13?
+A. It's a copy of my birth certificate.
+Q. Directing your attention on the first line towards the top
+right, is that the date of your birth?
+A. Yes, that's correct.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, we can put that away now.
+THE COURT: You can put down your binders. Thank you.
+Q. In what state were you born?
+A. Missouri.
+2. Where did you grow up?
+A. I moved around a bit when I was young, but when I was 8
+years old, I moved to Arizona and lived there until I graduated
+from high school.
+Q. How far did you go in school?
+A. I completed my Ph.D.
+l. Where did you go to college?
+A. I went to the University of Pennsylvania for my
+undergraduate.
+2. Where did you get your Ph.D.?
+A. University of Texas at Austin.
+0. What is your Ph.D. in?
+A. Educational psychology.
+8. What kind of work do you do now?
+A. I'm a psychologist and I work primarily as a therapist.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCACmax1
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 267
+| - direct
+2051
+2. Now, Annie, could you please 1ook around the courtroom and
+let us know, you do you see anyone in this courtroom who has
+ever given you a massage?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. Could you please describe where the person you recognize is
+sitting and describe an item of clothing the person is wearing.
+A. She's wearing a
+sweater. She's seated to my right at
+the end of the table next to you.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Let the record reflect that the
+witness has identified the defendant.
+THE COURT: Record may so reflect.
+Q. How old were you when Maxwell gave you a massage?
+A. I was 16 years old.
+I. We'll talk about that more later, but I want to switch
+gears and take a step back.
+A. Okay.
+l. Where did you go to high school?
+A. I went to high school in Phoenix, Arizona.
+Q. And when you were about 16 years old, in what state were
+you living?
+A. In Arizona.
+2. When you were 16 years old, who did you live with at home?
+A. I lived with my mom and my little sister, Ashley, and our
+dog.
+Q. Did your dad live with you?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+
+- direct
+2052
+A. No. My parents are divorced.
+Q. Was your mother employed?
+A. She was.
+Q. What kind of work did she do?
+A. She was a sales rep for Owen Company, and she worked for
+herself -- worked with a couple of different companies.
+Q. What
+was your understanding of your family's financial
+circumstances when you were 16 years old?
+A. Money was tight. It had often been a stressor since my
+parents were divorced and my mom was supporting my sisters and
+I pretty much on her own without much help at all from my
+father. So I was in high school and looking forward to college
+and worried about money and how that would work out.
+l. You mentioned that you lived with your mom and your younger
+sister. Do you have any other siblings?
+A. Yes, I have an older sister.
+Q. What is your older sister's name?
+2. About how much older than you is your sister?
+A. She is a little more than nine years older than me.
+l. When you were 16 years old, where did Maria live?
+A. She lived in Manhattan.
+l. What did Maria do for a living?
+A. She had just completed her graduate school in painting and
+she was working as a painter, but her employment was with
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 25 of 267
+- direct
+2053
+Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. Did you talk to Maria while she was working for Jeffrey
+Epstein?
+A. I did.
+l. How did you speak with Maria?
+A. We would talk on the phone.
+l. Did there come a time when you visited Maria in New York?
+l. Approximately when did you visit Maria in New York?
+A. It was December 1995.
+l. Had you visited Maria in New York before December 1995?
+A. I had not.
+e. Why not?
+A. Money was, as I said, tight for us. So she had graduated,
+but we had not been able to attend that. And just affording a
+plane ticket was a big deal. So I had not gone to visit her.
+Q. How was it that you were able to afford this trip in
+December 1995 to New York?
+A. Jeffrey Epstein purchased a ticket for me.
+2. What were you hoping to do on this trip to New York?
+A. I was hoping, one, to see my sister. I was very excited to
+see her. It had been some time. I was also hoping to be
+acquainted with Jeffrey Epstein. He had said that he was
+interested in helping --
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor. It
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 267|
+- direct
+2054
+wasn't directly to her.
+THE COURT: Just a moment. Sustained.
+Q. Annie, did there come a time when your sister spoke to you
+about a trip to New
+York?
+Q. And what did she tell you about this trip to New York?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, effect on the listener.
+THE COURT: Just a moment. Is this the issue we've
+discussed?
+MS. POMERANTZ: I believe so, yes.
+THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
+MS. MENNINGER: If that's the question --
+THE COURT: I'll listen to the testimony and if it's
+beyond that, I'll hear the objection.
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Go ahead. Do you need the question
+repeated?
+THE WITNESS: Yes. Could you repeat that.
+BY MS. POMERANIZ:
+2. What had your sister, Maria, told you about the trip to New
+York?
+A. She had said that Epstein was interested in possibly
+helping me with my education, and this was one of the reasons
+that he was purchasing my ticket.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 27 of 267
+2055
+- direct
+MS. MENNINGER: I renew my objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: So I'll overrule the objection, but I will
+tell the jury that the testimony that
+just provided
+about what was told to her is not being offered for the truth,
+but for the limited purpose of the effect on the listener,
+Go ahead.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. How did you travel to New York?
+A. I flew, commercially.
+2. Who, if anyone, did you travel with to New York?
+A. No one. I flew by myself.
+2. Who paid for your flight to New York?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Foundation, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right. Sustained.
+l. Did you pay for your flight to New York?
+A. I did not.
+Q. When you were in New York, who, if anyone, did you think
+bought you the ticket?
+A. When I met Epstein --
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay. It's
+being offered for that purpose.
+THE COURT: Additional foundation questions are
+required.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I'll move on for now.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 28 of 267
+- direct
+2056
+Thank you.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Where did you stay in New York?
+A. I stayed with my sister in her apartment.
+Q. Approximately how long were you in New York?
+A. I believe it was about a week.
+Q. When did you go to New York?
+A. After Christmas in 1995.
+l. Did there come a time when you met Jeffrey Epstein during
+that trip?
+l. Did you meet Maxwell during this trip to New York?
+A. I did not.
+l. How many times did you see Jeffrey Epstein during this trip
+in New York?
+A. There were two different occasions that I recall.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up
+for just the witness, the parties, and the Court, what has been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 101.
+l. Annie, do you recognize this?
+9. What is it?
+A. It's my high school photo from my junior year in high
+school.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of your physical
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 29 of 267
+- direct
+appearance around the time you met Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. It is.
+2057
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 101 in evidence.
+MS. MENNINGER: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. GX101 is admitted. You |
+• POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. How old were you at the time this photograph was taken?
+A. I was 16 years old.
+Q. How old were you on the trip to New York?
+A. I was 16 years old.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, can you please pull up
+what's already in evidence as Government Exhibit 112.
+l. Annie, do you recognize the person in this photograph?
+2. Who is it?
+A. It's Jeffrey Epstein.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, we can take that down.
+Thanks very much.
+l. Can you please describe for the jury what happened the
+first time you met Jeffrey Epstein.
+A. Yes. My sister and I went to his home. He had purchased
+tickets for us to attend the Phantom of the Opera. So we met
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 30 of 267 2058
+- direct
+with him at his home. He was very - he seemed very friendly
+and kind of down to earth, he was dressed casually. We were
+dressed up because we were going to the theater and this was a
+big deal because I had been very excited about seeing this
+production, and he invited us into his home and we talked and
+served us champaign. And then, later on, his driver took us to
+the play.
+Q. Just to unpack that a little bit. Where did you meet
+Epstein?
+A. At his home.
+Q. Can you describe for the jury what the home looked like.
+A. Yeah, it was a very grand home. I was staying with my
+sister in her apartment, which is about, I think, 500 square
+feet. So I had never been in a private residence that was so
+large in the city before. It was full of very nice things.
+remember sitting across a desk from him, like, you know, a
+beautiful large wooden desk in this kind of library room. And,
+yeah, it was just a very, you know, a very fancy home.
+THE COURT:
+could I ask you to move the
+microphone a little bit closer to you if you speak directly
+into it.
+THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+I. What, if anything, did Epstein ask you about?
+A. Well, one thing he asked me about was my plans for after
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 31 of 267 2059
+- direct
+high school, and we talked a bit about colleges and he asked me
+where
+I was considering. I remember he suggested that I should
+look at UCLA, that that was a place that he liked or had some
+connection. And then, yeah, just made, you know, made small
+talk.
+Q. What, if anything, did Epstein talk to you about in terms
+of your summer?
+A. We'd talked about the idea of me going on a trip that
+summer, something that would help sort of boost my application
+for college, that would look good. So a lot of people at that
+time were doing international trips and he said that was
+something he thought would be a good idea for me to do and he
+would be willing to help me with that.
+l. How did you feel when you first met Epstein?
+A. I was excited. He was, again, very friendly with me, he
+seemed down to earth. I had been sort of intimidated by what I
+heard of him, but he seemed, you know, very nice when I met
+him. What he said about wanting to help me was, of course,
+exciting, reassuring.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 32 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2060
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. After you met Epstein in his home, where did you go?
+A. His driver took my sister and I to see The Phantom of the
+Opera.
+l. And who -- just to be clear, who went to the theater?
+A. My sister Maria and I.
+l. Did you see Jeffrey Epstein again during this trip to New
+York?
+l. Where did you see him again?
+A. We met him one evening to go see a movie.
+e. Who went to the movies?
+A. My sister, myself, and Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. What movie did you see?
+A. The movie Five Monkeys.
+l. Who did you sit next to at the movie theater?
+A. I sat next to Epstein.
+Q. And where was Maria seated?
+A. She was seated on his other side.
+l. What happened during the movie?
+A. Initially, when the lights went down, watching the movie.
+And then at some point he reaches
+: over and puts his hand on the
+armrest in between our seats and starts to reach for my hand.
+And then, you know, caressed my hand; and then, you know,
+interlocked his hand with mine, holding my hand. And then also
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 267 2061
+- direct
+was rubbing my -- I think I had my, you know, legs crossed, so
+he was
+rubbing the bottom of my shoe and then rubbing my foot
+and my leg.
+Q. When he was doing that, what was your reaction?
+A. I was very surprised. I was very nervous and anxious.
+felt sick to my stomach. It was not something that I was at
+all expecting. And I noticed that when he would interact in
+some way with my sister, that he would stop doing that. And
+then when he -- when the interaction was over, we were
+watching -- he was looking forward again, he would return to
+touching me.
+Q. What happened after the movie ended?
+A. When the movie ended, we got up, left the theater. And he
+said good-bye and walked -- my sister and I walked back.
+Q. Did you tell your sister about what had happened in the
+movie theater?
+A. I did not.
+Q. Why not?
+A. I was, number one, very confused about what had happened.
+And I knew that she was very protective. And if I told her
+that he had done something that aimed to touch me and make me
+so uncomfortable, that she would be upset. And that was her
+employer. And I thought that would - you know, she could
+possibly lose her job. It would be bad for her. And so I
+just -- I decided not to say anything.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 34 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2062
+Q. When you left the movie theater, did you see Epstein again
+while you were in New York?
+A. No, I did not.
+Q. At the time you were visiting Epstein when you were 16
+years old, what were you hoping to do the following summer?
+A. I was hoping to go on a trip, to go on an international
+trip to help me with maybe getting into a good school.
+Q. During this time period, did you write in a journal?
+A. I did.
+l. Can you describe your journaling practice at this time.
+A. I was -- I was not a consistent journaler, but I would just
+from time to time write about things happening in my life,
+write about my thoughts and feelings about different things,
+yeah.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up
+for just the witness, the parties, and the Court what's been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 601.
+l. Annie, do you recognize this?
+A. Yes, this is a notebook I used as a journal at that time in
+my life.
+l. Is that the cover of the journal?
+A. That's the cover, yes.
+l. Is that a fair and accurate depiction of the cover of your
+journal?
+A. It is.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 35 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2063
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 601 in evidence.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, subject to our request
+under Rule 106, we have no objection.
+THE COURT: Okay. 601 is admitted.
+(Government's Exhibit 601 received in evidence)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+I would ask if that could be published, please.
+THE COURT: You I
+•. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up
+for just the witness, the parties, and the Court what has been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 603.
+l. Annie, do you recognize this?
+MS. POMERANTZ: We could scroll to -- I believe there
+are two pages. If we could just scroll to the second page.
+Thank you.
+l. What is this?
+A. It is an entry from that journal.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of an entry from your
+journal?
+A. It is.
+Government Exhibit 603.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+MS. MENNINGER: Same objection under Rule 106.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 36 of 267
+- direct
+2064
+THE COURT: GX-603 is admitted.
+(Government's Exhibit 603 received in evidence)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I would ask that we
+publish it at this time.
+THE COURT: You l
+• POMERANTZ:
+Q. Annie, what is the date of this entry?
+A. January 7th, 1996.
+l. Can you please read the entry for the jury.
+I got back from my trip to New York today. I had such
+a great time. It is really depressing to be back home. I feel
+like it was a trip that changed my whole outlook on life. I
+guess I always feel that way a little bit when I get back
+home -- when I get back from trips. But it is overwhelming
+this time.
+Continue reading?
+I am so ready to be out of high school and in college.
+Everything seems so silly, going out, etc. It did a little
+before anyway. I even feel a little isolated from my friends.
+Before I left, I was on a high of how great my friends were. I
+still realize how wonderful they are, but I feel more
+independent, like they aren't necessary.
+l. You can keep reading.
+A. Okay. I felt like this when I got back from Mexico, and it
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 37 of 267 2065
+- direct
+faded quickly, but I have a feeling it is different this time.
+New York is such an amazing city. I felt really comfortable
+there, like I know that I belong there and would live there at
+some point, hopefully soon. I miss Maria so much already. It
+seems unfair that I can't see her more often. I feel like I'm
+missing so much.
+There is so much to tell about the trip, but I don't
+know where to begin. The best night was when Maria and I saw
+Phantom of the Opera. We went to Jeff Epstein's house and had
+champagne with him. I found him down-to-earth and easy to talk
+to. I thanked him so much for the trip, etc.
+We then took his car. His driver actually took us to
+Phantom. I didn't know any play could be so moving. I had
+seen it before, but still couldn't believe it. I bawled. It
+was fantastic. After the play, we walked around the plaza and
+went home. It was so much fun.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up
+for just the witness, the parties, and the Court what has been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 604. You can
+scroll to the second page. Thank you. And we can go back up
+to the top. Thank you, Ms. Drescher.
+l. Annie, do you recognize this?
+A. Yes. It's another entry from the same journal.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of an entry from your
+journal?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 38 of 267
+- direct
+A. It is.
+2066
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 604.
+MS. MENNINGER: Same 106 objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
+GX-604 is admitted.
+(Government's Exhibit 604 received in evidence)
+Q. What is the date of this entry?
+your Honor, I'm sorry. Can we
+please publish it?
+THE COURT: You l
+•. POMERANTZ: Thank you.
+Q. Annie, what is the date of this entry?
+A. January 25th, 1996.
+l. Can you please read the entry for the jury.
+A. It has been a couple of weeks since I got back, and I have
+gotten back into the swing of things. A couple of quick
+details about New York I didn't mention earlier. Went to see
+The Dutchess, a decent play, and Blue Man Group tubes Off
+Broadway. A really cool production.
+Went to the flea market, where I got some cool stuff.
+Went to Jeffrey Epstein's mansion. Went to The Met, a pretty
+fun New Year's Eve party. Went to thrift stores where I got an
+amazing dress for prom. It's from the '50s, laced with pink
+flowers with rhinetones in the middle all over it. It is my
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 39 of 267 2067
+- direct
+dream dress.
+One night we went to the movies with Jeffrey Epstein.
+It was -- it was a little weird; one of those things that is
+hard to explain. We were sitting next to each other, and he
+put out his hand for me to hold, and we were holding hands.
+Not weird. Normal. Fine. Then he kind of caressed, rubbed my
+arm and shoe, foot. It was one of those things that just gave
+me a weird feeling, but wasn't that weird and probably normal.
+The one thing that kind of weirded me out about it was
+he let go of my hand when he was talking to Maria.
+1, well, I
+decided it was no big deal. It just made me mad because he's
+being so amazing, paying for a summer program for me and
+helping me with college. He's so nice and so generous with
+everyone. I just didn't want to have any weird feelings about
+it. I didn't/couldn't say anything to Maria about it because
+she worships him and it would just create problems. I couldn't
+tell anyone else because it is not a big deal and I didn't want
+to portray him in a bad light. I really don't think it is a
+big deal. I think he is just a relaxed guy and likes to flirt
+or was being fatherly or something. I know this sounds like me
+trying to justify him doing something weird, but it isn't.
+Continue reading?
+Q. Let me just pause you right there.
+Can you explain how you were feeling about Epstein at
+the time you were writing about him in your journal.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 40 of 267 2068
+- direct
+A. Yeah. I think that I was obviously very conflicted because
+I knew what had happened in the movie theater was not normal or
+right. And but it had made me feel very uncomfortable. But I
+was trying to come up with excuses or justifications in my mind
+to make it seem okay, because of what I saw as, you know, him
+being such a generous, nice person. And so, you know, I'm
+trying to -- I'm trying to make sense of it and I'm having a
+hard time.
+l. I'11 ask you to continue reading from where it says "Right
+now."
+A. Right now my big concern is what I am going to do this
+summer. There are so many cools things to do and amazing
+places to go. Right now I'm really thinking about doing
+something in Africa. It would be incredible. So different, so
+beautiful, all the different people. I would love it. I think
+I will really be happy doing almost anything.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, we can take that down.
+Your Honor, may I have just one moment please?
+THE COURT: You may.
+(Counsel conferred)
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Annie, after meeting Epstein in New York, did you and
+Epstein stay in touch?
+2. How did you and Epstein communicate?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2069
+A. We spoke on the phone.
+e. Approximately how many times did you speak with Epstein by
+phone after your trip to New York?
+A. Approximately two or three times.
+l. Did there come a time when you saw Jeffrey Epstein in
+person again?
+Q. Approximately when did you see him?
+A. In April of 1996, the spring of 1996, I think it was April.
+Q. Where did you see Epstein?
+A. In New Mexico.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up
+for just the parties, the witness, and the Court what has been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 102.
+l. Annie, do you recognize this?
+l. What is this?
+A. It's a photo of me getting ready for prom.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of your physical
+appearance during the spring of 1996?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 102.
+MS. MENNINGER: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. GX-102 is admitted.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 42 of 267
+- direct
+(Government's Exhibit 102 received in evidence)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may
+• we publish at this
+2070
+time?
+THE COURT: You may.
+l. Annie, how old were you at the time this photograph was
+taken?
+A. I was 16 years old.
+Q. Where was the photograph taken?
+A. In my apartment.
+l. Who invited you on this trip to New Mexico?
+A. Epstein invited me.
+l. How did you learn you were going to be allowed to go on
+this trip to New Mexico?
+A. My best recollection is from my mom, that we had talked
+about it.
+l. Who, if anyone, did you understand you would be seeing in
+New Mexico?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+Foundation, your Honor, hearsay or not.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. In the spring of 1996, did there come a time when you
+learned that you would be going to New Mexico?
+l. I think you mentioned you learned about that from your
+mother; is that right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 43 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2071
+Q. Based on your conversations with your mother, who did you
+understand you would be seeing in New Mexico?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+Hearsay, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is not being offered
+for the truth.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+I have one moment?
+THE COURT: You may.
+(Counsel conferred)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may we approach?
+THE COURT: You may.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 44 of 267
+- direct
+2072
+(At sidebar)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+This information is being asked not for the truth of
+the matter being asserted, but for her state of mind for what
+was in her mind at the time that she was going to New Mexico,
+why she felt comfortable, why she felt more comfortable going
+to this trip. It's not being offered for the truth of the
+matter; it's being offered for what her state of mind was when
+she was going on this trip to New Mexico.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this is backdoor hearsay.
+THE COURT: It is backdoor hearsay.
+You can ask her about going on the trip, why she went
+and why she was comfortable. But to the extent you're
+eliciting -- which you clearly are -- hearsay as to what her
+mother told her about who would be there, objection sustained.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: Her mother is testifying; so if
+there's a conversation between Epstein and her mother, I
+understand that that would perhaps come in through the mother.
+THE COURT: Right.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Counsel, the other thing you can say is
+after you had your conversation with your mother, did you then
+go to New Mexico. And again, you can ask her about her own
+experience, but not elicit the hearsay of what her mother told
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 45 of 267
+- direct
+2073
+her.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, just to the extent it's
+why she went, it's, I understand after the conversation with
+the mother, I went to New Mexico. But if it's the content from
+the mother to her, that's where it gets into the hearsay piece.
+MS. COMEY: Your Honor, just to clarify, the jury just
+heard this witness say she felt uncomfortable around Jeffrey
+Epstein; and that she knew something was wrong. The point of
+this is not to give the truth of what the mother said, but to
+explain why she was willing to go back to see Jeffrey Epstein
+again. That is all we're trying to elicit.
+THE COURT: You're trying to elicit that her mother
+told her that Maxwell would be there, which is for the truth
+and hearsay. In any event, because it is central to the
+question coming in as hearsay, there's a 403 issue. I think
+you can get this - you can get who was there, etc., but not
+what her mother told her for the truth, which is, I think,
+plainly what you're trying to do.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I can be more precise.
+I think the questions would be, Did you feel
+comfortable going to New Mexico? Why did you feel comfortable
+going to New Mexico? And then we wouldn't object to a limiting
+instruction. It's not offered for the truth, it's to explain
+the progress of events and why she would feel comfortable doing
+something like that.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 46 of 267 2074
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+THE COURT: Counsel, there's a limit, and hearsay is
+the limit, and this is a central question. You have the
+witness, you have
+coming to testify. I presume,
+although I don't know, that she can testify
+was
+there in New Mexico; correct?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And then you can ask her how she felt
+about that. But you can't do it through hearsay.
+Sustained.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+
+- direct
+2075
+(In open court)
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Annie, did you travel to New Mexico?
+A. I did.
+l. How did you travel to New Mexico?
+A. I flew commercially.
+l. Did you pay for your ticket to New Mexico?
+A. I did not.
+l. Did you thank anyone for paying for your ticket to New
+Mexico?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor.
+Foundation. Hearsay.
+THE COURT: Foundation, overruled. Overruled.
+A. I thanked Epstein when I got to New Mexico.
+l. Who, if anyone, did you travel with to New Mexico?
+A. I traveled alone.
+l. Approximately when did you go to New Mexico?
+A. The spring of 1996; I believe it was April.
+2. And approximately how long were you in New Mexico?
+A. It was a weekend trip.
+l. When you landed in New Mexico, what happened next?
+A. There was a man at the airport that had a sign with my name
+on it, and so I went with him. He was a driver. And he drove
+me out to the ranch.
+2. You mentioned the ranch. Can you describe the ranch for
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 48 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2076
+the jury.
+A. Yeah. It was a large -- a large piece of property in New
+Mexico, so kind of a desert landscape. And there were
+different sections. And there was one that had like an old
+movie set, like a western movie set on it. And then there was
+a portion where we were staying where there's a small
+residence.
+THE COURT: I'd ask you again,
+if you can
+maybe shift it a little bit closer to you.
+Thank you. Perfect. Thank you.
+2. Who, if anyone, did you meet at the ranch?
+A. When I arrived, I had met -- I mean, I saw Epstein, and
+then I met Ghislaine Maxwell.
+e. What did Maxwell look like?
+A. She was trim, attractive woman, well-dressed, dark hair.
+l. About how old did Maxwell seem?
+A. I believe she was in her thirties, so at the time she was
+an adult.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, can we please pull up
+what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 115.
+l. Annie, do you recognize the person in this photograph?
+A. I do.
+2. Who is it?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, we can pull that down.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 49 of 267
+- direct
+2077
+Thank you.
+Q. What did Maxwell sound like?
+A. She had a British
+accent and she was well-spoken and
+articulate. And she was enthusiastic in greeting me and
+speaking with me.
+Q. Annie, had you wanted to go to New Mexico at the time?
+A. No, I was not eager to go to New Mexico.
+Q. What, if anything, made you feel more comfortable about
+going to New Mexico?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'm going to overrule here and I'll adopt
+a limiting instruction.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+A. I had been told that Maxwell would be in New Mexico with
+Epstein; and so that made me feel more comfortable. Basically,
+after what had happened in the movie theater in New York, I did
+not want to be alone with him. But I thought that Ghislaine
+was his romantic partner, and I didn't think he would do
+anything like that while they were together.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I think we need to say who
+told her that.
+THE COURT: Okay. You may ask and then I'll give the
+instruction.
+I. Who told you that?
+A. I was told by my mother.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 50 of 267
+- direct
+2078
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, the testimony the
+witness provided about what her mother told her is not being
+offered for the truth, but for the limited purposes of the
+effect on the listener.
+Go ahead.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Based on your observations that weekend, what was your
+understanding at the time of the relationship between Epstein
+and Maxwell?
+A. I believed that they were romantic partners. They were
+very intimate with each other in terms of touching each other
+and the way that they spoke with each other and interacted; it
+was what I had seen from couples.
+Q. What happened after you got to the ranch?
+A. When I first arrived, I remember we did a little bit of a
+tour, where I saw this portion I mentioned where there was this
+western movie set and, I believe, some horses. And, you know,
+I was, I guess, oriented a little bit to the property.
+I. Where did you stay at the ranch?
+A. In a small residence.
+Q. Who else stayed in that residence?
+A. Epstein and Maxwell.
+Q. Was anyone else staying in that area of the ranch?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 51 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2079
+Q. Did you see staff at the ranch that weekend?
+A. Yes, I did see like a couple of men that I believe were
+ranch hands or caretakers for the property; and the driver, you
+know, I mentioned who took me to the airport.
+Q. Apart from staff and Epstein and Maxwell, was anyone else
+staying at the
+residence?
+Q. What was your reaction at the time about being at the ranch
+with only Epstein and Maxwell?
+A. I think it was -- you know, it seemed unusual in a way,
+being that I was a teenager, to be spending this time with
+them. But I also -- there is a way in which it sort of made me
+feel special that they would want to spend this time with me.
+So I think it was a mixed bag.
+Q. Based on your initial conversations with Maxwell, did you
+have the impression that she was surprised to see you or did
+she seem to expect you?
+A. She did not seem surprised to see me at all. She -- yeah,
+she seemed to know who I was and be excited to be meeting me.
+l. What was your impression of Maxwell?
+A. She was very outgoing and talked a bit of engaging with me,
+so I enjoyed meeting with her and talking with her.
+2. What, if anything, did you and Maxwell talk about?
+A. She was just, you know, making conversation with me about
+my life, asking me -- I remember we talked a bit about my
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 52 of 267 2080
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+school, and I was writing a paper about some British authors.
+And I remember bringing this up to her and talking to her about
+that. And I think just, you know, kind of general life things,
+what I was doing.
+Q. You mentioned that Epstein and Maxwell gave you a tour of
+the ranch. Did you leave the ranch that weekend?
+A. We did.
+Q. Where did you go?
+A. We went into town, and I remember we did a little bit of
+shopping. We went to a natural food store of some sort. And
+Ghislaine offered to buy me some product. I remember she
+bought me this henna hair lightening cream of some kind. And
+then on that same outing, we went to a western wear store where
+they had me try on cowboy boots and purchased a pair of cowboy
+boots for me.
+l. When you said "we went shopping, " who went shopping?
+A. Epstein, Maxwell, and myself.
+l. What did the cowboy boots look like?
+A. They were black leather pointy standard cowboy boots.
+I. Who bought the boots for you?
+A. Epstein.
+l. And who was present at the time of the boots being
+purchased?
+A. Maxwell as well.
+I. Did you keep the cowboy boots?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 53 of 267 2081
+- direct
+A. I -- yes, I did.
+Q. What was your reaction at the time that the cowboy boots
+were purchased for you?
+A. It was -- I remember it seemed -- because they cost over
+$100, it
+seemed they were very expensive to me. And so, you
+know, I was very grateful; although I didn't really have any
+reason to be wearing cowboy boots, so it wasn't something I had
+been seeking out or wanting. But the -- you know, I was
+gracious about it.
+l. Did there come a time when you left the ranch again?
+e. Where did you go?
+A. We went to the movies.
+Q. Who went to the movies?
+A. Sorry. Maxwell, Epstein, and I.
+l. Did you want to go to the movies?
+A. No. I think because of what had happened in the movie
+theater in New York, I was -- that was not something I was
+eager to do. But I imagined it would be different this time
+because Maxwell was there.
+l. What, if anything, happened before you went in to watch the
+movie?
+, so the movie theater is in sort of a mall area, and
+we -- there was a ticket counter and they purchased tickets and
+we were waiting to go in. And Epstein and Maxwell were being
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 54 of 267 2082
+- direct
+very, like, playful with each other and kind of grabbing each
+other. And Maxwell went to, like, pull Epstein's pants down a
+little bit and, you know, sort of like depantsing someone,
+which seemed very odd to me at the time because they were
+adults and this is the kind of thing, you know, I would expect
+more from younger people. And so I was kind of, you know, just
+caught off guard by it and thought it seemed odd.
+Q. What movie did you see?
+A. We saw Primal Fear.
+l. How were you, Epstein, and Maxwell seated during the movie?
+A. I was seated next to Epstein, and I believe Maxwell was on
+his other side.
+Q. What, if anything, happened during the movie?
+A. It was very similar to the first time that I went to the
+movies with Epstein in that he right away began to hold my hand
+and caress it and, you know - and rub on my - on my foot and
+on my arm.
+e. For approximately how much of the movie did Epstein touch
+you in the way you just described?
+A. Throughout the majority of the movie. And he also had
+popcorn, I think, and was, you know, eating. But it was -- he
+did not - unlike in New York, he didn't seem to be concerned
+about hiding those behaviors. He was very blatant in doing it
+throughout the film.
+Q. How did what Epstein do in the movie theater in New Mexico
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2083
+compare with what he did in the movie theater in New York?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+Asked and answered, your Honor.
+A. Yeah. I'd say it was very similar, except for more
+blatant -- like not -- he wasn't -- he wasn't stopping. It was
+just this is what he was doing.
+Q. What else do you recall happening in New Mexico?
+A. So we were at the movies.
+Another experience after we were back at the residence
+was that it was decided that I would learn how to give Epstein
+a foot massage. Maxwell wanted to show me how to rub his feet;
+and so that was something I should learn how to do. And so she
+sat and held one of his feet, and then instructed me to hold
+his other foot and showed me how to rub it.
+l. Where were you when this took place?
+A. In the same little area. There was a
+1. I think it
+was kind of like a den type room. And yeah.
+Q. Was this back at the ranch?
+A. Back at the ranch, yeah. Sorry.
+l. Did you know how to give foot massages at that point?
+A. No, I'd never been shown how to do that.
+l. What, if anything, did Epstein have on his feet during the
+massage?
+A. He was not wearing any socks or anything; it was just
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 56 of 267
+- direct
+2084
+his -- his bare feet.
+Q. How did you know how to give him a massage?
+A. I just -- you know, I watched what she was doing. And she
+instructed me, you know, you pull back his big toe, rub this
+part of his foot, you know. And so I did what she told me.
+Q. What did Epstein do while you were rubbing his feet?
+A. He
+seemed, you know, to be enjoying it.
+He sort of made
+like groaning noises like he was -- it felt good to him.
+l. How did you feel while you were rubbing his feet?
+A. I felt very uncomfortable.
+I did not want to be touching
+his feet. And also just the whole situation made -- I wanted
+to stop and I was hoping it would be over quickly.
+Q. What, if anything, did Maxwell ask you about your
+experience with massages during this trip?
+A. She asked me if I'd ever had a professional massage and,
+you know, talked about what a lovely experience it was and how
+enjoyable it was to get a massage.
+Q. What, if anything, did Maxwell do next?
+A. She said that, you know, she wanted me to have that
+experience, and she would be happy to give me a massage. And
+so encouraged me to say that, yes, okay, I would get a massage
+from her.
+l. Did Maxwell give you a massage?
+A. She did.
+Q. Where in the house did Maxwell give you a massage?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 57 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2085
+A. My best recollection is that she set up a table in the room
+where I was staying.
+Q. You said she set up a table. Can you describe the table.
+A. It was, I think, a standard kind of massage table that's
+portable that has the legs that, you know, can be extended and
+has padding on top.
+Q. What were you wearing during the massage?
+A. Nothing.
+e. Why did you -- why were you wearing nothing during the
+massage?
+A. She told me to get undressed.
+e. When you say "she, " who are you referring to?
+A. I'm sorry. Maxwell.
+e. What happened during the massage?
+A. She, you know, said to get undressed and lay under the
+sheet on the massage table. And I did. And then she, you
+know, started rubbing my body and rubbing my back and my legs.
+And while she's doing this, she's just making - you know,
+making small talk. And then at some point in the massage she
+had me roll over so I was laying on my back.
+2. And what happened once you were laying on your back?
+A. She pulled the sheet down and exposed my breasts and
+started rubbing on my chest and on my - on my upper breasts.
+e. When she touched your breasts, what was your reaction?
+A. I mean, once she pulled down the sheet, I felt like kind of
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 58 of 267
+2086
+- direct
+frozen; because I knew that that was very -- just, it didn't
+make sense to me that that would happen, and I was surprised.
+And, you know, I just wanted to -- badly to get off of the
+table and have this massage be done.
+Q. Who was present during the massage?
+A. It was Maxwell and I. But the door to the room was open.
+And I was fearful, especially at that moment, that Epstein -- I
+just had the sense that he could see me. But I don't have a
+memory of him standing nearby or of seeing his face, but I
+just -- I had this sense that he might be able to.
+2. What else, if anything, happened during your weekend in New
+Mexico?
+A. I guess the other memory that stands out the most is being
+in bed in the morning, and suddenly Epstein kind of opening my
+door and sort of bounding
+into the room in this sort of playful
+way and saying that he wanted to cuddle. And so he climbed
+into bed with me and kind of laid behind me and reached his
+arms around me and he pressed his body into me.
+Q. Did you want to cuddle with Epstein?
+2. Did you tell him you did not want to cuddle with him?
+e. Why not?
+A. I was very aware at that time that I was, you know, very
+isolated; that, you know, I was on this ranch with these two
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 59 of 267 2087
+- direct
+people and, you know, no one's safe for a great distance. And
+so I just had thought, like, I just need to get through this
+and then it will be fine. And so I just -- you know, I didn't
+say anything.
+l. Did Epstein cuddle you?
+A. Yeah.
+Q. Can you explain what happened.
+A. Yeah. He just -- you know, as I said, he kind of had his
+arms around me and I felt, again, kind of frozen. And then I
+thought I have to have an excuse to get out of this. And so I
+just said I needed to go to the bathroom. And it was in my
+bedroom area and there was a bathroom near. And so I just made
+the excuse and got out of bed and went into the bathroom and
+shut the door.
+Q. What did you do while you were in the bathroom?
+A. I just, you know, waited. And I don't remember how long I
+was in there, you know, I just remember thinking, like, I
+wanted to be in there long enough that this hopefully situation
+would be over.
+l. What was your reaction to the series of events in New
+Mexico that you've just testified about culminating with
+Epstein getting into bed with you?
+A. My reaction at that time?
+e. At that time.
+A. Yeah, I just wanted -- I wanted the weekend to be over. I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 60 of 267 2088
+- direct
+felt very -- like, I thought I had been brought there because
+of, you know, one set of reasons; like, I thought that he was
+interested and they were both interested in me as, like, a
+student; that they may want to help in an academic way. So I
+was trying to be sort of impressive in that way and talk about
+things that they wanted to hear about. And all these
+experiences made me feel that they had a very different
+interest in me. And so it was extremely kind of disorienting
+and I just was wanted to be done with it.
+l. What, if anything, did you discuss with Maxwell during your
+last day on the ranch in New Mexico?
+A. What I remember about that, just this final conversation
+was that I was sort of trying to reengage with her around,
+like, this academic stuff. And I had brought, like, three by
+five note cards for this paper that I was writing where I had
+little, like, facts on them. And we were sitting outside on
+what seemed like kind of a deck area. And I was going through
+them and I was trying to get her to talk to me about them, I
+think, in a way, like, to make myself feel better, like, maybe
+they did care about that. And she just seemed like very
+disinterested and kind of like, you know, she didn't care.
+l. Did you say good-bye to Epstein and Maxwell before you left
+New Mexico?
+2. Where did you go when you left New Mexico?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 61 of 267
+_ - direct
+2089
+A. I flew home to Phoenix.
+Q. How did you get to the airport?
+A. I think it was the same driver, but a driver drove me back
+to the airport.
+l. How did you fly home to Arizona?
+A. Commercially by myself.
+e. Who picked you up from the airport?
+A. My mom.
+l. You testified earlier about your journal. Did you write in
+your journal about your trip to New Mexico?
+e. Why not?
+A. I think I just really didn't want to think about it; and,
+you know, writing would be a way of, like, me having to think
+more about what had happened. And I just wanted to put it out
+of my mind.
+l. You testified earlier about boots that Maxwell and Epstein
+purchased for you during a shopping trip in New Mexico. You
+said that you had kept the boots; is that right?
+A. Yes. Yeah.
+e. Why did you keep the boots?
+A. I think initially I just sort of got home and shoved them
+to the back of my closet. And then when I graduated from high
+school, my mom moved. And everything in my closet I just
+packed into boxes. And they were in her storage for a number
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 62 of 267 2090
+- direct
+of years.
+And then when I interviewed with agents about this in,
+I think, late 2006/early 2007, they asked me if I still had
+those, and I didn't know.
+So at some point I found them next
+time I visited my mom. And I held onto them for some time,
+hoping maybe, you know, they would want them. And then when
+that didn't seem to come to pass, I just thought, I live in
+Texas, now I have these boots, and I'm going to kind of reclaim
+them and use these boots.
+Q. Did you start wearing those boots?
+A. I did wear those boots.
+l. I want to change topics.
+Where, if anywhere, did you go during the summer of
+1996?
+A. I went on a trip to Thailand and Vietnam.
+l. How long were you in Thailand and Vietnam?
+A. For six weeks.
+Q. What were you doing in Thailand and Vietnam?
+A. It was like a cultural emerging trip/service trip. So we
+built like a community building, and we did some teaching in
+schools, and then just did some hiking and kind of fun things.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up
+for just the witness, the parties, and the Court what has been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 103.
+l. Annie, do you recognize this?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 63 of 267
+- direct
+2091
+A. Yes, it's a photo of me on that trip to Thailand.
+Q. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of your physical
+appearance during the summer of 1996?
+A. It is.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 103 in evidence.
+MS. MENNINGER: No objection.
+THE COURT: GX-103 is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 103 received in evidence)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+l. Annie, how old were you at the time this photograph was
+taken?
+A. I was 17.
+l. Had you turned 17 over the summer?
+l. And where was this photograph taken?
+A. It was in Thailand.
+MS. POMERANTZ: We can take that down, Ms. Drescher.
+Thank you.
+l. Who paid for your trip to Thailand and Vietnam?
+A. Epstein.
+l. When you left Thailand and Vietnam, where did you go?
+A. I went back to Phoenix.
+l. And when you got back, did you want to see Maxwell and
+Epstein again?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 64 of 267
+_ - direct
+2092
+Q. At that point, how were you feeling about Maxwell and
+Epstein?
+A. I think, you know, again, I felt conflicted because I had
+had -- I had been on this trip, which is something I never
+could have done without, you know, Epstein's support. But I --
+so I felt I should be grateful for that.
+But the experience that I had with Maxwell and Epstein
+in New Mexico was so uncomfortable that I didn't - you know, I
+was very much hoping I would never have to be around them
+again. Then I felt sort of guilty about that because of - you
+know, again, because they had paid for this trip.
+l. From that point on, did you have any contact with Maxwell
+and Epstein?
+A. I did not.
+l. Did there come a time when you told someone about your
+experiences with Maxwell and Epstein?
+e. Who did you first tell?
+A. I had a brief conversation with my mom just acknowledging
+that something uncomfortable had happened, but I didn't go into
+any details with her about that.
+2. What did you tell your mom?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.
+THE COURT: I'll hear from you, counsel.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 65 of 267
+- direct
+2093
+(At sidebar)
+THE COURT: Is this not a prior consistent statement
+that was litigated or discussed?
+MS. POMERANTZ: This is a prior consistent statement,
+your Honor.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I don't believe that we
+have impeached her yet or called her story into question in
+opening about this issue. So I'm a little -- I understand that
+eventually it may be, if I do impeach her.
+THE COURT: The opening questioned the veracity of all
+of the accusers.
+MS. MENNINGER: Not on every point, your Honor. I
+mean --
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: Not that she was there, for example,
+or anything like that. So I don't believe that it's been
+opened, and I think it's just bolstering.
+THE COURT: Well, is the statement just that she's
+going to be there or what's -- what is the anticipated
+statement?
+MS. MENNINGER: Actually, my reading of the discovery
+is that she told her mom, I wasn't raped. And so if that's
+what is planned to be elicited, that's going to be a problem
+for a lot of other reasons that have been litigated.
+THE COURT: Is that what she's going to say?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 66 of 267 2094
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+MS. POMERANTZ: My understanding, your Honor, of what
+she's going to say is that she didn't want to talk about it;
+that something had happened. There are times where she has
+used that word. In our several last meetings she has not used
+that word. But she has said, I didn't want to get into details
+with my mom.
+I told her something had happened.
+MS. MENNINGER: The quote in discovery is, I told her
+I wasn't raped, and I don't want this to ruin my life.
+So I'm a little worried about the "rape" word being
+used by the witness in this context, especially because we've
+litigated extensively that consent and --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the defense has put the
+memory of the witnesses, of the victims, at issue from the
+start at their opening, and they are incentives.
+THE COURT: I'm overruling.
+It's an anticipated prior consistent statement based
+on the clear attack on the credibility of the allegations of
+all of the alleged victims. We'll see what comes. A statement
+that she wasn't raped is not suggesting that she was raped;
+that's suggesting the opposite.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, if I might add, it's the use of
+the word and knowing how inflammatory it is and the
+restrictions put on it to now allow them to even suggest, that
+is extremely loaded and extraordinarily prejudicial.
+This has nothing to do with the opening with regard to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 67 of 267
+2095
+- direct
+this witness at all, and it's extremely far afield.
+MS. MENNINGER: I can tell your Honor we're not
+challenging the statements that she had a foot massage, a body
+massage, and so forth. So there may be some of the details of
+her memory that are off, but we did not put in to challenge
+that she had those contacts. That's why we worded the limiting
+instruction "the physical contact." And to use the word
+"rape, " when she's above the age of consent -
+THE COURT: She's saying not raped. It's the opposite
+of raped. It's not raped.
+MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor --
+THE COURT: I'll allow the question as a prior -- I'm
+overruling the objection because it's an anticipated prior
+consistent statement in which the credibility of all of the
+witnesses as to what occurred has been attacked.
+I don't think this needs to be sealed.
+MS. POMERANTZ: No.
+THE COURT: Okay. Not sealed.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 68 of 267
+- direct
+2096
+(In open court)
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Annie, what did you tell your mom?
+A. I had told my mom that I was not raped and I didn't want to
+talk about it.
+Q. When did this conversation happen?
+A. This was shortly after I returned from the trip from
+Thailand and Vietnam, so late summer of 1996.
+l. If I could just ask you to speak into the microphone.
+A. Yeah. Sorry. Late summer of 1996.
+2. Thank you.
+Who else, if anyone, did you tell what had happened to
+you with Maxwell and Epstein?
+A. Later in that fall, I started dating someone named Dave
+And I talked to him at some point a little bit about
+what had happened at the ranch.
+Q. When did you meet Dave?
+A. I met him at prom, actually, my junior year; so earlier in
+the spring of 1996.
+l. And when did you start dating him?
+A. In that fall, I think maybe September/October.
+l. And did you tell Dave about what had happened with Maxwell
+and Epstein?
+A. I did.
+l. Did there come a time when you spoke with members of the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 69 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+media about your experiences with Epstein and Maxwell?
+Q. Did you speak with the media once or more than once?
+A. More than one time.
+l. Approximately when was the first time you spoke with the
+media?
+A. In 2002.
+Q. Did there come a time when you were interviewed by law
+enforcement agents about your experiences with Maxwell and
+Epstein?
+l. And approximately when was this?
+A. In 2006 - or late 2006/early 2007.
+l. During that interview, did you tell the FBI about your
+experiences with Maxwell and Epstein?
+l. Did you tell the FBI that Maxwell had given you a massage?
+l. Did you tell the FBI that Epstein got into bed with you?
+l. You said earlier that you wanted to reclaim the cowboy
+boots.
+A. Yeah.
+I. What do you mean by "reclaim"?
+A. I think it was just, you know, obviously something I - it
+2097
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 70 of 267 2098
+- direct
+was a dark memory, and I felt so taken advantage of by them
+both.
+And I think I was just a little older, and I just saw
+them as a symbol of, you know, this hard thing that happened to
+me; but that I could -- you know, by using them, it was some --
+by using the boots, I mean, it was somehow like changing that,
+reclaiming it in some way.
+Q. In the years after you spoke with FBI in late 2006 or early
+2007, have you spoken with the media about your experiences
+with Maxwell and Epstein?
+A. I have.
+l. Were you interviewed on television?
+A. I was.
+l. Did you participate in other interviews?
+l. Approximately when?
+A. I believe -- well, I first spoke with another reporter, I
+think, in maybe 2016 off the record. And then later on the
+record in the summer of 2019. And I think then in the -- yeah,
+and then later into the fall.
+l. Were you paid for those interviews?
+A. I was not.
+l. Did you struggle with the decision to talk publicly about
+your experiences with Maxwell and Epstein?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Relevance, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 71 of 267
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+2099
+Q. Can you explain.
+A. Yeah. I think most people probably can understand that
+it's not the kind of thing that you would want -- I mean, it
+sort of feels like a shameful memory and is not the kind of
+thing you want a lot of attention on. But at a certain point,
+I felt compelled because I, you know --
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Narrative, your Honor.
+A. I wanted to -- if I could help there be any accountability
+or these people being stopped in some way, it felt like it was
+worth it, even if it was uncomfortable.
+l. Did there come a time when you were interviewed by law
+enforcement in New York?
+l. Approximately when was that?
+A. That was in 2019, I believe, in the late summer/early fall.
+2. Since that time, have you been interviewed by the
+government?
+2. Approximately how many times have you met with the
+government?
+A. I'd say approximately five or six times.
+l. Did there come a time when you sued Maxwell and Epstein?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 72 of 267
+_ - direct
+Q. Approximately when did you sue them?
+A. That was, I believe, the fall of 2019.
+Q. Was that before or after you had met with law enforcement
+in New York?
+A. After.
+Q. After you filed that lawsuit, did you participate in a
+victim compensation fund for victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. I did.
+e. Do you remember what year that fund started accepting
+applications?
+A. I believe that was in early 2020.
+Q. What did you do as part of that fund?
+A. I, with my attorneys, there was an application process.
+They interviewed me and they put together some materials about,
+you know, my story.
+e. How much money did the fund award you?
+A. $1.5 million.
+Q. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. It came, yeah, from the victims' compensation fund.
+l. Did your attorneys receive any portion of that award?
+A. They did not.
+e. Why not?
+A. They agreed to work with me pro bono.
+l. Has that money been wired to you already?
+2100
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 73 of 267 2101
+LCAVMAXZ
+- direct
+Q. And just to back up, when you said "pro bono, " what do you
+mean by that?
+A. I mean they have not received any of that money.
+Q. As part of the settlement that you received from the fund,
+were you required to dismiss your lawsuit against Maxwell and
+Epstein?
+A. I was.
+Q. To be clear, is your civil case over?
+A. It is.
+l. Are you hoping or expecting to get any more money for what
+happened to you with Maxwell and Epstein?
+l. Based on your understanding, will the jury's verdict in
+this case affect the award that you received from the fund?
+l. Just to be clear, do you have any financial stake in the
+outcome of this trial?
+A. I do not.
+MS. POMERANIZ: Your Honor, may I have one moment?
+THE COURI: You
+•. POMERANTZ: No further questions.
+THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Menninger.
+MS. MENNINGER: Would your Honor like to take the
+morning break now or -- I'm happy to start.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+LCAVMAXZ
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 74 of 267
+- cross
+2102
+THE COURT: I think 15 minutes and then break.
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay. Sure.
+CROSS-EXAMINATION
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+e. Good morning,
+Sorry. Let me get the microphone.
+A. Good morning.
+Q. When you were a junior in high school, you traveled to New
+York?
+e. You were 16 years old?
+l. Your older sister lived in New
+York?
+A. Yes, she did.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 75 of 267
+- cross
+2103
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. She's about 10 years older than you?
+A. Yeah, nine and a half.
+Q. She was 25 at the time?
+A. I believe that's correct.
+Q. You stayed with her while you were in New York?
+A. I did. I stayed at her apartment.
+0. She lived there?
+l. Your sister is the one who communicated with you about your
+travel to New York?
+A. Yes, I believe that is correct.
+l. You flew out by yourself?
+A. I did.
+Q. That was not abnormal for you to travel out by yourself?
+A. Well, I would travel sometimes with my younger sister to
+see my dad or my grandparents, not usually by myself.
+Q. When you spoke with law enforcement in September of 2019,
+you told them that you flew alone, which was not abnormal for
+you; correct?
+A. I don't recall saying that. But, as I mentioned, I did
+have to fly to see my dad because he lived across the country.
+So that's probably what I was referring to. Usually, though,
+my sister would be with me, my little sister.
+Q. But what you said was, you flew alone, which was not
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 267
+- cross
+2104
+abnormal for you; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection. Asked and answered.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. If I could show you what's been marked as 3514-006, page 2
+in the overflow photograph.
+MS. MENNINGER: I think we can put that on the screen
+for counsel and the Court and the witness. The overflow
+paragraph at the top, if we could call that out. My screen
+went blank.
+THE COURT: I hit something.
+MS. MENNINGER: Happens to all of us.
+THE COURT:
+will make it right.
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay. Mine is back.
+THE COURT: She made it better. Go ahead.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+2. What you told the government on that occasion is you flew
+alone which is not abnormal for you; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection. Asked and answered.
+THE COURT: You can ask if it refreshes.
+l. Does looking at this report refresh your memory that you
+told the government, in September much 2019, that you flew
+alone which was not abnormal for you?
+A. I see, yeah, that's what they noted. I'm assuming that was
+based on exactly as I've explained, that I would fly to see my
+family.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 77 of 267
+- Cross
+Q. You didn't say anything about your little sister?
+A. I guess not, but at that -- but what would happen.
+Q. It was
+your understanding that Mr. Epstein purchased your
+plane ticket for you to fly to New York?
+Q. You understood Mr. Epstein to be Maria's boss; correct?
+Q. You understood that he had been connecting her to people in
+the art world; correct?
+Q. And she was 25; correct?
+l. You understood that he was very wealthy?
+Q. You understood or hoped that he might help get you into
+college; correct?
+A. And pay for college, yes.
+l. And you understood and hoped that he might help you pay for
+college; correct?
+l. He did not pay for your college?
+A. He did not.
+l. You were planning to go away for the summer, correct, to an
+international trip?
+A. I had hopes. I didn't have any plans at that point.
+2105
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 267
+- Cross
+2106
+Q. And you hoped that he might help pay for that trip;
+Q. Ghislaine Maxwell had no role in the logistics of your
+travel to New York; correct?
+Q. She did not fly you there?
+2. She didn't buy you a ticket to go here?
+A. She did not.
+l. She didn't arrange for your travel?
+A. NO.
+l. She didn't call your mother before you traveled to New
+York?
+A. To New York, no.
+l. She didn't encourage you to travel to New York?
+A. She did not.
+2. She did not transport you to New York?
+e. You had never seen her before you came to New York?
+l. You had never talked to her before you came to New York?
+l. You didn't even know about her before you came to New York;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 79 of 267 2107
+- cross
+A. I'm not -- I don't recall whether I heard -- I think I may
+have, but I don't remember when I first learned about her.
+Q. The purpose of your trip was to visit your sister; correct?
+A. And to meet Epstein, correct.
+Q. Well, you believed that Mr. Epstein purchased you a ticket
+for you to come see Maria in New York; right?
+A. Yes, that was part of the purpose.
+Q. You testified that you stayed with your sister at her
+apartment in the Village; right?
+Q. You did not stay at Mr. Epstein's home?
+A. No, I did not.
+l. You went to see several live performances while you were in
+town; correct?
+l. You went to see those with your sister?
+A. Yes, at least two of them, yeah.
+l. Well, you went to see the Blue Man Group tubes; right?
+A. Yeah.
+l. You went to see The Dutchess, a play; correct?
+A. Yeah, I think -- Blue Man Group, I don't think Maria was
+there for that, but yeah.
+l. You went to stay in a ski cabin while you were here;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+
+- Cross
+2108
+Q. You stayed overnight there?
+A. I think that's correct.
+Q. With your sister?
+Q. And with your sister's boyfriend and his brother were at
+that cabin; correct?
+Q. You went shopping with your sister; right?
+A. I did.
+Q. You went to flea markets?
+A. Uh-huh.
+l. Thrift stores?
+Q. You went to see some bands with your sister?
+l. You did all of those things on this trip in New York with
+your sister; right?
+A. I did.
+2. She was with you, I think you said without the exception of
+perhaps Blue Man Group, she was with you the entire time;
+right?
+2. Now, when you arrived in New York, Ghislaine Maxwell didn't
+pick you up at the airport?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 81 of 267
+- cross
+2109
+Q. She didn't drive you anywhere while you were in New York?
+A. No, I didn't see her during that trip.
+Q. She didn't take you to any of these live performances?
+Q. She didn't take you to see The Lion
+, for example?
+2. She didn't take you shopping or to a ski cabin; right?
+l. She didn't take you to the movies?
+e. She didn't engage you in any conversation about your
+interests; right?
+Q. She didn't offer to pay for your college or a trip in the
+summer; right?
+A. She did not.
+l. Didn't invite you to her home?
+2. Didn't give you champaign?
+e. She didn't buy you any clothing while you were in New York?
+Q. No preppy clothes or underwear; right?
+2. She simply was not here the entire time you were in New
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 267
+- cross
+2110
+York; right?
+2. When you went to Epstein's house, you were there the whole
+time with your sister; correct?
+Q. And it was there that Mr. Epstein spoke with you about
+college applications?
+Yes.
+l. And discussed the college application process; right?
+A. That's right.
+l. He urged you to consider UCLA, I think it was?
+Q. He talked to you about traveling abroad for the summer?
+Q. And how that might help your college applications?
+l. You did ultimately go to an ivy league school; right?
+2. And he surprised you with tickets to the Phantom of the
+Opera; right?
+l. You said you were really excited about seeing the Phantom
+of the Opera; right?
+A. I was.
+Q. It wasn't the first time you had seen it?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+- cross
+2111
+Q. You had seen it before?
+A. Yeah, a friend invited me in Phoenix.
+Q. And it was better this time in New York?
+Q. And, again, Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't a part of this
+conversation at Epstein's home; right?
+She was not.
+l. He didn't even mention her during this trip to his home;
+A. That, I don't remember.
+l. Well, you've spoken to the government a number of times;
+l. You filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Maxwell; right?
+l. You submitted a claim to the Victims Compensation Fund;
+right?
+l. And on none of those occasions have you said that
+Mr. Epstein's conversation with you at his home involved
+Ghislaine Maxwell; right?
+A. It did not center on her. I don't remember if she was
+mentioned. I was trying to be accurate, yeah.
+2. And if you didn't remember it, you didn't tell someone
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 84 of 267
+- cross
+2112
+about it; right?
+A. I did not, right.
+l. You said, I believe, that you had visited with Mr. Epstein
+in the office of his home; correct?
+A. I remember there being a desk there. That's why I was
+assuming
+it was an office, but --
+MS. MENNINGER: Just one moment.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+l. You were sitting at a desk; right?
+2. You don't know whether his home was under renovation at the
+time you were there; correct?
+A. I believe it was.
+l. And you believe this was at the beginning of 1996; correct?
+A. As I said, late 1995, early 1996.
+l. Well, your journal entry is dated January 7th; right?
+A. Right.
+Q. And you had just gotten back that day; right?
+A. I don't know if it says that day. I know I recently
+returned.
+2. And you thought you were there about a week; right?
+A. I know I left after Christmas. So in that time.
+MS. MENNINGER: If we could --
+THE COURT: We're at about a quarter after,
+Ms. Menninger. Should we break here?
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 85 of 267
+- cross
+2113
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. MENNINGER: Sure.
+THE COURT:
+Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our
+morning break. See you in about 15 minutes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 86 of 267 2114
+- cross
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: The witness can step down while we break.
+(Witness not present)
+Counsel, are there matters to take up before we break?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government, your Honor.
+MS. MENNINGER: Not from me, your Honor.
+THE COURT: See you in about ten minutes. Let me know
+if there is anything you need. Thank you.
+(Recess)
+Matters to take up?
+MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government. Thank you,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: We'll bring back the witness and bring in
+the jury.
+(Witness present)
+You can take your seat,
+may remove your mask.
+Thank you. You
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 87 of 267
+- cross
+2115
+(Jury present)
+Thank you so much, members of the jury.
+continue with your cross
+examination.
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+2. I think when we left off, I was asking you about the dates
+of your trip.
+MS. MENNINGER: If I could pull up Government Exhibit
+603. As this is in evidence, your Honor, if I could also
+publish it to the jury.
+THE COURT: You may.
+l. So this is your journal; right?
+A. It is, yes. I see what you're referring to.
+l. In your journal, you gave a date of January 7th, 1996;
+2. And what you wrote is, I got back from my trip to New York
+today?
+A. Yes, I was right on top of that journal entry, yes.
+2. So it's now your memory that you got back on January 7th;
+right?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And you had been there for about a week; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 88 of 267 2116
+- cross
+Q. And you had been there for a New Year's eve party, I think
+you said?
+So it may be that the trip was a little longer than a
+week, because I'm seeing that date, yeah.
+Q. You know it was after Christmas of '95; right?
+A. Yeah.
+MS. MENNINGER: We can take that down now, thank you.
+Q. Back in your time at Mr. Epstein's home, you believe it was
+under renovation while you were there; correct?
+A. It may have been. I don't know. I have heard, but I don't
+remember from that time. I don't have a memory of it being
+under renovation, but I have heard that that's possible.
+Q. And I won't ask you where you heard that. I'm not asking
+you where you heard that.
+A. Okay.
+2. You do know that there was no sexual activity that occurred
+while you were in Mr. Epstein's home; correct?
+2. No one physically touched you there?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor. Just to
+clarify which home we're talking about.
+MS. MENNINGER: The New York home. Sorry. I thought
+that was the general topic here.
+l. I'm talking about your time in the New York home that was
+possibly under renovation in early of 1996; right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 89 of 267
+- Cross
+2117
+A. Sorry. What was the question about that?
+Q. I'm just orienting you to make sure you and I are talking
+about the same thing.
+Q. And I understand us to be talking about a time in early
+January 1996 when you were in Mr. Epstein's --
+A. We're on the same page, yes.
+Q. -- New York home; right?
+l. No physical contact happened with you in that home?
+l. No one showed you any vibrators or massagers or anything
+like that in that home?
+l. And regardless, Ghislaine Maxwell was not present in
+Mr. Epstein's home while you were there; right?
+A. Correct.
+l. You just talked about later going to the movie theater with
+Epstein and your sister during the same trip in New York in
+early 1996?
+l. And Ghislaine Maxwell was not at the movie theater; right?
+A. That's right.
+e. And you talked about how he held your hand and rubbed your
+arm during that time in the movie theater; right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 90 of 267
+- cross
+2118
+A. That's right.
+Q. You told this to the FBI when you first met with them in
+relation to this case, in September of 2019; correct?
+l. And before you met with the FBI in September of 2019 and
+talked about the movie theater incident, you actually refreshed
+your memory by looking at your journal; right?
+A. I had seen my journal, yes.
+l. And you told them that you knew about this experience in
+the movie theater because you had looked at your journal and
+refreshed your memory; correct?
+A. I knew about the experience apart from that, but I had
+looked in my journal, yes.
+2. What you told the prosecutors and the FBI in 2019, after
+telling them about the movie theater incident, is that you
+recalled your memory was refreshed of the incident by looking
+at your journal; right?
+2. You had looked at the journal before you had the meeting
+with them in September of 2019?
+l. And you also refreshed your memory about the age you were
+when you took the trip by looking at your journal in 2019?
+A. The age when I took the trip to New Mexico --
+Q. New York. New York. I'm sorry. I'm just talking about
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 91 of 267
+- cross
+New York. I apologize if it wasn't clear.
+A. Okay.
+l. You refreshed your memory about the age you were when you
+took the trip to New York by looking at your journal?
+A. I don't remember saying that, but that's possible, yes.
+mean, I knew
+it was in my junior year, so I don't think it
+would have been that hard for me to determine my age, but --
+MS. MENNINGER: If I could have the witness and
+counsel look at 3514-006, page 1, third full paragraph about
+five lines down.
+Q. If you could just read that bottom half of that paragraph
+to yourself and tell me if that refreshes your memory about
+what you told the government in 2019.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: She can look at it.
+A. I'm sorry. Just read it but to myself, is that what you
+2119
+I
+said?
+l. Yes. And do you now recall that, in September of 2019, you
+had looked at your journal and refreshed your memory about the
+age you were when you took the trip before you met with the
+government then?
+A. I think it -- the sentence is a summary. I don't know if
+that's what it -- that's not my interpretation of it. I see
+that they wrote a note about that. I think I knew I was 16,
+but I do know that I refreshed my memory about the experience
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+by reading the journal.
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 92 of 267
+- cross
+2120
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay, clear. So we can take that
+down.
+Q. So we know that you refreshed your memory with the journal
+before you met with the government in September of 2019?
+Q. And we do that sometimes in this courtroom, too. I ask you
+to take a look at a document to refresh your memory because it
+helps people remember things that they wrote down a long time
+ago?
+A. Of course.
+Q. And that's kind of what you had done before you met with
+the government in September of 2019; right?
+A. I had had that journal with me, and so I had looked at it
+over the years, yes.
+l. And it helped you remember things from a long time ago?
+l. Because you had written it down at the time; right?
+A. Yeah.
+l. The government introduced some pages from that journal - I
+think it was 603 and 604, if memory serves - and they asked you
+a little bit about the journal on direct. I want to ask you a
+few more questions about the journal.
+sure.
+Q. The cover of the journal -
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 93 of 267
+- cross
+MS. MENNINGER: Is that 603? Sorry. 601. If we
+could show that to counsel and the witness.
+Q. This is the cover of one of your journals from high school;
+Q. It's the one that contains the pages that we've been
+looking at; right?
+l. Now, you had several journals during high school; right?
+A. Yes, I did have other journals in high school.
+Q. You kept a journal throughout high school?
+A. I know, like, I journaled when I went to Thailand in a
+separate journal on that trip. And I've had journals starting
+in elementary school, off and on, but again, I'm not very
+consistent, so I don't know that I journaled throughout high
+school. I think there were chunks of time that I would do it
+and then I would put it aside for a while.
+2. And when you spoke to the government in September of 2019,
+you said throughout high school, you maintained a journal;
+right?
+A. Yeah. I'm trying to elaborate on that, yeah.
+l. So you had this journal from around the time you went to
+New York?
+A. Right.
+Q. And then you had another journal from the time you went to
+2121
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 94 of 267
+2122
+- cross
+Thailand in the summer?
+A. Yeah.
+That was only about that trip. Yes.
+Q. And then you had other journals thereafter; right?
+A. I don't recall if I journaled again in my senior year, but
+I know I journaled again in college and other times.
+Q. And this particular journal that we've been looking at and
+the government had you read from, you actually read from it
+during some of your media appearances; right?
+A. I did.
+l. On a documentary or a 2020 special or something; right?
+A. I did.
+MS. MENNINGER: And if I could ask to turn to page 2
+of 603, I believe it is. I'm sorry. It's not.
+Let me back up. I would like to introduce Defendant's
+Exhibit AF1, which I think there was a page omitted from the
+government's exhibit. If I could confer with counsel.
+THE COURT: You want to indicate the identification
+mark and then pull it up for me, please.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. And I apologize,
+your Honor, if I may approach, I do have a paper binder I could
+give to the Court and the witness because it's multiple pages.
+There is just a different page than the government's exhibit.
+THE COURT: Okay. When you get back, the tab number
+and then, again, just the mark for identification.
+MS. MENNINGER: AF1, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 95 of 267
+- cross
+2123
+THE COURT: And that's behind tab 1?
+MS. MENNINGER: I think we have the 3500 material
+first, your Honor. So it's about halfway through the binder is
+when the AF exhibits start.
+THE COURT: I see. Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I've marked for
+identification AF1. What I would like to do is to draw the
+witness's attention --
+THE COURT: You want to direct the witness to a page?
+MS. MENNINGER: Page 2, exactly, of that entry.
+THE COURT: Of AF1?
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+e. Do you see that entry?
+2. Do you recognize this was another entry in the same
+journal?
+MS. MENNINGER: And I don't believe it was in the
+government's exhibit, and that's why I'm asking to introduce
+this page, and I can work out with the government later if
+there is any redactions. I don't think any are appropriate,
+but --
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: AF1 is admitted temporarily under seal so
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 96 of 267
+- cross
+the government can propose any redactions.
+(Defendant's
+Exhibit AF1 received in evidence)
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. Thank you. This page 2 is actually is an entry that you
+made before you went to New York; right?
+A. Right.
+Q. And it doesn't have a date on it?
+A. Right.
+l. But you're describing your excitement at going to see your
+sister in New York; right?
+A. Yeah.
+l. And you're describing your excitement about meeting
+Epstein; correct?
+A. Right. Maria, I'm excited about getting this ticket that
+he bought me, yeah.
+l. And you refer to him -
+MS. MENNINGER: Could we publish to the jury that
+page. Is that a problem?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No, not at all.
+MS. MENNINGER: If we could publish to the jury that
+page, your Honor?
+THE COURT: Do you have it on paper?
+MS. MENNINGER: I don't think that the government
+thinks that there is any proposed redactions to this page.
+THE COURT: Let's just give them a minute.
+2124
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 97 of 267 2125
+- cross
+MS. MENNINGER: Of course.
+THE COURT: And if not, we can unseal it.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, as long as we're referring
+to just page 2, then the government does not believe any
+redactions are necessary. So it can be published.
+THE COURT: Why don't we do that. Why don't we make
+page 2 AF1.
+MS. MENNINGER: That's fine.
+THE COURT: Page 2 of what I'm looking at will be now
+marked as AF1 and, without objection, I'll admit AF1, which is
+only page 2.
+Let me just give the
+want to just give that --
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. It's
+that's at the bottom. You
+labeled
+AFarmer10472.
+THE COURT: That is the single page that I'm admitting
+as AF1. And no objection to it being published?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: You I
+•. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. So this is, I think as we just said, an entry that you made
+in the same journal before you went to New York?
+A. Correct.
+Q. So it's your handwriting, et cetera?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 267
+- cross
+2126
+A. Correct.
+Q. You referred to Epstein as Maria's boss; right?
+Q. You didn't use his name at that point in time?
+A. Right.
+Q. And you described that you were hoping that he might help
+pay for your college; right?
+l. And you were hoping that he might help you get into
+college; right?
+e. And you didn't want to get your hopes up because you might
+be disappointed?
+l. And that's sort of what you had written down before you
+went to New York?
+Q. Nothing in there about Ghislaine Maxwell?
+A. Correct.
+MS. MENNINGER: And now we'll use the Government
+Exhibit 603, which picks up, I believe, on the next entry that
+we have.
+THE COURT: And that's a public exhibit?
+MS. MENNINGER: Right.
+MS. POMERANTZ: That's correct, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE|
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 99 of 267
+- cross
+2127
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. And I think we looked at this just a moment ago?
+Q. And you can look at it on your screen now.
+A. It's a little easier to read.
+Q. You can put that down.
+Thank you.
+And as we discussed, this is the first entry that you
+made when you got back from New York; right?
+A. Right.
+l. And this is the entry in which you talked about going to
+Phantom of the Opera?
+2. And going to Mr. Epstein's home; right?
+2. You called the Phantom of the Opera the best night of your
+trip; correct?
+l. You talked about meeting Maria's boyfriend and so forth in
+this same entry; correct?
+l. You talked about going cross country skiing at some point
+during the trip?
+MS. MENNINGER: On the next page, if we could.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, can we take this down for
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 100 of 267
+- cross
+2128
+just a moment, please.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+If I can just have a moment to confer with defense
+counsel?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+(Pause)
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there is a bit of a
+disagreement about the redactions, but I don't want to hold up
+the presentation for the jury. So we can take that up later.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MS. MENNINGER: But I do want to ask the witness a
+couple of questions. So if I could direct her attention to
+what we have marked as AF1, and it's going to be page 4 of that
+exhibit.
+THE COURT: We have a terminological issue, because
+that was originally AFl, but we just admitted the one page as
+AF1.
+How about this, we'll go back, I'll admit under seal,
+again, temporarily, AF1 as a seven-page document.
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you.
+THE COURT: Recognizing there is overlap between some
+of the pages of the AF1 and Government Exhibit 603.
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. We can work
+that out.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: That's fine, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 101 of 267
+- cross
+THE COURT: Let me just talk to the record for a
+2129
+moment.
+I retract that I'm only admitting the single page of
+AF1 as AFl. Instead, I am temporarily admitting under seal a
+seven-page document marked as AF1. Counsel will work out
+limited redactions.
+We'll turn that into a public document
+with limited redactions.
+Go ahead.
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+2. So I just wanted to ask you, in this journal entry, you
+wrote about going to a ski cabin and going cross country
+skiing; right?
+A. Yeah. I'm sorry. I think I got lost. Are we back in the
+binder now?
+l. You can testify from memory right now. If you need to 1ook
+at it, we can show it to you again.
+A. Okay.
+2. But you, I believe, would recall that you wrote about going
+to a cross country skiing cabin?
+l. And you also wrote about going to see a movie or watching a
+movie while you were in that cabin, and the name of the movie
+was Sleuth?
+A. Okay. Yes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 102 of 267
+- cross
+2130
+Q. And you talked about going to see bands and going to a bar
+and other things that you did during your trip?
+A. Okay. Yes.
+Q. Is that right?
+Q. You recall that's in your journal entry?
+Q. You've reviewed that journal entry a few times; right?
+l. And significantly, in this journal entry, you really talked
+about your emotions that you were feeling after you returned
+from your trip to New York; right?
+l. You talked about how you had such a great time, it was
+really depressing to be home; right?
+A. I did.
+l. The trip changed your whole outlook on life; right?
+A. Yeah.
+e. You say you always feel that way when I get back from
+trips; right?
+l. You had been on other trips?
+A. Correct.
+l. I think you mentioned that you felt similarly when you got
+back from Mexico?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 103 of 267
+- Cross
+2131
+A. Correct.
+Q. You've been to Mexico?
+Q. It was really overwhelming this time because you felt more
+independent and things along those lines; right?
+A. That's right.
+Q. You also talked about how you felt really comfortable here
+in New York?
+l. And you felt like you belonged here?
+l. You hoped to live here some day?
+Q. And this was after your entire trip was over; right?
+A. That's right.
+l. You wrote this after you got back home; right?
+A. That's right.
+l. After the movie theater incident?
+A. That's right.
+l. You also had your impressions of Epstein recorded in this
+journal entry; right?
+l. You found him down to earth and easy to talk to; right?
+Q. In this journal entry, after you got back from New York,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 104 of 267
+- cross
+2132
+again, there is no mention of Ghislaine Maxwell; correct?
+A. That's right.
+Q. And this, what we've been looking at, is only a portion of
+your January 7th journal entry; right?
+A. Right.
+Q. But you have no reason to believe Ghislaine Maxwell is
+mentioned in the rest of the entry that we don't have?
+l. I want to talk about the next journal entry, which I
+believe is Government Exhibit 604.
+MS. MENNINGER: And we may have the same issue, but
+I'll try to be sensitive to it, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
+l. This one is dated January 25th of 1996; right?
+A. Right.
+l. And that's about three weeks after the last one; right?
+A. Yeah.
+Q. And were there any entries between January 6th and January
+25th?
+A. I don't believe so.
+l. And when you wrote this entry a few weeks later, you wanted
+to go back and fill in some details that you hadn't mentioned
+the first time; right?
+A. Right.
+l. And that's when you wrote about go going to see a play
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 105 of 267
+- cross
+called the Dutchess?
+Q. The Blue Man Group and the flea market and that kind of
+thing?
+Q. You went to the Met; right?
+Q. And a pretty fun New Year's Eve party and the thrift
+stores?
+l. And it was after your discussion about all of those things
+that you wrote about your experience in the movie theater;
+right?
+2. During your entire trip in New York, you didn't write about
+Ghislaine Maxwell in your journal; right?
+A. Right.
+l. And you would agree with me that having been able to
+refresh your memory with these journal entries has brought back
+some of the details that you may not have remembered if you
+didn't have a journal entry; right?
+Q. You may not have remembered the Dutchess or --
+A. Right.
+Q. What your emotions were; right?
+2133
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 106 of 267 2134
+- cross
+A. Right.
+Q. But having written them down in this journal, it's easy for
+you to now recall them?
+A. Yeah, it helps with the frame of mind -- remind myself --
+of the frame of mind.
+Q. In your journal entry related to the movie theater
+incident - and I think you talked about this on direct - you
+made a number of statements like, it wasn't weird, it wasn't
+that weird, probably normal, it's a little back and forth; is
+that fair?
+, yeah.
+l. You even said to yourself, it sounds like I'm justifying
+it, but I'm not justifying it; right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 107 of 267 2135
+- Cross
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. And as you sit here today, you now find Epstein's behavior
+in that movie theater weird?
+A. I think I found it weird then too, which is why I used that
+word so many times. But I do now, yes.
+Q. You said it was not weird, it was normal and fine, in your
+journal entry, right?
+A. Yeah. I also said it weirded me out.
+l. And then you said, It's not a big deal. Right?
+A. I did say that.
+Q. And "I really don't think it is a big deal." Right?
+A. Correct.
+l. So you used both versions: It's weird, it's not weird.
+Right?
+l. As you sit here today, you find it weird, right?
+A. I still find it weird.
+l. And at points in this journal entry, you did not find it
+weird, but at other points you did, right?
+A. That's what I wrote.
+l. And that's based on your today looking back on it in
+hindsight; correct? You're looking back on your emotions on
+January 25th, 1996; correct?
+A. I am reflecting on that.
+2. You have your memories today, and you have the emotions you
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 108 of 267
+- cross
+2136
+wrote down in January of 1996, right?
+A. Correct.
+l. And your memories today are colored by hindsight; correct?
+A. Of course.
+l. And you are colored in your memories of hindsight by what
+happened to you in New Mexico, for example?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+Q. Right?
+A. Does that affect how I perceive what happened to me in New
+York?
+Q. Yes.
+A. Yes, I'm sure it does in some ways.
+l. Right. Because what may not have seemed weird in one
+moment, if it happened again with him, may become weirder,
+right?
+l. In your journal entry, after describing the movie theater
+incident, you continue on to talk about mundane teen
+activities, right?
+A. Right.
+I. And we don't need to talk about your friends' names, but
+you started talking about, excuse me, who you were friends with
+or --
+A. Very high school stuff, yes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 109 of 267
+- cross
+Q. Okay. And you even said you were in a pretty happy place
+at the
+time you wrote
+this entry; correct?
+A. I did say that.
+Q. And you were excited for the future, right?
+Q. And for the avoidance of all doubt, there is no entry in
+any of your journals that relate to Ghislaine Maxwell?
+l. And that is true with respect to a journal you wrote in
+Thailand after you claimed the New Mexico event happened;
+l. And that's true if you had other journals from your senior
+year; no mention of Ghislaine Maxwell, right?
+A. Correct.
+l. 604 that we looked at with the government is the last
+journal entry that you gave to the government for this case;
+A. Sorry. Should I pull up the binder?
+MS. MENNINGER: Actually, if Ms. Drescher could pull
+up 604. I just don't have that version in our computer.
+THE COURT: Okay. It is admitted, so you
+|. Drescher. Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: If we could go to the next page.
+Thank you, Ms. Drescher. And then is the back cover admitted?
+2137
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 110 of 267
+- Cross
+2138
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Sorry, your Honor.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. Is this page that you see here in front of you from 604 the
+last page of your journal that you gave to the government in
+connection with this case?
+A. I don't recall, but if it's entered that way, then yes, I'm
+assuming it is.
+Q. okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: We could pull up AF-1, page 7, just
+for counsel and the witness.
+THE COURT: That's fine.
+MS. MENNINGER: I believe it's noncontroversial. And
+the government has a copy of it now.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor, we have a copy.
+l. So this is the back of the journal, right?
+A. Correct.
+l. And you gave a copy of this picture of the back of this
+journal to the government?
+A. Right.
+l. And so that's what we have.
+, yeah. Okay.
+I. We've covered everything that you gave to the government in
+relationship to this journal?
+A. Okay. Yes.
+2. Correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 111 of 267
+2139
+- Cross
+A. Correct.
+Q. So we have photocopied pages from within the journal?
+Q. We have a picture of the front of the journal, right?
+Q. And a picture of the back of the journal?
+Q. Just to be clear, the government has never received a
+physical copy of the journal; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. You have never given that to them?
+A. Correct.
+l. So since you -- these are all the pages we have; you do not
+have a journal entry that reflects your trip to New Mexico?
+l. We don't have "I'm excited about going to New Mexico,"
+right?
+A. Correct.
+e. We don't have "I'm excited to go to New Mexico to see
+Maria's boss" or something like that?
+A. Right.
+I. We don't have how we felt when you got home from New
+Mexico?
+A. There's no journal entries about New Mexico.
+Q. And where is the physical journal right now?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 112 of 267 2140
+- Cross
+A. It's in the City of New York.
+Q. Without a journal entry from the New Mexico trip, we can't
+confirm with a piece of paper who invited you there, right?
+A. With a piece of paper?
+No.
+Q. Or why you were going, right?
+A. Yes, there's no journal and record of any of that.
+Q. There's no piece of paper that you know of, right?
+A. Correct.
+l. Journal or otherwise, right?
+A. Correct.
+l. We don't have a document that tells us when you went,
+right?
+A. Correct.
+l. And because we don't have an entry from after the trip to
+New Mexico, we can't tell with a piece of paper what happened
+to you while you were there; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. Or who was there, right?
+A. Correct.
+l. Or what you talked about while you were there?
+A. That's right.
+I. How you felt about the trip?
+A. Right.
+l. Right?
+And because we don't have a piece of paper or a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 113 of 267
+- cross
+journal entry, it is harder for you to remember the events in
+the New Mexico trip versus the New York trip?
+MS. POMERANIZ: objection, your Honor.
+2141
+Q. You've told the government it was harder for you to
+disaggregate discussions about those two trips?
+A. I'm sorry, to disaggregate discussions with who?
+l. You had discussions about going to New York with certain
+people, your sister, I think you said?
+A. Right.
+l. You had discussions about going to New Mexico with people,
+I think you said, before you went?
+A. Before I went.
+l. Yes.
+l. You said you spoke with Mr. Epstein on the phone; correct?
+A. About going to Thailand. I don't remember about going to
+New Mexico.
+l. You spoke to him between the time you went to New York and
+the time you went to New Mexico.
+A. Correct.
+l. You spoke with him on the phone?
+l. You did not ever speak with Ghislaine Maxwell on the phone?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 114 of 267
+- Cross
+2142
+A. I did not.
+l. And you spoke to your mother about going to New Mexico?
+Q. And when you were talking to the government about all these
+various conversations, you told them it was harder for you to
+disaggregate the discussions about those two different trips,
+right?
+A. I don't recall saying that, but I -- I understand what
+you're saying.
+l. Okay. And you have very little memory of how the New
+Mexico trip was planned; correct?
+2. And you have very little memory because you have no journal
+entries from that time period, right?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+A. I have not had a journal to help me refresh my memories of
+how that was planned.
+2. Thank you.
+Now, you testified on direct that you believe you went
+in the -- to New Mexico in the spring of '96, right?
+l. And you also said you believe it was April of '96?
+A. That's right.
+l. And you're going off of your memory for that?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 115 of 267
+2143
+- cross
+Q. Because we don't have a journal entry, right?
+Q. And actually it's a bit of a reconstructed memory, right?
+A. About the timeline?
+Q. Of when you went to New Mexico.
+A. Certain things stand out that help me to remember what the
+timeline would have been, yes.
+l. Okay. You remember certain things about the trip, like
+going to see Primal Fear, right?
+l. And what you did is you got on the internet and researched
+when Primal Fear was released, right?
+A. I remember going to see Primal Fear. And I did at some
+point check to make sure that that was -- when that came out.
+And that confirmed that, yes, that was the correct time that I
+had remembered.
+l. You confirmed the time Primal Fear was released and then
+placed your memory of the trip relative to that date; correct?
+A. I don't think I would say it that way.
+2. Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'd like to show the witness what
+we've marked for identification as AF-8.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is the first time
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 116 of 267
+- cross
+we're seeing this, so I'd ask for just a moment to review.
+THE COURT: You l
+•. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+2144
+I show AF-8 to the witness, your
+Honor?
+THE COURT: You l
+. MENNINGER: Can you please put it on counsel's
+screen.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+, you recall having email communications with a
+journalist?
+Q. And that journalist's name is Mike Baker?
+A. Correct.
+l. He works for The New York Times?
+l. You gave an interview with Mr. Baker relative to your
+experiences; correct?
+A. I did.
+l. And before you did that, Mr. Baker had some emails where he
+was confirming certain dates with you?
+A. That's right.
+l. And one of the communications Mr. Baker asked about is the
+timing of your trip to New Mexico?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 117 of 267
+- cross
+2145
+A. That's right.
+Q. And he cited your recollection that it was in the spring?
+A. Sorry. I just read the first part. I'm looking at the
+bottom.
+l. If you look at the bottom full paragraph --
+yeah.
+e.
+-- does that refresh your memory --
+A. Yeah.
+l. - he's asking you?
+l. And he said he understood it was in the spring, maybe
+April, right?
+l. And you wrote him back and told him that you had looked up
+the release date of Primal Fear?
+l. Right?
+And you told him it wasn't out until April 3rd, right?
+A. Right.
+l. And you told him that you also had talked to some of your
+friends, right?
+e. About when prom was?
+A. Yeah.
+Q. And that was in late April, right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 118 of 267
+- cross
+2146
+l. And so after looking up Primal Fear and talking to your
+friends, you told him you're feeling pretty confident that it
+was April?
+Q. So you took some memory fragments that you had, Primal Fear
+and prom, right?
+l. And you looked up things on the internet, right?
+A. Yeah, I wanted to be accurate. I had just said the spring,
+and so I wanted to, you know, provide more detail.
+l. And so you compared it to the release date of Primal Fear,
+right?
+A. Right.
+right?
+l. You compared it to your friends' memories of when prom was,
+A. Right.
+Q. And that led you to be pretty confident that the trip
+occurred in April of '96, right?
+A. Right.
+l. And that's how you reconstructed your memory that it was
+April of 1996?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: What are the grounds? One-word grounds.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Just mischaracterization.
+
+
+
+- Cross
+2147
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Q. Right?
+A. Right.
+Q. You wanted to be accurate?
+Q. So you checked it against dates and you checked it against
+other people's memories, right?
+A. Right.
+Q. That's how you make sure it's accurate?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+Q. Right?
+A. That's how I make sure --
+e. Your memory is accurate.
+A. In general?
+l. In this case.
+A. In this case that's what I did, yes. I said that, yes.
+Q. Talking about things that happened 25 years ago, right?
+A. Right.
+l. You also were trying to figure out or you were telling him
+about the dates of your trip to Thailand, Mr. Baker?
+A. That's right.
+l. And you were able to tell Mr. Baker the dates of your trip
+to Thailand because you always remember you went on your
+birthday?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 120 of 267
+- cross
+2148
+A. Right.
+l. And you have pegged your memory of going to Thailand with
+your birthday, which was in early July?
+A. Right.
+l. And so you were able to remember the dates of your trip to
+Thailand by reference
+to your birthday?
+A. Right.
+Q. And you're sure that you went to Thailand in the summer of
+1996, right?
+A. Right.
+MS. MENNINGER: And we can take that down now.
+l. There would be records of you going to Thailand in the
+summer of 1996 presumably; correct?
+A. What kind of -- I mean
+e. You traveled abroad.
+A. I'm sure they are somewhere. This was before digital
+records, but -
+l. You had a passport?
+A. Yes, yes, for sure.
+l. You crossed borders?
+A. Yeah, those records, yeah. I don't have those, but yeah.
+I. You went with a school organization?
+A. Global Roots, yeah; it was a nonprofit.
+l. So presumably there are records somewhere that substantiate
+the date of your trip.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 121 of 267
+- Cross
+2149
+A. Right.
+MS. MENNINGER: Can I have one moment, your Honor?
+THE COURT: You may.
+(Counsel conferred)
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. You talked on direct about the fact that you -- let me make
+sure I've got my quote accurate.
+You talked generally about
+once you got to New Mexico, that Ghislaine did not seem
+surprised to see you there.
+A. Right.
+Q. And that you felt more comfortable because she was there.
+l. Originally, your sister Maria was going to accompany you on
+this trip to New Mexico; correct?
+A. I don't remember that.
+l. Well, do you remember meeting with the FBI in 2006?
+A. I do remember that meeting.
+l. Okay. And just as a side note, you, I think, testified on
+direct that you believed the meeting with the FBI was in either
+2006 or 2007?
+A. Yeah. I had holiday decorations up, so I remember it was
+that late in the year.
+l. Well, earlier you have said that you remembered it was 2007
+because you remembered it being hot out. Do you remember that
+statement?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 122 of 267
+- cross
+2150
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Time frame.
+You're talking about her testimony on direct?
+MS. MENNINGER: Well, no, your Honor, I apologize.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. MENNINGER: Let me be more clear.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. In past interviews, you were trying to reconstruct the date
+of your interview with the FBI, do you remember that? You were
+asked to talk about when that meeting was?
+A. Do you remember what interview -- what --
+Q. Let me come back to it just to make sure I'm accurate.
+But, in any event, you spoke to them in 2006 or 2007 is your
+memory now?
+A. Right.
+MS. MENNINGER: And so if I could have the witness
+1ook at 3514-001.
+l. And if you look at this document, does that refresh your
+memory about when your first meeting with the FBI was?
+2. And that was in November of 2006?
+l. And the actual interview was on November 15th, 2006 at the
+bottom of the page; correct?
+THE COURT: Can you make it larger please?
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 123 of 267
+- cross
+2151
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
+Q. The interview was on November 15th of 2006 at your home in
+Austin, Texas; correct?
+l. And then the date of the report was a couple of weeks
+later. If we could look at the top of the page. November
+28th.
+l. And so on page 2 of that document, in the second full
+paragraph, the last sentence of that paragraph, what you told
+the FBI in November of 2006 is that originally Maria was going
+to accompany Annie to New Mexico; correct?
+A. I see it says that.
+Q. And that's what you told the FBI in November of 2006;
+A. I don't recall that, but I see that that's written here.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I would ask that the next
+sentence be read. It's for completeness of the record.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that's what redirect is
+fOI.
+THE COURT: You can ask your next question.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. You don't recall telling the FBI in November of 2006 that
+originally Maria was going to accompany you to New Mexico;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 124 of 267
+- cross
+2152
+MS. MENNINGER: We can take it down.
+Q. You did meet with agents at your home in November of 2006;
+A. Correct.
+Q. Agent Kuyrkendall and Slater?
+Q. And they sat down and talked to you for some time; correct?
+A. They did.
+e. They were taking notes when they talked to you?
+A. They were.
+l. And they are FBI agents; correct?
+l. They represented themselves to be?
+A. They did.
+l. And they apparently wrote a report about the interview,
+right?
+A. Right.
+e. And they wrote in their report that originally Maria was
+going to accompany you, right?
+A. They wrote that, yes.
+THE COURT: We're going to break for lunch shortly, if
+this is a breaking point.
+MS. MENNINGER: It's fine, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, we'll break for about
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 125 of 267
+- Cross
+2153
+an hour. See you then. Enjoy your lunch.
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: Are there matters to take up before the
+break?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government.
+MS. MENNINGER: Not from us, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+We'll reconvene in 45. And you'll
+let me know if there's anything to take up.
+Thank you. Have a good lunch.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you.
+(Luncheon recess)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 267
+- cross
+AFTERNOON SESSION
+1:30 p.m.
+THE COURT: All right. Matters to take up, counsel?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, just briefly from the
+government, my not amazing math skills, but I note that I think
+that the witness who's been on cross examination now for about
+the same
+amount of time that she was on direct examination, it
+would be helpful for scheduling purposes to know when we can
+expect to have the next witness ready.
+MS. MENNINGER: I don't know, your Honor. An hour.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+And the other question, I just -- rather not a
+question, just one thing I wanted to flag. I believe that, on
+cross examination, the witness was asked some questions about
+hindsight bias, which I expect to be a subject of expert
+testimony, and this witness, as she testified earlier on direct
+examination, is a psychologist. I'm not saying that there is
+anything to take up at this moment, but before she had taken
+the stand and the parties had conferred, we were asked that she
+wasn't going to be -- we were asked by Ms. Menninger to make
+sure that she wasn't going to be testifying about things in
+that area.
+2154
+So I just wanted to flag that she is testifying as a
+lay witness and that she shouldn't be asked questions on cross
+examination that would be the subject of expert testimony.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 127 of 267
+2155
+- cross
+Again, I'm happy to take it up as it comes, but I just
+wanted to flag that for the Court.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I most definitely did not
+ask her about hindsight bias. I asked her about her
+impressions of situations factually in hindsight. Even when we
+litigated expert issues around hindsight bias, there was a
+clear distinction made between what is obvious to a lay juror
+as seeing things in hindsight versus currently. I did not use
+any of the expert language associated with hindsight bias. So
+I disagree with any characterization that that was somehow
+related to an opinion under 702.
+THE COURT: All right. Are there further questions in
+that regard?
+MS. MENNINGER: There are not.
+THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: That's fine. Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Anything else to take up?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government. Thank you.
+MS. MENNINGER: Not from the defense. Thank you.
+THE COURT: We can bring the witness back, please.
+(Witness present)
+You may take your seat and you're welcome to remove
+your mask, please. Thank you.
+We can bring the jury back in.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 128 of 267
+- Cross
+2156
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: Good afternoon, members of the jury.
+you had a good lunch. Appreciate your continued attention,
+diligence, and patience.
+Hope
+continue with your cross
+examination.
+I remind you, you are under oath.
+You
+•. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. Before you traveled from Arizona to New Mexico, I believe
+you testified you did not talk to Jeffrey Epstein about the
+trip to New Mexico; correct?
+A. That's right.
+Q. So, because you did not talk to him about the trip,
+Mr. Epstein did not tell you that Ms. Maxwell would be in New
+Mexico; correct?
+A. Mr. Epstein did not.
+l. Mr. Epstein. I apologize. Thank you. Did not tell you
+Ms. Maxwell would be there?
+A. Correct.
+l. And you did not talk to Ms. Maxwell ever before you arrived
+in New Mexico; correct?
+A. Correct.
+2. The information about the New Mexico trip came from your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 129 of 267
+2157
+- cross
+mother?
+A. Correct.
+Q. As far as planning for the trip to New Mexico, you don't
+know how you got the ticket or things like that, the logistics?
+A. How the ticket was delivered, no, I don't know.
+Q. When you arrived in New Mexico, you do not recall Ghislaine
+ever saying to you she knew you would be there; correct?
+A. I don't have a memory of her saying those words.
+Q. And you don't remember her saying anything to you about the
+travel or the trip; right?
+A. About the actual, like, logistical travel?
+e. Right.
+A. I don't have a memory of that.
+Q. And that's consistent with her perhaps thinking that your
+sister was going to be coming with you; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. You have no personal knowledge that Ghislaine made any of
+your travel plans; correct?
+A. I do not.
+l. And you have no personal knowledge that she encouraged you
+to travel to New Mexico; right?
+A. I do not.
+l. Or enticed you to travel to New Mexico?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 130 of 267
+- cross
+2158
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Transported you to New Mexico?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it.
+A. Do I have personal knowledge that Maxwell -- sorry.
+Q. Ghislaine transported you to New
+Mexico.
+Q. You have no knowledge that she did; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. The trip that you took to New Mexico was from a Friday to a
+Sunday; right?
+2. That was over a weekend?
+A. Right.
+Q. It wasn't in the middle of the week?
+A. Correct.
+l. It wasn't Wednesday to Friday, for example?
+A. That's right.
+e. And you and your mother have discussed this and you both
+recall that it was over a weekend; right?
+l. And you told the government that you had talked with your
+mother about that topic?
+A. That's right.
+e. And you and your mother have the same memory of it being
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 131 of 267 2159
+- cross
+over the weekend?
+Q. You have seen flight logs that are held in connection with
+this case; correct?
+A. I do not recall seeing flight logs about this. Flight logs
+about me going to New Mexico?
+l. I want to be very clear. You're not on any flight logs, to
+your knowledge; right?
+A. I don't know of being on any flight logs.
+l. You never told anyone that you traveled on Epstein's
+private plane?
+A. No. Sorry. I was confused.
+l. Right?
+l. You and I have to be careful not to speak over one another.
+I will try.
+You have no reason to believe you were on a flight log
+related to Mr. Epstein's private plane; right?
+A. Right.
+l. Because you never traveled on Mr. Epstein's private plane;
+A. Correct.
+l. Have you ever reviewed the flight logs related to
+Mr. Epstein's private plane in connection with anything?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 132 of 267
+- cross
+Q. So you don't know whether there is a flight log entry
+showing either
+Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein traveling
+to New Mexico over a weekend in April of 1996; right?
+A. I do not.
+l. While you were at the ranch, there were other people there,
+I believe you testified?
+Q. There was a driver that took you to and from the airport?
+Q. There were other ranch hands working there?
+A. There were.
+l. There was actually, I think you did not mention on direct a
+chef who was present; correct?
+A. I -- I don't have a lot of memories of that.
+Q. You don't recall a chef who made meals for you while you
+were at the ranch?
+A. I don't recall a person doing that, but that makes sense to
+me, that there was a chef there.
+l. If I could refresh your memory by having you look at
+3514-001, and this is the same 2006 document we looked at
+earlier, page 3.
+A. Is this in the binder?
+Q. We're going to show it to you on the screen because it will
+be easier than you flipping to it. But if you want to see the
+whole document, let us know.
+2160
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 133 of 267
+- cross
+So if we can look at the second full paragraph, in
+other words the last paragraph on that page and call that out.
+If you could take a look just at this paragraph,
+and see if this refreshes your memory about a chef.
+Q. And this is --
+A. Sorry.
+Q. And this is from your conversation with the FBI in 2006?
+A. Right. I still don't have, like, an image in my mind of
+the chef, but I see that that is a part of the notes from that
+interview, yes.
+l. And so, understanding all of this is taking place a long
+time ago, is it your belief that, in 2006, you had a memory of
+a chef preparing dinner for all three of you?
+2161
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Just a minute. Overruled.
+Q. You may answer. Do you want me to rephrase it?
+A. I think I got it.
+Yes.
+l. As you sit here now, you believe that, in 2006, you had a
+memory of a chef who prepared a meal for all three of you?
+A. That's what I'm taking from reading this.
+I. But you don't have that memory today?
+A. Right.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 134 of 267
+- cross
+MS. MENNINGER: We can take that down. Thank you.
+Q. There were other people on the ranch that were working
+there; right?
+l. You don't have a memory of their names or things like that?
+A. I do not.
+0. Their faces?
+A. Not really. I mean, I have a little better image in my
+mind of, like, the ranch hand I was talking about, but I
+don't -- I couldn't identify him.
+I. During your involvement with this case, the government has
+never shown you photographs of people who worked on the ranch
+to see if that refreshed your memory; correct?
+A. Not that I recall.
+Q. So you don't have a refreshed memory about the people that
+worked on the ranch?
+A. Right.
+l. You testified on direct that there was a small residence
+that you were staying in at the ranch?
+A. Right.
+l. The ranch is a large piece of land; correct?
+A. That's right. Yes.
+2. When you referred to the ranch, you're talking about the
+large piece of land?
+2162
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 135 of 267
+- cross
+Q. And on that large piece of land, I think you testified
+there was a movie set that you visited, an old movie set?
+A. Right.
+Q. And there was a
+small residence and that's where you
+stayed?
+A. Right.
+l. You did not stay at the big, glorious Zorro Ranch that
+Mr. Epstein owned later; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. You did not see the big, glorious Zorro Ranch while you
+were there; right?
+l. And you certainly didn't stay in the big, glorious Zorro
+Ranch while you were there; right?
+A. I did not.
+l. You've seen those photos on news accounts since then;
+right?
+A. I've seen a couple photos of that, yes.
+e. And so that big, huge mansion-like place is not what you
+saw?
+A. Correct.
+l. And it's not where you stayed?
+A. Correct.
+l. So if another witness said that they saw a big, glorious
+ranch in '94, '95, that's inconsistent with your memory of the
+2163
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 136 of 267
+- Cross
+2164
+buildings on the ranch?
+MS. POMERANTZ:
+Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. You have no memory of a big glorious mansion on the ranch?
+A. I know there were other buildings, as I said, but I don't
+have much memory about what the others were because we weren't
+spending time in them.
+Q. You took a tour of the whole ranch while you were there;
+right?
+A. I took a tour out to the movie set. It was more of an
+outdoor - as I said, we were seeing the horses and we were
+seeing the movie set.
+Q. No one took you on a tour by a place under construction?
+A. I don't -- I have no memory of that.
+Q. You went on a shopping trip that you talked about on direct
+examine; correct?
+l. You went to a natural grocery store?
+l. You went to a western wear store?
+I. That's where Epstein bought you cowboy boots?
+l. I don't think you mentioned on direct, but you also went
+horseback riding while you were on the ranch; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 137 of 267
+2165
+- cross
+A. That does sound familiar, yes. That did happen.
+Q. Well, you actually spent a significant amount of time
+horseback riding while you were at the ranch?
+A. A significant amount of time?
+Q. Horseback riding while were you at the ranch.
+A. Is that a question?
+Q. Yes.
+Did you spend a significant amount of time horseback
+riding while were you at the ranch?
+A. I wouldn't say significant. I don't remember going on more
+than one occasion.
+MS. MENNINGER: If I could direct the witness's
+attention to 3514-001, page 2, the last paragraph on that page.
+This, again, is from the 2006 interview.
+2. What you relayed to the FBI agents in 2006 is that you
+spent a significant amount of time horseback riding on the
+ranch; correct?
+A. That's this document, yes.
+l. That the FBI took notes of in 2006?
+l. And you told them that right after you told them about
+buying cowboy boots?
+A. Right.
+l. And you told them that right after you told them about
+going shopping at the store for the natural food products;
+right?
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 138 of 267
+- Cross
+2166
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A. Right.
+Q. So you went shopping at the store, you went and bought
+cowboy boots, and then you went horseback riding?
+A. Right.
+Q. For a significant amount of time?
+A. That's what this says, yes.
+Q. And you needed the cowboy boots to go horseback riding --
+A. Horseback riding --
+l. Right --
+A. I mean, you can go horseback riding without cowboy boots,
+but I'm sure that was the purpose, yes.
+l. I want to talk about the boots a little bit more.
+You said
+Epstein bought you those boots; correct?
+A. Correct.
+2. And you kept the boots; right?
+l. You kept them for 25 years?
+l. Quarter of a century; right?
+2. And you chose to wear
+the boots?
+Q. You wore them a lot?
+A. In more recent years, yes.
+Q. We'll talk about that.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 139 of 267
+- Cross
+At some point in the course of this case, you handed
+those boots over to the government; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. That actually happened earlier this year?
+A. That's right.
+Q. The FBI agent came to your house and picked up the boots
+from you there in Texas; right?
+A. That's right.
+Q. That was in or about June 29th?
+2167
+MS. MENNINGER: I would like to have the witness
+identify what we would mark for identification as AF9. I
+believe an agent or detective has those boots. If they could
+be handed to the witness.
+THE COURT: Showing the witness what's been marked for
+identification as AF9.
+I approach the witness, your
+Honor?
+THE COURT: You l
+• MENNINGER:
+, do you know what's in the bag?
+A. I do.
+Q. What is it?
+A. Cowboy boots.
+l. Are those the boots that Mr. Epstein bought you?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 140 of 267
+- Cross
+Q. Could you remove them from the bag, please.
+THE COURT: Are you moving them?
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. May I move for the
+admission of AF9?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection.
+THE COURT: AF9 are admitted.
+(Defendant's Exhibit AF9 received in evidence)
+l. So those boots are in your size; right?
+A. I think they're a little smaller than my current size, but
+yes.
+l. And those are the same boots that you recall having been
+purchased in 1996; right?
+Q. And fair to say that the heels are worn down on the boots?
+A. Yeah.
+l. Fair to say that the toes of the boots are pretty well
+scuffed; right?
+l. And the leather 100ks like it's been worn a couple times;
+right?
+A. Yeah.
+right?
+2. Now, you testified on direct that you reclaimed the boots;
+2168
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 141 of 267
+- cross
+2169
+l. And you said that you reclaimed them after the government
+and you spoke in 2006?
+A. That's right.
+l. So in 2006, you knew that the boots were evidence of your
+interactions with Mr. Epstein; right?
+A. That's right.
+2. And the government didn't ask you for them then?
+A. They asked if I had them.
+l. And what did you tell them?
+A. I wasn't sure.
+Q. And you later found them?
+A. I did.
+l. And you did not send them to the FBI when you found them;
+right?
+A. No. At the time I had them, it didn't seem there was
+further -- the case did not seem to be developing.
+e. So you did not --
+A. I did not send them to them.
+2. And you chose to wear the evidence of your contact with
+Mr. Epstein; right?
+A. I did.
+l. And the first time you've told anyone about this reclaiming
+of the boots is in court today; correct?
+Q. Well, you've met with the government, I think you said five
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 142 of 267
+1 - cross
+2170
+or six times; right?
+2. And you've never told the government that you reclaimed the
+boots by wearing them after 2006; right?
+A. I believe that we have spoken about that. I mean -- I
+don't know if I used the term "reclaim," but that I explained
+why they were not used previously and then I did wear them.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'll raise this under Rule 16 later,
+your Honor.
+l. So you believe you've told that to the government?
+A. I believe that I -- that part that I just said, yes, that I
+did not wear the boots and then I did wear the boots.
+Q. And you wore them a lot?
+A. I mean, because that's the general term. I didn't wear
+them to work or things, but I did wear them when I would go
+two-stepping.
+l. So you went dancing in the boots that Mr. Epstein bought
+for you?
+l. Io the point where the heels are worn down and the toes are
+scuffed; right?
+Q. You can put that back in the bag. If it's in your way, I
+can come move it. If it's okay up --
+A. No, it's --
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 143 of 267 2171
+- cross
+Q. Thank you. We talked a little bit about this conversation
+you had with the agents in 2006, and I believe you testified
+that you recall having Christmas lights up?
+A. I said holiday decorations. I was selling some holiday
+products and I remember having them out when the agents came.
+MS. MENNINGER: Just one moment. Your Honor, after
+the government has had a chance to look at it, I would like to
+show the witness what's been marked as AF10.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: Has the government had a chance?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor,
+and we object to
+this.
+THE COURT: I'll hear from you.
+
+
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 144 of 267
+- Cross
+2172
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(At the sidebar)
+THE COURT: I think what I'm looking at is an email
+from August of 2019, in which she recounts to the New York
+Times reporter that she thinks when they came - meaning the FBI
+agents - it was in spring-summer of 2007. Grounds.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, this is a collateral
+matter.
+She's been testifying about the interview itself, but
+there is no grounds to bring in extrinsic evidence on this
+matter with the date of the interview itself.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, my point is simply that
+she refreshed her memory about when the meeting was by talking
+to her husband and thinking about other points, like it was hot
+and sunny. She did testify that it was --
+THE COURT: But what's in issue is her memory of when
+she met with the FBI agents?
+What does that matter?
+MS. MENNINGER: It's her memories now of things that
+she - yes, about things that happened a decade ago, which, by
+inference, goes to the strength of her memory about things that
+happened in '96.
+THE COURT: So the theory is anything testing her
+memory from years ago is relevant.
+MS. MENNINGER: I wouldn't go that far, your Honor.
+THE COURT: This is two steps removed and I'11
+sustain.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 145 of 267
+- cross
+2173
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(In open court)
+THE COURT: Sustained, 401 and 403.
+Go ahead.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. I want to talk about the incident in the movie theater in
+New Mexico.
+A. Okay.
+l. You testified that Epstein held your hand in the movie
+theater in New Mexico; right?
+l. And it was, in your words, more blatant than in New York?
+A. Right.
+e. You don't actually know that Ghislaine Maxwell saw Epstein
+holding your hand; correct?
+A. I don't.
+Q. You just said she was present on the other side of him?
+A. That's right.
+l. And afterwards, she didn't say anything to you about it;
+right?
+A. She did not.
+e. She did not say, hey, were you holding his hand or anything
+like that?
+breasts?
+l. In the movie theater, there was no touching of your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+- cross
+l. There was no touching of your genitalia or private parts?
+2. I want to talk to you about the foot massage that you
+described on direct.
+Q. You said that Ms. Maxwell -- Ghislaine was massaging one of
+Jeffrey's feet; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. And she gave you instructions on how to massage the other
+foot; right?
+A. That's right.
+l. And at the time, you do not remember the specifics of what
+Epstein was saying during the foot massage; right?
+A. No, I don't.
+l. You don't remember it going beyond the massaging of his
+foot; right?
+A. Correct.
+l. And you do not remember the foot massage being sexualized;
+right?
+A. I guess I would consider all of that sexualized. I
+don't -- it was not -- they were not touching my private body
+parts and I was not touching his.
+MS. MENNINGER: If I could have the witness 100k at
+3514-12. I'll just show the first page to orient you in the
+upper right-hand corner. This is an interview in May --
+2174
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 147 of 267
+- cross
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+MS. MENNINGER: I don't know how to orient the witness
+to the time, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll allow you to -- it's been expanded
+now, so she can look at the document.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. You recall speaking to the government in May of 2020;
+right?
+A. Right. Yes.
+l. May 9th of 2020; right?
+l. And you were there with some prosecutors and FBI agents;
+right?
+A. Don't remember if this was in person or over the phone, but
+I remember having a communication, yes.
+l. And your attorney, Ms. McCauley, was also there?
+l. If I could direct your attention to the second page, there
+is a section three-quarters of the way down, a paragraph. If
+we can call out that section that has a label.
+If I can have you take a 1o0k at these notes.
+2175
+2. What you told the government on that occasion is you do not
+remember it, meaning the foot massage, being sexualized;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 148 of 267
+2176
+- Cross
+A. I see that that is the note, that that's how it was
+described.
+I would say, just as what I said a minute ago, is
+that, in my mind, all of this was sexualized to some degree,
+but it did not go to touching my private body parts or me
+touching his.
+, what you told the government is you do not
+remember the foot massage being sexualized. Yes or no?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection. Asked and answered.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. MENNINGER: I don't think I got an answer to the
+yes or no.
+THE COURT: You did, and then the witness elaborated,
+and that's permissible, and the question has been asked and
+answered. So, next question.
+l. The notes say you do not remember --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You said a minute ago that the notes say you do not
+remember it being sexualized?
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+2. You also do not remember the specifics of what Mr. Epstein
+was saying during the foot massage; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. And that was in May of 2020; right?
+A. Right.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+- cross
+2177
+l. I want to talk about the full body massage that you
+described.
+Q. You testified on direct that you had nothing on during that
+massage?
+l. I want to direct your attention to what's been marked as
+AF8.
+THE COURT: The government has it?
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, we spoke about it earlier in this
+cross examination, your Honor.
+I gave it to you earlier in the cross examination.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 150 of 267
+2178
+- Cross
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. If I could direct your attention to the paragraph that's
+third from the bottom, begins with I.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, objection.
+This is not inconsistent.
+MS . MENNINGER: What? I can't hear.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: All right. Just a minute.
+Let me read it.
+Sustained.
+MS. MENNINGER: I did not hear the basis for the
+objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Not a prior inconsistent statement. I've
+ruled, Ms. Menninger. Sustained.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'm not allowed to ask about this
+document at all?
+THE COURT: You can ask the next question, but what
+you just drew to I've sustained.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. I draw your attention to the second paragraph from the top.
+l. And while you testified on direct that you had nothing on
+during the massage, what you told Mr. Baker from The New York
+Times --
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 151 of 267
+- cross
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+Q. -- is that --
+THE COURT: Just a moment, please. There's an
+objection. You'll pause until I rule. Did you not hear it?
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor --
+THE COURT: Did you not hear it?
+MS. MENNINGER: I did not hear the objection. I'm
+sorry, I can't hear from in here.
+THE COURT: I understand. We'll make sure --
+Ms. Pomerantz, you'll speak loudly into the mic because it is
+difficult to hear in the box, all right?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+All right. I will overrule.
+You may ask your question.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. What you told Mr. Baker from The New York Times in August
+2019 is that you were not wearing a bra during the massage,
+that is clear in your memory; correct?
+l. And what was not clear in your memory in August of 2019 is
+whether you had your underwear on; correct?
+A. What I remember saying is that she asked me to undress
+and --
+2179
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 152 of 267
+- cross
+2180
+Q. I'm asking you about the 29th.
+THE COURT: You may answer.
+A. That's the conversation I remember having with Mike Baker,
+is saying that Maxwell asked me to undress, and I did so. And
+I remember very clearly -- because the part of my body that was
+exposed during the massage was my breast. That was very clear
+in my memory that that was exposed.
+Q. You were not clear in your memory whether you had your
+underwear on; correct?
+A. I was not clear. You're saying in 2019, when I spoke with
+Mike Baker, I was not clear in my memory if I had my underwear
+on. I said that I remember her asking me to undress. I don't
+remember her saying whether or not I could leave my underwear
+on. And but I do remember for sure that my breasts were
+exposed.
+l. When you spoke to Mike Baker, you told him you were unsure
+if you had your underwear on; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+overruled. I'll allow the question. You may answer.
+A. Okay. Sorry, can you say it one more time?
+e. When you spoke with Mike Baker of The New York Times, you
+said that you were unsure if you had your underwear on during
+the massage; correct?
+A. Yes, I said that this -- I remember very clearly part of my
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 153 of 267
+- cross
+body being exposed. And I don't remember 100 percent if my
+underwear was on; that my best recollection is that I was
+undressed.
+2. And today you've testified that you had nothing on during
+the massage.
+l. So between 2019 and today, you now have a memory that you
+did not have your underwear on; correct?
+A. My best recollection, as I've said, is that I was
+undressed. When he asked me further, I tried to clarify to him
+that it was a very clear memory of me not having my top on;
+that the other part was not as clear because that part of my
+body was not exposed.
+l. And you were clear you didn't have a bra on, that was clear
+in your memory?
+Q. That's what you told him?
+A. That is what I told him.
+e. You've told this jury you didn't have your underwear on,
+right?
+2181
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You testified on direct that Ghislaine massaged your chest
+and upper breast; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 154 of 267
+- cross
+2182
+Q. In the area of your pectoral muscles; correct?
+A. Yeah, I guess that's all part of the breast, right?
+Q. Ghislaine did not touch your nipples?
+A. She did not touch my nipples.
+Q. She did not touch your nipple area, right?
+A. Right.
+l. She did not massage that part of your breast; correct?
+A. Yes, that's correct.
+Q. And the part that she massaged is the part that was
+exposed; correct?
+A. My entire breast was exposed.
+l. You don't have a journal entry about that; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. You have no written recollection of what happened in the
+massage at all; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Asked and answered. Sustained.
+2. When you think back on this massage, you do not believe it
+was explicitly sexual; correct?
+A. That's not correct.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'd like to draw the witness's
+attention to 3514-12, page 4.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry, page 3.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 155 of 267
+- cross
+THE COURT: Where are we looking?
+MS. MENNINGER: The bottom third of the page, I think.
+If we could call that out and expand it for everyone's benefit.
+Q. You recall speaking with the government and the agents on
+May 9th of 2020, right,
+?
+l. And you described for them this massage that you're talking
+about now, right?
+Q. And what you told the agents and the government in May of
+2020 is that the body massage was awkward and uncomfortable,
+but not explicitly sexual; correct?
+A. I don't believe those are my words; I think that's what's
+noted here. It says no touching of nipples, genitals, etc.,
+and I did clarify that, but that did not happen.
+e. "Not explicitly sexual" is what you said; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Is it your belief that the prosecutor wrote that down wrong
+2183
+in
+•. POMERANIZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You talked about during this massage you had a sense that
+Epstein would be able to see you; correct?
+A. Correct.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 156 of 267
+- cross
+2184
+2. That you have no memory of him seeing you, right?
+Q. He was
+not in the room for this massage, right?
+A. That's right.
+l. I want to talk to you about what you said happened in the
+bed the next morning or something. Is that the right time
+frame, the next morning?
+A. Right.
+l. You said that Epstein entered your room; correct?
+l. Ghislaine Maxwell did not enter your room?
+A. She did not.
+l. She was not in there the whole time this happened, right?
+A. She was not in there.
+Q. After it happened, you got up and went to the bathroom and
+stayed in the bathroom awhile, right?
+l. Before you went to the bathroom, Epstein laid on the bed
+with you right?
+2. You were not sure whether he was over the covers or under
+the covers, right?
+A. Right.
+l. He kind of had his arms around you, right?
+A. Yeah.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 157 of 267
+- cross
+2185
+Q. And you do not recall this being a sexual touch either;
+No, I would not characterize it that way.
+Q. okay.
+A. Again, he did not touch specifically my sexual body parts
+in that -- in that experience.
+l. Okay. On May 9th of 2020, you told the prosecutors and the
+government regarding this incident in the bed that you do not
+remember this being a sexual touch; correct?
+A. Am I just to be looking at -- l
+• sorry•
+l. Did you tell the government that on May 9th of 2020?
+A. I don't recall saying that.
+l. You do recall telling them that he did not grab your
+breasts?
+l. And didn't touch your breasts?
+l. Correct?
+Did not grab or touch your genitals; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. You testified on direct that he pressed his body into you;
+is that right?
+A. That's right.
+I. You did not feel an erect penis in your back?
+A. I did not -- I do not -- I couldn't say whether he had an
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 158 of 267
+- cross
+erect penis; correct.
+Q. You do not recall him pressing an erect penis into your
+back; correct?
+A. Yeah, I recall him pressing his body. I do not recall an
+erect penis.
+Q. And you told the government in May of 2020 that you do not
+recall a penis being pushed into your back; correct?
+A. An erect penis, I don't recall those words.
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay. If I could have the witness
+look at 3514-012 at page 4. And if we could highlight the
+first, sort of, half of the page.
+l. If I could have you take a look at this,
+2186
+•. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, objection.
+This is not inconsistent.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You told the government that you did not feel an erect
+penis in your back; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Asked and answered. Sustained.
+l. After you returned from New Mexico, you told your mother
+you were "not raped"; correct?
+A. When I returned from New Mexico?
+e. Yes.
+A. When I returned from the trip to Thailand. We didn't talk
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 267
+- Cross
+2187
+about it when I returned from New Mexico.
+Q. When you got back from Thailand, you said you were not
+raped?
+A. That's right.
+Q. You were not sexually abused?
+A. I said I was not raped.
+Q. And you meant you were not sexually abused; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+A. I think those are two different things.
+l. You spoke to the government on May 9th of 2020, right?
+l. And I want to jump ahead about a month from that. In late
+June of 2020, the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund opened,
+right?
+A. I don't remember when it opened, but yes.
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay. I'd like to have the witness
+1ook at AF-12.
+THE COURT: The government has it?
+MS. MENNINGER: I will get them a copy, your Honor. I
+believe they do, but I'll give them a copy.
+If I could have the witness take a look at the first
+paragraph of text and just tell me if that refreshes your
+memory about when the Epstein Victims Compensation Program
+opened.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 160 of 267
+- cross
+A. It says June 25th.
+Q. June 25th of 2020?
+Q. So about a month after you spoke with the government,
+right?
+A. That's right.
+Q. And you, yourself --
+MS. MENNINGER: We can take that down now,
+Ms. Lundberg.
+l. You, yourself submitted a claim to the Epstein Victims
+Compensation Program?
+A. Yes, my attorneys submitted a claim for me.
+l. And you submitted your claim on the very next day, June
+26th of 2020; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. Your submission was substantial, 3,000 pages or so;
+A. I haven't seen the full submission.
+2. Okay.
+2188
+MS. MENNINGER: If I could have the witness take a
+100k at AF-13. And I will give a copy to the government.
+I would like to draw the witness's attention to page
+12 to 13 of this document.
+l. Do you recognize it, I guess, as an initial matter?
+1, yes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 161 of 267
+2189
+- cross
+Q. And what do you recognize it to be?
+A. This is a signature page, but just, I think, the
+application for the program.
+l. Your application to the program?
+Q. All right. And on page 12, do you recognize this as the
+document that you initialed?
+A. I do.
+l. And then if we can look at page 13, there is a signature
+from you, is that --
+A. That's my signature, yes.
+l. Okay. And that the date of this submission was June 26th
+of 2020; correct?
+A. Correct.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I would like to move for
+the admission of pages 12 and 13 of this document.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, no objection. I do want
+to have to review it to see if any redactions are necessary.
+THE COURT: Okay. I'll admit -- so let's see, this is
+AF-12 —- I'm sorry, AF-13, pages 12 and 13 will be temporarily
+submitted -- admitted under seal with an opportunity to
+consider whether any redactions are necessary to protect the
+privacy interests of a third party.
+Is that the -- Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 162 of 267
+- cross
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there's no one's name.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'd like to read from it because it's
+now in evidence and there's no --
+THE COURT: All right. Give the government a minute
+to review. Thank you.
+MS. POMERANTZ: I think it's fine, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: All right. Then not sealed, admitted,
+AF-12, pages 12 and 13. And you may publish if you like.
+(Defendant's Exhibit AF-12 received in evidence)
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. If I could start with page 12. Do you remember this
+document, that you signed it --
+e. -
+2190
+If I could draw your attention to the first italicized
+paragraph, which is the second paragraph. I would like, if you
+could, to read that paragraph to the jury.
+A. I hereby certify that the information provided in this
+claim form and any documents provided in support of this claim
+are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and declare
+under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
+correct. I understand that false statements or claims made in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 163 of 267
+2191
+- cross
+connection with this claim may result in fines, imprisonment,
+and/or any other remedy available by law; and that claims that
+appear to be potentially fraudulent or to contain information
+known to me to be false when made will be forwarded to federal,
+state, and local law enforcement authorities for possible
+investigation and prosecution.
+Q. So you understood that you were signing this claim form
+under penalties of perjury, right?
+A. Correct.
+l. And if it was later determined that your claim was
+potentially fraudulent, you could be referred for legal action,
+right?
+A. That - yes.
+l. And if you testified as something differently today, then
+your claim may be found potentially fraudulent; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. MENNINGER: You can take this down for the moment.
+Thank you.
+l. In the claim form, you were asked where any sexual abuse
+occurred in support of your claim. Do you remember that
+question?
+A. No. Sorry. There's a lot of questions.
+l. That's all right.
+MS. MENNINGER: If we could have the witness take a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 164 of 267
+- cross
+2192
+look at -- it's that same document on page 3., and it's
+question 3.
+A. I see.
+Q. Okay. So you were asked in question 3 where -- to the best
+of your ability, to locate the places where sexual abuse
+occurred, right?
+Q. And you understood to be answering this sexual abuse by
+Jeffrey Epstein, right?
+A. Right.
+l. And Ghislaine Maxwell, right?
+A. Mm-hmm.
+Q. And you told the -- we can take it down -- the victims'
+compensation program that you were sexually abused in a movie
+theater in New York, right?
+A. The box for "New York" was checked.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'm sorry, can we bring it back up.
+l. There is a box under question 3?
+A. Yeah, that's what I was saying, yes, it says New York City
+and New Mexico.
+2. And then there's a box below that.
+I'm sorry. I didn't see that.
+Q. Okay.
+A. Yes, yes.
+MS. MENNINGER: So now you can take it down.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 165 of 267
+2193
+- cross
+Q. Unless you need to look at it further?
+A. No, no, no.
+I just wanted to read the whole entire thing.
+Q. Okay. So we can take it down.
+So what you told the victims compensation fund is that
+you were sexually abused in a movie theater in New York, right?
+A. Right.
+l. And you were sexually abused in a movie theater in New
+Mexico?
+A. Right.
+Q. And both of those were related to the hand-holding
+incidents that happened in those two locations, right?
+A. Yeah, that was explained in the application.
+l. Hand-holding was sexual abuse?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+Overruled. Go ahead.
+A. My experience was detailed in the application, which
+included, yes, him holding and caressing my hands. I did not
+say anything else happened to me in the movie theater.
+l. You told the victims compensation fund that you were
+sexually abused in a movie theater in New York; correct?
+A. I think I answered that. Those were the boxes that are
+checked, yes. And then that was a small field. And then later
+on you describe what happened to you, and that's what I did.
+Q. It wasn't just a box that was checked; you wrote in "movie
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 166 of 267
+- cross
+2194
+theater in New York, " right?
+A. That was written in on the form.
+Q. And a movie theater in New Mexico, right?
+l. And so those were both hand-holding incidents, right?
+A. They were the incidents that I've already described where
+my leg and hand was caressed, yes.
+Q. Right. You're not saying anyone touched your private
+parts?
+A. No, I was very consistent with that.
+l. And it's important to you that you be consistent, right?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+A. Of course.
+l. So you did, as you said, submit a longer detailed version
+of your claim to the fund, right?
+l. It wasn't just checking boxes?
+A. Right, right, right. There was a narrative portion.
+l. Okay. And when you were describing the foot massage in the
+narrative program -- portion, excuse me, you told the victims
+compensation fund that Mr. Epstein kept staring at you and
+telling you how good the massage felt, right?
+A. I - I think that -- I mean -- I -- yes, I guess that is
+what I said. I don't remember using those words. I know I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 167 of 267
+- cross
+communicated to my attorneys and they typed it for me.
+Q. Okay.
+If you would take a look at AF-13, page 22, second
+full paragraph. And the second sentence from the bottom, does
+that refresh your recollection about what you told the victims
+compensation fund about the foot massage?
+l. And what you told them is that Mr. Epstein kept staring at
+you and telling you how good the massage felt, right?
+l. And you also told them that Mr. Epstein was groaning a lot
+during the foot massage, right?
+Q. And that's not what you had told the government in May of
+2020, right?
+A. I don't know if they asked me questions about that in May
+of 2020.
+l. You told them you don't remember it being sexualized,
+right?
+2195
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You also described for the victims compensation fund the
+massage that you received in New Mexico; correct? Right?
+Q. And you've told the jury that the -- your chest and upper
+breast were massaged during the massage; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 168 of 267
+- cross
+A. Correct.
+Q. What you told the victims compensation fund is that your
+breasts were groped; correct?
+A. Yes. I don't see that as significantly different, but --
+Q. Rubbed, groped, massaged.
+Q. Not your nipple area, any of that?
+A. No, she did not touch my nipples.
+Q. But you told them your breasts were groped, right?
+l. And you told us in your direct testimony that it was your
+chest and upper breast that were touched, right?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it. Go ahead.
+2196
+l. And you believed that that - you told the victims
+compensation fund that that was also sexual abuse; correct?
+2. When you testified on direct about the incident in the bed,
+you said that Mr. Epstein had his arms around you, right?
+l. And you don't remember any penis being pressed against you,
+right?
+A. No --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 169 of 267
+- cross
+2197
+A. You said erect penis.
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+Grounds, Ms. Menninger.
+MS. MENNINGER: For me, your Honor?
+THE COURT: I'm sorry, Ms. Pomerantz.
+Grounds, Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Asked and answered, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I am trying to draw her
+attention to direct testimony, that's all, as a foundation of
+further questioning.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. Did you testify on direct that Mr. Epstein pressed his body
+against you?
+A. I did.
+l. And what you told the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund is
+that he rubbed his genitals against you in the bed; correct?
+l. Those are not consistent.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You testified on direct that on your last day in New
+Mexico, that Ghislaine seemed disinterested in your school
+project, right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 170 of 267
+- Cross
+2198
+Q. That's not something you told the government in 2006 when
+you met with them, right?
+A. I don't recall whether we talked about that.
+Q. You never had any communication with Ghislaine after New
+Mexico, right?
+Q. She never called you?
+A. No, she did not.
+e. She didn't make any travel plans for you, right?
+A. She did not.
+Q. She didn't ask you to travel somewhere; correct?
+l. And you went to Thailand after this at some point, right?
+A. Yes, that summer.
+l. And you accepted the money for the Thailand trip from
+Mr. Epstein, right?
+A. I did.
+l. I think you talked a little bit on direct about the fact
+that you've made a number of public statements, right?
+l. You've been on documentaries and podcasts, right?
+A. I have.
+l. Under your real name?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 171 of 267
+- cross
+Q. And you have touted yourself in those appearances as a
+survivor of sexual abuse; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: One-word grounds.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Form.
+Q. Correct?
+A. Have I described myself as a survivor of this --
+l. Survivor of sexual abuse.
+l. And you've gone to court in relationship to Mr. Epstein's
+legal proceedings, right?
+A. I did.
+Q. And you spoke publicly there?
+l. And afterwards you met with a number of other Epstein
+accusers; correct?
+2. You were part of a press conference with your attorneys;
+A. Yes. I mean, I was standing there. I wasn't really doing
+anything, but I was at the -- at the location.
+2. And you have had attorneys representing you in connection
+with this for quite some time; correct?
+2199
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 172 of 267
+- Cross
+2200
+Q. You originally hired attorneys in 2016?
+A. I don't believe I hired any attorneys at that time.
+I
+was -- I spoke with an attorney at that time.
+Q. And certainly you had hired attorneys before you first met
+with the government in September of 2019; correct?
+Q. At your first meeting in September of 2019, your attorneys
+were there?
+A. Yes, that's correct.
+l. Someone from the Boies Schiller firm, right?
+A. That's right.
+l. And so you had a civil attorney sometime before September
+of 2019?
+l. So the same civil attorneys that filed a lawsuit on your
+behalf?
+A. They are.
+l. They are the same attorneys who filed the Epstein Victims
+Compensation Fund documents on your behalf; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. Your attorney, Ms. McCawley, is here in the courtroom
+wearing
+¡ correct?
+l. She has attended numerous meetings with the government with
+you, right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 173 of 267
+- cross
+2201
+Q. She has attended prior trial testimony in this case at this
+courthouse; correct?
+l. She has sat in the overflow room for that portion; correct?
+A. She did.
+l. And she's listened to the testimony of other witnesses;
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You talked on direct about your lawyers representing you
+pro bono; correct?
+A. That's right.
+Q. You do not know your lawyers' arrangements with other of
+their clients; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+2. Do you know how much money your lawyers have made in
+connection with Epstein claims?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Grounds.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Foundation.
+Beyond the scope of her knowledge, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll sustain on foundation.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 174 of 267
+- cross
+2202
+l. Have you read anywhere in the press how much money your
+lawyers have made in connection with representing Epstein
+accusers?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Hearsay.
+Q. You know that
+attorneys; correct?
+• was also represented by your
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+MS. MENNINGER: I can lay a foundation.
+THE COURT: You l
+•. POMERANTZ: Relevance and hearsay.
+l. You were preparing to testify in a civil case?
+THE COURT: Just a minute.
+, I'm sorry.
+THE COURT: If there's an objection, you have to give
+me a minute to rule.
+MS. MENNINGER: I thought you had, your Honor.
+I apologize.
+THE COURT: I had on the prior ones.
+Overruled. You l
+• MENNINGER:
+l. You were preparing to testify in a civil case in or around
+2016 or 2017; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And the lawyers you were interacting with in that case, the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+- cross
+civil case, were the same lawyers from Boies Schiller; correct?
+A. In part.
+Q. And also Mr.
+i correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And you know that in connection with that civil case, your
+lawyers, Ms. McCawley and Mr.
+represent
+2203
+1. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Foundation objection?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Relevance.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, you inquired as to pro bono
+representation; correct? Is that correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right.
+I'll overrule.
+A. Can you repeat the question?
+e. You know that Ms. Mccawley and Mr.
+represent
+l. Correct?
+l. In connection with civil litigation?
+l. And you were prepared to testify in that civil litigation;
+A. I was.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 176 of 267
+- Cross
+Q. And you know that Mr.
+is representing other people
+in this criminal case; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just a moment. Overruled.
+A. I do know that.
+Q. And you know that your attorney represents other
+individuals who have accused Epstein; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Just a moment. Overruled.
+2204
+l. You've been in touch with a number of other Epstein
+accusers in many different forms and fashion; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection. Vague. Confusing.
+THE COURT: Okay. You can specify please.
+Q. Okay. Are you a part of a WhatsApp group of Epstein
+accusers?
+l. You communicated with other Epstein accusers on the
+WhatsApp for those accusers?
+A. Correct.
+l. You've emailed with other accusers; correct?
+A. I have.
+l. You directly emailed with
+A. I have.
+2. You have been with other Epstein accusers in connection
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 177 of 267
+- cross
+with your media appearances, right?
+A. You mean when they were at the courtroom and filming
+everyone?
+Q. Right.
+Q. You know that your attorneys from Boies Schiller were a
+part of setting up the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund;
+2205
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+One-word grounds.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Hearsay and privilege.
+THE COURT: You can inquire as to foundation.
+I. I'm not trying to ask you about things that you've learned
+in connection with your --
+THE COURT: Just ask.
+l. -- communications --
+THE COURT: I'll deal with that, but just ask the
+question. I'll either sustain or overrule.
+l. You are aware it's a matter of public record that your
+attorneys -
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Foundation. Ask the foundation question
+first and then we'll see.
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 178 of 267
+- cross
+Q. It's in the newspapers that your attorneys helped set up
+the Epstein Victims Compensation Fund?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Is the question is she aware of that? Is
+that the question?
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+2206
+l. And so you are aware that it is a matter of public
+knowledge that your attorneys helped set up the Epstein Victims
+Compensation Program?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, objection to this entire
+line of questioning.
+THE COURT: Yes, I gather.
+MS. POMERANTZ: This calls for hearsay.
+THE COURT: I asked for foundation. We got the
+foundation. And now on this question, one question at a time.
+I sustain.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. You participated in that fund; correct?
+A. I did.
+l. You accepted an offer from that fund?
+A. I did.
+Q. You were paid one and a half million dollars?
+A. I was.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 179 of 267
+- cross
+2207
+Q. And was based on the same things that you've testified in
+this courtroom today; correct?
+Q. The sexual abuse in a movie theater, right, is one of those
+things?
+A. As one of the things, yes.
+l. Right.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, at this time I would
+offer -- I would ask to show, excuse me, the witness AF-14.
+And I'll provide a copy to the government.
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: If I could show the witness page 2 of
+that document as well, and page 3, and the last page.
+l. That's your signature,
+l. That was in October of 2020?
+l. This form is the release form that you signed in connection
+with accepting the offer from the victims compensation program,
+right?
+A. That's right.
+l. And it details the one and a half million dollars that you
+received, right?
+A. That's right.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 180 of 267
+- cross
+2208
+MS. MENNINGER: I would move for the admission of
+AF-14, your Honor.
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: AF-14 is admitted.
+(Defendant's Exhibit AF-14 received in evidence)
+THE COURT: No redaction requests here?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No, your Honor.
+THE COURT: 14 is admitted.
+MS. MENNINGER: We can take it down now, Ms. Lundberg.
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. In connection with some of your public appearances, you
+have described the fact that you are a psychologist; correct?
+e. And you have described the fact that you work with victims
+of sexual trauma; correct?
+A. Amongst other types of, yeah, clients, I do.
+l. And you know that it gives you more credibility with future
+clients --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+l. - if you mention your profession in connection with your
+media appearances, right?
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+There's an objection to that question?
+MS. POMERANTZ: That's fine, your Honor. Withdrawn.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 181 of 267
+2209
+- cross
+A. The question is whether it gives me more credibility to be
+a victim?
+l. It gives you more credibility with future clients if you
+mention your experience during your media appearances; correct?
+A. My personal experience or my professional experience?
+Q. Your personal experiences.
+A. I guess I would say that that is probably not -- people
+have different opinions about that, about whether that would
+give you credibility or not.
+l. You certainly have not shied away from telling in your
+public appearances the fact that you are, yourself, trained as
+a psychologist, right?
+A. I have shared that.
+e. We've talked previously about the fact that you spoke with
+the FBI in 2006, right?
+l. That was with Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, right?
+A. Right.
+2. You did not tell Agent Kuyrkendall in 2006 that you wanted
+Mr. Epstein prosecuted; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+I'll hear from you, if you'd like.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
+Please. I'm not clear.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 182 of 267
+- cross
+2210
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(At sidebar)
+THE COURT:
+State your ground.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I don't understand the
+relevance of this question. It seems just like a wholly
+improper question, what she was asking, whether she asked the
+FBI to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein at this time. I just don't
+even understand the question.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, Agent Kuyrkendall signed a
+declaration in 2017 and she said that she spoke to a number of
+victims between '06 and '08, and none of them expressed an
+opinion that they wanted Epstein prosecuted. Now, she clearly,
+in 2019, did want Epstein prosecuted.
+THE COURT: She's the witness.
+MS. MENNINGER: What's that?
+THE COURT: She's the witness subpoenaed to testify.
+Her motivation --
+MS. MENNINGER: I'm asking what she said to --
+THE COURT: Right, but -
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay. You want me to ask the
+motivation? I see.
+THE COURT: Well, I don't understand - well, I'1l
+sustain the objection to the question asked --
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
+THE COURT: -- about what she told an agent --
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 183 of 267
+- cross
+2211
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: -- in 2006.
+What's the next question?
+MS. MENNINGER: It would just be, You did not want
+Epstein prosecuted in 2006?
+THE COURT: You want to ask her if she wanted Epstein
+prosecuted in 2006?
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes.
+THE COURT: What is the relevance of that?
+MS. MENNINGER: Because she's changed her mind about
+wanting people prosecuted in connection with this case. She
+has a different bias today than she did in 2006; that she
+brought up her lawsuit in connection with applying to the fund
+and filing a civil lawsuit. When she didn't have those
+motivations in 2006, she didn't want to prosecute. It's a
+clear distinction in two different periods of time, 15 years
+apart. It goes to our money theme, your Honor, that we opened
+on.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just don't see the
+relevance or basis for this line of questioning.
+THE COURT: You're going to ask her if she wanted
+Epstein prosecuted in 2006. And if she says yes, then what?
+MS. MENNINGER: Agent Kuyrkendall is under subpoena,
+your Honor, and testified that none of the victims she talked
+to in '06 to '08 wanted them prosecuted.
+THE COURT: You're not doing that. I've ruled on
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 184 of 267
+- cross
+that.
+2212
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. MENNINGER: What she told the agent about
+prosecution.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think we're confusing two
+issues: Whether or not she told the FBI she wanted him
+prosecuted and asked them to do that and whether she, in fact,
+wanted that to happen. I think what she's proposing is
+impeaching her in the absence of a statement to the FBI.
+THE COURT: I think that's right. You can ask her, I
+suppose, if she wanted him prosecuted in 2006. I'm not going
+to allow --
+MS. MENNINGER: I know with this witness I'm not. If
+we get into --
+THE COURT: We'll get into that when we get into that.
+MS. MENNINGER: That's right.
+THE COURT: But not what you told.
+MS. MENNINGER: I understand.
+MS. MOE: We're now about an hour and 15 minutes.
+THE COURT: There have been a lot of objections.
+
+
+
+- redirect
+2213
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(In open court)
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+• in 2006, you did not want Jeffrey Epstein
+prosecuted; correct?
+A. I don't recall that being the case.
+Q. You didn't want him prosecuted because no crime had been
+committed; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. MENNINGER: If I may have one moment to confer
+with my client, your Honor?
+THE COURT: You may.
+(Counsel conferred with defendant)
+MS. MENNINGER: No further questions at this time,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I just have one moment
+please?
+REDIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+2. Good afternoon, Annie.
+A. Good afternoon.
+Q. How, if at all, have you struggled to process your
+experiences with Maxwell and Epstein?
+A. I think it's been -- it was a very upsetting and confusing
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 186 of 267
+2214
+- redirect
+situation. And I think for a long time I just really didn't
+want to think about it. And then, you know, of course, it has
+come up again and again, and so with, you know -- I have
+thought a lot more about it and it -- it's just -- it causes
+discomfort, and yeah. I don't know what to say.
+Q. You were asked questions on cross-examination about your
+journal. Do you remember that?
+l. Did you give the government every entry from your journal
+that has anything to do with this case?
+Q. What's the subject matter of the rest of your -- of that
+journal from when you were 16 years old?
+A. Very high school kind of things. There's a journal entry
+about the day that --
+l. I should say, without sharing any details, just generally,
+what was the subject matter of the rest of your teenage
+journal?
+A. A favorite musician died, and I wrote that I was very sad
+about it. Going -- like social things, friend things, things
+like that.
+l. Did you write about private matters?
+l. Do you recall being asked about your first interview with
+the FBI in 2006?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 187 of 267
+- redirect
+2215
+l. When you spoke with the FBI in 2006, did you have a lawyer?
+A. I did not.
+0. When you spoke with the FBI in 2006, did you tell the FBI
+about Maxwell massaging your breasts?
+2. When you spoke with the FBI in 2006, did you tell the FBI
+about Epstein getting into bed with you?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Leading, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Do you recall Ms. Menninger asking you about a particular
+statement you made in connection with the 2006 interview
+conducted by the FBI?
+l. I believe she showed you a particular document to refresh
+your recollection.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Can we pull up 3514-001.
+l. And I want to direct your attention to the second full
+paragraph on page 2.
+l. And directing your attention to the last sentence. She
+directed you to the first half of the sentence, but I would
+like to direct you to the full sentence.
+Q. After you told the FBI that Maria was supposed to go on the
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 188 of 267
+- redirect
+trip to New Mexico, what's the very next thing you said to the
+FBI?
+2216
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+Hearsay. Foundation, your Honor.
+This was the sentence Ms. Pomerantz asked you to read
+in context. And I believe your words were, That's what
+redirect is for.
+MS. MENNINGER: And for objections on redirect,
+including foundation.
+THE COURT: Understood. Overruled.
+A. That Epstein or Maxwell was the one that was responsible
+for canceling Maria's trip at the last minute.
+l. I want to direct your attention to a -- the last paragraph
+on that same page.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Can we pull that up, Ms. Drescher.
+l. And do you recall when you were asked questions on
+cross-examination, Ms. Menninger read the sentences about
+horseback riding in this paragraph to you?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 189 of 267
+_ - redirect
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Can you read the rest of the paragraph to yourself.
+Q. Does that refresh your recollection that you told the FBI
+in 2006 that Maxwell --
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Leading, your Honor. And
+there was no denial of a recollection to refresh.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Prior consistent statements.
+THE COURT: You can ask the question. Leading.
+2217
+Sustained.
+l. What do you recall telling the FBI --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have just one
+moment?
+THE COURT: You may.
+l. Annie, did you tell the FBI about a foot massage in 2006?
+A. I did.
+2. What did you tell the FBI about a foot massage?
+A. That Maxwell showed me how to rub Epstein's feet and that,
+eventually -
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I believe the witness is
+reading from a document.
+THE COURT: We can take it down.
+A. - that I began doing that on my own after she had shown me
+how to do it.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 190 of 267 2218
+- redirect
+MS. POMERANTZ: If we can bring up 3514-001 on page 3.
+Blow up the top paragraph.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I'm not sure what the
+witness is being shown the document for.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it. I will see, but I presume
+prior consistent statements following impeachment of prior
+inconsistent statements.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. But either the
+witness recalls it from memory or needs to be refreshed, and
+that's the part that's not a matter of record in this
+procedure.
+THE COURT: Fair enough. You'll ask the specific
+question and then we can take it from there.
+You can take it down.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Annie, do you recall what you told the FBI in 2006 about
+the massage that Maxwell had given you?
+A. I recall the parts that I've described.
+2. Can you explain?
+A. Yes. Again, that she had me lay on the table, that she was
+eager for me to experience the massage and asked me to, you
+know, lay on the table, to undress, to lay under the sheets,
+and then she began rubbing my body. Eventually, she pulled
+back the sheet --
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Narrative, your Honor.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 191 of 267
+- redirect
+2219
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A. - and rubbed my breasts, as I described.
+Q. And you talked about your experience with Epstein and
+Maxwell in New Mexico. Did you include the details of your
+experience with Epstein and Maxwell in your submission to the
+Epstein Victim Compensation Fund?
+Q. Do you recall being asked questions on cross examination
+about your time in New Mexico?
+2. Do you recall being asked questions about the movie that
+you saw in New Mexico?
+Q. What was that movie again?
+A. Primal Fear.
+l. Why does that movie stand out in your memory?
+A. In the movie, there's a priest that's sexually abusing --
+it's a theme around sexual abuse. So there is sexual
+misconduct on the screen with the actors.
+l. You were asked questions on cross examination about public
+interviews you gave. Do you remember that?
+l. About how many interviews have you given publicly?
+A. I think maybe four or five.
+l. And are your public interviews consistent or inconsistent
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 192 of 267
+- redirect
+2220
+with what you have testified about here today?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. When you spoke publicly in interviews, did you tell the
+truth?
+l. Was it important to tell the truth when you spoke publicly?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Annie, have you coordinated your testimony with any other
+witnesses at this trial?
+A. I have not.
+2. Has anyone ever told you what to say?
+l. Have you conformed your testimony to anyone else?
+A. NO.
+e. What are you here to do today?
+A. I'm here to be a part of hoping that Ghislaine Maxwell's
+held accountable for the harm that she's caused.
+l. You were asked questions about your claim to the Epstein
+Victim Compensation Fund. Do you recall that?
+2. And to be clear, approximately when and what year did you
+submit your application to the Epstein Victim Compensation
+Fund?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 193 of 267 2221
+_ - redirect
+A. In 2020.
+l. And just to take a step back, can you remind the jury, when
+was the first time that you spoke with the FBI?
+A. 2006.
+l. And just to remind the jury, when you spoke with the FBI in
+2006, did you have a lawyer?
+A. I did not.
+Q. You were asked questions about the award that you received
+from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund?
+Q. Can you tell the jury what the money means to you?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Relevance, your Honor.
+A. It's a very significant chunk of money. It's a security
+for myself and my family, and it's already been helpful in
+providing that.
+l. To be clear, do you have a financial stake in the outcome
+of this trial?
+A. I do not.
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Asked and answered, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have just one
+moment, please?
+THE COURT: You may.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 194 of 267
+_ - redirect
+2222
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Annie, do you recall being asked questions on cross
+examination about your memory?
+l. Do you remember Maxwell touching your breasts?
+e. Do you need a journal entry or a piece of paper to remember
+Maxwell touching your breasts?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+THE COURT: I'm sorry. There is an objection.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Sorry, your Honor.
+MS. MENNINGER: Leading to the last question.
+THE COURT: I'll allow the question and then pause
+after the next one.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Apologies, your Honor. I'm sorry. I
+just want to know which question I should back up to.
+THE COURT: The question was, do you need a journal
+entry or a piece of paper.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+2. Annie, do you need a journal entry or a piece of paper to
+remember Maxwell touching your breasts during a massage?
+A. No, I do not.
+e. Why does that stand out?
+A. Because it was a very distressing event, and those are the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 195 of 267
+_ - redirect
+2223
+things that we remember.
+Q. Can you explain to the jury --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Withdrawn.
+Q. Do you recall being asked about Jeffrey Epstein's penis
+several times on cross examination?
+A. I do.
+Q. In your own words,
+can you explain what Epstein did when he
+got into bed with you?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor. Asked and
+answered. And I was not allowed to ask the question.
+THE COURT: I believe the objection I sustained with
+you was the asked and answered question, wasn't it?
+MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Give me a moment. Overruled.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Annie, I believe the question I had asked was: In your own
+words, can you explain what Epstein did when he got into bed
+with you?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Calls for a narrative,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll give her some room to lead, if you'd
+like. I don't know what the answer will be, so how can you —-
+she can either lead or she can ask a non-leading question. So
+if it's --
+MS. MENNINGER: It's a broad question. That's my
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 196 of 267
+2224
+- redirect
+complaint.
+A. When he crawled into bed with me, he put his arms around me
+and he pressed his body into mine and, you know, sort of -- he
+had rubbing up against me with his arms around my front.
+Q. You testified about your experiences with Epstein and
+Maxwell, about them being sexualized experiences. Can you
+explain in your own words what you mean by that?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection, your Honor.
+A. I think this was all a pattern of them working on confusing
+my boundaries, making me question myself about what was right
+and what was not right and with the ultimate goal of sexually
+abusing me.
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. 702, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Overruled. Door opened. Overruled.
+l. Can you explain to the jury in your own words how you
+experienced Maxwell touching your breasts during the massage in
+New Mexico?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Misstates the witness's
+testimony.
+THE COURT: Just a moment. Overruled.
+A. I was very uncomfortable and fearful and wanted to get off
+of the table, that massage table, and wanted it to be over
+with.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 197 of 267
+- redirect
+2225
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have just one
+moment, please.
+THE COURT: You l
+•. POMERANTZ: No further questions, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Ms. Menninger.
+MS. MENNINGER: No further questions, your Honor.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+step down.
+You are excused.
+(Witness excused)
+Government may call its next witness.
+MS. POMERANTZ: The government calls
+THE COURT:
+may come forward.
+we come forward just one
+moment?
+THE COURT: Have Mr.
+wait one moment until we
+come back.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 198 of 267
+2226
+| - redirect
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(At the sidebar)
+THE COURT: Before I start, I want to make a record
+because I said, door open.
+The defense expressly attempted to suggest impeachment
+of the witness, that she had indicated the handholding on the
+victim's compensation form as sexual abuse. So I allowed that
+question. In light of that door opening, I don't think she'd
+tread it into expert testimony in any way, but it was directly
+responsive to a series of questions that the defense put at
+issue by her description of the earlier conduct as handholding.
+So that's the record I'm making.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, may I make a very brief --
+THE COURT: You're welcome to make a record. I wanted
+to explain why I said, door opened.
+MS. MENNINGER: Thank you, your Honor. I had asked
+the witness a number of questions about her statements to law
+enforcement where she said she does not remember it being
+sexualized and I was not allowed to ask those questions about
+those not being sexualized touches.
+THE COURT: The record is what it is. That's not the
+Court's memory.
+MS. MENNINGER: It's my memory, and I understand --
+THE COURI: —- asked repeatedly, that's true, and I
+didn't allow it to be asked if it was not a prior inconsistent
+statement, but I didn't preclude that area from being explored.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 199 of 267
+- redirect
+2227
+MS. MENNINGER: For that reason, having her explain
+what sexualized means when I wasn't allowed to elicit to the
+agents that it wasn't sexualized is what gives me concern.
+THE COURT: The record stands and you inquired. I
+didn't prohibit you from asking her, I didn't let her explain
+what sexualized means either. I've made my record and the
+record stands as it is. You can't go back in time.
+MS. MENNINGER: That's right.
+THE COURT: What is the issue? Should I send the jury
+for a break or?
+MS. STERNHEIM: If this would probably be a good time
+for a break before they call him, but I can make it very
+quickly.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MS. STERNHEIM: It's my understanding that Dave
+is being called as a witness for prior inconsistent
+statements.
+THE COURT: Right.
+MS. STERNHEIM: The 3500 material that has been
+provided far exceeds the testimony of this witness, and I just
+want to make sure that it is not going to exceed as far as
+prior consistent what she's testified to.
+MS. POMERANTZ: I'm happy to consult with
+Ms. Sternheim on a break. My plan is to ask specific questions
+that would be consistent with what she's testified about.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 200 of 267
+- redirect
+2228
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Let's get started. My plan was to break
+at 3:30.
+for a break.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+THE COURT: If I get an objection, then I'll send them
+
+
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 201 of 267
+2229
+LCACmax 7
+-redirect
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(In open court)
+THE COURT:
+I understand the members of the jury need
+a restroom break, so we'll break for about 10 minutes.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 202 of 267
+2230
+-redirect
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: I encourage counsel to confer. I'll come
+back in 10. You let me know if there is dispute about the
+scope of the --
+MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, Judge. May I sit here rather
+than move or would you prefer I move to that --
+THE COURT: I don't mind. That's fine, Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+THE COURT: 10 minutes. Thank you.
+(Recess)
+THE COURT: Any matters to take up?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government, your Honor.
+MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, should we get the witness?
+THE COURT: Yes, he can come in. That's fine. He's
+been called.
+Mr.
+, you're welcome to come in, take your
+mask off. Once the jury comes in, I'll swear you in.
+THE WITNESS: Okay.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 203 of 267
+- direct
+2231
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: Government has called
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. Once
+seated, please state and spell your name for the record.
+THE WITNESS: My name is
+D-a-v-i-d J-a-m-e-s M-u-1-1-i-g-a-n.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+You
+• Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+e. Good afternoon, Mr.
+A. Good afternoon.
+e. How old are you?
+A. I'm 42.
+Q. In what state were you born?
+A. In Arizona.
+l. In what state did you grow up?
+A. Arizona.
+Q. How far did you go in school?
+A. As far as completing a
+2. What is your
+degree.
+degree in?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 204 of 267
+- direct
+2232
+A. In special education.
+Q. What kind of work do you do now?
+A. Now I'm a baker.
+Q. Did you go to high school?
+Q. In what state did you go to high school?
+A. Arizona.
+Q. When you were in high school, who, it anyone, was your
+girlfriend?
+Q. Approximately when did you meet
+A. I met her in the spring of 1996.
+l. Where did you meet Annie?
+A. I met her at a prom party.
+Q. What grade were you in when you met Annie?
+A. I was a junior in high school.
+l. What grade was Annie in when you met her?
+A. She was also a junior.
+2. When did you and Annie start dating?
+A. We started dating in the fall of 1996.
+l. How old were you when you started dating Annie?
+A. I was 17 years old.
+Q. And about how old was Annie when you started dating?
+A. She was also 17.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, can we pull up what is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 267
+- direct
+already in evidence as Government Exhibit 101.
+Q. Mr.
+do you recognize the person in this
+photograph?
+e. Who is it?
+l. Is this a fair and accurate photograph of
+as
+she appeared when you met her in high school?
+l. Did Annie tell you where she went in the summer of 1996?
+l. Did there come a time when Annie told you how the trip -
+let me back up. Excuse me.
+Where did Annie tell you she went?
+A. To Thailand.
+l. Did there come a time when Annie told you how the trip to
+Thailand was paid for?
+2. What did she tell you?
+A. She told me it was paid for by Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. Approximately when did she tell you that?
+A. Sometime after we began dating. So in the fall or winter
+of 1996.
+l. For about how long were you and Annie romantically
+involved?
+2233
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 206 of 267
+- direct
+2234
+A. We dated on and off through the end of 2003.
+l. Did you keep in touch with Annie after you and Annie broke
+up?
+l. What is the nature of your current relationship with Annie?
+A. We're still friends.
+l. About how often do you and Annie communicate?
+A. On average, probably about once a month.
+l. What, if any, conversations have you had with Annie about
+the substance of your testimony here today?
+A. None.
+l. Did you go to Annie's house while you were dating in high
+school?
+2. During the time you dated Annie in high school, who did
+Annie live with?
+A. She lived with her mom and her sister, Ashley.
+l. Based on your observations, what did you understand to be
+Annie's family's financial circumstances?
+A. Her mom was a single mom and always working. So I would
+say she was struggling to make ends meet.
+l. Did there come a time when Annie spoke with you about a
+trip Annie took to New York?
+2. When did Annie first tell you about her trip to New York?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 207 of 267
+- direct
+2235
+A. Sometime soon after we began dating.
+Q. Who did Annie tell you she went to see in New York?
+She went to visit her sister, Maria.
+Q. Who, if anyone, did Annie tell you she met in New York?
+A. She met Jeffrey Epstein on that trip.
+Q. What, if anything, did Annie tell you she did with Jeffrey
+Epstein in New York?
+A. She told me that she went out to a show with Maria and
+Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. What, if anything, did Annie tell you happened during the
+show?
+A. I remember her telling me that Jeffrey was seated between
+the two sisters and that he reached out and touched her leg
+during the show.
+2. Did Annie tell you at that time how she felt about that?
+A. Yes. She said she felt awkward and confused about it.
+l. Did she tell you why she felt awkward and confused about
+it?
+A. Because Jeffrey Epstein had provided a lot of opportunities
+for her artistic career, and Annie felt that she couldn't
+really speak up or say anything, and she really didn't
+understand, I think, why it was happening in the moment.
+Q. When you say her artistic career, whose artistic career are
+you referring to?
+A. Her sister, Maria's.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 208 of 267
+- direct
+l. Did there come a time when Annie spoke with you about a
+trip she took to New Mexico?
+Q. Approximately when did she first talk to you about the trip
+to New Mexico?
+A. Soon after we began dating. So I would say in the fall or
+winter of 1996.
+Q. Is Annie's experience in New Mexico something that you and
+Annie discussed once or more than once during the time you were
+dating in high school?
+A. More than once.
+l. Did Annie tell you all the details at once or did she tell
+you more over time while you were in high school?
+A. She told me more over time.
+Q. How did Annie's trip to New Mexico first come up in
+conversation between you and Annie?
+A. It first came up when we were beginning to be physically
+affectionate with each other.
+l. Can you describe for the jury Annie's demeanor?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. You said this came up more than once in high school. In
+general, when you were in high school, when did Annie talk to
+you about these experiences?
+A. At times, when we were being physically affectionate with
+2236
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 209 of 267
+2237
+- direct
+each other.
+Q. While you and Annie were in high school, did Annie tell you
+when she
+went to New Mexico?
+l. What did she tell you about when she went?
+A. She said that she went just before we had met.
+l. What, if anything, did Annie tell you about where she
+stayed in New Mexico?
+A. She told me she stayed at Jeffrey Epstein's ranch.
+Q. Did she tell you where on the ranch she stayed?
+A. Yes. I remember that she had her own bedroom at the ranch.
+l. What did Annie tell you about who she spent time with in
+New Mexico?
+A. The two people I remember her saying she spent time with
+were Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. Did Annie tell you if anyone else was in New Mexico?
+A. No, there was no one else with her in New Mexico that I
+remember.
+2. What did she tell you about that?
+A. She told me that she had expected to find other girls of
+her age and in similar situations to her as part of -- I guess
+what you could describe as an enrichment weekend of sorts, but
+she told me that when she arrived, she realized that she was
+the only girl there.
+Q. What, if anything, did Annie tell you about Maxwell?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 210 of 267
+2238
+- direct
+She said that Maxwell was very charming, very pretty. She
+greeted her when she arrived. And I remember that they had a
+day around town where Maxwell took her shopping.
+Q. Did Annie tell you if Maxwell bought her anything?
+Q. What did she tell you?
+I remember she told me that Maxwell bought her a pair of
+cowboy boots.
+l. Did Annie tell you about her conversations with Maxwell in
+New Mexico in this time when you were dating in high school?
+2. What did Annie tell you about her conversations with
+Maxwell?
+A. I remember that Maxwell asked Annie if she had ever
+received a massage before, which Annie had not.
+l. Do you remember what Annie told you what happened next in
+the context of massage in terms of what Maxwell said to her?
+A. Yes. She said that Maxwell basically told her that she was
+going to have the opportunity to have a massage and was telling
+her how enjoyable that it would be for Annie.
+l. While you and Annie were in high school, did Annie tell you
+about receiving a massage in New Mexico?
+l. Do you remember all the details Annie told you about the
+massage today?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 211 of 267
+- direct
+2239
+A. I remember some of the details, but not all.
+l. Did Annie tell you if anyone touched her during the
+massage?
+e. Who did Annie tell you touched her during the massage?
+A. Maxwell.
+l. What, if anything, did Annie tell you about where Annie was
+touched by Maxwell?
+A. She told me that she was touched on the breasts.
+l. Did Annie tell you who touched her breasts?
+e. Who was that?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell.
+l. While you and Annie were in high school, did Annie tell you
+how she felt while Maxwell was touching her breasts and giving
+her the massage?
+A. Yes. She told me that she felt fearful and awkward and
+helpless.
+l. Did Annie tell you if she said anything --
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Leading.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. What, if anything, did Annie tell you about whether she
+said anything to anyone after the massage?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 212 of 267 2240
+- direct
+A. She told me that she didn't have the courage to speak up
+and say anything because she was afraid of jeopardizing any of
+her sister Maria's opportunities with Jeffrey Epstein.
+Q. While you and Annie were in high school, did Annie tell you
+about any other experiences with Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico?
+She also told me that, during the massage --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, if I may, with
+counsel's -- this is what we had conferred on. I just want to
+ask a more leading question, if I
+•. MENNINGER: That's fine.
+2. While you and Annie were in high school, did Annie tell you
+about any other experiences with Jeffrey Epstein in her bedroom
+in New Mexico?
+2. What did she tell you?
+A. She said that, after the massage, that Jeffrey Epstein
+followed her. He had been present during the massage --
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained. I'll stop the response. Next
+question.
+l. After you said that Annie told you that he followed her,
+where did Annie tell you that he followed her?
+A. Into her bedroom.
+Q. And what did Annie tell you happened in the bedroom?
+A. That Jeffrey Epstein climbed into bed with her and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 213 of 267
+- direct
+attempted to snuggle.
+l. And what did she tell you happened after he was trying to
+snuggle with her?
+A. She told me that she got out of bed and locked herself in
+the bathroom.
+Q. Did Annie talk to you about what happened in New Mexico
+after high school?
+e. When did she talk to you about what happened in New Mexico?
+A. I remember her talking to me about it in early 2003.
+Q. What was Annie's demeanor when you spoke with her when she
+talked to you about what happened in New Mexico in 2003?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. In 2003 when Annie talked to you about her experiences with
+Maxwell and Epstein in New Mexico, without going into the
+details, when did this come up?
+A. This came up at a time where we were being physically
+affectionate with each other.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have one moment,
+2241
+please?
+THE COURT: You |
+•. POMERANTZ: Nothing further, Judge.
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Briefly, Judge.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 214 of 267
+- CrOsS
+CROSS-EXAMINATION
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+Q. Good afternoon, Mr. L
+A. Hello.
+Q. You're telling this jury things you remember from over 25
+years ago; correct?
+Q. You remember individuals' names?
+l. And you've retained that over 25 years?
+Q. And you've talked with
+about this?
+A. Over time, yes.
+l. And you've also seen things in the media about it?
+A. Some things, yes.
+l. Well, you must have been curious if there were things in
+the media about your close friend,
+¡ correct?
+A. Yes, but I'm not much of a news watcher, so --
+2. Well, put news aside. There were documentaries involved in
+this case; correct?
+l. And you're aware of those documentaries; correct?
+l. And Annie told you she was in certain documentaries, didn't
+she?
+2242
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 215 of 267
+- CrOSS
+Q. And she told you that she was on certain podcasts, didn't
+she?
+A. I don't recall telling me that she was on any podcasts.
+Q. Well, she told you that she was in the media; correct?
+e. She told you she had been interviewed by the media;
+A. Correct.
+Q. She told you she had been in touch with other people who
+claimed to have been abused by Jeffrey Epstein?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Hearsay, your Honor. Just to state
+2243
+the --
+A. Can you repeat the question, please.
+2. She told you that she had been in touch with other
+individuals who claim to have been abused by Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. I don't recall Annie telling me about any contact with
+other victims, no.
+2. She told you that, at a certain point, she could make a lot
+of money off of this case?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection. Hearsay.
+Your Honor, withdrawn.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 216 of 267
+- CrosS
+2244
+THE COURT: I'll provide a limiting instruction if you
+want, but go ahead.
+No, Annie never talked to me about any money that she could
+receive from this case.
+2. You don't know that Annie received one and a half million
+dollars for what she claimed happened in New Mexico in the
+movie theater?
+A. No, I've never been told that.
+l. You've never read about that?
+A. I've never read about that.
+Q. You don't follow anything about this case?
+A. I don't follow anything in the news about this case.
+l. And when was the last time you spoke to Annie about this
+case?
+A. About this case, I would estimate probably about a year
+ago.
+Q. And you knew that she was going to be a witness in this
+case; correct?
+A. Yes, I did.
+l. And you knew when you were contacted by the government that
+they wanted you to be a witness because Annie was going to be a
+witness?
+I. And that's why you're here today; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 217 of 267
+- redirect
+I have a moment?
+2245
+THE COURT: You may.
+Q. You've spoken to the media about this case, haven't you?
+A. No, I haven't about this case.
+Q. You weren't contacted by the New York Times?
+A. I was asked by the New York Times to corroborate a story,
+yes.
+Q. And you spoke to them; correct?
+l. So you spoke to the media about this case; correct?
+l. And you recently got married, didn't you?
+l. And
+was at your wedding; correct?
+MS. STERNHEIM: No further questions.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. Just briefly.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+I inquire your Honor?
+THE COURT: You may.
+REDIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+e. Mr.
+,, defense counsel asked you about your memory
+of conversations with Annie. Do you recall that?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 218 of 267
+- redirect
+2246
+l. Why does what Annie told you about New Mexico stand out in
+your memory?
+A. I would say they were very memorable moments and formative
+moments in our relationship. They led to very emotional
+conversations that I remember well to this day.
+l. Did anyone tell you what to say here today?
+e. What are you here to do today?
+A. To tell the truth.
+MS. POMERANTZ: No further questions.
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Mr. |
+• Thank you, you're excused.
+You may step down.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you.
+(Witness excused)
+THE COURT: Government may call its next witness.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government calls
+Janice Swain.
+THE COURT: Janice Swain may come forward. Good
+afternoon, Ms. Swain.
+JANICE SWAIN,
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 219 of 267 2247
+Swain - direct
+THE COURT: Please be seated. If you remove your mask
+and please state and spell your name for the record.
+THE WITNESS: Janice Swain, J-a-n-i-c-e S-w-a-i-n.
+THE COURT: Ms. Swain, I'll ask you to please pull the
+microphone up to you and you need to speak directly into it.
+Please
+keep your voice up. Thank you so much.
+THE WITNESS: Okay.
+THE COURT: Go ahead,
+1. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Good afternoon, Ms. Swain.
+A. Good afternoon.
+l. If I can ask you to speak directly into the microphone, I
+want to make sure everyone can hear you.
+A. Okay.
+Q. Thank you. Ms. Swain, how old are you?
+A. I'm 71.
+2. How far did you go in school?
+A. High school.
+2. What kind of work do you do now?
+A. I'm a sales representative.
+Q. How many children do you have?
+A. I have three.
+Q. What is the name of your oldest child?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 220 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2248
+Q. In what year was Maria born?
+A. In 1969.
+Q. What is the name of your middle child?
+• POMERANTZ: Your Honor, at this time, I would
+request that the jurors be permitted to take out their binders
+and turn to Government Exhibit 13, which is in evidence under
+seal, and I would ask that the witness turn to Government
+
+MS. MENNINGER: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Please open your binder to GX13. The
+witness is also directed -- is it a binder?
+MS. POMERANTZ: I think it's a folder, your Honor.
+THE COURT: You have a folder there, Ms. Swain?
+THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
+THE COURT: Document marked GX13.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Ms. Swain, do you have Government Exhibit 13?
+A. I do.
+Q. What is that?
+A. Annie's birth certificate.
+Q. And without stating it, is Annie's date of birth reflected
+on that birth certificate?
+A. It is.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 221 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2249
+MS. POMERANTZ: We can put that away.
+Q. In what state was Annie born?
+A. Missouri.
+Q. In what states did Annie grow up?
+A. In Missouri, Florida, and -- I mean Arizona.
+Q. In what state did Annie go to high school?
+A. Arizona.
+Q. Approximately when did you move to Arizona?
+A. In 1986 or 7.
+l. I want focus on 1995. In 1995, what did you do for work?
+A. I was a sales representative.
+l. Who did you live with in 1995?
+A. I lived with Annie and my younger daughter.
+l. Did you live with your children's father in 1995?
+2. What was your marital status in 1995?
+A. I was divorced.
+l. Did you receive financial support from your children's
+father?
+l. What were your financial circumstances in 1995?
+A. I was a single mom, had very limited income.
+l. In 1995, was Annie in school?
+2. What grade was she in?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 222 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2250
+A. She was a junior in high school.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, can we please pull up
+what's already in evidence as Government Exhibit 101.
+Q. Ms. Swain, who's the person in this photograph?
+A. Annie.
+Q. Is this a fair and accurate photograph of Annie when she
+was in high school?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, we can take that down.
+Thank you very much.
+Q. At that time, did you have conversations with Annie about
+preparing for college?
+A. Yes, we talked about college.
+Q. What was your plan for paying for college for Annie?
+A. Student loans.
+l. In 1995, where was Maria living?
+A. In New York.
+l. What did Maria do for work in New York?
+A. She was an artist.
+I. Who did Maria work for in New York?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Hearsay.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Did there come a time when you spoke with Jeffrey Epstein
+on the phone?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 223 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2251
+Q. Have you ever met Jeffrey Epstein in person?
+A. No, I haven't.
+2. About when was the first time you spoke with Epstein on the
+phone?
+A. In 1995.
+Q. And how did that come about?
+A. He called to tell me that he was inviting Maria to go on
+his plane to Florida for a work trip.
+l. Did you speak to Epstein once on the phone or more than
+once on the phone?
+A. More than once.
+l. And during these first few calls, what did Epstein talk to
+you about?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Hearsay.
+THE COURT: Overruled. I'm sorry. Can I get a
+timeframe?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I believe that she had
+testified about 1995.
+THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Ms. Swain, after Epstein called you in 1995, what did
+Epstein talk to you about during the first few calls that he
+made to you?
+A. About Maria's art career and her talent.
+Q. At the time you spoke with him, what was your understanding
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 224 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2252
+of who Epstein was?
+A. That he was Maria's boss.
+Q. About how many calls in total did you have with Epstein?
+A. At least six.
+l. What, if anything, did Epstein call you about, other than
+Maria?
+A. He called me before the Christmas holiday to ask if I would
+allow Annie to come to New York to visit Maria as a gift to
+Maria for Christmas.
+Q. Did you have one call or multiple calls with Jeffrey
+Epstein about Annie?
+A. Multiple.
+l. When you had calls with Epstein, what, if anything, did he
+discuss with you about Annie's education?
+A. He just said that he had -- he could probably help guide
+her in selecting a college and that he would like to introduce
+her to some other people who could help with that.
+l. Approximately when did Epstein first call you about Annie?
+A. In December of '95.
+l. Based on the call, what was Epstein offering to do?
+A. The first call, to offer her a flight to New York to visit
+Maria.
+l. Did you give Annie permission to go to New York?
+A. I did.
+Q. How come?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 225 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2253
+A. I thought it would be a good opportunity for the sisters to
+be together.
+Q. Did Annie go to New York?
+l. Approximately when did Annie go to New York?
+A. Over the Christmas holiday.
+Q. Was Annie in school at the time she went to New York?
+Q. In what grade was she in?
+A. She was a junior.
+Q. Was school in session?
+A. Yes -- no. It was Christmas break.
+l. When Annie returned from New York, did Annie tell you about
+the trip to New York?
+A. She didn't talk too much about it. She told me a few
+places they visited and she did say that Epstein took her and
+Maria to the movies to see a movie.
+l. Did Annie travel again during her junior year after the
+trip to New York?
+l. Where did Annie go?
+A. She went to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico.
+Q. How did it come about that Annie went to New Mexico?
+A. He called and told me that he was planning a get-together,
+a retreat of sorts for a group of 20 to 25 students that were
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 226 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2254
+academically gifted and he thought they could discuss their
+college plans and possibly going abroad to work on their
+résumés for college.
+Q. When you said he called me, who are you referring to?
+A. Jeffrey Epstein.
+Q. What, if anything, did you ask Epstein on the call?
+I asked if him, first of all, if he had enough space to
+accommodate that many students and he said yes, they had cabins
+that would accommodate 20 to 25 students. And then I asked if
+it would be boys and girls and he said yes, and so I asked who
+would be chaperoning the girls.
+Q. And what did Epstein say in response?
+A. He said his wife, Ghislaine, would be.
+l. What did Epstein tell you that Annie would be --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Withdrawn, your Honor.
+2. What, if anything, made you feel comfortable letting Annie
+go to New Mexico?
+A. I felt like it was a good opportunity for her to be around
+other students who were planning trips. And he told me that he
+was funding the trips for all the students. So it seemed like
+a generous offer and, at that point, I trusted that it would be
+okay.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 227 of 267
+Swain - direct
+2255
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Did you pay for Annie's trip to New Mexico?
+2. Who paid for the trip?
+A. Epstein.
+Q. Did you talk to Maxwell on the phone about the trip to New
+Mexico?
+l. Have you ever spoken with Maxwell?
+A. I have not.
+l. Have you ever met Maxwell in person?
+A. No, I haven't.
+l. Did Annie go to New Mexico?
+l. Approximately when did Annie go to New Mexico?
+A. It was in the spring of '96.
+l. Approximately how long after your call with Epstein did
+Annie go to New Mexico?
+A. I'm not sure if I talked to him one or two times about --
+before her trip, but probably the last time I spoke with them
+was about maybe a few days to a week before her trip.
+l. For approximately how long was Annie in New Mexico?
+A. For a weekend, Friday night to Sunday night.
+l. How did Annie get to the airport to fly to New Mexico?
+A. I took her.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 228 of 267
+Swain - direct
+Q. How did Annie get home from the airport when she returned
+to Arizona
+from New Mexico?
+A. I picked her up.
+Q. Did you speak to Annie while she was in New Mexico?
+A. No, I didn't.
+Q. What, if anything, did Annie have when she returned from
+the trip to New Mexico?
+A. She had a new pair of black boots.
+l. Did Annie tell you who bought the boots for her?
+A. Yes, she said Ghislaine took her shopping and bought the
+boots.
+e. Based on your observations, how would you describe Annie's
+demeanor when you picked her up from the airport?
+A. She was very quiet and withdrawn. She didn't want to talk
+and she seemed very tired.
+2. What did Annie do in the summer of 1996?
+A. She went on a trip that -- one of the trips that had been
+discussed to Thailand and Vietnam.
+Q. What was Annie doing in Thailand and Vietnam?
+A. I think they worked on like an orphanage and a school.
+l. Did you pay for Annie's trip to Thailand and Vietnam?
+A. No, I didn't.
+l. Who paid for her trip to Thailand and Vietnam?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection.
+Foundation, your Honor.
+2256
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 229 of 267 2257
+Swain - direct
+THE COURT: All right. Sustained.
+l. Did Annie tell you who paid for her trip to Thailand and
+Vietnam?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll allow the question.
+A. She raised --
+THE COURT: Sorry. Just a yes or no to the question.
+THE WITNESS:
+. I'm sorry.
+l. The question --
+MS. POMERANTZ: I'11 repeat it, if I may, your Honor?
+THE COURT: Sure.
+l. Did Annie tell you who paid for her trip to Thailand and
+Vietnam?
+2. Who did she tell you paid for the trip?
+MS. MENNINGER: Objection. Foundation for that.
+THE COURT: Foundation is the objection?
+MS. MENNINGER: It's hearsay foundation.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Prior consistent statement, your
+Honor.
+MS. MENNINGER: It's not, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Hearsay -- sustained.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. You said earlier that Annie seemed tired and withdrawn
+after the New Mexico trip.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 230 of 267
+Swain - direct
+Q. Did there come a time when you asked her about the trip
+again?
+A. Other than the night I brought her home? I tried to talk
+to her that night, and she said she was too tired to talk.
+Q. Did you ask her about the trip once or more than once?
+A. More than once.
+Q. Did there come a time when you spoke with her about the
+trip to New Mexico after she returned from Thailand and Vietnam
+in the summer of 1996?
+Q. What did you ask her?
+A. I asked her what happened when she was in New Mexico.
+Q. What did Annie say in response?
+A. She said, I don't want to talk about it. And I'm just not
+going to let it ruin my life.
+l. Based on your observations, how would you describe Annie's
+demeanor when you tried to talk to her about New Mexico?
+A. She's just always very evasive and she didn't - she just
+didn't want to discuss it. And she would always say the same
+thing: I'm not going to let it ruin my life.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have just one
+2258
+moment?
+THE COURT: You may.
+(Counsel conferred)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 231 of 267
+Swain - cross
+2259
+MS. POMERANTZ: No further questions, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right. Ms. Menninger.
+MS. MENNINGER: Briefly, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+CROSS-EXAMINATION
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. I just want to confirm, Ghislaine Maxwell never called you
+in relationship to anything, right?
+l. You've never spoken to her, right?
+A. I have not.
+e. You've never met her?
+A. I have not.
+l. The reference that you gave earlier about "your wife being
+there, " that came from Jeffrey Epstein, right?
+l. On a phone call you had with Jeffrey Epstein?
+2. Did Jeffrey Epstein tell you that he kept secrets from
+Ghislaine?
+A. No, I didn't ever hear that.
+l. Did Jeffrey Epstein tell you that he was dating other women
+behind Ghislaine's back?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+MS. MENNINGER: 806, your Honor.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 232 of 267
+Swain - cross
+THE COURT: Just a moment. I need to hear you. I'm
+2260
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+not tracking.
+MS. MENNINGER: Okay.
+(At sidebar)
+THE COURT: Where are we going?
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, once the government
+elicits co-conspirator statements under 801(d) (2) (E), under
+806, I'm allowed to impeach the declarant as though they were
+testifying. So I'm asking questions about Jeffrey Epstein
+through this witness, who is the one from whom they elicited
+the 801(d) (2) (E) statements. That's what I believe 806
+provides.
+THE COURT: You have a series of questions about
+things that Epstein didn't tell her?
+MS. MENNINGER: Correct.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, this is all a line of argument,
+they are not questions. This witness doesn't know anything
+about it. I'm not sure what the basis is for trying to impeach
+Jeffrey Epstein's credibility through this particular witness.
+It's all argument.
+THE COURT: We're not going to do ten --
+MS. MENNINGER: No.
+THE COURT: We're going to do --
+MS. MENNINGER: A handful; three.
+THE COURT: Three questions and then move on.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 233 of 267
+Swain - cross
+2261
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(In open court)
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+l. Did Jeffrey Epstein tell you on the phone calls with you
+that he was dating other women behind Ghislaine Maxwell's back?
+A. We didn't discuss her in those calls.
+Q. Did Mr. Epstein tell you that he manipulated people around
+him for his own personal gain?
+l. When Mr. Epstein talked to you about this trip to New
+Mexico, it's true that he originally told you that Maria was
+going to be going on the trip; correct?
+A. Would you repeat that?
+Q. When Mr. Epstein talked to you about Annie's trip to New
+Mexico, he originally told you that Maria was going to go on
+the trip; correct?
+2. Because you never talked to Ghislaine Maxwell, you don't
+know what she knew about this trip; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+I think it's a bit confusing.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. You've never talked to Ms. Maxwell about the New Mexico
+trip before or after; correct?
+A. I have never spoken with her.
+Q. But you don't know whether she was aware that Annie was
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 234 of 267
+Swain - cross
+2262
+coming on this trip; correct?
+A. She picked her up at the airport.
+Q. I'm sorry, what?
+A. I think she picked her up at the airport.
+Q. Is that what Annie told you?
+A. I thought that's what happened.
+0. Not a driver?
+A. I really don't know. It was just my -- that's what I
+thought.
+l. Okay. So you don't know what Ghislaine Maxwell knew about
+Annie coming or going, right?
+A. I don't.
+l. Regarding the trip to Thailand, you personally observed
+Annie working to earn money for that trip; correct?
+l. And Annie had been on trips before; correct?
+2. She had been to Mexico?
+l. You, yourself, were on a trip to Europe when she was in
+Thailand; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. Annie did, in fact, go to an Ivy League college, right?
+A. She did.
+Q. And Mr. Epstein didn't pay for that college; correct?
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 235 of 267
+2263
+No.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. MENNINGER: If I could have one moment, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: You may.
+(Counsel conferred)
+BY MS. MENNINGER:
+Q. In that summer when Annie was in Thailand, you were in
+Germany; correct?
+A. Yes, I was.
+MS. MENNINGER: No further questions.
+Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No redirect.
+THE COURT: All right. Ms. Swain, thank you.
+You are excused. You may step down.
+(Witness excused)
+Ms. Pomerantz? Ms. Moe?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. The government rests.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+Thank you.
+Let me briefly speak to counsel.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 236 of 267
+2264
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(At sidebar)
+THE COURT: I should have clarified this before, but I
+will excuse the jury. I will excuse the jury with
+instructions; correct?
+MS. MOE: Yes. Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: You still anticipate a defense case?
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
+THE COURT: So I will say I want to give them -- I'm
+going to go over my instructions. I'm going to say no
+discussions, keep an open mind. The government has rested.
+The defense case will be next. Okay with that?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Perfect.
+MS. MOE: Thank you.
+MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And then I'll hear the Rule 29 motion.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 237 of 267
+2265
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(In open court)
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, as you've heard, the
+government has rested. We're going to break a little bit early
+today and resume, as I said, on Thursday at our normal time,
+with the next phase of the case, which is the defense case.
+Because we're going to be apart for five days, I'm
+going to just take a minute to carefully remind you of all my
+instructions. And I know that you know this, but it's
+important, since we're moving to the next phase of the case.
+No consumption of any kind of media or information
+through any means about the case. No discussions with each
+other or anyone else about the case or anyone involved in the
+case. No communications with anyone through any means about
+the case. And although the government has rested, it's
+important to keep an open mind, as I've said, until we get to
+the next stage of the case and through to the later stages
+until you begin your deliberations.
+With that, I bid you a happy Friday and a good
+weekend, a long weekend for us. I will see you Thursday.
+We'll start promptly at 9:30 on Thursday morning.
+Thank you so much.
+(Jury excused)
+THE COURT: Matters to take up.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the defense has an
+application.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 238 of 267
+2266
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Everdell.
+Do you want to come to the podium?
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes, please.
+Your Honor, the defense moves at this time for a
+judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) on the grounds that the
+evidence elicited by the government in its case-in-chief is
+insufficient to establish each element of the offenses charged
+in the S2 indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.
+THE COURT: Move as to all counts?
+MR. EVERDELL: Move as to all counts, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Go ahead.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we do make this application
+with respect to every count in the S2 indictment; but for
+purposes of today, I'm going to confine my comments to address
+specifically Counts One and Two.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR. EVERDELL: Which are the enticement counts,
+conspiracy, and the substantive enticement counts.
+Your Honor, as the Court is aware, those counts depend
+on the testimony of Jane.
+To convict Ms. Maxwell, the government must show that
+Ms. Maxwell persuaded or enticed Jane to travel to New York to
+engage in sex acts that would violate New York law and the
+specific law that's cited in the indictment. There is no
+evidence in the record that Ms. Maxwell or anyone else who
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 239 of 267
+2267
+allegedly participated in this conspiracy persuaded, induced,
+or enticed Jane to travel to New York to engage in illegal
+sexual activity.
+Your Honor, these words "persuade, induce, entice,"
+these are words of causation. And I am now quoting from U.S.
+v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010), and that's at page
+125. This is a decision that addresses 2251, not 2242, but
+that statute has the same words "persuade, induce, entice," and
+it's interpreting in the same way.
+And Broxmeyer says that these are words of causation,
+which means they have to bring about an effect. There has to
+be something done by the defendant to bring about an effect.
+And in discussing the dictionary definitions, these words are
+usually given their dictionary definitions, but they do discuss
+in this opinion what those typically are. And they quote from
+the Random House Dictionary.
+"Induce" means, according to the dictionary, to bring
+about, produce, or cause. "Entice" means to draw on by
+exciting hope or desire or allure. And "persuade" means to
+prevail on a person to do something as by advising, urging,
+etc., to induce to believe or convince.
+So, again, these are words of causation.
+Now, the only testimony that we have in the record
+that relates in any way to Ms. Maxwell taking part in Jane's
+travel to New York is that Jane testified as to the following
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 240 of 267 2268
+three points. And I will refer the Court to the record. I'm
+looking at pages 316, line 2, to page 317, line 1; pages 324
+line 14, to 324, line 20; and pages 323, line 23, to page 324,
+line 11.
+In those transcript paragraphs, this is Jane's
+testimony, she says that three things occur with respect to
+Ms. Maxwell and her travel:
+First, she says that she, Jane, traveled with
+Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to various locations, including New
+York.
+Second, she says that Ms. Maxwell sometimes assisted
+in making the travel arrangements. There's really like a one
+line mention of that.
+And third, she recounts an anecdote that on one
+occasion when she was already in New York, she called
+someone - it's unclear who -- and she was said, quote/unquote,
+freaking out because she couldn't get on her plane going back
+to Palm Beach because she was only 15 at the time and didn't
+have any identification. And she says that at some point
+"Ghislaine made it happen for me, " meaning that she helped her
+get on that flight.
+That's the only testimony we have and only evidence we
+have in the record that talks about Ms. Maxwell's involvement
+in enticement or encouraging travel to New York. So with
+respect to each three, your Honor, they are insufficient.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 241 of 267 2269
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+First, we can dispense with the incident where
+allegedly Ms. Maxwell got on the phone and somehow arranged for
+Jane to get back to Palm Beach, because that is a flight going
+back to Palm Beach; that is not enticing someone to fly to New
+York for the purposes of breaking New York law and engaging in
+illegal sex acts.
+There's no enticement as would be illegal
+under the statute there because this is a return trip.
+As to the first, simply traveling with someone is not
+enticing; that's just being present on the plane, that's not
+causing an effect, that's being present. That does not
+qualify. So simply being on the plane traveling does not
+establish persuasion, inducement, or enticement.
+And as to the last, occasionally arranging travel, if
+that is to be believed, is not enticement either. Jane's
+testimony, if you look at those transcript cites, your Honor,
+is that her travel arrangements were typically made by Jeffrey
+Epstein's office, and that Ghislaine Maxwell occasionally
+helped out.
+There is no testimony whatsoever that Ghislaine
+Maxwell encouraged her to travel. There is no testimony that
+she tried to convince her to travel anywhere, much less New
+York, or advised her to travel. We don't even have testimony
+that Ghislaine Maxwell offered to arrange the travel.
+All it says is that she occasionally arranged. And
+maybe it's the office that called - or that arranged with
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 242 of 267
+2270
+Ghislaine to have Ghislaine arrange the travel. But she didn't
+even offer it herself. It seems like the best we have on this
+record is that she performed a ministerial function of
+arranging the travel. But that is not doing something, a
+cause, that produces an effect; that is simply doing paperwork.
+That is not what the statute was designed to criminalize.
+There has to be some effort to entice or persuade or induce
+somebody to travel, which we do not have on this record.
+And one case I would direct your Honor to is United
+States V.
+, 542 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2008). In that case,
+the Second Circuit reversed the conviction for enticement under
+this same statute, 2422, because the jury was instructed that
+they could convict if they found the defendant made the
+possibility of a sex act "more appealing," as if that was
+enough to entice, if they made it more appealing.
+The court held that that was not enough to establish
+persuasion, inducement, enticement under the statute. And here
+we don't even have that. We just have her performing what a
+travel agent would do, which is arranging travel plans. And
+that is not enough, under the wording of the statute, to prove
+enticement. And there is nothing also from any member of the
+conspiracy on that same count, your Honor, doing anything to
+arrange or induce the travel.
+So I would argue, your Honor, that on the record we
+have before us, there is insufficient evidence to establish
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 243 of 267 2271
+Counts One and Iwo, the enticement conspiracy and substantive
+counts.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+Mr. Rohrbach.
+MR. ROHRBACH: If I may take the podium, your Honor.
+Your Honor, the Court should deny the defendant's
+motion as to Counts One and Iwo.
+Jane was not in New York by accident. In fact,
+there's no nonsexualized purpose that's been articulated at
+this point for Jane to travel to New York.
+Mr. Everdell takes a very narrow view on the nexus
+that's required between enticement, inducement, and the other
+verbs that are in the enticement statute and the travel itself.
+The jury could readily conclude, as the government has argued,
+that all of Jane's travel to New York was in the context of the
+relationship that the defendant and Epstein built with Jane.
+That meets each of the verbs in the statute.
+Jane's testimony is that the defendant played on her
+hopes and dreams to make her feel special, seen, and cared for.
+"Enticement" is defined as using hope and desire. So the
+defendant was playing on Jane's hopes and desires in order to
+get her into this relationship over a multi-year period in
+which she was traveling with the defendant.
+Similarly, persuasion, the defendant testified that --
+sorry, Jane testified that the defendant developed a friendship
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 244 of 267
+2272
+with her, talked about sex with her, bought her gifts, took her
+on field trips.
+The defendant -- Jane's testimony, in
+combination with Dr. Rocchio's testimony, would lead the jury
+to concludes that the defendant was in a relationship of
+coercive control with Jane, which would have allowed her to
+exercise control to get Jane to continue to travel to New York
+where, Jane's testimony is, the defendant personally engaged in
+sexual abuse of Jane. So those are plenty of reasons why the
+enticement statute is met as to Jane herself, in light of the
+course of conduct the defendant engaged in with Jane over many
+years.
+But even if the Court didn't readily conclude that
+that statute was met, the defendant is also charged under an
+aiding and abetting theory. And there can be no serious
+argument that Jeffrey Epstein didn't entice, persuade, induce,
+and coerce Jane to travel to New York. And given that fact,
+it's quite obvious that the defendant was aware of that plan,
+given that she was on the plane and in the room in New York
+when the abuse was happening. And she took steps over multiple
+years to knowingly associate herself with it and to facilitate
+it. So that, again, is a separate theory by which the statute
+is met.
+And finally, here, I would just remind your Honor, as
+I'm sure your Honor is already aware, the standard here is
+remarkably low. All that is required is that taking all
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 245 of 267
+2273
+inferences in the government's favor, the jury could
+conclude -- they could find a conviction on Counts One and Iwo.
+That bar is surmounted very easily by just the testimony of
+Jane alone, and I have not even discussed other corroborating
+testimony that would support that conclusion.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+Any final points, Mr. Everdell?
+MR. EVERDELL: Just two, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Microphone, please.
+MR. EVERDELL: I can do it from here.
+THE COURT: That's fine.
+MR. EVERDELL: The point about Mr. Epstein's actions I
+won't leave alone; but, of course, only applies to the
+conspiracy count. Obviously Count Iwo is the substantive
+count.
+THE COURT: You'll address aiding and abetting?
+MR. EVERDELL: Well, yes, aiding and abetting. So I
+don't see any testimony of Ghislaine Maxwell aiding and
+abetting Jeffrey Epstein, enticing her to travel to New York.
+There's remarkably little testimony about that action, and that
+is what the subject of the substantive count is, right. You
+have to show that Ms. Maxwell enticed Jane to travel to New
+York with the intent knowing that when she got there, that
+statute, that New York statute that's cited in the indictment,
+would be violated.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 246 of 267
+2274
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+And if it's going to be on an aiding and abetting
+theory, then she has to have aided Jeffrey Epstein or some
+other person to have done the same thing. And I don't see any
+evidence in the record about Jeffrey Epstein enticing her to
+travel to New York. All we heard of was travel to New York.
+And there could be any number of reasons why she traveled to
+New York. But there is no hard evidence that there was
+enticement to travel, convincing her to travel for that
+purpose. So I don't think either on an aiding and abetting
+theory, it also doesn't work.
+The only other point I would make, your Honor, is that
+I want to be clear on the record that we are making this
+application as to all counts, although my comments are reserved
+for the first two counts.
+THE COURT: Understood. All right. Thank you.
+The motions are denied.
+What do we need to discuss before Thursday?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, we just wanted to confirm on the
+record that we would be receiving defense exhibits and Rule 26
+material today.
+THE COURT: Counsel?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: We should have those materials today,
+your Honor. There's a little bit of fluidity in terms of the
+witnesses, and perhaps even if there are Rule 26 materials,
+frankly, which I don't suspect that there are.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 247 of 267
+2275
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR. PAGLIUCA:
+But the problem is, you know, we have a
+larger list that we've needed to winnow down, given the fact
+that the government has rested early and has not called a
+significant number of witnesses.
+We also have the problem of travel for this period of
+time with some of our witnesses.
+And we're confirming who's
+available. And we have been confirming who's available and
+who's not available and when. And there may be the need to
+substitute a different witness on the same topic.
+But what I expect to be able to do tonight is to send
+the government what we believe our good-faith list is. And
+there will be some, I expect, adjustment to that as we move
+along. But that's our anticipated goal here, your Honor.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government warned the
+defense multiple times this week that we would rest. The Court
+ordered the defense to produce these materials at the
+conclusion of the government's case, long before the trial.
+And we submit the defense should do just that.
+With respect to Rule 26 materials, especially given
+that there are experts in this case, there should be Rule 26
+materials, including communications with experts, things like
+contracts and payment materials. And if there were going to be
+defense witnesses, any notes of interviews with those witnesses
+are governed by Rule 26 and are subject to disclosure today.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 248 of 267 2276
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+So we would ask the defense to comply with the Court's
+order, produce those materials today, along with exhibits, a
+list of witnesses, and an order of the first witnesses.
+THE COURT: Yes. You'll do that.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I think I said we were going to do
+that, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Right. Io the extent you think one
+witness might be substituted for a different witness, you need
+to alert the government in your list today who the other
+witness might be and make disclosures accordingly.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: We will do what we are supposed to do;
+and we will do our best at it, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. You have time, since we're not
+sitting again till Thursday, to arrange travel. We've known
+for some time the government would - at least a few days, the
+government would rest this week; and we've known about my
+scheduling issues for Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. So we're not
+at a moment of surprise at this point. I get that they've
+shaved witnesses and that might require -- it's not me.
+MS. MOE: It's not me, your Honor.
+MR. PAGLIUCA: It's not me, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Whoa.
+That's weird. Khalilah?
+It's the ghost of Friday, I guess.
+So I think you're in a position to do your full
+disclosures. To the extent there may be a substitute witness,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 249 of 267
+2277
+you're in a position at this point to make those disclosures as
+if it is that person, so I did expect a full disclosure.
+What is the defense's anticipation as to length of
+case?
+MR. PAGLIUCA: I would say -- I'm going to guess no
+more than four days, more likely two to three, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. All right.
+So I think then -- and then we should talk about the
+timing of the charge conference. Have you discussed that
+further? You kept promising to discuss it.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+We haven't conferred with the defense about that. We
+continue to just defer to the Court's preference on timing.
+I think if the defense case is two to three days, then
+a charge conference at the conclusion of that would fit with
+the Court's timing. We're also happy to do that earlier. We
+don't have a preference as to the sequencing there.
+THE COURT: Let me just look at the calendar.
+Go ahead, Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I was just going to suggest that we
+utilize the Saturday that the Court said would be available.
+Even if we had more of a case, I think we could accomplish
+that, if the Court is still amenable.
+THE COURT: Okay. That's fine with me.
+MS. MOE: No objection to that, your Honor.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 250 of 267 2278
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: All right. So why don't we schedule the
+charging conference for Saturday the 18th. I will confirm with
+the relevant court administrative staff and the marshal that we
+can do that and ensure public access and the like, of course,
+Ms. Maxwell's presence. But, as I said, my assumption is we
+can do that. So I will get you the charge sometime in advance
+of the 18th.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, one other matter to take
+up.
+Looking ahead to the defense case -- and we have been
+in contact with a number of our potential witnesses, and we are
+already getting requests, and I think these are valid
+requests -- that at least some of them testify anonymously --
+THE COURT: I think your mic went out.
+MR. EVERDELL: Maybe it's my mic that's the problem,
+your Honor. It's making noise.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Try this one.
+MR. EVERDELL: Is that better?
+THE COURT: It is.
+MR. EVERDELL: Okay. So, your Honor, as I was saying,
+we've been in contact with some of our witnesses, and we are
+already getting what I think are valid requests that these
+witnesses testify anonymously or under some sort of protection,
+name protection, whether that's a pseudonym or a first name, we
+have to work that out.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 251 of 267
+2279
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+I think given the protections that the government has
+sought for their witnesses and that they've received for their
+witnesses, we all know that this case has gotten a lot of
+attention and that people who are testifying here might get a
+lot of unwanted attention, especially if they are testifying on
+behalf of Ms. Maxwell. And they would like to be able to do
+this, at least some of them, with some sort of anonymous
+protection.
+And, your Honor, there's, I think, one in particular
+that maybe we can be heard at sidebar on, but --
+THE COURT: Here's what I want to say: You should
+confer. Identify specifically who you're talking about and the
+asserted reasons. You'll let me know if you come to agreement
+or disagree and, in either case, you'll put -- certainly if you
+disagree, you'll put forward your disagreement. To the extent
+you agree, you'll put forward the rationale and authoritative
+support for the proposition.
+MR. EVERDELL: Absolutely, your Honor.
+THE COURT: So timing on that?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, this is the first we're hearing
+of this. So I'm not aware of how many their witnesses are or
+what the issues are, but we'd be happy to confer with defense
+about that and submit briefing on it during the break over the
+next few days. I think the amount of time we'll need to
+examine and brief the issue depends on how many folks we're
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 252 of 267
+2280
+talking about.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if I can make a suggestion,
+I think it makes the most sense to do this after we have
+disclosed the witness list and then we can confer.
+THE COURT: Right. So do that. And then confer and
+then you tell me, Mr. Everdell, when would you like to put
+in --
+MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.
+I think if we can do it by Monday, that would be fine
+for the defense, if that works for the government.
+THE COURT: So Monday. If you're in agreement, you'll
+put in a submission. If you're in disagreement, the defense
+will move on Monday and I'll hear from the government on --
+MS. MOE: Wednesday, your Honor?
+THE COURT: So I suppose we might be looking at this
+application with respect to witnesses on Thursday.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+If I could just have one moment to confer on timing.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, would Wednesday at noon be
+acceptable? If the Court would like additional time --
+THE COURT: That's fine.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to do this, but I
+think the concern is high enough among some of these witnesses
+that -- you know, that they need an answer on this issue sooner
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 253 of 267
+2281
+rather than later.
+THE COURT: well, then it should have been raised
+sooner rather than later. You're asking for Monday; they can
+have to noon on Wednesday. I'll then have the papers briefed
+by noon on Wednesday.
+MR. EVERDELL: Okay. We can also back up the
+schedule, your Honor.
+We can have it done by -- we'll do it
+Sunday. And then if that backs it up for a day, that will make
+a difference for the defense, your Honor, if we have our papers
+Sunday.
+THE COURT: Okay. Sunday to Tuesday?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+THE COURT: To be clear, I don't imagine you'll get
+resolution from me until --
+MR. EVERDELL: I understand.
+THE COURT: -- Wednesday.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes, I understand, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And I can't guarantee what time that will
+be.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes. I understand.
+THE COURT: And again, if this is a significant issue,
+it should have been raised earlier if you wanted earlier
+resolution. You're looking at Wednesday evening, at the
+earliest, resolution.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 254 of 267 2282
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I think the conferral
+I'm confident we can reach some agreement on
+should work out.
+this.
+THE COURT: That's fine. And authority and support.
+Obviously I was not -- I broke no ground in permitting
+anonymity with respect to the witnesses who have testified. As
+I said, that that ruling, that's well-tread territory. Even if
+there's agreement, I would look for authority to make sure that
+it's permissible.
+MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. We'll look into the issue.
+I don't know who the witnesses are, what the basis would be,
+but we'll thoroughly examine it and make sure to apprise the
+Court whether there's a basis or not. We'll certainly address
+that in our briefing.
+With respect to those defense witnesses or, I should
+say, all of the defense witnesses, we just want to confirm that
+they will also be subject to Rule 615, your Honor.
+MR. EVERDELL: None of them have any plans to stay in
+the courtroom, your Honor, as far as we know. They are going
+to be in and out.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. Yes.
+MS. MENNINGER: Very briefly, your Honor. This is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 255 of 267
+2283
+something I've conferred with the government about a few times,
+including as of the last three days, I think once a day.
+With respect to defense Exhibits J-8/9 and Defense
+Exhibit J-15 --
+THE COURT: Oddly, I remember them.
+MS. MENNINGER: We all do. And I've been asking
+for -- I submitted it with redactions that I thought were
+appropriate. The government has said several times that they
+thought they might have one or two more redactions. I've been
+asking for those. I believe those were admitted in evidence a
+week ago Wednesday, so nine days ago.
+I think that they should be made publicly available.
+The government has said, Well, let's do it next week, when
+we're doing videos and things like that.
+Frankly, I think the time for giving more redactions
+has come and gone. And if they have any more, I'd ask that
+they submit them to the Court by this evening so the Court can
+rule on those additional redactions. Because I submitted them
+with redactions in the first place, and I think I've been
+getting requests from the media for those exhibits. I
+obviously don't respond to the press, but I think it's an
+indicia that they are interested in making whatever is going to
+be publicly available happen sooner rather than later.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I spoke with Ms. Sternheim this
+morning about all the pending redaction issues. There are a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 256 of 267
+2284
+number of exhibits, both defense exhibits and government
+exhibits, that need additional redactions. And we agreed over
+the break we would work diligently to resolve the full slate of
+pending redactions issues. We don't understand the particular
+urgency with respect to these exhibits.
+Ms. Menninger is right, that she did email the
+government last night in the evening while, as the Court is
+aware, we were tending to other matters. I don't understand
+the particular urgency with respect to these exhibits. And
+again, we conferred with the defense this morning to confirm
+they would resolve all the pending redaction issues over the
+weekend. That seems entirely reasonable, given how many
+redaction issues we'll be resolving.
+We're still waiting to hear from the defense on a
+number of redactions and we'll work together on that issue. I
+don't see the need for a fire drill redaction resolution this
+evening; and so I think the proposal we discussed this morning
+is reasonable. We're going to get those issued resolved in
+full.
+THE COURT: We'll get all of that done this weekend.
+Thank you.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: The attorney-client privilege issue.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I think we very well may
+be able to reach some type of stipulation, as your Honor
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 257 of 267
+2285
+suggested. I think in the press of business over the last 24
+hours, that has not yet been discussed between the two sides.
+MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.
+We haven't had a chance to confer about that issue.
+We have begun discussing that internally and are thinking
+through that carefully. We're not in a position to make a
+representation about our position at this juncture, but that's
+very much top of mind and we'll be working diligently on that
+issue over the break.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: And just as a preview, your Honor,
+there may be some others like that. As your Honor is aware,
+things came up during the course of testimony, and we will
+confer with the government about that with respect to other
+attorneys as well.
+MS. MOE: I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm not sure I'm
+following that.
+MS. MENNINGER: There are other matters that may give
+rise to the need for attorney testimony or probably more likely
+a stipulation about similar issues. And we would like to
+confer with the government first before briefing them. But I
+wouldn't -- our witness list may have other attorneys' names on
+them that have an asterisk by it saying subject to briefing and
+approval by the Court. I don't want anyone to believe we
+haven't understood the Court's prior statements on this topic.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 258 of 267
+2286
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+It would be something we speak with the government
+about and brief if we believe that the testimony elicited
+during the government's case would give rise to such testimony
+from any other attorney.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+We'd be happy to confer with the defense about any of
+these issues.
+Our view remains the same as it has been throughout
+this case, which is that there's no basis for calling
+plaintiffs' attorneys as defense witnesses. |
+There's no basis
+for waiving attorney-client privilege. And the Court has been
+very clear that that issue should be briefed in full before any
+witnesses along those lines should be called. But, again,
+we're happy to confer with the defense about that.
+THE COURT: Okay. You'll confer.
+The one that's been teed up is where there's an
+email --
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: - between you all and which it appears,
+at least on the face of the email, that counsel made a
+disclosure.
+MS. MENNINGER: That's similar to other issues, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: It's in that context that I've encouraged
+a stipulation as to what was relayed to the government.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 259 of 267
+2287
+Because I think -- as I said, I think that doesn't -- there's a
+basis for it in the email; it doesn't require wading into
+attorney-client privilege issues; and I think it gives the
+defense what it's looking for, as would an inquiry, which would
+be limited, into what the attorney said to the client. I
+haven't come to rest on how that's resolved, but I've indicated
+I think it's a close call in light of the email I've seen.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: So you'll confer.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I have briefing currently on that issue.
+So if you don't reach resolution, then I'll either -- I'1l
+resolve or tell you what additional steps I need in order to
+resolve. If there are other issues that are similar, we should
+probably talk about timing for briefing --
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: —- following conferral.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+Is there a particular date upon which the Court would
+like to receive briefing from the parties about any additional
+privilege-related issues?
+THE COURT: I'm fine for it to be discussed and then
+fully briefed again sometime on Wednesday, if that works.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 260 of 267
+2288
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: I think so, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right. I'm just looking at the
+calendar. The defense case begins on the 16th. We have the
+16th, the 17th. We'll do the charging conference on the 18th,
+if the defense case continues into the next week.
+But let me just encourage -- given this break that
+we're going on and -- here's just the one thing I want to say.
+I'll hear from you, but I want -- if the defense were to rest
+on the 17th, for example, then I will expect closings, absent a
+rebuttal case, on the 20th. Everybody agree with that?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, Judge.
+But I think it's highly unlikely that we will complete
+it on Friday, and I would ask the Court to take that into
+consideration.
+THE COURT: Okay. So let's say you rest on the 20th,
+Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: That is our anticipation.
+THE COURT: Okay. So then we would anticipate
+closings on the 21st; correct?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, we would like to at least
+discuss our concerns about a jury deliberating one day prior to
+a Christmas holiday. I think that given that, as was
+Thanksgiving, Christmas this year is particularly celebratory
+since people were not able to do that last year.
+
+
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 261 of 267 2289
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Our concern is that the jury might feel we don't want
+to come back and would rush to judgment in a case that we know
+they were prepared to be here until the middle of January. And
+they are already getting some time off. They may be
+disinclined to want to come back. And that could inure to the
+disadvantage of both parties, I understand.
+But I think we would not want to be in a position
+where the jury basically had one day prior to Christmas
+holiday, and I would ask the Court to be mindful of that, as I
+am sure you are. And that was one of the reasons why early on
+when we were hopeful that we could begin this case earlier
+because of our concern that it was going to bump up, now
+clearly we are way ahead of what the schedule is. But I would
+ask the Court to take into consideration that concern that we
+have.
+THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Moe?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to the timing of
+deliberations, I think the request on the timing of
+deliberations is, I think, at best, premature because we don't
+know how long the defense case will be; and so I don't think
+the Court needs to reach that now.
+But as a preview, if we end up in a situation in which
+the defense rests during the week of the 20th, I think we
+should be respectful of the jury's time. There's no reason for
+the jury not to be permitted to deliberate. I think it would
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 262 of 267 2290
+be a hardship to keep them indefinitely and have them come back
+and wait a week to deliberate on a case that's ready to be
+adjudicated.
+So, again, I don't think the Court needs to reach this
+issue given the timing; but if the jury was prepared to sit
+this entire week and hear evidence, there's no reason they
+couldn't also be here and be deliberating. I think we should
+be respectful of the jury's time. And dismissing them for yet
+another extremely lengthy break, I think, runs contrary to the
+efficient way the Court has run this trial. And if this case
+can be resolved --
+THE COURT: Well, thank you. That's not what they
+usually call it.
+MS. MOE: And I think, you know, the best way to be
+respectful of the jurors' time is to let them have the case.
+THE COURT: Okay. It's premature. We'll see where we
+are. My thinking was -- I think we'll see where we are.
+I suppose my point was since we're doing the charging
+conference on the 18th, I do want counsel to be prepared to
+turn to closings the day following the completion of the
+evidence. We'll see where that is and the like. But I don't
+want to keep starting and stopping. So we'll use our time, but
+I'm mindful of your concern, Ms. Sternheim, and we'll see where
+we are.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I would just like to add that we
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 263 of 267
+2291
+anticipate that our case will run into the Monday. The
+government has already noticed a rebuttal case.
+That means
+that the closings would not be until Tuesday, and the charge
+may very well not be until Wednesday. Then we go into two days
+off. To put the jury in a posture where they have basically
+four hours to deliberate before the holiday season begins is
+very dangerous and that's why I'm asking the Court to consider
+that.
+THE COURT: I do understand the concern. And we'll
+see where we are.
+My admonishment is to -- what I don't want to hear is
+if the evidence closes on Monday, that you don't want to do
+your closings until the 27th. That's definitely not going to
+happen.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I am not saying that, Judge. I think
+we all understand what the concerns are. And we will be very
+judicious in our attempt to complete this timely. But that
+being said, there is still logistical things that, in our
+estimation, will push this beyond Tuesday, and then we have the
+situation of the holiday. But we've raised it with the Court.
+I think the parties are mindful and we're not doing anything to
+delay. We just are concerned about this jury having ample
+time, without any external pressures, to deliberate.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+Just to provide the Court with some additional
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 264 of 267
+2292
+information about the rebuttal case, we have noticed -- we have
+noticed a potential rebuttal expert. Whether or not we end up
+calling the expert we can't determine without seeing the
+defense case first. But that's the full scope of what we've
+noticed at this juncture. And I'm not sure whether or not we
+would call that expert. It would depend entirely on the
+defense case.
+So that's the scope of what we're discussing.
+Again, with respect to timing, we'll take it as it
+comes. And I think the Court has noted that this issue is
+premature, but we just wanted to assure the Court the
+government will be prepared to close the day after the
+conclusion of the defense case and would very much like to move
+forward.
+With respect to closings, we did want to just preview
+that -- and we plan to work with the defense on this issue.
+But we wanted to start thinking ahead the mechanics of how
+closings would work, given the fact that there are sealed
+exhibits and some public exhibits.
+And so we've started thinking through that, but wanted
+to just flag that that's a mechanical issue that we'll want to
+work through with the defense so that everyone has an
+opportunity to present what they need to without any hiccups,
+and also so that the jury can see exhibits without them being
+shown publicly. And so we'll work with the defense on that
+choreography to make sure that that runs smoothly. And we'll
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 265 of 267
+2293
+raise with the Court when we return from the break, I think,
+any issues that we need to flag about those mechanics so that
+it goes smoothly, if that's all right, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Yes, of course.
+And to the extent the AV folks can be helpful if
+there's something you want to propose, I'm sure that they'll
+make themselves available for that.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Anything else?
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Anything else?
+MR. EVERDELL: Nothing from the defense, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+So I will see everyone Thursday at 8:45 a.m.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+(Adjourned to December 16, 2021 at 8:45 a.m.)
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759
+
+2294
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+INDEX OF EXAMINATION
+Examination of:
+WILLIAM
+Direct By Mr. Rohrbach . .
+Page
+...*
+•2042
+Pomerantz.
+Cross By Ms. Menninger . .
+Redirect By Ms. Pomerantz
+.2049
+. 2102
+..........2213
+• Pomerantz
+.. . .........2231
+Cross By Ms. Sternheim . .
+Redirect By Ms. Pomerantz
+JANICE SWAIN
+.2242
+..... .2245
+Direct By Ms. Pomerantz . . . . . . . . ..
+.2247
+Cross By Ms. Menninger . . . . . . . . . ..
+.2259
+
+
+
+2295
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS
+
+52A, 52D, 52E, 52F, 52G, and 52H
+601
+603
+604
+102
+103
+•
+-..•
+Received
+• 2040
+.2063
+.2064
+.2066
+• 2070
+• 2091
+... •
+DEFENDANT EXHIBITS
+
+AF1
+•
+AF9
+AF-12
+AF-14
+... ..
+-...
+- ....
+Received
+.2124
+.2168
+.2190
+• 2208
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a68ad9f8894e12989273ec923cf743d5fee5636585226e6ffb1a7a956f3c6be.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a68ad9f8894e12989273ec923cf743d5fee5636585226e6ffb1a7a956f3c6be.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..701d6a6798b01ae06f663f40d679f26a16f58242
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a68ad9f8894e12989273ec923cf743d5fee5636585226e6ffb1a7a956f3c6be.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -30060,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a68ad9f8894e12989273ec923cf743d5fee5636585226e6ffb1a7a956f3c6be",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 291,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "3f36b6e5e1753ce1d25178b55ee86b61047422370cda69207733b4484706f1ef",
+  "output_sha256": "0b904a53cf6ecb8a2cdddc40b47e474b646e4be8df4ded720add632b189ea8c1",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a979144c05b2895623af1a83129375f95c4e27ae559b76fd302ca9c83accf71.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a979144c05b2895623af1a83129375f95c4e27ae559b76fd302ca9c83accf71.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5f8685c525405ba8ac7af9a634888a69777e1c17
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a979144c05b2895623af1a83129375f95c4e27ae559b76fd302ca9c83accf71.md
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 132-4 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 132-4 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 3
+AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+Civil Action No.
+1:22-CV-10904-JSR
+PROOF OF SERVICE
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
+This summons for Larry Page
+was recieved by me on 4/12/2023:
+I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or
+I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name), a person of suitable age and
+discretion who resides there, on, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
+•
+•
+I served the summons on (name of individual), who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name
+of organization); or
+I returned the summons unexecuted because Unknown after attempting service at 100 Waverley Oaks, Palo Alto, CA
+94301; or
+Other (specify)
+My fees are $ 0 for travel and $ 140.00 for services, for a total of $ 140.00.
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+Date: 04/13/2023
+Don Horns
+Douglas Henry
+Printed name and title
+255 Davenport Way
+Palo Alto, CA 94306
+Server's address
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+4/13/2023 7:54 AM: I spoke with an individual who indicated they were the resident and they stated subject unknown.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 132-4 Filed 05/04/23 Page 3 of 3
+AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
+Civil Action No.
+1:22-CV-10904-JSR
+PROOF OF SERVICE
+(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (I))
+This summons for Larry Page
+was recieved by me on 4/14/2023:
+I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) ; or
+I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name), a person of suitable age and
+discretion who resides there, on, and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or
+•
+•
+I served the summons on (name of individual), who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name
+of organization); or
+I returned the summons unexecuted because Unknown after attempting service at 2475 Hanover Street Suite 100,
+Palo Alto, CA 94304; or
+Other (specify)
+My fees are $ 0 for travel and $ 140.00 for services, for a total of $ 140.00.
+I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
+Date: 04/15/2023
+Aiki Alia
+Server's signature
+Alekseev
+Printed name and title
+4331 Renaissance Dr #119
+San Jose, CA 95134
+Server's address
+Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
+then said that the subject does not reside/work here.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a979144c05b2895623af1a83129375f95c4e27ae559b76fd302ca9c83accf71.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a979144c05b2895623af1a83129375f95c4e27ae559b76fd302ca9c83accf71.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..faf684f593424dabfa0c9b8cbc60857238fbaddc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0a979144c05b2895623af1a83129375f95c4e27ae559b76fd302ca9c83accf71.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -45,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0a979144c05b2895623af1a83129375f95c4e27ae559b76fd302ca9c83accf71",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ba2186ad67bae9c42b38f0b8cb9aca015070c341a622645dea7d0877ea777ae4",
+  "output_sha256": "93ab14775ab23df40538f24a5c1f228477304809b5d4b67e5a57bfe2c51cdc14",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0aa39283c6ab9b6eaa6f8a3d7248b94e2e4ed807964a966963fe42c00173a512.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0aa39283c6ab9b6eaa6f8a3d7248b94e2e4ed807964a966963fe42c00173a512.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d8f96219c170bac68a2854ec0ed6f93022851c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0aa39283c6ab9b6eaa6f8a3d7248b94e2e4ed807964a966963fe42c00173a512.md
@@ -0,0 +1,357 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 283-10 Filed 08/14/23 Page 1 of 7
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 283-10 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 7
+VINCENT FRAZER
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+CASE NUMBER:
+22-CV-10904-JSR
+ACTION FOR DAMAGES
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+July 13, 2023
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+JP
+CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+VIDEO RECORDED DEPOSITION OF
+VINCENT FRAZER
+THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2023
+REPORTED BY:
+DENISE D. HARPER-FORDE
+Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR)
+Certified RealTime Reporter
+Certified LiveNote Reporter (CLR)
+Registered Professional Reporter (RPR)
+Notary
+Public (FLORIDA)
+& ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 283-10 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 7
+VINCENT FRAZER
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+is our counterproposal."
+Do you see that?
+A. Yes.
+e. Was it important from your
+perspective to try to reach some kind
+of agreement on a proposal with
+counsel for Mr. Epstein?
+July 13, 2023
+161
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN:
+Objection
+to form.
+THE WITNESS: It was no less
+important as how -- consideration we
+would give to any citizen that has an
+interest in pending legislation that
+we may be willing to hear from them.
+(BY ATTORNEY NEIMAN) :
+l. Uh-huh. So it's normal in
+your practice when you're considering
+criminal justice regulation to make
+sure it's agreeable to the prospective
+offenders that the legislation --
+A. We have had --
+l. - will regulate - to the
+prospective offenders that the
+legislation will regulate?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN:
+Objection
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 283-10 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 7
+VINCENT FRAZER
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+to form.
+July 13, 2023
+162
+THE WITNESS:
+We have had --
+I've had -- my experience, several
+times, in maybe legislation that is
+pending that we receive commends and
+concerns from defense counsel, whether
+it be private counsel or the Public
+Defender's Office, and we give some
+consideration to what they may be
+requesting.
+It doesn't mean we would agree
+them and put what they want in it.
+But if we feel that it does not
+obstruct the objective and efficacy of
+the legislation, we would engage in
+that discussion.
+(BY ATTORNEY NEIMAN) :
+e. So you're saying it would be
+typical for you to share back and
+forth drafts and see if you can reach
+agreement with the offenders on
+whether they like the legislation
+you're proposing?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection
+to form.
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 283-10 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 7
+VINCENT FRAZER
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+THE WITNESS: That's not what
+July 13, 2023
+163
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+I said.
+(BY ATTORNEY NEIMAN) :
+l. Okay. Would you agree that
+that's what happened here?
+A. No.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN:
+Objection
+to form.
+(BY ATTORNEY NEIMAN) :
+Q. There wasn't a back and forth
+with counsel for the offender?
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Objection
+to form.
+(BY ATTORNEY NEIMAN) :
+e. You can answer.
+A. I had discussions back and
+forth with legal counsel.
+l. For the offender?
+A. Maria -- Maria Hodge represent
+a whole lot of different people. When
+I speak to Maria -- when I speak to
+Maria Hodge in -- in this exchange on
+this, I am extending a courtesy to a
+member of the Virgin Islands bar in
+trying to craft a legislation that
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 283-10 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 7
+VINCENT FRAZER
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+affects the -- the whole Virgin
+Islands, everyone in the Virgin
+Islands.
+July 13, 2023
+164
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+So that's who I'm negotiating
+with. I'm not negotiating with
+Epstein. I don't have anything with
+Epstein. I wasn't -- I had the
+exchange and proposals with Attorney
+Hodge --
+e. All right.
+A. - who at the same time had, I
+think from - from what you show from
+Exhibit 12 -- well, I'm sorry, one of
+the exhibits, was having - was
+making - submitting her proposal to
+the legislature as well. So the
+passage of the law, I mean, it comes
+from many different sources.
+e. Yeah. Did you think Ms. Hodge
+was working for anybody other than
+Mr. Epstein?
+A. I had an exchange with
+Attorney Maria Hodge as a respected
+member of the Virgin Islands bar. And
+regardless of who she's working for, I
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 283-10 Filed 08/14/23 Page 7 of 7
+VINCENT FRAZER
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+will give her the same respect.
+O. That's not what I asked you,
+July 13, 2023
+165
+sir.
+A. Well, that's what I'm telling
+you, that's how it is.
+l. Did you --
+A. That's what -- but regardless
+of who -- if Maria Hodge represents
+someone who is a murderer --
+e. Uh-huh.
+A. - and there is a legislation
+that is - that is going through that
+she has an interest that may have an
+impact with her client, I will engage
+in a discussion with her with regard
+to the law, a proposed law, as a
+courtesy and respect to her as a
+respected member of the bar.
+l. So I'm going to resist the
+urge here. I'll ask you a different
+question. Let me just make sure I
+understand who you thought Ms. Hodge
+represented in the time that you were
+having this dialogue. Am I correct
+that you understood that Ms. Hodge
+→ ESQUIRE
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0aa39283c6ab9b6eaa6f8a3d7248b94e2e4ed807964a966963fe42c00173a512.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0aa39283c6ab9b6eaa6f8a3d7248b94e2e4ed807964a966963fe42c00173a512.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0f3657b098403c1af53210a6b6255feb56eb3c26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0aa39283c6ab9b6eaa6f8a3d7248b94e2e4ed807964a966963fe42c00173a512.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -468,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0aa39283c6ab9b6eaa6f8a3d7248b94e2e4ed807964a966963fe42c00173a512",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "660a52526e394ba688f01dee82c04c58f95571d7f30d538d5d68627bafedb34d",
+  "output_sha256": "e5cc60cc00df5c1b7500189a94f25bcb40c288a5fcfea67862100a8630f3931a",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ab9e0cbdb27f6be8783b93b651858e5ece0272cc2a5034484e5ae2405abed27.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ab9e0cbdb27f6be8783b93b651858e5ece0272cc2a5034484e5ae2405abed27.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8245987493b7078e341b1bbeec011d5285dcfd73
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ab9e0cbdb27f6be8783b93b651858e5ece0272cc2a5034484e5ae2405abed27.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-110 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-110 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 3
+Date:
+Subject: Re:
+From:
+To:
+Monday, February 6 2017 11:29 PM
+EXHIBIT l0 4,
+DATE: L2 - /1-
+C. Campbell, RDR CAR CSR #13921
+jeffrey E. Sjeevacation@gmail.com>;
+He thinks she is great and is a big fan of hers. Good recommendation for rothschild.
+On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:40 PM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com > wrote:
+thx
+On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:31 PM
+wrote:
+Will do. I will speak with him today and get back to you.
+On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:18 PM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com > wrote:
+can you ask
+rothschild
+his opnion of véronique Weill she wants to join
+plcase note
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+JEE
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
+please note
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+JEE
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+
+Estate 004303
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-110 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 3
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
+
+Estate_004304
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ab9e0cbdb27f6be8783b93b651858e5ece0272cc2a5034484e5ae2405abed27.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ab9e0cbdb27f6be8783b93b651858e5ece0272cc2a5034484e5ae2405abed27.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8f6ccc4b5c6f9d08470de5963ea688830cbd50a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ab9e0cbdb27f6be8783b93b651858e5ece0272cc2a5034484e5ae2405abed27.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -71,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ab9e0cbdb27f6be8783b93b651858e5ece0272cc2a5034484e5ae2405abed27",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "d6b8c8985824b5005beec6e005dcea93ef496ebc8195b1545a31dd28a75af4e7",
+  "output_sha256": "361a4c8b30a40b9ffb5a77784526227c1772d53caf800d16eda1653c6b162bd6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ac5e9e5d4840a8bd05c615dd9ac9faee4d20df84bb4ce1e2d483785fba493b6.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ac5e9e5d4840a8bd05c615dd9ac9faee4d20df84bb4ce1e2d483785fba493b6.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ed9d178907d9ef969b4c307421c51466935379f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ac5e9e5d4840a8bd05c615dd9ac9faee4d20df84bb4ce1e2d483785fba493b6.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 33-3 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+PLAINTIFF,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904 JSR
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION
+PRO HAC VICE
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+DEFENDANT.
+The motion of Sara D. Aguiñiga for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the abovecaptioned action is granted.
+Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bar of the District of
+Columbia; and that her contact information is as follows:
+Name:
+Firm Name:
+Sara D. Aguiñiga
+Motley Rice LLC
+401 9th Street NW, Suite 630
+City/State/Zip: Washington, D.C. 20004
+Telephone/Fax: (202) 386-9628 phone / (202) 386-9622 fax
+Email:
+saguiniga@motleyrice.com
+Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for
+Plaintiff, Government of the United States Virgin Islands, in the above-entitled action;
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the
+above-captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
+All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including
+the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.
+New York, NY
+January
+_, 2023
+JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ac5e9e5d4840a8bd05c615dd9ac9faee4d20df84bb4ce1e2d483785fba493b6.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ac5e9e5d4840a8bd05c615dd9ac9faee4d20df84bb4ce1e2d483785fba493b6.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c1a71d99128d66530b1b3cc98cde1e12a0145ed1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ac5e9e5d4840a8bd05c615dd9ac9faee4d20df84bb4ce1e2d483785fba493b6.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ac5e9e5d4840a8bd05c615dd9ac9faee4d20df84bb4ce1e2d483785fba493b6",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3ae845d3da2d9fcf3272973bbdac30f6c1b58c9e0c51d396903242270d922477",
+  "output_sha256": "3bedc60188de0bb256249dcf66e35d969fb8b593873e20dd03984918b281db53",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b421bc520a8be9ef0cef103fa8f23c580661b37f73d479566e2936264a3f667.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b421bc520a8be9ef0cef103fa8f23c580661b37f73d479566e2936264a3f667.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..58fc90d3038ff9492fa7fd6cb2695aac307cb57e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b421bc520a8be9ef0cef103fa8f23c580661b37f73d479566e2936264a3f667.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 265-57 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b421bc520a8be9ef0cef103fa8f23c580661b37f73d479566e2936264a3f667.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b421bc520a8be9ef0cef103fa8f23c580661b37f73d479566e2936264a3f667.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa625c54008cfa4605b6643d67995d95592f3b43
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b421bc520a8be9ef0cef103fa8f23c580661b37f73d479566e2936264a3f667.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0b421bc520a8be9ef0cef103fa8f23c580661b37f73d479566e2936264a3f667",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "27e054500b8e24dfa813104cf12615296ed6cd9d5d1e8f59f2b1dd272935350a",
+  "output_sha256": "ed9e27261094aa7e20c1c70ca7e5a013209b689dc489d095652503937df2972c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b46925bb3361520956da6d88e746d04322a8c31a75a54249c098199dab34216.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b46925bb3361520956da6d88e746d04322a8c31a75a54249c098199dab34216.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3deda6b79e91adf632a153e8b0171549c6cc758c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b46925bb3361520956da6d88e746d04322a8c31a75a54249c098199dab34216.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 790 Filed 07/22/25 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+1:20-CR-00330-PAE
+VS.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
+The motion of David Oscar Markus, for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in
+the above captioned action is granted.
+Applicant has declared that he is a member in good standing of the bar of the
+state of Florida; and that his contact information is as follows:
+David Oscar Markus
+MARKUSI
+PLLC
+40 NW 3RD STREET, PH1
+MIAMI, FL 33128
+Telephone: (305) 379-6667
+Fax: (305) 379-6668
+dmarkus@markuslaw.com
+Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes
+as counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell in the above entitled action;
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice
+in the above captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern
+District of New York. All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the
+Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.
+Dated:
+7/226035
+AUL A. ENGELMAY
+Pam A. Enyelay
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b46925bb3361520956da6d88e746d04322a8c31a75a54249c098199dab34216.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b46925bb3361520956da6d88e746d04322a8c31a75a54249c098199dab34216.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a742ec4ebbd2e461c7d780401778d761bc294f6b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b46925bb3361520956da6d88e746d04322a8c31a75a54249c098199dab34216.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0b46925bb3361520956da6d88e746d04322a8c31a75a54249c098199dab34216",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9d92238b2595ac719f4febc5fa7e50c45258638d417841ad8db1e32ec0e8d79d",
+  "output_sha256": "cd627ec3d76d532ecddfa45f44cfc59c5015157ef5172795577c4eedc86ee718",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b6edfeace48ad812f42a0a5d96b8bf64c60e2f4a3ff7d4f05acf9caa450319a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b6edfeace48ad812f42a0a5d96b8bf64c60e2f4a3ff7d4f05acf9caa450319a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bc38f822c415a5e39bef09b0daced814caff09a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b6edfeace48ad812f42a0a5d96b8bf64c60e2f4a3ff7d4f05acf9caa450319a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 243-31 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 243-31 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 3
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+CC:
+Subject:
+william.shepherd@jpmorgan.com [william.shepherd@jpmorgan.com]
+2/15/2005 6:57:27 PM
+jes.staley@ipmorgan.com: david.hc.brigstocke@jpmorgan.com
+Highbridge consulting arrangement
+Jes/David-
+Per our discussion, here is a strawman propoal for the economics of a consulting arrangement at Highbridge for Jeff
+Epstein:
+- Hired as consultant by Highbridge
+- [5] year term to arrangement
+- Compensation
+- $100K per annum direct fee
+- Access to Highbridge employee pricing (waiver of management fee plus 50% of incentive fee) on investments up to 1%
+of Highbridge's total AUM
+- JPMorgan to agree that $100K cost of consulting fee plus waiver of management fee on money currently invested by Jeff
+at Highbridge as extraordinary items for purposes of the second and third purchase calculations. Waiver of management
+fee on money not currently invested at Highbridge would not be an extraordinary item
+Notes:
+- At $7 billion in AUM, discount on $70MM equals approximately $2.1 million per annum (2% management fee plus 1%
+incentive fee) at assumed after management fee return of 8% per annum
+- Assuming no growth in Highbridge's AUM, would have a present value of approximately $8.0 million at a 10% discount
+- Value of discounted fees will grow proportionately with AUM, which roughly approximates growth in value of Highbridge
+Comments from discussion with Ron Resnick:
+- Confirmed structure of employee pricing per above
+- Highbridge has MFN clauses. Employee rate could be charged to Jeff as a consultant, but only on his own money (not
+his clients)
+personal 0-300MM is mostly with DB Zwirn, NOT Highbridge. Ron also believes this is mostly his clients money, not
+- Jeff currently has approximately $35 million with Highbridge directly. Ron was not sure whether this was his own money
+or client money
+
+
+WIT: Stales
+6/10/23
+ADR CRR CSR #13921
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00448590
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 243-31 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 3
+Let me know if you need anything further on this.
+Thanks,
+Bill
+William J. Shepherd
+Vice President
+Strategy and Development
+JPMorgan Asset and Wealth Management
+522 Fifth Avenue
+New York, NY 10036
+Tel: (212) 837-1586
+Fax: 12121837-5041
+william.shepherd@jpmorgan.com
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00448591
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b6edfeace48ad812f42a0a5d96b8bf64c60e2f4a3ff7d4f05acf9caa450319a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b6edfeace48ad812f42a0a5d96b8bf64c60e2f4a3ff7d4f05acf9caa450319a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..47af6a700618daa1c87a3955e6458e489ff809e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b6edfeace48ad812f42a0a5d96b8bf64c60e2f4a3ff7d4f05acf9caa450319a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -78,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0b6edfeace48ad812f42a0a5d96b8bf64c60e2f4a3ff7d4f05acf9caa450319a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8a5ccbc263bb7f68658b605b640162917e2ee0f87c6e03e6e901803c23dba94e",
+  "output_sha256": "330cff49f64be7c85891ba602251e45b0b1bfddbf7bfd29179c44e54042a8fbf",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b7e1d55cb92cd28c797232caf56094c2839d068caff9d4f9a4f2ab4c357cb8d.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b7e1d55cb92cd28c797232caf56094c2839d068caff9d4f9a4f2ab4c357cb8d.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61e292a0a61fb824aa6427bdc6400704b4d56b98
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b7e1d55cb92cd28c797232caf56094c2839d068caff9d4f9a4f2ab4c357cb8d.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 311-22 Filed 08/25/23
+
+
+Filed Under Seal
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b7e1d55cb92cd28c797232caf56094c2839d068caff9d4f9a4f2ab4c357cb8d.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b7e1d55cb92cd28c797232caf56094c2839d068caff9d4f9a4f2ab4c357cb8d.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3052a6210b523caca44b56870ec0ae02b6258dc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0b7e1d55cb92cd28c797232caf56094c2839d068caff9d4f9a4f2ab4c357cb8d.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0b7e1d55cb92cd28c797232caf56094c2839d068caff9d4f9a4f2ab4c357cb8d",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "7cb4ede7ad4f5d5521fca3caec8ace88c3aae56547b29d36c767b10912e2a5a6",
+  "output_sha256": "2ee6ef7c1053733099b222f2078245844bec581aad4fe62760003f8661e9d737",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0badf9a7efe65c7668dcc2377b2e4f3e354a0193d50b0b94ea3d7c8840063c23.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0badf9a7efe65c7668dcc2377b2e4f3e354a0193d50b0b94ea3d7c8840063c23.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1945b7f6c6a04cb1d98c20796bb4f9532ae8d784
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0badf9a7efe65c7668dcc2377b2e4f3e354a0193d50b0b94ea3d7c8840063c23.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 268-70 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-70 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 3
+Message
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+CC:
+Subject:
+Jennifer Nugent I [/O=USVIEDAEXCH/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
+(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=JENNIFER NUGENT
+12/27/2012 1:41:45 PM
+Carol V. Chapman [cchapman@usvieda.org]
+|i Clouden [pclouden@usvieda.org]
+Re: Message for the CEO
+It is tentatively on the EDC Decision meeting agenda for the January 9th session pending receipt of requested
+info from his Legal counsel.
+n has spoken to Atty Kellerhauls and is awaiting info to complete our
+analysis. Thanks.
+Sent on the run from my iPhone. Please excuse my typos. Thanks
+On Dec 27, 2012, at 2:16 PM, "Carol V. Chapman" < cchapman@usvieda.org> wrote:
+Good Day Mrs.
+Hope you had a great Christmas and birthday.
+The CEO called a few moments ago and asked me to give you his best regards. He is currently
+in Curacao visiting his aunts and is having telephone problems unable to get calls out at times.
+He asked me to let you know he had a call from the First Lady and she has asked that Epstein b
+on the Board agenda (public hearing) for the January 9* meeting
+Thank you and have a good day.
+Carol V. Chapman
+Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive Officer
+VI Economic Development Authority
+5055 Norre Gade
+St.
+. VI 00802
+mberg No. 5118
+
+14
+CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+VI-JPM-000041660
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 268-70 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 3
+Telephone (340) 714-1700 ext. 257
+Fax (340) 774-0990
+<image001.jpg>
+fresh aistclear watserlots of sunshine Ideal conditions for growth
+CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+VI-JPM-000041661
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0badf9a7efe65c7668dcc2377b2e4f3e354a0193d50b0b94ea3d7c8840063c23.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0badf9a7efe65c7668dcc2377b2e4f3e354a0193d50b0b94ea3d7c8840063c23.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d263ff399d4ea9e58a85eaf0806d6c7ffbf0347f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0badf9a7efe65c7668dcc2377b2e4f3e354a0193d50b0b94ea3d7c8840063c23.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -54,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0badf9a7efe65c7668dcc2377b2e4f3e354a0193d50b0b94ea3d7c8840063c23",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "72247d02d118962fd7656233d5a14ce03b3e4fb3f7d064a3dd10ce20e983ec31",
+  "output_sha256": "1e8152e1a5380157aadb26423e630c825a4d6aafc0cce11ace8d833b994f6b0e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bb6c00112cdadd2b6000b4cb7d557ca697080d07047e1d505ecef56fd535e13.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bb6c00112cdadd2b6000b4cb7d557ca697080d07047e1d505ecef56fd535e13.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b5f506a78dd5e7ca9e772b5b304e02a5b9b74724
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bb6c00112cdadd2b6000b4cb7d557ca697080d07047e1d505ecef56fd535e13.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13863 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+-x
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+V.
+GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
+
+1141
+20 CR 330 (AJN)
+Defendant.
+-x
+Before:
+HON. ALISON J. NATHAN,
+Jury Trial
+New York, N.Y.
+December 6, 2021
+8:52 a.m.
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+DAMIAN
+United States Attorney for the
+Southern District of New York
+BY: MAURENE COMEY
+ALISON MOE
+LARA POMERANTZ
+ANDREW ROHRBACH
+Assistant United States Attorneys
+HADDON I
+AND
+Attorneys for Defendant
+BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA
+LAURA A. MENNINGER
+-and-
+BOBBI C. STERNHEIM
+-and-
+& GRESSER
+BY:
+CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL
+Also Present: Amanda Young, FBI
+Paul Byrne, NYPD
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1142
+THE COURT: Good morning. I received a letter
+briefing over the weekend regarding the government's request
+for a limiting instruction with respect to the next anticipated
+witness. The witness will testify under the pseudonym Kate.
+As the government has indicated, because Kate was over
+the age of consent in all relevant jurisdictions at the time
+that she alleges sexual conduct with Epstein took place, she's
+not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment. On this
+basis the defense moved pretrial to exclude her testimony as
+irrelevant and prejudicial. I denied that request. I
+concluded based on the government's proffer that she has
+relevant testimony that is direct evidence of the
+Act
+counts and evidence that is otherwise admissible under 404(b) .
+To avoid jury confusion and prejudice, however, I
+concluded that her testimony should be limited in the
+description of details of the sexual conduct that does not form
+a basis of the charged counts and that a limiting instruction
+was required.
+Over the weekend, the government asked for me to
+include in the limiting instruction a statement that I
+instructed the parties not to ask about details of the sexual
+conduct that the witness will testify occurred with
+Mr. Epstein. In part, the government justifies this request
+based on the defense's opening statement that calls into
+question the credibility of witnesses based on their inability
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+to recall details. Defense opposed this request. I have
+considered the letters by both sides which were filed under
+seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 412.
+I accept the government's suggestion to include the
+language in the limiting instruction. The statement is
+accurate. It ensures a balanced limiting instruction, and it
+is fair to both sides.
+It is also appropriate in light of the
+defense's opening.
+One question, counsel, the draft language suggests
+that I direct, quote, the parties to not ask Kate details about
+the sexual conduct she says occurred with Epstein. I think it
+would be more accurate to say that I've directed the government
+not to so ask. I have indicated that if the defense were to do
+so, it would open the door for the government.
+So I'll hear from you as to whether your request is to
+indicate the parties or the government. Mr. Rohrbach.
+MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine, your Honor. The
+government just tried to offer a more neutral instruction, but
+I agree that your -- that that edit is more consistent with the
+Court's ruling.
+THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: I don't think we have an objection if
+it's the government was directed or however --
+THE COURT: Thank you. The instruction, in total,
+would read -- my next question after this is the parties'
+1143
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22
+
+request as to timing of giving the instruction.
+So the instruction is, you'll hear testimony from the
+next witness about interactions that she says she had with the
+defendant and Mr. Epstein. I instruct you that because the
+witness -- I instruct you that because -- sorry. Let me start
+over.
+1144
+You'll hear testimony from the next witness about
+interactions that she said she had with the defendant and
+Mr. Epstein. I instruct you that because the witness was over
+the relevant age of consent at the relevant time period, any
+sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not,
+quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government
+has charged in the indictment. For that reason, I have
+directed the government not to ask this witness the details of
+any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein.
+I instruct you that this witness is not a victim of
+the crimes charged in the indictment. To the extent you
+conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before
+you, you may consider it. However, you may not convict the
+defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual
+conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein, nor may you
+consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on
+Mr. Epstein's or Ms. Maxwell character or propensity to commit
+any of the crimes charged in the indictment.
+Mr. Rohrbach.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1145
+MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: That's fine.
+THE COURT: Timing as to when to give the instruction?
+MR. ROHRBACH: The government's proffer is to give the
+instruction before the witness testifies.
+THE COURT: So straightaway, she's sworn and I give
+the instruction?
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the government's preference
+is it would occur before she takes the stand. It can be after
+the government calls for her testimony, but that way the
+witness herself is not present while the instruction is given.
+THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, defense prefers that the
+witness is on the stand when the instruction is given to the
+jury. We agree that it should be given before she testifies,
+but she should be on the stand so that the jurors can see who
+we're talking about and understands who it pertains to.
+MR. ROHRBACH: The witness will enter the room as soon
+as the instruction is complete, your Honor. I think the jury
+will fully understand that it is in reference to that witness.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the government is trying to
+divorce this instruction as much as they can from this witness.
+It's very evident that that's the purpose of doing it while
+she's not on the stand.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 l
+
+1146
+THE COURT: I think what makes sense is she comes in,
+she's sworn before any questions on direct, I give the
+instruction, and then the direct testimony begins.
+Next issue is the 900 series. The government seeks to
+admit photographs of the interior of Jeffrey Epstein's New York
+apartment taken in 2019. The government claims that the photos
+are probative of how Epstein's apartment appeared when Jane,
+who previously testified, saw it as early as 1994 and therefore
+corroborates her testimony. Trial transcript at 1075 to 76.
+The defense objected to the photos' admission. I sustained the
+objection based on the current record. Trial transcript at
+1077.
+I noted that while, quote, older photographs of
+immoveable objects and structures may be relevant, end quote,
+photos of, quote, very moveable objects, end quote, are not
+relevant unless, quote, there is a witness, end quote, that
+confirms the photos are similar to how the objects appeared
+years earlier. Trial transcript at 1076 to 77.
+With the leave of Court, the government filed a letter
+on December 4th, 2021, requesting admission of at least a
+subset of the photographs.
+The defense filed a response on
+December 5th.
+I must determine the probative value of the photos and
+then determine if that relevance is substantially outweighed by
+unfair prejudice. A photograph of the scene may be relevant
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1147
+even if taken months or years after the time period in question
+if there
+is reason to believe the photo is probative of how the
+scene appeared at the earlier time. See, for example, United
+States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, which is a Seventh Circuit
+decision from 2014.
+Typically, this inquiry turns on whether the photo
+depicts, quote, relatively enduring or fixed structures whose
+locations and arrangement in location to one another would not
+likely have changed, end quote, in the intervening time period.
+I'm quoting here from United States v.
+1, 2020WL5663433,
+which is a District of New Mexico 2020 decision.
+For example, the Seventh Circuit in the Causey case
+affirmed the admission of photographs of houses taken three and
+six years after the conspiracy ended, stating that, despite the
+significant passage of time, the photos were relevant because
+they presented the jury with the layout, size, location, and
+composition of the houses. 748 F.3d at 316.
+Similarly, a Court in this circuit admitted crime
+scene photos of the interior of a restaurant taken nine months
+later where there was no argument that the photographs at issue
+did not fairly and accurately depict the interior of the
+restaurant.
+v. Conway, 2007WL9225072, Western District
+of New York, June 25, 2007.
+The defense argues that admission of the photos is not
+merely a matter of relevance and prejudice under 401 and 403,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1148
+but also of authentication under Rule 901, a proposition for
+which the defense
+cites a Ninth Circuit case from 1977, United
+States v. Sterns, 550 F.2d 1167, which is Ninth Circuit 1977.
+I disagree. Rule 901 requires that the proponent must
+produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item
+is what the proponent claims it is. Here, the government
+claims that the photographs are of Epstein's apartment in 2019,
+a claim that I understand will be provided via testimony and
+that the defense does not dispute. Whether those photos taken
+in 2019 are probative of how the apartment appeared in 1994 is
+a question of relevance under Rule 401 to be balanced with 403,
+not of authentication. See United States v. Certified
+Environmental Services Inc., 753 F.3d 72 at 90, which is a
+Second Circuit decision from 2014 I'll quote here. Quote, with
+respect to temporal relevance, we have held that a suggestion
+that an item of evidence relates to a period that is too remote
+goes to both the item's relevance and its weight. That case
+quotes itself from another Second Circuit case, Fitzgerald v.
+251 F.3d 345 at 365, Second Circuit 2001. Though,
+to be clear, the government, as I said, will still need to
+authenticate that the photos are of Epstein's apartment in
+2019.
+In any event, even if analyzed under Rule 91, as I'11
+discuss below in a moment, Jane's testimony about the
+distinctive characteristics of Epstein's apartment captured in
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1149
+the photos that the Court will admit are a sufficient basis
+under 901(b) (4) which permits authentication based on the
+appearance, contents,
+substance, internal patterns or other
+distinctive characteristics of the item taken together with all
+of the circumstances.
+United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F.Appx
+2144, Second Circuit 2020.
+Based on this case law, the Court will address the
+government's requested photographs specifically.
+First, the government seeks to admit six photos,
+Exhibits 909 through 911, and 913, 915, and 933 that depict
+structural features of Epstein's apartment. These photos
+corroborate Jane's testimony that the apartment was massive and
+contained lots of
+and old
+• Trial transcript 317 to
+18 and 320. These are structural features likely to have
+remained relatively unchanged, even years later. Indeed, the
+defense expressly does not object to these photos. I admit
+these six photos.
+Second, I will admit the photos of Epstein's massage
+room, photos 902 through 904, 917 and 928, but only if the
+pictures on the wall are redacted. The exhibits could
+corroborate several aspects of Jane's testimony, including that
+the room was the size of a giant walk-in closet, but space for
+a giant massage table in the middle of it. Trial transcript at
+320.
+She also described it as very dark and with a red mood
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 10 of 261
+LC6Cmaxl
+1150
+and testified that there was a built-in bookcase on the
+right-hand side.
+These
+are structural features of the massage
+room, not moveable objects that are unlikely to have changed
+during the interveining period. See United States v. Diecidue,
+603 F.2d 535 at 560, Fifth Circuit 1997, which stated that,
+quote, the floors and walls of the house are relatively
+permanent fixtures, fixtures that would not likely be subject
+to removal.
+The massage table in the photo demonstrates the room's
+size, layout, and purpose as Jane testified to them, not to
+prove that it's the same massage table that Jane saw. But the
+pictures on the wall must be redacted from these photos.
+First, the pictures on the wall are not structural or
+unmoveable, they don't go to the room's size, layout, or
+purpose. Unless a witness testified that the pictures in the
+2019 photos are the same as those in the room years earlier,
+the photos are not probative as to the presence of those
+pictures. Indeed, the government admits that it would not
+argue the particular pictures in the photos were presented
+while Jane testified she was abused.
+Second, the government indicates that Jane agrees that
+Jane did not testify to any art in the massage room. Rather,
+she testified that she did not look at the walls in the room.
+The presence of the pictures, therefore, cannot corroborate
+Jane's testimony and the pictures on the wall risk prejudice
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1151
+because they're likely to distract or confuse jurors.
+With those photos redacted from the photos, I do
+conclude the probative value of the photos of the massage room
+is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. As
+indicated, the photos corroborate Jane's description of the
+massage room and would assist the jury in understanding the,
+quote, layout, size, location, and composition, end quote, of
+the space.
+Causey 748 F.3d at 316.
+I see little risk of prejudice. The exhibits show
+features of the massage room to which Jane has testified and
+the jury has heard because the jury will know the length of
+time that's passed between Jane's experience as she testified
+to and the photos. It can determine the photos' probative
+weight. See Certified Environmental Services, 753 F.3d at 90.
+The third set of photos that the government seeks to
+admit, photos 918 and 921, depict several back massagers and a
+bathroom drawer. The government argues that these photos
+corroborate Jane's testimony that Epstein used vibrators and
+back massagers of different sizes in abusing her. The Court
+will exclude these photos.
+First, these items are highly moveable, such that a
+photo taken decades later is not probative of the items that
+Epstein owned at the time that Jane testified she was abused.
+Second, the government has not presented any testimony
+that the massagers in the photos match or are similar to the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1152
+massagers to which Jane testified. In short, these photos have
+little, if any, relevance and they're likely prejudicial
+because they are likely to confuse the jury.
+The four sets of photos that the government seeks to
+admit, photos 936 and 938, depict a room with a stuffed tiger
+and a stuffed dog. The government argues that these photos
+corroborate Jane's testimony that Epstein's apartment
+contained, quote, creepy-looking animals and animal heads and
+strange things. Trial transcript at 305 to 318.
+I will exclude these photos, first, both the dog and
+tiger are moveable items such that the photos taken in 2019
+are, without additional testimony, not probative of what Jane
+would have seen years earlier. Second, though Jane described
+artwork of animals, she did not describe a stuffed dog or
+tiger. The photos therefore have little corroborative value,
+even if, as the government argues, the dog and tiger are highly
+idiosyncratic. And the photos are unfairly prejudicial because
+they're likely to confuse the jury by suggesting that these
+same items were in Epstein's apartment at the time that Jane
+was there. Further, the idiosyncratic nature of the items is
+likely to distract the jury, it could delay trial as the
+connection to Jane's testimony is tenuous at best.
+I'll note that, as I've said, the schoolgirl outfits
+found in the New York apartment in 2019 that the government
+intends to introduce, as I said on Friday, I anticipate these
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1153
+would be admissible if the witness connects these outfits to
+the applicable timeframe by testifying that they're similar to
+the outfits she was allegedly instructed to wear.
+Last, the government references photos taken in
+Epstein's apartment that depict photos of celebrities. I think
+the government here represents that it doesn't intend to admit
+these photos but will elicit the testimony of law enforcement
+officers that they saw celebrity pictures. Government's brief
+at 12. Defense notes it would oppose admission of the photos.
+I'll reserve judgment until I have a better sense of what the
+government is seeking to do with those photos.
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, can I ask a clarification
+question on the last point. I expect the government will ask
+that witness about the decor of Epstein's house and that the
+witness will say something like there were many photos of
+celebrities and nude photos of women, but the government would
+not offer any exhibits that demonstrate that fact. So the
+government just wants to make sure that that question would be
+a proper question. I understand the Court is reserving until
+it hears the answer.
+THE COURT: I'm reserving on the admission of the
+exhibits, which it sounds like you're not moving?
+MR. ROHRBACH: We're not planning.
+THE COURT: I don't see anything wrong with that
+question.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 14 of 261
+1154
+MR. ROHRBACH: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I note that, with my thanks to the
+government, the redacted photos of the 200 series were part of
+what the Court received in the supplemental production this
+morning, Ms. Comey.
+MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. I think we would propose
+just to offer those formally at the beginning of the trial day
+when the jury comes in and then it can be released to the
+public.
+THE COURT: Okay. Any objection to this that process,
+Mr. Everdell?
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we got them pretty late, we
+haven't a chance to review the redactions. I'm assuming
+they're fine, we don't have objection to process, we would just
+like a chance to look at them.
+THE COURT: Of course. Let us know when you've had a
+chance and they can be moved in front of the jury.
+I will ask, so going forward, any items that had been
+admitted in redaction form to the extent the witness or the
+jury is looking at the unredacted version, the government
+should show the public the redacted version.
+MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: And going forward, on new exhibits, I
+think it should be, it's what I had imagined, but we're a
+little behind, that as the witness and the jury are looking at
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 15 of 261
+an unredacted version, the government should move at the same
+time the
+redacted version so that, simultaneous to the
+testimony, the public can see the redacted.
+MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: I understand the Court's instructions
+1155
+on that --
+THE COURT: Microphone, please.
+MR. EVERDELL: I understand the Court's instructions
+on that, so we will do our best to try to get those redacted
+versions cued up. It may take some time, we'll try to catch
+up, but we'll do our best.
+I understand the Court's rulings on the 900 series,
+but I just didn't get the full list of the massage room photos
+that you said could be admitted in redacted form.
+THE COURT: 909, 910, 911, 913, 915, 933. That's
+wrong. Those are the one you consented to. 902, 903, 904,
+917, 928 with redactions.
+MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor. I do have one
+other matter to take up, if that's appropriate.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR. EVERDELL: As you may recall, your Honor, the last
+witness on Friday was Sergeant Michael Dawson. The government
+and the defense have agreed to a testimonial stipulation, which
+we will execute I think shortly -- right now. We would like if
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 16 of 261
+LC6Cmaxl
+115
+the defense could read that stipulation before the calling of
+the next witness.
+MR. ROHRBACH: No objection.
+THE COURT: And just by background, I imagine you had
+just one or two questions left and the government said rather
+than having him come back, would you stipulate to testimony,
+you agreed, and that's the stipulation?
+MR. EVERDELL: Actually, we offered, Judge, because we
+didn't want him to have to travel back from Florida, but yes,
+that's how it worked.
+THE COURT: I appreciate both sides doing that. As
+you see, when I tell the jury we'll end at 5:00, we end at
+5:00, but sometimes that produces issues. Obviously let me
+know if we're one or two questions away, but I appreciate the
+parties working together to aid that.
+So the suggestion is the jury comes out, I tell them
+that -- what would you like me to tell them, Mr. Everdell?
+MR. EVERDELL: The government can weigh in, but I
+would simply tell them that the parties have reached a
+stipulation about some additional testimony that the last
+witness you heard from, Sergeant Michael Dawson, would have
+given on the stand. For matters of convenience, we didn't want
+to call him back. So the parties have agreed to read in a
+stipulation about his additional testimony.
+THE COURT: And then the defense could read the stip?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 17 of 261
+1157
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
+MS. COMEY: That's fine, your Honor. And we thank the
+defense for their courtesy to Sergeant Dawson.
+THE COURT: All right. That all sounds good. What
+else can I take up?
+MR. ROHRBACH: There is one matter from the
+government, your Honor. Over the weekend, the parties had a
+productive conversation about topics of cross examination for
+Kate, the next witness. There is one matter the government
+wanted to raise with the Court, which is that we expect from
+our conversations with the defense that the defense is likely
+to elicit from this witness -- your Honor, may we do this at
+sidebar?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+(At the sidebar) |
+MR. ROHRBACH: So the government understands that the
+defense is likely to elicit from this witness the name of her
+counsel and possibly do a courtroom identification of the
+witness's counsel. The government objects on the grounds that
+there is no relevance to either of those --
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, my feeling is when a witness
+elects to have her counsel in the courtroom for support or for
+whatever other reason, it is fair game to ask if her counsel is
+here. That's a choice that the government has elected to make,
+it is a choice that some attorneys elect. I can say in my 35
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 261
+1158
+years in practice, I have never been in the courtroom when my
+client testifies for this very reason.
+MR. ROHRBACH: The government wouldn't object to the
+question, is your attorney in the courtroom today. It's the
+additional, what is the name of your attorney, can you point
+out your attorney to the jury, those questions the government
+thinks has no relevance.
+THE COURT: I agree. Are you represented, is your
+attorney here, I've certainly seen witnesses testify with their
+attorney in the room. So beyond that, what's the relevance of
+the attorney --
+MS. STERNHEIM: The relevance is that this is an
+attorney who sat through the proffer sessions with her, this is
+the attorney who was instrumental in starting the Epstein Fund,
+this is an attorney who has written about her while this case
+is pending in his own book. There is a tremendous amount of
+handling that is going on and I think the jury is entitled to
+know that.
+THE COURT: How is that information going to --
+MS. STERNHEIM: I'm going to ask her questions about,
+the book is public, she's in the book. I think that she has
+agreed to have her story put in a book, not in her own name,
+and I'm not going to make reference to her name, but I think
+all of these things are fair game. There are many other topics
+that I will be raising prior to my cross examination. This is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LC6Cmaxl
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 19 of 261
+1159
+one that the government chose to flag at this time.
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, all of those -- those may
+or may not be lines of cross depending on exactly how the
+question is phrased, but the government is not objecting to
+them in advance now. The government's objection is to the
+specific identification of the particular counsel, which we
+don't think is relevant.
+And I'd note that I think this counsel's name was used
+in cross examination of other witnesses already, so the
+government is trying to, in part, prevent a suggestion that
+this lawyer is involved in some kind of broader conspiracy for
+which there is no evidence. So that's a level of prejudice.
+THE COURT: You can ask if she's represented, you can
+ask what her counsel's name is, I don't see a relevance, you
+can ask if your attorney is in the courtroom, a spectacle of
+pointing him out.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I don't need to do that, Judge. I'm
+not trying to make a spectacle of this. I'm just trying to
+have the record covered.
+THE COURT: I'll allow that. Counsel, any reason for
+sealing this?
+MS. STERNHEIM: I don't think so.
+MR. ROHRBACH: I don't think that's necessary. We
+didn't use any names.
+THE COURT: Okay. Not sealed.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1160
+(In open court)
+THE COURT: Anything else to take up?
+MR. EVERDELL: Nothing from the defense, your Honor.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, one last issue with respect to
+three exhibits. We had a chance to review the transcript from
+last week from the cross examination of Jane, we noticed that
+there were three defense exhibits that were offered which were
+not offered under seal but which contained identifying
+information for Jane, so we wanted to address that. We
+conferred with defense about that.
+Taking those exhibits in order, the first is
+Defendant's Exhibit J15. So this exhibit contains some
+redactions, but there is additional identifying information as
+to Jane. I flagged that for defense counsel. What we would
+propose is that we work together to mark a further redacted
+version which would become J15R, and that J15 itself would
+remain as it is and under seal as it is offered during her
+testimony. So we'll work with the defense to propose
+additional redactions, mark that, and make sure that that's in
+the record, but I just wanted to flag that because, as it
+stands, the underlying exhibit is not yet received under seal
+and because that contains identifying information, we'd ask
+that that exhibit be sealed at this juncture.
+MS. MENNINGER: I don't believe that J15 does have
+other additional identifying information, but I'm happy to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 261
+1161
+speak with Ms. Moe and we can try to come to an agreement about
+any further redactions. It was a civil case that was filed
+under a pseudonym, and I don't know if we'll be able to reach
+agreement, but we'll certainly try as far as a further -- I
+don't have an objection to having a conversation about
+potential further redaction.
+THE COURT: Okay. So J15 is sealed pending
+conversation that you'll discuss about redactions and just
+would like to button that up by the end of the day.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. We'll do that.
+THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.
+MS. MOE: There are two additional exhibits, those are
+Defendant's Exhibit J8 and J9. Those are both state court
+documents. There are some redactions on them in their current
+form, but because the unredacted versions are public, anyone in
+possession of these redacted versions would be able to compare
+them against court records that have the full information which
+would be identifying as to Jane. For that reason, our view is
+that these documents should be under seal in their current
+form. If the defense wants to unredact more from the sealed
+versions, the jury has a complete unredacted version, we
+certainly would have no objection to that. But because these
+are court documents that can be compared up against public
+records that would easily identify Jane if a redacted version
+were released to the public, and for that reason, these
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 261
+1162
+exhibits should be under seal.
+THE COURT: I thought I did admit that under seal, but
+maybe I misremembered.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we ended up admitting the
+one complete document. It is now marked J8 and 9 because it's
+the one that contains the seal. I think to narrowly tailor
+redactions so that it can't be matched up, it may include the
+case number, for example, certainly the plaintiffs' names, but
+otherwise I think there is a way to redact this so that the
+public has access to the bulk of the exhibit, but just not the
+personally identifying information.
+Again, I'm happy to speak with Ms. Moe about what she
+believes are the things that would lead to be a personally
+identifying piece of information, but portions of it, including
+the defendants' names and other pieces were testified about
+publicly on the record, not under seal.
+So, I think to keep the entire exhibit under seal does
+not comport with Lugash and the other precedent that requires
+us to sort of take a pen to the parts that are concerning.
+THE COURI: So let's do this, same process. If I
+didn't already, J8 and J9 are temporarily sealed and you'll
+confer on redactions.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+We'd be happy to confer.
+I do want to flag, because these documents are entirely public
+in full, it is very easy for a member of the public to compare
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 261
+1163
+them against other public records, which are unredacted and
+have Jane's identifiers. So the redactions we would propose
+would be substantial and perhaps beyond recognition in order to
+avoid that problem.
+For example, in a civil case in this district, if you
+were print out from ECF the full docket entry and it were a
+public document that had identifiers for the person who filed
+that civil suit, in order to redact it to make sure someone
+couldn't troll around PACER and find the public version, you
+would have to redact essentially everything, and that's the
+problem here. The same is true for the copy --
+THE COURT: Please just take a 1ook, see if there is
+an agreement that you'll propose to me, taking into account
+also what is already public regarding the document in the trial
+transcript.
+So, one of the lessons, too, is that simply you can't
+just look in isolation. So if information is already public,
+then redacting it -- but you'll look and see if there is some
+appropriate middle ground that would ensure the continued
+privacy of the witness consistent with the law.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you. And we have all of our jurors.
+Everybody ready? Okay. We'll bring them in.
+MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, we need just a minute or
+two to print and sign the stipulation.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 24 of 261
+1164
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Okay.
+We'll take a minute.
+(Pause)
+Counsel, are you ready?
+MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor, we're ready.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+We'll bring in the jury.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 25 of 261
+1165
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: Good morning, members of the jury. Nice
+to see you. I hope you had a good weekend. Thank you again
+for your diligence and punctuality. It's much appreciated.
+You may recall that the last witness testified before we broke
+on Friday was Sergeant Dawson. That testimony was almost
+finished, so as a matter of convenience so as not to call
+Sergeant Dawson back, the parties agreed to stipulate to some
+remaining testimony.
+Mr. Everdell, I'll ask you to please read the
+stipulation that the parties agreed to.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MR. EVERDELL: It is hereby stipulated and agreed by
+and among the United States of America, by Damian
+United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
+and Maureen Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew
+Rohrbach, Assistant United States Attorneys of counsel, and
+defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, by and with the consent of her
+attorneys, Christian Everdell, Laura Menninger, Jeffrey
+Pagliuca, and Bobbi Sternheim that:
+One, Sergeant Michael Dawson, who previously testified
+in this case, would have given the following additional
+testimony on cross examination: The cardboard box shown in
+Government Exhibit 294, which was recovered during the search
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 261
+1166
+of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence on October 20th,
+2005, was found in the closet of one of the guest bedrooms on
+the second floor of the residence. The two items inside the
+cardboard box, which are visible in Government Exhibit 294,
+were still in their original boxes unopened.
+It is further stipulated and agreed that this
+stipulation, marked as Defendant's Irial Exhibit B, may be
+received in evidence at trial. And it's dated today's date
+December 6th, 2021, and signed by the parties.
+THE COURT: And you move for admission.
+MR. EVERDELL: We move for the admission of
+Defendant's Tribal Exhibit
+1. COMEY: No objection.
+THE COURT: Without objection and on stipulation,
+Defendant's Trial Exhibit B is admitted. Thank you, counsel.
+(Defendant's Exhibit B received in evidence)
+Mr. Rohrbach, you may call your next witness
+Ms. Comey.
+MS. COMEY: Your Honor, at this time, the government
+would move certain redacted exhibits into evidence. In
+particular, the government would move Government Exhibit 223R,
+224R, 225R, 234R, 241R, 243R, 244R, 246R, 247R, 248R, 249 R,
+250R, 252R, 253R, 254R, 255R, 281R, 282R, 285R, 286R, and 287R
+in evidence as redacted versions of exhibits that the Court
+already received under seal.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 27 of 261
+1167
+THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. The redacted R series exhibits
+that Ms. Comey just read are admitted as redacted versions of
+previously admitted exhibits. Thank you.
+(Government's Exhibits 223R, 224R, 225R, 234R, 241R,
+243R, 244R, 246R, 247R, 248R, 249 R, 250R, 252R, 253R, 254R,
+255R, 281R, 282R, 285R, 286R, 287R received in evidence)
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Government may call its next witness.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government
+calls Kate.
+THE COURT: The witness testifying under the pseudonym
+Kate may come forward.
+KATE,
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+THE COURT: You may be seated. We'll refer to you as
+Kate. You may remove your mask.
+Members of the jury, before we begin the direct, I
+have a limiting instruction. You will hear testimony from the
+next witness about interactions that she says she had with the
+defendant and Mr. Epstein. I instruct you that because the
+witness was over the relevant age of consent at the relevant
+time period, any sexual conduct she says occurred with
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+Mr. Epstein was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote,
+as the government has charged in the indictment. For that
+reason, I have directed the government not to ask this witness
+about the details of any sexual conduct she says occurred with
+Mr. Epstein.
+I instruct you that this witness is not a victim of
+the crimes charged in the indictment. To the extent you
+conclude her testimony is relevant to the issues before you,
+you may consider it. However, you may not convict the
+defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual
+conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein, nor may you
+consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on
+Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to
+commit any crimes charged in the indictment.
+proceed with your direct
+1168
+examination.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, in
+light of the Court's order regarding sketch artists, I just
+wanted to --
+THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Pomerantz. I remind the
+sketch artists that witnesses who I've permitted to testify
+under a pseudonym shall not have their exact likenesses drawn
+to protect their anonymity. Thank you,
+• POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 29 of 261
+1169
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Good morning. If you could pull up to the microphone so we
+can hear you.
+A. That's fine?
+Q. Yes. Thank you. To be clear, are you testifying under the
+name Kate today?
+l. Is Kate your real name?
+2. Leading up to this trial, did you ask to testify under a
+pseudonym to protect your privacy?
+A. I did.
+l. Kate, can you take a look, there should be a binder next to
+you.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, at this time, I would
+request that the jurors be permitted to take out their binders
+and turn to Government Exhibit 16, which is in evidence under
+seal.
+THE COURT: It is in evidence already. Let me just
+confirm.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Without objection, Ms. Sternheim?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Without objection.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, you may pick up your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 30 of 261
+1170
+binders, please, the large binders, and turn to GX16, which is
+in evidence.
+Q. Kate, you can pull the microphone closer to you. Thank
+you.
+Kate, can you please let me know when you're at
+Government Exhibit 16?
+A. Yes, I am.
+Q. Do you recognize that?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. What is that?
+A. It's my birth certificate.
+Q. Is that the name that you were born with?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, at this time, I would ask
+just the witness, not the jurors, to turn to what has been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 18.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, please don't -- why
+don't you close your binders for the moment. Thank you.
+The witness may turn, please, to GX18.
+Again, members of the jury, please don't go there yet
+until the document has been admitted.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Kate, do you recognize that?
+Q. What is that?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 31 of 261
+1171
+A. It's my driver's license.
+Q. Is that your current legal name?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 18 under seal.
+MS. STERNHEIM: No objection.
+THE COURT: GX18 is admitted under seal consistent
+with my ruling to protect this witness's anonymity.
+(Government's Exhibit 18 received in evidence)
+Ms. Pomerantz, do you wish to publish to the jury?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor, if we can now publish
+to the jury, please.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, you may open your
+binder and 1o0k at GX18, please.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+l. Kate, how far did you go in school?
+THE COURT: I'll ask the members of the jury to put
+their binders away, please.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+l. Kate, how far did you go in school?
+A. I finished some high school.
+I. What kind of work do you do now?
+A. I work with mainly women who suffer with trauma and
+substance use disorder.
+2. What kind of work did you do before that?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 32 of 261
+1172
+A. I was a working musician,
+and songwriter.
+Q. When you were approximately 17 years old, where were you
+living?
+A. I was living in England, London.
+e. What neighborhood in London did you live?
+A. Belgravia.
+e. Who did you live with at the time?
+A. My mother.
+e. What was your life like at home with your mother at that
+time?
+A. Well, my mother was having a difficult time and she had
+been quite ill. So it was a bit stressful and I was alone
+quite a lot.
+l. Did there come a time when you met Ghislaine Maxwell?
+l. How did you meet Maxwell?
+A. I had been dating a man and we took a trip to Paris, and he
+introduced me to Ghislaine Maxwell in Paris.
+l. Approximately how old were you at the time you met Maxwell
+in Paris?
+A. Approximately 17.
+l. And approximately what year were you 17 years old?
+A. God, I can't do the math. So that was '94.
+l. Is that 1994?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 261
+e. And you mentioned that you met her through a friend. About
+how old was the friend?
+A.
+He
+was about 35.
+Q. And what was the nature of your relationship with the
+friend?
+A. We were dating.
+l. Did you speak with Maxwell the night you met her?
+l. What, if anything, did you and Maxwell speak about?
+A. We spoke about -- we spoke about the evening and where we
+were, you know, we were headed to -- out for the evening. And
+we spoke about where I lived, we spoke about the man that I was
+dating. She was asking me things about myself.
+Q. What did Maxwell look like when you met her?
+A. She was very sophisticated and very elegant. And she had
+short -- quite short dark
+hair. She just -- she was very
+impressive.
+Q. About how old did she seem?
+A. In her 30s.
+MS. POMERANIZ: Ms. Drescher, can we please pull up
+what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 115.
+l. Do you recognize the person in this photograph?
+e. Who is it?
+A. It's Ghislaine Maxwell.
+1173
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 34 of 261
+1174
+MS. POMERANTZ: We can take that down, Ms. Drescher.
+Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to ask the witness
+to look at what's been marked for identification as Government
+Exhibit 109 in her binder.
+THE COURT: Okay. The witness may 1o0k at GX109,
+please.
+Q. Kate, are you at Government Exhibit 109?
+l. Do you recognize this?
+Q. What is it?
+A. It's a picture of me.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of your physical
+appearance around the time you met Maxwell?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 109 under seal.
+MS. STERNHEIM: No objection.
+THE COURT: Thank you. GX109 is admitted under seal
+consistent with my ruling regarding pseudonyms.
+(Government's Exhibit 109 received in evidence)
+MS. POMERANTZ: I request the jurors be permitted to
+open their binders and turn to Government Exhibit 109, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Jurors, you may look at your binders
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 35 of 261
+1175
+please and look at GX109.
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+2. About how old were you at the time this photograph was
+taken?
+A. About 17.
+Q. And where was this photograph taken?
+A. It was in the backyard of our home where I lived with my
+mother.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I believe that the jurors
+can put the binder down now.
+THE COURT: Jurors, you may return your binders to the
+floor, please. Thank you.
+l. When you and Maxwell were in Paris, did you and Maxwell
+stay in touch?
+l. How did you stay in touch?
+A. Well, I gave her my phone number on a piece of paper and
+she called me.
+e. Where did you give her your phone number?
+A. In Paris.
+2. When was the next time you saw Maxwell?
+A. A few weeks later.
+l. How did that meeting come about?
+A. She called me and invited me to go to tea at her house.
+l. Did you go to Maxwell's house for tea?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 36 of 261
+1176
+Q. Why did you go to Maxwell's house for tea?
+A. Well, I was quite excited to be friends with her and she
+was friends with the man that I had been dating and she seemed
+very exciting and she
+seemed to be everything that I wanted to
+be. And she seemed
+to -- she seemed to like me, so I was
+excited to go.
+Q. Can you please describe for the jury Maxwell's house.
+A. Yes. Her house was like a townhouse with a l
+front and
+a red door.
+You want me to describe the inside?
+e. Why don't we pause there.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, would you pull up for
+just the witness, the parties, and the Court what has been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 702.
+l. Kate, do you recognize this?
+2. What is it?
+A. It's Ghislaine Maxwell's house.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of the outside of
+Maxwell's house?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government offers
+Government Exhibit 702.
+MS. STERNHEIM: No objection.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 37 of 261|
+1177
+THE COURT: Thank you. GX702 is admitted. You may
+publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 702 received in evidence)
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+l. Kate, in what neighborhood was this townhouse?
+A. In the same neighborhood I lived in, in Belgravia.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Ms. Drescher, we can pull that down.
+Thank you.
+e. What, if any, photographs did you see inside Maxwell's
+house?
+A. There were -- there were lots of photographs and many of
+them were of Ghislaine Maxwell with an older man with slightly
+peppered hair, graying hair. And in lots of the photographs,
+he was looking at the camera and she was looking at him.
+Q. Did there come a time when you learned who the man in the
+photographs was?
+Q. And who was the man in the photographs?
+A. Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. Can you describe the rest of the townhouse for the jury,
+please.
+A. Yes. When I walked in, it was carpeted in pale carpet. It
+was very nicely decorated, the constable and nice beautiful
+chairs. There was a lot of silver-framed pictures that were
+out. And in that visit, I was just in the living room, which
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 38 of 261
+is the first room which I was in, and there was a staircase
+going up.
+Q. So focusing on the first time that you went to Maxwell's
+townhouse, can you describe for the jury what happened when you
+went to her townhouse.
+A. Yes. I had a really lovely time and I felt really special.
+And I felt -- I felt that I had found a new connection that
+could be really meaningful to me. I had just moved back from
+France to England and left the school that I was -- that I was
+at and all my friends. And I was really happy that we had
+connected and that she seemed as excited as I was to have a new
+friend. And it was just -- I left that feeling exhilarated,
+like somebody wanted me, like somebody wanted to be my friend.
+l. What, if any, conversations do you remember having with
+Maxwell about your family?
+A. I told her that things were quite difficult at my house and
+that I lived alone with my mother and that she had been unwell
+and struggling and that she would get very bad migraines, and I
+would often try and take care of her and give her massages and
+bring her cups of tea.
+l. What, if any, conversations do you recall having with
+Maxwell about what you wanted to do with your life?
+A. Well, I had been offered a place at Oxford University to
+study law, and she shared that she had been to that university.
+And that I shared with her that I also was really interested in
+1178
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1179
+music and I loved music and I was interested in pursuing that,
+but I was worried to tell my parents because they really wanted
+me to go to law school, as most parents would. And I was quite
+athletic, although I was very thin, and I told her that I was
+interested in martial arts, as well.
+Q. What, if any, conversations do you remember having with
+Maxwell during tea about her personal life and relationships?
+A. She told me lots of amazing things about her boyfriend and
+she said that he was a philanthropist and that he liked to help
+young people, and that, at some point, it would be really
+wonderful for me to get to meet him and that we shared so many
+things in common and that - yeah, just that it would be great
+for me to get to meet him at some point.
+e. What, if anything, did Maxwell say about how Epstein would
+respond to you?
+A.
+she said that he was going to love me and that I was
+exactly the kind of person he would like to help. She seemed
+very genuinely excited about it, and I was excited, too.
+2. What was your reaction to the attention that Maxwell was
+paying you?
+A. I mean, I was 17 and I liked to have attention. And I
+was -- I was lonely and I had not found a group of friends yet.
+So I was really glad to have found somebody who was also older
+than me who I felt could maybe guide me as she seemed to have a
+lot of connections and opportunities to guide me and be very
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 40 of 261
+willing to do so.
+Q. Did there come a time when you met Epstein?
+Q. About how long after you had tea at Maxwell's townhouse did
+you meet Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. A few weeks later.
+Q. Where did you meet Epstein?
+A. At Ghislaine Maxwell's house.
+l. When you first met Epstein, approximately how old was he?
+A. He seemed to be in his 40s.
+Q. How did you come to meet Epstein at Maxwell's townhouse?
+A. Ghislaine called me and she was -- called me to tell me
+that he was in town and she would really love if I could come
+over to meet him and that it was -- there was a sense of
+urgency, that it was like very important that I take this
+opportunity.
+Q. What was Maxwell's demeanor like during that conversation
+on the phone?
+A. I would say she was very activated, very excited, and there
+was a sense of urgency.
+2. Now focusing on the time when you met Epstein at Maxwell's
+house, who was at the house when you arrived?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
+Q. When you arrived, what was Jeffrey Epstein wearing?
+A. He was wearing sweatpants and a hoodie.
+1180
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 261
+1181
+Q. And what was Epstein doing when you arrived?
+A. He was sitting in a chair and he was on the phone talking
+quite loudly.
+2. Did Epstein stay on the phone the entire time you were at
+Maxwell's townhouse?
+l. Did there come a time when Epstein got off the phone?
+l. What, if anything, did Maxwell say to Epstein about you
+during that visit?
+A. She said this is the girl that I told you about and she
+listed some of my accolades and said, you know, about me going
+to - possibly going to Oxford, but that I was also a really
+talented
+• that I was really athletic, and that I was
+strangely strong for my size.
+l. You mentioned your size. What was your size at the time?
+A. I was about 95 pounds.
+Q. What happened next?
+A. Next, after she said that I was very strong, she said why
+don't you give his feet a little squeeze to show him how strong
+you are.
+l. Did you give his feet a little squeeze?
+2. When you say that you gave his feet a little squeeze, what
+does that mean?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 42 of 261
+1182
+A. I massaged them.
+Q. And what happened next?
+A. And then he seemed to be very approving and he said,
+you can go ahead and do my shoulders.
+Q. Did you massage Epstein's shoulder?
+e. What happened next?
+A. He said that I was very strong and he said that he likes
+that I was very -- seemed to be -- know what I wanted. And
+they talked about something that I couldn't quite hear what
+they were saying about like a music producer. And then his
+phone rang again.
+l. After his phone rang, did you stay at Maxwell's house?
+l. How did you end up leaving?
+A. He didn't say anything. He just answered the phone and
+started talking on the phone and then Ghislaine sort of ushered
+me out.
+l. And did you leave Maxwell's house?
+l. After you left Maxwell's house, did you hear from her
+again?
+e. Approximately how long after you met Epstein at Maxwell's
+house did you hear from Maxwell?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 43 of 261
+1183
+A. Few weeks, couple of weeks.
+Q. How did you communicate with Maxwell?
+A.
+She called me.
+Q. What, if anything, did Maxwell say when she called you?
+A. She said that the -- Jeffrey was going to get a massage,
+but the massage therapist had canceled and could I please do
+her a favor and help her by coming over because I had such
+strong hands.
+l. Were you a massage therapist at the time?
+l. Have you ever been a massage therapist?
+l. Did you go to Maxwell's house?
+2. Who was at Maxwell's house when you arrived?
+A. Ghislaine and Jeffrey.
+l. What, if anything, did Maxwell say when you arrived at her
+house?
+A. She said thank you so much for coming and I'm really
+excited that you're here.
+l. Did she comment about how often Epstein needed massages?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Objection to leading.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. What, if anything, did Maxwell say about Epstein and his
+need for massages?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 44 of 261
+1184
+MS. STERNHEIM: Objection. Leading.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it. You may answer.
+A. Could you repeat the question, please.
+Q. What, if anything, did Maxwell say about Epstein's need for
+massages?
+A. She said that he needed massages all the time and it was
+very difficult to keep up.
+Q. Where did you and Maxwell go after that conversation?
+A. She led me up the stairs and opened the door to a room that
+had a massage table in it.
+(Continued on next
+page)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 45 of 261
+1185
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+Q. Can you describe the room for the jury.
+It was dimly lit. It was a small room. There was a
+massage table, some towels, and Jeffrey was in the room.
+Q. What was Epstein wearing?
+A. He was wearing a robe.
+2. What, if anything, did he do with the robe?
+A.
+He took off the robe.
+l. What, if anything, was Epstein wearing under the robe?
+A. He was naked.
+Q. Where was he when he removed the robe?
+A. Standing facing the door.
+Q. Where was Maxwell when Epstein removed the robe?
+A. In the doorway facing him.
+2. What, if anything, did Maxwell give you?
+A. She gave me some massage oil.
+Q. Did you enter the room?
+l. Did someone close the door?
+e. Who closed the door?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell closed the door.
+l. After the door was closed, did you give Epstein a massage?
+Q. Without telling the jury the details, during the massage,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 46 of 261
+1186
+did Epstein initiate sexual contact with you?
+l. Did Epstein engage in a sex act with you during the
+massage?
+Q. I'd like to move forward to the end of the massage. After
+it ended, where did you go?
+A. I left the room and started walking down the stairs.
+l. And who, if anyone, did you see?
+A. I saw Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Q. What, if anything, did Maxwell say?
+A. She said -- she said, How did it go? Did you have fun?
+Was it good?
+l. Can you describe Maxwell's tone when she made those
+statements.
+A. She seemed very excited and happy. She thanked me again.
+l. Did you leave Maxwell's house?
+l. Did there come a time when you saw Epstein again in London?
+2. About how long after the massage you just testified about
+did you see Epstein again?
+A. A few days later.
+l. Where did you see Epstein again?
+A. In Ghislaine Maxwell's house.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 47 of 261|
+1187
+Q. Who invited you to her house?
+A. Ghislaine.
+Q. How did she invite you to her house?
+A. She called me.
+Q. When you arrived, what, if anything, did Maxwell say?
+A. She said, I'm
+so glad you're here.
+You did such a good job
+last time.
+He wanted you to come back.
+Q. Where did you and Maxwell go?
+A. We went upstairs to the same room.
+Q. And when you went upstairs, was the door to the room open
+or closed?
+A. Closed.
+2. Who opened the door?
+A. Ghislaine.
+2. Who, if anyone, did you see when Maxwell opened the door to
+the room?
+A. Jeffrey.
+Q. What was Epstein wearing?
+A. He was naked.
+l. Where was Epstein standing?
+A. Next to the massage table facing the door.
+Q. Where was Maxwell when you saw Epstein naked?
+A. In the doorway facing him.
+Q. What, if anything, did Maxwell say?
+A. She said, Have a good time.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1188
+Q. Did Maxwell leave the
+room?
+Q. Was the door closed?
+e. Who closed the door?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Q. Did you give Epstein a massage in the room?
+l. And without telling the jury the details, during the
+massage, did Epstein initiate sexual contact with you?
+2. Did Epstein engage in a sex act with you during the
+massage?
+2. I want to move forward to the end of the massage.
+After it ended, where did you go?
+A. I went downstairs again.
+l. And who, if anyone, did you see?
+A. I saw Ghislaine Maxwell.
+2. What, if anything, did Maxwell say to you after the
+massage?
+A. She said, Did you have fun? You're such a good girl. And
+I'm so happy you were able to come. This is really great. And
+he obviously likes you a lot.
+2. Can you describe Maxwell's tone when she made those
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 49 of 261
+statements.
+A. She sounded really pleased. And I was really pleased that
+she was pleased.
+Q. Did you leave Maxwell's house?
+Q. Other than the three times that you saw Epstein at
+Maxwell's townhouse in London, did you see anyone else at her
+house?
+A. Can you repeat it?
+l. Other than the three times you saw Epstein at Maxwell's
+townhouse in London, did you see anyone else at her house?
+e. Who did you see?
+A. I saw a girl.
+l. What did the girl look like?
+A. She was blond and slim and around my age.
+l. Approximately how old were you when you saw the girl?
+A. Seventeen.
+e. And what did you see the girl doing at Maxwell's townhouse?
+A. She was having tea with Ghislaine and telling -- telling
+Ghislaine about the things that she was interested in.
+2. What, if anything, did Maxwell say to you about what she
+thought Epstein would think of the girl?
+A. Can you repeat it please.
+2. What, if anything, did Maxwell say to you about what she
+1189
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 50 of 261
+1190
+thought Epstein would think of the girl?
+A. She said, I think she would be a good fit for him.
+Q. After Epstein engaged in sex acts with you during massages
+in Maxwell's house in London, did you ever see Epstein and
+Maxwell again?
+Q. Over the next few years, how frequently did you see them?
+A. I saw them -- do you mean how many individual occasions or
+how many -- can you be specific?
+l. Sure. Over the next few years, about how many times a year
+did you see them?
+A. How many times per year? It was sporadic. The first
+couple of years, more; probably five times the first couple of
+years.
+Q. And on the times that you would see them, would you see
+them just one time or would you see them multiple times?
+A. Multiple times.
+l. Do you remember the exact details and dates of every single
+time you saw Epstein and Maxwell?
+A. NO.
+others?
+2. Do some details and events stand out more in your mind than
+l. I want to talk to you about the time period from when you
+were 17 years old to your early twenties.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LC6VMAX2
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 51 of 261
+1191
+Were you in contact with Maxwell during that time
+period?
+Q. How did you typically communicate with Maxwell during that
+period?
+A. By phone.
+e. When you spoke with Maxwell on the phone, what topics did
+Maxwell talk to you about?
+A. She asked me what I was up to, if things were going well,
+if I was dating anybody, if I wanted to visit, and if anything
+exciting was happening.
+l. When you spoke with Maxwell on the phone, what, if
+anything, did Maxwell ask you to do for Epstein?
+A. She asked me to come and visit them.
+Q. What, if any, sexual topics did Maxwell bring up on the
+phone?
+A. She didn't bring up sexual topics on the phone.
+Q. When you saw Maxwell in person, did there come a time when
+she brought sexual topics up with you?
+l. What, if any, sexual topics did Maxwell bring up?
+A. She would talk a lot about the nature of -- she would say
+boys, and boys and their willies, which was a euphemism for
+penis. How demanding Jeffrey was. And she would ask me if I
+knew anybody who could come and give Jeffrey a blow job because
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 52 of 261
+1192
+it was -- it was a lot for her to do.
+Q. What, if anything, did Maxwell tell you about the girls for
+Epstein?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Objection. Leading.
+THE COURT: Just a
+moment.
+I'll allow it. You may answer.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you.
+A. She said, You know what he likes, cute, young, pretty, like
+you.
+Q. About how long after you met Maxwell do you remember having
+conversations about those topics?
+A. Within a few weeks.
+l. Approximately how many times did that - did those sexual
+topics come up?
+A. All the time.
+l. Did you tell Maxwell about any other girls for Epstein?
+l. Did you connect Maxwell with any girls for Epstein?
+l. What, if anything, did Maxwell say about how often Epstein
+needed to have sex?
+A. She said that he needed to have sex about three times a
+day.
+l. Approximately when did she make those statements?
+A. In the first couple of months.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 53 of 261
+1193
+Q. What was Maxwell's demeanor like when she would talk to you
+about sexual topics?
+A. Her demeanor was very -- I would say that it was almost
+like a schoolgirl. And I almost felt like she was younger --
+like, talking like she was younger than me, like -- which was
+odd. And everything was fun and everything was silly and
+everything
+I was just very exciting. And just everything seemed
+to be like a fun, silly joke.
+l. Within the first few months of meeting Maxwell, what, if
+anything, did Maxwell ask you about your sex life?
+A. She asked me if I liked sex. She asked me, you know, if I
+was dating somebody or --
+Q. You testified earlier that when you went to tea at
+Maxwell's house in London, you told her about your family. Did
+you continue to tell Maxwell about your family?
+I. What, if anything, did you tell her about your family?
+A. I just continued to tell her that, you know, my mother was
+struggling, and that it was difficult; and that I was -- I was
+alone a lot.
+l. When you first met Maxwell and Epstein, what was your
+understanding of their relationship?
+A. I understood that Jeffrey was her boyfriend.
+Q. In the first few years you knew Maxwell, what did you
+understand to be Maxwell's job?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 54 of 261
+1194
+A. I understood that her job was to take care of Jeffrey's
+needs.
+Q. What, if any, involvement did Maxwell have in managing
+properties?
+A. She seemed to be pretty involved in managing properties and
+making
+sure that everything was the way that Jeffrey liked it
+to be.
+And there seemed to be a lot of rules around that.
+Q. Did Maxwell ever tell you what, if any, properties she
+owned?
+Q. What did she tell you?
+A. She told me that she owned her house in London; and that at
+a later time she told me that she owned her house in New York
+City, and that Jeffrey had got it for her.
+2. Did you ever have any conversations with Maxwell about her
+social circle?
+l. What do you recall her telling you about her social circle?
+A. Well, she seemed to know everybody. And she told me that
+she was friends with Prince Andrew, friends with Donald Trump,
+friends with lots of famous people. And sometimes their names
+would just come up in conversations or she might be talking on
+the phone about them with me present.
+l. I want to switch gears just for a moment.
+You mentioned Oxford earlier. Did you end up going to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 261
+1195
+Oxford?
+l. During your late teens and early twenties, what did you do
+for a living?
+A. In my late teens and early twenties I -- I became a
+musician and a model.
+l. You testified earlier that Epstein initiated sexual
+activity with you when you were 17 years old. Approximately
+when did he stop initiating sexual activity with you?
+A. Approximately in my early thirties.
+2. When you spent time with Epstein in that time period, about
+how often did he initiate sexual activity with you?
+A. Sorry. Can you repeat that?
+2. When you spent time with Epstein, how often did he initiate
+sexual activity with you?
+A. Every time.
+0. When Epstein initiated sexual activity with you, was that
+always in the context of massage?
+2. When you spent time with Epstein, did you provide him with
+sexualized massages?
+l. In what locations did these sexualized massages with
+Epstein take place?
+A. In London, in Palm Beach, and on his island.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 56 of 261
+1196
+Q. We'll talk about those places in a bit.
+Apart from the first massage in London where you
+rubbed Epstein's feet and shoulders, were there ever any
+massages you provided Epstein in which nothing sexual happened?
+Q. Was anyone in the room with you and Epstein while you were
+giving him the massages?
+l. You mentioned that after the first two massages you gave
+Epstein when you were 17, you saw Maxwell right after. Did
+anything like that happen with any other sexualized massages
+you gave Epstein?
+2. What do you remember about those interactions?
+A. Mostly she would ask me if - if it went well, if I had
+fun.
+l. What, if any, gifts did you receive from Maxwell?
+A. I received a small black Prada handbag.
+l. Where did you receive that gift?
+A. In London.
+Q. And how did you know that was a gift from Maxwell?
+A. There was a note that said "from Ghislaine and Jeffrey."
+Q. And what was that a gift for?
+A. For my birthday.
+e. What birthday?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 57 of 261
+1197
+A. I believe my 18th.
+Q. Did you receive this gift before or after the two times
+Epstein engaged in sex acts with you during massages at
+Maxwell's house?
+A. After.
+Q. What, if any, conversations do you remember having with
+Maxwell about travel?
+A. I remember that she was always very accommodating and told
+me that whenever I wanted to come and visit, that she would
+take care of everything; that they would take care of
+everything.
+l. Did those conversations about travel happen before or after
+she gave you the handbag?
+A. Before.
+Maxwell?
+2. Did there come a time when you traveled to meet Epstein and
+l. Approximately how many times did you travel to meet them?
+A. Io meet both of them?
+l. Yes.
+A. Four or five times.
+l. Do you remember approximately how old you were when you
+first traveled to meet Maxwell and Epstein?
+A. Approximately 18.
+l. And do you remember approximately how old you were when you
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 58 of 261
+LC6VMAX2
+1198
+last traveled to meet both Maxwell and Epstein?
+A. Approximately 24.
+l. During that time period, where did you travel to meet
+Maxwell and Epstein?
+A. I traveled to Palm Beach, to New York, and to the island.
+0. When you traveled
+to meet Maxwell and Epstein, how did you
+travel?
+A. I traveled on commercial planes.
+e. Who booked your travel?
+A. I'm not always sure who booked it, but usually Ghislaine
+informed me about it. Sometimes one of the assistants would
+book it, maybe Lesley Groff.
+2. Generally speaking, where did you stay when you visited
+Epstein and Maxwell?
+A. I generally stayed with them.
+e. And when you say you stayed with them, where did you stay?
+A. At their house.
+l. Who owned the properties?
+A. Jeffrey, I think.
+l. How did Maxwell talk about the properties that Epstein
+owned?
+A. She talked - she talked about them as - as their homes.
+I. Who worked at Epstein's homes?
+A. I would see staff sometimes, but I didn't know their names
+and I didn't have much interaction with them.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 59 of 261
+1199
+Q. What, if anything, did you observe about Maxwell and her
+interactions with the staff?
+A. I noticed that she was the one who mainly communicated with
+the staff. She seemed to be telling them -- giving them a lot
+of direction around doing things the way that Jeffrey wanted
+them done, detailed instructions around food and -- and just
+quite aggressive communication with them.
+0. You testified earlier about travel to Palm Beach. I want
+to talk about that for a minute.
+Who did you travel to see in Palm Beach?
+A. Ghislaine and Jeffrey.
+2. How many times did you visit Maxwell and Epstein in Palm
+Beach?
+A. One time.
+l. Do you remember exactly when you went to Palm Beach?
+l. Approximately how old were you when you went to Palm Beach?
+A. Approximately 18.
+l. Is it possible that you were older when you went to Palm
+Beach?
+A. Possible.
+l. Where did you stay when you visited Epstein and Maxwell in
+Palm Beach?
+A. I stayed in the house with them.
+l. Can you describe for the jury the Palm Beach house.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 60 of 261
+1200
+A. Yes. The house had a beautiful swimming pool. And there
+were doors that opened up from the house onto the swimming
+pool. And Jeffrey had a desk that would face out onto outside
+so he could see out. And there was a kitchen downstairs, a
+small dining area, and there were bedrooms upstairs.
+Q. What, if any, photographs did you see in Epstein's house in
+Palm Beach?
+A. There were lots of photographs of young girls.
+e. What do you remember about those photographs?
+A. I remember that they were shocking.
+Q. Were the young girls clothed or unclothed in the
+photographs?
+A. Unclothed.
+l. Where did you see those photographs in Epstein's house in
+Palm Beach?
+A. They were in almost every room.
+Q. Did there come a time that you were given clothing to wear
+when you were staying at Epstein's Palm Beach house?
+Q. What were you given to wear?
+A. I was given a schoolgirl outfit.
+l. Can you please describe the schoolgirl outfit for the jury.
+A. It was a short - a short pleated skirt,
+socks,
+panties, and a shirt.
+I. Where did you find the schoolgirl outfit?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 61 of 261
+1201
+A. On my bed.
+Q. What did you do after finding the schoolgirl outfit?
+A. I went downstairs to find Ghislaine.
+Q. What, if anything, did Ghislaine say?
+A. I asked her what -- what was happening with the -- there
+were clothes in my room. And she said, I thought it would be
+fun for you to take Jeffrey his tea in this outfit.
+Q. Did you put on the schoolgirl outfit?
+l. Why did you put on the schoolgirl outfit?
+A. I didn't know -- I didn't know how to say no to that. I
+was -- I didn't know anybody in Florida. I'd never been to
+Palm Beach or Florida before. I had no idea even where the
+house was or how -- and I wasn't sure if I said no, if -- if I
+would have to leave or what kind of consequence there might be
+for not doing it.
+l. What did you do after you put on the schoolgirl outfit?
+A. Ghislaine gave me a tray and told me to go and walk to
+where Jeffrey was and bring -- bring him the tray.
+l. Did you go and find Epstein?
+l. Where did you find him?
+A. He was next to the pool house and he was working out.
+l. Was Epstein alone?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LC6VMAX2
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 62 of 261
+1202
+Q. Who was he with?
+A. He was with -- there was some kind of trainer with him.
+Q. Did the trainer
+stay with him?
+l. After the trainer left, without getting into the details,
+did Epstein initiate sexual contact with you?
+Q. Did Epstein engage in a sex act with you?
+l. What if later --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Withdrawn, your Honor.
+l. What, if anything, did Maxwell say to you later that day?
+A. She asked me if I had fun, and told me that I was such a
+good girl, and that I was one of his favorites. And that's it.
+l. Did Epstein engage in sexual activity with you again during
+that trip?
+l. One time or multiple times?
+A. Multiple times.
+l. You testified earlier that you went to the island. What is
+the island?
+A. The island was an island that Jeffrey owned.
+I. What was the name of the island?
+A. Well, he called it Little St. Jeff.
+Q. When you went to the island, who invited you there?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 63 of 261
+1203
+A. Ghislaine.
+Q. Approximately when did you go to the island?
+A. When
+I was approximately 23 or 24.
+Q. When Maxwell invited you to the island, what, if anything,
+did she ask you to do?
+A. She asked me to massage Jeffrey.
+l. Did sexualized massages with Epstein take place on the
+island?
+Q. Do you recall seeing anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell
+when you visited the island?
+l. Who do you remember seeing?
+A. I remember seeing a blond, slim girl who seemed far younger
+than me, very young.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have just a moment?
+THE COURT: You l
+•. POMERANTZ: Thank you.
+(Counsel conferred)
+l. Kate, at the beginning, why did you start spending time
+with Maxwell and Epstein?
+A. At the beginning, it was a combination. In the beginning,
+I wanted to maintain a relationship with Ghislaine. And I
+thought that they were going to be -- I thought she was going
+to be my friend.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 64 of 261
+1204
+Q. Did that change over time?
+l. Through your twenties and early thirties, did you continue
+to communicate with Epstein?
+Q. Without using any words from the communications, what was
+the tone of your communications with Epstein generally?
+A. My tone was friendly.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.
+THE COURT: Friendly.
+THE WITNESS: Friendly.
+I. Why did you keep communicating with Epstein through your
+twenties and early thirties?
+A. I was -- I did not want to admit what had happened to me.
+And I felt that by ceasing communication, I would have to
+acknowledge the events that had taken place and I would have to
+say something. I was also fearful of disengaging because I had
+witnessed how connected they both were and I was fearful.
+l. Did there come a time when you stopped communicating with
+Epstein?
+l. Approximately when?
+A. In my early thirties.
+l. And approximately when did you stop spending time with
+Epstein?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 65 of 261
+1205
+A. Also in my thirties.
+l. Approximately when did you stop spending time with Maxwell?
+A. My late twenties -- sorry, spending time or conmunicating?
+e. Spending time.
+A.
+around 24.
+Q. I want to switch gears.
+When you were a teenager and in your twenties, were
+you addicted to any substances?
+2. What were you addicted to?
+A. I was addicted to alcohol, cocaine, and sleeping pills.
+l. How often did you use cocaine, alcohol, and sleeping pills?
+A. Sporadically, but mostly weekly.
+e. When was the last time you used those substances that you
+just mentioned?
+A. May Ist, 2003.
+l. Why did you stop using those substances then?
+A. When I first started using substances, they helped me to
+cope with the way that I was feeling. And then the substance
+use got out of control and started to destroy my relationships
+and my health and my peace of mind. And I felt that I was
+going to die if I continued.
+l. Has your prior drug and alcohol use affected the memories
+you have?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 66 of 261
+1206
+Q. Can you explain?
+A. The memories
+I have of significant events in my life have
+never changed. My memory -- there are things that I have
+missed that happened that sometimes I later recall. The
+memories I have are the memories I have.
+Q. Directing your attention to August 2019, did there come a
+time when you were interviewed by the government?
+l. Was FBI present for the interview?
+2. Before that day, had you ever talked to law enforcement
+about your experiences with Maxwell and Epstein?
+Q. That same day did you speak publicly about some of the
+experiences that you testified about here today?
+A. Did I speak publicly? Yes.
+Q. And when you did that, did you talk about all of the
+details that you shared with the government?
+e. Why not?
+A. I have a huge amount of humiliation and shame and -- around
+the events that took place. I was not ready to share that in
+detail on a public level.
+l. If you have spoken publicly before, why did you ask to
+testify under a pseudonym here today?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LC6VMAX2
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 67 of 261
+1207
+A. I asked to testify under a pseudonym because I have a
+child. And I do not wish for her to be associated with or
+exposed to any negative connotation that this might bring.
+Q. You testified earlier that you first spoke with the
+government in August 2019. About how many meetings have you
+had with the government since that time?
+A. About ten meetings.
+Q. What is your immigration status?
+A. I am in status in this country on an 0-1 visa.
+Q. And what is that?
+A. It's a visa of extraordinary ability.
+Q. What does that mean?
+A. It can be extraordinary ability in many different areas.
+Initially, I was a
+/songwriter, but it extends to any
+artist.
+l. Did there come a time when you asked the government to
+sponsor you for a visa?
+2. At the time you made the request, approximately how many
+meetings had you had with the government?
+A. Approximately seven.
+Q. Approximately how long had you been meeting with the
+government at the time you raised your immigration status?
+A. About a year and a half.
+Q. Has the government made any promises to you about your
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1208
+immigration visa?
+Q. I'm going to switch gears.
+Have you participated in a compensation fund called
+the Epstein's Victims' Compensation Program?
+l. What did you do as part of that fund?
+A. I had an interview with a forensic psychologist and I
+submitted a claim form.
+l. How much money did the fund pay you?
+A. $3.25 million.
+l. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?
+Q. Has that money been wired to you already?
+A. Not that total amount.
+l. But a portion of that has been?
+l. As part of receiving that money, did you have to sign a
+waiver agreeing not to sue any of Epstein's employees?
+2. You mentioned that you didn't - you weren't wired the
+total amount. What happened to the rest of it?
+A. The rest went to my attorneys.
+l. Have you ever sued Maxwell?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 69 of 261
+Q. Do you plan to sue Maxwell?
+l. Are you hoping or expecting to get any more money for what
+happened to you with Epstein and Maxwell?
+Q. Based on your understanding, will the jury's verdict in
+this case affect the award that you received from the fund?
+l. Just to be clear, do you have any financial stake in the
+outcome of this trial?
+A. I do not.
+1209
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I have just one
+moment?
+THE COURTE YOU SI
+•. POMERANIZ: No further questions, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+We'll take our morning break.
+Members of the jury, we'll break for about 10 to 15
+minutes. See you soon. Thank you.
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: The witness may step down and out for the
+break. Thank you.
+Everyone may be seated.
+(Witness not present)
+
+
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 70 of 261
+1210
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Counsel, are there matters to take up?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.
+THE COURT: Okay. Just a moment.
+Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, in light of this witness's
+anonymity status, I think it's appropriate to do it at a
+sidebar. If the Court feels otherwise, then we can come into
+open court.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+(Pages 1211 to 1231 SEALED)
+(Continued on next
+page)
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 71 of 261
+1232
+(Recess)
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: Counsel, let me just finish up where I am
+before we get going.
+(At the sidebar)
+THE COURT: On the sexual harassment claim, I'm not
+going to allow it if there were a pattern of repeated
+allegations of the same kind, even if you didn't have a proffer
+as to falsity, then it would be a closer call, but in the
+absence of any proffer as to falsity and in light of the one
+instance of sexual harassment, I won't allow it.
+I think our other open on is the tabloid; correct?
+I'm going to allow that because there is a notion of exception
+of a friend which goes to the credibility and is impeachment.
+I think that resolves all of our open issues.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I wanted to note one thing
+that I had the chance to go back and look at some of the 3500
+material, and I know that there was planning to ask the witness
+about an unsigned declaration involving I think the witness's
+exhusband; is that right?
+MS. STERNHEIM: No, it has nothing to do with her
+exhusband. I was going to ask if she asked a friend or former
+person in her life if he had -- she had asked him to plant the
+drugs on the father of her child.
+MS. POMERANTZ: So I wanted to flag this because I had
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 72 of 261
+1233
+a chance to go back and look at the 3500 material and she has
+explained that she was a victim of domestic violence by the --
+by her daughter's father, and I'm happy to provide the page
+number, that she's filed restraining orders against him and
+that there were -- there was issues with that. And so, to the
+extent that Ms. Sternheim intends to ask that, I do think that
+it would permit me to, on redirect, ask questions about the
+circumstances around that.
+THE COURT: I agree. But you'd ask questions around
+the circumstances of that, but I'll permit that question.
+Anything else? All right, thank you.
+(In open court)
+THE COURT: Can we have the witness come back, please.
+I hand you a binder? I'm
+not sure we're going to need to use it, but I do have one for
+Kate, as well. May I?
+THE COURT: Yes. Bring in the jury.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 73 of 261
+1234
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: Thank you so much, members of the jury.
+Sorry for the slightly - we took the extended break that
+allowed me to work through some things with the lawyers to
+facilitate overall the efficiency of the process. So thank you
+for your patience.
+begin your cross examination of
+the witness testifying under the name of Kate.
+Kate, I remind you, you are under oath.
+Go ahead, Ms. Sternheim.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+CROSS-EXAMINATION
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+l. Good morning, Kate. I have some questions to ask you.
+During your direct examination, you had stated that
+Ghislaine was everything you wanted to be; correct?
+A. She appeared to be.
+l. Now, you had a very beautiful mother, didn't you?
+l. She was a debutante; correct?
+A. I'm not sure.
+l. She was married to a wealthy - well, your stepfather is a
+wealthy man; correct?
+A. He was.
+Q. He had his own plane; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 74 of 261
+1235
+Q. Your mother and your stepfather, and in turn, you and your
+brother lived a comfortable life at some point, didn't you?
+l. You lived in the Belgravia section of London. That's a
+very tony area of London, isn't it?
+l. And you lived quite close to Kinnerton Street, which is
+where Ghislaine lived; correct?
+Q. In fact, Ghislaine lived on the street that also is the
+street of the Nags Head Pub; correct?
+l. And that pub is a rather famous pub in London, isn't it?
+A. I don't know.
+l. But it was right across the street, nonetheless, from
+Ghislaine's home at 44 Kinnerton, wasn't it?
+2. Now, going back to your mother for a moment, you would
+watch and see the attention that your mother got because of her
+beauty, didn't you?
+A. I thought she was beautiful.
+l. And didn't you say that you wanted to garner that same kind
+of attention because you liked the way people looked at her?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 75 of 261
+THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
+A. To clarify, didn't I say when?
+Q. Well, you've spoken to a number of tabloids and magazines
+throughout the year, haven't you?
+Q. You have been featured in a number of magazines and news
+articles, haven't you?
+l. You have spoken about your life on a number of occasions,
+haven't you?
+l. And your picture has been in a number of magazines, as
+well; correct?
+l. During the period of time that you testified meeting
+Ghislaine and Epstein, you were an international model?
+A. I was a model.
+l. You met Ghislaine in Paris when you had traveled there with
+the older prominent gentleman with whom you had been dating at
+the time; correct?
+l. And you learned that that individual was an Oxford
+classmate of Ghislaine; correct?
+2. Now, through the relationship that you had with that older
+1236
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 261
+1237
+gentleman, you met a variety of people in the fashion industry,
+didn't you?
+Q. And through those connections, you met fashion journalists;
+correct?
+A. I'm not sure if it was through those connections or not.
+l. Well, didn't you once say that you were in the right place
+at the right time and your career in modeling was launched?
+A. Possibly.
+l. And didn't you also say that even without those
+connections, you believed that you would have made it anyway in
+modeling?
+A. I'm not sure. I don't recollect that.
+l. You have also considered yourself to be fiercely ambitious;
+correct?
+A. At times.
+l. In fact, back in around 2004 when you were interviewed, you
+said that for as long as you could remember, you were
+ambitious. Do you remember that?
+l. And you also said that you spent 90 percent of your time
+thinking about the next move; correct?
+Q. But the other 10 percent was that you were thinking about
+your dog, wasn't it?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 77 of 261
+1238
+A. Could have been.
+Q. And at that time, you had a very large Great Dane; correct?
+A. At which time?
+Q. At the time you made that statement when you said the other
+10 percent was thinking about your dog?
+A. I don't remember which dog it was at that time, but it's
+possible.
+Q.
+In around 2004, you did have a Great Dane, didn't you?
+A. I don't remember the date, but I did have a Great Dane,
+that I did used to have a Great Dane.
+Q. But there was a period in time in which you became very
+well known as a model; correct?
+A. I was not very well known.
+e. Well, you were on billboards, weren't you?
+A. I was on a billboard once.
+l. And you were a model for a U.K. version of Victoria's
+Secret, weren't you?
+2. You never were a model for an organization that sold
+lingerie?
+A. I was a model for a lingerie company that failed almost as
+soon as it began.
+l. But it was a lingerie company?
+Q. And you also were a model for clothing, weren't you?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 261
+1239
+Q. And Milinery & Hanbex (ph.); correct?
+A. Possibly. I don't recall.
+Q. But suffice it to say, you had photo shoots in various
+parts of Europe. Milan?
+A. Once in Milan.
+l. Paris?
+e. And London?
+l. Did you also model in the United States?
+2. There came a time when you did come to the United States,
+though; correct?
+l. You moved to the United States at some point in your
+career; correct?
+2. And you came here on the visa you described which, in your
+situation, was an entertainment or talent visa, wasn't it?
+A. Well, they call it extraordinary ability, so that covers a
+lot of
+l. But your extraordinary ability at that time was to go to
+Hollywood, wasn't it?
+A. I don't know if going to Hollywood is an extraordinary
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 79 of 261
+1240
+ability, but I was a musician.
+Q. Okay.
+Fair enough. You were a musician; correct?
+Q. You were a
+correct?
+Q. In fact, when you were younger, 16 or 17, you were living
+in the South of France; correct?
+l. And you were at a -- I guess a piano bar where you were
+discovered by the musician Seal, weren't you?
+Q. Never?
+l. You never told that to the press at all?
+l. You produced your own album or CD; correct?
+l. And you launched it on your own; correct?
+A. In part.
+Q. And fair to say that was the only album or CD you ever
+launched?
+Q. You also were an actress, weren't you?
+A. That was not my trade.
+Q. Well, whether it was your trade or not, it is fair to say
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 80 of 261
+1241
+that you acted in movies; correct?
+A. I did not have speaking roles, so I was kind of an extra a
+couple of times.
+Q. And you were in a movie with a very well-known British
+actor; correct?
+Q. And you were in a couple of other movies, as well, over the
+years, weren't you?
+A. I'm not sure which ones you're talking about.
+l. Well, I'm going to ask you to look at a list that should be
+in your folder --
+THE COURT: Please direct the government and me before
+the witness.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I will. I just want to get the
+number, Judge. I apologize.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize, Judge. I gave my copy.
+Q. I'm going to ask you what's been marked as defense K7, it
+should be tabbed in your binder.
+THE COURT: Tab 7, counsel?
+MS. STERNHEIM: K7.
+A. Okay, K7.
+THE COURT: My binder does not have K7.
+THE WITNESS: I don't have K7.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize about that. Your Honor, I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1242
+do have paper copies.
+May I hand them up?
+THE COURT: You l
+•. STERNHEIM: I apologize about that.
+Q. I'm just going to ask you to take a look at that list and
+I'm going to ask you to look at number 21.
+l. Is that a movie that you were in?
+l. No? Number 3, is that a movie that you were in?
+l. And number 29, is that a movie that you were in?
+A. No, I don't know what that movie is.
+Q. Are you familiar with the IMBD system?
+A. IMDB?
+l. Yes. I apologize.
+l. And if those were listed in your IMDB, would those indicate
+that you were involved with those productions?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Grounds?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Foundation.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+e. Do you look at your listings to see whether they are
+accurate or not?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 261
+1243
+Q. You also starred in a reality show, didn't you?
+Q. And that reality show had to do with individuals who wanted
+to make it in Hollywood; correct?
+Q. And what period of time were you involved in that?
+A. I don't recall exactly, but I believe it was probably about
+19 years ago.
+l. 19 years ago?
+A. Probably around then.
+2. And in light of the visa that you had, you were committed
+to work in that industry; correct?
+A. I didn't have a visa at that time. I had not moved to the
+United States yet.
+Q. So it was after you did the reality show that you then
+moved to the United States?
+A. At some point later.
+Q. And when you moved to the United States, it was at that
+time that you were in the music business?
+l. And the purpose of your visa at that time was to permit you
+to move to the United States to work in the music industry;
+correct?
+Q. You no longer are in the music industry; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 83 of 261
+1244
+A. I'm actually a music therapist.
+Q. A music therapist?
+Q. And are you licensed as a music therapist?
+A. No, I'm not licensed in anything.
+Q. But you hold yourself out to be a music therapist; correct?
+I couldn't hear you, I'm sorry.
+l. At some point, did you begin a foundation?
+Q. Without using the name, that was a foundation that was for
+women with substance abuse; correct?
+A. It was actually a foundation for women who have trauma and
+substance use disorder.
+Q. And it is a residential environment for women to live in;
+correct?
+A. It's actually no longer a foundation, it was dissolved, but
+it was a residential facility, yes.
+Q. And you launched that in approximately 2019; correct?
+A. Approximately.
+l. And there are videos about it, aren't there?
+A. Most likely, yes.
+e. And you and a partner or another woman with whom you worked
+had produced some videos for that foundation; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 84 of 261
+1245
+Q. And it was launched in 2019 and it no longer exists;
+correct?
+A. I think it was in 2019, but I don't know the exact date,
+but you are correct, it no longer exists.
+l. And after you received your settlement money in connection
+with the Epstein victim compensation fund, you no longer were
+involved in that foundation; correct?
+A. I was still -- the foundation shut down first.
+l. But it shut down around the time that you began cooperating
+with the government; correct?
+A. It shut down before the -- I had received any kind of
+settlement.
+l. You received your settlement a year ago this week; correct?
+A. If you say so. I would say that's probably about accurate.
+Q. Earlier, the government had asked you about having made a
+public statement at some point in 2019 concerning Mr. Epstein.
+Do you remember that?
+A. Sorry. Could you repeat that.
+2. On direct examination, you were asked about having made a
+public statement in connection with Jeffrey Epstein?
+l. And you made a public statement in this very courthouse;
+correct?
+l. And you made that public statement using your true name;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+correct?
+Q. And you testified earlier that the reason why you're not
+using your true name is to protect your child; correct?
+Q. You had a child at that point, didn't you?
+Q. And your lawyer also introduced you using your true name at
+that public hearing; correct?
+l. And you were represented by a lawyer named Brad
+correct?
+Q. And Mr.
+has represented you in connection with the
+claim that you made against the Epstein Victim Compensation
+Fund; correct?
+e. In fact, Mr.
+fund, wasn't he?
+A. I'm not sure.
+l. Is he here with you today?
+A. Yes, he's here.
+l. He's in the courtroom; correct?
+A. Um -
+was instrumental in setting up that
+l. And you have consulted with him concerning your appearance
+1246
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 86 of 261
+here?
+1247
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. That statement that you made in this courthouse was after
+Epstein died; correct?
+l. And you and a number of other people accusing Epstein of
+abuse were invited by a judge in this courthouse, named Judge
+Berman, to speak publicly; correct?
+correct?
+l. And you took that opportunity to speak publicly?
+2. And you spoke publicly with regard to Jeffrey Epstein;
+l. You did not speak with regard to Ghislaine Maxwell?
+A. I did not.
+l. And right after that very day that you made that statement
+was the first time that you sat down with the government in
+connection with things that you were testifying to today;
+correct?
+Q. And right after you sat down with the government, which was
+right after you had spoken publicly, you appeared on television
+with regard to your allegations; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 87 of 261
+Q. And you appeared on television with other women who had
+been present during that public court appearance; correct?
+l. And there were about six of you who were featured on a
+television show; correct?
+Q. Talking about your allegations against Jeffrey Epstein;
+correct?
+l. And you all appeared as a sisterhood of accusers against
+Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. Sorry, is it a question?
+e. Yes.
+A. Did we appear as a sisterhood?
+l. Yes.
+A. I don't know how it came across to other people.
+l. Well, you were somewhat affectionate to one another on the
+show, weren't you?
+A. I suppose so.
+l. You were supportive of one another on the show; correct?
+A. Yeah. I had just met them, so --
+Q. Well, you had met them for the very first time that day?
+A. I think it may have been at the court appearance which may
+have been the day before.
+1248
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 88 of 261
+1249
+Q. And you continued maintaining contact with some of them;
+correct?
+Q. You would be on chat groups with them for a period of time?
+A. I actually was only on the chat group for a very small
+amount of time.
+I left the chat group.
+l. But nonetheless, for at least a small period of time, you
+were involved in the chat group with other individuals, other
+women who claimed they had been abused by Jeffrey Epstein;
+correct?
+l. And you had also maintained contact with an individual
+named
+¡ correct?
+l. And you and
+attorney,
+are represented by the same
+?
+A. I don't -- I don't know who represents Virginia.
+l. You never have spoken to her about that at all?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Grounds?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Hearsay.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+e. You're aware that your attorney wrote a book about your
+case and the case of others while he has been representing you;
+correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 89 of 261
+l. And you read that book, didn't you?
+A. I have not read the book.
+Q. But you knew that you were going to be included in that
+book; correct?
+A. To my knowledge, those only -- I think there was only one
+sentence
+about me.
+I don't think there's anything about any
+details of anything .
+l. Did you give permission to your attorney to be referenced
+or written about in that book?
+l. So before it was published, you knew that some of your
+story was going to be in that book; correct?
+A. I don't believe any of my story is in the book.
+l. Do you have a private practice where you are a music
+therapist?
+A. Sorry. Could you repeat.
+l. Do you have a private practice in which you are a music
+therapist?
+A. I see people on an hourly basis.
+l. And you do that in California?
+A. I do.
+l. And are you required to be licensed to hold yourself out as
+a music therapist?
+1250
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 90 of 261
+1251
+Q. Do you collect monies from insurance by your clients?
+Q. It is all cash or check?
+Q. Now, you've testified that there was a period of time, I
+think upwards of ten years, that you used drugs; correct?
+Q. You used cocaine; correct?
+l. You used sleeping pills; correct?
+2. And you also used alcohol; correct?
+l. And it is your testimony that you abused those substances;
+correct?
+l. To the point where, after approximately ten years of use,
+you decided you no longer wanted to engage in that; correct?
+l. And you have lived a sober life since then; correct?
+A. Yes, I have.
+Q. And that, in part, is what you were promoting with your
+foundation, weren't you?
+A. I would say it's what we're attracting, not what we're
+promoting.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 91 of 261
+1252
+Q. I apologize. I don't mean promoting. I mean promoting
+sobriety and support for women who had also had addictions?
+A.
+I think it's what we offer or what we offered when the
+foundation was still going.
+Q. Understood.
+e.
+Fair to say that using and abusing those substances over a
+ten-year period has had an impact on memory; correct?
+A. It has not had an impact on the memories that I have always
+had.
+l. The memories that you have always had are your personal
+memories; correct?
+l. And memories based upon your perception of experiences;
+correct?
+A. Well, they're just based on my experience.
+l. But you have testified today about experiences during a
+period of time where you were abusing drugs; correct?
+A. The memories that I testified to were at periods when I was
+always sober because I was always required to not take drugs
+and not be drunk around Ghislaine and Jeffrey.
+l. Because you knew that they did not tolerate drug use;
+correct?
+A. That was what was required.
+Q. You knew that they did not tolerate drug use; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 92 of 261
+A. That's just what they asked of me. I didn't know what
+their tolerance was
+outside of that.
+l. So during the period of time that you were with them, you
+weren't snorting cocaine?
+Q. You just were able to go cold turkey during those periods
+of time; correct?
+l. And afterwards, you went right back to your habit of using
+cocaine, using alcohol, using sleeping pills?
+A. I was a periodic drug abuser.
+l. But nonetheless, your periodic drug use had a negative
+impact on your life, didn't it?
+Q. Enough to the point where you wanted to end that type of
+behavior so that you could go forward as a sober person?
+2. Now you've testified that you met Ghislaine at her home on
+Kinnerton Street when you were 17 years old; correct?
+A. I testified that I thought I was around that age, yes.
+l. And I think you said, when asked to do the math, that it
+was approximately 1994; correct?
+l. And it was during that period of time, 1994 around the age
+of 17, that you went to Ghislaine's home with the red door
+1253
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 93 of 261
+1254
+across from Nags Pub on Kinnerton Street; correct?
+Q. And that is where you met Epstein; correct?
+l. Now, there came a point where -- well, during this period
+of time, were you still involved with that prominent older
+gentleman who had introduced you to Ghislaine?
+A. No, we had become friends.
+l. You've had an on-and-off friendship or dating situation
+with him for a period of time?
+A. We were really just friends.
+l. Friends that took you to Paris; correct?
+A. No, when I was dating him, he took me to Paris.
+l. He also hosted you at his weekend home; correct?
+l. And you've also dated other men; correct?
+A. Yes, I have dated other men.
+Q. In fact, you even married one of the men that you dated;
+correct?
+A. Are you asking me if I've been married?
+Q. Well, I'll start. Have you been married?
+l. Did you marry a prominent restauranteur?
+A. I married a man who owned two restaurants.
+Q. And you were married during the period of time that you say
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 94 of 261
+1255
+you were with Ghislaine and Epstein; correct?
+A. Can you explain, when you say I was with them, what do you
+mean?
+Q. Well, you testified about spending time with them at the
+Kinnerton residence in Belgravia; correct?
+Q. You also testified that there came a point where you also
+spent time with them in the United States; correct?
+e. When did you get married?
+A. I got married -- I think I was 23 when I got married.
+l. You were 23?
+A. I think so.
+l. You've also told the government at various times that you
+were married at 18 or 19?
+A. I don't recall that.
+l. That you were married at 20 or 21?
+A. I don't recall that.
+2. That you were married during the time of the World Trade
+Center disaster?
+A. I do recall that.
+l. In fact, there came a time where were you in the United
+States and didn't make it back to London while your husband was
+waiting for you at the airport; isn't that correct?
+A. When you say didn't make it, what do you mean?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 95 of 261
+Q. Didn't you have a situation where you told the government
+that you missed your flight?
+A. I did not get on my flight.
+Q. You did not get on your flight. You met a man named Kevin
+and you went home with him?
+1256
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Did you meet a man named Kevin?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Grounds, Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Relevance, your Honor.
+THE COURT: We'll see. I'll allow it, but if we need
+to have a discussion, let me know. I'll allow it.
+Q. Did there come a time that you were flying back to London
+from the United States when you missed your flight?
+l. And did there come a time that you were assisted by a man
+that you had met after you had missed your flight?
+l. And did you have occasion to go to that man's home?
+2. And did you have occasion --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I think we need to have a sidebar.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 96 of 261
+1257
+(At the sidebar)
+THE COURT:
+Where are we going, Ms. Sternheim?
+MS. STERNHEIM: We're going to the fact that this
+woman was married at the time, she left her husband to travel
+to spend time with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein, and then, at
+some point, something happened to her on her way home.
+THE COURT: What is the relevance?
+MS. STERNHEIM: It all goes to what her state of mind
+was when she is testifying about what happened during this
+period of time.
+THE COURT: State of mind?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Yes.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the defense is asking
+questions that are very suggestive of something --
+MS. STERNHEIM: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
+MS. POMERANTZ: The defense is asking questions that
+are very suggestive of something, but I have not yet heard a
+proffer about that and it seems like where they're going with
+this is an issue that should have been raised as a 412 issue.
+THE COURT: Are you suggesting she had an affair?
+MS. STERNHEIM: No, she said she was associative as if
+she was using drugs. I'll move on.
+THE COURT: Okay. Move on.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1258
+(In open court)
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+2. Kate, did there come a time that you divorced your husband,
+the restauranteur?
+A. He divorced me.
+Q. And how long were you married at that point?
+A. I think it was just under a year.
+Q. And prior to marrying him, had you been engaged to other
+people?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it.
+2. Did you ever marry again?
+2. But you dated other people throughout the years; correct?
+l. And you also have a child; correct?
+A. I do.
+2. With someone with whom --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may we be heard at
+sidebar, please.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 261
+1259
+(At the sidebar)
+MS. POMERANTZ: The government is concerned about this
+line of questioning. She's asking a series of questions about
+her romantic history. It seems unduly invasive.
+THE COURT: Just a moment. We had an earlier sidebar.
+I permitted her to ask questions based on the declaration
+regarding someone who said she planted drugs on the person that
+she's now asking a question about. So, how is the objection
+consistent with that ruling?
+MS. POMERANTZ: I understand that ruling, your
+Honor -- my understanding is I frankly didn't know that's where
+it was going, but it's also my concern is that it's been a
+series of questions that have just been basically a litany of
+questions --
+THE COURT: Counsel, when you have an objection, I
+rule on it. A series of questions objections doesn't fly.
+Please bear in mind my rulings, that that is why we do it at
+the sidebar, that's why the jury had a 45-minute break. I
+don't need a sidebar every time a question that I've approved
+is asked.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 99 of 261
+1260
+(In open court)
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+l. Kate, were you involved in a custody dispute with the
+father of your child?
+Q. And Kate, did you ask a friend to plant drugs on the father
+of your child to advance your custody case?
+A. Absolutely not.
+l. And are you familiar with a man named Tim Powers?
+l. And as you sit here, you did not ask Mr. Powers to help you
+with your custody dispute?
+Q. You had been involved in a situation in the late '90s
+involving a man who is connected to the
+know who I'm talking about?
+Family. Do you
+Q. And that was someone who you had a friendship with;
+correct?
+A. An acquaintanceship.
+l. But a friendly acquaintanceship, it was someone that you
+had spoken to at times; correct?
+A. A couple of times.
+Q. And the two of you had an interaction while you were at the
+Cannes Film Festival in France; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 100 of 261
+1261
+l. And you had been approached by a tabloid to engage that
+gentleman in a situation; correct?
+A. Not exactly.
+l. You were not asked to encourage that man to get you
+cocaine?
+l. You were never approached by a tabloid to have that man
+recorded?
+A. I was never approached by a tabloid to have him recorded.
+l. But, in fact, he was recorded, wasn't he?
+2. And he was recorded in conversation with you when you tried
+to get him to get you drugs; correct?
+l. And that became a big tabloid spectacular, wasn't it?
+Q. And that was because of his standing in connection to the
+Family; correct?
+l. And it was quite embarrassing for him and his family;
+correct?
+A. I can't speak to his experience of it.
+Q. You can't even imagine that that would have been
+embarrassing for him?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 101 of 261
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Well, you were embroiled in that, as well. Your name got
+in the paper about it, didn't it?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Was that an embarrassing experience for you?
+l. And you were paid approximately £40,000 for your
+involvement in that, weren't you?
+A. I wasn't paid anything.
+l. You just did it for free?
+A. Did what?
+l. Embroiled that acquaintance in a drug scandal?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection to form.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Did you have a conversation with him asking him to get you
+drugs?
+l. Was that conversation recorded?
+A. I believe so.
+l. And was that conversation and the circumstances surrounding
+that publicized in a British tabloid?
+Q. And as you said, it was embarrassing for you; correct?
+1262
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 102 of 261
+1263
+Q. NoW,
+I want to speak to you for a few minutes about your
+interactions with Epstein; okay?
+Okay.
+l. You were aware that sometime toward the late 2000s, Epstein
+was incarcerated; correct?
+Q. And you sent him pictures while he was in jail, didn't you?
+A. I didn't recall that.
+l. Do you recall having emailed correspondence with him?
+l. Do you recall that he asked for pictures and you agreed to
+send him pictures?
+A. I don't recall that.
+l. During the course of your preparation with the government,
+were you shown any of the emails that you had with Jeffrey
+Epstein?
+A. Sorry. Is the question, was I shown by the government my
+emails?
+l. Yes.
+l. Did you talk to the government about emails?
+l. And did you talk about having sent pictures to Jeffrey
+Epstein while he was in jail?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 103 of 261
+1264
+Q. Well, let me show you -- I'm going to ask you to look at
+your tab.
+THE COURT: Tell the government and me the tab first.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I'm getting to it, Judge. Just a
+moment. I'm going to refer the government, the Court, and Kate
+to the tab 3513-019, and it may be at 019.
+THE COURT: I don't have tabs by 3500.
+we put it on the screen for the
+witness and the Court?
+THE COURT: Sure. But you have to direct the
+government. Do you have it, Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. STERNHEIM: I will show them.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor, I have it. Thank
+you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MS. STERNHEIM: This one.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes. Thank you.
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+l. Kate, do you see what is marked as 3513-019?
+l. Do you recognize that?
+l. Do you recognize that to be email correspondence that you
+had with Jeffrey Epstein?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 104 of 261
+1265
+l. And does that have to do with correspondence that you had
+with him when he was in jail?
+l. And that correspondence has to do with sending pictures to
+him; correct?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I would move this into
+evidence as 3513-019.
+THE COURT: Can you give it an identification trial
+exhibit, please.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Defendant's K8.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the government objects.
+Hearsay.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+l. Did you send pictures to Jeffrey Epstein while he was in
+jail?
+l. Did you tell him you would send him pictures?
+2. And did you sign your correspondence to Jeffrey Epstein,
+"Best love always, Kate"?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 105 of 261 1266
+Q. Now, you maintained email correspondence with Epstein even
+after he was in jail, didn't you?
+A. I don't recall.
+Q. I'm going to ask you to look at what's been marked as
+3513-014.
+THE COURT: I don't have a tab number.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I'll put it on the screen, Judge.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz, do you have that?
+MS. POMERANTZ: I do. Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. You can put it on the screen.
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+l. Just going back for a moment, the correspondence that you
+had with Epstein concerning pictures which you claim you didn't
+send him was in 2008; correct?
+A. If that's what it said, then that would be accurate.
+e. Okay. And you don't deny that you had email correspondence
+with him?
+A. I do not deny that.
+2. Okay. Now, looking at this next exhibit, 3513-014, do you
+see that?
+l. Do you recognize that to be email correspondence that you
+had with Jeffrey Epstein?
+l. Correspondence that you had with him in 2011?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 106 of 261
+Q. And do you recall telling Jeffrey that you were --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Did you, at any point, attempt to visit Epstein in New
+1267
+York?
+l. Did you contact him for the purpose of arranging to visit
+him in New York?
+A. I felt compelled to contact him.
+l. I did not ask you that. I asked you, did you contact him?
+A. Yes, I did.
+l. You initiated email contact with him; correct?
+2. You initiated contact because you wanted to meet with him
+in New York?
+l. And you also asked if you could stay at his place in New
+York; correct?
+Q. And then you learned that he was not in New York; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, objection.
+THE COURT: Io the question, you learned he was not in
+New York?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, to the series of questions
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 107 of 261
+1268
+about -- this goes to hearsay.
+we approach?
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+l. You initiated contact with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011;
+correct?
+l. You asked to visit with him in New York; correct?
+l. You asked if you could stay with him in New York; correct?
+Q. He was not in New York; correct?
+A. Apparently.
+l. You learned that he was in Paris; correct?
+l. Throughout the years, you maintained contact with Jeffrey
+Epstein; correct?
+l. You had emails that support the contact you had with
+Epstein; correct?
+2. You don't have any email correspondence with Ghislaine, do
+you?
+Q. When was the last time you had communication with Epstein?
+A. Probably in my early 30s.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 108 of 261
+1269
+Q. Give me a date, please.
+A. I don't have a date.
+Q. When
+were you in your early 30s?
+A. I'm not sure I understand.
+Q. Well, you just said when you were in your early 30s, I
+asked for a date, you said you don't have one. Please tell me
+the years in your early 30s.
+A. Okay. Well, I'm 44 now, so it's 2021, probably within ten
+years ago and before that.
+l. So fair to say through 2012, you were in contact with him?
+A. Quite possibly so.
+l. Or maybe even later?
+l. You just stopped at some point?
+correct?
+l. And you stopped at the point that you became a mother;
+l. And what was your employment while you became a mother?
+A. I had a facility for women recovering from substance use
+disorder and trauma.
+Q. Was that the same foundation we were talking about?
+l. Something different?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 109 of 261
+1270
+Q. And that was your employment during that period of time
+that you became a mother?
+A. Which period of time specifically?
+2. Well, I don't want to go into the details, but there came a
+point where you delivered a baby; correct?
+Q. And you were employed at that time?
+l. And you also sought support from the government during that
+period of time so you could stay home with your child?
+l. And even though you are employed, you sought benefits from
+the government so you could stay home?
+A. What do you mean even though I was employed?
+Q. Well, I asked you if you were employed at that period of
+time. You said you were working for a residence; correct?
+A. No. No, I wasn't working for that then. I lived there. I
+was working for another company.
+e. What company? You don't have to tell me the name of it,
+just tell me what type of company it was.
+A. It was a financial company.
+l. So you were working for a financial company at the time you
+gave birth, yet you requested public assistance so you could
+stay home with your child?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 110 of 261
+l. Now, in connection with the claim that you made beginning
+after you testified in this courthouse following Jeffrey
+Epstein's death, you sought compensation for therapeutic
+services; correct?
+Q. And in connection with your assistance with the government,
+the FBI victim services
+awarded you money so that you could
+seek therapy; correct?
+A. I'm not sure what it was in connection with.
+l. Well, do you doubt that you received money for therapy?
+A. No, I did. Well, I didn't receive the money, the therapist
+received the money.
+l. Okay. But your therapy was paid for by the government;
+correct?
+l. And you had been in email contact with one of the FBI
+victim services liaison, both in New York and California;
+correct?
+A. Possibly, yes.
+l. In fact, they sent you a victim's form to fill out;
+correct?
+2. And you commented on issues concerning the form that they
+were somewhat complicated. Do you remember that?
+1271
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 111 of 261
+Q. But nonetheless, you completed the form; correct?
+l. And they also alerted you to resources in the area where
+you were living?
+Q. Even though, as a therapist, you knew about the resources
+in the area where you were living; correct?
+l. You were not aware of that?
+l. And in connection with the work that you do in your
+foundation and the other residence, you were not familiar with
+therapeutic services for women claiming to have been abused?
+A. Not many of them.
+l. Nonetheless, they put you in the direction of services that
+you could avail yourself of; correct?
+l. Some of which they paid for; correct?
+l. And they also alerted you to facilities or situations where
+you could get free therapy; correct?
+A. I don't recall that, but possibly, quite possibly, yes.
+Q. And in connection with the three and a quarter million
+dollars that you received from the compensation fund, you paid
+back some of that money; correct?
+1272
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+1273
+A. You mean the money for the therapy?
+Q. Yes.
+A. I think I paid back all of it.
+Q. And that was $1, 200?
+A. I don't recall, but if you say so.
+Q. You don't dispute that?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I'll move on.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+l. You're familiar with a man named Ray?
+A. I know several people called Ray.
+l. Are you familiar with --
+I have just a moment, Judge?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+Q. Are you familiar with a man - and I'm going to use a name,
+it's going to sound like a Broadway play - Alexander
+Q. Are you familiar with a man that goes by the name Ray
+?
+l. Ray
+was a friend of yours; correct?
+A. He was an acquaintance.
+He was a friend of a friend.
+l. He's someone that you knew both in the states as well as in
+London; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 113 of 261
+Q. You did not know him?
+A. Know him in the states, I don't really know what you mean.
+Did I see him here?
+e. Yes.
+Q. Do you recall being on a flight where you ran into him
+traveling to Los Angeles or from Los Angeles?
+A. I don't recall that.
+l. You have no recollection of running into the acquaintance
+you've known as Ray on a plane?
+A. On a plane, yes, but not to Los Angeles.
+l. But on a plane. I apologize if I got the destination
+wrong.
+1274
+Do you recall telling him that the Epstein matter had
+fallen into your lap?
+l. And do you recall having called him, fairly recently,
+giving him updates about how the case was going?
+I. That you were going to be writing a book?
+9. That you were hoping that a movie would be made?
+9. That it is your goal to get the money and move to Italy
+with your child?
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 114 of 261
+1275
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A.
+No.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right. We'll move on?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Yes, we can move on.
+Q. So you knew that assisting the government, as you have,
+helped your claim against the Epstein Fund; correct?
+Q. You did not know that?
+A. I did not know that.
+l. You're testifying here not as a victim; correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. You applied to the Epstein Fund; correct?
+Q. And that was based upon your claim that, when you were 17
+years old, you had contact with Jeffrey Epstein; correct?
+2. And you now that age was a particular factor in connection
+with the claim to the fund?
+A. I did not know that.
+l. You testified earlier that you were awarded three and a
+quarter million dollars; correct?
+l. And, obviously, your attorney, Mr.
+of that; correct?
+got a fee out
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 115 of 261
+Q. But the rest was yours, tax free; correct?
+Q. You have requested assistance by the government to obtain
+what's called a U visa?
+Q. That's a special visa for people who claim to have been
+victims who assist the government; correct?
+A. That is my understanding.
+l. And you have begun the process of filling out the
+application; correct?
+l. You've never filled out an application?
+A. I don't think I've begun that process, no.
+2. So if there is an application with your name on it, you
+don't know who filled that out?
+A. I made an inquiry about it. I'm not sure that I filled out
+an application.
+Q. But it is your goal to try to get the U visa; correct?
+A. No, it is not.
+2. You do not want the U visa?
+A. I do not want the U visa.
+1276
+I have a moment, Judge?
+THE COURT: You I
+•. STERNHEIM: Judge, I'm handing up a copy of an
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 116 of 261|
+exhibit that I'd like to show the government.
+THE COURT: Can you give it a trial mark for
+identification, please.
+MS. STERNHEIM: It would be Defendant's K9, please.
+May I give one to the witness, Kate, please?
+THE COURT: You l
+• STERNHEIM:
+Q. Kate, I'm going to ask you to take a look at the exhibit I
+gave you, which we are marking as K9. Do you recognize that?
+2. Do you recognize your true name on it?
+A. Sorry. On which page?
+l. On page 2, which is in the flip side of page 1. I would
+direct you to the left-hand column.
+A. I've got, I think -- I've got pages 1 of 6, 3 of 6, and 5
+of 6.
+Q. If you turn 1 of 6 over?
+A. The other side. Thank you.
+2. Do you see it now?
+l. I'm going to ask you to look at the left-hand column.
+e. Near what may be 2A?
+A. Yes. Yes.
+Q. Is that your true name?
+1277
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 117 of 261
+1278
+A. Yes, it is.
+Q. I'm going to ask you to review other parts of this. It
+indicates that certain questions have been answered.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Did you at any point participate in the completion of a
+U visa application?
+A. Could you repeat that question.
+l. Did you at any point participate in an application for a
+U visa?
+A. I'm not sure.
+l. The document that is before you, K9, bears your true name;
+correct?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+2. Do you have any idea who would have put your name on this
+application?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I would ask that this be
+entered into evidence.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Can I have a moment, please?
+THE COURT: You may.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 118 of 261
+1279
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+l. I think you testified earlier you had approximately 10
+meetings with the government in preparation for your testimony
+here; correct?
+Q. And toward the end of those meetings, meaning not the end
+of each meeting, but meaning the meetings closest to today, the
+issue of your immigration status was raised, wasn't it?
+l. And a request was made that the government look into
+helping you with a U visa?
+A. I asked that an inquiry be made.
+l. And at some point, if not today, but at least prior to
+today, it was your interest in getting a U visa; correct?
+l. Because at some point, your other visa will no longer
+survive; correct?
+l. So the U visa would permit you to stay here; correct?
+A. No, I'm saying no to what you said. So that's not the
+case.
+Q. The exceptional visa just lasts forever?
+A. No, but it's renewable and I have existed and I have stayed
+here in status on those visas for the period of time that I've
+been here. It's not problematic to renew them.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 119 of 261
+Q. And what is the exceptional circumstance that you use to
+renew your visa?
+A. It's actually an -- it's an extraordinary ability.
+l. And what is your extraordinary ability that you put forth
+in support of your visa?
+A. The last one?
+e. Yes.
+A. The last one was related to music, but not actually
+songwriting or anything. It was coaching.
+2. So anyone --
+A. Singing, coaching.
+l. So anyone who can claim to be an unlicensed music coach
+would be eligible for that type of visa?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Prior to using music, what else did you use to indicate
+that you are exceptional?
+A. I don't - I'm not clear on what you're asking, what did I
+use to indicate that I was exceptional.
+l. What did you state was the basis of you being exceptional?
+A. My -- the basis has always been music-related and it's
+evolved over time as my work has evolved.
+l. But other than you being an unlicensed music coach, you are
+not in the music business?
+A. I don't -- I don't understand. You're saying other than —-
+1280
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 120 of 261
+l. Being a music coach or a music therapist, are you employed
+in the music industry?
+A. I mean, that is the music industry.
+Q. So you are employed in that capacity?
+A. I'm employed -- I mean I work in that capacity and I get
+paid in that capacity.
+Q. And you are
+selfemployed; correct?
+l. But a U visa would permit you to be in other areas than
+music; correct?
+A. I don't know.
+Q. And a U visa is not something that you can buy; correct?
+A. I don't know.
+Q. It's something that you need the government to attest to
+the fact that you claim to be a victim; correct?
+A. I'm not sure of the requirements.
+l. You have no idea?
+A. I don't know what the requirements are, no.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Just a moment.
+Nothing further. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Ms. Pomerantz.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, would this be a good time
+for a break?
+THE COURT: I guess it depends on how long you
+anticipate.
+1281
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 121 of 261
+1282
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. POMERANTZ: I think we would go into the lunch
+break, your Honor, so I would request that we start after the
+lunch break.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you.
+THE COURT: Members of the jury, we'll take our lunch
+break. It's 12:45.
+We're going to shoot for 45 minutes to an
+hour. Thank you. Enjoy your break.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 122 of 261
+1283
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: The witness may step down for the lunch
+break.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.
+(Witness excused)
+THE COURT: Everyone may be seated. Matters to take
+up, counsel?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Not from the government. Thank you,
+your Honor.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Not at this time.
+THE COURT: We'll resume in 45 minutes. Let me know
+if there is anything we need to address, please.
+Thank you.
+(Recess)
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 123 of 261
+1284
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+AFTERNOON SESSION
+1:35 P.M.
+THE COURT: Matters to take up?
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+I'm not sure if my microphone is on.
+THE COURT: It's not.
+I'm not sure why.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+Regarding the 900 series, I just wanted to flag in
+advance for the Court I've conferred with Mr. Everdell. We had
+earlier discussed the range of exhibits that the Court had
+ruled on. There were some additional exhibits from the 900
+series that weren't in dispute. And so I just want to flag for
+the Court that when I offer them, there will be additional
+numbers. I've conferred about the list with Mr. Everdell; I
+think we're in agreement on the scope of that, and that that's
+consistent with the Court's ruling. But I just wanted to flag
+that in advance.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MR. EVERDELL: That's correct, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Great. Thank you.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I have a couple of matters, if
+I might.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I have requested and I would ask the
+Court to direct the government to disclose the origin of the U
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 124 of 261
+1285
+visa application that bears Kate's name. It was provided to us
+some time in the wee hours. I do not know its origin, but it
+certainly contains specific information regarding this witness.
+It may require us to call a witness, so I need to know from
+where it came.
+The other has to do with the emails. I'm not sure
+what the Court's preclusion of the introduction of the emails
+which actually constitute past recollection recorded of this
+witness to Mr. Epstein.
+remind me what the --
+THE COURT: Let's start with the -- what got marked --
+MS. STERNHEIM: I think it was K-9.
+THE COURT: 3513-062, pages 1 through 6, which got
+marked for identification as Defendant's K-9. The request is
+for the government to indicate the origin.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, on 3513-045, the notes
+say, at the end of the meeting, the witness's counsel provided
+a form and asked to discuss her visa status, and that is the
+form. And the index also indicates that that was the form
+provided on that date.
+THE COURT: Okay. That resolves that.
+And then the emails which were marked - I'm sorry,
+remind me what they were marked as.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I think they were marked as K-7.
+THE COURT: Defendant's K-7.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 125 of 261
+1286
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. STERNHEIM: Excuse me. I'm getting another --
+K-8. I apologize.
+THE COURT: Okay. Defendant's K-8.
+So just get my head back in it.
+Okay. Ms. Pomerantz?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, may I just have a moment.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+(Counsel conferred)
+MS. POMERANTZ: If I could have just the 3500 number
+so that way -- because I don't believe I have the exhibit.
+MS. STERNHEIM: 3513-019.
+THE COURT: I don't think I ever got a copy of it. It
+was on the screen.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes.
+THE COURT: If it's not in the binder, maybe you could
+hand up a copy, please.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I can, Judge.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I'm just showing the government.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, the recorded recollection
+rule provides an exception to the rule against hearsay. And
+the first prong refers to: On a matter that the witness once
+knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully
+and accurately.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 261
+1287
+But the witness was able to testify fully about the
+issue, and she testified fully about the matter; and there was
+no, you know, inconsistency or prior inconsistent statement.
+It should not be admitted into evidence.
+THE COURT: My read on it at the time was that the
+only discrepancy was -- the implied discrepancy was whether
+pictures were actually sent, but the email doesn't go to that;
+so it seems to me that her testimony was what was reflected in
+the email. What am I missing?
+I have just a moment?
+THE COURT: You may.
+And I suppose, to put a fine point on the question, as
+Ms. Pomerantz says, what is it that the witness could not
+recall well enough to testify fully and accurately?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, it's my understanding --
+THE COURT: I'm sorry, at the mic please.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize.
+THE COURT: That's okay.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Past recollection recorded does not
+have to be inconsistent.
+THE COURT: Okay. That's not the question.
+So just a record that sub A is on a matter the witness
+once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify
+fully and accurately.
+So what couldn't the witness testify fully and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 127 of 261
+1288
+accurately about?
+MS. STERNHEIM: Well, at first she wasn't sure. And
+then when she saw it, she didn't deny it. But I think that it
+is a recording of her own email. There is no issue as to
+authenticity.
+THE COURT: It's not an authenticity objection; it's a
+hearsay objection.
+Again, I think her testimony would be described as she
+recalled it well enough to testify fully and accurately because
+it doesn't conflict with what's in here. So it's not the same
+analysis as prior inconsistent statement, but I think the
+initial question is what did she not testify to fully and
+accurately.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I just think it is corroborative of
+her testimony and more reliable than just coming from the stand
+when it is her own written statement to the co-conspirator in
+this case.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, that's not responsive to
+the question. And also, as the Court has noted, it just
+doesn't meet the standard that's articulated under 5A in terms
+of the question is whether it's on a matter that the witness
+once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify
+fully and accurately. And that's just not the case here, your
+Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 128 of 261
+1289
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I would just say that it is not
+being offered for the truth; it's offered for the fact that she
+maintained contact with him at a time later than the matters in
+issue and, therefore, it has relevance.
+THE COURT: That's the truth, what you just said.
+It's being offered for the truth that she had contact.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Well, that part is not hearsay. The
+content is hearsay. The fact of the contact itself is
+something else. That's my understanding of it.
+THE COURT: Well, okay. She said she emailed with
+him. If you want to redact the content and show that there
+were emails, I suppose that's another question. But if you're
+not - you want the content, which is consistent with what she
+testified to.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I want the dates.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. STERNHEIM: And that is not hearsay.
+THE COURT: All right. So the dates then I would
+permit -- I'll hear the government's response to this, but with
+the content redacted.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I'd like to check the
+transcript, because I thought she had agreed to the dates. And
+sO --
+THE COURT: She did.
+MS. POMERANTZ: So this seems cumulative, your Honor.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 129 of 261
+1290
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Well, I would permit it as cumulative if
+all we're doing is showing the jury that emails happened on
+these dates.
+MS. POMERANTZ: I just want to make sure I understand,
+your Honor. Would all of the substance of the emails be
+redacted?
+THE COURT: That's the proposition.
+MS. POMERANTZ: And what about the subject lines?
+MS. STERNHEIM: The subject lines would not be --
+well, the sender and recipient would not be hearsay. The date
+would not be hearsay.
+THE COURT: Right. But the subject line would be.
+Okay. So with the content and the subject matter
+redacted, I'll let the dates in. And who's emailing it would
+have to be sealed because it identifies the witness by her true
+identity.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Okay, your Honor. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Sternheim, your team will
+prepare a redacted -- I'm sorry, I lost the number, K -- what
+was the defendant's mark?
+-8.
+And if I may just supplement the record for a moment.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MS. STERNHEIM: If it is not being offered for the
+truth, why can't it come in with a limiting instruction? Other
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 130 of 261
+1291
+things have been admitted during this trial with limiting
+instructions.
+I think that there is relevance to this.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MS. STERNHEIM: And it comports with testimony;
+therefore, there is relevance to it. And an instruction would
+cure the concerns of the government.
+THE COURT: I'm going to continue with my ruling.
+Now I'm leaning towards cumulativeness, but I'1l
+permit the dates and the emails for the reasons indicated with
+redaction of the content on 403 grounds.
+If you can prep a redacted version or, counsel, you
+could stipulate to the dates the emails were sent or the like,
+but you need to do this quickly because the jury is going to
+come back in. What else do we need to take up?
+MS. STERNHEIM: That's all.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Nothing from the government.
+THE COURT: Okay. Can you sort out how you're going
+to get it in? Well, I suppose -- I mean, she's off of cross at
+this point. Figure it out and you can do it on recross, I
+suppose. I'll step down for two minutes.
+(Recess)
+THE COURT: Counsel, ready to proceed?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Yes.
+MR. ROHRBACH: One matter --
+THE COURT: I can't hear you, Mr. Rohrbach.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 131 of 261
+1292
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. ROHRBACH: One matter to take up, your Honor,
+before the jury comes in.
+After conferring with the defense we just wanted to
+make sure we fully understood the Court's ruling this morning
+about one piece of the testimony related to the New York
+search.
+The government's understanding of the Court's ruling
+is that the government is not going to offer exhibits that
+depict either images of celebrities or images of nude or
+semi-nude people inside the house; but it is going to elicit
+testimony from the witness that she observed those two
+categories of images. We just want to make sure that both of
+those were consistent with -- both of those pieces of testimony
+would be consistent with the Court's ruling.
+THE COURT: You can ask the witness testimony about
+what she saw at the relevant time period.
+On the celebrity piece, I understood you to say you
+weren't moving in that exhibit; that is a desk with photos of
+Epstein with celebrities. Was that a misunderstanding?
+MR. ROHRBACH: No, that is correct, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I didn't rule on that, but your question
+is may you ask the witness about photos she saw?
+MR. ROHRBACH: Yes.
+So my understanding is we're
+going to just ask at a relatively high level of generality, but
+both photos she saw and the nude artwork she observed.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 132 of 261
+1293
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Is there an objection?
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think --
+THE COURT: Microphone please.
+MR. EVERDELL: Sorry, your Honor.
+I think it does defeat the purpose a bit of not
+admitting the exhibits just to have the agent testify about
+those very same --
+THE COURT: Are you talking about the agent?
+MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, the agent who conducted the
+search.
+THE COURT:
+• I misunderstood.
+No, you can't ask the agent unless -- for the same
+reason. Relevance has to be to the time period.
+MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine, your Honor. We just
+wanted to make sure we understood.
+THE COURT: Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Everdell.
+I thought you meant the current witness.
+MR. ROHRBACH: No, not the current witness.
+MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+Okay. What else? Anything?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Nothing from the government.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: All right. Bring in the witness, please.
+And we'll bring in the jury.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 133 of 261
+Kate - redirect
+1294
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(Witness present)
+THE COURT: You may remove your mask.
+We'll have the
+jury in in a moment.
+Ms. Pomerantz, if you want to go to the podium and set
+up, you
+. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+Just while we're waiting, just to flag, counsel, if
+you look at 911 and 913, it 1o0ks like there's photos that
+might need additional redaction.
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: Thank you, members of the jury.
+I hope you had a pleasant lunch.
+We're going to pick up with the redirect examination
+of the witness identified as Kate.
+Ms. Pomerantz, when you're ready.
+And Kate, I remind you that you are under oath.
+Go ahead.
+REDIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. POMERANTZ:
+2. Good afternoon, Kate.
+A. Good afternoon.
+2. Can you just pull the microphone a little bit closer to you
+please?
+A. Is that good?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 134 of 261
+Kate - redirect
+1295
+Q. Yes. Thank you.
+Do you remember being asked questions on
+cross-examination about your immigration status?
+l. Can you explain to the jury what you expect will happen
+with your immigration status.
+A. Yes. My plan is to file a renewal of my current existing
+0-1 visa a couple of months before the existing one expires, as
+I have done many previous times.
+2. Has the government promised you anything with respect to
+your immigration status?
+A. No, they have not.
+l. Have you coordinated your testimony with any other
+witnesses at this trial?
+l. Has anyone told you what to say at this trial?
+2. What are you here to do today?
+A. Aside from the events that took place a long time that I'm
+referring to today, this is the hardest thing that I have ever
+had to do. And I am here because I don't think there is
+anything more important, especially now that I'm a parent, than
+demonstrating to her that I can stand up for myself and
+demonstrating that the truth is important.
+2. Kate, you were asked on cross-examination about public
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 135 of 261
+Kate - redirect
+statements that you made in your name. Do you recall that?
+A. Can you repeat?
+Q. You were asked on cross-examination about public statements
+you made in your name.
+Q. Do you recall that?
+Q. Was that hearing where you made those public statements
+about Maxwell?
+A. Sorry. I can't hear you.
+Q. Was that hearing where you made those public statements
+about Maxwell?
+A. No, it was not.
+e. Who was the hearing about?
+A. It was about Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. At that hearing, did you talk about all of your
+experiences?
+l. Did you go into detail about your experiences with Epstein
+during that hearing?
+e. Why not?
+A. Because I did not want to disclose on a public level under
+my own name the details of the incidents that took place
+because I did not want my daughter to be exposed.
+1296
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 136 of 261
+Kate - redirect
+1297
+2. That same day did you meet with the government for the
+first time?
+2. Who did you tell the government about?
+A. I told the government about Ghislaine Maxwell.
+Q. Kate, do you remember the first time you saw Jeffrey
+Epstein naked?
+l. Do you remember who was standing next to you?
+2. Who was standing next to you?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell.
+l. How old were you?
+A. Seventeen.
+l. Can you explain to the jury why you remember that so
+clearly?
+A. I remember it so clearly because I was terrified and
+frozen.
+2. You were asked on cross-examination questions about your
+memories and your drug use, do you recall that?
+l. Can you explain to the jury why you remember what happened
+to you with Maxwell and Epstein when you were 17?
+A. I remember what happened when I was 17 with Ghislaine and
+Jeffrey because those events come back to me all the time. I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 137 of 261
+have nightmares about them.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Objection.
+THE COURT: All right. Sustained.
+Next question.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor.
+Q. You were asked some questions on cross-examination about
+the awards you received from the Epstein Victim Compensation
+Fund. Do you remember that?
+Q. Can you tell the jury what the money meant to you.
+A. Yes. What the money meant to me was recognition of my
+pain; what it meant to me was that my truth was important --
+MS. STERNHEIM: Objection.
+THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
+A. It meant that I could continue to try to recover and to
+continue to try and help other people recover from these kinds
+of events.
+Q. Kate, do you have any financial stake in the outcome of
+this trial?
+A. I do not.
+MS. POMERANTZ: No further questions, your Honor.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Briefly.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+RECROSS EXAMINATION
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+1298
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 138 of 261
+1299
+2. You've been asked questions about your memory; correct?
+THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, your mask.
+, I forgot. Thank you.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+2. Kate, you've been asked questions about your memory;
+correct?
+l. And you testified from your memory about an occasion where
+you were asked to put on a uniform; correct?
+l. And in connection with that interaction, you and Ghislaine
+spoke about St. Trinian's, do you recall?
+A. I do not.
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+Beyond the scope.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. STERNHEIM: I don't understand the objection.
+THE COURT: Beyond the scope of the redirect.
+l. Have you on other occasions wore costumes?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. You speak about the truth. It's your truth as you believe
+it to be; correct?
+A. It is my experience.
+l. Your experience and your experience alone; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 139 of 261
+1300
+Q. And experiences that you have discussed with other
+individuals who claim to have been abused by Epstein; correct?
+A. I have not discussed these experiences with others.
+Q. Experiences that you have discussed with your lawyer who
+represents
+other --
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection.
+l. - victims?
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. You were at a meeting with the government where your
+immigration status was discussed, do you recall?
+l. And during that meeting, a form that was shown to you
+today, a U visa form, was handed to the government.
+Do you remember that?
+A. I do not recall.
+l. Do you remember that your lawyer, Mr.
+was at that
+meeting?
+A. I would imagine he would have been.
+l. And do you recall that Mr.
+form to the government?
+is the one who gave that
+A. I do not recall.
+2. And do you recall that Mr.
+during that meeting concerning your U visa?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+had consulted with you
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 140 of 261
+1301
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. And do you recall that it was at that meeting that a
+request was made for the government to look into your U visa?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+Asked and answered.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. So as you sit here now, you're just going to renew your
+visa based on exceptionalism and are not going forward with the
+U visa?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Objection, your Honor.
+Asked and answered.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, at this time I would move
+into evidence, with proper redactions being made, Exhibit K-8
+and K-10. I have discussed this with the government. They
+will be appropriately redacted for later publication to the
+jury.
+THE COURT: Without objection?
+MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Defendants's K-8 and K-10 with redactions
+will be admitted. I know K-8 is sealed. Is K-10 also sealed?
+MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, they both should be under
+sealed.
+THE COURT: Both are sealed even with redactions
+because the unredacted material would identify the witness.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 141 of 261|
+1302
+(Defendant's Exhibits K-8, K-10 received in evidence)
+BY MS. STERNHEIM:
+l. Kate, in connection with your application to the fund, if
+it is determined that anything you stated on that application
+is not true, that could impact the money you received, isn't
+that a fact?
+A. I'm not sure.
+l. Didn't the application specifically state that applications
+would be vetted for fraud?
+A. I don't remember that, but I would imagine that would be
+true.
+MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you.
+No further questions.
+THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Kate.
+You may step down. You are excused. Thank you.
+THE WITNESS: Thank you.
+(Witness excused)
+THE COURT: The government may call its next witness.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+The government calls
+McHugh.
+THE COURT:
+McHugh may come forward.
+McHUGH,
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+THE COURT: You may inquire.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 142 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. MOE:
+Q. Good afternoon, Mr. McHugh.
+A. Good afternoon.
+Q. Can you just take a moment to move the microphone so that
+it's closer to your mouth, that way you don't have to lean
+forward.
+Thank you.
+THE COURT: It's okay to lean forward, too.
+l. Thanks very much.
+All right. Mr. McHugh, can you tell us, where do you
+1303
+work?
+A. JPMorgan.
+Q. Is JPMorgan a bank?
+l. Can you tell us how long have you worked for JPMorgan?
+A. Thirty years.
+l. What is your current title at JPMorgan?
+A. Executive - executive director.
+l. What does it mean to be an executive director?
+A. I'm an officer of the firm.
+e. Do you work in a particular department at JPMorgan?
+A. I work in the client service group.
+Q. What are your duties and responsibilities as an executive
+director in the client services group at JPMorgan?
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 143 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1304
+THE COURT: I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+hearing you.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. Can you repeat.
+MS. MOE: Thank you.
+Q. What are your duties and responsibilities as an executive
+director in the client services group at JPMorgan?
+A. I'm currently responsible as the global business process
+and control manager for our client service group.
+l. In your role at JPMorgan, are you familiar with the normal
+business practices of JPMorgan with respect to keeping records?
+l. Are you familiar with the business practices regarding
+account opening documents
+and account ownership documents?
+l. Can you tell the jury, what are account opening documents?
+A. Account opening documents are applications that clients
+complete to provide us information in order to open and operate
+their accounts and any subsequent documents that tell us who's
+authorized for the various transactions and entities.
+l. Are you familiar with the business practices regarding
+account statements?
+l. What are account statements?
+A. Account statements are typically monthly records that we
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 144 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1305
+produce in physical or digital form for our clients so they can
+see the balances
+and activity in their accounts. And they can
+call and inquire or reconcile for their purposes.
+Q. Does JPMorgan maintain account statements and account
+ownership documents in its files?
+Q. How are those records maintained?
+A. They are digitally imaged in our system of record.
+l. If you could please take a look at the binder in front of
+you on the witness stand. I have placed in front of you
+documents which are marked for identification as Government
+Exhibits 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, and 509. Can you just take a
+moment to see that those exhibits are in that binder?
+A. Sure. Documents are in there.
+e. Thank you.
+In preparation for trial, has the government asked you
+to review those exhibits?
+2. And how do you know that those are the same exhibits you
+reviewed in preparation for trial?
+A. In order to authenticate those documents, I went into our
+system of record in our imaging application, and I had those
+documents pulled up so I could look across dual screens and
+verify that those were the identical images that we had on
+our -- in our records and files.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 145 of 261
+1306
+McHugh - direct
+Q. And how do you know that the exhibits in the binder are the
+same ones that you pulled up in the system and compared
+side-by-side to make sure they are accurate?
+A. Well, again, I went into the system and did the
+side-by-side review and verified that they were identical. And
+I checked the attributes of those individual documents, the key
+attributes of all of those individual documents, to make sure
+that they matched.
+l. Did you make any notations in the binder?
+Q. What notations did you make?
+A. I initialed the binder based on the tab and each exhibit.
+l. Do you recognize these exhibits as records from JPMorgan?
+A. Yes, I recognize them.
+l. Okay. What kinds of records from JPMorgan are they?
+A. Those are account opening documents and account statements.
+l. Are those true and accurate copies of JPMorgan records?
+2. Are those records kept by JPMorgan in the normal course of
+business?
+l. Were the entries in those records made at or near the times
+those events occurred?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 146 of 261
+1307
+McHugh - direct
+Exhibits 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, and 509 as public exhibits.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+The exhibits just indicated are admitted and you may
+publish.
+(Government's Exhibits 501, 502, 504, 505, 506, 509
+received in evidence)
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MOE:
+l. Mr. McHugh, before I begin asking you about these records,
+had the full account numbers been redacted from these exhibits
+for bank security and privacy reasons?
+A. They've been partially redacted.
+Q. Thank you. All right.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, could you please publish
+what's now in evidence as Government Exhibit 509.
+Q. Mr. McHugh, what are we looking at here?
+A. Exhibit 509 is a
+account corporate partnership
+information application page.
+l. What is the name of this particular account?
+A. The name of this -- the title of this account is Financial
+Trust Company, Inc.
+Q. Focusing on the field in section B that says contact person
+and title, what is listed there?
+A. The contact person is Jeffrey Epstein, and the title is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 147 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1308
+president.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if we could turn to the bottom
+of page 3 of this exhibit.
+Q. Can you tell us, what is the date of this account
+application?
+A. August 11th, 1999.
+l. And who is listed here as the account holder?
+A. Jeffrey Epstein.
+MS. MOE: And Ms. Drescher, if we could please turn to
+page 2.
+l. Focusing on the upper right-hand corner of page 2, do you
+see where it says "asset account number"?
+Q. What does that mean?
+A. Asset account number is the account number we assign when
+we open up asset accounts for our clients.
+l. What are the last four digits of that asset account number?
+A. 5001.
+l. Could you please explain for the jury what is an asset
+account?
+A. An asset account is an account that our clients use to hold
+securities and cash and purchase securities and effect
+transactions. It's an account that is controlled by the client
+and all the transactions are directed by them.
+2. I want to ask you a few more questions about this
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 148 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1309
+particulate asset account.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could leave this up and
+publish alongside it what's now in evidence as Government
+
+l. What is Government Exhibit 505?
+A. Exhibit 505 is an asset account statement.
+Q. And what account is this an account statement for?
+A. For account number 5001 for the Financial Trust Company,
+Inc.
+MS. MOE: And Ms. Drescher, if you could please
+highlight on the left the account number in Government Exhibit
+509.
+about?
+e. okay.
+Q. Mr. McHugh, is this the same account we've been talking
+MS. MOE: Thank you, Ms. Drescher.
+If you could please drop Government Exhibit 509; we'll
+focus on Government Exhibit 505.
+l. Just so we're on the same page, what's the month and year
+of this asset account statement?
+A. October 1999.
+MS. MOE: All right. If we could turn to page 6 of
+Government Exhibit 505 please. Ms. Drescher, if you could
+please blow up the two entries that are dated October 19th,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 149 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1310
+1999.
+Q. Do you see those, Mr. McHugh?
+2. Thank you.
+All right. So I'd like to direct your attention to
+the first entry here that's dated October 19th, the one that's
+marked "sale."
+Could you please walk the jury through what the
+annotation for this transaction means.
+A. Sure. On October 19th, there is a sale of $18,300,000
+worth of -- or shares of the prime JPMorgan institutional prime
+money market fund that generated $18, 300,000 in cash.
+l. All right. So just in layman's terms, what does it mean to
+sell $18.3 million in shares?
+A. It means redeemed from a money market account, $18, 300,000
+worth of - of shares for cash, to raise cash.
+l. So at the time this account sold those shares, is that
+amount now in cash?
+A. It's now in cash in the account and available.
+l. Is that in the amount of $18.3 million?
+A. Yes, $18.3 million.
+Q. Turning to the next entry below that, what's the very next
+thing that happened in this account on that day?
+A. On October 19th, there was a transfer by wire to Bear
+Stearns for the account of Ghislaine Maxwell for $18,300,000.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 150 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1311
+Q. Is that the same amount that had just been cashed out?
+l. So I just want to make sure we all understand, can you
+remind the jury, who owned this bank account?
+A. This account is the Financial Trust Company, Inc., and the
+president was Jeffrey Epstein.
+l. Does this entry reflect that on October 19th, 1999, this
+account wired $18.3 million to Ghislaine Maxwell?
+MR. EVERDELL: Objection. Leading.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Just so we're clear, where did this fund wire $18.3
+million?
+MR. EVERDELL: Objection.
+Basis for knowledge.
+Q. Mr. McHugh, does the annotation in this bank statement
+reflect who the recipient of the wire was?
+l. And who was the recipient of this $18.3 million
+transaction?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell.
+e. Thank you.
+records from 2002.
+So I want to switch gears now and ask you about some
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, could you please publish what
+is in evidence as Government Exhibit 504.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 151 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1312
+Q. And can you tell the jury, what are we looking at here?
+A. This
+is an asset account statement.
+Q. What
+month is this an account statement for?
+A.
+September 2002.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please highlight
+the upper left corner, as well as the lower middle.
+Q. What name was this account under?
+A. Jeffrey Epstein, care of Financial Trust Company.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 152 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+Q. Thank you. All right. So, if we could turn to now page 8
+of Government Exhibit 504, I'm going to ask you about some
+transactions from this account statement.
+Ms. Drescher if you could please highlight the bottom
+two transactions on page 8 that are both dated September 18,
+1313
+2002.
+So, focusing on this first transaction on September
+18th, marked sale, could you please walk the jury through what
+we're looking at in this transaction.
+A. On September 18th, there was a sale of five million shares
+of the JP
+tax free money market fund institutional share
+class that raised $5 million in cash.
+Q. In layman's terms, what does that mean?
+A. It means that $5 million is now available in the account.
+Q. Turning to the entry right below that on September 18th,
+marked disbursement, could you please walk the jury through
+what that notation means.
+A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that.
+l. Of course. So focusing on the second entry here dated
+September 18th, could you please walk the jury through this
+particular transaction.
+A. On September 18th, there was a transfer by wire to Palm
+Beach National Bank & Trust Co. for the account of Ghislaine
+Maxwell for $5 million.
+2. What does the abbreviation FAO stand for?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 153 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1314
+A. For account of.
+Q. So does this account statement reflect that this account
+wired $5 million to Ghislaine Maxwell on September 18th, 2002?
+MR. EVERDELL: Objection. Leading.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. I want to turn now and ask you about some records from
+2007. Ms. Drescher, could you please publish what is now in
+evidence as Government Exhibit 502.
+What is Government Exhibit 502?
+A. Exhibit 502 is a premiere checking account banking
+statement.
+l. If we could highlight the address here, whose account is
+this?
+A. The account is Ghislaine Maxwell, care of New York Strategy
+Group, 457 Madison Avenue, 4th floor, New York, New York 10022.
+l. What type of an account is this?
+A. This is a premiere checking account, a checking account
+with interest.
+l. Focusing on Government Exhibit 502, if we could turn to
+page 2 of this account statement, please. If we could
+highlight the first entry here on June 15th.
+Mr. McHugh, is this an entry dated June 15th, 2007?
+l. Could you please walk the jury through the entry - this
+particular entry on the account statement.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 154 of 261 1315
+McHugh - direct
+A. On June 15th -- actually. Sorry. Let me look at my book.
+It's a little easier for me to follow.
+Q. I'm sorry. Is that harder to read the font size --
+A. It blocks the --
+MS. MOE: I'm sorry, Ms. Drescher, could you drop out
+so Mr. McHugh can see it. And if now we could highlight the
+entry on June 15th.
+Q. Do you see that, Mr. McHugh?
+A. Can you lower it, please. It's all right. Okay. I see
+it.
+2. Thank you.
+A. Perfect.
+l. Could you please walk the jury through this entry in the
+account statement dated June 15th, 2007.
+A. Sure. On June 15th, there was a wire received in this
+account, Ghislaine Maxwell, ending in account numbers 6312. A
+wire received from Mellon Bank from beneficial owner, Jeffrey
+Epstein, in St.
+Virgin Islands, and then it has
+reference for Ghislaine Maxwell.
+l. I believe you were describing what the entry here
+indicates, these funds were from the beneficial owner, Jeffrey
+Epstein. Could you just explain for the jury what that means.
+A. When payments are received, the firm, the transmitting firm
+that sends a wire in, sends the account -- the account
+information, the account number, and the account address to
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 155 of 261|
+McHugh - direct
+1316
+stay with it, and it posts to the account, so that's where the
+money came from.
+Q. What was the amount of funds of income on this wire credit?
+A. $7,400,000.
+l. If we could turn now to the next entry on this account
+statement on June 18th. Do you see that, Mr. McHugh?
+A. I do.
+l. Could you please walk the jury through this entry on the
+account statement.
+A. On June 18th, there was an internal transfer of funds from
+DDA account, 6312, to DDA account 4324 as requested for
+$7,400,000.
+Q. So just so I'm clear, is the amount of this transaction
+$7.4 million?
+l. And from this entry, where did that $7.4 million go?
+A. It went to account 4324.
+l. I want to ask you a few questions about that account ending
+in the number 4324.
+Ms. Drescher, if you could please leave this exhibit
+up and pull alongside it Government Exhibit 506.
+What is Government Exhibit 506?
+A. Exhibit 506 is a
+account signature card.
+l. And Ms. Drescher, focusing on the bottom left of Government
+Exhibit 506, what are the last four digits of the account
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 156 of 261
+McHugh - direct
+1317
+number for this signature card?
+A. 4324.
+Q. Is that the same account number we were just talking about
+with the $7.4 million went into?
+Q. Thank you. If we could drop Government Exhibit 502 and
+focus on Government Exhibit 506, focusing on the top, the
+signatories, who was listed here as president?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell, president.
+Q. Thank you. We can take Government Exhibit 506 down. I'd
+like to turn now to Government Exhibit 501. What is Government
+Exhibit 501?
+A. A business checking account.
+l. And Ms. Drescher, if you could please highlight the account
+you number at the top where it says primary account number,
+what are the last four digits of that account number?
+A. 4324.
+Q. Is that the same account we've just been talking about?
+l. What is the title of this account?
+A. Air Ghislaine Inc.
+l. What is the date of the account statement?
+A. June Ist, 2007, through June 29th, 2007.
+l. I want to ask you now about some transactions in this
+account statement. If we could please turn to the second page
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 157 of 261 1318
+McHugh - direct
+of this account statement. I'd like to ask you about the two
+entries that are dated June 18th, 2007. Do you see those?
+A. I do.
+Q. Thank you. All right. So, focusing on the first entry
+dated June 18th at the top, could you please just walk the jury
+through what that entry reflects.
+A. On June 18th, there was an internal funds transfer from DDA
+account 6312 to DDA account 4324 as requested for $7.4 million.
+Q. And in laymen's terms, what does that mean?
+A. It means there was an internal transfer between two
+accounts within JP
+and one account transferred
+$7.4 million to the 4324 account.
+l. So to be clear, for this entry, is this account receiving
+$7.4 million or sending $7.4 million out?
+A. It's a credit. You can see on the column there, it's a
+credit of $7.4 million.
+l. All right. So after this account received the
+$7.4 million, if you could turn to the entry right beneath that
+dated June 18th, what happened next in this account?
+A. So on June 18th, there was a transfer out of $7,352, 825.
+A
+transfer to the account of Sikorsky Aircraft in Stratford,
+Connecticut, and it references Air Ghislaine Inc. regarding
+purchase of a
+helicopter, Sikorsky S76C, and down payment
+on executive finish.
+Q. You were explaining that this entry reflects that this wire
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 158 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+was regarding the purchase of a
+helicopter. Could you
+just explain for the jury why those instructions are on this
+particular entry.
+A. Typically, those instructions are provided by the client as
+part of the instructions for transfer and our service people
+will record that in at their request.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, if I could just have one moment.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MOE: Thank you.
+l. Mr. McHugh, just to be clear, did you have any personal
+involvement with the accounts or the transactions that we've
+been discussing here today?
+l. Have you, yourself, ever had any interactions with
+Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein before?
+1319
+MS. MOE: Nothing further, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Your Honor, I have binders for
+the witness and for the Court if you would like those.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR. EVERDELL: May I inquire, your Honor?
+THE COURT: You may.
+CROSS-EXAMINATION
+BY MR. EVERDELL:
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 261
+1320
+McHugh - cross
+Q. Good afternoon, Mr. McHugh.
+A. Good afternoon.
+l. If you see, I've placed a folder of documents near you, but
+please don't look at those until I direct you to. All right?
+A. Okay.
+Q. Okay.
+Mr. McHugh, you testified that you've been working
+at JP
+bank for 30-odd years; is that right?
+Q. And you've been an executive director since 2017; is that
+right?
+A. I was promoted to executive director a while ago. I don't
+remember the exact date.
+l. Okay. For several years?
+A. Several years.
+Q. Okay. And your current responsibilities I think you said
+are to work with -- you work with the service teams; is that
+right?
+A. I support the service teams.
+e. Okay. And also the compliance teams?
+A. I work in partnership with compliance teams. They're part
+of the second line of defense.
+l. I see. So you mainly focus on supporting the client
+service teams; is that right?
+A. That's right.
+2. And before you became executive director, you, yourself,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 160 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1321
+also worked in account services; right?
+A. In -- so
+I worked in many roles.
+Can you clarify account
+services?
+Q. Well, perhaps you can clarify. You were working in a
+client service capacity for several years in your employment
+with JP
+¡ is that right?
+A. That's correct.
+Q. What that means you're helping out clients at the bank with
+their accounts; correct?
+A. I did.
+2. And so you, in that role, you handled opening bank accounts
+for customers; right?
+l. Or you are familiar with how bank accounts are opened?
+l. I don't think you were personally doing it, you were
+probably a little bit more senior than that; is that right?
+A. I did more on the security side when I was working with
+clients than I did on the cash side, yes.
+l. But you're familiar with how bank accounts get opened; is
+that right?
+l. You and you're familiar with the paperwork that's used to
+open those accounts?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 161 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+Q. And what needs to get filled out in order to open an
+account; right?
+Q. And you're familiar with the general process about how
+these different accounts get opened in addition to the
+paperwork, the general process of how that happens; right?
+A. I have an understanding of that process, yes.
+Q. Now, Mr. McHugh, at any point in your 30 years with JP
+did you work with -- did you ever work with high net
+worth individuals?
+l. So you worked with people who have tens of millions or
+hundreds of millions of dollars; right?
+l. And so you are generally familiar with the banking
+practices of JP
+• high net worth or ultra wealthy
+clients; right?
+2. You know generally how they structure and use bank accounts
+and other types of accounts?
+A. Can you clarify that question.
+I. Well, in your work with high net worth individuals, you
+became familiar with, for example, how many bank accounts they
+typically use or the types of bank accounts that they use?
+A. So, in a service role, you would get some familiarity with
+1322
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 162 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1323
+the transactions on the relationship basis.
+Q. Well, let me ask it this way: You, yourself, worked with
+certain high net worth individuals and had relationships with
+those high net worth individuals?
+Q. And you helped those high net worth individuals open bank
+accounts or do whatever banking they needed with JP
+right?
+l. Okay. Now, we saw in the documents you just went through
+documents showing tens of millions of dollars in a single
+account; isn't that right?
+A. I don't know the exact balances, but there was one account
+that had a very large balance.
+Q. Right. I think you showed us a document where there was an
+$18.3 million transfer in one shot; right?
+A. Yes, counsel did.
+l. And you said you showed us documents of accounts that were
+controlled by Jeffrey Epstein?
+A. I testified to documents that were presented.
+l. Yes. You testified about accounts that were in the name of
+Jeffrey Epstein?
+I. Is that fair to say?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 163 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+Q. And I think it's fair to say from the documents you
+testified about that Jeffrey Epstein was a very wealthy
+individual, wasn't he?
+MS. MOE: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Well, you've dealt with very high net worth individuals in
+the past; correct?
+l. And those individuals have multimillions of dollars in
+their bank accounts, typically; right?
+A. Many do.
+Q. And the documents we saw for the accounts that were in the
+name of Jeffrey Epstein at JP
+that you just testified
+about also had many millions of dollars in those accounts;
+correct?
+A. Can we go through the specifics.
+l. Sure. I think if you want to look at Government Exhibit
+504 to start with. If we can put that on the screen. That's
+already in evidence.
+So we're now looking at Government Exhibit 504, which
+is in evidence. This is a document you talked about before in
+your testimony; correct?
+Q. And we saw this before and you were shown the upper
+left-hand corner, this is an account under the name of Jeffrey
+1324
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 164 of 261
+1325
+McHugh - cross
+Epstein?
+l. And if you go to I think it's page 8 of this document, I
+think we looked at this page in your testimony; correct?
+0. The date September 18th of 2002, there was a transfer of
+$5 million in that account; right?
+l. So this is one example of an account we looked at under the
+name of Jeffrey Epstein where there were multimillion dollars
+in the account; right?
+l. Okay. Great. And I think we also looked at accounts that
+was under the name of Financial Trust Company; right?
+l. Why don't we just take a quick look at that, Government
+Exhibit 505. That's Government Exhibit 505 that you're looking
+at, Mr. McHugh. Do you recall testifying about that in your
+direct; right?
+l. And on the top left, that's an account that's under the
+name of Financial Trust Company; right?
+l. Okay. And I think we saw a document that indicated that
+this was controlled by Jeffrey Epstein?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 165 of 261 1326
+McHugh - cross
+l. And if you look at page 6 of this document, and you look at
+the transactions on October 19th of 1999, which I think we
+looked at in your testimony in direct; is that right?
+Q. That shows a sale of roughly $18.3 million and another
+transfer of the same amount on the same day; right?
+l. So here's another example, is it not an account with many,
+many millions of dollars in an account that's controlled by
+Jeffrey Epstein; right?
+Q. So I think it's fair to say he had a lot of money?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Now, from your experience working with high net worth
+individuals, it's usually the case, isn't it, that people who
+have this much money don't have it all in one bank account;
+isn't that right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+A. I don't know. It depends.
+l. Well, some may, some may not, I suppose; right?
+MS. MOE: Objection to form.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 166 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1327
+Q. Can you answer the question, I think, Mr. McHugh?
+A. Could you repeat the question, please.
+Q. You said it depends, and my question was some high net
+worth individuals may have multiple accounts, I guess some may
+not; is that fair to say?
+l. Okay. And if they have multiple accounts, they may have
+money in traditional checking accounts, for example?
+l. And they may have money in money market accounts, like some
+of the ones we saw?
+A. They may have.
+l. And they may have their money in brokerage accounts so they
+can use it to buy and sell securities in stocks and bonds?
+A. They may.
+l. And it's true that high net worth individuals like this
+often have lots of assets; correct?
+A. Can you clarify, assets.
+l. Sure. They may have multiple homes?
+A. They could.
+e. They
+•. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Well, fair to say that a high net worth individual like the
+ones you dealt with in the past may have expensive assets that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 167 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1328
+they've purchased, right?
+MS. MOE: Objection your Honor. Is Mr. Everdell
+proffering him as an expert?
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, he said he worked with high
+net worth individuals in the past. I think this now beyond the
+kin of someone who worked with these individuals.
+THE COURT: I don't know exactly where you're going, a
+little bit of room, but let's get to a question.
+BY MR. EVERDELL:
+l. Well, let's go to this, Mr. McHugh. Are you familiar with
+the term, family office?
+l. A family office is typically a privately held company that
+manages the money and the investments of a wealthy family;
+isn't that right?
+A. It's a general description of one.
+l. And in those cases, the family office will typically manage
+the wealth of everyone in the family; isn't that right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Have you dealt with family offices in the past?
+A. Some.
+Q. And in the cases you've dealt with, do the family offices
+manage the money of the people in that wealthy family?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 168 of 261
+1329
+McHugh - cross
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Well, you are familiar with what a family office is; right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor. Asked and answered.
+MR. EVERDELL: I'm simply trying to reorient the
+witness, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it.
+l. The family office takes care of the -- typically takes care
+of the day-to-day transactions for that wealthy family; isn't
+that right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+I. Well, it's typically the case that if you are a very
+wealthy person who uses a family office like the ones you've
+dealt with in the past, that the wealthy person is not the one
+signing the day-to-day checks out of those accounts, the person
+who runs the family office that does that; isn't that right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. In your experience with working with family offices in the
+past, has it been part of your experience that people whose
+accounts are run through the family offices are not necessarily
+controlled by them personally?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I object.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it. Overruled.
+A. Could you repeat the question.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 169 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1330
+Q. Sure. In your experience working with people who have
+family offices, is it often or sometimes at least the case that
+the people whose accounts are run by the family office, the
+transactions through those accounts are handled by someone
+other than the person whose account it is?
+MS. MOE: Objection.
+THE COURT: That was the same question. And I
+overruled.
+MS. MOE: Yes. This one is an objection to form.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+A. Sorry. Could you repeat the question.
+l. I'll do my best. I'll try one more time.
+In your experience working with family offices in the
+past, is it the case -- is it typically the case that people
+whose accounts are run through the family office don't
+necessarily handle the day-to-day transactions through those
+accounts, it is handled by someone other than the account
+holder?
+A. It's too general. There is a multitude of clients and
+relationships. I don't -- I can't say with certainty how
+they're set up.
+l. But you've seen that happen in the past, have you, what I
+just described?
+A. Can you - the question was whether a family office --
+e. Yes.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 170 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1331
+A. They would have to be authorized.
+Q. So someone running the family office would have to be
+authorized to use those accounts; correct?
+MS. MOE: Objection.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+Q. I'll ask the question again.
+Someone who is running the family office would have to
+be authorized to use the accounts that he or she was
+controlling; right?
+A. In that instance, yes.
+Q. And so they could be authorized by being given signatory
+authority over those accounts; right?
+A. Can you be more specific, what the operating document would
+be.
+Q. Let's take one of the money market accounts, for example.
+You could give somebody signing authority over that account
+that's not yourself, and that person can sign checks or do
+transactions on that account -- that person would have that
+authority to do that without you approving it?
+MS. MOE: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Let me try to rephrase that, and let's keep it simple with
+the checking account, a simple checking account.
+If I have a checking account and I write a check, I
+can do that because I have signatory authority over that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 171 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1332
+account; right?
+Q. But I can also authorize someone else that's not me to have
+signing authority over that same account; right?
+Q. And that person - if they're properly authorized by me, the
+account holder - can then sign checks on that account under
+their own authority because I've given that to them; isn't that
+right?
+A. If authorized.
+l. If there is a proper authorization in place; right?
+Q. And that is called signatory authority in that case; right?
+l. And there are other types of authorities you can give
+someone over accounts to besides signatory authority; correct?
+A. Uh --
+l. I'll give you an example.
+A. Please.
+l. Power of attorney?
+l. You can give somebody power of attorney authority over an
+account; correct?
+l. And if you give that person power of attorney authority
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 172 of 261|
+McHugh - cross
+1333
+over an account, they can use and control that account as if
+they're the owner; correct?
+A. In a power of attorney, the powers are specified.
+Q. You're right. You can specify certain powers, but let me
+ask this: One of the powers you can specify to the person
+getting power of attorney is the power to write checks on an
+account if there is checking involved; right?
+A. That would be in -- yes, in part of that signatory
+authority.
+l. And another authority you can give them is the power to add
+other signatories to the account; right?
+A. I don't know. I would ask my legal department and have to
+look at those documents. It's beyond my realm.
+l. Understood. Understood. All right. Well, let me ask you
+a few other questions, then.
+You saw some documents referencing a company called
+Air Ghislaine; right?
+l. We discussed -- you discussed those in your direct
+testimony; right?
+l. And I think you referenced some line items that appear to
+show a helicopter purchase involving that company; correct? We
+can show it to you if you like?
+A. Can you show it.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 173 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1334
+Q. Sure.
+Why don't we go to Government Exhibit 502. I'm
+sorry. Actually, let's go to 501. You've got 501 in front of
+you, Mr. McHugh?
+Q. And you see that that's a statement from June of 2007 for a
+company called Air Ghislaine Inc.; right?
+Q. And if we go to page 2 of that document, these are the
+transactions you spoke about in your direct testimony on June
+18th; right? There are two line items on that date; correct?
+l. And the second line item was highlighted for you and it
+appears to show the purchase of a
+helicopter from
+Sikorsky; right?
+A. It's what the transaction description reads.
+l. Okay. So now, again, I'm just going to ask you a bit about
+this practice.
+Now, is it your experience, having been in banking for
+30 years, that people buy assets like planes, larger assets and
+have them owned by companies?
+MS. MOE: Objection.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Do you know anything about the practice of having larger
+assets owned by companies or corporate entities?
+MS. MOE: Objection.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 174 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1335
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Well, let's talk about that transaction that we were just
+looking at, because I think you've reviewed those statements
+and you did talk about those in your direct testimony.
+Now, let's go to Government Exhibit 506, which I think
+is in evidence. We saw that page in 506; right? You testified
+about that in your direct?
+l. I think you said that was a signature card; right?
+A. It is a signature card.
+Q. Yes. And that is a signature card for the account ending
+in 4324; correct?
+Q. And that's the account that's associated with Air Ghislaine
+Inc.; right?
+A. I didn't memorize the numbers.
+l. Understood. That's fine. Let's look at the third page of
+this document, which we didn't see before. Let's go back to
+the page before, the second page so we can see the complete
+document.
+Are we at 506? Is this Government Exhibit 506? Okay.
+I'm sorry, let's go to page 5. My fault. Go to page 5.
+MS. MOE: This is a three-page document, your Honor.
+MR. EVERDELL: Must have the wrong one. May I have a
+moment, your Honor?
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1336
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: Sure.
+MR. EVERDELL: I'm going to move on to a different
+topic and come back to this one.
+Q. Let's go to Government Exhibit 505. You testified about
+this document on your direct; right?
+l. This is an October 1999 statement from Financial Trust
+Company; right?
+l. If we go to page 6 of the document and we look at the
+transactions on October 19th. Do you see those?
+A. I do.
+l. So you testified before that that reflects the sale of
+money market fund assets of $18.3 million as the first of those
+two transactions; right?
+l. And the second is a disbursement transferred by wire to
+Bear Stearns for account of Ghislaine Maxwell; right?
+l. But there is nothing on this document that shows what that
+transfer was for, right, what the purpose of that money was?
+A. Correct.
+Q. And this document doesn't tell us which accounts at Bear
+Stearns the money went into; right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 176 of 261|
+McHugh - cross
+1337
+Q. And it says for the account of Ghislaine Maxwell; right?
+l. But you testified that there are ways to - I believe there
+are ways to set up accounts on other people's behalf if you
+have the proper authority to do that; isn't that right?
+MS. MOE: I'd object, your Honor. I think that
+mischaracterizes the testimony.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+l. Are there ways to set up an account for someone on their
+behalf as long as you have proper authorization to do that?
+A. I would - I don't know. I would refer that to the -- our
+legal group and the power of attorney and the instructions that
+were involved in that.
+l. Understood. But safe to say, we don't know from this
+document here what this transaction was for; right?
+MS. MOE: Objection. Asked and answered.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+Q. Let's move on to the transaction you saw in September of
+2002, which I believe is Government Exhibit 504. You testified
+about that document, as well, right, we saw that before?
+A. One moment. I just want to doublecheck. Yes.
+l. Okay. So if we look at that document, that is a statement
+dated September of 2002; right?
+Q. And it's for an account held by Jeffrey Epstein?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 177 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1338
+l. All right. And if you go to page 8, do you see the
+transactions on September 18th; right?
+A. I do.
+l. You testified about those, that reflects a sale again of
+about $5 million of a money market fund to generate cash and
+then a transfer of that $5 million in cash to another account;
+right?
+A. A transfer by wire to another account outside JP
+l. Okay. Correct. Now, you see that the September 18th
+entry, it says it's transferred by wire to a Palm Beach
+NATLBKNIR Co.; right?
+Q. Is that Palm Beach National Bank & Trust Company?
+A. That's what it appears to be; right.
+Q. And that's for the account of Ghislaine Maxwell?
+l. Again, from this document, we don't know what this
+transaction was for; right?
+A. I don't know.
+Q. And we don't know what kind of an account that that money
+went into; right?
+A. I don't know.
+Q. And I want to just focus on the word trust in the name of
+that bank, Bank & Trust Co. Are you familiar with what a trust
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 178 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1339
+account is?
+Q. A trust account - I'm generally summarizing - it holds
+money for a beneficiary of a trust, but that account is
+actually controlled by a third party; right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+A. Can you repeat the question, please.
+l. So in a trust account, the money is held in an account for
+a beneficiary of the trust, but the account is actually
+controlled by a third party; isn't that right?
+A. There are many types of trusts, but generally, a general
+description.
+l. What I just described is a type of trust account; is that
+accurate?
+l. And it is possible to set up a trust account for someone
+without them even knowing; is that right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, may I have a moment to
+confer with the government?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+Members of the jury, if you would
+like to take a standing break, you're welcome to.
+All right, please be seated.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 179 of 261
+1340
+McHugh - cross
+BY MR. EVERDELL:
+Q. Mr. McHugh, I want to ask you now about that 2007 purchase
+of the helicopter we were looking at before. All right?
+A. Okay.
+Q. All right. So if we can pull up Government Exhibit 502.
+Now, before we look at the exhibit, based on what we
+saw before, it seemed like there was some money that went into
+this account held by Ghislaine Maxwell that then went out of
+that account to the account held by Air Ghislaine, and then a
+similar amount of money going to Sikorsky to pay for the
+helicopter.
+Is that an accurate summary of these exhibits we
+looked at?
+A. Quite honestly, I didn't map it, but I'm happy to walk
+through it.
+l. Why don't we take a look at Government Exhibit 2 at page 2.
+502, sorry, at page 2. We looked at those transactions on June
+15th and June 18th in the middle of the page; right?
+A. 15th and 18th, yes.
+l. And you see that on the 15th, you said that there was
+money, it appeared coming in from an account held by or
+associated with Jeffrey Epstein, $7.4 million coming into this
+account, which appears to be in the name of Ghislaine Maxwell;
+correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 180 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1341
+Q. And then you saw on June 18th, there was the same amount of
+money going out from this account under the name of Ghislaine
+Maxwell to the account of 4324?
+A. That's right.
+l. And if you 1ook at Government Exhibit 501, that is the 4324
+account, right, where the money ended up?
+Q. And that is a account held by Air Ghislaine?
+l. And if you look at page 2 of that document, you see on June
+18th, $7.4 million coming into the account; right?
+l. And on June 18th, same day, almost equivalent number,
+slightly less going out to Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation;
+right?
+l. So fair to say it looks like money goes into the account
+held by Ghislaine Maxwell or in the name of Ghislaine Maxwell
+from Jeffrey Epstein, money goes out from that account to the
+Air Ghislaine account and then goes from that account to
+Sikorsky.
+Is that a fair summary of what we just looked at?
+l. So I want to take a look back at that account that's in the
+name of Ghislaine Maxwell, that's Government Exhibit 502.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 181 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1342
+Now, this document -- and we can go to page 2 where
+the transfers are. This document doesn't tell you who
+orchestrated these transactions, does it?
+MS. MOE: Objection to form.
+THE COURT: Could you rephrase?
+MR. EVERDELL:
+Sure.
+l. This document doesn't tell you who was the person who
+actually initiated these wire transfers that we looked at --
+I'll be even more specific.
+On the transaction on June 18th, the money that's
+going out of this account to the 4324 account, which is the Air
+Ghislaine account, this document doesn't tell us who approved
+that transaction; right?
+A. Yes, does not.
+l. It does not?
+A. Does not.
+l. It just says that the transaction occurred on that date for
+that much money, it doesn't say who approved it?
+A. Correct.
+l. So it doesn't tell you whether, for example, Ghislaine
+Maxwell approved that transaction herself; correct?
+A. The statement does not.
+Q. And, in fact, given our discussion before, anybody who had
+proper authority over this account could have approved that
+transaction; correct?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 182 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1343
+A. Correct.
+Q. So even though the account is under the name of Ghislaine
+Maxwell, this statement can't tell us whether Ghislaine Maxwell
+actually approved or had anything to do with that transaction?
+Q. And now I want you to look at that same exhibit starting at
+page 5.
+A. Same statement?
+l. The same statement, but I want you to now go to page 5,
+which we didn't look at on direct examination. Do you see that
+page?
+A. I do.
+l. That has a canceled check on it; right?
+A. Yes, a check date.
+Q. And let's go to the next page, page 6. That also has a
+series of paid checks on that page; right?
+Q. And that's typical with account statements, when they're
+sent to the account holder, they include the checks that were
+drawn on the account for that month; right?
+A. Especially at that time, yes.
+l. So these reflect checks that were drawn on the account in
+that month in the statement of June of 2007; right?
+Q. Now let's look at just the first three of those checks on
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 183 of 261|
+McHugh - cross
+1344
+this page. Do you see those three checks?
+A. The one check
+is very small, but I see three checks.
+Q. You do see three checks there; right? Okay. This may get
+a little small for you to see, but I'm going to try to do it.
+Let's leave this on the screen and put next to it Government
+Exhibit 506, which is already in evidence.
+I think we have
+them both there now. Do you see that, Mr. McHugh?
+A. I see --
+l. Do you see the checks on the left-hand side, which are
+Government Exhibit 502, and you see on the right-hand side,
+Government Exhibit 506, which you said was the signature card;
+right?
+A. Which is a signature card, yes.
+l. I believe it's the signature card for a different account,
+but a signature card?
+A. Different account.
+l. But it is a signature card; right?
+A. It is a signature card.
+2. And you see the signature there on the right-hand side for
+Harry Beller (ph.), secretary?
+A. I do.
+l. And if you look over to the left-hand side on the account
+that is nominally in the name of Ghislaine Maxwell, do you see
+all the signatures on those checks for that account?
+A. I do.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 184 of 261|
+McHugh - cross
+1345
+Q. That looks like the signature of Harry Beller, doesn't it?
+MS. MOE: Objection.
+THE COURT: overruled.
+A. It appears to be.
+I. It certainly doesn't 1ook like the signature of Ghislaine
+Maxwell that's on the signature card over there, does it?
+Q. So it would appear from these things we're looking at here
+that Harry Beller had signatory authority over Ghislaine
+Maxwell's bank account, doesn't it?
+A. I don't know. I don't -- is there a -- this document on
+the right is for a different account.
+Q. Well, I meant to show you the document on the right so you
+can see the way the signature looks, but the document on the
+left shows checks that were drawn on that account in the name
+of Ghislaine Maxwell, doesn't it?
+A. From her account, yes.
+l. From her account, under her name, at least that is the name
+on the account, Ghislaine Maxwell?
+l. But those checks appear to be signed by Harry Beller; isn't
+that right?
+A. Yes, it appears so.
+l. And you wouldn't be able to sign a check on an account
+unless you had signatory authority on that account or some
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 185 of 261
+McHugh - cross
+1346
+other proper authority that gave you the authority to sign
+checks?
+A. I don't know the account documents referencing this, but
+you would need to be authorized or the -- I'm not a check
+cashing expert.
+Q. Fair enough. I just want to point out one other things.
+We can take down 506 at this point. If we could just go back
+to the sixth page of 502 and look at those checks again, page
+6. If we could just quickly look at check numbers 1061 and
+1062, I think those are the middle -- those two, the second and
+third checks.
+So just to look at a particular check, if you're
+looking at 1061, that looks like it's a payment for $7 going to
+someone with the title at the end, DDS; right?
+l. That's a dentist. Okay. And looking at the next check,
+it's about $400, that's check 1062, looks like it's going to
+somebody with an M.D. after their name; right?
+l. And that's apparently another doctor; right?
+l. Okay. And those are both signed apparently by Harry Beller
+from this account?
+Q. And let's look at the last two checks on that page, 1063
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 186 of 261|
+McHugh - cross
+1347
+and 1064. Do you see those checks?
+A. I do.
+Q. If you're looking at 1063, do you see that check is made
+out to the United States Treasury; correct?
+Q. And that says in the middle line, 2007 form 1040; correct?
+Q. So that's a check to pay for estimated taxes, isn't it?
+A. I assume.
+l. So that check shows that Harry Beller is signing a check to
+pay Ghislaine Maxwell's taxes for that year, doesn't it?
+A. I don't know, but that's what that appears to be.
+2. And the check below, similar, goes to the New York State
+Income Tax Authority; isn't that right?
+l. So it would appear from that check that Harry Beller is
+signing a check on an account held by Ghislaine Maxwell to pay
+Ghislaine Maxwell state taxes that year; isn't that right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Sustained. How much longer with this
+witness, Mr. Everdell?
+MR. EVERDELL: Just one moment, your Honor, I'll be
+able to tell you in a second.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+BY MR. EVERDELL:
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 187 of 261
+McHugh - redirect
+Q. Just a few followup questions for you, Mr. McHugh.
+We looked at a number of transactions in your direct
+testimony and on cross examination from some of these accounts;
+correct?
+Q. There is nothing on the face of these documents that
+suggests in any way that any of these transactions was
+improper; isn't that right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+A. I don't know the nature of the transactions.
+l. But the statements themselves don't indicate anything on
+their face of any kind of improper activity?
+A. No, I don't think so.
+MR. EVERDELL: No further questions, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Ms. Moe.
+MS. MOE: Very briefly, your Honor. Thank you.
+REDIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. MOE:
+l. Mr. McHugh, you were asked some questions on cross
+examination about account ownership documents. Do you remember
+being asked questions about that?
+l. I'd just like to ask you to turn in the binder in front of
+you to what's marked for identification as Government Exhibit
+1348
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 188 of 261
+McHugh - redirect
+1349
+507.
+A. 507.
+Q. Do you recognize that?
+A. Yes, this is a
+account signature card.
+l. In preparation for your trial, have you compared that
+against the records for JP
+?
+A. I pulled up this document that the government had versus
+our documents in our system of record and compared the two and
+verified we had it on file.
+l. Is that a true and accurate copy of a signature card on
+file at JP
+l. Was that kept in the regular course of business at JP
+•. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: GX507 is admitted.
+(Government's Exhibit 507 received in evidence)
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Nothing further.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+MR. EVERDELL: Nothing further, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. McHugh, you stay step
+down, you're excused.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22(
+
+McHugh - redirect
+1350
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(Witness excused)
+We'll take our afternoon break, members of the jury.
+See you in about 15 minutes.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE |
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 190 of 261 1351
+McHugh - redirect
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: Counsel, matters to take up before the
+break?
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank
+you.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, defense has one matter.
+The next witness I believe is Kelly Maguire, who is going to go
+and introduce the exhibits, the 900 series exhibits among other
+things that we've already discussed. There are two photographs
+in there, and we did discuss these, so I wasn't -- did not get
+a chance to preview this for the government yet, but there are
+two photographs, I believe it's 919 and 920, that show the
+outfits, the schoolgirl outfits.
+Now, the Court ruled before that those wouldn't be put
+before the jury unless witness 3, or Kate, was able to link
+them up. She did talk about wearing a schoolgirl outfit.
+However, she was not shown those photographs in her direct. So
+I think we have a similar problem to what we had with Kate --
+sorry. With Jane where she described a schoolgirl outfit, but
+she didn't 1ook at the actual photos that they want to
+introduce and say those look like the schoolgirl outfits I was
+wearing on the day I described.
+So, at this point, because I don't think there is a
+proper foundation for the same reasons as we had with Jane, I
+would object to those photos being admitted.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 191 of 261
+McHugh - redirect
+1352
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, as the
+Court will recall, earlier today a witness identified as Kate
+testified that the defendant asked her to wear a schoolgirl
+costume.
+Several schoolgirl outfits were recovered from
+Jeffrey Epstein's residence in 2019.
+Here, the fact that they were schoolgirl outfits is
+obvious from looking at them. They are relevant because they
+confirm that Epstein's practice was, in fact, to prefer girls
+dressed as schoolgirls and to have people wear schoolgirl
+outfits. So it is directly corroborative of Kate's testimony
+on that score.
+They're additionally relevant because they confirm an
+issue, which defense has put it, in dispute in this case, that
+Jeffrey Epstein did, in fact, have a sexual preference for
+schoolgirls. That point has been vigorously disputed at trial.
+These exhibits confirm that that in fact was the case and
+corroborates the testimony of Kate that she was in fact asked
+to wear such an outfit.
+Similarly to the Court's ruling with respect to Jane's
+testimony and the descriptions of the massage room, here, it's
+not necessary for a witness to talk about the particular
+details of a schoolgirl costume. The point is the same, one
+witness was asked to wear a schoolgirl outfit and Epstein did
+possess those schoolgirl outfits and had a preference for
+people dressed that way and, in fact, forced schoolgirls.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 192 of 261|
+McHugh - redirect
+1353
+That's why these exhibits are relevant, your Honor.
+THE COURT: The photos are from 2019.
+MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.
+THE COURT: I'll look at the testimony during break,
+but I'm not sure why, again, given the Court's earlier ruling,
+they wouldn't have been linked up with the witness, but I'11
+look at the testimony.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I would just add that the
+testimony I believe from Kate was that the schoolgirl outfit
+was in Palm Beach. These were found in New York 15 years
+later. So there is an issue there, as well.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think regardless of
+location, the issue is whether Jeffrey Epstein had a sexual
+preference for schoolgirls, and this exhibit speaks --
+THE COURT: Not in 2019.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: That's the not question; right?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, but we would respectfully
+submit if the defense wants to argue that he developed his
+interest for schoolgirls after the timeframe of the charged
+conspiracy --
+THE COURT: They don't have to argue anything until
+you establish relevance. So that's the primary question.
+These are photos of the uniforms found in Palm Beach in 2019
+and I just don't know, as I sit here, if these photos link up
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 193 of 261
+McHugh - redirect
+in any way to the specific testimony of Kate.
+Again, you certainly could have shown and asked are
+these similar to what you were asked to wear, which is, I
+admit, what I thought would happen and I don't know why it
+didn't. That would have seemed to follow from the Court's
+earlier ruling.
+1354
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 194 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+1355
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And I'd be happy to speak
+to why we've decided not to do that in this case, both for Jane
+and Kate, since this has come up now twice. I'd be happy to
+explain why we've approached this this way. Because we tried
+to be sensitive in the way we've approached our interviews with
+victims in this case.
+We've done this for two reasons.
+One,
+the defense has put in issue the quality of the victims'
+memories; and so it is important in terms of corroboration that
+we have not shown the victims --
+THE COURT: I get that. That is absolutely a
+strategic decision and an understandable one. It does not then
+excuse a lack of foundation as to relevancy. It just doesn't.
+I certainly understand why you'd make that choice, and I can
+imagine other reasons you'd make the choice.
+I don't think -- tell me if I'm wrong -- that in any
+way helps determine from the Court's perspective whether these
+2019 pictures of highly movable objects, which may or may not
+match up with the specific testimony of the witness, are
+relevant to a conspiracy that ended 15 years earlier.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+And I think our argument on that is that this is an
+issue of weight and not relevance. Because the argument before
+the jury from this evidence is not that these are the
+schoolgirl outfits or one of the schoolgirl outfits that Kate
+was asked to wear. The point is that Kate told the jury that
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 195 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+1356
+she was asked to wear a schoolgirl outfit. And the jury will
+know that that's true because Epstein did, in fact, possess
+such outfits; that it was his practice to maintain them, to ask
+people to wear them; that what she told the jury was true; that
+that is a very specific type of costume, and that was his
+practice.
+It corroborates her testimony.
+The point is not to identify these as the particular
+outfits, but to corroborate the fact that that was, in fact,
+his practice and, thus, that her testimony on that score was
+credible. That's why we're offering this evidence, your Honor.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the government is really
+trying to bootstrap here. This is the one witness who's going
+to say anything about a schoolgirl outfit. There's no
+practice. There's one person's experience. And I would think
+that they are also ignoring the 403 issue. It's not just some
+sort of weight issue; it goes to prejudice. When an item is
+found 15 years after the fact, I mean, it doesn't establish a
+practice certainly. And it's extraordinarily prejudicial to
+show these items to the jury when they are not even linked up
+to the witness who actually is the one person who has a story
+about a schoolgirl outfit.
+THE COURT: I'm inclined to agree.
+I'll look at the specific testimony, but I think, as I
+sit here, 401/403 grounds -- well, first -- yes, 401/403
+grounds, I think it's probably out. I don't know whether -- I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 196 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+mean, it's a low bar for relevance, but for the reasons I
+indicated in my earlier opinion, substantially far distance in
+time, highly movable objects that don't appear to be specific
+to what the witness described, may not meet the 401 standard.
+And if it does meet the 401 standard, I think for the reasons
+Mr. Everdell indicated, it would likely be outweighed by 403
+prejudice.
+1357
+You have the testimony from the witness as to her
+experience with the uniforms. It's difficult to see on the
+current record. But, as I said, I'll look at the testimony and
+I'll let you know.
+MR. EVERDELL: And, your Honor, just to be clear, this
+objection would also apply to the physical outfits themselves.
+THE COURT: Right.
+Same point. Yes. Okay.
+MR. EVERDELL: Thank you.
+THE COURT: Anything else?
+MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor.
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor.
+(Recess)
+THE COURT: All right. I'm sustaining the objection
+on 919 and 920 on 401/403 grounds, as well as the actual items.
+Are there matters to take up?
+MR. EVERDELL: Not from the defense, your Honor.
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 197 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+1358
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+We'll bring in the jury.
+Counsel, was I right, those other 900 exhibits needed
+redaction of photos of individuals?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to those exhibits,
+just so I'm sure I understand
+THE COURT: 911, for example. It looks like there's a
+photo in the right corner.
+MS. MOE: I just wanted to make sure we'd redacted the
+right thing. I received a note about that issue.
+We weren't sure whether the issue was the painting
+over the mantel -- we've redacted that -- or whether there was
+something else.
+THE COURT: No. On the right-hand side there's a
+table with a lamp. There's a lamp marked D and there's a photo
+of - I can't quite tell, but I'm sure if somebody looked
+closely, they could tell of an individual.
+, I see. Sorry, your Honor, I had not
+noticed that. We will unredact the painting and re-mark it to
+redact that photograph, if the Court requests.
+THE COURT: Well, you tell me. Does it need to be
+redacted to protect privacy interests? I don't know -- for
+example, I don't know if this is a witness. I don't know.
+MS. MOE: Apologies, your Honor. I'm not familiar
+with the person in this photograph. I can't tell from the
+photograph. We certainly have no objection to redacting it for
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 198 of 261 1359
+LC6VMAX6
+privacy interests, if that's the defense's request.
+MR. EVERDELL: I think we'd request that, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Okay. And then on 913, there are some
+photos on the desk of -- it looks like some children and other
+individuals.
+MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+We'd be happy to offer 913
+under seal, and then prepare a 913-R.
+Apologies, we already have a 913-R marked.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MR. EVERDELL: It 100ks fine, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Just one second.
+Okay. You've looked at it.
+Okay. So you have a redacted version of 913?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: All right.
+(Jury present)
+THE COURT: All right.
+Ms. Moe, the government may
+call its next witness.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+The government calls Special Agent Kelly Maguire.
+THE COURT: Kelly Maguire may come forward.
+KELLY MAGUIRE,
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 199 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+THE COURT: Thank you. You
+. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. MOE:
+Q. Good afternoon, Special Agent Maguire.
+A. Good afternoon,
+2. Where do you work?
+A. The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
+l. What is your title there?
+A. Special agent.
+Q. How long have you been a special agent with the FBI?
+A. Little over four years.
+l. Are you assigned to a particular squad?
+Q. What squad are you assigned to?
+A. I'm assigned to C20, which is the child exploitation and
+human trafficking task force.
+l. What are your job responsibilities as a special agent in
+the child exploitation and human trafficking task force?
+A. Generally, I am specifically focused on investigating
+violations of human trafficking, whether that's sex
+trafficking, labor trafficking, or domestic servitude.
+l. Directing your attention to July 6 of 2019, did you assist
+in an FBI operation on that date?
+A. Yes, I did.
+1360
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 200 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1361
+Q. What was the nature of that FBI operation?
+A. It was the execution of a search warrant at the residence
+of Jeffrey Epstein.
+Q. What was the address of the location that you searched?
+A. It was No. 9 East 71st Street here in Manhattan.
+Q. What neighborhood in Manhattan is that address located at?
+A. It's the Upper East Side.
+Q. What was your role in that particular search operation?
+A. I was designated as the search team leader.
+l. Can you explain to the jury what is a search team leader?
+A. In a general sense, I oversee the personnel that's on
+scene. I ensure that various documentation is filled out. And
+ultimately, I am the person who seizes pieces of evidence.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, were you assigned to investigate
+this case?
+A. No, I was not.
+l. Do members of your squad provide operational support to
+other agents' cases?
+A. Yes, we do.
+l. And was that the capacity in which you served as the search
+team leader for the operation at 9 East 71st Street?
+A. Yes, it was.
+l. Focusing on July 6, 2019, what legal authority did your
+team have to search 9 East 71st Street in Manhattan that day?
+A. We had a search warrant.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 201 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1362
+Q. What type of building is located at that address?
+A. It's a large private residence.
+I would describe it as a
+multi-story townhouse.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, may we publish what's in
+evidence as Government Exhibit 932?
+THE COURT: Without objection?
+MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.
+Without objection.
+THE COURT: 932, which is in evidence,
+•. MOE: Your Honor, may I have just a moment?
+THE COURT: Yes.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MOE:
+l. Special Agent Maguire, what are we looking at in Government
+Exhibit 932?
+A. This is from the exterior of the residence. If you were
+standing on East 71st Street facing it, these would be the
+upper floors of the residence.
+l. How many floors were there in this particular residence?
+A. There were eight in total, six aboveground and two
+sublevels.
+l. Approximately how many square feet was this particular
+residence on the interior?
+A. Approximately 19,000 square feet.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 202 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1363
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, if we could show just the
+witness, the Court, and counsel what's marked for
+identification as Government Exhibit 909.
+THE COURT: 909, you said?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
+THE COURT: okay.
+Q. Special Agent Maguire, do you recognize this?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. What is Government Exhibit 909?
+A. This is the front door to the residence at 9 East 71st
+Street.
+l. Is that a fair and accurate depiction of the exterior of
+the location on the day of the search?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibit 909 as a public exhibit.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: GX-909 is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 909 received in evidence)
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MOE:
+l. Focusing on Government Exhibit 909, what are we looking at
+here?
+A. This is the front door of the residence.
+2. What did the search team do when you first arrived at the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 203 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+residence?
+A.
+When we first arrived, we knocked and announced our
+presence for the execution of the search warrant.
+Q. What happened next?
+A. After we did not receive a response from any occupants
+inside, we then forced entry into the residence.
+l. After you made entry into the residence, what's the next
+thing that happened in the search?
+A. My team conducted a protective sweep.
+l. Can you explain for the jury what is a protective sweep.
+A. A protective sweep is when the team moves through the
+residence to ensure that there are no additional threats to law
+enforcement on scene, particularly from occupants.
+Q. Were there any issues during the protective sweep?
+A. No, there was not.
+l. How did the search proceed from there?
+A. At that point we then label each room in the residence, and
+then we began photographing the residence as it was.
+We viewed
+it before a search took place.
+l. I think you mentioned just now that you labeled the
+different rooms. Can you explain for the jury what that means.
+A. So that we know where certain items are being found
+throughout the residence, we then designate each room by a
+letter of the alphabet.
+Q. Approximately how many rooms were inside the residence that
+1364
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 204 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+you encountered during the search?
+A. There were approximately 40.
+l. After you had labeled the rooms within the residence, how
+did the search proceed from there?
+A. We started taking photographs of the residence, and then
+after that the search began.
+Q. Did there come a time when you obtained legal authority to
+continue searching the house for other items?
+A. Yes, that's correct.
+Q. Was that during the course of the same search?
+Q. I want to talk with you now about the interior of the
+residence.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please show just
+the witness, the Court, and counsel, just cycling through them,
+what's been marked for identification as Government Exhibits
+933, 910, and 911.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, do you recognize these?
+A. Yes, I do.
+THE COURT: It's really 911-R; correct?
+MS. MOE: Apologies, your Honor. 911-R.
+l. Do you recognize these three exhibits?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. And what are Government Exhibits 933, 910, and 911-R?
+A. These are the first entryway and the main foyer near the
+1365
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1366
+main staircase or grand staircase in the residence.
+Q. Are those photographs fair and accurate depictions of the
+entrance and immediate interior into the residence you searched
+that day?
+A. Yes,
+it is.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibits 933, 910, and 911-R.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+933, 910, and 911-R are admitted.
+(Government's Exhibits 910, 911-R, 933 received in
+evidence)
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, may we publish Government
+Exhibit 933?
+THE COURT: You may.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, what are we looking at here?
+A. This is just after you pass through the large wooden doors
+at the front of the residence. In front of you is a large set
+of double doors. Io the left and to the right of those doors
+are individual offices. And if you pass through those double
+doors, that would lead you to the main foyer of the residence.
+MS. MOE: If we could turn now and take a look at what
+is in evidence as Government Exhibit 910.
+THE COURT: You may.
+2. Special Agent Maguire, what are we looking at here?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 206 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+A. This would be the grand staircase of the residence and the
+main foyer. If you look to the left-hand side of the
+photograph, that would be the entryway through the double set
+of doors in Exhibit 933 that you would have passed through.
+Q. I believe a moment ago you described this as the grand
+staircase.
+Were there other staircases within the residence?
+A. Yes,
+Q. Could you please describe those for the jury.
+A. There was an additional staircase that was on the second
+floor that went up to the third or fourth floor. It was blue
+in color and spiral. There was also a utility stairwell that
+mimicked a fire escape that went throughout the height of the
+residence.
+l. Aside from the staircases that you just described, were
+there any other ways to get from floor to floor within the
+residence?
+A. There was also an elevator present in the residence.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, if we could please publish
+what's now in evidence as Government Exhibit 911-R.
+THE COURT: You may.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, what are we looking at here?
+A. This is just another angle of this main foyer area now in
+this photograph, the entryway, where the large set of double
+doors would be visible here, these staircases to the left-hand
+side of the photograph.
+1367
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 207 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1368
+Q. So we're talking about different staircases within the
+residence.
+I'd like to ask you more about that.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please show for
+just the witness, the Court, and counsel what's been marked for
+identification as Government Exhibit 915 -- excuse me, 915-R.
+THE COURT: 915-R.
+l. Do you recognize that?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. What is Government Exhibit 915-R?
+A. This is a photograph of the blue in color spiral staircase
+in the middle of the residence.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of the staircase you
+just described?
+A. Yes, it is.
+Exhibit 915-R.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: Thank you.
+GX 915-R is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 915-R received in evidence)
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+l. Just to orient ourselves, could you describe for the jury
+where the staircase was located within the residence.
+A. This was in the middle of the residence. You would have a
+wing to either the left side or the right side of the house.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 208 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1369
+So this particular staircase started on the second
+floor and connected to the third and possibly the fourth floor.
+Q. Did there come a time when you and the search team went to
+the third floor of the residence?
+A. Yes, we did.
+Q. I want to ask you some questions about the third floor of
+the residence.
+Did you come across a room within the residence that
+you would describe as a massage room?
+A. Yes, I did.
+Q. I want to ask you about that room.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please show the
+witness, the Court, and counsel what's been marked for
+identification as Government Exhibit 902-R. Thank you.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, do you recognize Government Exhibit
+902-R?
+A. Yes, I do.
+Q. And what is that exhibit?
+A. This is a photograph of the entryway into the massage room
+on the third floor.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of the entryway into
+the massage room?
+A. Yes, it is.
+Exhibit 902-R.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 209 of 261|
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1370
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: GX-902-R is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 902-R received in evidence)
+MS. MOE: Thank you.
+l. So now that we're publishing the exhibit, can you just
+explain for the jury what we're looking at here.
+A. Again, this is the entryway into the massage room. There
+is a hallway where you would be standing to take this
+photograph. You just take a few steps into the entryway and
+then the room opens up to your right.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could take that down
+and please show the witness, counsel, and the Court what's been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 903-R.
+l. Do you recognize this?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. What is Government Exhibit 903-R?
+A. This is a photograph inside the massage room for a
+particular angle in the room.
+2. Aside from redactions, is this a fair and accurate
+depiction of the interior of the massage room?
+A. Yes, it is.
+Exhibit 903-R.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: 903-R is admitted. You may publish.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 210 of 261|
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1371
+(Government's Exhibit 903-R received in evidence)
+Q. Focusing on Government Exhibit 903-R and focusing on the
+foreground of the exhibit, do you see the item with the l
+sheet?
+A. Yes, I do.
+Q. And what is that object?
+A. That particular object is a
+in color massage table.
+It was covered with a navy blue blanket; and then on top of
+that, a
+in color sheet. You obviously see a blue in
+color towel that's also placed on top of the table.
+Q. Were there curtains in this room?
+A. Yes, there were. Those are the large pink curtains that
+are visible in the photograph.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please take 903-R
+down and show just the witness, counsel, and the Court what's
+been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 904-R.
+l. Do you recognize this?
+A. Yes, I do.
+l. What is Government Exhibit 904-R?
+A. This is just another angle inside the massage room.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of a separate angle
+of the interior of the massage room?
+A. Yes,
+I, that's correct.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibit 904-R.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 211 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1372
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: 904-R is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 904-R received in evidence)
+BY MS. MOE:
+l. Looking at Government Exhibit 904-R, and in the foreground,
+is that the same massage table we were just discussing?
+A. Yes,
+, it is.
+Q. Directing your attention to the far left doorway we see
+here in this photograph, where did that doorway lead?
+A. That doorway leads to an adjoining bathroom.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please take this
+exhibit down and show just the witness, the Court, and counsel
+what's been marked for identification as Government Exhibit
+917-R.
+Q. What is this exhibit?
+A. This again is in this massage room. This is also taken
+from a different angle, with the focal point being the massage
+table in the center of the photograph.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of a separate angle
+of the interior of the massage room?
+A. Yes,
+1. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibit 917-R.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: 917-R is admitted. You may publish.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 212 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1373
+(Government's Exhibit 917-R received in evidence)
+Q. Looking at Government Exhibit 917-R, from this angle, what
+are we looking at on the back wall in the upper left-hand
+corner of this photograph?
+A. That is a wooden shelving unit that was located in the room
+that had various objects on it.
+Q. I want to ask you a little bit more about those shelves.
+MS. MOE: If we could take down Government Exhibit
+917-R. And if we could please show just the witness, the
+Court, and counsel what's been marked for identification as
+Government Exhibit 928-R.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, what is Government Exhibit 928-R?
+A. Again, this is another angle inside the room. Now in this
+photograph, to the right-hand side is a more visible view of
+the wooden shelving unit that was located in the room.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of the separate angle
+of the massage room?
+A. Yes,
+•. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibit 928-R.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: 928-R is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 928-R received in evidence)
+l. Special Agent Maguire, you described a wooden shelving
+unit.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 213 of 261 1374
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, could you just highlight that
+and blow that up.
+Thank you.
+If we could take that down, but then blow up --
+apologies. Would you mind just dropping the call out.
+Q. Special Agent Maguire, do you see a stereo system in this
+photograph?
+A. Yes,
+I do.
+Q. Was there a stereo system in the massage room?
+A. Yes,
+, there was.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, could you please highlight
+that for the jury. Thank you.
+We can take that down.
+l. I want to turn now and ask you about some other areas of
+the residence.
+Did there come a time when you obtained legal
+authority to search the residence for things like CDs?
+A. Yes,
+l. I want to ask you a little bit about that.
+MS. MOE: If we could please show the witness what's
+been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 914; and
+just to the witness, counsel, and the Court.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, do you recognize this?
+A. Yes,
+, I do.
+l. What are we looking at in Government Exhibit 914?
+A. This is a photograph that was taken in a closet located on
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 214 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+the fifth floor. We're looking at the left-hand side of the
+closet at numerous black binders that were found on a shelf
+with homemade labels on the spine of the binders.
+Q. I'll just ask you a few more questions about that.
+MS. MOE: Could we just leave that up and pull up
+alongside it Government Exhibit 925. And again, just for the
+witness,
+counsel,
+and the Court.
+Q. What is Government Exhibit 925?
+A. This is just another photograph of the same binders. This
+is just a closer photograph.
+2. And do Government Exhibits 914 and 925 fairly and
+accurately depict the binders as you found them on the day of
+the search?
+A. Yes,
+1375
+•. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibits 914, 925, and 925-R.
+MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one moment.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+(Counsel conferred)
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, after conferring with counsel,
+we'd withdraw that application and we'd respectfully request
+that Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R be admitted.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: So not 914.
+MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 215 of 261
+1376
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+THE COURT: Can I see 925-R. So you're moving both?
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 925-R as a public exhibit,
+and 925 under seal.
+THE COURT: I see.
+Okay.
+Mr. Everdell?
+MR. EVERDELL: One moment, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Yes.
+(Counsel conferred)
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, if I might just ask one
+follow-up question.
+THE COURT: Sure.
+BY MS. MOE:
+l. Special Agent Maguire, looking at Government Exhibit 925 --
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please show the
+witness. Thank you.
+e. Do you see
+labels in this photograph?
+A. Yes, I do.
+Q. Were those labels applied by the FBI to those objects?
+A. No, they were not.
+l. Were they on those objects when you found them?
+A. Yes, they were.
+l. Do you see that there are some blue -- what appear to be
+blue Post-Its on some of those objects?
+2. Were those Post-Its on those objects when the FBI found
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 216 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+them?
+A. No, they were not.
+Q. How did those Post-Its get on the binders?
+A. That was by the FBI personnel labeling them.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+Your Honor, the government would offer Government
+Exhibits 925 and 925-R. 925-R is a public exhibit, and
+Government Exhibit 925 under seal.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+925 is admitted -- and what is the basis for seal?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to the labels,
+there is identifying information for third parties.
+THE COURT: Okay. So 925 is admitted under seal.
+925-R is a redacted version of 925, and that is admitted as a
+public exhibit.
+(Government's Exhibits 925, 925-R received in
+evidence)
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+Could we now publish Government Exhibit 925-R as a
+public exhibit, and ask the jurors to turn in their binders to
+what's in under seal as Government Exhibit 925.
+THE COURT: Right. You may.
+So you can publish 925-R, and the jurors may look --
+I'm sorry, 925-R you may publish. And the jurors may open
+1377
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LC6VMAX6
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 217 of 261
+Maguire - direct
+1378
+their binders to GX-925.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+BY MS. MOE:
+Q. All right. Taking a look at Government Exhibit 925, just
+to be clear, what are we looking at in this photograph?
+A. Again, this is a photograph of a closet that was located on
+the fifth floor of the residence. This is the left-hand side
+of the closet, and these were several black in color binders
+that were found on a shelf in that closet.
+l. What was inside the binders?
+A. Inside the binders there were clear pages that contained a
+sheet of paper that would have printed thumbnails of
+photographs. And then there was a corresponding CD attached to
+those.
+Q. Were the CDs in those binders seized as evidence that day?
+A. Which day are you talking about?
+Q. Let me rephrase.
+During the course of the search of this particular
+residence, were the CDs contained in the binders that we're
+looking at in Government Exhibit 925 seized in evidence?
+A. Yes, they were.
+l. Were they marked with any particular identifiers as
+evidence?
+A. Yes, they were labeled with evidence Item 1B-19.
+2. Could you just explain for the jury how does the FBI apply
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 218 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1379
+evidence
+numbers to items that are seized during the course of
+the search warrant?
+A. After we seize items of evidence at a location, we then
+enter them into a collected item log. At that point each item
+is serialized with a number that's called a 1B number that's
+for evidence tracking purposes with our evidence control unit.
+Q. And just to be clear, I believe you testified that the CDs
+contained in these binders were assigned evidence numbers
+1B-19, is that right?
+A. That's correct.
+l. I'd like to turn now to show you --
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please just show
+just the witness, the Court, and counsel what's been marked for
+identification as Government Exhibit 926.
+l. Do you recognize this?
+A. Yes,
+, I do.
+l. What is Government Exhibit 926?
+A. This is a photograph taken in the same room where the
+previous black binders were located. In the center of this
+closet room there was a drawer organizer located right there in
+the center. This is one of the bottom drawers where several
+CDs were located.
+l. Is this a fair and accurate depiction of the drawer with
+CDs that you just described?
+A. Yes,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 219 of 261
+1380
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibit 926 as a public exhibit.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: GX-926 is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 926 received in evidence)
+Q. Taking a look at Government Exhibit 926, now that the jury
+can see it, can you please describe what we are looking at here
+in this photograph?
+A. Again, this was a closet located on the fifth floor. This
+is the same room where the previously discussed black binders
+were located. In the center of the room was a drawer
+organizer. This is the bottom drawer pulled out with various
+CDs inside.
+l. Were the CDs contained in the drawer that we're looking at
+in this photograph seized by the FBI during the course of the
+search?
+A. Yes,
+• they were.
+l. Were they marked with any particular identifiers as
+evidence?
+A. They were marked as evidence Item 1B-63.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please take down
+Government Exhibit 926. And if you could please show just the
+witness, the Court, and counsel what's been marked for
+identification as Government Exhibit 929.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, do you recognize this?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 220 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1381
+A. Yes,
+, I do.
+Q. What is Government Exhibit 929?
+A. This was a photograph of a room on the third floor that
+could be described as a dressing room. In this particular
+photograph, you are viewing a safe that we located in a closet
+in that room pulled out to the center. And the items on top of
+it and aside it are items that were taken from inside the safe.
+Q. Is Government Exhibit 929 a fair and accurate depiction of
+how that dressing room appeared during part of the search --
+A. Yes,
+l. - of the residence?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibit 929 as a public exhibit.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: GX-929 is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 929 received in evidence)
+l. All right. Special Agent Maguire, what floor was this room
+located?
+A. This was located on the third floor.
+l. Is that the same floor as the massage room?
+A. Yes, i
+1, it is.
+l. All right. Now that we're all looking at it, could you
+please walk the jury through what we're looking at in this
+photograph?
+A. This is a dressing room located on the third floor. In the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 221 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1382
+center of the photograph, the large dark box is a safe that we
+pulled from a closet in this room. And the items on top of the
+safe and the dark boxes down on the floor are all items that
+were taken out of the safe once we opened it.
+Q. How was the FBI able to open the safe?
+A. The day of the search we brought a saw with us.
+0. I believe you testified that the items we're looking at in
+this photograph were inside the safe. Were there any CDs
+inside this safe?
+A. Yes, there were binders that contained CDs.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, could you please highlight the
+top of the safe so the jury can see it.
+2. Now, at the time you observed these CDs on the safe, did
+you have legal authority to seize all of the CDs that day?
+A. No, not all of them.
+l. Did there come a time when you obtained legal authority to
+return to the residence?
+A. Yes, that would have been on July 11th.
+2. And at that point, did you have legal authority to seize
+CDs?
+A. Yes, we had a search warrant.
+l. When you returned to the residence on that date, did you
+return to the room we're looking at in this room with the safe?
+A. Yes, I did.
+Q. What did you observe?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 222 of 261
+LC6VMAX6
+Maguire - direct
+1383
+A. I observed that all of the items that are in this
+photograph that I had previously seen were missing.
+Q. Without describing the substance of any conversations, what
+did you do next?
+A. I next spoke with the house manager, Merwin de la Cruz, who
+was on scene at the time that we were there.
+Q. And again, without telling me the substance of that
+conversation, what's the next thing that happened?
+A. The next thing that happened is I was on a three-way
+telephone conversation with an associate of Mr. Epstein named
+Richard Kahn and his legal counsel named Andrew Tomback.
+l. During the course of that phone call, did you tell those
+attorneys that you had a search warrant for these items?
+MR. EVERDELL: Objection.
+A. Yes, I did.
+THE COURT: Just a moment.
+MR. EVERDELL: Objection. Leading.
+THE COURT: I'll allow it.
+2. And again, without getting into the substance of the
+conversation, after you communicated that you had a search
+warrant for these items, what's the next thing that happened?
+A. Approximately 20 to 30 minutes after that telephone
+conversation, Richard Kahn came to the residence of Jeffrey
+Epstein at seven east -- or No. 9 East 71st Street and brought
+all of those items back to me in two suitcases.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+LC6VMAX6
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 223 of 261
+Maguire - direct
+1384
+Q. Did you examine the contents of the suitcases?
+A. Yes, I did.
+Q. Did you recognize them?
+A. Yes, I did.
+e. What were they?
+A. It appeared to be all of the items that had been previously
+located in the safe.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 224 of 261
+Maguire - direct
+1385
+BY MS. MOE:
+Q. What were those items?
+A. The items included binders that contained CDs. There were
+various items of jewelry.
+There were external hard drives
+there were loose diamonds, large amounts of U.S. currency and
+passports, as well.
+Q. Did you seize the CDs that were obtained from this safe?
+A. Yes, I did.
+l. And the CDs from the suitcase?
+I. Were those CDs marked with any particular identifiers as
+evidence?
+A. Yes, they were. They were labeled as evidence items 1B26,
+1B75, and 1B78.
+Q. We've been talking about CDs that you seized from several
+areas of the house. What did you do with all the CDs that
+you've just testified about?
+A. I seized them and transported them back to our office and
+then later, chain of custody was then transferred to the case
+agents.
+l. Did you come across any electronic devices as you were
+going through the house?
+A. Yes, I did.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please show the
+witness, counsel, and the Court what's been marked for
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 225 of 261
+Maguire - direct
+1386
+identification as Government Exhibit 935.
+Q. What
+is Government Exhibit 935?
+A. This is a photograph that's taken in an office near the
+front of the residence. This was a wooden bookcase and
+cabinets that were located in that office. This particular
+photograph depicts the bottom cabinet open where my team
+located several plastic bins that contained boxes of hard
+drives. The boxes in this photograph also had evidence tape
+that were on the exterior of the boxes.
+MS. MOE: Ms. Drescher, if you could please up pull up
+for the witness, counsel, and the Court, Government Exhibit
+935R.
+l. Is that the same photograph just redacted?
+A. Yes,
+, it is.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government offers Government
+Exhibit 935R as a public exhibit.
+MR. EVERDELL: No objection.
+THE COURT: 935R is admitted. You may publish.
+(Government's Exhibit 935R received in evidence)
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.
+Q. Now that we're taking a 100k at Government Exhibit 935R, I
+believe you were describing the items in this cabinet.
+Let me just take a step back and ask, the room that
+we're looking at in this photograph, where was that within the
+house?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 226 of 261
+Maguire - direct
+1387
+A. This was on the first floor of the residence. It was an
+office that was located pretty close to the front door.
+Q. Focusing on the bottom half of the photograph, what was
+inside the cabinet?
+A. These were large plastic bins that contained various boxes
+that had hard drives in them.
+Q. How were they packaged?
+A. They were packaged within the box for the hard drive. They
+also had evidence tape on the exterior of the box.
+l. Did the boxes containing hard drives have evidence tape on
+them when the FBI found them?
+A. Yes, they did.
+l. In other words, did the FBI find them with evidence tape or
+did you apply evidence tape to the boxes?
+A. We found them with evidence tape. We did not place that
+there.
+l. As you sit here today, do you have personal knowledge of
+why there was evidence tape on these boxes?
+A. No, I don't.
+l. Were these drives seized during the course of the search?
+A. Yes, they were.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, if I could just have one moment.
+THE COURT: You I
+1. MOE: Thank you. Thanks very much. Your Honor,
+may I approach the witness with Government Exhibit 54?
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 227 of 261
+Maguire - direct
+1388
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: You |
+. MOE: I'll show it to counsel first.
+Q. All right, so I've just handed you what's been marked for
+identification as Government Exhibit 54. Special Agent
+Maguire, do you recognize this?
+A. Yes,
+, I do.
+l. What is Government Exhibit 54?
+A. This is a hard drive that was located in the previous
+exhibit, 935R. This was in one of the boxes that was located
+in the plastic bins in that office.
+Q. And have you examined Government Exhibit 54 in preparation
+for your testimony today?
+A. Yes, I have.
+Q. And how do you know that Government Exhibit 54 is one of
+the hard drives contained in the box that we're looking at here
+in Government Exhibit 935R?
+A. I examined this hard drive. I also recognized the New York
+CART lab bar code that's located on it.
+2. So you just mentioned a New York CART bar code. Can you
+please explain to the jury what that is?
+A. Typically, when we seize digital evidence items, we then
+turn them over to a unit in the FBI called CART. It's the
+Computer Analysis Response Team. They're just more technically
+trained to extract and review the digital evidence. When they
+receive an evidence item, they put their own bar code on it.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 228 of 261
+Maguire - cross
+It's typically designated with NYC and then has a series of
+numeric digits after that.
+Q. What is the NYC number for Government Exhibit 54?
+A. This particular one is NYC024350.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, if I could have one moment,
+1389
+please.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MOE: I have nothing further, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Everdell.
+MR. EVERDELL: Thank you, your Honor. May I inquire?
+THE COURT: You may.
+CROSS-EXAMINATION
+BY MR. EVERDELL:
+l. Good afternoon, Special Agent Maguire.
+A. Good afternoon, sir.
+l. You testified on direct about a search warrant that you
+helped execute at Jeffrey Epstein's New York residence on July
+6th and 7th of 2019; is that right?
+A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
+l. And the search warrant you were executing was part of an
+investigation that the New York FBI was conducting at the time;
+right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. You were not the lead detective on that investigation;
+right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 229 of 261
+Maguire - cross
+1390
+A. No, I was not.
+Q. I believe the co-case agents for that investigation were
+Special Agent Amanda Young and Task Force Officer Paul Byrne;
+is that right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. They were in charge of the investigation?
+Q. And your job was to help out on the day that the search was
+executed; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. You were leading the Evidence Collection Ieam?
+A. That's correct.
+Q. So your job was to go through the various rooms in the
+house, take photographs, and then search and seize any evidence
+that you might find; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. Now that you did more than one search warrant on those two
+days, July 6th and 7th; isn't that right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. That's because when you first went into the residence and
+you did a protective sweep of the area, you saw certain items
+that weren't covered by the first warrant, so you went and got
+a broader warrant; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. And I think you said there was yet even another warrant
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 230 of 261 1391
+Maguire - cross
+that you executed a few days later on July I1th, that allowed
+you to go back and collect CDs; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. So getting back to the day of the first execution of the
+first warrant, that would be July 6th of 2019; is that correct?
+A. Yes, sir, it is.
+l. And I believe the search started roughly around 5:30, 5:40
+in the evening; is that right?
+A. Yes, sir. I believe we approached the residence shortly
+after 5:30 and then actually entered the residence
+approximately 5:45, did the protective sweep, and I believe the
+search started at 6:15 p.m., approximately.
+Q. In the evening?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. And I think you were there executing that and the second
+warrant you got on July 7th all the way through the night;
+isn't that right?
+A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
+2. And I think the search ended early in the morning, around
+6:30 a.m., is that right?
+A. Yes, sir, it is.
+I. But it's safe to say for those first two warrants, I'm not
+talking about the one when you came back with the CDs, but for
+the times -- the warrants you executed where you took the
+photographs were on July 6th, 2019, July 7th, 2019; right?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 231 of 261
+Maguire - cross
+1392
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. So that's the day that the photos that we looked at were
+taken?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. So those photos show what the house looked like on July
+6th, 2019, and July 7th, 2019; isn't that right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. Those photographs don't show, for example, what the house
+looked like in 1994?
+A. No, sir, they don't. Not to my knowledge.
+2. Not to your knowledge, right, because you weren't in the
+house in 1994; right?
+A. I would hope not, no, sir.
+Q. That was the first time you had ever been there?
+A. It was.
+l. Those photographs wouldn't show what the house looked like
+at any time prior to 2019 when you went inside the house;
+right?
+MS. MOE: Objection, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+A. I have no way of knowing what the residence looked like, so
+I don't know if they were representative of what they looked
+like at that time period in the '90s.
+l. The specific year I asked about was 1994, that would be 25
+years before the day that you executed the search warrant;
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 232 of 261|
+Maguire - cross
+1393
+right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. That's a quarter of a century; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. And, in addition to what the house generally looked like in
+that earlier time period of the 1990s, say, those photographs
+we looked at don't show what items were in the house at that
+time period, necessarily, do they?
+A. Again, I would not have any personal knowledge of that.
+l. Those photographs wouldn't necessarily show what
+furnishings were in the house in the 1990s and the 2000s;
+right?
+A. Again, I don't know if it's representative or not.
+Q. And those photographs wouldn't necessarily show what
+artwork was on the walls in that time period that I'm talking
+about; right?
+A. Again, I don't know if it represents that or not.
+l. Bottom line is that these photographs really show what it
+looked like at the time of the search in 2019?
+A. That's the day that I was there, yes.
+2. So you also mentioned that the search began around -- I
+guess you said 6:30 is when the search began -
+A. Actually 6:15.
+2. 6:15?
+A. Yes, sir.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 233 of 261
+LC6Cmax 7
+Maguire - cross
+1394
+Q. Great. So you didn't take the photographs until after the
+search began at 6:15 p.m.; right?
+A.
+We take, yes, the entry photographs and then we proceed
+with the search after that. So at 6:15, that would be the
+labeling of the room, the photographs taken upon initial entry
+and walk-through, and then we would start the search after
+that.
+Q. So fair to say that the photographs you took that were
+taken and that we saw were taken at night; right?
+A. I believe it was summertime, so they might have been taken
+around dusk and then proceeding on through the nighttime hours.
+l. And the search did last all the way through the night;
+right?
+A. Yes, it did.
+Q. So, I think many of these photographs we saw were taken
+with a flash; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. And so that wasn't natural lighting conditions, that's what
+they looked like with a flash photo taken?
+A. I believe a flash was used in some circumstances in dimly
+lit areas and I believe other times it was not because the room
+was sufficiently lit.
+l. I want to ask you about a few specific items that you
+recovered from the residence.
+You testified about certain items that were in the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 234 of 261
+Maguire - cross
+1395
+safe, we just heard you talk about that; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. And some of the items found in the safe were CDs; correct?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. And you assigned the CDs the evidence numberses 1B26, 1B75,
+and 1B78?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. And those were found in the safe; correct?
+A. Yes. The 1B26 would have been located in the safe during
+the search on the 6th and 7th, and then 1B75 and 1B78 would
+have been with the suitcases with CDs were brought back to me
+on July 11th.
+l. Right. But your understanding what was brought back to you
+in the suitcases were originally what was inside the safe
+before you opened it?
+A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
+l. So all of those items that you mentioned, those 1B numbers
+I just mentioned were items that were found inside the safe?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. So you didn't - and that safe was on the third floor of
+the house; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. And at the time of the search, you didn't look at what was
+on any of these CDs; right?
+A. No, sir.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 235 of 261
+Maguire - cross
+Q. So, any images or photographs or anything else that came
+off those CDs, those were taken off later; correct?
+A. Correct.
+Q. Now you also testified about CDs that were found in a room
+on the fifth floor; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. So the safe is on the third floor and there was another
+room on the fifth floor where you found CDs?
+A. That's correct.
+l. And some of those CDs were also in binders on a shelf in
+that room, we saw that; right?
+A. Yes. Correct.
+l. And there were other CDs that were found in the drawer of a
+cabinet in that same room; right?
+A. Correct.
+l. And we saw photographs of both of those; right?
+l. And those CDs that we're talking about in the binders and
+in the drawer were found in the same room on the fifth floor of
+the residence; correct?
+A. Correct.
+l. And again, at the time of the search, you, yourself, did
+not look at what was on those CDs; right?
+A. The CDs in the binder, I was able to see thumbnails of the
+corresponding CDs. So I presumed that those were identical to
+1396
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 236 of 261
+1397
+Maguire - cross
+what should be on the CDs. But, no, I did not view any other
+CDs on the day of the
+search.
+Q. So you didn't compare the thumbnails with what was actually
+on the CDs that day; right?
+A. No. I did view several CDs the next day, though.
+Q. I'm just talking about on the day of the search.
+A. Correct. Yes, sir.
+Q. So any images of photos that were on those CDs were taken
+off later; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+2. Now you mentioned about how -- getting back to the safe,
+there were certain items that you found on the day of the
+search, but when you went back, they weren't there, but they
+were returned later; is that right?
+A. That's correct.
+l. So it was Mr. Khan, the attorney who brought suitcases that
+had the items that were missing from before; right?
+A. That's correct.
+Q. And fair to say that you didn't see anything missing in
+that inventory that was returned that day on the 11th?
+A. No, sir, I did not.
+l. So you got back everything you thought should be there
+based on what you had seen on the day of the search; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. Nothing missing?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 237 of 261
+Maguire - cross
+1398
+A. Not to my knowledge, no.
+l. Special Agent Maguire, you went through I think every room
+in the house during the search; is that correct?
+l. So you were on every floor of the house at some point
+during
+the search?
+A. Yes, sir.
+Q. And I think you said that there were eight total floors in
+the house; right?
+A. That's correct. Six aboveground and two sublevels.
+l. So six aboveground and two cellar levels, call it; right?
+l. There were no bedrooms in the cellar levels of the house;
+right?
+A. Not that I recall, no, sir.
+l. So of the six floors that were aboveground, there were some
+bedrooms in those floors; right?
+A. Yes, sir.
+l. But needless to say, if there were six floors aboveground,
+there was no seventh floor aboveground; right?
+A. No, sir.
+l. And there was no eighth floor above the ground with any
+bedrooms; right?
+A. No, sir.
+MR. EVERDELL: One moment. I have nothing further,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 238 of 261
+1399
+Maguire - cross
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: Ms. Moe.
+MS. MOE: No redirect, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Thank you, Agent Maguire. You may step
+down. You are excused.
+Is it a short witness or better to start tomorrow?
+MS. COMEY: Relatively short, your Honor. I don't
+know that we would get through it in 12 minutes, but we could
+try if your Honor would like.
+THE COURT: Let's give it a start, sure.
+MS. COMEY: Sure, your Honor. The government calls
+Kimberly Meder.
+THE COURT: Kimberly Meder
+. MENNINGER: Your Honor, rather than us switching
+with the lateness of the day, I'm going to be handling this
+witness from here, if that's all right with the Court.
+THE COURT: That's fine. Thank you, Ms. Menninger.
+KIMBERLY MEDER,
+called as a witness by the Government,
+having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
+THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. Please
+remove your mask and state and spell your name for the record.
+THE WITNESS: Kimberly Meder, K-i-m-b-e-r-1-y
+M-e-d-e-r.
+THE COURT: Thank you. You may inquire.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 239 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1400
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+DIRECT EXAMINATION
+BY MS. COMEY:
+Q. Good afternoon.
+A. Good afternoon.
+Q. Where do you work?
+A. The FBI.
+Q. What is your title?
+A. Staff operations specialist.
+l. How long have you worked at the FBI?
+A. 10 years.
+Q. What is your current assignment?
+A. I'm an analyst on child exploitation and human trafficking
+squad.
+Q. Generally what are your duties and responsibilities as an
+analyst at the FBI?
+A. I conduct analysis and research, which includes helping
+review evidence, that also includes looking for relevant
+information related to that case.
+l. Have you ever testified in court before?
+A. I have not.
+Q. I'd like to talk about how the cases you work on organize
+evidence. Could you explain, starting with case file numbers,
+does each FBI investigation have its own unique case file
+number?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 240 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1401
+Q. And within that case file number, how does the FBI
+categorize evidence within a single file?
+A. We categorize them into 1B numbers.
+Q. What is a 1B number?
+A. A way to categorize pieces of evidence. Multiple pieces
+can be put into one 1B number.
+Q. I'd like to direct your attention to the summer of 2020.
+Were you involved in reviewing particular CDs that summer?
+Q. For what case?
+A. The Epstein and Maxwell investigation.
+2. Were those CDs logged under 1B numbers within that case's
+FBI file?
+l. Who else, if anyone, reviewed those CDs with you?
+A. Special Agent Amanda Young.
+2. What did you and Special Agent Amanda Young do with those
+CDs?
+A. We copied and saved each disc onto the computer in our
+computer lab.
+l. What types of files did you find on those CDs?
+A. Photos.
+l. Could you explain to the jury how you processed each file
+on those CDs? So, for example, if you had a CD labeled A, B, C
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 241 of 261
+1402
+LC6Cmax 7
+Meder - direct
+on the physical CD, what did you do with it?
+A. If a CD was titled A, B, C, we created a folder titled A,
+B, C, we then placed that CD into that computer and copied
+everything on that disc into that folder.
+Q. After all of the photos from all of these CDs were copied
+onto the FBI computer, what review did you conduct?
+A. I reviewed all of the images for case relevancy.
+l. In preparation for your testimony here today, did you
+review some of the image files that you copied from those CDs?
+l. I'd like you to take a look, please, at the binder that
+should be in front of you at what's been marked for
+identification as Government Exhibit 1101. Do you recognize
+that?
+I. What is that?
+A. It's a chart showing the exhibit numbers with the 1B
+numbers and the name of the CDs.
+l. Did you assist in the preparation of this exhibit?
+accurate?
+2. How did you do that?
+l. Did you confirm that all of the information in it is
+A. I reviewed every picture in our computer lab and I
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 242 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1403
+corresponded it with the correct evidence item in the 1B
+number, as well as confirming the name of the CD.
+Q. And when we say the name of the CD, is that a label that
+was physically affixed to the CD?
+A. Yes, it was written on the disc.
+Q. Will this exhibit assist you in your testimony here today?
+MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would ask permission for the
+witness to refer to this exhibit as an aid during her
+testimony.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, no objection to that,
+although there is certainly hearsay contained in the far right
+column, so I assume that won't be part of the testimony.
+MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think we can take each
+objection as it comes.
+THE COURT: You're not moving for the admission?
+MS. COMEY: That's correct, your Honor.
+THE COURT: For now, we'll allow it to be an aid for
+memory and mindful of potential objections.
+MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
+Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up what's been
+marked for identification as Government Exhibit 304.
+BY MS. COMEY:
+l. Do you recognize this?
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 243 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1404
+Q. What is it?
+A. It's
+a CD from 1B26 that I reviewed from the Epstein and
+Maxwell investigation.
+Q. Now, is this the CD itself or an image from the CD?
+A. An image.
+Q. Before conducting your review that we've been talking about
+here today, did you familiarize yourself with the physical
+appearance of certain individuals?
+l. So did you become familiar with the physical appearance of
+Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein?
+l. Who are the individuals in Government Exhibit 304?
+A. Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
+MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the government offers this
+exhibit in evidence.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, may we have a sidebar,
+please.
+THE COURT: We'll stop for the night, given that.
+Members of the jury, thank you so much. Same schedule
+tomorrow. Appreciate your diligence and patience. We'll see
+you in the morning. Have a goodnight.
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 244 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1405
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(Jury not present)
+THE COURT: The witness may step down and out. Thank
+you.
+(Witness excused)
+Everyone may be seated.
+Okay, Ms. Menninger, GX304.
+MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. I have an extra set
+of the exhibits that I believe that the government intends to
+offer through this witness, if I may approach for the Court's
+benefit.
+THE COURT: Sure. Okay.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there are obviously
+several categories of different types of photographs that are
+contained in the exhibits that I believe the government intends
+to offer. Some of them obviously are pictures of Ms. Maxwell
+and Mr. Epstein at various places, times, et cetera. There is
+no witness that I'm aware of that's going to talk about when
+these photographs were taken, where they were taken, what they
+accurately represent, et cetera.
+I think the more problematic ones, though, are of
+individuals, including just one of, for example, my client
+laying on a boat at some unknown point in time in some unknown
+location. There are others that are people who have testified,
+in fact recently in this case.
+I would direct the Court's attention to 309, which is
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 245 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1406
+a recent witness, likewise 332 is a witness, and those
+witnesses were not asked to identify these photographs to say
+when they were taken, the circumstances under which they were
+taken.
+Likewise, your Honor, those two individual witness
+photographs are, I believe, what's known as PSD files. In
+other words, they are from a photo shop program when you go and
+look at the metadata behind those particular photos. So, it is
+particularly questionable whether or not they are what they
+purport to be or there have been any alterations to the
+photographs.
+So, without the witness who can establish that these
+photographs are what they purport to be at some particular time
+or under certain circumstances or dates, I don't think that
+just simply having possession of photographs on a CD in a home
+gets you through those many different problems, including
+hearsay problems, your Honor. That's without the issue that
+pertains to metadata, though I think --
+THE COURT: I'm sorry. What statements are being
+offered for the truth?
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, there are, embedded in
+these, and I think it's 332B is a screenshot of purported
+metadata that has a title that was affixed to this photograph
+by a person and it is labeled not by a computer-generated
+photograph. For example, if your Honor were to take a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 246 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1407
+photograph with your iPhone, your phone might save it as IMG
+and then give it a number.
+That's the kind of
+machine-generated data that would pertain to a photo on your
+iPhone. In this case, this is information that was affixed by
+a human being.
+MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think I can save us time. I
+think I told Ms. Menninger the other day we're not planning to
+offer 332B, at least with respect to that issue, we don't need
+to resolve that.
+THE COURT: So let's take them one at a time. 304,
+which is the one that's been offered. What's the objection?
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, with respect to this
+photograph, there is no witness that will testify when this was
+taken, if it was prior to the time of the conspiracy, some
+other time, under what circumstances, and that it hasn't been
+altered in some way since then. So it is simply a document
+without a witness to say what it is.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. I believe the
+testimony here is that CDs were seized from Jeffrey Epstein's
+residence, that they were reviewed by the FBI. So with respect
+to authentication, in terms of offering that these are what we
+say they are, they are photographs seized from Jeffrey
+Epstein's residence on CDs.
+Their relevance is selfapparent, given the contents of
+the photographs. The relationship between Maxwell and Epstein
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 247 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1408
+is central to this case. There has been witness testimony
+about the timeframe of that relationship, that it began in the
+early '90s. I think the defense has argued that that
+terminated during certain time periods. But, in short, I think
+all of Ms. Menninger's arguments are arguments that they are
+free to make to the jury but have nothing to do with the
+question of relevance.
+These items have been thoroughly authenticated and to
+the extent the defense wants to offer witnesses about their
+metadata and make arguments to the jury about what that means
+or what it doesn't mean, that's for the defense to put before
+the jury. It has nothing to do with the question of
+authentication or relevance, which are both low bars that are
+easily cleared here.
+THE COURT: So the authentication is these items --
+these represent the items that were found in the home during
+the 2019 search and the relevance is that they show the
+relationship between Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Throughout the course of
+these photographs.
+I would note, your Honor, with respect to the concern
+about metadata, it happens often in criminal trials that
+electronic evidence is seized, authenticated as such, and
+offered before the jury. If it were the case that evidence
+could only be admitted in court if the people who wrote the
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:20-Cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 248 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1409
+emails or took the photographs or were in the photographs could
+testify and identify themselves, no such evidence would ever be
+offered in court. But of course that's not what happens. All
+we do is we offer law enforcement agents who seized these items
+and can authenticate them, and if defense wants to make
+arguments to their relevance or otherwise, that goes to their
+weight and not their admissibility, and those arguments are for
+the jury.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in many criminal cases,
+there are lots of context over what photographs are admissible
+and for what purpose. For example, if it was a photograph that
+was taken inside of a store when there was a robbery that
+purported to take place in the store, there would be a witness
+to say that this photograph was taken in or near the events and
+that we have reason to believe that nothing inside the store
+has changed. Just showing photographs that are undated, they
+may be from 1975 for all I know, and showed the two of them
+together and there is no one to say that it hasn't been altered
+in the meantime, even the low bar of showing that the
+photograph is a photograph and without a witness to say it is
+what it purported to be, I don't think that that is true with
+respect to what is admissible for a photograph. It's a low
+bar, but there is not even a single person that can say that
+this photograph or the ones behind it are what they purport to
+be.
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 249 of 261
+Meder - direct
+THE COURT: They are what were found in the Epstein
+1410
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+home.
+MS. MENNINGER: They could be altered documents found
+within his home, but they're being offered for the truth of the
+matter in the photograph, that is that there was a close
+relationship between the two of them, as the government just
+argued.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, with respect to the next
+document, it doesn't show any relationship. It's a single
+person.
+THE COURT: Overruled. It's found in the home of
+Mr. Epstein.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, with respect to other
+individuals who haven't testified about the dates on which
+these photographs were taken or the ages at which they were
+taken, I don't think that there has been any foundation lead to
+show that those individuals -- that the photographs are what
+they purport to be. As I said, they came from a photo shop
+document file, which means they are, in fact, in a program that
+is meant to alter photographs.
+THE COURT: Overruled.
+MS. MENNINGER: And with respect to the totality of
+them, your Honor, there is a cumulativeness problem. You don't
+need 20 photographs to say what two might just as well say.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+
+Meder - direct
+MS. MOE: On that score, your Honor, throughout this
+trial, the defense has repeatedly tried to distance Ms. Maxwell
+from Mr. Epstein and his affairs and argue that things were
+compartmentalized. I believe in the cross examination of some
+witnesses, they repeatedly suggested that she was only a
+personal assistant.
+These photographs show their close relationship
+throughout time and are directly relevant. There is nothing
+cumulative about that. In fact, it speaks directly to one of
+the issues at the heart of this case, and for that reason,
+these photographs are certainly relevant.
+MS. MENNINGER: I'm not sure how they show time, your
+Honor. There are no date stamps on the photographs.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, given the change in hairstyles,
+the people in the photographs are clearly aging throughout
+time, I think that relationship and its duration throughout
+time is evident from the photographs themselves.
+THE COURT: Overruled. Anything else?
+MS. MENNINGER: As to all, your Honor, including the
+testifying witnesses?
+THE COURT: I'm sorry.
+MS. MENNINGER: Including as to the testifying
+witnesses --
+THE COURT: What exhibit number?
+MS. MENNINGER: The first one, your Honor, I referred
+1411
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 251 of 261
+1412
+Meder - direct
+to is 309, and the second is someone who will -- the government
+will contend is a victim in this case, though not testifying,
+number 332.
+THE COURT: 309.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 309 depicts the witness
+who testified earlier today as Kate. The jury has met her.
+This is a photograph of that same person.
+Again, to the extent the defense has the native file,
+which we produced in discovery, to the extent they wish to make
+any arguments about timeframes or metadata, they're free to do
+so, but a photograph of this person is certainly relevant given
+the context.
+With respect to Government Exhibit 332, your Honor, if
+I could just have one moment.
+THE COURT: Okay.
+MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. I just wanted to
+confirm. With respect to Government Exhibit 332, a cropped
+version of that photograph which shows only that individual's
+face has already been offered in evidence and identified by
+another witness as that individual.
+THE COURT: So what's the relevance of a duplicate
+photo?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, it's not a duplicate photograph.
+The photograph that we used for identification purposes was a
+cropped photograph of just the face. The full photograph is a
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 252 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1413
+topless photograph of this victim. We anticipate that the
+testimony at this trial would be that that person recruited
+another victim in this case, and I believe we, in advance of
+trial, that our view that the person in this photograph is a
+victim of the charged conspiracy.
+In particular, other exhibits which we will offer at
+trial will show flight logs that will show that this person,
+the same person with her first and last name, traveled on
+flights with Maxwell and Epstein when she was 17 years old. As
+the Court will recall, Mr. Alessi testified that he recalled
+witnessing the defendant meet the same person and asked her to
+come to the house and give massages.
+So the fact that Mr. Epstein had a photograph of this
+person topless is corroborative of that witness testimony and
+consistent with the evidence at trial that this person, as a
+minor, was a victim of the charged conspiracy.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the fact that this lawyer
+is just now representing to this Court that this is minor is
+contrary, one, to the metadata on the photo that shows she was
+not a minor when this photograph was taken, and two, the
+testimony of Mr. Alessi that he met her in 2001 or 2002, also
+when she was not a minor. So to put in evidence a photo that
+they know is not her of a minor, when there is no charged crime
+with respect to photography in this case, your Honor, is
+directly contrary to the evidence as the government knows it
+
+
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 253 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1414
+exists.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+And I also would like to say with respect to 309, we
+litigated whether or not we could put in evidence photographs
+of this witness, and the government called us, I think it was
+slut shaming when I tried to argue that there were other
+photographs of this individual that were much like this that
+she had put out in newspapers, and now they want to put on a
+photo of her after she's gotten off the stand and not afforded
+us the opportunity to cross examine her about similar
+photographs that she has put out.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, I'm surprised by all three of
+those arguments.
+THE COURT: Let's start with 332. Is the government's
+representation that the individual depicted in this photo is a
+minor at the time of the photo?
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, we made no representations about
+the metadata of the file of this photo. Io be short, in
+direct, I don't know. There will be testimony at this trial
+and there has been testimony at this trial that this person was
+victimized as a minor.
+In terms of the particular date of this photograph,
+we're limited by the information we have in the metadata. I
+believe it's for this reason that the defense had noticed
+perhaps a metadata expert and the defense will be free to
+explore that issue.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 254 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1415
+There are of course limitations on metadata and
+whether it can tell whether a file was saved on a certain date
+or whether a photograph was taken on a certain date or
+otherwise. And to the extent the defense wants to put that at
+issue, they're certainly welcome to do so.
+In terms of its relevance, it shows that the nature of
+the relationship between the defendant, Epstein, and this
+victim was of a sexual nature. For example, when Mr. Alessi
+testified about this victim, I believe the cross examination
+about that was that she was a professional, that she was at
+Mar-a-Lago, the defendant was only there for a treatment, and I
+believe there was a lot of -- there were a lot of questions on
+cross examination designed to suggest that she was a
+professional masseuse. And if the defense intends to argue
+that this person was a professional masseuse, it is certainly
+relevant in response to that argument that, in fact, Epstein
+had a topless photograph of her in a location that appears to
+be a tropical island which would be consistent with flight
+records along those lines. Again, it goes to the relationship
+between the defendant, Epstein, and this victim, that it was of
+a sexualized nature, which is consistent with witness
+testimony.
+With respect to the particular date of the photograph,
+that is an issue that the defense is certainly free to explore
+and put before the jury. I can't make a representation about
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 255 of 261
+Meder - direct
+the exact date because there are limitations on digital
+forensics.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, the representation was
+just made that this person was a minor victim, and that
+representation has been made to this Court on previous
+indications.
+THE COURT: Based on the testimony, I don't think the
+representation was that the picture represented her as a minor.
+MS. MOE: --
+MS. MENNINGER: -- nature of the relationship. I
+think the quote just was between my client and her and
+Mr. Epstein. There is nothing about this photograph that
+establishes any relationship having to do anything with my
+client. It's something that was in the possession of Jeffrey
+Epstein in 2019, and it was taken by any available data in 2002
+when she was above the age of consent.
+I think the 403 problem looms large in this case where
+we're going to put in a photograph of someone who there is not
+going to be - she's not going to testify, your Honor. They
+don't want her to testify because she has a lot of credibility
+problems. So they want to put in evidence that she was a
+victim but without having her get on the stand and testify. So
+now they want to get in evidence that she had a topless photo
+and no one's going to say when that photograph was taken. The
+available evidence on the photo is that it was taken when she
+1416
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 256 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1417
+was above the age of maturity, which is not a crime, not
+something my client is charged with, and is not a part of the
+conspiracy in this case. And I think putting on a photograph
+like that without any supporting testimony about when it was
+taken, the circumstances under which it was taken is highly,
+unduly prejudicial.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, defense counsel is grasping at
+straws here. This exhibit is plainly relevant. It's
+consistent with other trial exhibits and I do take issue with
+the suggestion that I made any misrepresentation with the
+Court. I certainly have not done that and would not do that,
+your Honor.
+THE COURT: 332, the objection is overruled.
+309.
+MS. MOE: Sorry. With respect to 309, that person is
+the person who testified this morning as Kate. I unfortunately
+haven't reviewed the final information recently, so I don't
+want to make a representation to the Court and it becomes an
+issue. We're happy to examine it and report to the Court this
+evening. My memory is the file name for this is her first
+name.
+MS. MENNINGER: And the date was 2002 when she was 25.
+And she didn't get on the stand and talk about photographs
+being taken of her. I mean, she didn't mention it. So now
+we're going to put in a photograph after she's left the stand.
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 257 of 261
+Meder - direct
+And by the way, we were precluded from cross examination about
+her publicly available photographs of a similar type.
+THE COURT: I don't understand the parallel. The
+relevance of this photo is that it was in possession of
+Epstein, which is different than the relevance that you were
+offering. I have to compare apples and apples.
+MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, had she testified about
+the circumstances under which that was made, it may have made
+it very relevant. We're just not going to have testimony about
+the photograph having been made when it was made, how old she
+was, et cetera, and then once she's off the stand, introduce a
+photo of her that could have been authenticated through her,
+but was not.
+1418
+I have a moment, Judge?
+THE COURT: You
+1. STERNHEIM: Judge, if I may, on the issue of this
+picture and the issue of nudity, I was essentially precluded
+from raising issues concerning nudity, and a witness who was
+brought up in the South of France, who was quoted as saying she
+is comfortable with being nude was an area ripe for cross
+examination if the government had not strategically decided not
+to use this photograph when the witness was on the stand.
+Now, if they will permit the witness to be brought
+back, that's a whole different issue, but this idea that they
+can just put in evidence after a witness is off the stand and
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 258 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1419
+claim that there is some strategic reason why it's okay, it has
+deprived us of cross examination, which is already compromised
+by the rulings repeatedly concerning the victims or accusers
+having certain rights, and they are coming into tension with
+the rights of our client to have an aggressive defense put
+forth.
+MS. MOE: Your Honor, the defense has not been
+compromised in any way. I want to unpack the facts here --
+THE COURT: Just to be clear, we're talking about
+
+MS. STERNHEIM: I know that.
+THE COURT: I take each objection as it comes. You
+make your record. It doesn't help analyze it to just talk
+about larger issues, which I don't know what you're talking
+about.
+So each objection as it comes. I'm looking at 309.
+Your objection is that by not putting it in when the witness is
+on the stand, you can't cross examine the witness about the
+context of the photo. Do I have it right?
+MS. STERNHEIM: That is correct.
+MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. So, as defense counsel
+knows, we showed this photograph to Kate during an interview in
+September of this year. She identified that as herself and
+remembered it. Defense counsel has had that note. If they
+wanted to ask her about this exhibit, that exhibit has been
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 259 of 261
+Meder - direct
+1420
+marked in evidence for eight weeks now. This is not a surprise
+in any way.
+It's not our practice, frankly, your Honor, to
+humiliate women with naked photographs of themselves when
+they're in a courtroom, and there is no need for it either,
+given its obvious relevance.
+THE COURT: I'll consider 309. Anything else?
+MS. MENNINGER: Not on these photos, your Honor.
+THE COURT: Any other matters to take up?
+MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank
+you.
+THE COURT: Thank you. I will see you at 8:45.
+(Adjourned to December 7, 2021 at 8:45 a.m.)
+* * *
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751
+
+1421
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+INDEX OF EXAMINATION
+Examination of:
+KATE
+Direct By Ms. Pomerantz
+Cross By Ms. Sternheim . .
+Redirect By Ms. Pomerantz
+Recross By
+McHUGH
+Direct By Ms. Moe . . .
+Cross By Mr. Everdell
+Redirect By Ms. Moe .
+KELLY MAGUIRE
+Direct By Ms. Moe . . .
+Cross By Mr. Everdell . .
+KIMBERLY MEDER
+Direct By Ms. Comey ...
+Page
+..1169
+.1234
+... •
+.1294
+- ..
+• 1303
+• 1319
+• 1348
+GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS
+• 1360
+• 1389
+• 1400
+Received
+•1167
+
+223R, 224R, 225R, 234R, 241R, 243R,
+244R, 246R, 247R, 248R, 249 R,
+250R, 252R, 253R, 254R, 255R,
+281R, 282R, 285R, 286R, 287R
+18
+109
+702
+• •
+•
+• 1171
+.1174
+- ..
+.1177
+
+
+
+1422
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+501,
+502,
+504,
+505, 506,
+509
+507
+909
+910, 911-R,
+933
+915-R
+902-R
+903-R
+•
+904-R
+917-R
+928-R
+925,
+925-R
+926
+929
+935R
+•1307
+....
+•1349
+• 1363
+• 1366
+•1368
+.. . ......
+.1370
+• 1371
+• 1372
+* *
+• 1373
+• 1373
+...•
+• 1377
+• • • •
+• 1380
+• 1381
+• 1386
+DEFENDANT EXHIBITS
+
+B
+K-8, K-10
+-•••
+Received
+.1166
+.1302
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bb6c00112cdadd2b6000b4cb7d557ca697080d07047e1d505ecef56fd535e13.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bb6c00112cdadd2b6000b4cb7d557ca697080d07047e1d505ecef56fd535e13.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f8a6b338eb606dbcde5d5a8210de7635fc738caf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bb6c00112cdadd2b6000b4cb7d557ca697080d07047e1d505ecef56fd535e13.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -30194,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0bb6c00112cdadd2b6000b4cb7d557ca697080d07047e1d505ecef56fd535e13",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 292,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "78b15dc781d2fb6099433ab1341055e71cf857377e7ff1a0b7d76c0936183d67",
+  "output_sha256": "67f1017383a64a98028c8b7155ea24e822f402a85817147f2a7910cda35c23e4",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bd30a14e9ea2745946cc51e0caddc22ee76e5cbeb395dc3ae7c6a83bb8e170b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bd30a14e9ea2745946cc51e0caddc22ee76e5cbeb395dc3ae7c6a83bb8e170b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fcbced5dbe4d6100bbb364af5b46ab60454cac94
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bd30a14e9ea2745946cc51e0caddc22ee76e5cbeb395dc3ae7c6a83bb8e170b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 240-6 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 4
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 240-6 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 4
+Copyright 2010 Newstex LLC
+All Rights Reserved
+Newstex Web Blogs
+Copyright 2010 Jezebel
+Jezebel
+August 4, 2010 Wednesday 1:00 PM EST
+LENGTH: 1373 words
+HEADLINE: The Sex-Trafficking Model Scout (Predators]
+BODY:
+Aug. 4, 2010 (Gawker Media delivered by Newstex) --
+Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier who the FBI believes molested around 40 underaged girls, was assisted by
+a prominent modeling agent and scout. Here's what we know about Jean Luc Brunel.
+Jeffrey Epstein, you will no doubt recall, is the man who thought ferrying Bill Clinton on his private jet, lawyering up
+with superstar Alan Dershowitz, and making frequent $100,000 donations to the Palm Beach Police Department
+would insulate him from prosecution for his various depravities.
+Which included, for the record: buying a 14-year-old Yugoslavian named
+from her parents in
+order to keep
+Zas his "sex slave"; paying a retinue of women to trawl Palm Beach for teenagers
+economically desperate enough to agree to give Epstein "massages" that often led to sexual contact, receiving two
+12-year-old
+girls as a "birthday present"; and befriending Michael Wolff.
+But as
+wrote at The Daily Beast:
+Perhaps most disturbing, in terms of possible sex trafficking, was Epstein's relationship with Jean Luc Brunel,
+owner of the MC2 modeling agency. According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
+District of Florida, an alleged victim said that Epstein, [assistant and girlfriend Ghislaine] Maxwell, Brunel, [house
+manager Alfredo] Rodriguez, and
+deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring
+minor children through MC2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money!'
+The FBI investigated Epstein, and identified around 40 underaged victims.
+reports that the FBI is also
+investigating MC2 and Brunel for possibly engaging in child sex trafficking. Since pleading guilty to reduced charges
+of soliciting sex with a minor and serving 13 months of part-time jail, Epstein has become the focus of numerous
+civil lawsuits from his victims. He has so far settled a dozen.
+These same civil complaints allege that young girls from South America, Europe, and the former Soviet republics,
+few of whom spoke English, were recruited for Esptein's sexual pleasure. According to a former bookkeeper, a
+number of the girls worked for MC2, the modeling agency owned by Jean Luc Brunel, a longtime acquaintance
+and frequent guest of Epstein's.
+Brunel, along with numerous young models, was a frequent passenger on Epstein's private jet, according to flight
+manifests. The agency owner also allegedly received $1 million from Epstein in 2005, when he founded MC2 with
+his partner, Jeffrey Fuller; although Fuller and Brunel denied any such payment from the billionaire pervert in 2007.
+when rumors started swirling,
+got confirmation from a former bookkeeper at the agency. Whether the
+money was a secret investment in MC2, or a payment for Brunel's services as a procurer, is unknown. Brunel also
+visited Epstein in jail.
+Confidential - This report is not to be disseminated or photocopied to any third party
+without the express consent of Global Security & Investigations.
+1309811B.doc
+ЕХнІВЦ 15
+WIT:
+DATE: 4-723
+C. Campbell, ROR CAR CSA #13921
+17
+Confirential
+IPM-SONYI IT-N003A59A
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 240-6 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 4
+So who is Jean Luc Brunel? Although he did not respond to our interview request, we spoke to a number of people
+who have worked with his agency. While MC2 isn't considered a major industry player, it isn't exactly bottom-shelf,
+either: MC2 in New York most recently launched the career of Latvian editorial star Ginta Lapina (Brunel
+"discovered" Lapina via an MC2 scouting competition for young teens) and currently represents Vogue China
+covergirl Liu Dan. Worldwide, MC2 represents such stars as Sessilee
+in Miami, and top models Candace
+Swanepoel, Marina Lynchuk, Natalia Chabanenko, and Elisa Sednaoul in Tel Aviv.
+Brunel isn't involved with the business on a day-to-day basis, although he owns an 85% stake in MC2. Instead,
+"Right now he does scouting for [the] agency and takes care of the international relations with other agencies,"
+reports one source. Scouts scour the world for un-agented teenaged girls who could make it as models; they work
+largely unsupervised and are generally paid a headhunting fee for every girl an agency signs. Even when affiliated
+with an agency, as Brunel obviously is with MC2, scouts operate mostly independently and with little oversight"
+even relative to the almost totally unregulated modeling industry itself. "He travels a lot," says another person who
+has worked with Brunel. (The company blog refers to Brunel as a "scouting tsunami," and MC2 is fairly well-known
+for the strength of its international scouting.)
+Models we spoke to report mostly positive experiences with Brunel "one praised his sense of humor and said he is
+"lovely to all of his models," and another described him as highly intelligent and cultured, adding, "he knows a lot
+about the opera and he paints" " although it should be noted that none of the models whom we spoke to had been
+told of either his connections with Epstein, or his past.
+And what a past it is. These accounts from Michael Gross' 1995 book Model describe Brunel's activities in Paris
+from the late 1970s onwards, when he worked for, and eventually owned, the modeling agency Karins, now known
+as Karin Paris:
+"Jean-Luc is considered a danger," says Jérôme Bonnouvrier. "Owning Karins was a dream for a playboy. His
+problem is that he knows exactly what girls in trouble are looking for. He's always been
+edge of the system.
+John Casablancas gets with girls the healthy way. Girls would be with him if he was the butcher. They're with Jean-
+Luc because he's the boss. Jean-Luc likes drugs and silent rape. It excites him."
+"I really despise Jean-Luc as a human being for the way he's cheapened the business," says John Casablancas.
+"There is no justice. This is a guy who should be behind bars. There was a little group, Jean-Luc, Patrick
+and
+Varsano...They were very well-known in Paris for roaming the clubs. They would invite girls and put drugs in their
+drinks. Everybody knew they were creeps."
+It should be noted that aside from being a professional rival, Casablancas, the founder of the agency Elite, was
+eventually drubbed out of the industry for his own modelizing. How pervy do you have to be for John Casablancas
+to call you a perv?
+Pervy enough to drug and rape numerous teenagers, according to 60 Minutes and Diane Sawyer, who investigated
+Brunel in 1988. The program interviewed nearly two dozen models who said they had been sexually assaulted by
+Brunel and/or by his fellow agent, Claude Haddad. Even at that time, Brunel had a reputation as a man one could
+go to to procure a "date" with a young model. CBS spoke to five models who said that Brunel and/or his friends had
+drugged and raped them. Said producer Craig Pyes, "Hundreds of girls were not only harassed, but molested,"
+When Gross interviewed Brunel, this is what he had to say for himself:
+"You get laid tonight with a model, is that a crime? I don't understand why people go into your personal life, what
+you do yourself, and to yourself, and they don't look at things that are really important."
+Since then, Brunel has been involved with a succession of agencies in New York and Paris. Although the 60
+Minutes scandal eventually led Eileen
+to stop working with him, he continued his involvement with Karins. In
+Confidential - This report is not to be disseminated or photocopied to any third party
+without the express consent of Global Security & Investigations.
+1309811B.doc
+18
+Confidential.
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00036597
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 240-6 Filed 07/25/23 Page 4 of 4
+1988, when powerhouse agency Next opened its doors, Brunel took an ownership stake. He also "discovered"
+Christy Turlington when she was 14. MC2 is only his latest venture. Because no criminal charges were ever filed by
+any of his accusers, and because the industry has a short memory " most models working today weren't even born
+when Sawyer and Pyes started looking into Brunel's activities " Brunel has been free to continue as he pleases. A
+citizen, he even avoided testifying in his friend Epstein's trial.
+And so Brunel is still criss-crossing the globe, trawling for 5'10" 13-year-olds from Eastern Europe and (the whiter
+parts of South America. And apparently taking the occasional ride with them on Epstein's private jet. Is there any
+better argument for the regulation of the modeling industry?
+Image via Models
+Jeffrey Epstein Pedophile Billionaire and his Sex Den [TDB]
+A Sex-Crime Investigation Reveals Jeffrey Epstein's Dangerous Dream World [New York]
+Earlier:
+Pervy Billionaire May Have All The Sex-Trafficking Defense Money Can Buy
+Why Superrich Guys Feel Entitled To Keep Underaged Sex Slaves
+Newstex ID: GAWK-0016-47599781
+NOTES: The views expressed on blogs distributed by Newstex and its re-distributors ("Blogs on Demand®") are
+solely the author's and not necessarily the views of Newstex or its re-distributors. Posts from such authors are
+provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided in Blogs on
+Demande are for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. No
+content on such Blogs on Demand® is "read and approved" before it is posted. Accordingly, neither Newstex nor its
+re-distributors make any claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the
+information contained therein or linked to from such blogs, nor take responsibility for any aspect of such blog
+content. All content on Blogs on Demand® shall be construed as author-based content and commentary.
+Accordingly, no warranties or other guarantees will be offered as to the quality of the opinions, commentary or
+anything else offered on such Blogs on Demand®. Reader's comments reflect their individual opinion and their
+publication within Blogs on Demand® shall not infer or connote an endorsement by Newstex or its re-distributors of
+such reader's comments or views. Newstex and its re-distributors expressly reserve the right to delete posts and
+comments at its and their sole discretion.
+LOAD-DATE: August 4, 2010
+Confidential - This report is not to be disseminated or photocopied to any third party
+without the express consent of Global Security & Investigations.
+1309811B.doc
+19
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00036598
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bd30a14e9ea2745946cc51e0caddc22ee76e5cbeb395dc3ae7c6a83bb8e170b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bd30a14e9ea2745946cc51e0caddc22ee76e5cbeb395dc3ae7c6a83bb8e170b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..42cf14143bae9fb19b914a80986476514dd140c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bd30a14e9ea2745946cc51e0caddc22ee76e5cbeb395dc3ae7c6a83bb8e170b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -174,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0bd30a14e9ea2745946cc51e0caddc22ee76e5cbeb395dc3ae7c6a83bb8e170b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "e448c98293090c7284ae9e58fba04dee51e529e5b585261a000352913b26eb1b",
+  "output_sha256": "39bbcb821cbc335c3042acc1a99be1ec7e80e6c58c210e43716fd4fef842ed29",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0be7af0c24218c1877d19ecde803faebaebec4e5a87e71887eaca8cc8d1568df.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0be7af0c24218c1877d19ecde803faebaebec4e5a87e71887eaca8cc8d1568df.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..63f315c0141086bd99e4da92868ffd2b22b7577a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0be7af0c24218c1877d19ecde803faebaebec4e5a87e71887eaca8cc8d1568df.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 18-1 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 1
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiffs,
+V.
+Case No. 22-cv-10904-JSR
+DECLARATION OF RONALD MACHEN
+IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR
+ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+I, Ronald Machen, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
+I am a Partner with the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dom LLP. I
+am eligible to practice and a member of good standing in the District of Columbia. A Certificate
+of Good Standing is appended hereto. I submit this declaration in support of my motion for
+admission to practice pro hac vice in the above-captioned matter.
+2.
+I have not been convicted of a felony.
+3.
+I have not been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or
+readmission by any court.
+4.
+There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any State or Federal
+court.
+Wherefore Ronald Machen respectfully submits that he be permitted to appear as counsel
+and advocate pro hac vice in this one case.
+Dated: January 11, 2023
+Respectfully submitted,
+/s/ Ronald Machen
+Ronald Machen
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0be7af0c24218c1877d19ecde803faebaebec4e5a87e71887eaca8cc8d1568df.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0be7af0c24218c1877d19ecde803faebaebec4e5a87e71887eaca8cc8d1568df.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d39c7c5f0c15be516a5a33e4112332a74cfee6ff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0be7af0c24218c1877d19ecde803faebaebec4e5a87e71887eaca8cc8d1568df.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0be7af0c24218c1877d19ecde803faebaebec4e5a87e71887eaca8cc8d1568df",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "908ab21cf90b2a7ebec6d5cd3501e1a975efc1f92d510de9c2275973e47558bb",
+  "output_sha256": "7169e47bd8e6dba7648fea55afa0a9d0fc66f4ed861c7d365754a006905004af",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bf9367f221392e1ad5f6977cd08202de3efff10473bb1a51fce161dc210fbc1.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bf9367f221392e1ad5f6977cd08202de3efff10473bb1a51fce161dc210fbc1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e21b9d37c6cddc4b42536638d1da785774ed7e15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bf9367f221392e1ad5f6977cd08202de3efff10473bb1a51fce161dc210fbc1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 133-2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 2
+*
+DOBAR
+COURT OF APPENE
+On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
+the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that
+Eden Schiffmann
+was duly qualified and admitted on October 17, 2016 as an attorney and counselor entitled to
+practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good
+standing of this Bar.
+In Testimony Whereof.
+I have hereunto subscribed my
+name and affixed the seal of this
+Court at the City of
+Washington, D.C., on April 28, 2023.
+Gula cattle
+JULIO A CASTILLO
+Clerk of the Court
+Issued By
+David
+•- Director, Membership
+District of Colambia Bar Membership
+For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email
+memberservices@dcbar.org-
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 133-2 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 2
+Supreme Court of Maryland
+Annapolis, MD
+CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING
+STATE OF MARYLAND, ss:
+1, Gregory Hilton, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Maryland, do hereby
+certify that on the eighteenth day of December, 2014,
+Eden Schiffmann
+having first taken and subscribed the oath prescribed by the Constitution and Laws
+of this State, was admitted as an attorney of said Court, is now in good standing,
+and as such is entitled to practice law in any of the Courts of said State, subject to
+the Rules of Court. This certificate of good standing is valid through the
+twenty-seventh day of June, 2023.
+ESPREME COURT
+OF MARYLAND
+In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto
+set my hand as Clerk, and affixed the Seal
+of the Supreme Court of Maryland, this
+twenty-eighth day of April, 2023.
+Lage, Stilton
+Clerk of the Supreme Court of Maryland
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bf9367f221392e1ad5f6977cd08202de3efff10473bb1a51fce161dc210fbc1.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bf9367f221392e1ad5f6977cd08202de3efff10473bb1a51fce161dc210fbc1.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0952a618314b759fa3d2542feb68124e1727598d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0bf9367f221392e1ad5f6977cd08202de3efff10473bb1a51fce161dc210fbc1.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0bf9367f221392e1ad5f6977cd08202de3efff10473bb1a51fce161dc210fbc1",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f74486aaee023e5402b9bf23ee5a4df8c1171e12d7eaa01036b9352681715925",
+  "output_sha256": "0b00cf3f3a7fa20a4aa6909006b6d3e95564e1d2d5230519218f733111573269",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c4c3959d229df3c36eea1d70ef31ca2f934ddcb6081c92f8897eddf6726c4eb.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c4c3959d229df3c36eea1d70ef31ca2f934ddcb6081c92f8897eddf6726c4eb.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a92366c9ad26b5c4d35314e3b0624cd7ee6a6398
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c4c3959d229df3c36eea1d70ef31ca2f934ddcb6081c92f8897eddf6726c4eb.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 265-32 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+From:
+To:
+Sent:
+Subject:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 265-32 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 2
+Staley, Jes <jes.staley@jpmorgan.com>
+"jeevacation@gmail.com' <jeevacation@gmail.com>
+1/22/2011 11:08:59 PM
+Re:
+Terrific. Lots of workers.
+What a paradise. When I retire, I'm going to put a mooring in front of your dock for my boat
+Amazing place.
+I think Larry is sad....
+Jes
+From: Jeffrey Epstein
+To: Staley, Jes
+Sent: Sat Jan 22 13:33:25 2011
+Subject:
+did you like the kitchen
+$$$********
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c4c3959d229df3c36eea1d70ef31ca2f934ddcb6081c92f8897eddf6726c4eb.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c4c3959d229df3c36eea1d70ef31ca2f934ddcb6081c92f8897eddf6726c4eb.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b050e69d97ca38d9ddaf2f94689073e5dd7a1a6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c4c3959d229df3c36eea1d70ef31ca2f934ddcb6081c92f8897eddf6726c4eb.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0c4c3959d229df3c36eea1d70ef31ca2f934ddcb6081c92f8897eddf6726c4eb",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0c0a69860096ccbd649c653dd8b2c069154ed92ae10f5ea37e71c740d82b1b9a",
+  "output_sha256": "6c71ef55710706c4393664071447855e4315c1029fe1defc872b48d9e526b80c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c52b91cc762d63df1aaace6485f2f51318510b10e9ab17fb257227dd1719a61.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c52b91cc762d63df1aaace6485f2f51318510b10e9ab17fb257227dd1719a61.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4449180b6dc0eed0acb01b58b760e6e816c13078
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c52b91cc762d63df1aaace6485f2f51318510b10e9ab17fb257227dd1719a61.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-64 Filed 09/08/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c52b91cc762d63df1aaace6485f2f51318510b10e9ab17fb257227dd1719a61.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c52b91cc762d63df1aaace6485f2f51318510b10e9ab17fb257227dd1719a61.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c4e3774cc0e8369a124fc171ed3969d4463f564d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c52b91cc762d63df1aaace6485f2f51318510b10e9ab17fb257227dd1719a61.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0c52b91cc762d63df1aaace6485f2f51318510b10e9ab17fb257227dd1719a61",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "44c0567baccc52d609e1468618c5e9a1bbd8e1fd3b3fa52dd5d2b5b3b562502f",
+  "output_sha256": "e80cf1d523e2098c6eecbce189d17757f46af45cd6d0bc016a11b2e6700236d4",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c5f93fa55a4259208709f65540ac795af5c7710d9c2845b1bec026a08927cbf.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c5f93fa55a4259208709f65540ac795af5c7710d9c2845b1bec026a08927cbf.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e7788ebaf532aad75d7e37ab97f10da35819107f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c5f93fa55a4259208709f65540ac795af5c7710d9c2845b1bec026a08927cbf.md
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 240-13 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 5
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 240-13 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 5
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Phillip A DeLuca [/O=CORPEXCHANGE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
+(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT]/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=PHILLIP.A.DELUCA]
+12/21/2010 4:00:47 PM
+Maryanne X Ryan [maryanne.x.ryan@jpmchase.com]
+RE: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+That is what I was thinking when I read this. I'll call you
+From: Maryanne X Ryan
+Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:48 AM
+To: Phillip A DeLuca
+Subject: RE: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+Yes in the PB and approved to stay after his criminal conviction by Cutler. My fear is will all our touting of good will on
+the HT work, if anyone should ever say yet we bank Epstein, a known child sleaze.
+Regards,
+Maryanne Ryan, Vice President, AML Operations | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Legal and Compliance Department | eD 194]
+Floor 4, Iselin, NJ 08830-2710 | # W: 732.452.8071
+Avenue South,
+From: Phillip A DeLuca
+Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:46 AM
+To: Maryanne X Ryan
+Subject: RE: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+Do we have this guy's accounts?
+From: Maryanne X Ryan
+Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:24 AM
+To: Phillip A DeLuca
+Subject: FW: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+I don't want to forget about this guy.
+Regards,
+Maryanne Ryan, Vice President, AML Operations | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Legal and Compliance Department | eD 194|
+Floor 4, Iselin, NJ 08830-2710 | # W: 732.452.8071
+From: Maryanne X Ryan
+Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:27 PM
+To: Phillip A DeLuca
+Subject: FW: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+Avenue South,
+Next week I would like to talk about this guy, a PB client that Cutler had to approve since he is a convicted
+felon.
+
+DeLuca Deposition
+
+7
+334640-CAK
+04/19/2023
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00194018
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 240-13 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 5
+Jeffrey Epstein likes making gobs of money, spending it on treats like a
+private Caribbean island and his own fortress, and having sex with underage girls. But just a week after he
+completed his sentence for soliciting a minor for prostitution, Epstein is being investigated by the Department
+of Justice for child sex trafficking. And his friend and modeling scout Jean Luc Brunel may have been using his
+agency to procure young girls from Eastern Europe. A modeling agency as a front to traffic young girls from
+Eastern Europe? Cliche, yes. But in this case, possibly true.
+Epstein has been accused of having sexual contact with hundreds of young teen girls over the past several years.
+He has settled more than a dozen lawsuits brought against him by underage girls he molested, often in the
+context of receiving a "massage." For years Epstein employed at least four staff members who, as part of their
+daily duties, were in charge of finding young girls to give him 2-3 massages a day. But these massage often had
+very unhappy endings for the girls involved. Additionally, when police raided his Manhattan penthouse, they
+found it decorated with large nude photos of very young girls. He's even been accused of procuring a 14-ycarold as his personal sex slave.
+But even more disturbing than Epstein's pedophilia is the relationship that Epstein and modeling mogul Jean
+Luc Brunel (who also has a laundry list of molestation allegations against him) may have built around the sex
+trafficking of young girls from Europe to the U.S. When Brunel was setting up his agency, MC2, Epstein sent
+him S1 million bucks to get him on his feet. Now, Brunel flies to Europe to recruit young models (many of
+which are under 17) and bring them back to the U.S. on Epstein's private jet. Clients have testified that the girls
+are generally very young and speak little English. So far it's unclear as to whether these girls were forced into
+commercial prostitution, or whether they were used by Epstein and Brunel as private "masseuses." Either way,
+using a modeling agency to lure a underage girls across an ocean for sex is human trafficking.
+Epstein and Brunel may be human traffickers. They may just be wealthy pedophiles with a private jet and a
+modeling agency. But either way, they have between them molested hundreds of young girls and gotten off with
+a tickle of the wrist and a sly wink. For example, despite a myriad of charges against him, Epstein plead guilty
+to only two minor charges and served only a 13-month sentence with a year of probation. But during his
+"sentence" he went into the office every day, and during his "probation" he traveled frequently to his private
+island in the Virgin Islands.
+A man who raped a 13-year-old and made $40,000 a year would have served real jail time and be living with his
+crime for the next ten years at least. But because he's rich, Epstein gets trips to his private island while his
+victims get nothing.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00194019
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 240-13 Filed 07/25/23 Page 4 of 5
+Regards,
+Maryanne Ryan, Vice President, AML Operations | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | Legal and Compliance Department | ED 194
+Floor 4, Iselin, NJ 08830-2710 | 8 W: 732.452.8071
+Avenue South,
+From: Yrjo L Massa
+Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 1:11 PM
+To: Maryanne X Ryan; Janice R Barnes; Oscar M Cunha
+Subject: FW: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+FYI
+From: James Dalessio
+Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 11:49 AM
+To: Yrjo L Massa
+Subject: FW: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+I spoke to the Market Manager, Mary
+today - she was aware of these allegations prior to the last annual DDR
+approval (high risk client). We will revisit if the allegations turn into an indictment.
+Regards,
+Jim
+From: James Dalessio
+Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 11:35 AM
+To: Yrjo L Massa
+Cc: Kevin McCleerey; Bonnie K
+Subject: RE: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+Hi
+We have escalated the new allegations in the press to the Banker and Market Manager - who were aware of the news
+stories - we have this client flagged as high risk so the DDR is updated and reapproved annually.
+Will keep you posted
+Regards,
+Jim
+From: Yrjo L Massa
+Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 5:38 PM
+To: James Dalessio
+Subject: FW: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+Importance: High
+Follow up
+From: Yrjo L Massa
+Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:46 PM
+To: James Dalessio
+Subject: FW: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+Hi Jim,
+Have you had a chance to review the following new news releases?
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00194020
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 240-13 Filed 07/25/23 Page 5 of 5
+Thanks
+Yrjo
+From: Yrjo L Massa
+Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 2:21 PM
+To: James Dalessio
+Subject: HC 197601 Fortent alert 233158 FW: epstein
+FYI
+New news on Jeffery Epstein
+July 29, 2010 | 10:43pm
+The Justice Department is investigating Jeffrey Epstein for child trafficking,
+The Daily Beast has learned-and has widened the scope of its probe to include a famous modeling agency.
+HC 197601
+Fortent alert 233158
+ECI# 9710670708
+http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-29/jeffrey-epstein-feds-probe-possible-childtrafficking-charge/
+From: Oscar M Cunha
+Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:23 AM
+To: Yrjo L Massa
+Subject: epstein
+http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-29/jeffrey-epstein-feds-probe-possible-child-traffickingcharge/
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00194021
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c5f93fa55a4259208709f65540ac795af5c7710d9c2845b1bec026a08927cbf.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c5f93fa55a4259208709f65540ac795af5c7710d9c2845b1bec026a08927cbf.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0b54ae49983426a59b57c6d9a50d4951b4ae2760
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c5f93fa55a4259208709f65540ac795af5c7710d9c2845b1bec026a08927cbf.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -132,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0c5f93fa55a4259208709f65540ac795af5c7710d9c2845b1bec026a08927cbf",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 14,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3dab49a67d6f96d8202e2be65dae28c843ba134302fd7006c77a31891b10795a",
+  "output_sha256": "1512f86f6b861f141adc89b8a4af455f86d9dfd64e94c59b0923abd913d57d9b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c78e25677a76f9c8c0880ca54e720941f525ef5db75c33fab805008166a121e.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c78e25677a76f9c8c0880ca54e720941f525ef5db75c33fab805008166a121e.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7db4f89b73ed793b889ec7144b9eda6a2e05448e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c78e25677a76f9c8c0880ca54e720941f525ef5db75c33fab805008166a121e.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+Case No. 22-cv-10904-JSR
+AFFIDAVIT OF
+BAYERL IN
+SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
+ADMISSION
+PRO HAC VICE
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A..,
+Defendant /
+Third-Party Plaintiff
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+Third-Party Defendant.
+DECLARATION OF
+BAYERL
+I,
+Bayerl, do declare as follows:
+1. I am an associate at
+& Connolly LLP, 680 Maine Avenue S.W., Washington,
+D.C. 20024.
+2. I am a member in good standing of the bar of California and the bar of the District of
+Columbia.
+3. I have never been convicted of a felony.
+4. I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or readmission by
+any court.
+
+
+5. There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court.
+I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
+Dated: July 6, 2023
+seph
+/Joseph Bayerl
+Subscribed and sworn to before me
+This 6
+- day or July
+2023
+SharonS.s
+Notary Public
+My Commission Expires
+8. 31. 2024
+1100 20
+22-1E-0
+SHARON L. BROWN
+NOTARY PUBLIC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
+My Commission Expires August 31, 2024
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c78e25677a76f9c8c0880ca54e720941f525ef5db75c33fab805008166a121e.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c78e25677a76f9c8c0880ca54e720941f525ef5db75c33fab805008166a121e.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..376ce5304451df1dd5a32414b44f41ce822c1c0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c78e25677a76f9c8c0880ca54e720941f525ef5db75c33fab805008166a121e.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0c78e25677a76f9c8c0880ca54e720941f525ef5db75c33fab805008166a121e",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a0198cf23ac9040759697d1e53e867ea35d441c05fcae98c5ae1a240a1a7f79b",
+  "output_sha256": "2ed5307ffffb522864fc2b36d656186ece6f8c95bba2e440fc67b31e5517f889",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c8601d561e6c2b405d09e77d9f1beb364983e1431c307d3ef3c85dafff8ff8f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c8601d561e6c2b405d09e77d9f1beb364983e1431c307d3ef3c85dafff8ff8f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2e82a4e31209fa962d2175f2b68ce558327cc6d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c8601d561e6c2b405d09e77d9f1beb364983e1431c307d3ef3c85dafff8ff8f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-98 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+From:
+To:
+Sent:
+Subject:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-98 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 3
+Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com
+Jes Staley <jes.staley@jpmorgan.com>
+9/25/2010 1:20:15 AM
+Re: Fw: Columbia
+in a snap
+On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Jes Staley <jes.staley@jpmorgan.com> wrote:
+Can u get to this professor at Columbia?
+---- Original Message --..
+From.
+To: Jes Staley
+Sent: Thu Sep 23 20:32:02 2010
+Subject: Fw: Columbia
+---Original Message-----
+From:
+To:
+ReplyTo:
+Subject: Re: Columbia
+Sent: Sep 23, 2010 8:29 PM
+Robert Mawhinney
+-----Original Message-....
+From:
+To:
+Reply To:
+Subject: Columbia
+Sent: Sep 23, 2010 8:24 PM
+needs the name of the professor @ columbia
+
+9982H
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-98 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 3
+This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
+conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
+securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
+confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
+available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.
+.... ..
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments.
+đ đđđ...**
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c8601d561e6c2b405d09e77d9f1beb364983e1431c307d3ef3c85dafff8ff8f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c8601d561e6c2b405d09e77d9f1beb364983e1431c307d3ef3c85dafff8ff8f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..131fa315a6c60b0ab778dbd25b3edb79043de072
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c8601d561e6c2b405d09e77d9f1beb364983e1431c307d3ef3c85dafff8ff8f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0c8601d561e6c2b405d09e77d9f1beb364983e1431c307d3ef3c85dafff8ff8f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "635104cc91ac6f031fecd1d46e0b8f842742070518505154f19d81949f8feeb3",
+  "output_sha256": "fd2ede4937c80d5cd89167834984ca4a3073af293f6f1d6ce6f680f22ec7a1fa",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c98155dd4ff64ebb3da3d38a0d2f0793a513383637d533fb11843c687b63e4c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c98155dd4ff64ebb3da3d38a0d2f0793a513383637d533fb11843c687b63e4c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d2337f750c67ba5abee9d8bc3ad913bbee1b087a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c98155dd4ff64ebb3da3d38a0d2f0793a513383637d533fb11843c687b63e4c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 263-35 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c98155dd4ff64ebb3da3d38a0d2f0793a513383637d533fb11843c687b63e4c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c98155dd4ff64ebb3da3d38a0d2f0793a513383637d533fb11843c687b63e4c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c54effca26d624fe02e2ddad3e5626ce8acb3448
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0c98155dd4ff64ebb3da3d38a0d2f0793a513383637d533fb11843c687b63e4c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0c98155dd4ff64ebb3da3d38a0d2f0793a513383637d533fb11843c687b63e4c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a2877e240b28c68950ba4546a388437389b856eea1e23fa4b3c6cdc9d330ae27",
+  "output_sha256": "bf7d90fbe66dd14964331ce4a1db9311b1361479c8f1652e14b2a87ede0e715b",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca3a8711a1549f302652203a7acc78e09c8238548da63441a5f354e28cfa40a.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca3a8711a1549f302652203a7acc78e09c8238548da63441a5f354e28cfa40a.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fd6f17fc5408c7e6f3139357e3fc1dd1403ffc0e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca3a8711a1549f302652203a7acc78e09c8238548da63441a5f354e28cfa40a.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 311-61 Filed 08/25/23
+
+
+Filed Under Seal
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca3a8711a1549f302652203a7acc78e09c8238548da63441a5f354e28cfa40a.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca3a8711a1549f302652203a7acc78e09c8238548da63441a5f354e28cfa40a.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6b90b9f2fa5a6befa882206ec669ea1fc12e6925
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca3a8711a1549f302652203a7acc78e09c8238548da63441a5f354e28cfa40a.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ca3a8711a1549f302652203a7acc78e09c8238548da63441a5f354e28cfa40a",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "51fe9d76e652e161a92a136de4954e56d08bc1126f47a156da9b38fa25180f90",
+  "output_sha256": "b6fc143a18b77f5faa83c17128c2d45a5ff41b64b80c6598142b352f5fca8b98",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca5013cf4b9bb70edfd660aac014daf1ea33bd9f042cc44864b8a06c81254f0.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca5013cf4b9bb70edfd660aac014daf1ea33bd9f042cc44864b8a06c81254f0.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7286e74bd821ea9495c3e1f1294c0378934639b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca5013cf4b9bb70edfd660aac014daf1ea33bd9f042cc44864b8a06c81254f0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 7-4 Filed 12/30/22 Page 1 of 1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+PLAINTIFF,
+Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904 JSR
+ORDER FOR ADMISSION
+PRO HAC VICE
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+DEFENDANT.
+The motion of Carol
+for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice in the abovecaptioned action is granted.
+Applicant has declared that she is a member in good standing of the bars of the state of
+New York and the United States Virgin Islands; and that her contact information is as follows:
+Name:
+Firm Name:
+Carol
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General
+34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
+City/State/Zip: St.
+, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
+Telephone/Fax: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10101
+Email:
+Applicant having requested admission Pro Hac Vice to appear for all purposes as counsel for
+Plaintiff, Government of the United States Virgin Islands, in the above-entitled action;
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant is admitted to practice Pro Hac Vice in the
+above-captioned case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
+All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including
+the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.
+New York, NY
+January
+_ 2023
+JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca5013cf4b9bb70edfd660aac014daf1ea33bd9f042cc44864b8a06c81254f0.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca5013cf4b9bb70edfd660aac014daf1ea33bd9f042cc44864b8a06c81254f0.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8061ba527e73d916502c762a28be3f4015527531
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ca5013cf4b9bb70edfd660aac014daf1ea33bd9f042cc44864b8a06c81254f0.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -14,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ca5013cf4b9bb70edfd660aac014daf1ea33bd9f042cc44864b8a06c81254f0",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f821c7b675e6964ba0b3518a041b9ac8dfd433fb6820f126e5a5ff69bcc9f0ac",
+  "output_sha256": "d937224afd94afdb8a0e6b4e27fdea0490cbc1f14e6e3b6a989a6fe94ac0003c",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cbd91499475c1aa19940be9024b551bc2e7f407bead1e73807f64b9b980aa80.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cbd91499475c1aa19940be9024b551bc2e7f407bead1e73807f64b9b980aa80.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..de75fe1af0d6784ce5f3c08922d87719e4838389
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cbd91499475c1aa19940be9024b551bc2e7f407bead1e73807f64b9b980aa80.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 268-9 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cbd91499475c1aa19940be9024b551bc2e7f407bead1e73807f64b9b980aa80.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cbd91499475c1aa19940be9024b551bc2e7f407bead1e73807f64b9b980aa80.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e4b8f5b6a38c09fafb67e639fa90a186e5a43ffc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cbd91499475c1aa19940be9024b551bc2e7f407bead1e73807f64b9b980aa80.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0cbd91499475c1aa19940be9024b551bc2e7f407bead1e73807f64b9b980aa80",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0bf6e331f24697e585dd8c85cdf9a1c203b68955a51eafcf3cbd6c18936b0316",
+  "output_sha256": "fc6248ba87121110efda783f361f1f9f10be1e5b01c3ebd5baf217631d0db7ed",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cd66391223bdfbaa429d8b21000f70ba5dea63a81743408e91657908782cd8c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cd66391223bdfbaa429d8b21000f70ba5dea63a81743408e91657908782cd8c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9731b540da8a3d333416dac92042f8b76b0145a3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cd66391223bdfbaa429d8b21000f70ba5dea63a81743408e91657908782cd8c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 226-25 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 4
+
+
+
+Case 122-00-10304=358 Documen 220-20FICU UNZ4123 Page ZUl4
+In the Matter Of:
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+22-cv-10904
+Chase
+FORMER GOV KENNETH E. MAPP
+May 24, 2023
+
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 226-25 Filed 07/24/23 Page 3 of 4
+FORMER GOV KENNETH E. MAPP Confidential
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+76
+guess wherever you reside, you have to let that
+jurisdiction know. So I guess in talking it out, I
+guess that would be logical.
+When do you think you learned that
+Mr. Epstein was required to register as a sex
+offender?
+A. I guess in the general knowledge that he
+had either been convicted or pled guilty to some sex
+offense crime somewhere. In all of the news reports,
+one of the things you would, I guess, always see is
+that, as a result of that, he would be required to
+register as a sex offender.
+2. So going back to the first time that you
+were introduced to Mr. Epstein during your 2014
+campaign, at that first meeting, on or before that
+first meeting, did you know that Mr. Epstein had
+previously been convicted of a sex crime?
+A. I don't know that I was aware of that.
+Because it may have happened all around that time. So
+I'm not sure if I was or wasn't aware. But certainly
+by -- certainly by 2015 I guess I would say I did
+know.
+e.
+And do you know how you learned about
+Mr. Epstein's prior conviction for a sex crime?
+A.
+Generally -- it would be through the media.
+→ ESQUIRE
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 226-25 Filed 07/24/23 Page 4 of 4
+FORMER GOV KENNETH E. MAPP Confidential
+Gov of the US Virgin Islands vs JP|
+Chase
+May 24, 2023
+82
+(By Ms. Ellsworth) Fair to say you didn't
+have any information that gave you cause to ask
+anybody to investigate Mr. Epstein. Correct?
+A. That is fair to say.
+Q. And you certainly didn't ask your attorney
+general to take any action in relation to
+Mr. Epstein --
+A.
+No.
+-- during the time that you were governor?
+A. No.
+Q. And you didn't ask the Virgin Islands
+Police Department to take any action pertaining to
+Mr. Epstein while you were governor. Correct?
+A. No.
+Q. Did you -- have you ever seen an article
+that was published in "The Miami Herald" at some point
+in the fall of 2018 about Mr. Epstein?
+A. No. The fall of 2018 would have placed me
+at the doorstep of my reelection. The vote for the
+reelection. And, again, really in the midst of a lot
+of response to the disaster and the hurricanes. You
+know.
+So I wasn't online reading papers. And
+certainly I don't believe at that point the
+Virgin Islands was getting the daily periodicals from
+the mainland. So --
+→ ESQUIRE
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cd66391223bdfbaa429d8b21000f70ba5dea63a81743408e91657908782cd8c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cd66391223bdfbaa429d8b21000f70ba5dea63a81743408e91657908782cd8c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f27dc26bfea24aa760a81670ef7bfcbd634c07ea
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cd66391223bdfbaa429d8b21000f70ba5dea63a81743408e91657908782cd8c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -257,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0cd66391223bdfbaa429d8b21000f70ba5dea63a81743408e91657908782cd8c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 7,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "0faf6626a28335acb09935c3462a23f52a55010e540f5b66b63d26a787fcaf60",
+  "output_sha256": "f32ad4fc2b503a5111d4325e9658a30d8540fa70f862a00a83948764bf0f6dca",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cdffcf02c0ade7a18201ceab581e30b00443b0c1af2202ab7432eec916c8a0f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cdffcf02c0ade7a18201ceab581e30b00443b0c1af2202ab7432eec916c8a0f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32a820c2cd7fdd48ae045a1b61dcfb8bff3cdcff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cdffcf02c0ade7a18201ceab581e30b00443b0c1af2202ab7432eec916c8a0f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,802 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-142 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 17
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1§2%pł8n Rºfun8nt 3261ł1ghF|ed@8P8RđeRe9a4 of 17
+1
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+3
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+Plaintiff,
+V.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Defendant/Third-Party
+Plaintiff.
+: Case Number:
+: 1:22-cv-
+: 10904-JSR
+:
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party Plaintiff,
+:
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY
+Thiza-Party Defendant.
+MAY 24
+2023
+HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
+Videotaped deposition of
+STEPHEN CUTLER, taken pursuant to notice,
+was held at the law offices of Boies
+Schiller Flexner LLP, 55 Hudson Yards,
+New York, New York, commencing at
+18
+9:40 a.m., on the above date, before
+19
+20
+Amanda Dee Maslynsky-
+, a Certified
+Realtime Reporter and Notary Public in
+21
+and for the State of New York.
+22
+23
+GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES, INC.
+877.370.3377 ph| 917.591.5672 fax
+deps@golkow.com
+24
+Page 1
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1§ł%pł8n Rºfun8nt 3261ł1ghF|ed@9P8RđeRe9a3 of 17
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+BY MS. LIU:
+Q.
+But you do remember and you
+reviewed documents that reminded you, or
+refreshed your recollection, Mr. Cutler,
+10
+correct, that on multiple occasions, as
+11 the top lawyer at the company, you said
+12/
+to business, I do not want this person,
+13
+Jeffrey Epstein,
+as a client of the bank,
+14
+correct?
+15
+A.
+I know that I said that in
+16
+2011. I do.
+17
+But he remained a client of
+18 the bank until August of 2013, correct?
+19
+A.
+Or thereabouts, yes.
+20
+l.
+Who overruled you?
+21
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+22
+BY MS. LIU:
+23
+Mr. Cutler --
+24
+A.
+I don't know if it was a
+Page 209
+
+
+1
+matter of being overruled, but I believe
+2 that Mr. Staley and -- and others in the
+3 business decided that we should retain
+4 Mr. Epstein as a client, notwithstanding
+5 my concerns that his continuing to have
+6 an account at JPMorgan created a
+• reputational risk for the firm.
+8
+Q.
+9
+you mentioned?
+And who are the others that
+10
+11
+12
+A.
+Well, I don't think that an
+account for a private bank customer gets
+retained unless the private bank wants to
+13
+retain the account and the head of asset
+14
+15
+16
+management, to whom the private bank
+reports, wants to retain that account.
+And then I know in this case
+17
+Mr. Staley remained involved, given that
+18 he was a primary relationship with the
+19 account.
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+The head of asset management
+at the time was Mary Erdoes, correct?
+A.
+Correct.
+Sorry, in 2011,
+we're talking about, yeah.
+MS. LIU: It's 1 o'clock.
+Page 210
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-192 pł8n Rºfun8n 32611ghF|ed @808{3eR89a] of 17
+1
+You wrote that, correct?
+2
+A.
+Yes.
+3
+Why did you write "it's
+4
+another to be paying him"? What did you
+5
+mean by that?
+6
+A.
+I'll reiterate what I said
+• before. I think that, essentially, would
+make Mr. Epstein our business partner,
+10
+and I didn't think, given the
+reputational issues, that JPMorgan ought
+11 to be business partners with Mr. Epstein.
+12
+l.
+Do you recall that that
+13 Gates Foundation project that Mary
+14
+Erdoes, Jes Staley and with which you
+15
+were at least partially involved with
+Jeffrey Epstein, ultimately didn't go
+17
+through?
+18
+A.
+Again, that's my
+19
+20
+recollection, that we did not do --
+JPMorgan did not do a Gates Foundation
+21
+project.
+22
+-
+-
+-
+23
+24
+(Whereupon, Exhibit
+Cutler-26, JPM-SDNYLIT-00136260,
+Page 299
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-192 pł8n Rafunen 32611ghF|ed @808{3eRe9a] of 17
+1 Jeffrey Epstein walking the halls or in
+2 the elevator at JPMorgan?
+3
+A.
+I don't remember doing that
+4 or those precautions having been taken.
+5
+Q.
+Do you know if your
+secretary or assistant would recall
+seeing Jeffrey Epstein or greeting
+Jeffrey Epstein during that meeting?
+A.
+I have no idea.
+e.
+Do you recall that you had a
+meeting scheduled -- a next meeting
+scheduled with Jeffrey Epstein a month
+later?
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+A.
+So I -- I remember two
+15
+communications with Epstein.
+16
+Okay.
+17
+A.
+So two -- two meetings.
+I
+18 don't remember whether the second, so the
+19 one after this one, I don't remember
+20
+whether it was an actual in-person
+21
+meeting or not.
+22
+I've now seen the calendar
+23
+entry suggesting that it was going to be
+24
+a meeting. I just don't remember if, in
+Page 312
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1§9€pł8n Rºfunent 3261ł1ghF|ed@9P8RaeRe9a1 of 17
+1
+fact, it was a meeting or there was a
+2 call. I do remember having one, and then
+3 there was going to be a second.
+4
+Q.
+Okay. So you had the first
+5 meeting, he says, I'm a good guy, don't
+6
+hate me, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Glenn
+7
+--
+8
+A.
+I don't remember - -
+9
+Q.
+-- he dropped a bunch of
+10
+names --
+11
+A.
+I don't remember which names
+12
+he mentioned, but he mentioned a lot of
+13
+14
+names of a lot of people that he
+considered his friends and confidants.
+15
+That -- that much I remember. I just
+16
+don't remember which ones.
+17
+18
+And were you persuaded by
+Jeffrey Epstein at this meeting?
+19
+A.
+No. I do remember
+20 thinking -- or I do remember telling him,
+21
+I'm going to think about it.
+22
+And I remember thinking at
+23
+the time, he is smooth. He is -- you
+24
+know, he can be persuasive. And now, you
+Page 313
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-192%ph8n Rafunen 3261ł1ghF|ed @8P8RaeRe9a9 of 17
+1 know, with the benefit of 20/20
+2 hindsight, I can see that he managed to
+3 charm a lot of people along the way.
+4
+So I do remember, at the
+conclusion of the meeting, thinking,
+okay, I'm going to think about this some.
+7
+Q.
+Okay.
+8
+A.
+But it didn't -- he didn't
+change my mind. And I -- I think I must
+10
+have communicated, all right, I'm going
+11 to think about it.
+12
+And when do you think,
+13 relative to that meeting, you arranged to
+14
+have a second meeting with him?
+15
+A.
+I only know this from having
+looked at a couple of the documents. I
+17
+mean, I think it turned out to be six
+18
+weeks later.
+19
+l.
+Okay. So you told him, I'm
+20
+going to think about it.
+21
+Do you recall if in between
+22
+those two meetings you had any
+23
+conversation with Mary Erdoes about your
+24
+meeting?
+Page 314
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-192 pł8n Rºfun8n 32611ghF|ed@8P8{3eR89a9 of 17
+1
+A.
+I don't remember doing that.
+2
+Do you remember if you had
+3 any conversation with Jes Staley about
+4 your meeting?
+5
+A.
+I don't remember doing that
+6 either. It is possible that I told him,
+? I met with him, I'm going to -- I'm going
+8
+9
+to think about it, I'm going to meet with
+him again. I just don't -- I just don't
+10
+remember.
+11
+Do you recall if you had any
+12
+conversation with Jamie Dimon about your
+13
+meeting with Jeffrey Epstein?
+14
+A.
+I don't believe I did.
+15
+Q.
+Do you recall if you had any
+16
+conversations with anyone else about --
+17
+with anyone about your meeting with
+18
+Jeffrey Epstein?
+19
+A.
+I don't -- it's possible I
+20 did, I just don't -- I just don't have a
+21
+recollection of that.
+22
+Okay. But you recall you
+23
+were going to think about it.
+24
+Did you, in fact, think
+Page 315
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1Q99€JfBn D0G4n#* 326-11g|Filęd QUA#/Zdekageap of 17
+1 about it, or was that just something you
+2 said to end the meeting?
+3
+A.
+I do remember thinking about
+4 it some. So I -- I don't know that I
+5 thought at the end of that meeting, boy,
+I'm going to change my mind, or there's a
+good chance I'm going to change my mind.
+8
+But I -- I think I genuinely
+10
+thought, okay, I'll do a little bit of
+thinking about this. And I didn't tell
+11 him in that meeting, you know, no way, no
+12 how.
+13
+And then that's when I
+14
+remember having this thought about, you
+15
+know, what would I say to -- what would I
+16
+17
+18
+say to women at JPMorgan? What would
+I -- you know, what would I say beyond
+that?
+19
+And I thought -- I thought
+20 there was -- I concluded that there was,
+21
+in fact, a reputational risk that the
+22
+firm shouldn't take.
+23
+Do you know if you talked to
+24
+Jonathan
+about the meeting?
+Page 316
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1Q99€JfBn D0G4n#*326-1g|Filęd 0VA#3aeha9ea1 of 17
+1
+A.
+I don't remember doing that.
+2
+I'm actually trying to
+3
+remember if
+was still at
+4 JPMorgan at that time.
+5
+Q.
+So what was Jeffrey Epstein
+6
+trying to convince you -- what were you
+7 going to think about, whether or not
+8
+you're going to tell Mary Erdoes or Jes
+Staley or the business in general, you
+10
+know, I'm not going to stand in the way
+11 of this guy staying on as a client; is
+12 that -- is that what he was trying to
+13 convince you to say?
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+A.
+Again, I think he was just
+trying to convince me that he was a
+decent guy. That, notwithstanding this
+terrible past and the conviction, that he
+wasn't as terrible as all that.
+19
+Why is --
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+A.
+I don't -- I don't -- what I
+don't remember is, you know, was he
+trying to convince me that he should be
+part of the Gates Foundation thing, that
+he should be a client of the firm, that,
+Page 317
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1q906d&Bn D0G4N# 326-H1g)Fllgd CUP#2deRagea} of 17
+1 you know, in general, the firm shouldn't
+2 shy away from, you know, maintaining a --
+3 I just don't remember.
+4
+Q.
+Okay. So do you -- you
+5 recall there was a second meeting,
+6 whether in person or over the phone; is
+7 that fair?
+8
+9
+A.
+communication.
+A second -- a second
+10
+e.
+And what -- what happened in
+11 that second communication?
+12
+A.
+I don't remember. I know I
+13 had come to the conclusion that I was not
+14
+15
+16
+changing my advice. Whether I
+communicated that to him, I don't
+remember.
+17
+18
+It would not be crazy for me
+to say, I'm not telling him what I think,
+I'm telling my -- I'm telling the people
+20
+who represent my client what I think.
+21
+e.
+So at no point following
+22 those two meetings do you recall ever
+23
+advising, recommending, saying to the
+24
+bank, we should retain Jeffrey Epstein as
+Page 318
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1Q99€JfBn D0G4n# 326-11g|Filęd 0VA#/3deßageaß of 17
+1
+a client?
+2
+A.
+3
+e.
+Absolutely not.
+Do you recall ever again
+4 saying, as you had in July of 2011, we
+5 should not do business with Jeffrey
+6
+Epstein?
+7
+A.
+I believe at the conclusion
+8
+of these two meetings, I said to Jes
+Staley, I don't believe we should be
+doing business with him, I haven't
+11 changed my mind.
+Why did you say it to Jes
+10
+12
+13
+Staley?
+14
+A.
+He was the primary interface
+15
+with me on Epstein, largely because I
+16 think it was his client relationship.
+17
+And so you, as the general
+18
+counsel of JPMorgan, believed, based on
+19 that, he was the appropriate person to
+20 defer to related to a decision about
+21
+Jeffrey Epstein; is that fair?
+22
+A.
+23
+I mean, I -- you could --
+MR. EDELMAN: Objection to
+24
+form.
+Page 319
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1Q99€Jf8n D0g4n# 326-112g|Filęd 0VA#/3aeßageaf of 17
+1
+2
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+You can answer.
+THE WITNESS: Okay. You
+could argue it was Jes. You could
+argue it was Mary. I know they
+were communicating with one
+another about Epstein.
+I -- and maybe it was
+because my meeting or meetings
+with Epstein were done at the
+behest of Staley that I felt like
+that was primarily who I was
+talking about. I mean, you've
+seen in documents I communicated
+with Mary about the subject.
+But my best recollection is,
+following those meetings -- and
+maybe it's because Jes sort of
+said, would you please meet with
+him? Would you hear him out? I
+remember that, I remember that
+phrasing, would you hear him out?
+That I -- I think I would
+have gone back to him.
+24
+BY MS. LIU:
+Page 320
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1q906d&Bn D0G4N# 326-H1g)Fllgd C8P#2dePagea5 of 17
+1
+2
+Q. And do you recall what he
+3 said to you or what you -- what you
+4 remember about any conversations that
+5 happened between someone at JPMorgan and
+6 Ken Starr related to Jeffrey Epstein?
+7
+A.
+My best recollection is we
+8
+were trying to ascertain whether there
+was, in fact, an ongoing investigation,
+that is, an investigation of, you know,
+11 current conduct, or call it
+12
+post-conviction conduct.
+13
+And I don't remember the
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+result of the call with Starr, other than
+we certainly didn't glean from that
+communication that he thought there was
+such an investigation.
+e.
+Why was that the question
+you were asking?
+A.
+I don't know if that was the
+only question.
+It may have been a
+character reference kind of thing.
+But at that time, I think we
+were looking at the account again. There
+Page 351
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1Q99€JfBn D0G4n# 326-11g|Filęd 0VA#/3deßageaf of 17
+ongoing human trafficking through Jeffrey
+2 Epstein?
+3
+A.
+Here is what I was
+4 interested in:
+If Mr. Epstein was
+5 continuing to engage in unlawful
+6
+activity,
+we didn't want him as a client.
+7
+We understood that he had
+engaged in unlawful activity in the past.
+9
+10
+That, itself, raised issues. But we were
+continuing to serve as his bank and
+11 maintain his accounts.
+12
+If he was involved in --
+13 in -- if he continued to be involved in
+14
+15
+criminal activity, we did not want to
+maintain those accounts.
+16
+l.
+And what did you do to
+17
+determine whether or not Jeffrey Epstein
+18
+was continuing to be involved in criminal
+19 activity, namely human trafficking?
+20
+A.
+Right. I -- again, I would
+21
+not have personally been involved in
+22 that. But we had a compliance department
+23 and an anti-money laundering function
+24
+with well-regarded people. And I trusted
+Page 363
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-1q906d&Bn D0G4N## 326-H1g)Fllgd C8P#2dePagea1 of 17
+the relationship to be terminated.
+2
+Is that consistent with your
+3 prior testimony that in 2011 you wanted
+4 Jeffrey Epstein to be terminated from the
+5 bank?
+6
+A.
+I think so. I mean, I think
+7 this is -- this states that I wanted to
+exit the relationship, and I did.
+9
+Q.
+So then Nina Shenker says to
+10
+Jonathan
+Is Jes going to talk
+11 to Mary to execute the termination?
+12
+Do you see that?
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+A.
+I do.
+2.
+And do you understand that
+to be Mary Erdoes?
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: I'd be
+guessing along with you, but it
+would make sense.
+BY MS. LIU:
+24
+l.
+And then Jonathan
+says to Nina, I don't think he has any
+plans to do so. He understands that
+Steve is quite firm on the subject and is
+Page 395
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cdffcf02c0ade7a18201ceab581e30b00443b0c1af2202ab7432eec916c8a0f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cdffcf02c0ade7a18201ceab581e30b00443b0c1af2202ab7432eec916c8a0f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0d2124e86ccc3d8ad22bf9c0a2496271480fdb02
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0cdffcf02c0ade7a18201ceab581e30b00443b0c1af2202ab7432eec916c8a0f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -648,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0cdffcf02c0ade7a18201ceab581e30b00443b0c1af2202ab7432eec916c8a0f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 19,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "f8c8a8eb03aff602794e331413d54a364f70519a92deaa242ee3873270225ebd",
+  "output_sha256": "20eb8ae622998a344dcda83ae3229bbda69466678f2e5915d5288a3adf8c8872",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ce6ec0670cabbf96bf144cb9fc2017e406b850368b79c595be0ce5311e3071b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ce6ec0670cabbf96bf144cb9fc2017e406b850368b79c595be0ce5311e3071b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..166cc64e26470f787c79216fd83c4ea7b4e170c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ce6ec0670cabbf96bf144cb9fc2017e406b850368b79c595be0ce5311e3071b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 74-2 Filed 03/09/23 Page 1 of 1
+Certificate of Admission
+To the Bar of Illinois
+1, Cynthia A. Grant, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Illinois, do hereby certify that
+Bruce Waldo Doughty
+has been duly licensed and admitted to practice as an Attorney and Counselor at
+Law within this State; has duly taken the required oath to support the
+CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and of the STATE OF ILLINOIS, and
+also the oath of office prescribed by law, that said name was entered upon the Roll
+of Attorneys and Counselors in my office on 11/08/1990 and is in good standing, so
+far as the records of this office disclose.
+IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
+subscribed my name and affixed the
+seal of said Court, this 7th day of
+March, 2023.
+Cythia A. Grant
+• Clerk,
+Supreme Court of the State of Illinois
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ce6ec0670cabbf96bf144cb9fc2017e406b850368b79c595be0ce5311e3071b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ce6ec0670cabbf96bf144cb9fc2017e406b850368b79c595be0ce5311e3071b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8eab942421fb4b946c9feb422a405d887f4cdb34
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ce6ec0670cabbf96bf144cb9fc2017e406b850368b79c595be0ce5311e3071b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ce6ec0670cabbf96bf144cb9fc2017e406b850368b79c595be0ce5311e3071b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0a42458cf0441200a6ac56e4b2893493534929cfbf4da52eb91268afaec95a19",
+  "output_sha256": "77e966e2be8c7ad530ae7fd8fe0cfdc42fe645df4f1d80f15434ecbbde6a6fc6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d3c6f8d120fdd360dbf187a03966bf4cac684d2d1d4cb7fafa982575f424580.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d3c6f8d120fdd360dbf187a03966bf4cac684d2d1d4cb7fafa982575f424580.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac678b47baa9fa801c5233c4998c2d6ff65764d8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d3c6f8d120fdd360dbf187a03966bf4cac684d2d1d4cb7fafa982575f424580.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2283 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 238-21 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 42
+
+
+
+Case 1:27 6Y 7992enSRa Document 33ånt Eiled 076563t Page Belater
+1
+2
+3
+4
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+Plaintiff,
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+vS.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant/Third-
+Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party
+Plaintiff,
+1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+VS.
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+Third-Party
+Defendant.
+)
+SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 2023
+CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+**CONFIDENTIAL BSA PORTIONS UNDER SEPARATE COVER**
+Videotaped deposition of James E.
+Staley, held at the offices of Boies Schiller
+Flexner, LIC, 55 Hudson Yards, New York, New
+York, commencing at 9:13 a.m. Eastern, on the
+above date, before Carrie A.
+Registered Diplomate Reporter and Certified
+Realtime Reporter.
+-
+-
+GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES
+877.370.3377 ph | 917.591.5672 fax
+deps@golkow.com
+Page 1
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22 6Y 19994n SPa Documen 33ånt Eled076563t Page 3eb₴r
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+Mr. Staley, on or about the end
+of July 2006, after Jeffrey Epstein was
+indicted on child sex offenses, did you speak
+with Mr.
+Dimon about the fact that
+Mr. Epstein had been indicted?
+A.
+My recollection is yes.
+And how soon after the
+indictment do you recall speaking to
+Mr. Dimon?
+A.
+I don't recall.
+And what was the context in
+which you would have spoken to Mr. Dimon
+about Jeffrey Epstein's indictment?
+A.
+I don't recall the exact
+conversation.
+And to the extent this was July
+of 2006, at that time you were the head of
+asset and wealth management and you reported
+directly to Mr. Dimon, correct?
+A.
+That's correct.
+Do you recall if you were
+bringing this information to his attention
+because he was your boss?
+A.
+Yes.
+Page 17
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:2₴ SK #992en|SRa Document 33ånt Eiled0765Z3t Page Gelatr
+Q.
+Do you recall if there was
+anyone else present during your conversation
+with Mr. Dimon?
+A.
+No.
+e.
+Do you recall where the
+conversation took place?
+A.
+No.
+e.
+time in 2006?
+Where was your office at that
+A.
+It was in one of two buildings.
+There was a building across the street from
+the bank headquarters, and then there was
+another building that was about four blocks
+away. I'm not sure which building I was in
+at that time.
+e.
+And do you recall if you sat in
+the same building as Mr. Dimon at that time?
+A.
+In 2006?
+A.
+Yes.
+I don't believe so.
+Do you recall if the
+conversation took place in person or by
+phone?
+A.
+My recollection is it was by
+phone.
+Page 18
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:2₴ 6Y 1994n SPa Document 33ånt Eled 076563t Page 5e&tr
+And what, if anything, do you
+recall about that conversation?
+A.
+Just to let Jamie know that a
+client of the bank had been indicted.
+e.
+And do you recall if at that
+time when you were letting Jamie Dimon know
+that Jeffrey Epstein had been indicted, if
+Mr. Dimon already knew who Jeffrey Epstein
+was?
+A.
+I don't recall.
+why was it that you would have
+raised this information with Mr. Dimon
+following Mr. Epstein's indictment?
+A.
+Epstein was a client of the
+bank. It was a -- and the indictment was a
+very public event.
+e.
+Do you recall if at the time
+you raised Jeffrey Epstein's indictment with
+Mr. Dimon that he had already heard about it
+in the news?
+A.
+I don't recall.
+e.
+And do you recall anything
+about Mr. Dimon's response to your sharing
+the information about Jeffrey Epstein's
+indictment?
+Page 19
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22 6Y 19994n SPa Documen 33ånt Eled076563t Page 69b€r
+wealth management, she had conversations with
+Mr.
+Dimon about Jeffrey Epstein?
+A.
+I would imagine so.
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+okay.
+You would imagine so,
+but you're not aware of any actual
+conversation; is that fair?
+A.
+e.
+That's fair.
+So your testimony is that given
+her role as the head of asset and wealth
+management, you would have expected, as you
+had done, that she would have reported or
+talked to Mr. Dimon about the problems with
+Mr. Epstein; is that fair?
+A.
+That's what I would expect,
+yes.
+Is it the case that Sandy
+Warner had interactions with Mr. Epstein?
+A.
+e.
+I believe so.
+And tell me about that.
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: Sandy Warner was
+the individual who asked that I meet
+with Epstein, and my recollection, it
+Page 45
+
+
+Case 1:22 6Y 1994n SPa Documen 33ånt Eld 076563t Page better
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+was following a meeting that Sandy
+Warner had with Jeffrey Epstein.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+Q.
+And was that in or about the
+2000 time period?
+A.
+Yes.
+And that -- and during that
+time period, Mr. Warner was the CEO of
+JPMorgan, correct?
+A.
+That's correct.
+And you knew Mr. Warner because
+you worked at JPMorgan; is that fair?
+A.
+That's correct.
+e.
+And tell me what you recall
+about Mr. Warner asking you to meet with
+Jeffrey Epstein.
+A.
+Sandy Warner had met with
+Epstein, he said, and recently he also had
+made me head of the private bank.
+And Sandy said, you should meet
+Epstein. He's one of the most connected
+people I know of in New York.
+e.
+And you did meet with
+Mr. Epstein at that time?
+A.
+Yes.
+Page 46
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:2₴ 6Y 19994n SPa Documen 33ånt Eled076563t Page Better
+And do you recall if you ever
+reported back to Mr. Warner, I met with
+Mr. Epstein?
+A.
+I would imagine I did, yes.
+e.
+And Mr. Epstein became a client
+of the private bank at the time?
+A.
+No, he was a client already.
+He was a client before I met him.
+e.
+And who had the direct client
+relationship with Jeffrey Epstein at the time
+you met him?
+A.
+I don't know.
+Did you ultimately take over
+the client relationship with Mr. Epstein on
+or about that 2000 time period?
+A.
+No, I did not.
+What was your professional
+relationship vis-à-vis Mr. Epstein as a
+client of the bank at that time?
+A.
+He was covered by a banking
+team that -- I didn't know who that was. My
+knowledge of Epstein came through Sandy
+Warner, and I got to know him, but I was not
+his banker.
+2.
+But you were the head of the
+Page 47
+
+
+Case 1:2₴ 6Y 7992en SRa Document 3397t Eiled 076563t Page Belater
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+Do you see that?
+A.
+Yes.
+Okay. And GIO stands for
+global investment opportunities, correct?
+A.
+I don't know.
+Q.
+But it was part of the private
+bank, correct?
+A.
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+It appears so.
+(Staley Exhibit 5 marked for
+identification.)
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+Okay. You can put that
+document away.
+Okay. So you'll recall we
+looked at the 2003 document showing his
+revenues at the top at 8.1-plus million
+dollars.
+You recall that, correct?
+A.
+Yes.
+Okay. I'm showing you now what
+has been marked as Exhibit 5.
+So now you'll see we're into
+about a year later, February 24, 2005. You,
+Jes Staley, send an e-mail to somebody named
+Olivier de Givenchy at JPMorgan.
+Page 85
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73&/23tRage 1044}
+Do you see that?
+A.
+Yes.
+And you say, "Ghislaine is a
+good friend of one of our very big clients in
+the US. Can we please try to help her?"
+Do you see that?
+A.
+Yes, I do.
+e.
+Okay. And "one of our very big
+9 clients" in the context of this e-mail in
+early 2005 is referring to Jeffrey Epstein,
+correct?
+A.
+Correct.
+You can put that document away.
+So leading up to Jeffrey
+Epstein's indictment in 2006, it's fair to
+say that he was one of JPMorgan's very big
+clients; is that fair?
+A.
+That's fair.
+Earlier you testified that
+Jeffrey Epstein referred a number of clients
+to JPMorgan over the years.
+Is that correct?
+A.
+That's correct.
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+Page 86
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Pocument 33fahit Filgd P73&/33tRage Wrá4Z
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+e.
+And among these clients are
+Sergey Brin?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+Google LLC?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+A.
+Ehud Barak?
+I don't know if Ehud became a
+client.
+Peter Mandelson?
+Also don't know if Peter became
+A.
+a client.
+e.
+A.
+e.
+A.
+Mort Zuckerman?
+Yes.
+I believe so.
+Highbridge Capital Management
+which we discussed?
+A.
+Again, as I said before, I'm
+not sure whether Epstein introduced
+Highbridge or -- as -- or not.
+e.
+A.
+Glenn
+Same answer.
+Page 87
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73&/23tRage 13r44Z
+A.
+A.
+Kathryn Ruemmler?
+Yeah, I don't know.
+Bill Gates?
+Yes.
+Black?
+A.
+Same as Glenn. I don't know
+how I first met |
+e.
+David Gergen?
+A.
+That's correct.
+Boris Nikolic?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+Larry Summers?
+A.
+Yes.
+Nathan Myhrvold with Microsoft?
+A.
+Yeah, I know Nathan. I don't
+know -- same answer. I don't know whether
+Epstein introduced Nathan or not.
+Kimbal Musk?
+A.
+I didn't know Kimbal Musk.
+Elon Musk?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+Les Wexner?
+A.
+No.
+e.
+Because Les Wexner, as you
+described, was working with JPMorgan to take
+Page 88
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c0/n109967|8R a Document 33iafit Filgd P73&23tRage 13rºe₴
+The Limited public?
+A.
+That's correct.
+Mitchell?
+A.
+I don't know.
+Bill
+?
+A.
+Yes.
+Okay. And you suggested on
+Ehud Barak you weren't sure whether or not he
+became a client of JPMorgan's; is that fair?
+A.
+That's fair.
+Okay. But Jeffrey Epstein did
+set up various meetings between employees of
+the bank and Ehud Barak; is that correct?
+A.
+I met Ehud Barak. I don't know
+if he set up meetings with other people from
+e.
+Are you aware whether or not
+Mr. Dimon also met with Ehud Barak?
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: I don't recall.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+To the extent Mr. Dimon met
+with Mr. Barak, would that have been a
+meeting that would have been facilitated by
+Mr. Epstein?
+Page 89
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73&/23tRage We₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+MR. GAIL: Triple objection.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+You can answer, sir.
+A.
+Ask the question again?
+To the extent Mr. Dimon met
+with Ehud Barak, would that have been a
+meeting facilitated by Jeffrey Epstein?
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: That's -- I don't
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+know.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+Do you know if Mr. Dimon had
+any independent connection to Ehud Barak?
+A.
+I don't know.
+e.
+I think with respect to Peter
+Mandelson, you also suggested you don't know
+if he became a client of the bank; is that
+correct?
+A.
+That's correct.
+But did Mr. Epstein facilitate
+meetings with persons at the bank, including
+yourself and Mr. Mandelson?
+A.
+He facilitated meetings between
+myself and Peter Mandelson, yes.
+2.
+And do you know if Mr. Dimon
+Page 90
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 3etRage 5râ4Z
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+ever met or -- I'll rephrase.
+Do you know if Mr. Dimon ever
+met with Mr. Mandelson?
+A.
+I don't know.
+e.
+And to the extent you met with
+Ehud Barak, that meeting was arranged by --
+or those meetings were arranged by Jeffrey
+Epstein; is that fair?
+A.
+e.
+That's fair.
+Do you recall Mr. Epstein
+arranging a meeting between you and the
+Sultan of Dubai in early 2006?
+A.
+I don't recall.
+e.
+Sultan of Dubai?
+Do you recall meeting with the
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+And do you recall meeting with
+the Sultan of Dubai while you were the head
+of asset and wealth management at JPMorgan?
+A.
+e.
+rephrase.
+Yes.
+And to the extent -- I'1l
+You met with Mr. Dubai (sic) as
+part of your position as the head of asset
+and wealth management at JPMorgan, correct?
+Page 91
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73&2etRage 16r44}
+A.
+Dubai is a country, not his
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+name.
+e.
+at a document.
+And I apologize. I'm looking
+But "the Sultan" we're
+referring to, Ahmed bin Sulayem, right?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+And you recall that the meeting
+9 that Mr. Epstein arranged for you with Sultan
+Ahmed bin Sulayem was taken by you as part of
+your role as the head of asset and wealth
+management at JPMorgan?
+A.
+Yes.
+And is it fair to say that your
+meeting with Ehud Barak, or your meetings
+with Ehud Barak, were also taken by you as
+part of your role as an executive at
+JPMorgan?
+A.
+Yes.
+And same question for Bill
+Gates. You met with Bill Gates on various
+occasions, correct?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+And again, is it fair to say
+that your meetings with Bill Gates, arranged
+Page 92
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73&/23tRage 13r44}
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+by Jeffrey Epstein, were taken by you as part
+of your role as the head of asset and wealth
+management at JPMorgan?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+You also met with Larry
+Summers, correct?
+A.
+Correct.
+e.
+And to the extent those
+meetings were arranged by Jeffrey Epstein,
+were those meetings taken by you as part of
+your role as the head of asset and wealth
+management at JPMorgan?
+A.
+Yes.
+VIDEOGRAPHER: Mimi, can we
+pause one moment?
+MS. LIU: Sure.
+VIDEOGRAPHER: We have a random
+phone number that wants to enter into
+the Zoom.
+MS. LIU: Can we go off the
+record?
+VIDEOGRAPHER: Stand by.
+11:07. We are off the video record.
+(Off the record at 11:07 a.m.)
+VIDEOGRAPHER: 11:09, we are on
+Page 93
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 23tRage 1844}
+the video record.
+(Staley Exhibit 6 marked for
+identification.)
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+Mr. Staley, you're being handed
+what has been marked as Exhibit 6.
+You'll see there's an e-mail
+from Jeffrey Epstein dated May 5, 2014, to
+you, Jes Staley.
+Do you see that?
+A.
+Yes.
+Okay. And he's forwarding a
+message from Sultan bin Sulayem dated May 5,
+2014.
+A.
+Do you see that?
+Yes.
+e.
+And if you could turn to the
+next two pages, you see that there are two
+photographs there of Jamie Dimon and Sultan
+bin Sulayem?
+A.
+Yes.
+Do you know if Jeffrey Epstein
+was the one who would have facilitated any
+later meeting between Mr. Dimon and
+Mr. Sulayem?
+Page 94
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73&/23tRage 19rá4}
+A.
+e.
+I don't know.
+And what is DP World? Do you
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+know?
+A.
+I believe it is Dubai Port.
+And that's a conference, DP
+World?
+A.
+I think DP, Dubai Ports, is a
+part of the Dubai government. I don't know
+what -- whether it's a conference or whether
+it's their building.
+During your time period working
+at JPMorgan, are you aware whether or not
+Mr. Dimon had interest in meeting with the
+Sultan bin Sulayem?
+A.
+No, I'm not aware.
+Let me ask you about a few
+other names that I didn't see in the
+discovery responses that you provided in this
+case.
+Michael Ovitz, was that a
+client referred to by -- referred to the bank
+by Jeffrey Epstein?
+A.
+I don't believe Ovitz was
+referred by Epstein, no.
+2.
+But Ovitz had some connection
+Page 95
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 23tRage 29rá4}
+to Jeffrey Epstein; is that fair?
+A.
+I don't know what sort of
+connection Ovitz had with Epstein.
+What about Andrew Farkas?
+A.
+I believe so.
+But he was a referral with
+Jeffrey Epstein's to the bank?
+A.
+I believe -- or -- I don't
+know.
+Prince Andrew?
+A.
+I don't -- I'm not sure if
+Prince Andrew became a client of the bank.
+e.
+But Jeffrey Epstein at least
+facilitated meetings between persons working
+at the bank and Prince Andrew; is that fair?
+A.
+Yes.
+Do you recall in or about 2012
+or 2013 that Mr. Dimon was invited to a
+dinner at Buckingham Palace hosted by Prince
+Andrew?
+A.
+I am not aware of that.
+e.
+Do you know during your time
+period working at JPMorgan whether Mr. Dimon
+had any separate or independent relationship
+with Prince Andrew apart from the one that
+Page 96
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd p73 33tRage Wre₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Jeffrey Epstein brought to the bank?
+A.
+I don't know.
+MR. GAIL: Objection. That
+assumes facts not in evidence. That
+is outrageous.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+e.
+A.
+You can answer the question.
+Can you ask the question again?
+e.
+Yes.
+Do you know during your time
+period working at JPMorgan whether Mr. Dimon
+had any separate or independent relationship
+with Prince Andrew apart from the one that
+Jeffrey Epstein brought to the bank?
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+There's no evidence that there
+was a separate relationship, and
+you're baking it into your question.
+Just ask whether he had a relationship
+with him.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+e.
+A.
+So ask again?
+You can answer the question.
+e.
+Do you know during your time
+period working at JPMorgan, sir, whether
+Page 97
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 23rá4Z
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+Mr. Dimon had any independent relationship
+with Prince Andrew?
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: I don't know.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+You're not aware of one; is
+that fair?
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+Not aware of any relationship.
+THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm not
+aware. I was not aware.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+Mr. Staley, you're not
+represented by counsel for JPMorgan in this
+deposition, are you?
+A.
+No.
+MR.
+•: I'll let him
+know if that occurs.
+MR. GAIL: We don't profess
+otherwise.
+QUESTIONS BY MS. LIU:
+Mr. Staley, do you recall at
+various times Mr. Epstein promoting Mr. Dimon
+to head up the Treasury Department?
+A.
+No, I'm not aware of that.
+Page 98
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Pocument 33fahit Filgd P73 3łtRage 23rºâ4Z
+on this."
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Do you see that?
+A.
+Yes.
+Q.
+And then Iodd writes, "Did Ace
+go to him for an exception to the felon
+policy?"
+Do you see that?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+Do you have any understanding
+from your time at the bank what an exception
+to the felon policy meant?
+A.
+No, not specifically here.
+And are you familiar with any
+conversations between Ace Greenberg and Steve
+Cutler or anybody about keeping Jeffrey
+Epstein as a client at the bank in this time
+period?
+A.
+I was not part of these
+conversations.
+Was Ace Greenberg at this time
+a fairly important person at JPMorgan? Did
+he have any heft?
+A.
+He was - yeah, Ace Greenberg
+was important.
+2.
+Okay. You can put that
+Page 173
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 23tRage 20144}
+of your meeting or relationship with Darling?
+A.
+Not that I know of, no.
+Okay.
+A.
+Or not that I recall, no.
+e.
+Okay. If we go down one more,
+January 25, 2010, this is another e-mail,
+Epstein to Staley.
+"The more time you have
+to announce, the better. I have set you up
+and Peter to meet in Davos with Darling."
+This is a reference to Peter
+Mandelson?
+A.
+I believe so.
+Do you remember meeting with
+Peter Mandelson in Davos? At Davos?
+A.
+Yes.
+And how many times did you
+ultimately meet with Peter Mandelson?
+A.
+I don't -- just a handful.
+If we go down to the last
+bullet point on that page, it's talking about
+an individual named
+-- Tom Pritzker.
+Do you know who that is?
+A.
+Yes.
+Is that somebody who was - who
+Jeffrey Epstein introduced you to?
+Page 310
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 25râ4Z
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A.
+I believe so.
+And did Tom Pritzker ever
+become a client of JPMorgan?
+A.
+I believe he did.
+e.
+When Jeffrey Epstein made these
+connections, in this instance, such as the
+one with Iom Pritzker, was Jeffrey Epstein
+ever paid as a consultant, an advisor, or any
+other way for making that connection?
+A.
+Not that I'm aware of, no.
+e.
+As you sit here now, do you
+understand why it was that Jeffrey Epstein
+would go through the effort of making the
+connection for you with somebody like Tom
+Pritzker?
+A.
+Again, I think he valued his
+network of contacts, and introducing me to
+Tom, vice versa, enhanced that network for
+him.
+A connection such as Tom
+Pritzker was valuable to JPMorgan, right?
+A.
+True. Yes.
+e.
+And a -- and that connection
+was then likely valuable for Iom Pritzker,
+right?
+Page 311
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 26r°â4Z
+A.
+No.
+e.
+Did you understand him to have
+a massage room at his home?
+A.
+Yes.
+Were you given a tour of his
+home where you saw the massage room?
+A.
+A tour of the whole house.
+His main living room was on the second floor,
+and I think that's where the room was.
+So did he show you the massage
+room?
+A.
+I don't know whether he -- I
+just -- whether I just saw it in passing.
+Did you take the elevator up to
+the massage room?
+A.
+No.
+l.
+A.
+The stairs?
+Yes.
+Okay.
+A.
+Well, not to the massage room.
+I took the stairs up to the second floor.
+Were there other individuals
+that you remember by name having met at
+Jeffrey Epstein's townhouse?
+A.
+Ask it again?
+Page 343
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 3łtRage 27râ4Z
+e.
+Were there other individuals,
+asides - beside Jeffrey Epstein, that you
+met at Jeffrey Epstein's townhouse that you
+remember by name?
+A.
+Yes.
+Who?
+A.
+Bill Gates.
+e.
+Okay.
+A.
+| Black. Katie Couric. Eva
+A.
+e.
+A.
+Sultan.
+Yeah, I believe so.
+Okay.
+Larry and Sergey Brin. The
+Those would be, you know, off
+the top of my head.
+e.
+Okay. Switching to a different
+class of people. Did you meet any of Jeffrey
+Epstein's staff or friends or any of the
+females that were at his house?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+And who?
+A.
+Lesley Groff.
+What did you understand Lesley
+Page 344
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 28rºâ4Z
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+Groff's position to be?
+A.
+His secretary.
+Okay.
+Most of the scheduling
+of the meetings and things of that nature
+went through Lesley, the same way you went
+through Rosa?
+A.
+e.
+Right.
+Okay.
+A.
+e.
+Eva
+What did you understand her
+relationship to be as it related to Jeffrey
+Epstein, aside from being Glenn
+wife?
+A.
+They dated for about ten years,
+is my understanding.
+e.
+A long time in the past, right?
+A.
+Yes.
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+What did you understand
+'s role to be?
+A.
+She was one of his assistants.
+e.
+Okay.
+How many times do you
+remember meeting
+?
+A.
+A number of times.
+e.
+Okay. Anybody else?
+A.
+He had a couple that took care
+Page 345
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 29rá4Z
+of the house. I don't remember their names.
+Q.
+Jo Jo Fontanella?
+A.
+I don't remember their names.
+Okay.
+Off the top of my head, those
+are --
+A.
+e.
+A.
+e.
+Did you meet
+Yes.
+Sorry.
+And in what context did you
+meet
+A.
+assistants.
+She was also one of his
+And what did you think that her
+role was?
+A.
+You know, he had a lot of
+properties. He traveled around. He had
+assistants that helped him with all that.
+What did you understand Jeffrey
+Epstein's business to be on a day-to-day
+basis?
+A.
+My understanding was - well,
+he managed his network. My understanding,
+you know, he didn't have a business, per se;
+that his wealth was accumulated from his
+relationship with Les Wexner.
+Page 346
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 30rºáé}
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+)
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+6 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant/Third-
+Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party
+Plaintiff,
+)
+1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+)
+VS.
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+Third-Party
+Defendant.
+)
+SUNDAY, JUNE 11, 2023
+CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+-
+-
+-
+Videotaped deposition of James E.
+Staley, Volume II, held at the offices of
+Boies Schiller Flexner, LLC, 55 Hudson Yards,
+New York, New York, commencing at 9:07 a.m.
+Eastern, on the above date, before Carrie A.
+, Registered Diplomate Reporter and
+Certified Realtime Reporter.
+GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES
+877.370.3377 ph | 917.591.5672 fax
+deps@golkow.com
+Page 402
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 3râéZ
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A.
+A.
+No.
+If I asked you the question --
+I don't recall how many times.
+....
+Page 433
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 33râ4₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 434
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Pocument 33fahit Filgd P73 %łtRage 33rºâ4₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 435
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 /33tRage 30rá4}
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+• =
+Page 436
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 35rºâ4₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 437
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Pocument 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 36rºđ4₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 438
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 33tRage 33râ4₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 439
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 23tRage 38rºâ4₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Page 440
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73 23tRage 39râ4Z
+Do you remember, did you walk
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+e.
+to 301?
+A.
+I don't recall.
+e.
+Did you ever walk to Jeffrey's
+townhouse from your place?
+A.
+Yes.
+Okay. Is that typically how
+you would visit, is you would walk from your
+place to his?
+A.
+No.
+e.
+There was an e-mail that we
+looked at yesterday where you were writing to
+somebody else in JPMorgan that you spoke with
+Jeffrey Epstein and he denied the ages.
+Do you remember that?
+A.
+Yes.
+And he had been accused at that
+point in time of having erotic massages with
+a bunch of children and paying them for it.
+Do you remember that? Those
+being the allegations?
+A.
+In what year are you talking
+about?
+e.
+Sure. This is after he was
+indicted in 2006 and before he pleads guilty
+Page 796
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd P73&/2etRage 40rá4}
+in 2008.
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+During that period of time, he
+was accused of sexual interactions with
+children, and he was paying them money,
+right?
+A.
+I don't recall them being
+called children, though.
+Okay.
+Well, you remember that
+the charge was procurement of a minor for
+prostitution?
+A.
+Yes.
+e.
+And he was essentially charged
+with obtaining erotic massages from young
+females who, during the course of that
+investigation, were revealed to be underage,
+and he was paying them cash in exchange for
+those erotic massages.
+Do you remember that?
+A.
+Yes.
+2.
+And you reported back to the
+bank that Jeffrey Epstein denied the ages,
+correct?
+A.
+That's correct.
+e.
+Jeffrey Epstein was not denying
+the conduct, right?
+Page 797
+
+
+Case 1:22c8n4098478R a Document 33fahit Filgd p73 23tRage 4re₴
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+A.
+That's right.
+The conduct that he was being
+accused of, he was admitting that he did it.
+He was just denying that he knew the ages of
+the victims, right?
+A.
+Correct.
+And you were reporting that
+back to the bank, that what was being denied
+is the ages, right?
+A.
+Right.
+e.
+So the bank has, essentially,
+all of the information that you had at the
+time, which is that Jeffrey Epstein is
+admitting to this conduct of engaging in sex
+for money with young women. And the only
+thing he was disputing is the age of the --
+of the potential victims, right?
+A.
+Right.
+e.
+So the bank is understanding --
+is getting an e-mail from you that Jeffrey
+Epstein, the only thing he's contending over
+here is the ages, right?
+A.
+Yes.
+l.
+And so when the bank is
+receiving that information, they now know
+Page 798
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22,01099678R a Document 33iafit Filgd 973&23 tRage 431046₴
+what you know, which is, this is the type of
+conduct that our client is engaging in, and
+the only dispute that he has about the
+allegations are the ages of the victims,
+right?
+A.
+That's correct.
+And based on that information
+that they are receiving, meaning JPMorgan is
+receiving, Stephen Cutler and anybody else
+who had the ability to exit Jeffrey Epstein
+elect instead to keep Jeffrey Epstein as a
+client, right?
+A.
+Yes.
+There was a point that was made
+earlier about your sharing information that
+was internal JPMorgan information not to be
+disseminated to the public.
+Do you remember that?
+A.
+Yes.
+2.
+And it was framed as a
+potential violation of the code of conduct in
+that information that was internal
+information to JPMorgan was being shared with
+Jeffrey Epstein.
+Do you remember that?
+Page 799
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d3c6f8d120fdd360dbf187a03966bf4cac684d2d1d4cb7fafa982575f424580.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d3c6f8d120fdd360dbf187a03966bf4cac684d2d1d4cb7fafa982575f424580.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..088f9e170529190c1f62eaf1b6b53bf51fd6fa40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d3c6f8d120fdd360dbf187a03966bf4cac684d2d1d4cb7fafa982575f424580.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1622,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0d3c6f8d120fdd360dbf187a03966bf4cac684d2d1d4cb7fafa982575f424580",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 44,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": false,
+  "input_sha256": "76e2bdbe6ac890279647054e3528def47499d425c4cccd2b48eae7ce683ddde9",
+  "output_sha256": "927f56201054eb0f182151cb750a9f7460d5b7564ee14f8a496c5150a5aa9f11",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d4ed7a0b4823c102acba4188d07c39525f8e21f390f37d4c8904f99629ac6ea.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d4ed7a0b4823c102acba4188d07c39525f8e21f390f37d4c8904f99629ac6ea.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af409d7c6bcd165a57a54695bbdca7277476a860
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d4ed7a0b4823c102acba4188d07c39525f8e21f390f37d4c8904f99629ac6ea.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 311-49 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 1
+
+Filed Under Seal
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d4ed7a0b4823c102acba4188d07c39525f8e21f390f37d4c8904f99629ac6ea.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d4ed7a0b4823c102acba4188d07c39525f8e21f390f37d4c8904f99629ac6ea.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b8fb22774c3f77b37a0c66fa2b45ffcea02805b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d4ed7a0b4823c102acba4188d07c39525f8e21f390f37d4c8904f99629ac6ea.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -22,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0d4ed7a0b4823c102acba4188d07c39525f8e21f390f37d4c8904f99629ac6ea",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0680f9eaa5f6497daf8f869d94f21c26f897151d197ec8eb51ce95e8aea3ccfc",
+  "output_sha256": "f44a4e4c56a16502781e06844db5f03bcb220a4033bc0ab7240bfa4e8390e7f6",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d56e7f3194ae6075034d99c47e0ebe481a94a31b2c970f9202acb0ca7288959.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d56e7f3194ae6075034d99c47e0ebe481a94a31b2c970f9202acb0ca7288959.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..098b4f2ca502bd64026293ecec982e35f239fdb2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d56e7f3194ae6075034d99c47e0ebe481a94a31b2c970f9202acb0ca7288959.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1322 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 21
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 21
+Name:
+Jeffrey Epstein
+• Probation
+X Community Control
+• Drug Offender Probation
+Offense:
+Procure Person Under Age of 18 for Prostitution
+Sentence Length:
+12 months Community Control
+State of Florida
+Department of Corrections - Community Corrections
+TRAVEL PERMIT/INTRASTATE TRANSFER REQUEST
+DC#: W35755
+Date:
+3/1/2010
+L Sex Offender
+• Post Release
+• Pretrial Intervention
+• Felony Misdemeanor
+Termination Date:
+7-21-2010
+& TRAVEL PERMIT (L *Provisional
+Purpose of Trip:
+Business- Legal Meetings
+Name(s), address and telephone number of destination:
+Residence. - Littie St. James /Office- 6100 Red Hook Quarters #B3
+"Temporary)
+Departure Date:
+3/5/2010
+Return Date:
+3/5/2010
+Accompanied By: Staff
+Relationship:
+Comments/Instructions: _Contact Probation Officer on next business day upon return.
+Method of Travel: Private Plane
+• Contact your probation officer upon retum or as instructed.
+X Report any contact with law enforcement to your probation officer immediately.
+X Pursuant to section 775.13 Florida Statutes, if the visit to another county in the Stato of Florida will exceed forty-eight (48) hours and you have
+been convicted of a felony, you an
+instruêted and required to register with the sheriff of the county you enter. Fuilure to comply constitutes a
+Approved by:
+misdemand vertered
+Officer: Candice Elkins
+Phone (Office/After Hours:
+561-434-3960
+Supervisor: Willie Gaines
+• INTRASTATE TRANSFER REQUEST
+Proposed Residence:
+Relation:
+Proposed Employment:
+Supervisor:
+REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS:..
+Phone:
+Phone:
+*Provisional Travel Permi: Permission for non-sex offender to return to the state offender was living in at the time of sentencing
+*Temporary Travel Permit: Permission for visits out of state for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.
+WAIVER OF EXTRADITION (FOR OUT OF STATE TRAVEL ONLY)
+I have been given this permission with the explicit understanding that I am to continue to follow the rules and regulations of my supervision and to
+ravel only to the location designated above. If I should-be arrested in any other state during the period of the trip granted me, I will waive extradition
+and will not resist being réturned to Florida
+Offender:
+Witness:
+DC3-220 (Revised 8/31/09)
+Original:
+Copy:
+DC Offender File
+Offender
+Copy:
+Interstate Compact (for applicable Out-of-Stase Thavel Only)
+VI-JPM-000012205
+
+
+Case 1:22-C-10904-JSRDocument 267-59 sled 08/07/23 page seor2d eek -
+Will ne
+SEXUAL OFFENDER/SEXUAL PREDATOR REGISTRATION FORM
+when return fe
+to
+leside
+PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
+FOR USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
+Complete all sections, attach fingerprint card, photograph, and genetic markers when available, and submit to the Department of Justice, GERS
+Building, 2** Floor, Virgia Islands. 00802
+SECTION A - Status
+G4 Sex Offender | ] Habitual Sexual Offender
+| 1 Sex Predator
+(Court Order Required)
+I 1 New Registration
+[ ] Modify Data
+SECTION B - Contrbuting Agency Information
+Agency Name
+Agency Address.
+Plone Number: (
+Checked for Warrants: | | Lucal System
+CCH for Sex Offenses:
+[| Yes
+Fax: (
+| | FCIC.NCIC SYSTEM
+[1 No
+SECTION C - Registration Information
+Name EP'S Taw
+Last
+Test
+First
+VI Driver's License#
+WT: 19o Hair Ge
+Eyes_PS
+Alias
+DOB
+Middle
+Age:
+57
+Exp. Date.
+Scars, Marks, Tattoos:
+SSN#
+Race:
+M/D/Y
+SEX: 11 HT:
+SECTION D - Legal Residence
+Physical Address
+LST.
+Lik st. Don
+Mailing Address:
+Telephone: Home 3us - 795-25240rk
+Future Residence
+Current Temporary Restdence
+Closest Relative.
+Address:
+Relationship
+_ Telepltone:.
+SECTION E - Employment
+Date of Employment:
+Address:
+[of Employed
+1 1 Unemployed
+Contact Person: Para.
+Red Here
+Telephone: 340-78-6,75
+SECTION F - Offense Information
+Date of Conviction
+T/s/0y
+VICTIM
+Offense Committed
+I Adult
+(St Minor
+Place of Conviction
+FLA-
+I ] Acquitted by Reason of Insanity
+Court Court No.
+AG No.
+PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING
+SECTION G
+As a Sexual Offender or Sexual Prodator (Title 14 VJJ.C. 4 1721-1731) you are required by law to abide by the following
+1.
+Within five (5) working day of being placed under any type of supervision in the community you must use this torm to register with the V.I. Department of Justice.
+In the event you are moving to or returning to the SVI from another jurisdiction, you mist register with the V.I. Department of Justice within five (5) days of first
+residing in or returning to the IS VI.
+2.
+In thé event there is a change in your permanent or temporary residence after initial registration and ary subsequent changes thereatter, you must netify the VI
+Depurtment of Justice within three (3) days affer arrival at your new residence.
+3.
+In the event there is a change in your address outside the USVI, you must register your new address with the V,I. Department of Justice prior to departare and also
+register in your new jurisdiction within ten (10) days after establishing residence there if the new jurisdiction has a registration requirement.
+4.
+You are required to verify your address with the V.L. Department of Justice annully on the anniversary of your initial registration. If you were determined to be u
+sexually violent predator, you must verify your address with the V.I. Department of Justice every ninety (90) days afier the date of your initial release or
+conmencement of parole.
+5.
+Failure to comply with the shove requirements shall subjeut you to a fine of not less than $3,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than three (3) months or more than
+iwe (2) years, or both.
+Be Reminded that even if you may not be required to register under Virgin İslands Law, ander Title 1 of die Adam Walsh Act entitled the "Sexual Offender
+Registration and Notification Act "(SORNA), all individuals convicted of'a sex offense are reguired to register and keep their registration current in ench jurisdiction
+where he or she resides, is an employee and is a student.
+Registrant:
+Witness:
+I acknowledge that the above requirements as set forth
+been explained to me
+3/5/10
+Signature of Registran
+Date
+I certify that I specifically informed the offender of his/her duties as have
+sel forth above and he indicated to me an understanding of those
+nutes.
+press
+3/5/10
+Print Nami
+er
+Print Name
+Atti Maria Hadge
+VI-JPM-000012206
+
+
+1/22/10
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 21
+Contacted Flonda Sex Offender Unit
+at 850-410-8572 Re: Charges
+offense date 7/23/06
+Chang: -Prostatution
+Convicted date 66/30/08
+Pled Gortty
+wher: Palmbeach. County-Fonda
+VI-JPM-000012207
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 21
+From:
+Sent:
+Thursday, July 22, 2010 10:46 AM
+To:
+'Darren Indyke'
+Subject: RE: Notification Procedures
+Mr. Indyke:
+Mr. Epstein has indicated that the US Virgin Islands is his primary residence; therefore he is
+required to notify the Virgin Islands Registry of his desire to travel outside our jurisdiction. During our
+telephone conversation i told him, he can make notification via email with a copy of his traveling
+itinerary. I was advised that he can provide that information by email along with his temporary residence
+address and telephone contact number. If Mr. Epstein is in the territory he is to provide that information
+to the registry in person.
+From: Darren Indyke [mailto:dkiesq@aol.com]
+Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:07 PM
+To: mpetty@doj.vi.gov
+Cc: mcarbon@doj.vi.gov
+Subject: Notification Procedures
+Dear Ms. Petty:
+I would like to thank you for taking the time to explain to Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and myself
+by telephone today the procedures required of Mr. Epstein once he arrives in the Virgin Islands
+in the event he should desire to temporarily leave the jurisdiction. This will confirm your advice
+that if Mr. Epstein should desire to leave the jurisdiction, he is to inform you by email
+at mnpetty/@doj.vi.gov. with a copy to Attorney Monica Carbon at mcarbon(@doj.vi.gov, of his
+itinerary, providing you with a copy of the itinerary, and to also inform you upon his return to
+the Virgin Islands by similarly emailing you with a copy to Attorney Carbon.
+Respectfully,
+Darren K. Indyke
+De:ren K. Indyke, PLLC
+361 East 66th Street, 10B
+New York, New York 10065
+Telephone: (212) 517-2052
+Telecopier: (212) 517-7779
+email: dkiesq@aol.com
+4/19
+Notificution made the sT. Thomas is
+prumiary residence
+(201007FL0001)
+7/22/2010
+VI-JPM-000012208
+
+
+Case 1:22-Cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59:850418888/07/23 Page 80724'=
+P003/012
+FDLE SEXUAL PREDATOR/OFFENDER REGISTRATION FORM
+Agency Name: Palm Beach County SO
+Note: Your next ReRegistration month is January of 2011 ******
+Registration For: July 2010 - SEXUAL OFFENDER
+Reason For Registratio
+Initial Registration
+Scheduled ReRegistration
+X] Information Update
+• Earty/Lata ReRegistration
+Laformation
+Name:
+JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
+*SSN:
+(First Middie Last, Suffix)
+DOB:
+Race:
+White
+Sex: Male.
+*Disclosure of your Sociat Securly Number (SSN) is mandatory pursuant to Florida law, coctions 775.21, 943.0435, 944,007, 985.481, F.5., and federal law, 42 USC 16901, et
+0g. Use of your SSN Is for the purposes of identificalion, FDLE may share the information with the other agencies for the same purpose,
+FL DL or ID Card #
+Height: 8 00*
+Weight: 180 Ibs
+Hair:
+Grey
+Eyes:
+Blue
+Place of Birth: United States Of America (use)
+Currently on Probation/Parole:
+No
+1 Yes
+Probation Type:
+State
+Officer Name:
+Phone: ( )
+State
+Federal
+Officer Name:
+Phone: ( )
+City
+County
+Officer Name:
+Phone: ().
+County
+Out of State Travel information (Compléte if permanent or temporary address is out of state)
+Permanently leaving Florida to setablish a residence in snother state
+Date of Dapanure: 7120/2010
+Temporarly leaving Florida to visit another state
+Moving from another state to permanently establish a residence in Florida
+Date of Arrival:
+Visiting from another state and establishing a temporary address in Florida
+L Other (plaase describe):
+Previous Permanent Addre
+358 El Brillo Way
+(Address Line 1)
+(Addresa Line 2)
+Palm Beach
+(City)
+FL
+(Stato)
+33480-4730
+(Zip)
+County: Palm Beach
+End Date: 07/19/2010
+I am vacating this residence and have no other permanent or
+temporary residence as of this date:
+* Current Permanent
+6100 Rod Hock Quarters Ste B3
+Line 1)
+Little St James Island
+(Address Line 2)
+St
+(City)
+County: St
+00802
+(State)
+(Zip)
+Start Date: 07/18/2010.
+• I have no other permanent or temporary residence at this time.
+
+2010-07-22 12:38:10PM
+VI-JPM-000012209
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document Wag. 207324pm P004/012
+nporary Addresses
+•
+1. 22 Avenue Foch 2dd
+(Street Address)
+Paris
+YY
+County: Paris
+Dates you will be at this eddress:
+From:
+00000
+(Zip)
+To:.
+2.
+48 Zoro Ranch Rd
+(Stroet Address)
+County: Santa Fe
+Stanley
+(Спу)
+NM
+(State)
+Dates you wil be at this addresa: From:
+87056-9743
+(Zio)
+To:
+3.
+@ E 71st St
+(Street Address)
+Courty: New York
+New York
+(City)
+NY
+(State)
+Dates you will be at this address:
+From:
+10021-4102
+(Zio)
+To:
+4. 358 El Brillo Way
+(Street Address)
+County: Palm Beach
+Pain Beach
+(Ststa)
+Dates you will be et this address: From:
+33460-4730
+(Zip)
+To:
+5.
+(Street Address)
+County:
+(State)
+Dates you will be at this addrase: From:
+(2ip)
+To:
+Mailing Address
+Phone Nuinbers
+9 E 71st St
+(address Line 1)
+(Address Line 2)
+New York
+(Chy)
+County: New York
+NY
+(Slate)
+10021
+(p)
+End Date:
+1.
+2.
+3.
+4.
+5.
+Phone Number:
+(531) 655-7621
+(561) 655-7628
+(551) 601-4569
+(505) 220-5911
+(505) 991-0024
+Phone Type:
+Home
+Home
+Mobile
+Work
+Work
+Employ
+1. Employer: ETC
+Address: 8100 Redhook Quarter Ste B3
+(Street Address)
+County: Us Virgin Islands
+Occupation: Owner
+St Thomas
+(cay)
+Contact Person:
+Start Dete:
+YY
+(Stata)
+00802
+(21p)
+2. Employer.
+Address:
+Occupation:
+Start Date:
+(Street Address)
+County:
+(Clity)
+Contact Person:
+"(stato)
+(Zip)
+3. Employer:
+Address:
+Occupation:
+Start Date:
+(Street Address)
+County:
+(City)
+Contact Person:
+(State)
+(zip)
+
+2010-07-22.12:38:10 PM
+VI-JPM-000012210
+
+
+1.
+2000
+(License Teg #)
+2
+2007
+(roar)
+(Loanse Teg #)
+3.
+2010
+(Year)
+(License Tag #)
+4.
+2005
+(Year)
+(Licenso Tag #)
+5.
+2004
+(Year)
+(Licenaa Tag If)
+Case 1:22--1090S Document 267-59:850418598/07/23 2ge 013240m P005/012
+Registration No: 314843
+Chevrolet
+(Make)
+(Stato)
+Other
+(Madko)
+(Sute)
+Chavrolet
+(Muks)
+(Stala)
+Cud lao
+(Make)
+Chevrolet
+(Maka)
+(State)
+This vehicle is:
+This vehicle is:
+This vehicle Is:
+This vehicle is:
+This vehicle is:
+Surburban
+(Model)
+E NOT used as a residence
+Other
+(Modal)
+| NOT used as a residence
+Surburban
+(Model)
+X NOT wood an a malance
+Other
+(Model)
+X NOT used as a residence
+Suburban
+(Modal)
+* NOT used as a residence
+Black
+(Color/Color Scharma)
+Used as a residence
+Black
+(Colos Color Scheme)
+Used as a residence
+Black
+(Color Color Scheme)
+- Used as a residenca
+Black
+(Color/Color Scheme)
+• Used as a residence
+(Color Color Schame)
+/ Used as a residence
+Truck
+(Vehicle Type)
+Truck
+(Vehicle Type)
+Truck
+(Vehicle Type)
+Truck
+(Vatice Type)
+TrUck
+(Vehicle Type)
+1. 2001
+(Year)
+(Rogistration in)
+2.
+2000
+(Year)
+(Registration i)
+3. 1984
+(Year)
+(Registration #f)
+4. 2000
+(Year)
+(Reglestration a)
+5. 1995
+(Year)
+(Rogletration i)
+Page 3 ete
+Other
+(Vesaol Type)
+Other
+(Vessel Typo)
+Other
+(Vessel Type)
+Other
+(Vassal Type)
+Other
+(Vensel Type)
+Color/Color Scheme
+This vessel is: [X] NOT used as a residence
+(Color Color Scheme)
+This vessel is:
+* NOT used as a residence
+(Color Color Scheme)
+This vessel is: [X] NOT used as a residance
+Protector Scams)
+This vessel is: [X] NOT uned an a restence
+Blue
+(ColoniColer Scheme)
+This vessel lo: X/ NOT used as a needence
+Lady G2
+(Nema of Vessel)
+• Used an a residence
+Calypso
+(Name of Vesse
+] Used as a residence
+ady G
+Name of Vessel
+• Usod a a rosidenco
+Nana
+(Name of Vise)
+L Used an a residence
+• Used as a realdence
+2010-07-221238:10PM
+VI-JPM-000012211
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59: 850118888/07/23 Wage 907241»
+P006/012
+apus Activity
+1. O Student
+| Employee
+Volunteer
+• Start Date:
+End Date:
+2.
+3.
+Univarsity/School Name:
+Address:
+Street Address)
+County:
+i Student
+Employee
+Volunteer
+University/School Name:
+Address:
+(Street Address)
+County:
+] Student
+• Empicyea
+• Volunteer
+University/School Name:
+Address:
+(Street Address)
+County:
+tion Accout
+Campus:
+(City)
+Employer:
+Contact:
+Start Date:
+Campus:
+Employer:
+Contact:
+Start Date:
+Campus:
+Employer:
+Contact:
+Email Addresses
+(State)
+(230)
+End Date:
+(Zip)
+End Date:
+(State)
+(Zip)
+Instant Message Screen Names
+Name:
+Provider:
+jeeproject@yahoo.com
+eevacation@gmail.com
+1.
+2.
+3.
+5.
+idication Information
+Date Adjudicated
+Crime
+2.
+3.
+4.
+(City)
+1.
+3.
+4.
+5.
+Location of Adjudication/Conviction
+(County)
+(Stute)
+(County)
+(Stats)
+(Courty)
+(State)
+(County)
+(State)
+Were you or are you subject to registration or community notification in another state?
+Page 4 of B
+Victim Information
+Minor
+Adull Gender:
+Minor
+Gender: .
+Minor
+Gender:
+Minor
+Adult Gender:
+" Yes, in what state?
+2010-07-221235:11PM
+VI-JPM-000012212
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10994JSR Document 267-5gx:891498588/07/23 #age 208 d7:21m P007/012
+NOTICE OF SEXUAL PREDATOR AND SEXUAL OFFENDER OBLIGATIONS
+As a Sexual Predator (Florida Statute 775.21) or Sexual Offender (Florida Statute 943.0435, 944.607, or 985.481)
+where "Permanent residence" means a place where the person abides, ladges, or resides for 5 or more
+consecutive days, and "Temporary residence" means a place where the person abides, lodges, or resides for.
+a period of 5 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent
+address; or, for a person whose permanent residence is not in this state, a place where the person is employed,
+practices a vocation, or is enrolled as a student for any period of time in this state, I understand that 1 am required
+by law to abide by the following: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS IS
+A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)
+1. I must report in person to the local Sheriff's Office within 48 hours of establishing or maintaining a residence in
+the state of Florida or within 48 hours of release from custody and/or supervision of Department of Corrections
+(DOC), Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) or Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to register
+my temporary or permanent address.
+2. Within 48 hours after the initial report required as stated in requirement #1 above, I must report in person
+the driver's license office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) to obtain a valid
+Florida driver's license or identification card displaying one of the following designations "775.21, F.S." or
+"943.0435, F.S.",
+, unless a driver's license or identification card with such designation was previously secured
+or updated
+under supervision of DOC, DCFS or DJJ and there have been no changes to my address,
+name or designation (Florida Statute 322.212).
+3. I must report in person either twice a year (during the month of my birth and during the sixth month following my
+birth month or four times per year (once during the month of my birth and every 3rd month thereafter),
+depending upon my offense/designation, to the Sheriff's Office in the county in which I reside or am otherwise
+located to reregister.
+NOTE: Unless otherwise notified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Sexual Offenders
+that were not adjudicated delinquent are required to reregister twice a year. All Sexual Predators are required
+to reregister four times a year and all Sexual Offenders adjudicated delinquent are required to reregister
+four times a year.
+X I AM REQUIRED TO REREGISTER
+I AM REQUIRED TO REREGISTER FOUR TIMES A
+IWO TIMES A YEAR; I MUST
+YEAR; I MUST REREGISTER AS NOTED BELOW.
+REREGISTER AS NOTED BELOW,
+(Sexual Predators (775.21) and Sexual Offenders
+{Sexual Offenders (943.0435),
+(985.481), unless otherwise notified by FLE)
+unless otherwise notified by FLE)
+Month
+I must
+Month
+I must
+Month
+I must raregister
+Month
+I must reregistar
+of Birth reregister in:
+of Birth reregister in:
+of Birth
+in the months of:
+in the months of:
+Jan
+Jan & July
+Juty
+Jan & July
+Jan
+of Birth
+Jan, April, July & Oct
+July
+Jen, April, July & Oct
+Feb
+Feb & Aug
+Aug
+Feb & Aug
+Feb
+eb, May, Aug, & Now
+Aug
+Feb, May, Aug, & Nov
+Mar
+Mar & Sept
+Sept
+Mar & Sept
+Mar
+Mar, June, Sept & Dec
+Sept
+Mar, June, Sept & Dec
+April
+April & Oct
+Oct
+April & Oct
+April
+April, July, Oct & Jan
+oct
+May
+April, July, Oct & Jan
+May & Nov
+Nov
+May & Nov
+June
+Dec
+May
+May, Aug, Nov & Feb
+Nov
+May, Aug, Nov & Feb
+June & Dec
+June & Dea
+June
+June, Sept, Dec & Mar
+Dec
+June, Sept, Dec & Mar
+Page 5org
+2010-07-22.12:38:11 PM
+VI-JPM-000012213
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904/SR Document 267-59%: Fled 08/07/23 Page 211 07:21pm P008/012
+4. Within 48 hours, after any change of address in permanent or temporary residence, change of name due to
+marriage or other legal process, or when my driver's license is subject to renewal, 1 must report that information
+in person to the driver's license office of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to obtain and
+maintain a valid Florida driver's license or identification card.
+5. If I live in another state, but work or attend school in Florida, I MUST register my work or school address as a
+temporary address within 48 hours by reporting in person to the local Sheriff's Office. I must also obtain and
+maintain a valid Florida driver's license or identification card.
+6. If I intend to establish residence in another state or jurisdiction other than the State of Florida, I must report in
+person to the local Sheriff's Office to notify of my intention to do so within 48 hours prior to leaving.
+7. If 1 later decide to remain in this state (see #6 above), I must report in person back to the local Sheriff's Office
+to notify of my intention to remain in Florida. This report must occur within 48 hours after the date I indicated
+that I would leave. Failure to comply with this requirement is a felony of the second degree.
+8. If I move from a permanent residence and do not have another permanent or temporary residence, I must
+report this change in person to the Sheriff's Office within 48 hours. I must update all registration information
+and provide an address or location that I will occupy until I establish a residence.
+9. If I later decide to remain at the permanent residence (see #8 above), I must report in person back to the
+Sheriff's Office to notify of my intention. This report must occur within 48 hours after the date that I indicated
+that I would leave the permanent residence. Fallure to comply with this requirement is a felony of the
+second degree.
+10. I MUST respond to any address verification correspondence from FLE within three weeks of the date of the
+correspondence.
+11. If I am employed, carry on a vocation, am a student, or become a resident of another state I must also register
+in that state.
+12. If l am enrolled, employed, or carrying on a vocation at an institution of higher education in this state, I shall also
+provide the name, address, and county of each institution, including each campus attended, and my enrollment
+or employment status. I shall report each change in enrollment or employment status in person at the Sheriff's
+Office within 48 hours after any change in status.
+13. I MUST report any electronic mail address or instant message name, prior to using such, during registration/
+reregistration and provide all updates through the online system provided by the Florida Department of Law
+Enforcement.
+PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING
+As a Sexual Predator (Florida Stutute 775.21) or Sexual Offender (Florida Statute 943.0435, 944.607 or 985.481),
+You you are ad or table read al the rante mends on it a form An hot you seek inde
+YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REREGISTER EACH YEAR AT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN THE MONTHS OF January
+AND July.
+Under penalty of perjury I declare the above is true and correct.
+Engest.
+Registrant:
+Witnessed by Reporting Officer:
+Signature Requtred
+Printed Name: JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
+Date: 0719/2019 Printed Nama: ygronica anglish
+• OFFICIAL DOCUMENT DO NOT DESTROY •
+**** NOTE: Your next ReRegistration month is January of 2011. ™****
+Signature Raquined
+Date: 07/19/2010
+Page 6 of B
+2010-07-22.12:38:11PM
+VI-JPM-000012214
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904/SR. Document 2675g:491499598/07/23 44 22 2920 07 2148-009/012
+THE DAILY
+BEAST
+READ THIS SHIP THAT
+BLOGS & STORIES
+Billionaire Pedophile Goes Free
+July 20, 2010 | 11:05pm
+Hedge fund mogul Jeffrey Epstein became a free man Wednesday, five years after he was first
+accused of sexually abusing underage girls. After months of reporting, The Daily Beast's
+Conchita Samoff reveals exclusive details of the investigation and the legal wrangling that saved
+him from a long prison term. She reports:
+• Palm Beach's police chief objected to Epstein's "special treatment" and gave The Dally Beast ar
+oxclusive look at his nine-hour deposition about the investigation.
+• Earller versions of the U.S attorney's charges, including a sealed 53-page indictment, could have landed
+Epstein in prison for 20 years.
+• Victims alleged that Epstein molested underage girls from South America, Europe, and the former
+Soviet republica, Including three 12-year-old girls brought ovar from France as a birthday gift.
+• The victims also alleged trips out of state and abroad on Epstein's private jets, which would be evidence
+of sox trafficking—a much more serlous federal crime than the state charges Epstein was convicted of.
+• Epstein's attorneys investigated members of the Palm Beach Police Department, while others ordered
+private investigators to follow and intimidate the victims' families; ona aven posed as a police officer.
+• Then-Attorney General Alberto
+told The Daily Beast that he "would have Instructed the Justice
+Department to pursue justice without making a polltical mess."
+Fllm director Roman Polanski is not the only convicted pedophile to walk free this month and return to a life of
+privilege. On Wednesday, hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein completes his one-year house arrest in Palm Beach,
+which has been even less arduous than Polanski's time at a Swiss ski chalet.
+During Epstein's term of "house anest," he made several trips each month to his New York home and his private
+Carbbean Island. In the earlier stage of his sentence for soliciting prostitution with a minor—13 months in the Palm
+Beach Stockade —he was allowed out to his office each day. Meanwhile, Epstein has settled more than a dozen
+lawsuits brought by the underage girts who wore recruited to perform "massages" at his Palm Baach mansion. Seven
+victims mached a last-minute deal last week, days before a scheduled trial; each received well over $1 million—-an
+amount that will hardiy dent Epstein's $2 billion net worth.
+With that, tha known victims of Epstein's sexual compulsion have been officially silenced, and the case against him is
+closed unless new ones come forward. According to banking sources, he has been moving assets out of the U.S. and
+may well follow Polanski into a luxurious exile.
+Watch Jeffrey Epstein Storm Out of a Deposition When Asked About His Penis
+PRINT
+http://www.thedailybeast.com/blors-and-stories/2010-07-20/ieffiev-enstein-hillimairo.nar
+702/901A
+VI-JPM-000012215
+
+
+Case lage 910088/02/23 lage 2148-P010/2012
+But the question remains; Did Epstein's wealth and social connections-former President Bill Clinton; Prince Andrew,
+former Israell Prime Minister Ehud Barak; New Mexico Gov. Bill
+: and former Treasury Secretary Larry
+Summers were just a few of the prominent passengers on his private jets allow him to receive only a slap on the wrist
+for crimes that carry a mandatory 20-year sentence? Was he able, with his limitless assets and heavy-hitting lawyers
+Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Kenneth Starr, Guy
+_. and Martin Weinberger among them—-to
+escape equal justice?
+Michael Reiter, the former Palm Beach police chief, certainly thinks so. He gave The Daily Beast exclusive access to
+the transcript of his nine-hour deposition for the victims' civil suits, in which he explained how the case against Epstein
+was minimized by the State Attorney's Office, then bargained down by the U.S. Department of Justice, all in an
+atmosphere of hardball legal tactics and social pressures so intense that Reiter became estranged from several
+colleagues. At the time, Reiter, who retired in 2009 and now runs his own securfty firm, objacted both to Epstein's plea
+agreement and to the flexible terms of his incarceration in the county jall rather than state prison. Asked during the
+deposition whether he thought Epstein received special treatment, he answored "yes."
+In March 2005, Reiter's department, acting on a complaint from the Florida parents of a 14-year-old girl, launched an
+investigation that would eventually uncover a patter of predatory behavior stretching back years and spanning several
+continents, knowingly enabled by Epstein's associates and employees. Two or three times a dey, whenever Epstein
+was in Palm Beach, a teenage girt would be brought to the mansion on El Brillo Way. ("The younger the better," he
+Instructed
+, a local teenager who was paid to bring other girls to the house, and who declared, on a
+police tape, that she was "Ilke a Heidi Fleiss," the infamous Califomla madam.) Advised that she would be giving a
+• "massage," the girl was then pressured to remove her clothes, submit to fondling and a large vibrator, and sometimes
+lured into more invasive saxual contact. Each girl was paid $200 or more, depending on how far things went, by house
+manager Alfredo Rodriguez, who was instructed always to have $2,000 cash on hand.
+The Palm Beach Police Department identified 17 local girls who had contact with Epstein before the age of consent;
+the youngest was 14, and many were younger than 16. And that was just at one of Epstein's many homes around the
+world—he also owns property in New York, Santa Fe, Paris, London, and the Caribbean. Subsequent investigation by
+the FBi, reaching as far back as 2001, Indentified roughly 40 victims, not counting
+. whom Epstein
+referred to as his "Yugoslavian sex slave" because he had imported her from the Balkans at age 14. Now 24,
+htts://www.thedailvbeast.com/hlnes-and-etoriAs/2010_07_70/iaffres_anctein_hillinnsiro.narl
+VI-JPM-000012216
+
+
+•Case 1:22-CV-10904 SR: Document 267-59:391209593/07/23 tage 294 07: 222 911/012
+became a member of the household and is alleged to have participated in the sexual contact with
+underage giris.
+Epstein quickly got wind of the investigation, and progress on the case got messy very quickly. He hired a squad of
+lawyers and private investigators and dispatched influential friends to pressure the police into backing off. Instead,
+local detectives pressed on and brought the matter to the attention of the FBI. The detectives asked thair federal
+colleagues whether the fact that some victims appeared to have traveled out of state on Epstein's planes-plus the
+use of interstate phone service to arrange assignations-might be violations of the federal 2000 Trafficking Victims
+Protection Act, which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years. (Florida enacted the federal TVPA in 2002.)
+So when State Attomey Barry Krischer, who also ran Floride's Crimes Against Children Unit, proved reluctant to mount
+a vigorous prosecution of Epstein, saying the local victims were not credible witnesses, Chief Reiter wrote the attomey
+a lotter complaining of the state's "highly unusual" conduct and asking him to ramove himself from the case. He did
+not, and the evidence his office presented to a state grand jury produced only a single count of soliciting prostitution.
+(Krischer has since retired and would not commant for this article.) The day after that indictment was returned, Reiter
+was relieved to have the FBI step in and take ovar the investigation.
+The details that eventually emerged were often shocking and occasionally bizarre. For Epstein's birthday one year,
+according to allegations in a civil suit, he was presented with three 12-year-old girls from France, who were molested
+then flown back to Europe the next day. These same civil complaints allege that young girls from South America,
+Europe, and the former Soviet republics, few of whom spoke English, were recruited for Esptein's sexual pleasure.
+According to a former bookkeeper, a number of the girls worked for MC2, the modeling agency owned by Jean Luc
+Brunel, a longtime acquaintance and frequent guest of Epstein's. Brunel received $1 million from the billionaire around
+the time he started the agency.
+The non-prosecution agreement executed between Epstein and the Department of Justice states that Epstain and four
+members of his staff were investigated for "knowingly, in affecting Interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting enticing
+and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that person has not yet obtained the age of 18 years and would be
+caused to engage in commercial sex act —that is, child sex trafficking. Yet the agreement allowed Epstein to plead
+guilty to only two lower-level state crimes, soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor child for prostitution.
+Although the police investigation was officially closed, Chief Reiter tried to stay abreast of the federal case against
+Epstein. He was particularly concerned that Epstein be registered as a sex offender, which was part of the final deal,
+and that a fund be set up to compensate his victims—-which was not, although Epstein agreed to bankroll their civil
+lawsuits. Attorney Dershowitz says Epstein's agreement to pay attorney fees for the victims and agree to civil damage
+claims-without admitting guilt-amounted to "extortion under threat of criminal prasecution."
+But exactly which crimes did the Department of Justice threaten to prosecute? The Daily Beast has leamed that there
+were several earlier versions of the U.S Attorney's charges, including a 53-page indictment that, had he been
+convicted, could have landed Epstein in prison for 20 years. Brad
+1, attorney for seven of the victims, confirms
+the existence of an earlier draft of the non-prosecution agreement, officially under seal, in which it appears that Epstein
+"committed, at some point, to a 10-year federal sentence." But In the and Epstein's legal team refused that deal and
+threatened to proceed to trial. And that's where the question of whether the case was "winnable" bafore a jury again
+came into play, according to a source in the U.S Attomey's Office, which shared the state attorey's view that the
+prosecution was far from a slam dunk.
+For one, it was clear from the start that Epstein would spare no legal axpense and that his team of veteran lawyers,
+whose cases ranged from O.J. Simpson to the investigation of Clinton's relationship with an intem, would play rough.
+When the Palm Beach police started to identify victims, according to Detective Joe Recarey's report, Dershowitz began
+sending the detective Facebook and MySpace posts to demonstrate that some of these girls were no angels. Reiter's
+deposition also states that he heard from local private investigators that Dershowitz had launched background chacks
+on both the police chief and Det. Recarey. Dershowitz denies all of that. According to Reiter, both he and Racarey also
+became aware that they were under surveillance for several months, without knowing who ordered it. And the Florida
+victims began to complain that they and family members were being followed and intimidated by private investigators
+http://www.thedailybeast.com/bloes-and-stories/2010-07-20/ieffrev-enstein-hillionaire.nod 7/97/7010
+VI-JPM-000012217
+
+
+Case 1:22--10904/S Document 267-59%891088/07/23 lage 93072303.8012/912.
+who were then linked to local attornays in Epstein's employ. In one reported instance, the private investigator claimed
+to be a police officer, and Reiter considered filing witness-tampering charges.
+The credibility of the victims was also an issue; they had never complained of their treatment by Epstein until they were
+contacted by police, and they may have voluntarily retured to the Palm Beach mansion saveral times. Many of the
+girls came from disadvantaged backgrounds or broken homes, and they were susceptible to Epstein's cash,
+intimidation, and charm. Those who were 16 when they went to El Brillo Way would have been in their 20s by the time
+they took the stand, and Epstein's Investigators had dredged up every instance of bad behavior in their pasts.
+According to an exchange in the Reiter deposition, a few of the victims had worked in West Palm Beach at massage
+parlors known as "jack shacks." Each new compromising detall was immediately forwarded to the State Attorney's
+Office, where staff met frequently with Epstein's lawyers.
+The Florida statutes are clear: Any person older then 24 who engages in sexual contact with someone undor the age
+of 18 commits a felony of the second degree. The victim's prior sexual conduct is not relevant; ignorance of her age is
+no defense. She needn't resist physically to cast doubt on the issue of "consent." For a child under 16, even lewd
+behavior short of touching is a felony of the second degree. But convincing a jury that a sexual encounter is a heinous
+crime is difficult if the victim can be made to appear willing and unharmed, not to mention vulgar and mercenary. It
+wasn't hard to imagine some of the victims quickly being discredited in court by Epstein's crack legal team, who
+repeatedly noted that the age of consent is lower in many other states.
+But that doesn't quite explain why the Department of Justice wauld forgo the child-trafficking charges, which pertain
+regardless of a girl's attitude or character. Epstein's final sentence is so out of line with the statutory guldelines for that
+crime that it appears the department may have been influenced by the existence of his many powerful friends and
+attomeys. A highly Intelligent man who once taught math at the Dalton School in New York without a bachelor's
+degree, Epstein has been a serious and respected player in the highest reaches of politics and philanthropy. He has
+made substantial contributions to political candidates, served on the Council on Foreign Relations, and donated $30
+million to Harvard University.
+Moreover, many of his high-powered acquaintances availed thomselves of Epstain's private jets, for which the pilot
+logs, obtained by discovery in the civil suits, sometimes showed that bold-face names were on the same flights as
+underage girls. A high-profile trial threatened to splash mud over all sorts of big players, just as both Gov.
+and Bill Clinton's wife were running for president. Also, a hedge fund prosecution in which Epsteln offered to give
+evidence was heating up. Alberto
+i, who was U.S. attorney general throughout most of the Epstein
+investigation and resigned just before the non-prosecution agreement was signed, told The Dally Beast that he would
+have instructed the Justice Department to pursue justice without making a political mess." But that may have been an
+impossible mandate, given the players involved.
+Instead, said attorney Brad
+"Epstein committed crimes that should have jailed him for most of his lifa...he
+was jailed for only a faw months." And this week he walks through his door a free man.
+Conchita
+has developed multimedia communication progrems for Fortune 500 companies and has produced
+three current events debate television programs, The Americes Forum, From Beirut ta Kabul, and a segment for The
+Oppenheimer Report. She is a contributor to The Huffington Post and is writing a book about child trafficking in
+America.
+Get a head start with the Moming Scoop email. It's your Cheat Sheet with must reads from across the Web. Getit.
+For inquiries, please contact The Dally Beast at editorial@thadallybeast.com.
+URL: http://www.thedatybaast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-20jefrey-opstain-blliona/e-pedophite-goes-froa/p/
+PRINT
+http://www.thedailybeast.com/blops-and-stories/2010-07-20/ieffrev-enstein-hillinnaira-ned
+722/0
+VI-JPM-000012218
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904 JSR Document 267-5gx: $9f28 88/07/23 Page 16 df29m
+P001/012
+FOLE
+Florida Department of
+Law Enforcement
+Gerald M. Balley
+Commissioner
+Florida Offender Registration & Tracking Services
+Post Office Box 1489
+Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
+1-888-357-7332
+www.fdle.state.fl.us
+Charlie Crist, Governor
+Bill McCollum, Attornay Gonora!
+Alex Sink, Chief Financial Office
+Charles H. Bronson, Commissioner of Agricultun
+July 22, 2010
+SOR Supervisor
+VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
+48B-50C KRONPRINDSENS GADE
+GERS BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR
+SAINT
+, VI 00802
+ATTENTION: ALL STATE SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION UNITS
+Dear SOR Supervisor:
+Please be advised that the below-named sexual offender in the state of Florida has announced an
+intention to change his place of residence and has indicated a forwarding address for your state.
+ve have submitted the following information that can be used to obtain the offender's crimina
+listory and fingerprints if you require them for any investigative purposes. A Florida Department o
+Law Enforcement flyer has been included, as well as the latest copy of this subject's Florida
+registration form indicating a move to your state, if available.
+Name: Jeffrey E. Epstein
+Sex: Male
+Race:
+DOB
+SSN#:
+Florida SID#:
+FBI#:
+Qualifying Offenses): Procuring A Person Under Age Of 18 For Prostitution; F.s. 796.03
+County/State Of Conviction: PALM BEACH, FL
+Date Of Conviction: 06/30/2008
+County Case Number: 0809381
+Clerk Of Court Phone Number: (561) 355-2996
+Qualifying Offense(s): Procuring A Person Under Age Of 18 For Prostitution; F.s. 796.03
+County/State Of Conviction: PALM BEACH, FL
+Date Of Conviction: 06/30/2008
+County Case Number: 0809381
+Clerk Of Court Phone Number: (561) 355-2996
+DATE RELEASED FROM PRISON/PROBATION: 07/21/2010
+LAST REGISTERED ADDRESS IN FLORIDA: TRELOCATION OUT OF STATE ADDRESS:
+358 El Brillo Way
+6100 Red Hook Quarters Ste B3
+Palm Beach, FL 33480-4730
+Little St lames Islands
+St
+L. VI 00802
+ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
+PER PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (561-688-3000): Epstein is establishing his
+Service • Integrity • Respect • Quality
+VI-JPM-000012219
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-1090 SR Document 267-5y: 850428588/07/23 Mage 229 d7:29pm P002/012
+SOR Supervisor
+July 22
+, 2070
+Page 2
+permanent residence as the US Virgin Islands. He will be going to his temp. address in NY
+07/20/2010 to 07/24/2010 and then to Paris.
+If we may be of further assistance, please advise the FDLE Offender Registration & Tracking
+Services Unit by calling (888) 357-7332.
+Sincerel
+thin
+Kristen Shipp
+Florida Offender Registration & Tracking Services
+VI-JPM-000012220
+
+
+Case 1:22-Cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59 Filed 08/07/23 Page 18 of 21
+From: Darren Indyke [dkiesq@aol.com]
+Sent:
+Friday, July 23, 2010 11:05 AM
+To:
+mpetty@doj.vi.gov
+Cc:
+mcarbon@doj.vi.gov
+Subject: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein
+Ms. Merlyn Petty
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice
+United States Virgin Islands
+Re: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein
+Dear Ms. Petty:
+As you are aware, the supervision of my client, Jeffrey Epstein, by the State of Florida ended on July 21,
+2010. Mr. Epstein has not yet returned to the Virgin Islands. He has notified the Florida Department of
+Corrections Sex Offender Department that he would travel first to New York and then to Europe (a copy of
+his notification is available upon your request).
+In accordance with your email to me dated July 22, 2010, this is to inform you that Mr. Jeffrey Epstein
+intends to depart from New York and travel to Europe this weekend for a period of three weeks. While in
+Europe he can be contacted on his mobile telephone at 561-601-4569. In addition, he may be contacted
+through his business office in the Virgin Islands at 340-775-2525. We will contact you and appear in person
+upon Mr. Epstein's return to the Virgin Islands.
+If you need to reach me for any further information, please feel free to call me at my office in New York on
+my direct dial telephone number 646-862-4817 or on my mobile telephone number
+Respectfully,
+Darren K. Indyke
+Darren K. Indyke, PLLC
+301 East 66th Street, 10B
+New York, New York 10065
+Telephone: (212) 517-2052
+Direct: (646) 862=4817
+Telecopier: (212) 517-7779
+email: dkiesg@aol.com
+7/23/2010
+VI-JPM-000012221
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-109QdJSR Document 267-59 Filed 08/07/23 Page 19 of 21
+Page 1 of l
+From: Maria Hodge [maria@hodgefrancois.com]
+Sent:
+Monday, August 09, 2010 3:50 PM
+To:
+mpetty@doj.vi.gov
+Subject: Additional Registration Information for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein
+Dear Ms. Petty: As instructed in our phone call, 1 am sending you the information to complete
+the two final items on the registration submitted by my client in your office today.
+Jeffrey Epstein's Virgin Islands Driver's License Info:
+License Number is: ci
+dd
+issued: January 15, 2010
+Expires: January 20, 2015
+Jeffrey Epstein's brother's Address:
+I understand that you will insert this information in the two blank spaces and initial the inserted
+items, as discussed during our meeting.
+Thank you again for your guidance in this matter.
+Sincerely,
+Maria Hodge
+1. 1:
++ 45.
+1.4:
+1ht
+42-
+8/° 2010
+VI-JPM-000012222
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904SR Document 267-59 filed 08/07/23 Page 20-01 27c e
+SEXUAL OFFENDER/SEXUAL PREDATOR REGISTRATION FORM
+PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
+FOR USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
+Complete all sections, attach fingerprint card, photograph, and genctic markers when available, and submit to the Departinent of Justice, GERS
+Building, 2** Floor, Virgin Islands:
+SECTION A - Status
+04 Sex Oftender | | Habitual Sexual Offender
+| | Sex Predaior
+(Court Order Required)
+1X4 New Registration
+| 1 Modity Data
+SECTION B - Contributing Agency information
+Agency Name
+Agency Address
+Phone Number: (
+Checked for Warrants: |
+CCH for Sex Offenses:
+Fax: (
+| 1 FCIC NCIC SYSTEM
+| Local System
+| Yes
+OSTEIN
+Last
+VI Driver's Licensea
+WI 125
+Hai Site
+Alias
+FiG
+Middle
+DOB
+Age_
+7
+Eyes: 212
+Exp. Date:
+Scars, Marks, Tattoos
+Raco.
+W/DY
+SEX 44 HI
+Mons
+SECTION D - Legal Residence
+Physical Address
+C777e
+James Bland, 0SVE
+Malhone Home 630 Red ok 34te832
+Telephone: Home 3ro 225 8111 Work
+Future Residence
+NIA-
+Current Temporary Residence /26he
+B2575A
+Address
+Relationship: BAD/EX
+Telephane:
+SECTION E.- Employment
+1 Employed
+Employer_ FinanCaM
+Trust Congre
+1 Unemployed
+Contact Person: Cel Mavia toc
+Date of Employment: 1978
+Address.
+so eat Hook sate S
+Telephone: 774-6820
+SECTION F - Offense Information
+Date of Conviction
+VICTIM
+Offerse Committed
+Same as (ast
+1] Adult
+Place of Conviction
+{Minor
+I ! Acquitted by Reason of Insanity
+Court/Court No.
+AG No.
+PLEASE BEAD CAREE LAY BERORE SIGNING
+SECTION G
+As a Sexual Offender or Sexual Prodator (Title 14 V.L.C, § 1721-1731) you ase required by law to abide by the following:
+1.
+Within five (S) working day of being placed under any type of supervision in to community you must use this form to register with the V T. Departinent of Justice
+In the event you are moving to or returning to the SVI frem another jurisdicion, you must register with the Vl. Department of Justice within five (5) days of first
+reniding in or retanting to the USVI.
+2.
+3.
+4.
+5.
+In the event there is a change in your perinanent or temporary residence after initial registration and any subseqpent changes thereafter, you must notify the V.1
+Department of Justice within three (3) days after arrival at your net residence.
+In the even there is a change in your address curside the USVL, you must register your new address with the V.1. Depurtment of Justice prior to departure and also
+register in your new jurisdiction within ten (10) days after establishing residence there if the new jurisdiction has a registration requirement.
+Yourare required to verify your address with the VL. Department of Justice annually on the anniversazy of'your laddiel registration. If you were determined to be a
+sexually violent prodater, you must verify your address with the V.l. Department of Jestice every aiscty (90) days after ibe dut of your initial release or
+commencement of parole.
+Failure to comply with the above requirements shall subject you to a flue of not less than $3,00000 or impriscement for not less thun three (3) months or mere than
+two (2) years, or both
+He Reminded that even if you may
+regütred to register under Virgin Islands Law, under Title I of the Adam Walsh Act entitled the "Sexual Offender
+Registration and Notification Act "YSORNA), ail individunts convicted of't sex offense are required to register and koep their registration cursent in cach jurisdiction
+where he or she resides, is an cumployee and is a stadent.
+Registrant:
+Witness:
+1 acknowledge that the abose requirements as set forth
+been explained te pe
+I certify that I specitically informed the offender of lus/her duties as have
+set torth above and he indicated to me an understanding of toße
+8/9/10
+8
+Date
+Signature of Registrang
+JEFERE
+Print Name
+EPSTEIN
+Signare of Rephrar
+Mer
+Print Nune
+VI-JPM-000012223
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 267-59 Filed 08/07/23 Page 21 of 21
+HODGE & FRANCOIS
+August 12, 2010
+Ms. Merlyn Petty
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice
+Via Hand Delivery
+Re: Jeffrey Epstein Listing of Vehicles Etc
+Dear Ms. Petty:
+Thank you again for your courtesy during our meeting on Monday, August 9, 2010,
+during which Mr. Epstein completed his registration upon his return to his home in the
+Virgin Islands.
+As discussed with you and the Attorney General's legal counsel, we enclose a listing of
+Mr. Epstein's automobiles, boats, and aircraft, including those at other locations where
+he has residences, since the Virgin Islands is his primary residence and we understand
+that this information should be in your files. We also have included a listing of all of his
+landline telephone numbers, at each of the residences, as well as his cellphone number
+(561-601-4569) at which he should always be reachable.
+Please let me know if you have any questions about this.
+Sincerely,
+Sha di
+Maria Tankenson Hodge
+Encl.
+ATTORNEYS AT LAW
+1340 TAARNEBERG, ST.
+L VIRGIN ISLANDS
+PHONE: 340-774-6845
+FAX: 340-776-8900
+EMAIL: MARIA@HODGEFRANCOIS.COM
+VI-JPM-000012224
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d56e7f3194ae6075034d99c47e0ebe481a94a31b2c970f9202acb0ca7288959.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d56e7f3194ae6075034d99c47e0ebe481a94a31b2c970f9202acb0ca7288959.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..44712824e8136eb83271df844ac1cef391cff5cb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d56e7f3194ae6075034d99c47e0ebe481a94a31b2c970f9202acb0ca7288959.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -1404,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0d56e7f3194ae6075034d99c47e0ebe481a94a31b2c970f9202acb0ca7288959",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 25,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "67c26a263a732cadf614069c0469c4b34b1db520665faa4393bc953b41511266",
+  "output_sha256": "96c212a8cde3af8880adcfc40a5b164370db8354eadf0e8f665bc2d99b50e8b5",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d89a1b4a3d6f462e38090d98066cc094580087b022a8f3ffbe4900e37893879.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d89a1b4a3d6f462e38090d98066cc094580087b022a8f3ffbe4900e37893879.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ab2ad0f8f7421498907886adf5caa1ba41ea0209
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d89a1b4a3d6f462e38090d98066cc094580087b022a8f3ffbe4900e37893879.md
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
+Document 734-3
+Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 ek}IBIT C
+#
+#
+#
+ON EMBARGO UNTIL
+Thursday June 25, 2020 at 6:30am EST
+CONTACT
+Jeff Solnet
+Jeff@PrecisionStrategies.com
+561-926-0909
+Renowned Claims Resolution Experts Announce Commencement of the
+Epstein Victims' Compensation Program
+New York, NY - Today, individuals who were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein may begin the
+process of filing claims with the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program ("Epstein VCP" or
+"Program"). The Epstein VCP is a voluntary, non-adversarial, confidential claims resolution program
+that has been established to compensate victims-survivors and resolve their sexual abuse claims
+against Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein Estate. The Epstein VCP will operate entirely independently
+of the Epstein Estate.
+The Program was designed over the last several months by nationally recognized independent
+claims administration experts Kenneth R. Feinberg, Camille S. Biros and Jordana (Jordy") H.
+| ("Co-Designers") with input from attorneys representing over 70 victims, the Attorney
+General of the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Estate and other interested parties. The Program will be
+administered by
+(the "Administrator"), the former Deputy Special
+of the
+September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, the litigation-alternative program administered by the
+U.S. Department of Justice that compensates victims who have become sick or died as a result of
+their September 11th-related exposure.
+"This Program provides victims of Jeffrey Epstein the opportunity to be heard outside the glare of
+public courtroom proceedings, and to receive acknowledgment by an independent third party as to
+the legitimacy of their experience and the long-term suffering it has wrought," said
+"Treating victims with dignity and respect and providing them with appropriate compensation is
+central to our work with the Program, even as we recognize that no amount of money will erase the
+years of pain these victims have endured."
+"These programs are as much about offering validation as providing fair compensation," said Mr.
+Feinberg who, along with Ms. Biros, has designed and administered similar compensation programs
+for the Catholic Church sexual abuse claims, the Penn State sexual abuse claims, and the
+September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, among others.
+The Program provides victims with an attractive alternative to litigation by offering a process that is
+speedy and cost-effective. The Program also removes barriers to pursue claims in civil courts,
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734-3 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 3
+including statutes of limitations and prior settlements, and applies more relaxed evidentiary
+requirements.
+Important features of the Program include:
+1. The Program is independent of and entirely free from any interference or control by
+the Epstein Estate. The Administrator has complete autonomy and decision-making
+authority to determine individual claimant eligibility and compensation. The Estate has no
+authority to modify or reject the Administrator's decisions on any basis or as to any claim,
+and the Estate will pay all eligible claims based on the Administrator's determination.
+2. The Program is purely voluntary; no individual claimant is required to participate. A
+victim's legal rights are not impacted unless the victim accepts the compensation offered by
+the Administrator and signs a release, agreeing not to engage in any further litigation against
+the Epstein Estate and related entities and/or individuals.
+3. The Program is confidential. Protecting Claimant privacy is of paramount importance to
+the Program. The Program will maintain strict confidentiality of all information submitted, but
+will not impose any limitations on the Claimant's ability to share information with law
+enforcement, or anyone else.
+"Our work with victims of Catholic Church abuse, September 11th and other similar programs has
+provided us with invaluable insight into how to calculate the incalculable, and take into account the
+life-long effects of trauma," said Ms. Biros, who co-designed the Program. Mr. Feinberg added,
+"The role of the Administrator is to apply a certain level of objectivity while taking into account the
+specific circumstances presented by each individual claim. It is a challenging task, but one that
+Jordy is uniquely qualified to undertake. Her empathetic and judicious style, and her long-time
+claims experience and service to victims in the 9/11 community will serve this Program and
+Epstein's victims well."
+Beginning today, the Administrator will provide a Claim Form and other relevant Program information
+to individuals who have filed a lawsuit, legal action or claim of sexual abuse against Jeffrey Epstein
+and/or the Estate may begin the process of filing a claim with the Program, or have otherwise been
+identified by counsel. Other individuals may also be eligible to participate in the Program by
+registering on the Program website. The claims filing period will run through March 25, 2021.
+The Program was initially proposed to the Probate Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands (Probate Court")
+on November 14, 2019. The Co-Designers solicited feedback from various interested parties,
+including victims' counsel, and that feedback was incorporated into a draft protocol that was
+presented to the Probate Court on February 4, 2020. The final protocol was approved by the
+Probate Court on June 3, 2020.
+"We are pleased to get this Program up and running after months of considered and collaborative
+design. My staff is deeply sensitive to the unique circumstances involved and is committed to
+processing the victims' claims in a prompt, fair and effective manner," said
+
+
+Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 734-3 Filed 07/15/22 Page 3 of 3
+For more information, visit: www.epsteinvcp.com, email ClaimantServices@EpsteinVCP.com or call
+the toll-free helpline at (877) 312-3055.
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d89a1b4a3d6f462e38090d98066cc094580087b022a8f3ffbe4900e37893879.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d89a1b4a3d6f462e38090d98066cc094580087b022a8f3ffbe4900e37893879.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7afab2e07ea8884c16d56c16d35a16f3dd16c7d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0d89a1b4a3d6f462e38090d98066cc094580087b022a8f3ffbe4900e37893879.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -36,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0d89a1b4a3d6f462e38090d98066cc094580087b022a8f3ffbe4900e37893879",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "15edca8475b3974c0ebf35ef339d040aab1f9bb888e386ac58b50c69c02599f5",
+  "output_sha256": "45c9d9234e4bfadd6159182db8d7b677facee67fd47cef63da37589afd96ba8e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0da036dbd7981270dda130442be7b2083e11b1722c7672222e8529a5c7a413a4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0da036dbd7981270dda130442be7b2083e11b1722c7672222e8529a5c7a413a4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1ab6e3d4e43106f8b2c7bb9752be2731fac601a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0da036dbd7981270dda130442be7b2083e11b1722c7672222e8529a5c7a413a4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-33 Filed 08/14/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-33 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 2
+Date: 1/17/20175:46:54 PM
+From: "Everett Bames"
+To : "sharon.mccolluma doe.vi", "cecile
+Subject : Introduction; DOE Public Private Partnerships
+Attachment : innge001.png;
+Commissioner, thank you for this introduction. Ms. deJongh, it is a pleasure to meet you and look forward to working with you in advancing the
+VIDE Public/Private Partnership. I have a colleague preparing a list of the most active foundations supporting education and initiatives related
+to the Commissioner's and Governor's priorities. As you are aware, most foundations do not release Requests for Proposals. They tend to
+follow processes where they "invite" select individuals or entities to do brief presentations of their ideas/vision and then work as partners to
+flesh out those ideas. That means that typically they either know who you are or you know who in the foundation to reach out to.. There are
+two critical elements that need to be in place: 1.] before we [VI/RMC] do anything we need a dear, concise and compelling vision that
+articulates exactly what the VI plans to do. That needs to come from critical stakeholders and influencers in Vl and not from "outsiders", like
+RMC; 2.] we will need "influencers", like Mr. Epstien and others, who can open the doors and get the Commissioner an audience. I am afraid
+this is going to be a long process. I have suggested to the Commissioner that after the VI vision is completed we should look at the possibility
+of "re-aligning" existing federal dollars to begin key initiatives and then look at what is available through competitive grants and foundations.
+It would be wonderful if we could build a small core group of "influencers " who have a personal commitment to the VI and who would be
+willing to provide some resources to get some initiatives off the ground without all the politics and bureaucracy associated with govt. or
+foundation funding. Look forward to meeting you in person soon. You have my e-mail. My office number is
+My cell isl
+Reach out at any time.
+Education, beyond all other devices of human creation, is the greatest equalizer of the conditions of Man. -Horace
+1848
+From: McCollum, Sharon [mailto: sharon.mccollum @idoe.vi]
+Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 3:40 PM
+To: Everett Barnes: ceci
+Cc: ccoleste
+Subject: Introduction; DOE Public Private Partnerships
+Good afternoon Mrs. deJonghn and Mr. Barnes:
+Please allow me to introduce the two of you via email.
+I have spoken to Mrs. deJonghn regarding the assistance RMC will be giving the Department of Education in moving forward in building our
+public/private partnerships.
+Our desire is to create targeted goals that can benefit both the Department of Education and the Territory. I have asked Mrs. delonghn to
+include her employer, Jeffery Epistien, in reviewing a
+list of potential donors to see if he is familiar with individuals to facilitate "inside" contacts.
+RMC will supply a list of possible contacts for review.
+We are planning a meeting, February 19, 2017, to bring to the table all parties that can assist DOE with making this vision a reality.
+Everett Bames
+Cecile delchghn
+Regards
+Sharon Ana McCollum, Ph.D.
+Commissioner
+Virgin Islands Department al Education
+1834 Kongens Gade St.
+VI 00802
+2133 Hospital Street, Christiansted, VI 00820
+Phone: 340-774-0100 (STT) or 340-773-1095 (STX)
+THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT OF
+EDUCATION
+subject of this cmull is prohibited. Thank you for your coperation
+
+ESTATE_JPM062263
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0da036dbd7981270dda130442be7b2083e11b1722c7672222e8529a5c7a413a4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0da036dbd7981270dda130442be7b2083e11b1722c7672222e8529a5c7a413a4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7fcf91dd30d922c80f367acff33720e9e968ae27
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0da036dbd7981270dda130442be7b2083e11b1722c7672222e8529a5c7a413a4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -58,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0da036dbd7981270dda130442be7b2083e11b1722c7672222e8529a5c7a413a4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 5,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3094f4ba777a6418aae82c2ee4ec45cb909753d8ab047014f7685c0316fad399",
+  "output_sha256": "510f2256cab34aeae2c4cac4ad1c4b5aaf9480d550dd48ee389755904cf919ef",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ded603b4c51c0ede98672fcba40ccfca8c1a6d7fd2776345b2379a30e91bb14.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ded603b4c51c0ede98672fcba40ccfca8c1a6d7fd2776345b2379a30e91bb14.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..395683e7461cbf6a99187229aa4c79cedebab452
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ded603b4c51c0ede98672fcba40ccfca8c1a6d7fd2776345b2379a30e91bb14.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+-D0330-RAE
+MANDATE
+Ddetimant2782/20£ile& 02/02/24P agedgel 1 of 1
+1:20-cr-00330-AJN-1
+UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
+FOR THE
+SECOND CIRCUIT
+At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
+Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
+17" day of September, two thousand twenty-four,
+USDC SDNY
+Before:
+José A. Cabranes,
+Richard C. Wesley,
+Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.,
+Circuit Judges.
+DOCUMENT
+ELECTRONICALLY FILED
+DOC#:
+DATE FILED:
+12/2/2024
+United States of America,
+JUDGMENT
+Appellee,
+Docket No. 22-1426
+V.
+Ghislaine Maxwell, AKA Sealed Defendant 1,
+Defendant - Appellant.
+The appeal in the above captioned case from a judgment of the United States District
+Court for the Southern District of New York was argued on the district court's record and the
+parties' briefs. Upon consideration thereof,
+IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the district court's June
+29, 2022, judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
+For the Court:
+Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe,
+Clerk of Court
+Catherin
+SENTED STAYE
+SECOND
+pauliaffe
+A True Copy
+Catherine O' Hagan WollB&Flerk
+United States Court SAliNa, Second Circuit
+Catherit
+MANDATE ISSUED ON 12/02/2024
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ded603b4c51c0ede98672fcba40ccfca8c1a6d7fd2776345b2379a30e91bb14.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ded603b4c51c0ede98672fcba40ccfca8c1a6d7fd2776345b2379a30e91bb14.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1479c9921631b356a052d75e89652c09e7bf9271
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ded603b4c51c0ede98672fcba40ccfca8c1a6d7fd2776345b2379a30e91bb14.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -12,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ded603b4c51c0ede98672fcba40ccfca8c1a6d7fd2776345b2379a30e91bb14",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 1,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9ce2b7064adcbdbc959306bb85afa5afdeafa9a6da0b6c74fd0b2a639d59426d",
+  "output_sha256": "9bb8075801c598833cb19e88a3aa18c15a7a30a5781cd8cab4ec61d96cb3e391",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e10415d4b6c18829051cc68bbabd988aaa58de86ef14bca49faba4c0b7dddc2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e10415d4b6c18829051cc68bbabd988aaa58de86ef14bca49faba4c0b7dddc2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fabe032dd3bc03c601af669dc7a9c17e17eff5c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e10415d4b6c18829051cc68bbabd988aaa58de86ef14bca49faba4c0b7dddc2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 57 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 2
+IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+Plaintiff,
+Case No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+V.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS'
+NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
+CONCERNING TEMPORAL SCOPE AND DOCUMENT CUSTODIAN
+Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, the Government of
+the United States Virgin Islands ("Government"), respectfully moves for an Order compelling
+Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan") to provide discovery responses covering
+the full temporal scope of the Government's claims through 2019 and documents for custodian
+James Dimon. The reasons in support of the Government's motion are set forth in the
+Memorandum of Law filed herewith. As directed in this Court's February 23, 2023 email
+confirming decisions on the parties' discovery applications made during the February 22, 2023
+telephone call with the Court, the Government's motion and supporting Memorandum of Law are
+submitted before "5:00 PM today." Pursuant to the same email, JPMorgan's opposition is due by
+5:00 PM on February 28, 2023, and there will be no reply and no oral argument. Id.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 57 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 2
+Dated: February 23, 2023
+CAROL
+• ESQ.
+ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL
+/s/ Linda
+Linda
+(pro hac vice)
+Mimi Liu (pro hac vice pending)
+David I. Ackerman
+Paige Boggs (pro hac vice)
+MOTLEY RICE LLC
+401 9th Street NW, Suite 630
+Washington, DC 20004
+Tel: (202) 232-5504
+Fax: (202) 232-5513
+Isinger@motleyrice.com
+mliu@motleyrice.com
+dackerman@motleyrice.com
+pboggs@motleyrice.com
+Carol
+(pro hac vice)
+Acting Attorney General of the
+United States Virgin Islands
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice
+34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
+St.
+|. U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
+Tel: (340) 774-5666 ext. 10101
+Attorneys for Plaintiff Government of the
+United States Virgin Islands
+2
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e10415d4b6c18829051cc68bbabd988aaa58de86ef14bca49faba4c0b7dddc2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e10415d4b6c18829051cc68bbabd988aaa58de86ef14bca49faba4c0b7dddc2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b3d0fecec9c6f23a979c7a0ae872febb374cc35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e10415d4b6c18829051cc68bbabd988aaa58de86ef14bca49faba4c0b7dddc2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -24,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0e10415d4b6c18829051cc68bbabd988aaa58de86ef14bca49faba4c0b7dddc2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "27492718c49dd52ee3b187f876099f3286279f43fa495cb5513d7ce8307bd011",
+  "output_sha256": "1892383e70b50d2b93fa159e583de08d39941e228e6f442312e8f135454d6759",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e2f02c8c68e87fd69a820785e5eb7c1a5a63fecb89eb8602113ed34ff35b8e2.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e2f02c8c68e87fd69a820785e5eb7c1a5a63fecb89eb8602113ed34ff35b8e2.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..46ddeb7a66d493db844df6784d1c9b2679c2d3d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e2f02c8c68e87fd69a820785e5eb7c1a5a63fecb89eb8602113ed34ff35b8e2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2402 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 1 of 77
+
+to Government's Second Amended
+Complaint against JPMorgan Chase
+Bank, N.A.
+
+
+IN THE SUPERIOR COURI
+OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+FILED
+November 30, 2022 12:02 PM
+SI-2020-CV-00014
+TAMARA CHARLES
+CLERK OF THE COURT
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 77
+IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
+DIVISION OF ST.
+AND ST. JOHN
+.. ...
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+PLAINTIFF,
+Case No.: ST-20-CV-14
+ACTION FOR DAMAGES
+JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
+V.
+DARREN K. INDYKE, in his individual capacity
+and in his capacity as the EXECUTOR FOR THE
+ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN and
+ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST;
+RICHARD D. KAHN, in his individual capacity and
+in his capacity as the EXECUTOR FOR THE
+ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, and
+ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 1953 TRUST;
+ESTATE OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN; THE 1953
+TRUST; PLAN D, LLC; GREAT ST. JIM, LLC;
+NAUTILUS, INC.; HYPERION AIR, LLC; POPLAR,
+Inc.; SOUTHERN TRUST COMPANY, INC.;
+CYPRESS, INC.; MAPLE, INC.; LAUREL, INC.;
+AND JOHN AND JANE DOES,
+DEFENDANTS.
+SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
+COMES NOW, the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("Government") and
+files this Second Amended Complaint containing information that has become known through
+further investigation and third-party discovery and in support thereof, would show unto the Court
+as follows:
+JURISDICTION AND PARTIES
+1. The Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands (herein after "Virgin
+Islands") brings this action on behalf of the Plaintiff, Government of the Virgin Islands, pursuant
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 3 of 77
+
+to 3 V.I.C. § 114 and 14 V.I.C. §607 and her statutory authority to enforce the laws of the Virgin
+Islands, and advocate for the public interest, safety, health and well-being of persons in the
+Virgin Islands.
+2.
+This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to 4
+V.I.C. § 76 and 14 V.I.C. § 607.
+3.
+This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 V.I.C. § 4903.
+4.
+The Virgin Islands is an unincorporated territory of the United States. It consists
+of St.
+St. Croix, St. John, and Water Island, and more than 40 surrounding islands and
+Cays, some of which are privately owned. Among these privately owned islands are Little St.
+James and Great St. James.
+Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein") was a resident of the Virgin Islands and he
+maintained a residence on Little St. James, which he acquired in 1998 and in 2016 he also
+purchased Great St. James.
+6.
+Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands in 2010. He was a Tier 1
+offender under Virgin Islands law based upon his Florida conviction of procuring a minor for
+prostitution. As a Tier 1 offender, Epstein was required to register annually with the Virgin
+Islands Department of Justice ("VIDOJ") and give advance notice of his travel to and from the
+Virgin Islands. Epstein was also subject to random address verification by VIDOJ.
+7.
+Epstein was found dead on August 10, 2019 while in custody in New York for sex
+crimes.
+8.
+Defendant Darren K. Indyke ("Defendant Indyke") is co-executor of the Estate of
+Jeffrey E. Epstein and Administrator of The 1953 Trust and was and/or is a participant in the
+activity of the "Epstein Enterprise," as set forth below.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 4 of 77
+
+9.
+Defendant Richard D. Kahn ("Defendant Kahn") is co-executor of The Estate of
+Jeffrey E. Epstein and Administrator of The 1953 Trust and was and/or is a participant in the
+activity of the "Epstein Enterprise," as set forth below.
+10.
+Defendants Indyke and Kahn, in addition to administering the Estate under the
+laws of the Virgin Islands, engaged in conduct in the Virgin Islands through their participation in
+businesses, financial transactions, and accounts registered, held, and operating in the Virgin
+Islands, and by filing documents with the Government of the Virgin Islands.
+Defendant, the Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Estate"), created upon Epstein's death,
+is domiciled in the Virgin Islands. On August 15, 2019, Defendants Indyke and Kahn filed a
+Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary which included Epstein's last will and testament
+with the Probate Division of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands.
+12. The Petition reported the value of the real and personal property in The Estate
+located in the Virgin Islands at $577,672,654.00 dollars.
+13. According to the Petition, the assets in the Virgin Islands thus far included:
+a. $56.5 million in cash;
+b. $127 million in fixed income and equity investments;
+c. $195 million in hedge fund and private equity investments; and
+d. $18.5 million in planes, boats, and automobiles.
+The Estate did not originally value his fine arts, antiques, and other valuables.
+14.
+The Estate also included shares of various corporate entities which hold residences
+and real property used by Epstein, namely:
+a. Brownstone in New York City valued at $56 million;
+b. Ranch in New Mexico valued at $72 million;
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 5 of 77
+
+c. Gated home in Palm Beach, Florida, valued at $12 million;
+d. Seven units in an apartment building in Paris, valued at $8 million; and
+e. Great St. James and Little St. James, collectively valued at $86 million.
+15.
+At the time of this Second Amended Complaint filing, the Estate's most recent
+accounting, filed February 1, 2021, valued its total assets at $240,782,955.84, which is almost 60%
+lower than the Estate's starting valuation less than 18 months earlier when Defendants Indyke and
+Kahn began their Co-Executorship of the Estate.
+16. The Estate is responsible to pay penalties and damages for the acts committed by
+Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below.
+17.
+Defendant The 1953 Trust ("The Trust") was created by Epstein, who "amended
+and restated" its terms only two days before his suicide. That same day, Epstein revised his Last
+Will and Testament, transferring all of his "property, real and personal, wherever situated" to The
+Trust. The Trust also contains Epstein's financial assets and is also responsible to pay damages
+for the acts committed by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise described below. Defendants
+Indyke and Kahn, filed a Certificate of Trust in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands for The
+Trust on August 26, 2019.
+18.
+Epstein maintained a deliberately complex web of Virgin Islands corporations,
+limited liability companies, foundations, and other entities, not all of which are yet known to the
+Government of the Virgin Islands, through which he carried out and concealed his criminal
+conduct.
+19.
+Epstein regularly created new entities in the territory and transferred properties
+and funds between them in order to preserve and shield Epstein's assets and to facilitate and
+conceal the unlawful acts described in this Complaint.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 6 of 77
+
+20. These entities held properties, including Little St. James and Great St. James, at
+which Epstein trafficked and sexually abused women and underage girls. Epstein owned and
+arranged for private planes, helicopters, boat and automobiles to transport victims to, from, and
+within the Virgin Islands, and provided money to pay these young women and underage girls.
+21.
+Epstein sat at the hub of this web, serving as president, member, manager, or
+director of each of the entities and, upon information and belief, directing their activities.
+22.
+Defendant, Nautilus, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the
+laws of the Virgin Islands. It was incorporated on November 22, 2011.
+23.
+According to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Nautilus, Inc. owns
+Little St. James, a/k/a Parcel Number 109803010100, a parcel of 3.1 million square feet valued
+at $3.2 million, with buildings and improvements valued at $4 million.
+24.
+Epstein was president and director of Nautilus, Inc., which corporate filings
+describe as "holding property for personal use." Defendants Indyke and Kahn are the secretary
+and treasurer of Nautilus, Inc., respectively. The Estate values Epstein's holdings of Nautilus,
+Inc., which holds title to Little St. James at $63.9 million.
+25. A deed recorded with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds on December 30,
+2011 reflects that the property was transferred from a Delaware entity, L.S.J., LLC, to Nautilus,
+Inc. for "TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration." The quitclaim
+deed lists Jeffrey Epstein as the sole member of L.S.J., LL.C, which it acquired Little Saint James
+via a warranty deed dated April 27, 1998.
+26.
+As described below, Epstein engaged in a pattern and practice of trafficking and
+sexually abusing young women and female children on this private, secluded island of Little St.
+James where Epstein and his associates could avoid detection of their illegal activity from Virgin
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 7 of 77
+
+Islands and federal law enforcement and prevent these young women and underage girls from
+leaving freely and escaping the abuse.
+27.
+Thus, Nautilus, Inc. participated in carrying out, facilitating and concealing
+Epstein's crimes, hence Little St. James became an instrumentality of those crimes.
+28.
+Defendant, Great St. Jim, LLC, is a limited liability company established and
+organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands. Great St. Jim, LLC was organized on October 26,
+2015. Great St. Jim, LLC, according to records of the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, owns at
+least three properties that make up Great St. James acquired on January 28, 2016: Parcel Number
+109801010100, consisting of 3.5 million square feet and valued at $17.5 million; Parcel Number
+109801010200, consisting of 450,000 square feet of land, valued at $2.8 million; and Parcel
+Number 109801010300, 1.2 million square feet of land, valued at $2.7 million. According to a
+warranty deed filed with the Virgin Islands Recorder of Deeds, Epstein, through Great St. Jim,
+LLC, acquired the last two parcels for $5 million each.
+29.
+Epstein is listed as manager and a member of Great St. Jim, LLC and the nature of
+its business is described as "holding assets." Upon information and belief, Epstein purchased
+these Great St. James properties— the island with closest proximity to Little St. James to further
+shield his conduct on Little St. James from view, prevent his detection by law enforcement or the
+public, and allow him to continue and conceal his criminal enterprise. Epstein's significant
+investment in the purchase of Great St. James demonstrates his intent to expand his illegal
+operation in the Virgin Islands for years to come. Thus, Great St. Jim, LLC participated in
+carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes, and Great St. James became
+an instrumentality of those crimes.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 8 of 77
+
+30. Defendant, Poplar, Inc., is a corporation established and organized under the laws
+of the Virgin Islands. Poplar, Inc. was incorporated on November 22, 2011. Epstein was
+president and director of Poplar, Inc., and its purpose was described in corporate filings as
+"holding property for personal use." Defendants Indyke and Kahn are secretary and treasurer of
+Poplar, Inc., respectively.
+31.
+A certificate of incumbency provided to the Department of Planning and Natural
+Resources ("DPNR") also lists Epstein as president of Poplar, Inc. and expressly authorizes the
+incorporators to conduct "transactions related to permitting matters submitted on behalf of Great
+St. Jim, LLC."
+32. Poplar, Inc. is listed as the signatory for the 2017 Annual Report for Great St. Jim,
+LLC, and the signature appears to be Epstein's. The Petition for Probate and Letters Testamentary
+filed by The Estate lists Poplar, Inc. as holding title to Great St. James. Thus, Poplar, Inc.
+participated in carrying out, concealing, facilitating and continuing Epstein's crimes.
+33. Defendant, Plan D, LLC is a limited liability company established and organized
+under the laws of the Virgin Islands. In its original Articles of Organization, filed October 19,
+2012, and Annual Report filings, Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski, was listed as Plan D, LLC's sole
+manager/member. However, the July 31, 2019 Annual Report revealed Epstein as the principal
+behind Plan D, LLC.
+34.
+Upon information and belief, Plan D, LLC owns one or more of the airplanes and
+helicopters that Epstein used to transport young women and children to and from the Virgin
+Islands to carry out the criminal pattern of activity described below. Among the airplanes owned
+by Plan D, LLC is a Gulfstream with N-number N212JE. Flight logs and travel notices indicate
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 9 of 77
+
+that Epstein used this plane to traffic and transport and young women and underage girls to the
+Virgin Islands.
+35.
+Defendant, Hyperion Air, LLC is a limited liability company established and
+organized under the laws of the Virgin Islands on October 19, 2012. Jeffrey Epstein is a
+manager/member of Hyperion Air, LLC, along with his pilot, Larry Visoski. The purpose of
+Hyperion Air, LLC is listed in its Annual Report as "holding assets."
+36.
+Hyperion Air, LLC is the registered owner of a Bell helicopter with N-number
+N33IJE and a Keystone helicopter with N-number N722JE. Upon information and belief,
+Epstein used these helicopters to transport young women and underage girls between St.
+and Little St. James.
+37.
+Defendant Southern Trust Company, Inc. was originally incorporated in the Virgin
+Islands on November 18, 2011 as Financial Informatics, Inc., but changed its name to Southern
+Trust Company in September 2012. Southern Trust Company is a tenant at American Yacht
+Harbor in Red Hook, St.
+and Epstein is a "passive investor" in IGY-AYH, d/b/a
+American Yacht Harbor. By the end of 2013, according to its corporate filings, Southern Trust
+Company has assets of $198.5 million; four years later, its assets reached $391.3 million. From
+2011 until at least 2018, Jeffrey Epstein was the President/Director of Southern Trust Company,
+and Defendants Kahn and Indyke were Treasurer/Director and Secretary/Director, respectively.
+Epstein was the sole owner of Southern Trust Company.
+38.
+Defendant Cypress, Inc. is a Virgin Islands corporation that was formed and first
+licensed in or about November 2011. As of December 31, 2018, Epstein was listed as
+President/Director and Defendants and Co-Executors Indyke and Kahn were listed, respectively,
+as Vice President/Secretary/Director and Treasurer/Director of Cypress, Inc. Cypress, Inc. owns
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 10 of 77
+
+the property 49 Zorro Ranch Road in Stanley, New Mexico, which was transferred to it in or
+about December 2011, shortly after it was incorporated.
+39.
+Defendant Maple, Inc. is a Virgin Islands corporation that was formed and first
+licensed in or about November 2011. As of December 31, 2018, Epstein was listed as
+President/Director and Defendants and Co-Executors Indyke and Kahn were listed, respectively,
+as Vice President/Secretary/Director and Treasurer/Director of Maple, Inc. Maple, Inc. owns the
+property 9 East 71st Street in New York, New York, which was transferred to it on or about
+December 23, 2011, shortly after it was incorporated.
+40.
+Defendant Laurel, Inc. is a Virgin Islands corporation that was formed and first
+licensed in or about November 2011. As of December 31, 2018, Epstein was listed as President/
+Director and Defendants and Co-Executors Indyke and Kahn were listed, respectively, as Vice
+President/Secretary/Director and Treasurer/Director of Laurel, Inc. Laurel, Inc. owns the
+property 358 Brillo Way in Palm Beach, Florida, which was transferred to it in or about
+December 2011, shortly after it was formed.
+41.
+John and Jane Does represent individuals and entities whose identities or
+involvement with Epstein are currently unknown. The Government of the Virgin Islands will
+amend the Complaint to add these individuals and entities when discovered.
+42.
+The Attorney General brings this action to seck all remedies available to the
+Government of the Virgin Islands in enforcing its laws and protecting the public interest and
+public safety. These claims are distinct from, and are not intended to supplant, the claims of
+victims who were unconscionably harmed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 11 of 77
+
+FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
+A. The Conduct of the "Epstein Enterprise" in the Virgin Islands
+43.
+Epstein and his associates, including Defendants, identified and recruited female
+victims, including children, and transported them to the Virgin Islands where they were abused
+and injured. Epstein, through and in association with Defendants, trafficked, raped, sexually
+assaulted and held captive underage girls and young women at his properties in the Virgin Islands.
+44.
+Epstein created a network of companies and individuals who participated in and
+conspired with him in a pattern of criminal activity related to the sex trafficking, forced labor,
+sexual assault, child abuse, and sexual servitude of these young women and children. Epstein and
+his associates trafficked underage girls to the Virgin Islands, held them captive, and sexually
+abused them, causing them grave physical, mental, and emotional injury.
+45.
+To accomplish his illegal ends, Epstein formed an association in fact with
+multiple Defendants and others (both companies and individuals) who were willing to
+participate in, facilitate, and conceal Epstein's criminal activity in exchange for Epstein's
+bestowal of financial and other benefits, including sexual services and forced labor from
+victims.
+46.
+This illicit association of Epstein, Defendants, and his associates constitute what
+is referred to herein as the "Epstein Enterprise." Epstein's associates in the Epstein Enterprise,
+including, but not limited to, those named as Defendants knowingly facilitated, participated in,
+and concealed Epstein's illegal conduct.
+47.
+Epstein used his wealth and power to create the Epstein Enterprise which
+engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands by repeatedly procuring and
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 12 of 77
+
+subjecting underage girls and young women to unlawful sexual conduct, sex trafficking, and
+forced labor.
+48.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin
+Islands (and elsewhere) with the criminal purpose and goal of placing a steady supply of
+vulnerable female children and young women into sexual servitude in service of Epstein's
+desires, and those of his associates. The Epstein Enterprise maintained and made available
+young women and underage girls for the purpose of engaging them in forced labor and sexual
+activities and used coercion and deception to procure, abuse, and harbor its victims.
+49.
+Flight logs and other sources establish that between 2001 and 2019 the Epstein
+Enterprise transported underage girls and young women to the Virgin Islands, who were then taken
+via helicopter or private vessel to Little St. James where they were then deceptively subjected to
+sexual servitude, forced to engage in sexual acts and coerced into commercial sexual activity
+and forced labor.
+50.
+In furtherance of its criminal activities, the Epstein Enterprise used its aircrafts
+to transport the young women and underage girls to the Virgin Islands for purposes of sexual
+abuse and exploitation.
+51.
+The Epstein Enterprise facilitated and participated in the sexual molestation and
+exploitation of numerous girls between the age of 12 and 17 years old.
+52.
+On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts,
+associates of the Epstein Enterprise, funded by the Epstein Enterprise, lured and recruited young
+women and underage girls to travel to locations including the Virgin Islands where, upon
+information and belief, based on the pattern and practice of the Epstein Enterprise, they were
+sexually abused and exploited.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 13 of 77
+
+53.
+Associates in the Epstein Enterprise recruited both victims and abusers into the
+Epstein Enterprise, participated in sexual acts of rape and abuse of minors and witnessed
+Epstein and others engage in sexual acts with children.
+54.
+As recent as 2018, air traffic controllers and other airport personnel reported
+seeing Epstein leave his plane with young girls some of whom appeared to be between the age
+of 11 and 18 years.
+55.
+Upon information and belief, based on Epstein's pattern of trafficking and
+sexually abusing young girls, the Epstein Enterprise trafficked and abused these girls, and
+others, in the Virgin Islands through 2018.
+56.
+When sued in civil court for committing sex trafficking and sex crimes, Epstein
+never denied engaging in sexual acts with underage females and procuring underage females for
+prostitution, but instead consistently invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination.
+57.
+Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise kept a computerized list of
+underage girls who were in or proximate to the Virgin Islands, and able to be transported to
+Epstein's residence at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands.
+58.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a pattern of criminal conduct by trafficking
+children and young women and placing them in sexual servitude and forced labor in the Virgin
+Islands. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 133 to 138, which prohibit
+trafficking and sexual abuse. The Epstein Enterprise also repeatedly violated laws against child
+abuse and neglect, including 14 V.I.C. § 505, which defines the crime of child abuse as knowingly
+or recklessly causing "a child to suffer physical, mental, or emotional injury," or causing a child to
+be placed in a situation where such injury is foreseeable, and 14 V.I.C. § 506, which applies, as
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 14 of 77
+
+here, where the child suffers serious physical, mental, or emotional injury as a result of that abuse.
+The harm to Epstein's victims was both fully foreseeable and deeply damaging.
+59.
+The Epstein Enterprise knowingly recruited, transported, transferred, harbored,
+received, procured, obtained, isolated, maintained, and enticed young women and girls to
+engage in forced labor (such as providing massages) and, ultimately, sexual servitude at his little
+St. James residence.
+60.
+A 15-year old victim was forced into sexual acts with Epstein and others and then
+attempted to escape by swimming off the Little St. James Island. Epstein and others organized a
+search party that located her and kept her captive by, among other things, confiscating her passport.
+Another victim, who was first engaged in provide massages to Epstein, was then forced to
+perform sexual acts at Little St. James in the Virgin Islands. When she attempted to escape the
+"private island," Epstein and a search party found her, returned her to his house, and suggested
+physical restraint or harm if she failed to cooperate.
+61.
+Another victim was flown by Epstein and his associates to New York or Palm
+Beach and then to the Virgin Islands dozens of times from 2004, when she was age 20, to 2017.
+She was repeatedly abused by Epstein and also was pressed to have sex with Epstein's business
+colleagues.
+62.
+During the latter part of this period, she was forced into an arranged marriage to
+another victim that was facilitated by Defendant/Co-Executor Indyke to prevent the other victim
+from being deported. Indyke and a New York immigration lawyer retained by Epstein prepared
+the victim for communications with U.S. immigration officials almost immediately after the
+wedding. Defendant/Co-Executor Kahn provided a letter of reference for the immigration
+proceeding. When the victim inquired about ending the marriage and leaving Epstein's circle,
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 15 of 77
+
+Indyke repeatedly tried to talk her out of a divorce and threatened that she would lose Epstein's
+and his associates' protection.
+63.
+The Epstein Enterprise forced at least three separate arranged marriages, in each
+case requiring American female victims to marry foreign victims to avoid their deportation. The
+victims were coerced into to participating in these arranged marriages, and understood that there
+would be consequences, including serious reputational and bodily harm, if they refused to enter
+a marriage or attempted to end it. In each instance, Indyke and Kahn knowingly facilitated the
+fraudulent and coerced marriages, performing and securing the legal and accounting work
+involved and enabling a fraud that would further bind Epstein's victims to him and enable
+Epstein to continue to control and abuse these victims sexually.
+64.
+The Epstein Enterprise deceptively lured underage girls and women into its
+sex trafficking ring with money and promises of employment, career opportunities and
+school assistance. The Epstein Enterprise preyed on their financial and other vulnerabilities,
+and promised victims money, shelter, gifts, employment, tuition and other items of value.
+For example, participants in the Epstein Enterprise targeted young and underage females
+under the pretext that they would be paid substantially merely to provide massages to him
+and others. However, once drawn in, victims were then pressured and coerced to engage in
+sexual acts.
+65.
+The Epstein Enterprise forced underage victims to recruit others to perform
+services and engage in sexual acts—a trafficking pyramid scheme.
+66.
+The Epstein Enterprise paid girls for each "meeting," with additional money if
+they brought additional girls. Epstein reportedly required three meetings per day.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 16 of 77
+
+67.
+The Epstein Enterprise used the term "work" as a code for sexual abuse, and,
+upon information and belief, reportedly kept computer records of the contact information for the
+victims.
+68.
+Consistent with his creation and use of a complex web of entities to carry out
+and conceal the criminal trafficking enterprise in the Virgin Islands, the Epstein Enterprise
+sometimes paid young women and underage girls he exploited and trafficked through his
+charitable foundations.
+69.
+Once the girls and women were recruited, participants in the Epstein Enterprise
+enforced their sexual servitude of victims by coercion, including but not limited to, confiscating
+passports, controlling and extinguishing external communications, and threatening violence.
+They also made fraudulent statements to family members of victims, claiming victims were
+being well cared for and supported financially in college and other educational opportunities.
+70.
+One of the victims, who was flown by Epstein and his associates to the Virgin
+Islands dozens of times up until as late as 2017, described how Epstein exercised strict control
+over her and other victims' activity. The girls had to give notice if they left the main residence
+and were kept to a rigid set of roles and rules. Epstein brought victims to business meetings,
+where they were often required to massage his feet or run errands. Victims had to use Epsteinapproved doctors and sign consent forms for access to their medical records. Epstein also
+required them to give him their email passwords. Each of these was a means of demonstrating
+and reinforcing his control over the women and girls.
+71.
+During this time period through 2017, this vietim observed a succession of girls
+and young women who were transported to Little St. James and while there were called into
+Epstein's office or sauna to engage in sexual acts.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 17 of 77
+
+72.
+Another victim, who was brought to Little St. James more than 50 times during
+the years 2000 to 2002, when she was 17 to 19 years old, was required to have sexual relations
+with "guests" of Epstein, and was subjected to sexual abuse virtually every day, and on some
+days, multiple times a day by Epstein or his guests.
+73.
+This victim, too, observed a large number of young women and girls around
+Epstein at Little St. James. Many of them did not speak English, which was Epstein's preference
+since they spoke less.
+74.
+Epstein sent these victims out to night clubs or on shopping trips to try to
+identify and recruit other young women and girls, at times paying them a fee for each recruit.
+75.
+The Epstein Enterprise transported, held, sexually abused, trafficked, and
+concealed women and children at his property in the Virgin Islands dozens of times over nearly
+two decades.
+B. Defendants and Co-Executors Indyke and Kahn were Instrumental to the
+Epstein Enterprise's Human Trafficking and Financial Fraud.
+76.
+Defendants Kahn and Indyke organized, controlled, and directed almost every
+aspect of the Epstein Enterprise. They were officers in virtually every corporate entity that
+Epstein created to fund and conceal his activities. They were deeply involved in the financial
+activities of the Epstein-owned entities, including those of Defendant Southern Trust Company,
+which made clear that Southern Trust did not provide the services described to the Government
+as the basis for tax incentives that allowed Epstein to fraudulently obtain more than $80 million
+from the Government.
+77.
+Defendants Indyke and Kahn also directed, approved, enabled, and justified
+millions of dollars in payments that fueled the Epstein Enterprise's sex trafficking, including
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 18 of 77
+
+payments to women who were forced to have sex with Epstein and/or recruited others to be
+victimized. Defendants Indyke and Kahn obtained large and frequent stocks of cash for Epstein
+which, based on public knowledge, would have funded Epstein's cash payments for
+"massages"-code for forced sex.
+78.
+Defendants Indyke and Kahn participated with Epstein in coercing his sex
+trafficking victims, in at least three cases, to enter into arranged and forced marriages in order to
+obtain immigration status for the foreign women so that they could continue to be available to
+Epstein for his abuse - a doubly-deep assault on their will and dignity. Defendant Kahn
+provided a letter of reference for at least one immigration application and tax services to the
+spouses, and Defendant Indyke paid the immigration lawyer who applied for citizenship for the
+women and threatened at least one who indicated that she would seek a divorce. They used
+their professional skills and authority to carry out this abhorrent scheme.
+79.
+Indyke and Kahn were, in short, the indispensable captains of Epstein's criminal
+enterprise, roles for which they were richly rewarded.
+80.
+Defendants Kahn and Indyke controlled and directed the activities of the other
+entities and personal bank accounts of Epstein accounts after they were funded. One, and
+frequently both, of them were officers or directors of Butterfly Trust; of companies holding
+Epstein's real property (as laid out below); and of
+FT Real Estate Inc.; Gratitude America, Inc.;
+; J. Epstein Virgin
+Islands Foundation, Inc.; Jeepers, Inc.; Mort, Inc.; Nautilus, Inc.; and Zorro Development
+Corporation; among others.
+81.
+Along with their officer and director roles, Defendants Kahn and/or Indyke also
+had signatory authority over virtually all of the accounts held by the Epstein Enterprise entities,
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 19 of 77
+
+which allowed them to personally authorize and sign off on payments totaling hundreds of
+thousands of dollars to the Enterprise's sex-trafficking and abuse victims, including those who
+also acted as recruiters, and other expenses including legal fees, apartment rent, and tuition.
+Further, they routinely withdrew cash in various ways, including ATMs, checks, or by
+converting U.S. Dollars to Euros. In many instances, Kahn and/or Indyke structured these
+transactions in order to evade the bank's reporting requirements.
+82.
+Defendant Kahn also oversaw the accounting and tax reporting for the other
+entities in the Epstein Enterprise. As discussed below the "Tree entities," Laurel, Maple, and
+Cypress, filed materially false and misleading financial statements by not including the
+properties in other states they owned or related expenses. These financial statements were
+submitted to the Office of Lieutenant Governor of the Virgin Islands and signed by Defendant
+Kahn. In addition, in 2013, Defendant Kahn also directed the outside accountant not to report
+the properties on their respective tax returns.
+83.
+The J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation") is a 501(c)(3)
+tax-exempt private foundation that was founded in June 2000 and registered in the Virgin
+Islands.
+84.
+As of October 23, 2007, Indyke was listed as President of the Foundation. •
+85.
+Between September 2015 and June 2019, Indyke
+made
+over a period of more than three and a half years until the middle of 2019.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 20 of 77
+
+86.
+In November 2017, Indyke
+87.
+These payments were inconsistent with the charitable purpose of the Foundation
+and designed to serve the private benefit and criminal activities of Epstein and the Epstein
+Enterprise.
+88.
+Earlier in 2017, Indyke signed a Foundation check for $160,000 to resolve a fine
+Epstein had incurred for construction on Great St. James Island that violated Virgin Islands
+environmental regulations and attempted to make the payment appear to be a charitable
+donation. Over two years later, the Estate had to repay this amount to the Foundation after
+questions were raised to Epstein's lawyer about the propriety of the Foundation payment.
+89.
+With help from Indyke and Kahn, Epstein established and operated separate
+businesses through which he could pay victims and recruiters, and, upon information and belief,
+which he used to maintain their immigration status.
+90.
+is a New York Limited Liability Company, the Articles of
+Organization of which were filed in November 2014. The Articles list L
+1. who was forced and
+coerced to have sex with Epstein,
+was manipulated,
+exploited, and controlled by the Epstein Enterprise.
+91.
+According to
+operating agreement, Kahn was to be the initial Manager of
+the company, with full and complete authority, power, and discretion to do all things necessary
+or convenient to manage, control, and carry out the business. Kahn also had signatory authority
+for
+bank accounts.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 21 of 77
+
+92.
+One of
+bank accounts was funded entirely with money transferred from
+Epstein's personal bank accounts.
+93.
+• payroll was paid to two persons, one of whom was the listed sole owner.
+Kahn gave conflicting reports to
+I bank about the second person on the company's payroll
+and the reasons for its payments to her. Once, he described her as an
+which
+would justify the payments in light of
+purported line of business, but which appears to
+have been false. The other time, Kahn described this payroll recipient
+which would
+not justify
+payments to her, but which appears to be true.
+94.
+LSJE, LLC is a Virgin Islands Limited Liability Company that was organized on
+October 27, 2011. Defendants Indyke and Kahn were authorized signatories on the company's
+checking account.
+95.
+Indyke and Kahn signed company checks for combined value of almost
+$300,000 made out personally to young women or to, again, the immigration lawyer in New
+York who was involved in one or more forced marriages arranged among Epstein's victims to
+secure a victim's immigration status.
+96.
+Upon information and belief, after his guilty plea in Florida for soliciting
+prostitution from a minor, Epstein began to focus on procuring and abusing women from
+Eastern Europe. These women's immigration status and language barriers made them more
+isolated, dependent, and vulnerable to Epstein's abuse and manipulation.
+97.
+The Butterfly Trust is a trust created for the benefit of numerous persons who
+performed work for Epstein, including numerous young women with Eastern European
+surnames and also including Indyke and Kahn themselves. Indyke and Kahn were authorized
+signatories on the Trust's checking account.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 22 of 77
+
+98.
+Indyke and Kahn signed trust checks for combined value of over $1,000,000
+made out personally to young women, or their associated entities, who in some instances were
+not beneficiaries of the trust.
+99.
+Defendants and Co-Executors Indyke and Kahn also were deeply involved with
+transactions made in and out of Epstein's personal accounts, for which Indyke had signatory
+authority, that were flagged by bank representatives and the New York Department of Financial
+Services as potentially suspicious.
+100. Indyke also engaged in repeated transactions that seem designed to have
+provided Epstein with cash in small enough increments to avoid triggering financial reporting
+requirements. It is well known that Epstein paid girls and women in cash for sexual encounters
+that began as or were euphemistically described as massages, or for recruiting other girls to
+provide such massages.
+101.
+On July 20, 2016, Indyke brought two checks to a branch teller window for
+withdrawal, one for $7,500 drawn on Epstein's personal account and one for $4,000 drawn on
+Indyke's business account. Indyke presented the $7,500 check for cashing and stated that he
+would be cashing the other check the next business day to avoid all the paperwork. On July 21,
+2016, Indyke returned to cash the $4,000 check.
+102.
+From June 2018 to February 2019, there was a series of 97 separate withdrawals
+of $1,000 made from this account at an ATM that is a short walk from Indyke's law office.
+103.
+From this same account, Indyke wrote 11 checks, between April 2016 and April
+2019, for the purpose of converting U.S. dollars to Euros totaling over $126,000. Some of the
+checks contained the notation "Euros for safe."
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 23 of 77
+
+104.
+Also, Indyke withdrew large amounts of cash in single transactions. For
+instance, on January 17, 2018, Indyke cashed a check for $100,000. Although Indyke cashed
+the check, Kahn arranged with the Bank representative to have the cash ready for pickup.
+105. Payments from this account, for which Indyke had signatory authority, totaling
+over $2,500,000 were made to dozens of women with Eastern European surnames, purportedly
+for hotel expenses, tuition, and rent, and to, again, the immigration lawyer in New York who was
+involved in one or more forced marriages arranged among Epstein's victims to secure victims'
+immigration status.
+106.
+For another of Epstein's personal accounts with the same bank, Indyke, from
+2014 to 2016, made almost 45 separate check-cashing withdrawals at a pace of two to three per
+month, each for the amount of $7,500, which was the bank's limit for third-party withdrawals.
+107. From this same account, between June 2014 and September 2015, Indyke wrote
+eight checks for the purpose of converting U.S. dollars to Euros. Each of the checks to
+effectuate the conversion approximated $7,500, presumably in order to evade reporting
+requirements, with some containing the notation "Euros for safe."
+108.
+Payments from this account totaling over $1,000,000 were made to dozens of
+women with Eastern European surnames and to, again, the immigration lawyer in New York
+who was involved in one or more forced marriages arranged among Epstein's victims to secure
+a victim's immigration status.
+109.
+Indyke made wire transfers from another of Epstein's personal accounts with a
+different bank totaling almost
+between November 2016 and July 2019 (just before
+Epstein's arrest) to
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 24 of 77
+
+110.
+which
+From another of Epstein's personal accounts with another different bank, for
+, someone acting on Epstein's behalf made a total of L
+111.
+Payments from this account totaling almost
+112.
+Upon information and belief, based on their authority for the accounts, their
+interactions with the relevant banks, and records indicating that they made or approved the
+transactions, these payments could have only been made with the knowledge and/or at the
+direction of Indyke and Kahn.
+113.
+The sheer complexity of the infrastructure that Epstein set up and maintained
+with the participation of Kahn and Indyke suggest their unlawful purpose. Based on the
+Government's current knowledge, Epstein, with Kahn and Indyke, held and managed at least
+140 different bank accounts for Epstein and Epstein-owned entities, many of which existed only
+to transfer payments to other entities and accounts.
+114. Kahn and Indyke profited substantially from their relationship with Epstein.
+The amount of their payments is further evidence of the illicit nature of the work they
+performed.
+115.
+From 2011 to 2019, Epstein and Epstein-owned entities paid over
+• to Defendant/Co-Executor Indyke, and over
+to Defendant/Co-Executor
+Kahn. This includes
+Based
+on records obtained so far,
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 25 of 77
+
+116. Indyke and Kahn were paid through multiple entities, including HBRK
+Associates, Inc. (Kahn), Coatue Enterprises, LLC (Kahn), Birch Tree BR, LLC (Indyke)
+Harlequin Dane, LLC (Indyke) and Darren K Indyke, PLLC, which functioned as shell
+companies and engaged in no activities other than to coordinate the activities of Epstein's
+Enterprise, including the receiving and sending money to other entities they held.
+117. Since they were appointed as Co-Executors of the Epstein Estate in 2019,
+Defendants Indyke and Kahn have approved the release of Estate funds to pay for the legal fees
+and costs of persons who-like the Co-Executors themselves—are alleged herein to have
+participated in the criminal activity of the Epstein Enterprise.
+C. The "Epstein Enterprise" Abused Privileges of Residency to Carry out its
+Criminal Scheme
+118. The Epstein Enterprise in 1998 acquired Little St. James in the Virgin Islands as
+the perfect hideaway and haven for trafficking young women and underage girls for sexual
+servitude, child abuse and sexual assault. Little St. James is a secluded, private island, nearly
+two miles from St.
+with no other residents. It can be visited only by private boat or
+helicopter; no public or commercial transportation is available to carry persons on or off the
+island, and no bridge connects the island to St.
+1. Epstein had easy access to Little St.
+James from the private airfield on St.
+, only 10 minutes away by his private helicopter,
+but the women and children he trafficked, abused, and held there were not able to leave without
+his permission and assistance, as it was too far and dangerous to swim to St.
+119.
+In 2016, upon information and belief, using a straw purchaser to hide Epstein's
+identity, the Epstein Enterprise acquired Great St. James the nearest island to Little St. James. By
+then, Epstein was a convicted sex offender. Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 26 of 77
+
+purchased the island for more than $20 million because its participants wanted to ensure that the
+island did not become a base from which others could view their activities or visitors. By acquiring
+ownership and control of Great St. James to the exclusion of others, the Epstein Enterprise created
+additional barriers to prevent those held involuntarily on Little St. James from escaping or
+obtaining help from others.
+120. Great St. James and Little St. James are environmentally sensitive locations, with
+native coral and wildlife protected by federal and territorial law and enforcement authorities. The
+Department of Planning and Natural Resources ("DPNR") regulates and monitors construction in
+the Coastal Zone to protect, maintain and manage the precious natural resources of the Virgin
+Islands. Under its authority, DPNR repeatedly issued citations and assessed thousands of dollars
+of fines for violations of the Virgin Islands construction code and environmental protection laws
+on both Little St. James and Great St. James-significant penalties to the agency and to the
+average resident of the Virgin Islands. But because of Epstein's enormous wealth, these fines had
+little effect in curbing or stopping the Epstein Enterprise's unlawful conduct or conforming its
+activities to the law.
+121. As a result of illegal construction activity of the Epstein Enterprise, the Virgin
+Islands has incurred, and will incur, significant expenses to remove the illegal construction or
+remediate its effects on natural resources in and around Little St. James and Great St. James. The
+extent of the potential environmental damage is unknown at this time as the illegal construction
+has not been removed or remediated
+122.
+The Epstein Enterprise continues to attempt to prevent or limit DPNR authorities
+from conducting random inspections on the Little St. James and Great St. James necessary to
+comply with Virgin Islands law.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 27 of 77
+
+123. The Epstein Enterprise's violation of the construction and environmental laws was
+part of a pattern of behavior in flouting the laws of the Virgin Islands and holding itself above the
+law. Upon information and belief, as described above, the Epstein Enterprise undertook
+construction at Great St. James after 2016 to continue the scheme to carry out and conceal his
+trafficking and sexual abuse of young women and children in the Virgin Islands. These actions
+are also indicative of the Epstein Enterprise's disregard for Virgin Islands' law. The Epstein
+Enterprise used the Virgin Islands' land, resources, people, and laws for its illicit purposes.
+Rather than participating lawfully in this community, the Epstein Enterprise took advantage of
+the secluded nature of the islands in furtherance of its crimes.
+124. As a result of its deplorable and unlawful conduct, the Epstein Enterprise has
+subjected the Virgin Islands to public portrayals as a hiding place for human trafficking and sex
+crimes.
+D. The "Epstein Enterprise" Fraudulently Concealed its Conduct
+125. The Epstein Enterprise fraudulently concealed its actions to prevent detection by
+the Government of the Virgin Islands.
+126. The secluded properties at Little St. James and Great St. James were repeatedly
+used by the Epstein Enterprise as the locations for unlawfully soliciting, transporting,
+transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, isolating, patronizing, maintaining, deceiving,
+coercing, and sexually abusing young women and children and concealing these crimes.
+127. The Epstein Enterprise was able to hide the trafficking ring from law
+enforcement, despite the fact that Epstein was a registered sex offender. Given the isolation of
+the Little St. James and Great St. James and the nature of the crimes and of the victims targeted
+by the Epstein Enterprise, the activities of the Epstein Enterprise were not readily detectable.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 28 of 77
+
+Moreover, Epstein's great wealth and power likely made witnesses reluctant to report their
+observations to the local law enforcement.
+128.
+Upon information and belief, the Epstein Enterprise prevented its employees from
+cooperating with law enforcement. Employees and others were required to sign confidentiality
+agreements that prohibited them from speaking to or sharing information with law enforcement.
+If they were contacted by law enforcement they were to notify the Epstein Enterprise and be
+represented by Epstein's counsel.
+129. The employees were directed not to communicate or interact with guests visiting
+Little St. James and were also directed not to disclose to anyone events that occurred on the island.
+130. Monitoring a sex offender with his own private islands and the resources to fly
+victims in and out on private planes and helicopters presented unique challenges and allowed the
+Epstein Enterprise to limit scrutiny by the Government of the Virgin Islands.
+131.
+Sexual Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") 14
+V.I.C. § 1721, et. seq. requires sex offenders to register in their resident jurisdictions and to make
+periodic in-person appearances to verify and update their registration information.
+132. Epstein renewed his registration each year in the Virgin Islands. In addition,
+beyond this statutory requirement, the Virgin Islands periodically visited or attempted to
+visit—Little St. James to conduct additional address verifications.
+133. At his last verification in July 2018, Epstein refused to permit Virgin Islands
+Department of Justice Investigators, assisted by United States Marshals, to enter Little St. James
+beyond its dock, claiming that the dock was his "front door." Instead, Epstein arranged to be met
+at his office on St.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 29 of 77
+
+134.
+Epstein also misled the Government regarding his travel plans. On March 19, 2019,
+the Virgin Islands was notified that Epstein would be traveling to France for 10 days on the private
+plane owned by Plan D, LL.C. His notification form did not disclose travel to any other countries. It
+was later found by law enforcement authorities that Epstein also travelled to Vienna and Monaco
+during that trip.
+135.
+Similarly, the Epstein Enterprise sought to prevent DPNR from conducting
+routine site visits to inspect unpermitted and potentially damaging construction activity on Great
+St. James. The Epstein Enterprise repeatedly objected to DPNR's inspections referring to them as
+"invasions" of Epstein's constitutional right to privacy in his home, which he described defined
+as the entire island. These DPNR inspections are required for all construction and Virgin Islands
+residents are required to cooperate with the inspections to assure compliance with the law
+throughout the construction phases.
+136. These efforts represent Epstein Enterprise's intent to conceal its unlawful activity
+on Little St. James and Great St. James.
+137. The Epstein Enterprise also created numerous corporations and limited liability
+companies in the Virgin Islands to help conceal its unlawful activity. Most of these companies were
+created in 2011 and 2012, soon after Epstein registered as a sex offender in the Virgin Islands.
+138.
+Epstein's pilot, Larry Visoski is identified as member or co-member in companies
+that serviced and maintained the planes that the Epstein Enterprise used to traffick young women
+and children — Freedom Air Petroleum, LLC (registered November 28, 2011 to hold assets);
+and JEGE, LLC (registered October 19, 2012 to hold assets).
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 30 of 77
+
+139. Other Epstein entities include LSJ Employees, LLC (registered October 27, 2011
+to provide services); Southern Financial, LLC (registered February 25, 2013 to provide services)
+and LSJ Emergency, LLC (registered December 2, 2015 to provide services).
+140. Some of these companies held considerable assets: Financial Informatics, Inc.
+(incorporated November 18, 2011, also known as Southern Trust Company, Inc.) had assets of
+approximately $391 million in 2015; and Financial Trust Company, Inc. (incorporated November
+6, 1998) had assets of $212 million when it publicly filed its last balance sheet in 2012.
+141. Though often absent in the original incorporation or registration documents or
+annual filings, Epstein ultimately appeared as president, director, manager, or sole member of
+each of these companies. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this complex array of
+corporate entities-
+-some of which may still be discovered —was to allow Epstein to shelter his
+assets in order to fund, carry out, and conceal his identity and pattern of criminal conduct.
+142. The Estate continues to engage in a course of conduct aimed at concealing the
+criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. On November 24, 2019, Epstein's Estate filed an
+Expedited Motion for Establishment of a Voluntary Claims Resolution Program in the Superior
+Court of the Virgin Islands. ("Motion"). According to the Motion, the proposed program was to
+be designed to "establish an independent and voluntary claims resolution program for purposes
+of resolving sexual abuse claims against Jeffrey E. Epstein." (Motion, at 1).
+143.
+The program proposed by the Estate, whose executors are trustees of The 1953
+Trust and officers in at least two Epstein entities, imposes confidentiality requirements and
+requires any claimant accepting an award under the program to sacrifice any other claims against
+"any person or entity arising from or related to Mr. Epstein's conduct." (Motion, at 5). It acts to
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 31 of 77
+
+conceal the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise and shield its participants from liability
+and accountability for the injury they caused to the victims.
+144.
+The Estate also refused to agree to preserve documents or to release individuals
+from the non-disclosure agreements.
+145.
+Two days before his death, Epstein amended The Trust and his Last Will and
+Testament. Upon information and belief, he did so, as part of a pattern and ongoing effort to
+conceal and shield his assets from potential recovery by claimants.
+E. The "Epstein Enterprise" Violated Numerous Virgin Islands Laws
+146. The pattern of criminal activity engaged in by Epstein and other participants in
+the Epstein Enterprise violated 14 V.I.C. §§ 605 and 607 of the Criminally Influenced and
+Corrupt Organizations Act ("CICO").
+147.
+The Epstein Enterprise also violated Title 14, Chapter 3A, The Virgin Islands
+Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act relating to Trafficking of
+Persons; Title 14, Chapter 24, relating to Child Protection and Child Abuse and Neglect; Title
+14, Chapter 81, relating to Prostitution and Related Offenses; Title 18, Chapter 85, relating to
+Rape and Sexual Assault and other related offenses, as well as other Virgin Islands laws.
+148.
+The Epstein Enterprise violated Virgin Islands laws by engaging in the human
+trafficking of underage girls and young women and commercial sex with young women and
+underage girls by force, fraud, enticement, or coercion, which serve as predicates to the Epstein
+Enterprise's violations of CICO.
+149.
+Certain participants who recruited women and underage girls to be trafficked
+and forced into sexual servitude themselves were sexually trafficked and abused by the Epstein
+Enterprise and may be afforded the protections of 14 V.I.C. § 145.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 32 of 77
+
+150.
+Specifically, Plan D, LLC knowingly and intentionally facilitated the
+trafficking scheme by flying underage girls and young women into the Virgin Islands to be
+delivered into sexual servitude. Plan D LLC repeatedly made flights from the mainland to
+St.
+with Epstein and underage girls and young women for the purpose of engaging
+in sexual activity on Little St. James. On some occasions, they would transport Epstein
+and female children by helicopter to Little St. James. On other occasions, Epstein and the
+young women and girls would be transported by boat.
+151.
+Great St. Jim, LIC and Nautilus, Inc. knowingly participated in the Epstein
+Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking and sexual servitude of young women and underage
+girls by providing the secluded properties at, from, or to which Epstein and his associates were
+able to transport, transfer, receive, maintain, isolate, harbor, provide, entice, deceive, coerce,
+and sexually abuse underage girls and young women.
+152.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in a continuing course of unlawful conduct.
+153.
+After Epstein's suicide, the Epstein Enterprise continued to exist as each of the
+participants continued to conspire to prevent detection of the breadth and scope of the Epstein
+Enterprise's criminal wrongdoing and to prevent accountability. These conspiratorial acts are
+ongoing.
+154.
+The conduct of the Epstein Enterprise offends the core purpose of the Virgin
+Islands Uniform Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 14 V.I.C. §131 et seq,
+and violates CICO, enacted to "curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political
+power in the Territory of the Virgin Islands by establishing new penal prohibitions and
+providing to law enforcement and the victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and
+remedies." 14 V.I.C. § 601.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 33 of 77
+
+155.
+The Epstein Enterprise is an illicit enterprise within the meaning of 14 V.I.C. §$
+604 and 605.
+156.
+The Government is entitled to recover civil penalties, damages and other
+remedies and to extinguish and recoup from the Epstein Enterprise and its participants any and
+all financial and other benefits, and any personal and real property that was used during the
+course of, or intended for use in the Course of the conduct or criminal activity in violation of the
+laws of the Virgin Islands. The Government is entitled to obtain through divestiture, forfeiture,
+or other equitable relief all properties and instrumentalities used by the Epstein Enterprise in the
+criminal pattern of trafficking and sexual abuse in the Virgin Islands, including but not limited
+to Great St. James and Little St. James, and all other remedies and penalties permitted by law in
+the interest of justice.
+F. The Epstein Enterprise Used Corporate Entities to Defraud the Government
+and Fund its Criminal Activities
+1. Defendant Southern Trust Company, Inc.
+157.
+In October 2012, the Southern Trust Company applied for economic benefits
+from the Economic Development Commission ("EDC"). The EDC is a subsidiary of the Virgin
+Islands Economic Development Authority ("EDA"), a semi-autonomous governmental
+instrumentality created and governed pursuant to 29 VIC § 1101.
+158.
+In sworn testimony at a public hearing on the tax incentive application
+conducted by the EDC on November 15, 2012, Epstein and his attorney, Ericka Kellerhals,
+described Southern Trust Company as providing "cutting edge consulting services" in the area
+of "biomedical and financial informatics."
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 34 of 77
+
+159. The EDC granted Southern Trust Company a 10-year package of economic
+incentives running from February 1, 2013 until January 31, 2023 that included a 90%
+exemption from income taxes and 100% exemptions from gross receipts, excise, and
+withholding taxes in the Virgin Islands.
+160. Between 2013 and 2019, Southern Trust Company employed 13 different
+individuals (not including Epstein). Of those 13 individuals, 11 served in administrative or
+support roles: six as personal, administrative, or executive assistants, receptionists, or as a
+driver/helper, one as an office manager, one as a clerk, and three in accounting or payroll
+functions (though only one was licensed as a certified public accountant). There was one
+network administrator/IT manager, and a second who was added in 2019.
+161.
+In fact, several of those individuals seemed to perform other personal services
+for Jeffrey Epstein. Though he was reported by Southern Trust Company to be resident of the
+Virgin Islands, the network administrator/IT manager was issued a Florida driver's license,
+which listed an address in Miami. Further, he appears, in fact, to have served as Epstein's driver
+and picked up luggage and cargo from Epstein's private planes on his behalf.
+162. Another executive assistant lived at 301 E. 66th Street, Apartment 11B, New
+York, New York. Epstein's address book lists various units in this building as providing "Apt.
+for models" and she is publicly identified as a model. As noted above, the Epstein Enterprise
+used modeling opportunities and contracts as a pretext for recruiting underage girls and young
+women into its sex trafficking scheme.
+163.
+Financial records more recently obtained show that the employee described
+above whom Kahn represented to be, alternatively,
+• was also a
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 35 of 77
+
+, which did not actually or even pretend to perform
+either
+1. in 2019.
+164.
+During several time periods, Southern Trust Company affirmed to EDC that it
+had no employees who were non-residents, even though it employed non-residents.
+165.
+Southern Trust company does not appear to have had any clients and performed
+no visible informatics services. According to financial records, it held no investments for others.
+Instead, its employees performed tasks related to any number of other Epstein-owned companies
+or properties, such as Little St. James.
+166.
+Despite having no visible clients and only one full-time employee working on
+information technology during the bulk of the period, Southern Trust Company reportedly
+generated net income of $50.3 million in 2013, $67.5 million in 2014, $52.8 million in 2015, and
+$4.8 million in 2016 and $17.1 million in 2017, with aggregate income of $117.8 million in 2014,
+$170.6 million in 2015, $175.3 million in 2016 and $192.4 million in 2017, or aggregate income
+for the period of $656 million.
+167.
+Money received by Southern Trust was then funneled, frequently by Defendant
+Indyke as authorized signatory, and often with copies given to Defendant Kahn, through other
+Epstein-owned entities and accounts, funding payments to foreign women and for credit cards,
+airplanes, and other instrumentalities of the Epstein Enterprise.
+168.
+In fact, the main source of funds for the Epstein Enterprise came from Southern
+Trust. Between 2013 and 2017, Southern Trust reported approximately $184 million in
+revenues.
+169.
+Defendants Kahn and Indyke directed and controlled the day-to-day activities of
+Southern Trust in form and in substance, serving as members of its Board of Directors, along
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 36 of 77
+
+with Epstein. Indyke was a signatory on Southern Trust's primary bank account to which funds
+were wired, primarily from a single source, as described below. Kahn, as Southern Trust's
+treasurer, oversaw its accounting, invoicing, and tax reporting. Indyke also authorized a
+majority of the wire transfers from Southern Trust's bank account in order to fund the various
+entities and personal bank accounts of Epstein, and had full inquiry capabilities over the
+account.
+170.
+Bank records show that virtually all of Southern Trust Company's income came
+from a single source (including related entities).
+171. In all, the single source paid $158 million to Defendant Southern Trust Company
+from 2013 to 2017, which constitutes 85% of the total revenues reported by Southern Trust
+Company. These funds appear to have not been used to pay for informatics or datamining
+services.
+172. These payments to Southern Trust were the main source of funds for Epstein's
+Enterprise. Indeed, no other entity in Epstein's Enterprise generated revenues. Funds received
+from the single source were funneled, at the direction of Kahn and Indyke, to Epstein's personal
+accounts, and other Epstein entities to fund his criminal activities.
+173.
+For the period between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017, Southern Trust
+Company received tax exemptions totaling $73.6 million.
+174. As of December 31, 2017, Southern Trust Company, Inc. elected to file its
+income tax as an S-corporation, which elects to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and
+credits through to its sole shareholder-Jeffrey Epstein
+-for tax purposes. For this time period,
+Epstein's income tax exemption was $71.3 million.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 37 of 77
+
+175.
+Including gross receipt taxes, the Government currently estimates that, as a
+result of the EDC incentive, Epstein was able to avoid paying $80,576,236 in taxes.
+176.
+Based upon these facts, it is clear that Southern Trust Company did not perform
+the "informatics" business represented to the EDC and could not have generated the business
+income attributable to that business. Instead, upon information and belief, Southern Trust
+Company existed to secure tax benefits for Epstein, to employ individuals associated with the
+Epstein Enterprise, and to provide a source of income to support his criminal activities and
+properties in the Virgin Islands.
+2.
+Defendants Cypress, Inc.; Maple, Inc.; and Laurel, Inc.
+177. Epstein formed Cypress, Inc.; Maple, Inc.; and Laurel, Inc. as Virgin Islands
+corporations in or about November 2011.
+178.
+As of December 31, 2018, Epstein was listed as President Director and
+Defendants and Co-Executors Indyke and Kahn were listed, respectively, as Vice President/
+Secretary/Director and Treasurer/Director of each of Cypress, Inc.; Maple, Inc.; and Laurel, Inc.
+179.
+Defendant Cypress, Inc. acquired ownership of the property 49 Zorro Ranch
+Road in Stanley, New Mexico in or about December 2011, shortly after Cypress was formed.
+180.
+Defendant Maple, Inc. acquired ownership of the property 9 East 7Ist Street in
+New York, New York on or about December 23, 2011, shortly after Maple was formed. Maple
+acquired ownership of the property from Nine East 71st Street Corporation, which was owned by
+Epstein.
+181.
+Defendant Laurel, Inc. acquired ownership of the property 358 Brillo Way in
+Palm Beach, Florida in or about December 2011, shortly after Cyrpess was formed. Laurel
+acquired ownership of the property from Epstein personally.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 38 of 77
+
+182.
+Epstein appears to have maintained divided ownership of these properties,
+transferred ownership of them to the Virgin Islands, and then concealed this fact even from
+Virgin Islands authorities in an attempt to shield the properties from any judgment in the states
+where they are located.
+183.
+The financial statements submitted by each of these three Defendant corporations
+to the Office of Lieutenant Governor of the Virgin Islands were false and misleading due to their
+failure to include the above properties owned by each company or the related expenses incurred
+by each company, such as property taxes.
+184.
+For instance, Cypress's Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2018 did not reflect
+any assets other than cash of $18,824. Further, Cypress reported only $301 in expenses for the
+year ended December 31, 2018, despite it paying
+185. Similarly, in 2017, Cypress reported as its only asset cash in the amount of
+$29,736 and expenses of $150, despite it paying
+186. Similarly, for the tax years 2011 through 2016, Cypress did not include the value
+of the New Mexico property in the total assets it reported and did not include any expenses
+related to the New Mexico property in the total expenses it reported to the Government.
+187.
+Likewise, Maple's balance sheet as of December 31, 2018 did not reflect any
+assets other than cash of $21,265. Further, Maple reported only $300 in expenses for the year
+ended December 31, 2018, despite it paying
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 39 of 77
+
+188.
+Similarly, in 2017, Maple reported as its only asset cash in the amount of
+$18,281 and expenses of $150, despite it paying
+189.
+Similarly, for the tax years 2011 through 2016, Maple did not include the value
+of the New York property in the total assets it reported and did not include any expenses related
+to the New York property in the total expenses it reported to the Government.
+190.
+Likewise, Laurel's balance sheet as of December 31, 2018 did not reflect any
+assets other than cash in the amount of $20,155. Further, Laurel reported only $300 in expenses
+for the year ended December 31, 2018, despite it paying
+191. Similarly, in 2017, Laurel reported as its only asset cash in the amount of
+$37,129 and expenses of $150, despite it paying
+192. Similarly, for the tax years 2011 through 2016, Laurel did not include the value
+of the Palm Beach property in the total assets it reported and did not include any expenses related
+to the Palm Beach property in the total expenses it reported to the Government.
+193.
+Neither Cypress's, Maple's, nor Laurel's financial statements ever reflected the
+reality of the above assets held or the above expenses incurred by each entity.
+194.
+The Annual Reports submitted on behalf of Cypress, Maple, and Laurel all were
+signed by Epstein and Defendant and Co-Executor Kahn with the representation that "ALL
+STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION, AND ANY ACCOMPANYING
+DOCUMENTS, ARE TRUE AND CORRECT ..."
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 40 of 77
+
+195.
+In fact, Indyke and Kahn knew or should have known that their attestations were
+false. Upon information and belief, particularly given the absence of any other justification for
+these transactions and the fraudulent nature of their reporting, these transactions were made for
+the sole purpose of sheltering these assets from collection.
+STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ARE TOLLED AND DEFENDANTS ARE ESTOPPED
+FROM ASSERTING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AS DEFENSES
+1.
+Equitable Estoppel and Fraudulent Concealment
+196.
+Defendants are equitably estopped from relying upon a statute of limitations
+defense for conduct that occurred prior to the limitation period because they undertook active
+efforts to deceive the Government and to purposefully conceal their unlawful conduct and
+fraudulently assure public authorities that their conduct was in compliance with the laws, all with
+the goal of avoiding punishment.
+197. Defendants were deliberate in taking steps to conceal their criminal sex
+trafficking and abuse conduct and their fraudulent conduct in obtaining unearned tax benefits
+from the Government. Defendants' acts of concealment include, but are not limited to, the
+following.
+198.
+Defendants used Epstein's secluded island of Little St. James and his later
+purchase of the nearby island of Great St. James to shield their trafficking and sexual abuse of
+young women and female children from detection by law enforcement authorities and to prevent
+their victims from escaping.
+199.
+Defendants used Epstein's private aircraft to transport young women and female
+children to the Virgin Islands and to Little St. James while limiting public observation of this
+trafficking activity.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 41 of 77
+
+200. Defendants used Epstein's businesses and ostensibly charitable foundations in
+the Virgin Islands to make payments to the victims who were trafficked and sexually abused
+while concealing these payments from detection by law enforcement authorities.
+201.
+Defendants also prevented Epstein Enterprise entity employees from cooperating
+with law enforcement by requiring them to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements.
+202.
+Defendants also actively obstructed law enforcement by denying investigators
+access to Little St. James beyond its boat dock.
+203.
+204.
+205.
+206.
+Defendants also concealed their fraud on the Government in obtaining unearned
+tax benefits by providing false testimony and submitting false and inaccurate reporting to the
+Economic Development Commission to prevent detection of Defendant Southern Trust
+Company's non-compliance with requirements concerning the nature of its business and the
+residency of the persons it employed
+207. The discovery of the nature, scope, and magnitude of Defendants' unlawful
+conduct and could not have been acquired earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 42 of 77
+
+2.
+Continuing Violations
+208.
+The continuous criminal conduct by the Defendants has caused repeated and
+continuous injury.
+209.
+Defendants criminal trafficking and sexual abuse of young women and female
+children in the Virgin Islands occurred continuously from Epstein's purchase of Little St. James
+in 1998 through his arrest and death in prison in 2019.
+210.
+Flight logs and other sources establish that between 2001 and 2019, Defendants
+transported young women and female children to the Virgin Islands, where they were then
+transported by private helicopter or boat to Little St. James.
+211.
+Air traffic controllers and airport personnel have reported seeing, as recently as
+2018, Epstein leaving his private jet with young girls who appeared to be between the ages of 11
+and 18 years.
+212. One victim was brought by Defendants more than 50 times between 2000 and
+2002, when she was around 18 to 20 years old, to Little St. James, where she was required to
+have sexual relations with Epstein or his guests multiple times per day and where she saw large
+numbers of other young women and female children subject to the same treatment.
+213.
+Another victim was brought by Defendants dozens of times between 2004 and
+2017 to Little St. James, where she too observed a succession of young women and female
+children who likewise were transported to the island and were required to have sexual relations
+with Epstein and his guests.
+214.
+Defendants' fraud on the Government in obtaining unearned tax benefits through
+Defendant Southern Trust Company likewise was continuous inasmuch as Southern Trust's
+failure to perform the informatics services that it represented to the Economic Development
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 43 of 77
+
+Commission and its false reporting of the residency and job descriptions of its employees were
+continuous from the start of the tax benefits in 2013 through Epstein's arrest and death in prison
+in 2019.
+215.
+The continued criminal conduct by Defendants has caused repeated and
+continuous injury. The criminal conduct of the Epstein Enterprise was not completed nor were
+all damages incurred until the wrongdoing ceased.
+COUNT ONE
+Human Trafficking — Trafficking an Individual
+Violation of the Crimit.. Suened send CorruV. nizations Act "CICO",
+216.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 215 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+217.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+218.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly
+recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing, obtaining, isolating,
+maintaining, or enticing female children and young women in the furtherance and performance
+of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in violation of Virgin Islands
+laws codified in 14 V.I.C. §$ 133-138.
+219.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+220.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 44 of 77
+
+221.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO.14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT TWO
+Human Trafficking — Trafficking an Individual
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 133
+222.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 221 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+223.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting human trafficking.
+224. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy by recruiting, transporting, transferring, harboring, receiving, providing,
+obtaining, isolating, maintaining or enticing female children and young women in the
+furtherance and performance of forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity in
+violation of Virgin Islands laws codified in 14 V.I.C. § 133 - 138.
+225.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+226.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 45 of 77
+
+227.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation
+of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT THREE
+Human Trafficking — Forced Labor
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 134
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 227 of this Complaint as
+228.
+if fully set forth herein.
+229.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+230.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly
+using coercion to compel underage girls and young women to provide labor or services by
+forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134.
+231.
+The Epstein Enterprise knowingly provided or obtained the labor services of
+individuals by means of force, threats of force, physical restraint, and/or threats of physical
+restraint; by means of serious harm or threats of serious harm; by means of abuse or threatened
+abuse of law or legal processes; and by means of the Epstein Enterprise with the intent to cause
+individuals to believe that, if individuals did not perform such labor or services, individuals
+would suffer serious harm or physical restraint.
+232.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly
+participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 46 of 77
+
+233.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+234.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+235.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation
+of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT FOUR
+Human Trafficking — Forced Labor
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.J.C $ 134
+236. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 235 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+237. At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting human trafficking.
+238.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy by knowingly using coercion to compel underage girls and young
+women to provide labor or services by forced labor in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 134.
+239.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 47 of 77
+
+240.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+241.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation
+of CICO. 14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+COUNT FIVE
+Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 135
+242.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 241 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+243.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+244.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly
+maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging the minors in commercial
+sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women to engage in commercial
+sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135.
+245.
+On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts,
+Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and
+recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in
+sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 48 of 77
+
+given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts
+with Epstein and others.
+246.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly
+participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+247.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+248.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+249.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation
+of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT SIX
+Human Trafficking — Sexual Servitude
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. $ 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 135
+250. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 249 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+251.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting human trafficking.
+252.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join the criminal
+conspiracy by knowingly maintaining or making available minors for the purpose of engaging
+the minors in commercial sexual activities or using coercion or deception to force young women
+to engage in commercial sexual activity in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 135.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 49 of 77
+
+253.
+On the pretext of providing modeling opportunities, careers and contracts,
+Defendants facilitated the transporting or recruiting of young women and girls or lured and
+recruited young women and underage girls to travel to the Virgin Islands where they engaged in
+sexual acts with Epstein and others. In some instances, young women and underage girls were
+given scholarships, money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts
+with Epstein and others.
+254.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+255.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+256.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation
+of CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT SEVEN
+Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seg. and 14 V.I.C §§ 136-37
+257. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 256 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+258.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 50 of 77
+
+259.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly
+giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value to young women and minors so that
+the young women and minors would engage in commercial sexual activity with Epstein, other
+Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. $$ 136-137.
+260.
+In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships,
+money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and
+others.
+261.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity directly and indirectly
+participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+262.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+263.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+264.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation
+of CICO 14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+COUNT EIGHT
+Human Trafficking — Patronizing Minors and Victims of Sexual Servitude
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C §§ 136-37
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 264 of this Complaint as
+265.
+if fully set forth herein
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 51 of 77
+
+266.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting human trafficking.
+267.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy by knowingly giving, agreeing to give, or offering to give items of value
+to young women and minors so that the young women and minors would engage in commercial
+sexual activity with Epstein, other Defendants, and other individuals in violation of 14 V.I.C. $$
+136-137.
+268.
+In some instances, young women and underage girls were given scholarships,
+money, gifts or other items of value in exchange for engaging in sexual acts with Epstein and
+others.
+269.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+270. At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+forced labor, and sexual servitude.
+271.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in said pattern of criminal
+activity that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation
+of CICO 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 52 of 77
+
+COUNT NINE
+Child Abuse and Neglect—All Defendants Except Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn
+in Their Individual Capacities
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C $$ 505, 506 and 507
+272.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 271 of this Complaint as
+if as if fully set forth herein.
+273.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+274.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, knowingly
+or recklessly causing a child to suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, or knowingly or
+recklessly causing a child to be placed in a situation where it is reasonably foreseeable that such
+child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation Virgin Islands criminal laws
+prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 er. seq.
+275.
+As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young girls suffered
+serious physical, mental and emotional injury.
+276. Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+277.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+278.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 53 of 77
+
+COUNT TEN
+Child Abuse and Neglect
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
+—All Defendants Except Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in Their Individual
+Capacities,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C §$ 505, 506 and 507
+279.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 278 of this Complaint as
+if as if fully set forth herein.
+280.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting child abuse and neglect.
+281. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the
+criminal conspiracy as they knowingly or recklessly caused a child to suffer physical, mental or
+emotional injury, or knowingly or recklessly caused a child to be placed in a situation where it is
+reasonably foreseeable that such child may suffer physical, mental or emotional injury, in violation
+Virgin Islands criminal laws prohibiting Child Abuse and Neglect in Title 14 V.I.C. § 500 et seq.
+282.
+As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young girls suffered serious
+physical, mental and emotional injury.
+283.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+284.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 54 of 77
+
+285.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT ELEVEN
+Aggravated Rape-All Defendants Except Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in
+Their Individual Capacities
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 1700a
+286.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 285 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+287.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+288.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that
+constituted or facilitated the rape of minors by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position
+of authority over the victim.
+289. Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse
+with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a.
+290.
+As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous underage girls suffered
+serious physical, mental and emotional injury.
+291.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+292.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 55 of 77
+
+293.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT TWELVE
+Aggravated Rape
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+—All Defendants Except Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in Their Individual
+Capacities,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 1700a
+294.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 293 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+295.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting aggravated rape.
+296.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of minors
+by force, intimidation, or the perpetrator's position of authority over the victim.
+297.
+Epstein and others, using force or intimidation, engaged in sexual intercourse
+with underage girls without their consent in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 1700a.
+298.
+As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous underage girls suffered serious
+physical, mental and emotional injury
+299.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 56 of 77
+
+300.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+301.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT THIRTEEN
+Rape in the Second Degree-All Defendants Except Darren K. Indyke and Richard D.
+Kahn in Their Individual Capacities
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 1702
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C § 1700a
+302.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 301 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+303. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+304.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, conduct that
+constituted or facilitated the rape of girls under 18 years of age.
+305.
+Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the
+incidents.
+306.
+As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions, numerous minors suffered serious
+physical, mental and emotional injury.
+307.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 57 of 77
+
+308.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+309.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT FOURTEEN
+Rape in the Second Degree
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+—All Defendants Except Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in Their Individual
+Capacities,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C $ 1702
+310.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 309 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+311.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting rape in the second degree.
+312. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy by engaging in conduct that constituted or facilitated the rape of girls
+under 18 years of age.
+313.
+Epstein and others who engaged in rape were over 18 years old at the time of the
+incidents.
+314.
+As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous minors suffered serious physical,
+mental and emotional injury.
+315.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 58 of 77
+
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+316.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+317.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+COUNT FIFTEEN
+Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree-All Defendants Except Darren K.
+Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in Their Individual Capacities
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
+14 V.I.C. $ 600 et seg. and 14 V.I.C §§ 1708 and 1709
+318.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 317 of this Complaint as
+if as if fully set forth herein.
+319. At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+320. The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, using or
+facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual contact or engaging in sexual
+contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age.
+321.
+Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at
+the time of the incidents.
+322.
+As a result of the Epstein Enterprise's actions numerous young women and
+minors suffered serious physical, mental and emotional injury.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 59 of 77
+
+323.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+324.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+325.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO
+14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+COUNT SIXTEEN
+Unlawful Sexual Contact in the First or Second Degree
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
+—All Defendants Except Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in Their Individual
+Capacities,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C $§ 1708 and 1709
+326. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 325 of this Complaint as
+if as if fully set forth herein.
+327.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to violate
+laws prohibiting unlawful sexual contact.
+328.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy by using or facilitating the use of force or coercion to accomplish sexual
+contact or engaging in sexual contact with a minor between 13 and 16 years of age.
+329.
+Epstein and others who engaged in the sexual contact were over 18 years old at
+the time of the incidents.
+330.
+As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered
+serious physical, mental and emotional injury.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 60 of 77
+
+331.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+332.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+333.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO
+14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+COUNT SEVENTEEN
+Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. $ 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. $$ 1622, 1624
+334. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 333 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+335.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+336.
+The Epstein Enterprise engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that
+constitute criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including the engaging in or facilitating
+the knowing and/or reckless abuse of minors through the acts alleged herein.
+337.
+The Epstein Enterprise knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, and/or coerced
+women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or sexual
+activity, and/or attempted to do the same.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 61 of 77
+
+338.
+The Epstein Enterprise kept, maintained, and/or permitted his property at Little
+St. James to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with knowledge or
+reasonable cause to know the same.
+339.
+The Epstein Enterprise received or offered or agreed to receive women and
+children at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or
+assignation, and/or permitted women and children to remain there for such purposes.
+340.
+The Epstein Enterprise directed, took, transported, and or offered or agreed to
+take or transport women and children to Little St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause
+to know that the purpose of such directing, taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or
+assignation.
+341.
+The Epstein Enterprise knew or should reasonably have known that individuals
+that were the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors.
+342.
+As a result of Defendants' actions, numerous young women and minors suffered
+serious physical, mental and emotional injury.
+343.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+344.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+345.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 62 of 77
+
+COUNT EIGHTEEN
+Prostitution and Keeping House of Prostitution
+Conspiracy to Via vite Crimesel, indue Videos lorrat Dramizations Act,
+The Government restated and realleges paragraph 1 to 345 of this Complaint as
+346.
+if fully set forth herein.
+347.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined a conspiracy to laws against
+prostitution.
+348.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in the
+criminal conspiracy by engaging in or facilitating the persuasion, inducement, enticement or
+coercion of women and children to travel to the Virgin Islands to engage in prostitution and/or
+sexual activity, and/or attempted to do the same; keeping, maintaining, and/or permitting Epstein's
+property at Little St. James, to be used for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation with
+knowledge or reasonable cause to know the same; receiving, offering, or agreeing to receive
+individuals at his property at Little St. James for the purposes of prostitution, lewdness or
+assignation, and/or permitted women and children to remain there for such purposes; and directing,
+taking, transporting, and/or offering or agreeing to take or transport women and children to Little
+St. James with the knowledge or reasonable cause to know that the purpose of such directing,
+taking or transporting was prostitution, lewdness or assignation, in violation of 14 V.I.C. $8
+1622 and 1624.
+349.
+Defendants knew or should reasonably have known that individuals that were
+the subjects of the actions described in this Count were minors.
+350.
+As a result of Defendants' actions numerous young women and minors suffered
+serious physical, mental and emotional injury.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 63 of 77
+
+351.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands
+352.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. §604(i).
+353. At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO
+14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+COUNT NINETEEN
+Sex Offender Registry-Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. $ 1721 et seq.
+354. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 353 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+355.
+Epstein was required to, and did, register under the Virgin Islands Sexual
+Offender Registration and Community Protection Act ("SORCPA") codified at 14 V.I.C. § 1721
+et seg.
+356.
+SORCPA requires that offenders required to register provide information
+relating to intended travel in foreign commerce.
+357.
+On at least two occasions, Epstein traveled to Vienna and Monaco without
+disclosing that travel to the Virgin Islands sex offender registry.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 64 of 77
+
+358.
+Epstein's failure to disclose this travel before, during, or even after his travel was
+knowing.
+359.
+Epstein's violation SORPCA was part of a pattern of criminal activity that was
+not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise. 14 V.I.C. §604(j).
+COUNT TWENTY
+Fraudulent Conveyance
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. $$ 832-833
+360.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 359 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+361.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly participated
+in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+362.
+Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute
+criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to transferring assets to
+and between various entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat,
+hinder or delay claims against them.
+363.
+Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and
+avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred
+significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust.
+364.
+At the time of these transfers, Epstein had numerous actions pending against
+him related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments.
+365.
+Through these transfers, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently
+removed property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 65 of 77
+
+366.
+Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of
+the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or
+conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise.
+367. Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or
+delay creditors and claimants, including the Government of the Virgin Islands, in collecting on
+their judgements, debts and demands
+368.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+369.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+370.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT TWENTY-ONE
+Fraudulent Conveyance
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. $§ 832-833
+371.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 370 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+372.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit
+fraudulent conveyances.
+373.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 66 of 77
+
+entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims
+against them.
+374.
+Upon information and belief, in an effort to defeat the claims of creditors and
+avoid the oversight of the court probating his estate, Epstein, days before his death, transferred
+significant assets, including assets held by other Defendants, into The 1953 Trust.
+375.
+At the time of this transfer, Epstein had numerous actions pending against him
+related to his trafficking and sexual assaults seeking financial judgments.
+376.
+Through this transfer, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise fraudulently removed
+property and effects beyond the jurisdiction of the probate court.
+377.
+Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise were parties to the fraudulent conveyance of
+the property, real or personal, and/or the interests or rights arising out of property, contracts, or
+conveyances of Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise.
+378.
+Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise acted with the intent to defeat, hinder, or
+delay the Government of the Virgin Islands and other creditors and claimants to collect on their
+judgements, debts and demands.
+379.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude and commercial sexual activity of girls and young women in
+knowing or reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+380.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 67 of 77
+
+381.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. §600 et seq.
+COUNT TWENTY-TWO
+Civil Conspiracy
+382.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 381 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+383.
+Defendants acted in concert and joined with others to perform the wrongful acts
+identified in Counts 1 to 13, among others, concealing the sexual abuse of minor females by
+unlawful means.
+384.
+Each co-conspirator knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have
+known, about the conduct of the others and about the common unlawful scheme.
+385.
+These unlawful acts could not have been carried to the length and extent
+accomplished without the common understanding shared by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise
+Defendants.
+386.
+Each of the Defendants had a duty to report, stop or terminate the wrongful
+conduct, but instead each Defendant concealed, assisted and furthered the wrongful acts by use
+of civil conspiracy.
+387.
+As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy, the Virgin Island has
+been injured.
+388.
+Each co-conspirator is jointly and severally liable for the acts alleged herein.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 68 of 77
+
+COUNT TWENTY-THREE
+Fraudulent Claims Upon the Government-Southern Trust Company, Inc.
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. § 843
+389.
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 388 of this Complaint as
+if fully set forth herein.
+390.
+At all times relevant and material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly
+participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+391.
+Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute
+criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including, but not limited to, making fraudulent
+claims upon the Government.
+392.
+The Epstein Enterprise misrepresented the purpose, activities, employment, and
+income of the Southern Trust Company, Inc., in order to obtain and maintain valuable tax
+incentives in order to fund the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. In addition, the
+Epstein Enterprise, with the active participation of Defendants Indyke and Kahn, used Southern
+Trust Company to employ, pay, and conceal the activities of participants in the criminal
+activities of the Enterprise.
+393.
+The Epstein Enterprise made and presented an application for tax incentives,
+testimony, and quarterly reports to the EDC, a commission of the Government, regarding the
+Southern Trust Company, knowing such claims to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; knowingly
+and willfully falsified, concealed or covered up material facts regarding the Southern Trust
+Company; made false or fraudulent statements or representations about the purpose, activities,
+income, and employment of Southern Trust Company; and made and submitted false affidavits
+knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 69 of 77
+
+394.
+These false statements and documents included affidavits, testimony, an
+application, and other documents that misrepresented that Southern Trust Company was
+engaged in, and failed to disclose it did not and could not carry out, in its stated purpose of
+providing consulting services in financial and biomedical informatics.
+395.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude, and commercial sexual activity of underage girls and young
+women in knowing and reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+396.
+Defendants through a pattern of criminal activity acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or real property.
+397.
+Defendants benefited, directly and indirectly, from the pattern of criminal
+398.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. § 600 et seq.
+COUNT TWENTY-FOUR
+Fraudulent Claims Upon the Government-Southern Trust Company, Inc.
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 VI.C. $ 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. $ 843
+The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 398 of this Complaint as
+399.
+if fully set forth herein.
+400.
+fraudulent conveyances.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant joined in a conspiracy to commit
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 70 of 77
+
+401.
+Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various
+entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder or delay claims
+against them.
+402.
+The Epstein Enterprise misrepresented the purpose, activities, employment, and
+income of the Southern Trust Company, Inc., in order to obtain and maintain valuable tax
+incentives in order to fund the criminal activities of the Epstein Enterprise. In addition, the Epstein
+Enterprise, with the active participation of Defendants Indyke and Kahn, used Southern Trust
+Company to employ, pay, and conceal the activities of participants in the criminal activities of
+the Enterprise.
+403.
+The Epstein Enterprise made and presented an application for tax incentives,
+testimony, and quarterly reports to the EDC, a commission of the Government, regarding the
+Southern Trust Company, knowing such claims to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent; knowingly
+and willfully falsified, concealed or covered up material facts regarding the Southern Trust
+Company; made false or fraudulent statements or representations about the purpose, activities,
+income, and employment of Southern Trust Company; and made and submitted false affidavits
+knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry.
+404.
+These false statements and documents included affidavits, testimony, an
+application, and other documents that misrepresented that Southern Trust Company was
+engaged in, and failed to disclose it did not and could not carry out, in its stated purpose of
+providing consulting services in financial and biomedical informatics.
+405.
+Defendants knowingly benefited financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 71 of 77
+
+forced labor, sexual servitude, and commercial sexual activity of underage girls and young
+women in knowing and reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+406.
+At all times material herein, each Defendant conspired with Epstein and other
+Defendants to fulfill the primary criminal purposes of the Epstein Enterprise: human trafficking,
+forced labor, and sexual servitude. 14 V.I.C. $604(j).
+407.
+At all times material herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of
+CICO. 14 V.I.C. $600 et seq.
+COUNT TWENTY-FIVE
+Fraudulent Claims Upon the Government-Cypress, Inc.; Maple, Inc.; Laurel, Inc.
+Violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. $§ 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. $ 843
+408. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 407 of this Complaint as if
+fully set forth herein.
+409. At all times relevant and material herein, each Defendant directly and indirectly
+participated in or associated with the Epstein Enterprise, an illicit enterprise.
+410. Each Defendant engaged in two or more occasions of conduct that constitute
+criminal predicate acts as defined by CICO, including but not limited to making fraudulent
+claims upon the Government.
+411.
+Defendants Cypress, Maple, and Laurel misrepresented the values of their assets
+held and expenses incurred in their annual reporting to the Government of the United States
+Virgin Islands for each of the tax years from 2011 to 2018.
+412.
+Defendant Cypress misrepresented the value of its assets held during each of these
+years by omitting the value of the 49 Zorro Ranch Road, Stanley, New Mexico property that it
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 72 of 77
+
+acquired in or about December 2011, and misrepresented the value of its expenses incurred
+during each of these years by omitting the annual amounts of property taxes it paid for the New
+Mexico property.
+413.
+Defendant Maple misrepresented the value of its assets held during each of these
+years by omitting the value of the 9 East 71st Street, New York, New York property that it
+acquired in or about December 2011, and misrepresented the value of its expenses incurred
+during each of these years by omitting the annual amounts of property taxes it paid for the New
+York property.
+414.
+Defendant Laurel misrepresented the value of its assets held during each of these
+years by omitting the value of the 358 Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida property that it acquired
+in or about December 2011, and misrepresented the value of its expenses incurred during each of
+these years by omitting the annual amounts of property taxes it paid for the Palm Beach property.
+415.
+Epstein and Defendant/Co-Executor Kahn signed each of Cypress, Maple, and
+Laurel's annual reports for these years in which they represented that "ALL STATEMENTS
+CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION, AND ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS, ARE
+TRUE AND CORRECT....
+416. Epstein appears to have maintained divided ownership of these properties,
+transferred ownership of them to the Virgin Islands, and then concealed this fact even from
+Virgin Islands authorities in an attempt to shield the properties from any judgment in the states
+where they are located
+417.
+Defendants' knowingly and willfully made false representations to the
+Government regarding the assets and expenses of Cypress, Maple, and Laurel, and their conduct
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 73 of 77
+
+in failing to inform the Government of each company's true assets and expenses, constitute fraud
+upon the Government. 14 V.I.C. § 843.
+418.
+Defendants, through a pattern of criminal activity, acquired and maintained,
+directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of the Epstein Enterprise or of real property.
+419.
+Defendants benefitted directly and indirectly from the pattern of criminal activity
+conducted by the Epstein Enterprise. Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and/or
+obtained non-financial value from participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in
+human trafficking, forced sexual servitude, and commercial sexual activity of underage girls and
+young women, in knowing and reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+420. At all material times herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
+that was not isolated but was related to the affairs of the Epstein Enterprise in violation of CICO,
+14 V.I.C. §$ 600 et seq.
+COUNT TWENTY-SIX
+Fraudulent Claims Upon the Government—Cypress, Inc.; Maple, Inc.; Laurel, Inc.
+Conspiracy to Violate the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
+14 V.I.C. §§ 600 et seq. and 14 V.I.C. § 843
+421. The Government restates and realleges paragraphs 1 to 420 of this Complaint as if
+fully set forth herein.
+422. At all material times herein, each Defendant engaged in a conspiracy to commit
+fraudulent conveyances.
+423. Each Defendant engaged in acts that revealed its intent to join and participate in
+the criminal conspiracy, including, but not limited to, transferring assets to and between various
+entities controlled by Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise to avoid, defeat, hinder, or delay claims
+against them.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 74 of 77
+
+424. These false statements and documents included annual financial statements for the
+years 2011 to 2018 submitted by each Cypress, Maple, and Laurel to the Office of Lieutenant
+Governor of the Virgin Islands that misrepresented the value of the assets held and the amount of
+the expenses incurred by each company during each of these years.
+425. Epstein appears to have maintained divided ownership of these properties,
+transferred ownership of them to the Virgin Islands, and then concealed this fact even from
+Virgin Islands authorities in an attempt to shield the properties from any judgment in the states
+where they are located.
+426.
+Defendants knowingly benefitted financially and/or obtained other non-financial
+value from their participation in the Epstein Enterprise, which has engaged in human trafficking,
+forced labor, sexual servitude, and commercial sexual activity of underage girls and young
+women, in knowing and reckless disregard of the laws of the Virgin Islands.
+Notice of Allegation of
+PUNITIVE DAMAGES
+427.
+The purpose of punitive damages in the common law is to punish the defendant
+for outrageous conduct that is reckless or intentional and to deter others from engaging in such
+conduct in the future.
+428.
+This Complaint describes intentional conduct so egregious, persistent, and
+injurious that it shocks the conscience and offends a civilized society.
+429.
+Punitive damages are especially important in the case of persons or companies
+that have so money, assets, and power that mere fines, penalties, and economic damages are
+simply not sufficient.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 75 of 77
+
+430.
+At all times material herein, Epstein and the Epstein Enterprise engaged
+repeatedly in wrongful acts which were intentional and outrageous. The Government gives
+notice that it intends to pursue the possibility of punitive damages in any jury verdict.
+PRAYER FOR RELIEF
+WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the Court:
+A.
+Enter a judgment in favor of the Government and against Defendants on all
+counts;
+B.
+Declare that Defendants, through the Epstein Enterprise, have engaged in a
+pattern of criminal activity in the Virgin Islands including but not limited to human trafficking,
+forced labor and sexual servitude of female children and young women, unlawful sexual contact,
+child sexual abuse, child abuse and neglect, rape, prostitution civil conspiracy and other offenses
+related offenses, and civil conspiracy;
+C.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 610, enforce and maintain the criminal activity liens the
+Government is filing contemporaneously with this lawsuit, or shall file in connection with this
+action:
+D.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1) and 14 V.I.C. § 141, issue an order forfeiting
+and divesting in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands all of Defendants' interests in any
+real and personal property used to facilitate the criminal enterprise carried out by the Epstein
+Enterprise, including but not limited to Little St. James Island and Greater St. James Island;
+Issue an order forfeiting to the Government of the Virgin Islands any proceeds or
+funds obtained by Defendants, whether directly or indirectly, during the course of the criminal
+activity of the Epstein Enterprise;
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 76 of 77
+
+F.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(1), require Defendants to divest themselves of any
+real property or other interests in favor of the Government of the Virgin Islands used to further
+the goals of the Epstein Enterprise;
+G.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(3) and (5), order the dissolution of the Epstein
+Enterprise, including but not limited to, order the dissolution of the corporate Defendants;
+H.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(2) enter an injunction to prevent the further
+criminal conduct, and concealment of the criminal conduct, by the Epstein Enterprise;
+I.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(a)(4), order the revocation of any and all licenses,
+permits and approvals that had been granted by any agency of the Territory, and require the
+repayment of any tax benefits that had been bestowed on any Defendant;
+J.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. §§ 607(a)(6) and 607(k), order all assets and funds of the
+Estate of Jeffrey E. Epstein be placed into receivership;
+K.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607(e), award the Government the maximum civil
+penalty for each and every violation of law committed by the Epstein Enterprise;
+L.
+Pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 607, award treble damages and all other available
+remedies, including attorneys' fees and costs;
+M.
+Award compensatory and punitive damages for Defendants' civil conspiracy;
+N.
+Void the transfer of assets as fraudulently conveyed to the The 1953 Trust;
+O.
+Award such equitable relief, including disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, as may
+be just and proper and appropriate, pursuant to 14 V.I.C. § 608(c)(4), to protect the rights of
+victims and innocent persons in the interest of justice and consistent with the purposes of CICO;
+Assess and award a judgment in favor of the Government and against the
+Defendants for attorneys' fees and costs and pre- and post-judgment interest; and
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 119-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 77 of 77
+
+Q.
+Award any and all other relief this Court deems appropriate.
+The Government demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
+RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
+DENISE N.
+1. ESQ.
+ATTORNEY GENERAL
+Dated: February 10, 2021
+Is/ Carol
+CAROL
+1, ESQ.
+Assistant Attorney General
+Virgin Islands Department of Justice
+Office of the Attorney General
+34-38 Kronprindsens Gade
+1 U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
+Email:
+(340) 774-5666 ext. 10101
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e2f02c8c68e87fd69a820785e5eb7c1a5a63fecb89eb8602113ed34ff35b8e2.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e2f02c8c68e87fd69a820785e5eb7c1a5a63fecb89eb8602113ed34ff35b8e2.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7b62f4135fa60331e47faa8811ae230f14b988c1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e2f02c8c68e87fd69a820785e5eb7c1a5a63fecb89eb8602113ed34ff35b8e2.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -7659,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0e2f02c8c68e87fd69a820785e5eb7c1a5a63fecb89eb8602113ed34ff35b8e2",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 156,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "3c84ac5da2121f79ab1627807e549c103537e8a6ad569b545871ace9a60a7f1a",
+  "output_sha256": "988c8be748c799d0fe77bc17386faea3fbf4883235cd7e345b80e2c3971eecc2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e3b0bc55c064a2f04f66366aec27c077db046d3df6a9f1e4a84344298f5d28f.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e3b0bc55c064a2f04f66366aec27c077db046d3df6a9f1e4a84344298f5d28f.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dde304d53d115496d8db5a27b1db4ef2b56cbed1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e3b0bc55c064a2f04f66366aec27c077db046d3df6a9f1e4a84344298f5d28f.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 158-96 Filed 05/23/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e3b0bc55c064a2f04f66366aec27c077db046d3df6a9f1e4a84344298f5d28f.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e3b0bc55c064a2f04f66366aec27c077db046d3df6a9f1e4a84344298f5d28f.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..06d279118baec2871caf0bdaf340e0cdc7bdfff8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e3b0bc55c064a2f04f66366aec27c077db046d3df6a9f1e4a84344298f5d28f.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0e3b0bc55c064a2f04f66366aec27c077db046d3df6a9f1e4a84344298f5d28f",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "9ff481f38cd4e53df26b53a12e89489f6b2ea3a836346cbe88ab1bd5fdaffb02",
+  "output_sha256": "53a24a307a470f99309510d54bbfdf31a3c6679db1cc6975bcf437049447a6b2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e979ec0a61accd4484432f169c42bb90ad95e9a1dab3a30b21558048fca0eac.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e979ec0a61accd4484432f169c42bb90ad95e9a1dab3a30b21558048fca0eac.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5eae2ee9113b7e2be98cca06c9d03cf880c1404a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e979ec0a61accd4484432f169c42bb90ad95e9a1dab3a30b21558048fca0eac.md
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 226-16 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+• Filed 07/24/23 Page 2 of 3
+HOME
+POLITICS
+ENTERTAINMENT
+BOOKS
+ART INNOVATION
+FOOD
+BUSINESS
+US. NEWS
+WORLD
+trending topics INNOVATION GET AMERICA BACK TO WORK ELECTION ORACLE FASHION BELTWAY BEAST
+THE DAILY
+BEAST
+READ THIS SKIP THAT
+
+CAUSES
+VIDEO:
+U.S. NEWS
+Epstein Faces Sex-Traffic
+Probe
+by Conchita Sarnoffe
+Tweet 4 Email
+53 Mone
+TEXT
+SIZE
+PRINT
+The Justice Department is investigating
+Jeffrey Epstein for child trafficking, The
+Daily Beast has learned-and has
+widened the scope of its probe to
+include a famous modeling agency.
+Hedge-fund manager Jeffrey Epstein completed
+his sentence for soliciting prostitution with a minor
+last week. But it appears his problems may not be
+over, Now The Daily Beast has learned that:
+• Federal investigators continue to
+Not Rasmus, PotrickSMallen.com /
+Newboomm
+investigate Epstein's activities, to see
+whether there is evidence of child trafficking—a far more serious charge
+than the two in his non-prosecution agreement, the arrangement between
+Epstein and the Department of Justice allowing him to plead guilty to lowerlevel state crimes. Trafficking can carry a 20-year sentence.
+• The FBI is also investigating Epstein's friend Jean Luc Brunel, whose MC2
+modeling agency appears to have been a source of giris from overseas who
+ended up on Epstein's private jets.
+Because Epstein's predatory habits stretch back many
+years and involved dozens of young-looking girls, there
+may well be more evidence to uncover.
+Under the concept of double jeopardy, Epstein can no longer be prosecuted for any of
+the charges covered by his non-prosecution agreement, in which he agreed to serve a
+short term of incarceration, fund the civil suits of named victims, and register as a sex
+offender. The victims who accepted cash settlements in these civil suits agreed not to
+testify against him or speak publicly about the case. However, new evidence developer
+by the Department of Justice on other offenses not covered by the agreement,
+including allegations by additional victims who come forward, could lead to new
+http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-29/jeffirey-epstein-feds-probe-possible-chil. 10/26/2010
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00127937
+
+
+Jeffrey Epstein InKateY°22°Cv-209 0455KBoCument 22616 Filed 07124/23 Page 3 of 3
+
+charges. There is no statute of limitations in the federal sex-trafficking law, which was
+also enacted by the state of Florida in 2002. Because his predatory habits stretch back
+many years and involved dozens of young-looking girls, there may well be more
+evidence to uncover. (Several young women who claim to be Epstein victims have
+recently contacted a Ft. Lauderdale lawyer, but to date no new civil complaints have
+been filed.)
+These new developments come one
+• Conchita Sarnoff: The
+Billionaire Pedphile's Sex
+Den
+Free
+week after the publication of two articles
+in The Daily Beast about Epstein's
+pattern of sexual contact with underage
+• Billionaire Pedophile Goes
+girs, which Palm Beach police began
+investigating in 2005 and the U.S.
+Attorney's office then settled in a 2007
+plea deal. The first article quoted a
+deposition by then-Paim Beach Chief of Police Michael Reiter, in which he stated that
+Epstein, a billionaire with many powerful friends, had received special treatment in both
+his plea deal and the terms of his incarceration. Although federal investigators at one
+point produced a draft 53-page indictment against Epstein, he was eventually allowed
+to plead guity to only two relatively minor state charges and receive a short term of
+incarceration: 13 months in the county jail, during which he went to the office every
+day, and one year of community control, during which he traveled frequently to New
+York and his private island in the Virgin Islands.
+The Daily Beast has now discovered another instance in which Epstein apparently
+received special consideration: As a convicted sex offender, he is required by law to
+undergo an impartial psychological evaluation prior to sentencing and to receive
+psychiatric treatment during and after incarceration. This is because child molesters
+tend to be repeat offenders with high rates of recidivism. According to a source in law
+enforcement, however, Epstein was allowed to submit a report by his private
+psychologist, Dr. Stephen Alexander of Palm Beach, Florida, whose phone has since
+been disconnected with no forwarding information.
+The Daily Beast's second article provided details about Epstein's systematic abuse of
+underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion, where members of his staff allegedly
+recruited and paid a parade of teenagers, most of them 16 or younger, to perform daily
+massages that devolved into masturbation, groping, and sometimes full-blown sexual
+contact. It also revealed a monetary relationship between Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel
+a frequent visitor to whom he gave $1 million around the same time that Brunel was
+starting his MC2 modeling agency. Some of the young giris MC2 recruited from
+overseas-often from Eastern Europe and South America-are known to have been
+passengers on Epstein's private jets.
+The U.S. Attorney General's Office in Florida says that it is against policy to confirm or
+deny the existence of an investigation. Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, Jack Goldberger, says
+he has no knowledge of an ongoing probe, and he told The Daily Beast, "Jeffrey
+Epstein has fully complied with all state and federal requirements that arise from the
+prior proceedings in Palm Beach. There are no pending civil lawsuits. There are not
+and should not be any pending criminal investigations, given Mr. Epstein's complete
+fulfillment of all the terms of his non-prosecution agreement with the federal
+government."
+Conchita Samoff has developed multimedia communication programs for Fortune 500
+http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-29/jeffrey-epstein-feds-probe-possible-chil. 10/26/2010
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00127938
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e979ec0a61accd4484432f169c42bb90ad95e9a1dab3a30b21558048fca0eac.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e979ec0a61accd4484432f169c42bb90ad95e9a1dab3a30b21558048fca0eac.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fa0fa2fad0c66ac19eb061e4b020d5f51214749d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0e979ec0a61accd4484432f169c42bb90ad95e9a1dab3a30b21558048fca0eac.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -94,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0e979ec0a61accd4484432f169c42bb90ad95e9a1dab3a30b21558048fca0eac",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 9,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "cd42725e267be74ecc90b27e140478f82117c9549ae1c3e0bd9d08f215d7ed05",
+  "output_sha256": "ec68e1e9ca755fc687039c0ef6d3961661c526030ef42607675dfc13b4febdf0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0eb8a52c73284b5c63fe57f5d0d745d75ab17a77b6648ec8126ebed6540bdd24.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0eb8a52c73284b5c63fe57f5d0d745d75ab17a77b6648ec8126ebed6540bdd24.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..aa7d65c6539f76eb9b29576fcf6899bcf7bad00e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0eb8a52c73284b5c63fe57f5d0d745d75ab17a77b6648ec8126ebed6540bdd24.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 240-3 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 1
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0eb8a52c73284b5c63fe57f5d0d745d75ab17a77b6648ec8126ebed6540bdd24.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0eb8a52c73284b5c63fe57f5d0d745d75ab17a77b6648ec8126ebed6540bdd24.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..09e6fd106210b088aede61aaf6c175afe9671fa8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0eb8a52c73284b5c63fe57f5d0d745d75ab17a77b6648ec8126ebed6540bdd24.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0eb8a52c73284b5c63fe57f5d0d745d75ab17a77b6648ec8126ebed6540bdd24",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "19c87d6152f6e4f6f22fce84c09b960bb8bf250967e9b9b15282ffad61be7c5c",
+  "output_sha256": "509290c6ec77dc18c2ed1613d41062c32d316abc8163ff83db808ccdd14f9275",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ec2d37b5175436d396220de770b567f9cd08721e9b199bc1108ce7f3392c0c4.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ec2d37b5175436d396220de770b567f9cd08721e9b199bc1108ce7f3392c0c4.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e28dab8f4989d89251b6868bc4462a3e4de4a56e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ec2d37b5175436d396220de770b567f9cd08721e9b199bc1108ce7f3392c0c4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-155 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-155 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 6
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+, Jonathan
+3/16/2011 11:00:52 PM
+Cutler, Stephen M [stephen.m.cutler@jpmorgan.com]
+Re:
+Is that a rhetorical question? :-)
+From: Cutler, Stephen M
+To:
+Jonathan
+Sent: Wed Mar 16 19:00:13 2011
+Subject: Re:
+He's settled 16 private lawsuits on this stuff!?
+From:
+• Jonathan
+To: Cutler, Stephen M
+Sent: Wed Mar 16 18:57:11 2011
+Subject: Re:
+The articles are indeed pretty definitive but, according to Jay, don't seem to have any basis. I'll try to call the US Attorney
+tomorrow and circle back.
+From: Cutler, Stephen M
+To:
+Jonathan
+Sent: Wed Mar 16 18:43:51 2011
+Subject: RE:
+Sorry. I somehow missed that; just found it. Those articles seem to be pretty definitive about the existence of a current
+investigation. Also hate that the Prince won't be seen with him any longer.
+From:
+Jonathan
+›ent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:38 Pl
+To: Cutler, Stephen I
+Subject: Re:
+key temporal point. I will talk to Nina, too, since I think it would be good for her to weigh in, too.
+From: Cutler, Stephen M
+To:
+Jonathan
+Sent: Wed Mar 16 18:28:07 2011
+Subject: RE:
+Okay on US Atty.
+Talk to Nina, but they don't like dealing with folks who create reputational issues.
+Pis send me articles.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00274527
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-155 Filed 09/08/23 Page 3 of 6
+From:
+, Jonathan
+Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:25 PM
+To: Cutler, Stephen M
+Subject: Re:
+Privileged
+I think it's important to know if there's a new investigation or if this is just a re-hash of incidents covered by his plea/nonpros. So I would call the US Attorney. Give him a try? Also, I continue to wonder what standards/precedents are in PB
+From: Cutler Stephen M
+To:
+, Jonathan
+Sent: Wed Mar 16 10:23:46 2011
+Subject: Re:
+What do you think?
+Also, I never saw articles other than the one about the woman here.
+From:
+Jonathan
+To: Cutler, Stephen M
+Sent: Wed Mar 16 10:14:07 2011
+Subject: FW:
+Do you want me to reach out to the US Attorney or anyone else?
+From:
+• Jonathan
+Sent: 15 March 2011 12:34
+To: Cutler, Stephen M
+Subject: Re:
+Privileged
+Spoke with Jay. He represented Epstein in state plea/fed NPA process, has been handling related civil cases, and still
+represents him today. Said that he and Epstein have heard nothing to suggest that there is current FBI or other law
+enforcement agency investigation. Believes any pre-plea conduct is subsumed within plea/NPA. Acknowledges that there
+could be current investigation he doesn't know about but doesn't think likely. Let me know if you want me to do anything
+else, including trying to reach US Attorney for SD FL, whom I worked with at DOJ in former lives. Not sure he'd tell me
+anything.
+From: Cutler, Stephenn
+L Jonathar
+Sent: Tue Mar 15 07:27:58 2011
+Subject: RE:
+We need to come to closure on this. Have you talked to Lefkowitz?
+From: |
+• Jonathan
+Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 7:26 AM
+To: Cutler, Stephen M
+Subject: Re:
+Privileged
+
+690882H
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00274528
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-155 Filed 09/08/23 Page 4 of 6
+It is all very unseemly (to say the least) and doesn't exactly make me think of the statement from JPM on many an
+executive's wall. I would like to know nonetheless if there's actually a live federal investigation (via Lefkowitz or the
+USAO). Also, I have no idea what the standards and precedents are within the PB. Is there the equivalent of an RRC
+committee or some other client review process? Does Nina have a view? Wouldn't want to single this client out. But all in
+all, not one good thing about this.
+From: Cutler Stephen M
+To:
+, Jonathan
+Sent: Wed Mar 09 00:57:31 2011
+Subject: Re:
+When you look at all this stuff, where do you come out?
+From:
+Jonathan
+To: Cutler, Stephen M
+Cc: Langford, William D
+Sent: Tue Mar 08 16:02:32 2011
+Subject: Fw:
+Pls see email/link below and what next, if anything, you'd like me to do.
+Fo: i Staley, Jes
+, Jonathan
+Sent: Tue Mar 08 15:50:02 2011
+Subject: Fw:
+Fyi
+From: Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>
+To: Staley, Jes
+Sent: Tue Mar 08 15:31:44 2011
+Subject:
+Jeffrey and Ghislaine: Notes on New York's Oddest Alliance
+<http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/03/notes-onnew-yorks-oddest-couple-jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislainemaxwell.html>
+by Vicky
+"I've got a story idea for you. The rebuilding of Indonesia. Or New Orleans. Or both. Go there. I've just been.
+You will never think the same way about anything again."
+So spoke not Bill or Melinda Gates, but Ghislaine Maxwell, the 48-year-old woman being written up
+everywhere at the moment as the alleged "procurer" of young women for billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.
+Epstein, 57, is the financier who spent a year in jail on charges of soliciting prostitutes--and now there is talk of
+another investigation because various women, now in their twenties and thirties, have come forward with
+allegations that he molested them when they were under-age. The allegations first surfaced in British
+newspapers, which have zeroed in on Epstein's friendship with Prince Andrew, who has recently tried to
+publicly disassociate himself from his old pal.
+I wrote a piece for Vanity Fair in 2003 called "The Talented Mr. Epstein." It was largely a business piece that
+focused on his mysterious exit from Bear Stearns in 1981, his close relationships with Jimmy Cayne, Les
+Wexner, the chairman of Limited Brands, and above all, the man who claimed to be his mentor, Steven Jude
+Hoffenberg, who is currently serving a 20-year-jail sentence for bilking investors in Towers Financial out of
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00274529
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-155 Filed 09/08/23 Page 5 of 6
+$450 million.
+The piece alluded to Epstein's great friendship with Maxwell, and how she introduced him to young women
+with whom he had sexual relationships. But, in the end, the story didn't really go there, focusing instead on the
+issue that remains a mystery—how Jeffrey made his money, and how Ghislaine made hers.
+This is not to say I didn't hear stories about the girls. I did. But, not knowing quite who to believe, I
+concentrated on the intriguing financial mystery instead. But now the women have come back. Not the same
+ones, different ones. And their stories are bone-chilling. Journalists from England have phoned-and, in one
+case, flown-to ask me about Epstein and Maxwell. Who is he? And the British, especially, want to know: Who
+is she? At this point, I am so bored of repeating myself to others-it was, after all, my 2003 Vanity Fairstory
+that really brought him into the limelight-that I have decided to write about this myself.
+Bizarrely, perhaps, I have gotten to know Jeffrey and Ghislaine far better after my piece than before it. I kept
+running into both of them, separately, at parties. Jeffrey is not a social animal so he usually has a couple of
+young women with him who stand two feet behind him, as if serving a monarch. "Do they speak?" I remember
+asking him once, nodding at his lookalike blondes. He laughed. "Not like you, Vicky," was his riposte.
+I remembered that when we'd once discussed math—in particular, an isosceles triangle-and I revealed I hadn't
+studied math since I was 14 (such is, or was, the way of the British educational system), I received a package at
+home via messenger. It was a book: "Math for idiots."
+So he is not without humor, even though he doesn't drink or smoke, and hates restaurants.
+"Jeffrey knows a good deal about most subjects," newspaper publisher Mort Zuckerman told me last week. He
+was certainly preaching to the converted. The truth is, Epstein does know a lot about a lot of things. Just a few
+moments in his company and you know this to be true.
+When I saw pictures of Prince Andrew walking in Central Park with Jeffrey, my immediate thought was that
+"Andy"—as Jeffrey calls him-is probably asking for help with his role as British trade envoy, or whatever his
+strange title is. Because if one thing's for sure: When it comes to international business, Jeffrey knows what
+he's talking about far more than "Andy" does. Which is why
+Black, Mort Zuckerman and a few other
+financiers hang out with him.
+And Ghislaine?
+Full disclosure: I like her. Most people in New York do. It's almost impossible not to.
+She is always the most interesting, the most vivacious, the most unusual person in any room. I've spent hours
+talking to her about the third world at a bar until zam. She is as passionate as she is knowledgeable. She is
+curious. She has spent weeks at the bottom of the ocean, literally going deeper than anyone else. She has sent
+me a DVD of the fish there. Her rolodex would blow away almost anyone else's I can think of-probably even
+Rupert Murdochs'. She is very well-read and can talk about most things for hours. She is passionate about Bill
+Clinton with whom she is close friends.
+Yet, touchingly, when she had to give a speech at the 40th birthday party of her best friend, Ariadne Calvo-
+Platero, (known fondly to her close friends as "the Tennis Goddess") Ghislaine shook a little with nerves. When
+it comes down to things she really cares about-and Ariadne is one of them--Ghislaine shows her vulnerability.
+And that vulnerability is key to understanding her friendship with Jeffrey.
+"He saved her," I remember a close friend of mine telling me. "When her father died, she was a wreck;
+inconsolable. And then Jeffrey took her in. She's never forgotten that-and never will."
+In many ways, the socially awkward Epstein with his big house, plane, island and ranch was the perfect
+replacement for her father, the late Robert Maxwell, newspaper tycoon and criminal. Sure, Jeffrey had his
+sexual pecadillos, but then Ghislaine's father was not without his oddities. After all, it was he who died leaving
+a massive "black hole" he'd fraudulently created. To Ghislaine, Jeffrey's habits may not have seemed that
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00274530
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-155 Filed 09/08/23 Page 6 of 6
+strange.
+In fact, she probably figured, rather like I have, after years of writing about he very rich, that most successful
+eople in the end either have some weird habit (the late Bruce Wasserstein had the weight issues, the gir
+ssues, and moved countries to avoid paving tax), or thev break the law (
+Waksal, Martha Stewart.) You
+don't tend to get to the top by being the world's most balanced human being. Even the folksy
+didn't quite manage a normal life-whatever that is. He had a second "wife" for many years whose existence he
+has been open about.
+So what to make of the current fuss over Ghislaine? I haven't spoken to her or to Jeffrey, but I suspect that her
+loyalty to friends like Bill Clinton will keep her in good stead, in the end, she'll be out and about as always. Look
+at Waksal and Stewart. No one sees them and thinks: criminal. Au contraire. In this city, money makes up for
+all sorts of blemishes.
+.. ..
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
+...
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ec2d37b5175436d396220de770b567f9cd08721e9b199bc1108ce7f3392c0c4.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ec2d37b5175436d396220de770b567f9cd08721e9b199bc1108ce7f3392c0c4.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..631aad787755ff02ab92dfa38012ceb355867ccc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ec2d37b5175436d396220de770b567f9cd08721e9b199bc1108ce7f3392c0c4.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -125,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ec2d37b5175436d396220de770b567f9cd08721e9b199bc1108ce7f3392c0c4",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 13,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.dehyphenation.join-soft-wraps\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "03941610bd75a210c1948e89fca297534697688f55a7ab10b1d540148026b7fa",
+  "output_sha256": "78c47d17f47434c890ef50b28148955d85127923277fb24e42b6d3b907ab3db0",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ecb5e478191c9ee80a0a3a557381bc40ce112ee14e9c31ecca841d708e9f200.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ecb5e478191c9ee80a0a3a557381bc40ce112ee14e9c31ecca841d708e9f200.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..133f8bb378b05e08b664f33772dd11f801b7d215
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ecb5e478191c9ee80a0a3a557381bc40ce112ee14e9c31ecca841d708e9f200.md
@@ -0,0 +1,592 @@
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 1 of 11
+1
+N61 BDEUC
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+- X
+JANE DOES,
+Plaintiffs,
+V.
+DEUTSCHE BANK
+AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al,
+Defendants.
+22 Civ. 10018 (JSR)
+-X
+Conference
+New York, N.Y.
+June 1, 2023
+4:00 p.m.
+Before:
+HON. JED S. RAKOFF,
+District Judge
+APPEARANCES
+BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
+Attorneys for Plaintiffs
+BY: DAVID BOIES
+PAUL CASSELL
+ANDREW VILLACASTIN
+-AND-
+LEHRMAN, PLIC
+Attorneys for Plaintiffs
+BY: BRITTANY
+J.
+ROPES & GRAY, LLP
+Attorneys for Defendants
+BY: JAMES P. DOWDEN
+ANDREW CASHMORE
+DAVID B. HENNES
+LISA H. BEBCHICK
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 2 of 11
+2
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+(Case called; appearances noted)
+THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone.
+We're here on
+the proposed preliminary approval of the settlement with
+Deutsche Bank, and I had some questions -- and I guess I'1l
+direct them first to plaintiffs' counsel, although I'm happy to
+have answers from either side. I did not see anywhere in your
+proposed settlement order, approval order, or anywhere else
+even in your papers an express statement of who the class
+consist of; such as a sentence that says, the class consist of
+X. Now one would have thought that that would be the most
+elementary item that should have been included given that this
+is a proposed settlement of a class. So if I missed it, point
+it out to me, but I don't see it.
+MR. BOIES: Your Honor, we agree completely. It is
+the most elemental thing. It is stated in the complaint, and
+we probably should have included it.
+THE COURT: This is nothing to do with the complaint.
+Lots of things are stated in the complaint that are challenged.
+The closest you come, is near as I can tell, is in your
+proposed notice where -- let me find that. Hold on one minute.
+You say -- you address it to "all victims of Jeffrey Epstein
+sex trafficking venture during the time period between August
+19, 2013 to August 10, 2019, " but that clearly is not a
+sufficient definition of a class.
+Then you say in page two of your proposed notice under
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 3 of 11
+3
+N61 BDEUC
+the heading "Description of the litigation and the class," you
+say -- you don't define the class, but you say the proposed
+settlement if approved by the Court will settle claims of the
+class as defined on pages blank below. So then I looked
+through all the unnumbered pages hoping to find a definition of
+a class. And the best I could find on page four under the
+heading, How do I know if I am a class member. And you say "If
+you were abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and/or his
+associates during the period between August 19, 2013 and August
+10, 2019, inclusive and are not otherwise excluded, you are a
+class member."
+Now, if I'm someone reading this, let's say I'm
+someone who had consensual sex with Jeffrey Epstein when I was
+a minor, am I covered?
+MR. BOIES: I think that is an excellent question,
+your Honor. I would direct the Court's attention first to page
+six of the stipulation of settlement.
+THE COURT: All right. Let me look at that. Hang on.
+I've got your proposed order, and I've got your memorandum of
+law and this was, if I recall, an exhibit. Let me see if my
+law clerk has a copy.
+MR. CASHMORE: Your Honor, we may. I'll furnish a
+copy. May I approach? Thank you.
+THE COURT: All right. Page six of the stipulation of
+settlement.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 4 of 11
+4
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. BOIES: Look under definitions at the bottom of
+the page, 1.4.
+THE COURT: So there -- this of course is not part of
+the order you gave me asking me to approve this. But in any
+event the stipulation says, class means all women who were
+sexually abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein during the
+time when Deutsche Bank maintained bank accounts for Epstein
+from August 19, 2013 to August 10, 2019. Defendants stipulate,
+agree and consent to the definition of class for the sole
+purpose of the settlement and without prejudice, etc., etc.
+So I'll put to you the same question I just put
+before, if I am a minor and I had during the relevant period
+consensual sex with Jeffrey Epstein, am I covered or not?
+MR. BOIES: You would be covered, your Honor, and I
+think --
+THE COURT: I think it's clear from those who know the
+statute and all like that that you would be covered, but this
+is something that's being sent to the victims and they wouldn't
+have the slightest idea.
+MR. BOIES: I think you're exactly right, your Honor.
+I think that that is a lapse and that should be explained.
+THE COURT: And the term "traffic" again is a term of
+art that some of the victims might understand and some might
+not. So the point of this is that I'm disappointed in the
+notice. I'm disappointed in the proposed order, and we will
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 5 of 11
+need to get them revised promptly to make them more helpful.
+Now let me ask a different question which is, if
+someone puts in a claim, do I understand it's the claims
+administrator who determines whether they're a member of the
+class?
+5
+MR. BOIES: There are two tiers.
+THE COURT: Right. But who determines whether someone
+is in tier one, tier two, or not in any tier?
+MR. BOIES: The first tier is a tier that we submit to
+the claims administrator placed on our records, and the claim
+administrator accepts that unless the claims administrator has
+some reason to question whether the individual is an eligible
+member of the class.
+With respect to tier two, that is something where a
+class member has to fill out a form, and the claims
+administrator will then analyze the form and take into account
+whatever additional information the class member provides.
+THE COURT: So my question then is, why should I turn
+this over to a claims administrator? And what can you tell me
+as to why I should select this particular claims administrator?
+MR. BOIES: Those are obviously two different
+questions.
+THE COURT: That's true.
+MR. BOIES: With respect to the second question, this
+is somebody who I think has done this -- very experienced, has
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 6 of 11
+6
+done this before. I think both parties have confidence in her.
+We can obviously present her to the Court.
+THE COURT: Let me ask this, first of all, what does
+she charge?
+MR. BOIES: We have a budget for that, your Honor.
+She is relatively reasonable and --
+THE COURT: Of course you're saying that from the
+perspective of the lawyers in this case, but I understand that.
+MR. BOIES: The defendants are paying half her cost,
+so they have an incentive to ensure that it is not --
+THE COURT: There we go. Did you or your friends,
+your former adversaries now your bosom pals, consider anyone
+else?
+MR. BOIES: We did. There was another person who was
+involved in the mediation who we considered. We also
+considered a number of other people at various stages, and I
+think that there was a consensus that this was somebody who was
+very experienced, was relatively reasonable in terms of time.
+THE COURT: When I've appointed, for example, special
+masters, I always insist on two things. One is that the
+parties present me with three candidates. And second that if I
+don't like any of the three, I'll choose the fourth. And given
+that the claims administrator here is going to be making in
+effect quasi legal determinations, under tier two at least, I
+think that's the way I'd like to proceed.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 7 of 11
+7
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. BOIES: Very well, your Honor. We'll do that.
+THE COURT: Okay. So the last question I have -- and
+I don't want to be misunderstood. I thought that there were
+many, many respects in which this was an excellent settlement,
+and I appreciate the hard work of counsel in reaching it -- 30
+percent seems awfully high.
+MR. BOIES: I think in some respects it is, your
+Honor. It is a number that finds a lot, as the Court is aware,
+support both in this --
+THE COURT: Well, there are cases all over the lot.
+I
+think it turns on many factors and the case law says as much,
+for example, in the Petrobas Securities fraud case where the
+attorneys ask -- after a very extensive discovery and motion
+practice, far more than what was involved here -- recover the
+huge sum of $3.2 billion, they nevertheless felt that the most
+they should ask for was 10 percent. And I felt after review
+that I should give them six percent, six percent of 3.2
+billion -- one of the main partners involved has since retired.
+I can well understand why, but I do think this was excellent
+work. As I said, I don't want to be misunderstood, but 30
+percent strikes me as a little rich under the circumstances.
+MR. BOIES: I think one of the things is that when we
+put in our fee application, we obviously will have lodestar
+cross check. And I think the Court will see that this is
+something that -- there's been a tremendous amount of work done
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 8 of 11 |
+8
+in this case, including before the case was filed.
+THE COURT: That's a fair point. That actually leads
+me to, I said the last was my final question, but I lied. You
+know now a lot of the victims. I understand that. But I'm not
+so clear how you will effectively reach other victims.
+MR. BOIES: We have two basic approaches. And just as
+background to the Court, during the years in question, Jeffrey
+Epstein's focus in terms of the women that he was trafficking
+and recruiting shifted from what it had been in earlier years,
+and he was focusing to a very, very large extent on women and
+girls from Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, the Ukraine.
+THE COURT: I saw that in your papers, yeah.
+MR. BOIES: So one of the complications of the case
+was dealing with a class like this, and we have really two ways
+of approaching that. First and most important, we have a great
+deal of information about individuals who had some kind contact
+with Jeffrey Epstein during this period. That comes from, not
+only the claims that were submitted to the estate, it comes
+from looking at emails, looking at the records from various
+governmental investigations to the extent we have access to
+them.
+The records, we took discovery of Jeffrey Epstein's
+estate, and we have records from that. So we have considerable
+amount of information about women who had some contact. And
+what we are going to do is try to contact each one of them,
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 9 of 11|
+9
+even though they may not be a class member, but to give them
+notice of this and give them an opportunity to submit a claim.
+Second, we've identified newspapers in Poland, the
+Ukraine and Russia, and assuming that we can get --
+THE COURT: Assuming the newspaper is still being
+published in the Ukraine.
+MR. BOIES: And make sure that we don't get sanction
+for taking an ad in a Russian newspaper, we're going to publish
+notices there. In addition to that, as part of the
+investigation of this, we've had investigators who have
+contacted women in each of these three countries. And we are
+going to use them to help identify people.
+THE COURT: That sounds very helpful. So I'm happy to
+hear anything any counsel wants to add, but here's my view --
+and I will note for the record I very carefully reviewed the
+submissions. I need to get from you -- and you tell me how
+long you need, but it shouldn't be a long time -- a revised
+notice and a revised proposed order that sets out the class,
+and sets it out with enough specificity and particularity that
+anyone looking at it who's not a lawyer could understand
+whether they're a potential member of the class or not.
+Secondly, I need a proposal of three people to be the
+claims administrator, with not only their CVs and experience,
+but also how much they're charging. And I think for now -- one
+thing I like was the notice did recite what you were asking for
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 10 of 11|
+10
+N61 BDEUC
+in attorney's fees. I'm not at all sure I'm going to give you
+30 percent, but I haven't ruled it out, so I think the notice
+should, as it does, reflect that's what you're asking for. So
+if anyone wants to object, they can object. So I don't need
+anything more now on that, but I will, as you correctly
+intuited, want to follow-up later on with a lodestar check.
+So
+how quickly can you get me the two things I need?
+MR. BOIES: We can get you the revised notice very
+quickly. We can give you that on Monday for sure. The issue
+in terms of coming up with the three people --
+MR. DOWDEN: Your Honor, we would be amendable for ten
+days to get both of those to you. I think it's going to take
+us a little bit of time to make sure the additional --
+THE COURT: By my standard that's a little slow, but
+all right. So, let's see, today is the Ist, so that will be
+June 11. Assuming those are satisfactory to the Court, then I
+would be inclined to preliminarily approve the settlement, and
+also of course let you know whether we'll need a hearing on the
+three candidates or whether I can decide that just from the
+papers. So anything else we need to take up today?
+MR. DOWDEN: Your Honor, one other thing, I think June
+I1th is a Sunday.
+THE COURT: Yes, your normal working day. So the 12th
+is the -- is the 12th a holiday?
+MR. DOWDEN: No, it's not.
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 192 Filed 06/20/23 Page 11 of 11
+11
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+THE COURT: That's right. It's the next week. I'm
+sorry. What's the next business day? That would be the 12th or
+the 13th?
+MR. DOWDEN: The 12th, your Honor.
+THE COURT: The 12th then is fine. Okay. Very good.
+Anything else anyone else needs to raise with the Court?
+MR. BOIES: No. Thank you, your Honor.
+MR. DOWDEN: Thank you, your Honor.
+(Adjourned)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ecb5e478191c9ee80a0a3a557381bc40ce112ee14e9c31ecca841d708e9f200.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ecb5e478191c9ee80a0a3a557381bc40ce112ee14e9c31ecca841d708e9f200.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8c8cce1292a93c5605315c2931ebe82599ee3524
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ecb5e478191c9ee80a0a3a557381bc40ce112ee14e9c31ecca841d708e9f200.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -744,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ecb5e478191c9ee80a0a3a557381bc40ce112ee14e9c31ecca841d708e9f200",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 12,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "780718153f7862bbf8f088e69f12278604cee20cfa57ed7f51a91d097a4258a8",
+  "output_sha256": "c3ec2db0a677ed00f4b1bff78abddeadb586846cee4bd692c996889219f0e792",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edb60989e0780da0e7af55dd46c824b3504b98008ab226acf7ed6f9dc491da7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edb60989e0780da0e7af55dd46c824b3504b98008ab226acf7ed6f9dc491da7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4b5b5181880e8a709ad8d54ac03a96f9e90f7496
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edb60989e0780da0e7af55dd46c824b3504b98008ab226acf7ed6f9dc491da7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,308 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 270-16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 6
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+Case 1:2209Y10904t9a 1Dacumersł7ant6 Ejleф9%@zt iRage@lêr
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
+STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS
+)
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant/Third-
+Party Plaintiff.
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
+Third-Party
+Plaintiff,
+1:22-cv-10904-JSR
+VS.
+JAMES EDWARD STALEY,
+Third-Party
+Defendant.
+FRIDAY, JULY 14, 2023
+CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANI IO PROTECTIVE ORDER
+-
+-
+-
+Remote videotaped deposition of
+Jonathan
+1, held remotely at the
+location of the witness in New York, New
+York, commencing at 9:34 a.m. Eastern Time,
+on the above date, before Carrie A.
+Registered Diplomate Reporter and Certified
+Realtime Reporter.
+-
+GOLKOW LITIGATION SERVICES
+877.370.3377 ph | 917.591.5672 fax
+deps@golkow.com
+25
+Page 1
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:2209Y10904t9a 1Documersł7anł6 EjleфQ%Qzł iRageBrºlêr
+out of law school?
+A.
+My first job was as a law clerk
+to Judge Harry T.
+on the US Court of
+Appeals in DC.
+e. Did you have another clerkship
+after that?
+A.
+I did. I clerked for Thurgood
+Marshall on the US Supreme Court.
+e.
+Okay. And what did you do
+after you clerked for Justice Marshall?
+A.
+I joined the law firm of
+Day in its New York office.
+e.
+sorry, sir.
+How long were you at -- I'm
+Go ahead.
+A.
+It was approximately 18 months.
+And I next went to the
+US Attorney's Office for the Southern
+District of New York. I was an assistant
+US Attorney in the criminal division.
+e.
+That's a prosecutor's office?
+A.
+Correct. They do civil cases,
+too, but I was on the criminal side.
+e.
+And after you left the
+US Attorney's Office for the Southern
+Page 9
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+District of New York, what was your next job?
+A.
+I was detailed, as they called
+it at the Department of Justice, to main
+justice in Washington, DC, and I joined the
+Office of the Deputy Attorney General. And I
+spent - that detail lasted for six years. I
+was a main justice in the deputy's office.
+e.
+Did you work directly with the
+Attorney General during that time period?
+A.
+There were times when I did,
+yes.
+Okay.
+General at that time?
+Who was the Attorney
+A.
+Janet Reno.
+e.
+After you left that role, what
+was your next job?
+A.
+My first general counsel job
+came then. I became the general counsel of
+Napster in, I believe, the spring of 2001.
+l.
+And how long were you at
+Napster?
+A.
+e.
+Until the summer of 2002.
+Okay. And then did you take
+another job after that?
+A.
+I did.
+Page 10
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+recollection of there being a rash of
+stories, you know, that did involve Prince
+Andrew.
+Now I see President Clinton at that
+time frame.
+And the sort of flavor of those
+tabloid stories, in part, was prominent
+people hanging out with somebody like Jeffrey
+Epstein who had engaged in bad conduct.
+So I think that's a long way of
+I think saying yes to your question.
+Thanks.
+All right. In the very top
+e-mail in IX161, you refer to Jay Lefkowitz,
+but then you also say, "Another possible call
+is to Willy Ferrer, the US Attorney in
+Southern District of Florida. Used to be one
+of Reno's special assistants, and very nice
+person."
+Do you see that?
+A.
+I see it, yes.
+e.
+A.
+Did you ever call Mr. Ferrer?
+I don't have a recollection of
+speaking to him. I know there's later
+e-mails in which I'm reporting that I did,
+but I -- even having seen that -- those
+e-mails saying I spoke to him, I don't recall
+Page 51
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+speaking to him.
+e.
+Do you believe it's likely that
+your connections in the Department of Justice
+is one of the reasons that you were asked to
+get involved in the Epstein issues at
+JPMorgan?
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+MR. GAIL: Objection.
+THE WITNESS: I don't -- I
+don't believe so. I don't have any
+specific -- I don't have any
+recollection to suggest that that's
+the case.
+QUESTIONS BY MR. WOHLGEMUTH:
+e.
+You don't dispute, though, that
+here is an e-mail in which you are referring
+to someone that you knew from your time at
+the Department of Justice, correct?
+A.
+I am doing that in this e-mail,
+yes.
+e.
+And Mr. Lefkowitz is -- did you
+also know Mr. Lefkowitz from your time in
+government?
+A.
+No. No, I knew -- I think I
+testified earlier I met Jes -- excuse me. I
+met Jay Lefkowitz in the 1980s through mutual
+Page 52
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edb60989e0780da0e7af55dd46c824b3504b98008ab226acf7ed6f9dc491da7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edb60989e0780da0e7af55dd46c824b3504b98008ab226acf7ed6f9dc491da7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e30ce45b6131d4ea45c30efffe13e361430ccb6a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edb60989e0780da0e7af55dd46c824b3504b98008ab226acf7ed6f9dc491da7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -218,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0edb60989e0780da0e7af55dd46c824b3504b98008ab226acf7ed6f9dc491da7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 8,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "c834cfb3f17819e461f3d6c4062c8cd6d4773935e42b5a622b02b7734c25e00c",
+  "output_sha256": "302cf1c3e8eb775c6d7b69179e82086ad7023be3a3efb06ae082710ee1d47072",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edd5148db9091a46701407fe4d794515d85882dbca1deae13ff61ec374a331b.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edd5148db9091a46701407fe4d794515d85882dbca1deae13ff61ec374a331b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6aabd89bb6d5e68289c575265ef156ee4da00bb4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edd5148db9091a46701407fe4d794515d85882dbca1deae13ff61ec374a331b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 242-6 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 1
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edd5148db9091a46701407fe4d794515d85882dbca1deae13ff61ec374a331b.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edd5148db9091a46701407fe4d794515d85882dbca1deae13ff61ec374a331b.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..57789a81de793c7862c6b98c8de6bcac9ce7b95c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0edd5148db9091a46701407fe4d794515d85882dbca1deae13ff61ec374a331b.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -23,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0edd5148db9091a46701407fe4d794515d85882dbca1deae13ff61ec374a331b",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 2,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "0e78bbbd933daaaae30ab41a5df626a9346812adf2532b8cd5d9d7455b80a0bc",
+  "output_sha256": "4e22a1329d94b30856f624de0cd5436d6f4570a0c4923e64fe50f4550380fcc8",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ee8205ad6e6fac61382f459ede31368f740fd03fd638a36c6a80fe9bd530625.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ee8205ad6e6fac61382f459ede31368f740fd03fd638a36c6a80fe9bd530625.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..abe9633350736d6b7d241eb444421b5c77c8f2f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ee8205ad6e6fac61382f459ede31368f740fd03fd638a36c6a80fe9bd530625.md
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 245-24 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 3
+
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 245-24 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 3
+CAROL T.
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+CASE NUMBER:
+22-CV-10904-JSR
+ACTION FOR DAMAGES
+GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS,
+July 13, 2023
+Plaintiff,
+VS.
+JP
+CHASE BANK, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+VIDEO RECORDED DEPOSITION OF
+CAROL I
+THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2023
+REPORTED BY:
+DENISE D. HARPER-FORDE
+Certified Shorthand Reporter (CSR)
+Certified RealTime Reporter
+Certified LiveNote Reporter (CLR)
+Registered Professional Reporter (RPR)
+Notary
+Public (FLORIDA)
+& ESQUIRE
+DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
+800.211.DEPO (3376)
+EsquireSolutions.com
+
+
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+11
+12
+13
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 245-24 Filed 07/25/23 Page 3 of 3
+CAROL T.
+U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS vs JP
+CHASE
+July 13, 2023
+49
+ATTORNEY NEIMAN: All right.
+ATTORNEY ACKERMAN: Okay•
+(BY ATTORNEY NEIMAN) :
+e.
+you a document that's marked as
+, I'm showing
+Exhibit 2. And this is the E-mail
+exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and
+somebody named Cecile de Jongh on
+March 17th of 2019, which is three
+days after the letter that we've been
+looking at.
+Do you know Cecile de Jongh?
+A. I know of Cecile de Jongh. I
+don't personally know Cecile de Jongh.
+l. All right.
+A. I know she was -- she's the --
+she's Governor De Jongh's wife.
+Q. Okay. And were you aware that
+Ms. De Jongh worked for Mr. Epstein?
+A. I think everyone in the Virgin
+Islands knew that.
+l. Okay. And did you ever
+interact with Ms. De Jongh related to
+Mr. Epstein?
+A. No.
+2 ESQUIRE
+DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS
+800.211.DEPO (3376)
+EsquireSolutions.com
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ee8205ad6e6fac61382f459ede31368f740fd03fd638a36c6a80fe9bd530625.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ee8205ad6e6fac61382f459ede31368f740fd03fd638a36c6a80fe9bd530625.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e84123f35c74590c2972ee5c72a1da4ebd08939d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ee8205ad6e6fac61382f459ede31368f740fd03fd638a36c6a80fe9bd530625.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ee8205ad6e6fac61382f459ede31368f740fd03fd638a36c6a80fe9bd530625",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "25a8a2ddeae3932267e9a9ce41b8920c787c4b2f7a36ad6a0427eea0fafb0380",
+  "output_sha256": "4e793e91c2e38a48324f3b4d3a718e7e734eee4b88cac38cc1e4b864723cc9c3",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f1a95ce1f8629ae8895339aab90eff08c51c5def470a42bf6d5226d7c175c67.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f1a95ce1f8629ae8895339aab90eff08c51c5def470a42bf6d5226d7c175c67.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e8786260fa6941dba7be5e762333ec90719bae23
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f1a95ce1f8629ae8895339aab90eff08c51c5def470a42bf6d5226d7c175c67.md
@@ -0,0 +1,371 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-51 Filed 08/14/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 284-51 Filed 08/14/23 Page 2 of 7
+SECURITY SEAL PROGRAM CHECKLIST
+Please use the following checklist to ensure your application for a CBP Security Seal is
+complete for processing.
+CBP FORM 3078
+• ACCESS REQUEST APPLICATION FORM
+VIRGIN ISLANDS POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL RECORD
+CHECK (NO MORE THAN 60 DAYS OLD)
+EMPLOYER REQUEST LETTER
+FIVE YEAR BACKGROUND VERIFICATION AND DECLARATION
+(NEW & RENEWAL, APPLICANTS) FINGERPRINT RESULTS FROM THE
+VIRGIN ISLANDS PORT AUTHORITY (LESS THAN SIX (6) MONTHS OLD)
+(RENEWAL APPLICANTS) FINGERPRINT PROCESS WILL BE CONDUCTED
+BY CBP ONLY IF THE VIPA FINGERPRINTS RESULTS ISSUED OVER 6
+MONTHS. IT WILL COST $ 43.50 AND THE METHODS OF PAYMENTS ARE
+CASH OR CREDIT CARD.
+RULES AND REGULATIONS
+PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP/RESIDENCY (BIRTH CERTIFICATE, PASSPORT,
+PASSPORT CARD, NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE, LAWFUL PERMANENT
+CARD)
+TWO (2) PASSPORT SIZE PHOTOGRAPHS
+** RENEWAL APPLICANTS SHOULD VERIFY WITH THE SECURITY OFFICE TO
+ENSURE THAT PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP & PASSPORT SIZE PHOTOGRAPHS
+ARE ALREADY ON FILE.
+OFFICE HOURS
+MONDAY
+11:00 - 3:00
+WEDNESDAY
+11:00 - 3:00
+THURSDAY
+10:00 - 1:00
+Updated 09/2015
+
+ESTATE_JPM044489
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 284-51 Filed 08/14/23 Page 3 of 7
+DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
+Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
+APPLICATION FOR IDENTIFICATION CARD
+19 U.S.C. 65, 1551, 1555, 1565, 1624, 1641;
+Please Type or Print
+19 CFR 112.42, 118, 122.182, 146.6
+1. TYPE OF ACTIVITY REQUIRING IDENTIFICATION CARD
+CBP
+Cartman/
+Broker's
+Lighterman
+Empioyoo
+3. NAME (Last, First & Middle)
+Secunty Area
+Warehouse Officer
+Identificaton
+or Empicyte
+Container Station
+Employee
+Foreign
+Trade Zone
+Empisyee
+OMB. No.
+1651-0008
+See back of form
+for Paperwork
+Reduction Act
+Notice an
+Privacy Aci Notio
+2. DATE OF THIS APPLICATION
+CES
+• Employee
+4/5/2018
+L4 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
+5. LIST ANY OTHER NAMES YOU HAVE EVER BEEN KNOWN BY (Nicknames, alases, etc.)
+6. DATE OF BIRTH
+7. HOME ADDRESS (homber Simat City State, and ZIP Code)
+8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PRESENT EMPLOYER
+6100 Red Hook Quarter B3
+St.
+_ VI 00802
+9. HOME PHONE NUMBER
+11. PLACE OF BIRTH (City, County, State, and Country)
+10. BUSINESS PHONE NUMBER
+340-775-2525
+12. HEIGHT
+13. WEIGHT
+6' 3"
+212 Ibs
+14. COLOR HAIR
+Black
+15. COLOR EYES
+16. VISIBLE SCARS OR MARKS
+None
+17. US. COAST GUARD PORT SECURITY CARD NUMBER
+N/A
+19. HAVE YOU EVER APPLIED FOR CARD IN ITEM 17 OR ITEM 187
+I NO
+(Skip Items 20 and 21)
+1B. U.S. MERCHANT MARINE CARD NUMBER
+N/A
+20. HAS APPLICATION FOR EITHER CARD IN ITEM 17 OR 18 BEEN DENIED?
+•YES (It Yes, explain In item 21)
+IX NO
+(Skip item 21)
+•YES
+21. EXPLANATION OF APPLICATION DENIAL
+22. LIST ALL RESICENCES DURING THE LAST 5 YEARS (List in reverse order, Deginning with the present address)
+DATES
+From
+2008
+To
+PRESENT
+Number and Street
+City
+State
+23. HAVE YOU EVER SERVED IN THE ARMED SERVICES OF THE US.?
+LE NO
+(Skip items 2420)
+24. BRANCH OF SERVICE
+DYES
+25. DATES OF SERVICE
+26. SERIAL NUMBER
+27. TYPE OF DISCHARGE
+28. IF DISCHARGE WAS OTHER THAN HONORABLE, EXPLAIN IN FULL DETAIL
+2. HAD BORDER FROTECORN DENTIFICATION CARO WITH THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
+I presently hold a CBP Security Seal on behalf of
+YES (if Yes, explain details)
+I World Air, LLC.
+•NO
+CBP Form 3078(01/00)
+
+ESTATE_JPM044490
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 284-51 Filed 08/14/23 Page 4 of 7
+30. PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT - LIST IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, GIVING EARLIEST EMPLOYMENT FIRST (Last 10 Years)
+DATES
+EMPLOYER NAME AND ADDRESS
+From
+2/1/2000
+To
+2/1/2013
+Financial Trust Company, Inc.
+Technician
+6100 Red Hook B3, St.
+VI 00802
+2/2/2013
+Present
+Southern Trust Company, Inc.
+6100 Red Hook B3, St.
+VI 00802
+OCCUPATION
+Technician
+1. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME OR OFFENSE (Other than traffic violations, yo
+lay exclude any items which occurred before your 16th birthday) IN THIS COUNTRY OR ELSEWHERE
+32. EXPLANATION OF ALL CONVICTIONS (Federal, State, Millary, or Foreign)
+ES (# YES, expla
+7 item 32.
+Dale
+Place
+Charge
+Court
+Final Disposition
+33. DO YOU NOW USE OR HAVE YOU EVER USED NARCOTIC DRUGS?
+DEISMY YES, expiain
+EX NO
+34. ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH HERE
+35.
+CERTIFICATION
+I certify that all of the stafements made in this Application are
+SIGNATURE
+DATE
+true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and
+belief, and are made in good faith.
+X
+Peperwork Reduction Act Notice: The Paperwork Reduction Act says we must tell you why we are collecting this Information, how we will use it, and whether
+you have to give It lo us. We ask for this Information to carry out the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection laws of the United States. This form is used
+by llcensed cartmen or lightermen or their employees as an application lo apply for a CBP Identification card and is required to obtain or retain a benefit. The
+estimated average burden associaled with this collection of Informalion is 15 minutes per respondent or recordkeeper depending on individual
+circumstances.
+The valld OMB Control Number for this Information Collection is 1651-0008.
+ursuant to the requirements of Public law 93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974), notice is hereby given that the authority to collect information on Form CBP-3078 i:
+5 U.S.C. 301, Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1950; 19 U.S.C. 1551, 1565, 1624, 1641; 19 CFR 112.42. The principal purpose for collecting the Information Is
+lo enable the CBP to conduct a background invesllgation and hereby delermine whether the applicant meets the criteria required for the issuance of an
+identification card. The Information collected and contained in the applicant's fle may be provided to those employees of the CBP who have a need for the
+records in the performance of their dutles.
+The information may also be used, when deemed appropriale, in a proceeding to revoke or suspend the
+identification card. Disclosure of all information requested on Form CBP-3078 Is voluntary; however, fallure to disclose some or all of this information may
+result in the CBP's inability to conduct the required background investigation.
+CBP Form 3078(01/00)(Back)
+
+ESTATE_JPM044491
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 284-51 Filed 08/14/23 Page 5 of 7
+CYRIL E.
+AIRPORT, ST.
+_, VIRGIN ISLANDS
+ACCESS REQUEST APPLICATION
+NAME:
+COMPANY:
+HOME TELEPHONE NO.:
+World Air, LLC
+CELLPHONE NO :
+BADGE EXPIRATION DATE:
+WILL THIS EMPLOYEE WORK FOREIGN FLIGHTS?
+YES _X
+NO
+DATE OF BIRTH:
+JOB TITLE:
+Technician/Driver
+WORK TELEPHONE NO. : 340-775-2525
+VIPA BADGE NO. :
+CBP SEAL NO.:
+WILL THIS EMPLOYEE ESCORT PASSENGERS
+THROUGH U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION?
+YES X
+NO
+Bond Number
+will be responsible for any liquidated damages against the
+company for any violations committed against established procedures or the rules and
+regulations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
+4/9/2018
+AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL
+DATE
+*************************************
+********
+FOR U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION USE ONLY
+ENTERED BY:
+-
+APPROVED BY:
+DATE:
+RECORD NUMBER:
+DATE
+SQuI
+POSITIVE
+SEE ATTACHED
+NN16
+NEGATIVE
+DATE
+POSITIVE
+SEE ATTACHED
+NEGATIVE
+Updated 11/2013
+
+ESTATE_JPM044492
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 284-51 Filed 08/14/23 Page 6 of 7
+DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
+CYRIL E.
+AIRPORT SECURITY PROGRAM
+EMPLOYER'S FIVE YEAR BACKGROUND VERIFICATION AND DECLARATION
+1. Cecile R. de Jongh
+(Company Issuing Officer)
+of Southern Trust Company, Inc.
+(Company or Agency)
+hereby certify that: A background check has been performed on the applicant,
+-..
+(Employee's Name)
+(Social Security Number)
+to the extent allowable by law, including at a minimum, references and employment history. Stated employment
+history has been verified for the preceding five (5) years. To the best of my knowledge, the applicent meets the
+conditions necessary to conduct duties in the Customs and Border Protection Security Areas as outlined in 19
+CFR 122.181
+VERIFIED INFORMATION
+Company or
+Agency Name
+Financial Trust
+Company, Inc.
+Southern Trust
+Company, Inc.
+Person
+Contacted
+Jeanne
+Phone
+Number
+Jeanne
+Dates
+Employed
+2/1/2000 -
+2/1/2013
+2/2/2013-
+Present
+Dates &
+How
+Time
+Contacted
+4/9/2018 (10:52 am) In person
+4/9/2018 (10:52 am)
+In person
+SEAL ISSUANCE REQUEST
+NEW () RENEWAL (X) DAMAGED ( ) LOST ( )*
+• STOLEN ( )* MISPLACED ( )*
+Job Title:
+Technician/Driver
+Date of Birth:
+Zone Requested:
+Zone 1() Zone 2 (X)
+U.S. Citizen (x)
+Resident Alien ()
+. Registretion #
+Does applicant currently hold a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Access Seal with another employer?
+Yes X
+No
+If yes, name of employer (s):
+| World Air, LLC
+If Lost/Stolen, please provide explanation of when/where/how U.S. Customs and Border Protection Seal was lost:
+I declare that all statement containing in this declaration are true and correct.
+Signature of Company Official and Date
+WARNING: IT IS UNLAWFUL UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR ANY PERSON-TC
+MAKE ANY FALSE OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATION, STATEMENT, OR CERTIFICATION TO ANY CB
+OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING ACCESS TO A CBP SECURED AREA FOR HIM/HERSELF OR THEIR
+EMPLOYEE. ANYONE WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE MADE SUCH STATEMENTS WILL BE DEEMED IN
+VIOLATION OF LAW (18 USC 100I).
+
+ESTATE_JPM044493
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 284-51 Filed 08/14/23 Page 7 of 7
+U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION SECURITY PROGRAM
+CYRIL E. KING AIRPORT RULES AND REGULATIONS
+The U. S. Customs and Border Protection Zones are defined as follows:
+Zone 1 (Red Seal): This zone is the Federal Inspectional Service (FIS) area. It includes the
+areas with direct access to the sterile areas, the sterile area, and extends to the area's leading to the
+aircraft.
+X Zone 2 (Black Seal): This zone includes the ramp, tarmac, and baggage/cargo staging areas
+where activities related to international arrivals/departures. As international and domestic flights may
+occupy adjacent areas at many locations, it is anticipated that the CBP security area outside the FIS
+will be flexible. This zone also apply to employees that are responsible for assisting with the unloading
+of the restaurants' merchandise from delivery trucks/vehicles and taking the restaurants' trash from
+sterile area to the designated trash receptacles that is located on the ramp.
+Zones 1 & 2 (Red Scal): This zone includes the FIS, sterile areas indirect access to the FIS,
+ramp, cargo, and baggage staging areas for domestic and international flights whether it be
+arrivals/departures.
+1.
+2.
+4.
+5.
+When in the designated security areas, the Virgin Islands Port Authority identification badge
+will be worn and be clearly visible at all times during authorized working hours only:
+If the ID is damaged, lost, or stolen it will be reported to the employer, VIPA, and CBP
+Security Office. In the instance of a lost or stolen ID, a police report will be filed within the i"
+24 hours of the incident and a copy should be given to the employer, VIPA, and the CBP
+Security Office.
+No person shall not be found in a designeted zone(s) without official need. Use of an
+identification badge for personal business is strictly prohibited and the badge will then be
+confiscated.
+No person to whom an identification badge shall transfer or make the issued badge available
+for another person's use.
+It is strictly prohibited for anyone except a CBP officer/ VIPA security officer to remove a seal
+from an identification badge. If there is a problem with a seal, the identification badge should
+be retumed to the Port Authority for replacement. Once the seal has been removed from
+that SIDA badge, it is no longer valid. The replacement badge must then be presented to the
+CBP Airport Security Office in order to receive a replacement seal.
+6.
+application on time.
+Any violation to the CBP Rules and Regulations is a serious violation and can result in
+disciplinary action(s) or fines in the amount of $1000.00 per violation.
+1 acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the above rules and regulations of U.S. Customs
+and Border Protection.
+Name (Print)
+Signature
+Date_
+Updated 09/2014
+
+ESTATE_JPM044494
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f1a95ce1f8629ae8895339aab90eff08c51c5def470a42bf6d5226d7c175c67.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f1a95ce1f8629ae8895339aab90eff08c51c5def470a42bf6d5226d7c175c67.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4817d5e64b740fc7e2aa0117571699ec94c47e20
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f1a95ce1f8629ae8895339aab90eff08c51c5def470a42bf6d5226d7c175c67.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -284,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0f1a95ce1f8629ae8895339aab90eff08c51c5def470a42bf6d5226d7c175c67",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 16,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "8d192bd0642e85f8a5da5a30cb9e5c1393ec939688d89db831af5773da74b417",
+  "output_sha256": "018108f1b59669d45e404ef27f767661b1323707eb376f5ec8528227843deb6d",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f63aa82fde9edaba59874a932567eddc6fb2a0d3799b9fb76fe908a06f1361c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f63aa82fde9edaba59874a932567eddc6fb2a0d3799b9fb76fe908a06f1361c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c6857b7982964908e23a184d188e4ace2c97bec1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f63aa82fde9edaba59874a932567eddc6fb2a0d3799b9fb76fe908a06f1361c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 263-16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 5
+
+
+
+DocuSign Envelope ID: 005A3291722-80-10904-937050cument 263-16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 5
+UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
+Jane Doe 1, Individually and on behalf
+of all others similarly situated,
+Plaintiff,
+CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-10019 (JSR)
+VS.
+JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
+Defendant.
+/
+JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND
+OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
+Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank,
+N.A. ("JPMC") raises the following objections and provides the following responses to Plaintiff's
+First Set of Interrogatories, based on information reasonably available to JPMC at this time without
+prejudice to JPMC's right to revise, supplement, or amend these objections and responses in
+accordance with Rules 26 and 33.
+PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
+These objections and responses are made solely for the purposes of the above-captioned
+case.
+Each of JPMC's objections and responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories is based on
+information and documents presently available to JPMC after reasonable inquiry. Discovery is
+ongoing, and JPMC specifically reserves the right to amend or supplement these objections and
+responses as necessary, including in the event further information and documents are discovered
+or produced by JPMC after discovery has been completed. In addition, JPMC's objections and
+
+
+Docusign Envelope ID: OCtase 1.22-8V-109041557458cument 263-16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 5
+SPECIFIC RESPONSES
+INTERROGATORY NO. 3
+List any high net-worth clients or businesses the introduction or relationship between that
+person or entity of which was facilitated by Jeffrey Epstein.
+RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
+In addition to and specifically incorporating its foregoing General Objections and
+Objections to Definitions, JPMC objects to Interrogatory No. 3 because it would be more
+convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive to obtain the identity of individuals at JPMC
+through requests for production under Rule 34. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). JPMC also objects
+to Interrogatory No. 3 because the terms "high net worth," "introduction," "facilitated," and
+"relationship" are vague and ambiguous.
+Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based upon a reasonable and diligent
+investigation, JPMC states that Mr. Epstein had some involvement in the establishment of
+customer relationships between JPMC's private bank and Ghislaine Maxwell and Kathryn
+Ruemmler. If JPMC learns of others, it will supplement this answer.
+INTERROGATORY NO. 4
+Identify all JPMorgan officers and employees with knowledge of information relevant to
+vhether JPMorgan made any changes to policies, procedures, protocols, or practices as
+onsequence of its relationship with Jeffiey Epstein and/or any Epstein-related individual an
+entity or any public or negative attention it received due to those relationships.
+RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4
+In addition to and specifically incorporating its foregoing General Objections and
+Objections to Definitions, JPMC objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the grounds that it is overly
+broad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is not relevant to any party's claims or
+defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). JPMC also objects to Interrogatory No. 4 because it seeks
+information that can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive
+- 3-
+
+
+Docusign Envelope ID: tase 1.22-8V-1090415570458cument 263-16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 5
+source, such as requests for production of documents under Rule 34 or depositions under Rule
+30(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). JPMC further objects to Interrogatory No. 4 because the
+phrases "information relevant to whether JPMC made changes," and "as a consequence of its
+relationship" and "public or negative attention" are vague and ambiguous.
+Subject to and without waiving its objections, and based upon a reasonable and diligent
+investigation, JPMC did not make any changes to policies, procedures, protocols, or practices
+during the period from 1998 to 2019 as a consequence of its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
+and/or any Epstein-related individual or entity, or any public or negative attention it received due
+to those relationships.
+Dated: April 11, 2023
+Respectfully submitted,
+By:
+Jolen Butts
+M.
+Robert L. Boone
+Hillary Chutter-Ames
+7 World Trade Center
+250 Greenwich Street
+New York, NY 10007
+(1) (212) 230-8800
+(D (212) 230-8888
+robert.boone@wilmerhale.com
+hillary.chutter-ames@wilmerhale.com
+Felicia H. Ellsworth
+John J. Butts
+60 State Street
+Boston,
+02109
+(t) (617) 526-6687
+(f) (617) 526-5000
+felicia.ellsworth@wilmerhale.com
+john.butts@wilmerhale.com
+- 4-
+
+
+Docusign Envelope ID: tase 1.22-8V-109041557458cument 263-16 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 5
+Attorneys for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank,
+N.A.
+- 5 -
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f63aa82fde9edaba59874a932567eddc6fb2a0d3799b9fb76fe908a06f1361c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f63aa82fde9edaba59874a932567eddc6fb2a0d3799b9fb76fe908a06f1361c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a195e5c95b3c3af280c1ab3c9098d5ac507873c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f63aa82fde9edaba59874a932567eddc6fb2a0d3799b9fb76fe908a06f1361c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -70,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0f63aa82fde9edaba59874a932567eddc6fb2a0d3799b9fb76fe908a06f1361c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "78b1d227a7cc535d8e779c2430ed4bb8a6efbecf53f3cf35c85f5e0bcdd8032e",
+  "output_sha256": "ee0ef502bf0e6e637545c9d152c6c11c4ba9fefe24452d0d36a15a21ebc3a864",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f940d10ea32a17f90fdc6f06aef874ec8aaec5e3bfec20e407412761b9063fe.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f940d10ea32a17f90fdc6f06aef874ec8aaec5e3bfec20e407412761b9063fe.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bba2f2f69dcaef32fbdffba61bb5a1849876d340
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f940d10ea32a17f90fdc6f06aef874ec8aaec5e3bfec20e407412761b9063fe.md
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-58 Filed 09/08/23
+
+
+FILED UNDER SEAL
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f940d10ea32a17f90fdc6f06aef874ec8aaec5e3bfec20e407412761b9063fe.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f940d10ea32a17f90fdc6f06aef874ec8aaec5e3bfec20e407412761b9063fe.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f65edf73286ed0c5563634b1fe4889892bbc41ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0f940d10ea32a17f90fdc6f06aef874ec8aaec5e3bfec20e407412761b9063fe.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -33,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0f940d10ea32a17f90fdc6f06aef874ec8aaec5e3bfec20e407412761b9063fe",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.page-footer\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "f3a1a0825f7234afbe25a10838b39686ff60572ff1f3ce195ae0e917ad1222dc",
+  "output_sha256": "5b7ed2edec73bc67415431d10b7bc4c2a40e395f5b71a9c511d3172c834c9b73",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fab03e88ff36144056b65951d057fe955a514bbd9ac4e7d8477e552ac01f1e7.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fab03e88ff36144056b65951d057fe955a514bbd9ac4e7d8477e552ac01f1e7.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9a737f445bc202ace05af76f27911f1f57e05e57
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fab03e88ff36144056b65951d057fe955a514bbd9ac4e7d8477e552ac01f1e7.md
@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-72 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+From:
+To:
+Sent:
+Subject:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-72 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 2
+Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com
+Jes Staley <jes.staley@jpmorgan.coms
+9/16/2011 11:09:23 PM
+co founder of facebook, and founder of spotify, sean |
+, will be at the house for dinner on sunday --come
+******************
+msốssssmsss***
+The information contained in this communication is
+confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
+constitute inside information, and is intended only for
+the use of the addressee. It is the property of
+Jeffrey Epstein
+Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
+communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
+and may be unlawful. If you have received this
+communication in error, please notify us immediately by
+return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@ gmail.com, and
+destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
+including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
+
+698982vH
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fab03e88ff36144056b65951d057fe955a514bbd9ac4e7d8477e552ac01f1e7.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fab03e88ff36144056b65951d057fe955a514bbd9ac4e7d8477e552ac01f1e7.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5333ff884d361694ebb36b110e8e1bbdc39dce6f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fab03e88ff36144056b65951d057fe955a514bbd9ac4e7d8477e552ac01f1e7.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0fab03e88ff36144056b65951d057fe955a514bbd9ac4e7d8477e552ac01f1e7",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "08c83c6848460f976bbc01622c2fbeec6ea9c518f16189de72e81963e3683192",
+  "output_sha256": "613d8c2bb840faa24c7403caf34c5783107c2b4ce50517cf3adce07d2f784468",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc2329ddbe1b29e5ec8f92ca6929d661fbca56391f71140e086daa4a38bde2c.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc2329ddbe1b29e5ec8f92ca6929d661fbca56391f71140e086daa4a38bde2c.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..64117283e3ca680cdb63bf692d87156551de8443
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc2329ddbe1b29e5ec8f92ca6929d661fbca56391f71140e086daa4a38bde2c.md
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-40 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+From:
+To:
+Sent:
+Subject:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-40 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 2
+Jes Staley <jes.staley@jpmorgan.com>
+'jeevacation@gmail.com' <jeevacation@gmail.com>
+6/5/2009 9:54:35 PM
+Re:
+I'm with Joe
+From: Jeffrey Epstein
+To: Jes Staley
+Sent: Fri Jun 05 16:41:59 2009
+Subject:
+well, for all intents and purposes peter mandelson is now deputy prime minister
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00005959
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc2329ddbe1b29e5ec8f92ca6929d661fbca56391f71140e086daa4a38bde2c.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc2329ddbe1b29e5ec8f92ca6929d661fbca56391f71140e086daa4a38bde2c.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8a0fe5364baa1f9947f10f79d0db5b8eca2d9c30
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc2329ddbe1b29e5ec8f92ca6929d661fbca56391f71140e086daa4a38bde2c.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -35,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0fc2329ddbe1b29e5ec8f92ca6929d661fbca56391f71140e086daa4a38bde2c",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 3,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "23a1f4f4f73954150aff5591bc9eec40a7189cce1dc6f2f61a155aa9e59352c3",
+  "output_sha256": "755671359f3e29a5ec0e69d12afff2f5651cc631676d56643b7c0004f26de6c2",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc403bab2d8554deaa346d30ca05789a552e056e056287a04a618743a306096.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc403bab2d8554deaa346d30ca05789a552e056e056287a04a618743a306096.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..635f85f044b588e7c83f36be3d778363165b69fe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc403bab2d8554deaa346d30ca05789a552e056e056287a04a618743a306096.md
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 174-8 Filed 06/12/23 Page 1 of 7
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 174-8 Filed 06/12/23 Page 2 of 7
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Duffy, John R [john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com]
+3/28/2012 2:52:27 AM
+Erdoes, Mary E [mary.erdoes@jpmorgan.com]
+Re: KYC Approval Requested for High Risk Clients
+Yes as in the past
+John R. Duffy
+J.P.
+CEO, U.S. Private Bank
+270 Park Avenue
+New York, NY 10017
+Tel: 212-464-1468
+Email: john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+J.P.
+Securities LLC
+From: Erdoes, Mary E
+Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 08:38 PM
+To: Duffy, John R
+Subject: Re: KYC Approval Requested for High Risk Clients
+Cash?
+From: Duffy, John R
+Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 06:26 PM
+To: Erdoes, Mary E; Dilorio, Phil
+Subject: Fw: KYC Approval Requested for High Risk Clients
+I previously spoke with JE about this activity. We'll need to discuss.
+John R. Duffy
+J.P.
+CEO, U.S. Private Bank
+270 Park Avenue
+New York, NY 10017
+Tel: 212-464-1468
+Email: john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+J.P.
+Securities LLC
+From: Duffy, John R
+Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 06:25 PM
+To:
+Bonnie K
+Cc: McCleerey, Kevin; Dalessio, James; Conlin, Pat
+Subject: Re: KYC Approval Requested for High Risk Clients
+Ok. Wish there were none. We'll revisit.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00136519
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 174-8 Filed 06/12/23 Page 3 of 7
+John R. Duffy
+J.P.
+CEO, U.S. Private Bank
+270 Park Avenue
+New York, NY 10017
+Tel: 212-464-1468
+Email: john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+J.P.
+Securities LLC
+Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 06:03 PM
+To: Duffy, John R
+Cc: McCleerey, Kevin; Dalessio, James; Conlin, Pat
+Subject: RE: KYC Approval Requested for High Risk Clients
+Hi John -
+I ran a cash activity report between August 1, 2011 and March 1, 2012 and found that there has only been one cash w/d
+during that timeframe for $30k on 2/21/2012.
+Let me know if you need further information.
+Regards,
+Bonnie
+Bonnie K Perry, VP, CAMS | Private Baok Risk Mgnut & Control
+712 Main, 4h Fl, Hosson, TX 37002 (TX2-N045)
+Tel: 713.216-5136
+Fax 713.216-7970
+From: Duffy, John R
+Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 4:38 PM
+Bonnie K
+Cc: McCleerey, Kevin; Dalessio, James; Conlin, Pat
+Subject: Re: KYC Approval Requested for High Risk Clients
+Approved except for Epstein. Acct. Can we please review the cash withdrawal activity for his entities? Thx.
+John R. Duffy
+J.P.
+CEO, U.S. Private Bank
+270 Park Avenue
+New York, NY 10017
+Tel: 212-464-1468
+Email: john.r.duffy@jpmorgan.com
+J.P.
+Securities LLC
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00136520
+
+
+Case 1:22-CV-10904-JSR Document 174-8 Filed 06/12/23 Page 4 of 7
+From: Bonnie K
+Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 02:41 PM
+To: Duffy, John R
+Cc: McCleerey, Kevin; Dalessio, James; Conlin, Pat
+Subject: KYC Approval Requested for High Risk Clients
+Hi John,
+Below are high risk PB client KYCs that require your approval. The list includes (2) Existing Client undergoing annual
+review and (7) Existing relationship clients flagged as high risk.
+Please note that the below clients have undergone a review by Risk Management and are considered ok for approval. If
+you have further questions, please let me know.
+Regards,
+Bonnie
+L. Existing High Risk Client - Undergoing Annual Review (2)
+II. Existing Client Relationship - Recently Flagged as High Risk (Z)
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00136521
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 174-8 Filed 06/12/23 Page 5 of 7
+Neptune LLC - This is an entity established by Jeffrey Epstein to hold household accounts to pay expenses, upkeep and
+maintenance for a home he owns in Palm Beach. In 2009, Mr. Epstein pled guilty and was convicted of a felony charge
+and served 13 months of his 18 month sentence. Mr. Epstein signed a federal non-prosecution agreement under which
+he would not be charged with related federal crimes if he successfully served out his time and abided by the conditions
+under the state charges. He also waived his right to contest liability and damages in civil lawsuits by 33 minor girls
+identified by the non-prosecution agreement.
+• Banker - Paul Morris
+High Risk Category - Reputational - Convicted Felon
+Jeffrey Epstein is the decision maker of the relationship with a current AUM is $108.6MM. There is one DDA for
+this entity that contains $116K.
+• Client established in PB in 1993.
+Region Manager Approval, Marc Sheridan
+Derogatory information is summarized above.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00136522
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 174-8 Filed 06/12/23 Page 6 of 7
+Bonnie KI
+, VP, CAMS | Private Baok Risk Męnt & Control
+712 Main, 4h F, Horson, TX 22002 (TX2-N045)
+Tel: "13.216-5136
+Fax 713.216.3970
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00136523
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 174-8 Filed 06/12/23 Page 7 of 7
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc403bab2d8554deaa346d30ca05789a552e056e056287a04a618743a306096.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc403bab2d8554deaa346d30ca05789a552e056e056287a04a618743a306096.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9adaf2cf515ad77dc7113d3db383f7ad3bfe4188
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fc403bab2d8554deaa346d30ca05789a552e056e056287a04a618743a306096.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -141,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0fc403bab2d8554deaa346d30ca05789a552e056e056287a04a618743a306096",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 12,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "da69909482135ce55d5bd750c3eec59ea65eb75c144af7d91ce87444adb275b8",
+  "output_sha256": "f160b7075d7c5e71fc2ab9ab0271db3d93d9ab7c95097ace5b63605585c62c4e",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fce5c1bb3d1bada2b034cdd9b7bd46a5fe8acddca8fad506493447cc394a483.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fce5c1bb3d1bada2b034cdd9b7bd46a5fe8acddca8fad506493447cc394a483.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cbd7d1361ec5b31ae20848036723b374d8f54808
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fce5c1bb3d1bada2b034cdd9b7bd46a5fe8acddca8fad506493447cc394a483.md
@@ -0,0 +1,640 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-99 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 7
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-99 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 7
+Tickett
+Accountil
+Initiatad Date
+Client Name
+SOUTHERN
+FINANCIAL LLC
+Account Tile
+Initiator
+ECI
+LOB
+Account Type
+Initiating Team
+
+CHRISTINE
+HEWITH
+PB FRONT OFFICE
+Verify & Confirm for SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LLC
+Final Risk Rating
+Initial Risk Rating
+GCS Report Requested
+Presence of Potential High Risk
+Indicators
+Reason for Adjustment
+Standard
+High
+Full
+Not associated with high risk jurisdictions. Derogatory information has already been
+addressed.
+Comments
+Summary of Risk Attributes
+Risk Updated History
+Creation
+Date
+Entered by
+Upstated
+Previous
+Risk
+Comment
+GCS Grid
+Search Type
+Company Information
+Further Review Required
+Yes
+Corporate Records
+Yes
+Other Database Searches
+(ADC/MIS/Factiva)
+Interal Database Search (CSSS/FPS)
+Yes
+Security Service Details
+nformation not confirmed (TAX ID and
+ADDRESS); details included in the
+allachment.
+normation not confirmed (STATE OF
+DOMICILE); details included in the
+aflachment.
+No records found.
+nternal database search revealed prior
+aS&I research for J Epstein and Co and
+Jeffrey Edward Epstein and the following
+deragatory information was reported:
+Several newspaper articles were found that
+detail the indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in
+investigating Jeffrey Epstein for allegedly
+nolesting underage girls. Jeffrey Epstein is
+equired to register as a sex offende
+awsuits out of court from his victim!
+egarding solicitation for an undisclosed
+amount
+No records found.
+No records found
+No additional research necessary.
+Nothing derogatory found
+No records found.
+A search of OFAC did not reveal an
+Matches
+State Court Searches
+Federal Court Searches
+Personal Particulars
+Publications
+Regulatory Sanctions
+OFAC/Control List Search
+Negative or Inconsistent Information
+GCS Red Dot
+Has this been identified as Red Dot KYC7
+Negative Information Found
+Banker Attestation Details
+As the client sponsor, I understand that 1 am primarily
+responaible for protecting the firm's reputation from
+inappropriate business relationships, as well as from fraud
+sponsoring this cilent as to their character and reputation
+and from a legal/regulatory standpoint.
+Yes
+Yes
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00149678
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-99 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 7
+Please state your rationale for conducting business with this
+Southern Financial is an entity that is ultimately owned by Jeffrey
+client
+Epstein. Southern Trust Company, which merged with Jeffrey's
+wher entity, Financial Trust Company, owns soutem Financia
+I's a USVi company. Jeffrey is a USVI resident but remains a US
+citizen.
+Please respond to any Issue(s) Identified in the GS&I grid
+that elther needs further revlew, or red dot which Is not
+already covered in a Business Case within this KYC
+Comments
+Issues with Jeffrey are understood and listen in his personal KYC.
+Primary Information
+Client Type
+Cllent Status
+Confidential Names?
+Legal Business Name
+1l Country of Primary
+Domicile
+Primary Country of Assets
+ill Country of Organization
+Industry Code (NAIC)
+Non Individual
+Client
+SOUTHERN FINANCIAL LLC
+VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S.
+Front Office Restricted?
+Active Indicator
+Normal
+Yes
+Insider Code (Reg. O)
+UNITED STATES
+VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S.
+Misc Financial Investment
+Activities 523999)
+Limited Liability Company
+02/26/2013
+WebSite
+Organization State
+Secondary Industry Code
+(NAIC)
+Client Category
+NAIC NOT PROVIDED |]
+Client Legal Entity Type
+Date of Incorporation/Situs
+(Date of Trust)
+Documentary Evidence
+LLO - State Certificate
+What is the nature/purpose of
+This is a personal investment
+this entity?
+company for Jeff Epstein. He
+will be making investments into
+other vehicles through this
+entity.
+High Risk Jurisdiction
+Yes
+Profit
+Is the entity a Personal
+Holding Company (PHC) o
+Personal Investment
+Company (PIC) located In an
+offshore juriadiction?
+Address(es)
+Type
+Notes
+Address
+/I Legal
+6100 Red
+Hook
+Quarter, B3
+City, State,
+Postal
+Country
+Code
+St
+00802
+VIRGIN
+ISLANDS,
+U.S.
+Tools
+Entered by
+Date of
+Update
+Preferred
+Map it
+SYSTEM
+03/13/2013
+Yes
+Phone(s)/Fax(s)
+Type
+Notes
+Work
+Phone
+Number
+
+Tools
+Verify "Do Not
+Cal List
+Entered by
+SYSTEM
+Date of
+Update
+03/13/2013
+Preferred
+Yes
+Email(s)
+Type
+Work
+Notes
+Email
+Entered by
+CHRISTINE
+Date of Update
+03/13/2013
+Preferred
+Yes
+Cost Center & Hierarchy
+Client Status
+Cllent Sponsor
+Cost Center
+Client Service Team
+GIO
+Trust Advisor
+Decision Maker
+Client
+JUSTIN D NELSON
+002753 - GREENWICH
+CHBG (DE) 4
+Paul S
+Client Type
+New or Exlating Client
+Non Individual
+Existing
+JEFFREY E EPSTEIN
+Entity Type
+Portollo Manger
+Investor
+DM ECI
+Entity
+Identification
+Withholding Federal Status
+Domestic Exempt
+Introduction & Wealth
+Introduction Type
+Existing JPMorgan Client - Inside LOB
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00149679
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-99 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 7
+Net Worth of client($)
+5,000,000.00
+Additional Entities
+No additional entities avallable at this time
+Additional Party Information
+ECI
+Party Type
+Party Name
+Individual
+Jeffrey E
+Epstein
+Last
+Completed
+Search Date
+05/29/2012
+KYC Status
+Report Type Relation
+Type
+Completed
+Full
+Sole Owner
+Powers
+Percen
+Owner
+100.0
+Primary Information for Jeffrey E Epstein
+Client Type
+Cllent Status
+Front Office Restricted?
+Confidentlal Names?
+Country of Primary Domicile
+Prefix/Title
+First Name
+Middle Name
+Last Name
+Suffix
+PreviousName/MMN/Allas
+Citizenship
+Employer Name
+Occupation
+Years at Occupation
+Individual
+Client
+Nomal
+Generation
+Active Indicator
+Marital Status
+Yes
+Single
+UNITED STATES
+Jeffrey
+Epstein
+Primary Domielle State
+Insider Code (Reg. O)
+Full Name
+Gender
+Date of Birth
+Primary Country of Assets
+New York
+Jeffrey E Epstein
+Male
+UNITED STATES
+UNITED STATES
+Self
+Entrepreneur
+High Risk Jurisdiction
+Industry Code (NAIC)
+Secondary Industry Code
+(NAIC)
+Individuals (999940]
+Personal Investment
+Companies (525997)
+Address(es)
+Type
+Notes
+Address
+city. State
+Postal Code
+ST
+1l Legal
+6100 RED
+HOOK QTR$
+STE B3..
+Country
+VIRGIN
+ISLANDS,
+U.S.
+Tools
+Map it
+Entered by
+Date of
+Preferred
+Update
+BATCH
+08/03/2012
+Yes
+Phone(s)/Fax(s)
+Type
+Home
+Notes
+Phone Number
+Tools
+Entered by
+BATCH
+Date of Update
+02/22/2013
+Preferred
+Yes
+Email(s)
+Type
+Notes
+Email address not avallable
+Email
+Entered by
+Date of Update
+[Preferred
+Cost Center & Hierarchy
+Cilent Status
+Client Sponsor
+Cost Center
+Client Service Team
+Client
+JUSTIN D NELSON
+002753 - GREENWICH
+CHBG (DE) 4
+Client Type
+Individual
+Entity Type
+Decision Maker
+Identification
+Withholding Federal Status
+Domestic Certified
+09/18/2006
+SSN/TIN/EIN
+Form of government Issued
+Drivers License
+identification obtained for the
+files
+Primary Identification Number
+#Issued By
+VIRGIN ISLANDS, U.S.
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00149680
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-99 Filed 08/15/23 Page 5 of 7
+Date Issued
+01/15/2010
+Introduction & Wealth
+Introduction Type
+Net Worth of cilent(s)
+Expiration Date
+01/20/2015
+Existing JPMorgan Client - Inside LOB
+500,000,000.00
+Source Of Wealth / Financial Information Details
+Source Of Wealth -Identity the Clients Source of Wealth from | Other
+following list of options
+Introduction
+Non Individual Entity Type
+For Profit?
+El Locations Served?
+a. If International or both, please describe:
+Are beneficial owners/principal shareholders associated with
+this business?
+Who owns this entity?
+Please Provide ownership detalis
+Ownership is not equal to 100%7
+Are there any authorized signers or any other individuals
+with authority over the entity?
+What Independent background check, In addition to the
+Global Corporate Security ("GCS") background check, has
+been carried out? Check all that apply and provide the date
+in which the background check was conducted. (at least 1
+must be selected)
+JPMC Network Date
+JPMC Network Comments
+Limited Liability Company - For Profit
+Yes
+Intemational
+Jeff will be investing in domestic and international funds.
+Yes
+Individual
+Jeff Epstein is the sole owner of this company.
+JPMC Network
+03/13/2013
+Jeff Epstein is a current client of Justin Nelson's and the PB.
+Politically Exposed Person
+Are any of the beneficial owners/authorized signers or other
+individuals with authority over this entity a current or former
+Senlor United States or Non-USA Political Officlal / also
+known as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) or related to
+one?
+Source of Wealth/Financial Information
+Client Category(tor SOW)
+Source of Wealth- Identity the cilents source of wealth from
+the following list of options
+What is the client's current executive management position?
+(Include any former positions, If aignificant to source of
+wealth)
+List the number of years in current position. (Include any
+former positions, If significant to source of wealth)
+proximate yearly income/salary/bonus/distribution al
+her compensation history (accumulated earned Incom
+Which country(les) Is(are) the Client's primary Source o
+/ealth or Income derived
+Is this an Operating Company?
+Total Net Worth $
+What was the total net worth based on?
+For Profit
+Executive Management
+Epstein began his financial career in 1976 as an options trader at
+Bear Steams. He specialized in mathematical models such as the
+Black-Scholes option-pricing model and later worked in the
+special products division, advising high net worth clents on tax
+strategies. In 1980, Epstein became a partner at Bear Steams. In
+1982,
+Epstein founded his own financial management firm, d.
+Epstein & Co., managing the assets of clients with more than a
+lion in net worth, In 1987, Leslie Wexner. founder and chairman
+of the Columbus, Ohio-based Limited chain of women's-clothing
+stores became a well-known client. In 1996, Epstein changed the
+name of his firm to The Financial Trust Company and based it in
+the US Virgin Islands.
+In 2003, Epstein publicly bidded for New York Magazine, along
+ith advertising executive, Donny Deutsch, investor Nelson Peltz
+ublishing mooul and owner of The Daily News, Mortime
+Zuckerman and tim producer Harvey Weinstein. They were
+ultimately out bid by longtime wall street investor Bruce
+Wasserstein for 555 milfion. In 2004, Epstein and Mortime
+Zuckerman, committed to finance up to $25 million to back Radar,
+a celebrity and pop culture magazine and Maer Roshan, its editor
+in chief and founder. Epstein and Zuckerman were equal partners
+in the venture, and Mr. Roshan retained a small ownership stake
+30
+
+UNITED STATES
+5000000.00
+Financial Statements
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00149681
+
+
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-99 Filed 08/15/23 Page 6 of 7
+Is this client a Professional Service Provider acting as a
+financial intermediary (Gatekeeper/Financial Liaison), with
+issets held on behalf of one or more unidentified underiying
+cllents unknown to the bank?
+Is this entity a Private Equity Fund (Venture Capital Fund or
+Leveraged
+Buyout)?
+Is this a Hedge Fund? (Pooled Investment vehicles (often
+partnerships) that primarily invest financial capital of third
+party investors in enterprises that are too risky for the
+standard capital markets or bank loans.)
+Is this a Cash Intensive business? (Cash-intensive
+businesses/entities exist in various industry sectors and
+Include, but are not limited to convenience stores, grocery
+stores, restaurants, bars, retail stores, liquor stores, cigarette
+distributors, privately owned ATMs, vending machine
+operators and parking garage operators.)
+El is this entity any of the following business types?
+Is the Entity a Personal Holding Company (PHC) or Personal
+Investment Company (PIC) located In an offshore
+jurisdiction?
+s. Private Holding/Investment Company (US)
+Expected Activity
+Deposit Accounts)
+Transaction Types
+Expected Activity Levels
+Anticipated Dollar Amount Totals
+per Month
+Cash Deposits
+Cash Withdrawals
+Check Deposits
+Checks Paid
+Incoming Wires (Domestic)
+Outgoing Wires (Domestic)
+Incoming Wires (International)
+Outgoing Wires (International)
+Low (1-10)
+Low (1-10)
+$50,001 TO $100,00
+$50,001 TO $100,00
+ACH Deposits
+ACH Payments
+Intemal Transfer (Debits/Credits)
+Low (1-10)
+$100,001 TO $500,000
+Asset Purchases/Sales
+What Is the inftial/ongoing source of funding for the cilent's Deposit Account(s) ?
+The initial and ongoing source of funding will come from Jeffrey's personal accounts at the PB. The money in that accounts comes
+from his salary over the years and retums of his personal investments.
+What is the purpose/intended use of accounts)? Please provide a detalled description of how the Deposit Account(s) will be
+used by the client.
+The purpose of this is to make investments and to pay the expenses of the LLC.
+Client Directed Asset / Brokerage Accounts)
+Transaction Types
+Expected Activity Levels
+Anticipated Dollar Amount Totals
+per Month
+Cash Deposits
+Cash Withdrawals
+Check Deposits
+Checks Paid
+Incoming Wires (Domestic)
+Outgoing Wires (Domestic)
+Incoming Wires (International)
+Outgoing Wires (International)
+ACH Deposits
+ACH Payments
+Intemal Transfer (Debits/Credits)
+Low (1-10)
+$100,001 TO $500,000
+Asset Purchases/Sales
+[Low (1-10)
+$100,001 TO $500,000
+What is the Initial/ongoing source of funding for the ellent's Client Directed Asset / Brokerage Account(e) ?
+The initial and ongoing source of funding will come from Jeffrey's personal accounts at the PB. The money in that accounts comes
+from his salary over the years and retums of his personal investments
+What is the purpose/intended use of accounts)? Please provide a detalled description of how the Client Directed Asset /
+Brokerage Accounts) will be used by the cilent
+The purpose of this account is to invest cash assets into the market.
+Additional Client Information
+Please Include any additional Information that would further explain your knowledge of the cllent (family tree/history, publlc
+information, websites, etc.)
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00149682
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 285-99 Filed 08/15/23 Page 7 of 7
+n March 2005, a woman contacted Palm Beach police, concemed that her 14 year oid daugnter had been taken to Epstein
+ansion by an older girl and paid $300 after stripping and massaging him. She had told him that she was 18 years old. Sh
+undressed but had left on her underwear. By 2011 at least 40 girls had come forward with similar stories, some saying Epstein
+sexually assaulted them during the massage.
+Police started an 11-month undercover investigation of Epstein, followed by a search of his home. Subsequently, they alleged that
+Epstein had pald several escorts to perform sexual acts on him. Interviews with five alleged victims and 17 witnesses under oath
+phone mossages, a high school transcript and other items they found in Mr. Epstein's trash and home allegedly show that some girls
+were under 18, although some maintained to him at the time that they were of proper age. A search of Epstein's home found
+numerous photos of girls throughout the house, some of whom had been interviewed earfer by the police. He had set up a system of
+young women recruiting other women for his massage services. Two housekeepers stated to the police that Epstein would receive
+massages every day whenever he stayed in Palm Beach.(22] In May 2006, Palm Beach police filed a probable cause alfidavit saying
+that Epstein should be charged with four counts of unlawful sex with minors and one molestation count. His team of lawyers included
+Gerald B. Lefcourt, Alan Dershowitz and later also Kenneth Starr. Epstein passed a lie detector test in which he was asked whether
+he knew of the under-age status of the girls. They also questioned the credibility of the teenage accusers, based in part on their
+MySpace postings and information obtained by private investigators (not in citation given
+Instead of following the recommendation of the police, the prosecutors considered the evidence weak and presented it to a grand jury.
+an uncommon procedure in non-capital cases.
+The grand jury returned only a single charge of felony solicitation of prostitution, 1o
+which Epstein pleaded not guilty in August 2006.
+In June, 2008, after pleading to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution, Epstein began serving an 18-month sentence. He
+served 13 months in jail of his 18-month sentence as a convicted sex offender in the state of Florida for soliciting an underage girl for
+prostitution. He is a registered sex offender.
+After the
+ne public, several parties returned donations they had received from Epstein, including Eliot L. Spitzer,
+Mark A.
+and the Palm Beach Police Department. Harvard announced that it would not return any money.
+On June 18, 2010, Epstein's former
+Alfredo Rodriguez, was sentenced to 18 months in jail for trying to sell a joumal that he
+said recorded Epstein's activities. Special Agent Christina Pryor reviewed the material and agreed it was Information "that would have
+been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including names and contact information of material witnesses and
+additional victims.
+Comment History
+Stage Name
+Creation Date
+There are no comments entered at this time.
+Entered By
+Comment Preview
+Approval History
+Stage Name
+Banker Attestation
+Market Manager
+Approval
+Signoff Date
+007201309-34
+
+Owner SID
+U008568
+U117517
+Owner Name
+JUSTIN D NELSON
+TOWNSEND C
+
+89982vH
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00149683
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fce5c1bb3d1bada2b034cdd9b7bd46a5fe8acddca8fad506493447cc394a483.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fce5c1bb3d1bada2b034cdd9b7bd46a5fe8acddca8fad506493447cc394a483.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2b3337ddf8ae2ebc4bd42b607d07de9dbc79ec49
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0fce5c1bb3d1bada2b034cdd9b7bd46a5fe8acddca8fad506493447cc394a483.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -260,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0fce5c1bb3d1bada2b034cdd9b7bd46a5fe8acddca8fad506493447cc394a483",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 18,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.digits-only\", \"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\", \"swarm.running-headers\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "a587466be77c7becb1b46d0ed7f4a51f4d5d0dd6532608a385e4b9898eb562a5",
+  "output_sha256": "2367da08d80b857e372491b902f06ecaee57f3c1ea5dd25ab184df0b7f5e1875",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffbabfe25eac8920aa4bc0bb03ab35e51217373d9d8e2ab8b00c6239e261221.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffbabfe25eac8920aa4bc0bb03ab35e51217373d9d8e2ab8b00c6239e261221.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4d0c79af39759f976bc75e25196bb23b383296f4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffbabfe25eac8920aa4bc0bb03ab35e51217373d9d8e2ab8b00c6239e261221.md
@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-132 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 2
+
+
+
+From:
+Sent:
+To:
+Subject:
+Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 326-132 Filed 09/08/23 Page 2 of 2
+Kevin.McCleerey@jpmorgan.com [Kevin.McCleerey@jpmorgan.com]
+7/15/2008 1:19:36 PM
+Anne.Verdon@chase.com
+Fw: Rapid Response Memo - Epstein
+EXHIBIT ( 9
+WIT: Salug
+DATE:
+U-l/
+23
+ADR CRA CSR #13921
+FYI Jes spoke to Lisa Waters and told her he wants to keep his accounts. Lisa is on vacation and cannot join
+today.
+--- Forwarded by Kevin McCleerey/JPMCHASE on 07/15/2008 09:16 A.M -....
+The Private Bank Risk Management and Control Group
+Bonnie K
+Perry/JPMCHASE
+07/15/2008 08:31 AM
+ToAnne E Verdon/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE, James
+Dalessio/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE, Kevin
+McCleerey/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE, Lisa E.
+Waters/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE, Marcus
+Sheridan/JPMCHASE@JPMCHASE, Mary C
+PMCHASE@JPMCHASE
+cc
+SubjectRapid Response Memo - Epstein
+For the 2:00 pm EST Rapid Response Meeting on Jeffrey Epstein:
+[attachment "Rapid Response Team - Jeffrey Espstein 2nd Mtg - July 2007.doc.zip" deleted by Kevin
+McCleerey/JPMCHASE]
+Bonnie K Peny, VP, CAMS | Prisare Banh Risk Mgmt and Contol Group | GE 712 Main, 4h Moor, Honstou, TX 77002 (1323-
+N0-5 | 2 Tel: 713.216-5136 | 8 Frx: 713216-7970
+E: ixmmie.k.pespi@lipmuemn.com
+
+JPM-SDNYLIT-00450343
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffbabfe25eac8920aa4bc0bb03ab35e51217373d9d8e2ab8b00c6239e261221.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffbabfe25eac8920aa4bc0bb03ab35e51217373d9d8e2ab8b00c6239e261221.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d0f4352b345691250079e752092eaf182198b00f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffbabfe25eac8920aa4bc0bb03ab35e51217373d9d8e2ab8b00c6239e261221.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -47,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ffbabfe25eac8920aa4bc0bb03ab35e51217373d9d8e2ab8b00c6239e261221",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 4,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "ac5c10890975a2cdce5f5ed958029d17ff032f0833d9a411af2fdcd6986b99de",
+  "output_sha256": "3be5b0dfeae0bcc04ecdd43ed860ebbccd80d484bf4453d4db5049c67d30c9da",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffce2d171598a0c7f3636dbd35c3ab8dfd11c8d77960a45f0ff35a5d159a7a9.md b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffce2d171598a0c7f3636dbd35c3ab8dfd11c8d77960a45f0ff35a5d159a7a9.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a3fc0d0ea249e7dee59b73ccc7f9f7846c197856
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffce2d171598a0c7f3636dbd35c3ab8dfd11c8d77960a45f0ff35a5d159a7a9.md
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 186-18 Filed 06/14/23 Page 1 of 4
+
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 186-18 Filed 06/14/23 Page 2 of 4
+Document Produced in Native Format
+
+ESTATE_JPMO24371
+
+
+Year
+2000
+2001
+2002
+2003
+2004
+2005
+2006
+2007
+2008
+2009
+Projected 2009
+Rate
+65,000
+65,000
+67,999
+74,990
+80,000
+84,000
+88,200
+93,000
+98,000
+98,000
+98,000
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 186-18 Filed 06/14/23 Page 3 of 4
+JeanneL
+Salary and Tuition analysis
+Salary
+23,125
+67,192
+69,615
+77,308
+82,000
+86,035
+90,508
+95,404
+98,000
+98,000
+98,000
+Bonus
+1,000
+2,500
+5,000
+5,000
+5,000
+5,000
+15,000
+20,000
+Outstanding
+tuition
+Antilles Tuition College Tuition
+6,465
+13,890
+22,750
+33,125
+36,775
+38,950
+40,650
+28,300
+29,700
+15,300
+30,243
+31,484
+32,295
+15,300
+32,295
+32,051
+Total
+30,590
+1/4 year tuition benefit
+83,582 1/2 year tuition benefit
+97,365
+3/4 year tuition benefit
+115,433
+123,775
+129,985
+146,158
+173,947
+Two children at Antilles One in college full year college paid
+159,184
+Two children at Antilles One in college full year college paid
+145,595 One child Antilles Two in college 1/2 year college paid
+177,646
+
+
+Case 1:22-cV-10904-JSR Document 186-18 Filed 06/14/23 Page 4 of 4
+Cecile de Jongh
+Salary and Tuition Analysis
+Year
+2000
+2001
+2002
+2003
+Annual
+75,000
+75,000
+78,948
+86,000
+2004
+2005
+99,000
+2006
+102,960
+2007
+105,000
+2008
+110,000
+2009
+110,000
+Projected 2009
+110,000
+Salary
+49,219
+77,923
+80,615
+90,154
+97,000
+100,919
+103,941
+107,404
+110,000
+110,000
+110,000
+Bonus
+2,500
+2,500
+5,000
+5,000
+5,000
+5,000
+25,000
+25,000
+:
+Antilles Tuition
+6,465
+13,890
+22,312
+32,540
+36,775
+38,950
+40,275
+27,500
+28,900
+15,300
+15,300
+College
+Tuition
+Outstanding
+tuition
+41,000
+42,000
+37,771
+37,771
+Total
+58,184
+94,313
+107,927
+127,694
+138,775
+144,869
+169,216
+200,904
+180,900
+163,071
+37,361
+200,432
diff --git a/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffce2d171598a0c7f3636dbd35c3ab8dfd11c8d77960a45f0ff35a5d159a7a9.receipt.json b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffce2d171598a0c7f3636dbd35c3ab8dfd11c8d77960a45f0ff35a5d159a7a9.receipt.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f47ff61f4cc38851cff841bca07744be9b79255
--- /dev/null
+++ b/vision-fixhub/court-05/0ffce2d171598a0c7f3636dbd35c3ab8dfd11c8d77960a45f0ff35a5d159a7a9.receipt.json
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+{
+  "byte_delta": -70,
+  "dataset": "marble-joined",
+  "doc_id": "0ffce2d171598a0c7f3636dbd35c3ab8dfd11c8d77960a45f0ff35a5d159a7a9",
+  "engine": "marble-apple-vision",
+  "event_count": 6,
+  "fix_ids": "[\"epstein_legal.bates-stamp.efta-prefixed\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.confidential\", \"epstein_legal.stamp-stripping.exhibit-labels\"]",
+  "idempotent": true,
+  "input_sha256": "12aea676fcdba09fa94cbde396f8f9bd65efd2fb71830507dbd7c52c42673c9c",
+  "output_sha256": "17cf9cce32510da98931cd0c7dbd339a4b03cb1cd80d1ba2f0af72eccb8be035",
+  "page_markers": false,
+  "source_id": "epstein-external",
+  "text_format": "markdown"
+}