Ghislaine Maxwell renewed bail application

Case 1:20—€r—00330—AIN Document 97. Filed 22420 Page 1.of45 unten states nistic court sourneRN pismicr or New york unimen states or america, : 2006330 (any omsiane maxwel, Defendant nommmmmmnmemnmmmenemmmennnmnt wiEvoranbum or omstaine maxwerr in suprorer or ek revewep morion For ban, Mark S. Cohen Christin R. Everdel colleN & arESSER LLP $00 Third Avenue New York, NY tooz2 Phone: 212:957—7600 Jeffiy S. Paglnea Laura A Menninger waDbon, MORGAN & FREMAN RC. 150 Eas 10h Avenve Demer, C0 80203 Phone 30t—i3l—7264 Bobbi C. Stemheim Las Offices of Bobbi C Strmheim 33 West 19h Stree — 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 21220—1100 Avoriess fr Ghislaine Mexvell Case 1:20—cr—00330—AJN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page 20f45 Tamue or contents Page resumnaky saremnt 1 ArcumENT 7 1. Reconsideration ofthe Courts Bui Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S C. §3M2(..connnnmmmmmmmmmnnmnnmnnmmnnmnnmnnmnmmmmmmmmmmmen 7 11. Ms, Massel Should Be Granted Bail Under the Proposed Strict Bail Conditions 10 Ac — Ms, Mosel! Has Deep Family Tes to the United States and Numerous Surctis o Support Her Bond 10 1 Ms. Maxwell is Devoted to Her Spouse [RRRWRRRRRRR and Would Never Destroy Her Family By Leaving the County......... 11 2. A Number of Ms, Mixwell‘s Family and Friends, and the Security Company Protecting Her, Are Prepared to Sign Sighifeat BOR ...lssuln0nmommmemmemmmmmmmmm 13 B. Ms, Mawell Has Provided a Thorough Review of Her Finances for the Past Five ears is C.. Ms, Mrowell Was Not Hiding from the Government Before Her Artest... 18 1 Ms. Maxwell Was Trying to Protect Hers RR@WWRBRBBRRU tom a Media Freny and from Physical Threats..oo.soccsuccsocs....... 18 2. Ms. Mawell‘s Counsel Was in Regular Contact with the Government Prior to Her Arrest 2 3. Ms, MmwellDid Not Try to Avoid Arrest, Nor Was She "Good AC Hiding a D. Ms, Mawel! Has Waived Her Extradition Rights and Could Not Seek Refuge n the United Kingdon 0f PBNCE... 0mm 25 E. _ The Discovery Contains No Meaningful Documentiry Corraboration of the Govermments Allegations Against Ms, Maxwell 30 I. The Proposed Bail Package s Expansive and Far Exceeds WhatIs Necessary to Reasonably Assure Ms, Mixwell‘s Presence in Court x i Case 1:20—€r—00330—AIN Document 97. Filed 122420 Page 3of45 G.. The Allemative to Bal Is Confinement Under Oppressive Conditions that Impact Ms. Masswells Health and Ability to Prepare Her Defense .. 35 concuston as a Case 1:20—€r—00330—AIN Document 97. Filed 122420 Page 4 of45 Tamue or autiorrmies Paget Cases United Sates v. Doustani 982 Bd 79 (2d Cit 2019) ...ion d United States v. Bradshaw, No,00—10033—04:DES,2000 WL 1371317 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000}... United Statesv. Chen $20 F, Supp, 1208 (ND. Cal 1992)... 000000000m0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmccn 27 Unted Sresv. Cirilo, No.90—1514, 1999 WL 1436536 (2d Cir July 13, 1999) 2s United States v. Karni 298 F. Sipp 20 129 (D.D C, 2004. ccmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnmmmmmmmmmmmn 27 United Statesy. Khashoggi 717 Supp, 108 (.D NY, 1909) a United Staresv. Lee, No. Cie90—1417 2m, 2000 WL 36730652 (bN M. 2000) s Unted Sresy. Orn, 760 1:24 se? (sh Cir 1985) as United States v. Peron No. 18 CR—66—LTS, 2015 WL H022886 (8.DNY, Mar. 26,2019) .cooummmmcc $ United Stres v. Rove, No.02 Ch 756 LIM, 2003 WL 211964 (8.D NY. May 21, 2008) s United States v. Suhvagno 314 R, Supp, 24 15 (NLD NY, 2000) c. nnnnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 27 United States v. Stephens 487 F. Sipp 30 63 (BDN, 2000) mmm F 38 United States v. Word, 63 F, Supp, 24 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999) oon? i Case 1:20—€r—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page S of45 Statutes use poreoum0 : 18 U.S.C. § 3M2(..conmmmmmmmmnmmnmnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmn L$ 18 U.S.C. § 3142. onmmmmmmmmmmmmnmnmmmmmmnmmmmmmmmmmmmmed Rules Rule 5(8) o the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure s iv Case 1:20—cr—00330—AJN Document 97. Filed 122420 Page 60145 rame or exists Corer, ___ eee —— Cooare ———O Coe ———] Exhibit E.... Lete @Biiti Extibic , — Levert Exhibit G.... Lever @t Exhibit H, .— eter @Bitt Exhibit. —— Lever,, Exhibit Leter@@@igieeitt Exhibit K... Lever ,,,@@reiett Exhibit L. eter g,,) Exhibit M. —— Leter @i Exhibit N. —— eter @@gh Exhibit O.... Financial Condition Report Exhibit . .— Surementoff@BRf Exhibit Q. .— Media Analisis Exhibit R. —— Timeline of Discussions with SDNY Exhibit S. .— Surement@,@@Beett Exhibit T. Extradition Waivers Exhibit U. .— UK Extradition Opinion Exhibit V, .— France Extradition Opinion Exhibit W.. Lever @@igih Exhibit X, —— Leter@@iieth Case 1:20—cr—00330—AIN Document 97. Filed 12/2420 Page 7 of45 prsuminaky stanement Ghislaine Mel respectfilly submits this Memorandum n Suppo of her Renewed Motion for Release on Bail As set forth more fully below, Ms. Maxwell is proposing an expansive se of bai conditions that is morethan adequate to address any concem regarding risk of light and reasonably assure Ms. Massel‘ presence in court. Ms. Maxwell also provides compelling additional information in this submission, not available at te time of the inital bail hearing (which was held 12 days after he arres0, hat squarely addresses each of the Court‘s concems from the inital hearing and fully supports her release onthe proposed bail conditions. This information includes: (1 evidence of Ms. Maxwells significant family ti in the United Stites; (2) a detailed financial eport, which has also been reviewed by a former IRS CIP special agent, concerning her financial con tion and asses, and those of her spouse, for the las fve years; (3) revocable waivers of her ight t contest extradion rom the United Kingdom and France and expert opinions sating that it would b highy unlikely that Ms Maxwell would be able t resist extradition in th implausible event of her fesing to ither count; (4) evidence rebuting the Govemments conterion that Ms. Maxwell atempted to evade detection bylaw enforcement prior toher arest and (5) a discussion of the weakness of the govermment‘s cas against Ms. Maxwell including th ack o corroborative, contemporaneous documentary evidence in support o the thee accusers Ms. Maxwell vehemently maintains he innocence and is commited to defending herself. She wants nothing morethan to remain in this county to fight the allegations agaist her, which are based on the uncorroborated testimony ofa handful of witnesses about events that took place ove 25 years ago. The Cour should grant Ms. Maxwell bil n the restrictive conditions proposed below to ensure her constitutional right to prepare her defense Case 1:20—cr—00330AJN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page 8 of 45 The Proposed Bail Conditions Ms. Muswell now proposes the following $28. milion bail package, which is exceptional in ts eope and pat at isk everything that Ms. Muswell has—all of he and her spouse‘s assets her fiily‘s livelitood, and the Financia security of her closest fiends and fariy—ifshe were to fee, which she has no ntetion of doing +. A $22.5 milion personal recognizance bond co—signed by Ms. Muswell and her spouse, and secured by proximately 58 millon in property and $500.00 in cash AAs noted in th financial repot the $22.5 milion figure represent he value ofall of Ms. Mrswell and her spouse s asses. The three properties securing the bond include all o the real property that Ms. Maswell and her spouse oun i the United Stes, incluting thir primary family residence + Five additional bonds toiling approximately S milion o—signd by seven of Ms: Maxiell loses friends and family members, The individual bonds are in amounts that would caus significant financial hardship to thee sureties if Ms. Maxwell were to flee. These include: 0 A SLS millon bond co—signed by| both US. citizens ant etdone and le hecured oy pitas vo con. Bggegereeenetnty 0 A S2 S milion bond co—signed by who are U . einzens and reudents repens c ior c cons virtually a or IRRRiieeiiliiiiii assess ‘WMH s : onne ot ine cosine Sntrerghe in hose ros 0. A $25000 bond co. \, RR@rRNRzifimmmmmmmmmi — U.S, otizen and resident, and fly secured by $75,000 m coun o A $25,000 bond signed ~ Eno a close fly fiend, and flt secured by $25,000 in cash. The cash securty is money tha eran planned tose aside for his own dauahtr‘s ftir, but he i prepared o pleda it for Ms Masvell 0. a 52.000 bond signed ty BIRRWRRWRRRRRL a close family frend. whois a US. ciizen and resident, and ull secured by $2,000 in cash +A S1 milion bond posted bythe security company that would provide security services to Ms. Maxwell ish i anted bail nd transferred t estictve home confinement, This bond is signicant as we are unaware ofa security company ever posting it own bond in support ofa buil application. The head of the security 2 Case 1:20—€r—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page 90145 company has confined that they have never done this fo any cleat and tha h is wiling todo o for Ms. Massel because he is confident tha he will not ty to fle. * Ms. Maxwell will temain in th custody of a US. citzen who has lived in the United States for 40 years all serve as Ms Maxwells hid paty custodian unde 18 U.S.C2$ SE42CE CEC) and will ive with Ms. Maxwell n a residence in New York City ntl this case has concluded. We have identified a appropriat residence in the Eastem District of New York that hasbeen cled by Ms. Mmells security company. *. Travel estrcted o the Souther and Eastem Districts of New York, and limited as necessary to appear in count, atend meetings wit counsel and visit with doctors piychiatistsdentists, and upon approval by the Cour or Petal ervices +. Surrender ofall travel documents wi no new applications. * Ms. Mawell will provide the Court imevocable writen waivers of her right to contest extradition in France and the United Kingdom +. Stet supervision by Pretrial Sevices + Home confinement at he residence with electonic GPS monitoring. +. Vistos to be approved in advance by Pretial Servies, with counsel and fmnily members to be presapproved. *: Such other terms as he Court may deem appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 For her own safety, Ms. Misowell will also have on premises security muards 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The security guards will revent Ms. Maxwell rom leaving the residence at any time without prior approval by the Cont or Pretial Servies and will escort her when she is authorized to leave. If the Court wishes to make private security a condition of her bond, the gvards could eport to Pretrial Services. We believe these conditions are more than sufficient o reasonibly assure Ms. Maxirlls presence in cour. *As we arre now inital bul applicaton tis ca iolvs th inte ium ance ude whic t Sect Cu apprvad tin potl olen o a deft onthe condiin hat he po or pote anad some mands Onted Stes Dotan 9% F 24 77,52 (2d C 2019) (dada nh i deemed o bea tale rak prinaily Pecan ofth} wal .. my be released on ich condiion ouly nre, at /or br] wath fhe ‘ould otic ben demoed" Coops in orginal). Thercre, Ms Marvllnay beled ont conn Hat she pa or ete amet sewny. @t 18arz0in 16) 3 Case 120—000390—AIN Document 97. Filed 12/14/20. Page 10 of 45 New Information for the Court‘s Consideration "Th defense has devoted substantial time and effort to compile nformation that was not availible to Ms. Maxwell atthe time of th inta bil hearing that squarely addresses each of he factors the Court considered at that hearing. Because of these effors, Ms. Maxell can now preset th following additional infomation i support o he renewed bul application + Letter from Ms. Manels spouse. This lete demonstrates that Ms, Maxwell has powerfl family tes t the United Stites that she will no bandon. It describes the commited relationship between Ms, Maxwell and her spoue, who isa US citzen, and how they lived a quiet family ife o~lnntnmnniw inthe United Sites for over four years immediately pror o her arrest" The fete futher explains that Ms. Mell was fored t eave hr fimily and drop outof the public eye, not because she was rying t evade law enforcement but becaus the intense media frenzy and threats following the arrest and death of Jeffey Epotsin hrwtened the safety and wellbeing of herself and her \". Reanim For these same reasons, Ms. Muswell spouse did ot come forward as a co—sinerat he time ofth inital hearing. (Ex. A} * Letters from numerous other friends and family members. These leters fom Ms, Maxwells other surtes and several family members and frends ates to Ms Maxwells string, fotright charter and ther confidence that she will nat fe, The sureties also describe the signfeant Financial distess they would suffe if Ms Masvell were to vilite her bail conditions. (Eas, B—N, WX) * Finaneial report. The financial report prepared bythe accounting firm Macalvins Limited, provides an accounting of Ms. Maxwells inancial condition from 2015. 2020, and discloses ) allo her own asses, (i) all assets held i rast, and (i) all of the asses held by her spouse ove that same time period. The report reflcts that he tol value of assts n all thee catepores is aproximately 522 5 mion, which is the amount of the proposed bond. (Ex. 0) + Report rom former NRS agent RRR a tomer IRS agent with over 30 years of experience in criminal ta and manca rau investigation, reviewed the Macalvins report and conrmed ha it present a complet and accurate picure of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse‘sassts rom 2015—2020, (Ex. P) *. Statement from the person in charge of Ms. Maswelfs security. This statement rebuts th governments elim that she atempted to ide from law enforcement at the time ofherarest. (Ex.S) +. Extradition waivers and expert affidavits. To addres the Courts concems about extradition, Ms. Mell will resent irevoenble writen waives of he right to a Case 1:20—r—00330—AJN Document 97. Fled 12420 Page 11 of 45 contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France". We also provide opinions from expert in th extradition ws of the France and the United Kingdom stating that itis highly alitly that Ms. Moll would b able to resist extradition from either country in th event she were granted buil and somehow fed o citer county; which sh has no ntertion of doing. Their opinions also state that any extradition proceeding would be resolved promptly. (xs TV) * Lack of corroborating evidence. The goverment represented t the Court thatit had "contemporancous documents," including "diry entries" n suppor ofits case (Dis. at 5 The defense has now reviewed the discovery produced to date incluting all o the documents tha the government described as the core of is case ausinst Ms. Msvell. As explained more full blows, the discovery contains no meaningful documentary corroboration as to Mel! and only a small mmber of documents from th ime perid of the conspiacy charaed in the indictment. As an example the sovemment produced oul , e evidence i ths case bor down to witness testmony about events tat tok place over 25 years ago. Far from creating a Might risk, the lack of corroboration only reinforces Ms. Mills conviction that she has been flsely accused and strenathens her longstanding desire o fe th allegations against her and clear her name in court * Oppressive conditions of confinement. Ms. Mell has now been detained for over 150 days i the equivalent of soltary confinement since she was indicted and arested on July 2, 2020, despite the fact that she is no a suicide risk and has not received a single disciplinary nfetion. The draconian conditions to which Ms. Mixivellis subjected are not only unjust and punitive, but als mipair he ability o review th voluninous discovery produced by the goverment and to participate meaningfully in the preparation of her defense. Furthermore, the recent COVID—19 outbreak at the MDC thvestens he safty and wellbeing. Ms. Mael! Should Be Placed on Restrictive Bail Conditions Dring her more tha five mouths in isolation, Ms. Maxwell has had to watch as she has been relentlessly atached n a deluge of media articles that spiked overa year ago when Epstein "Ms Maeda not tine hse waive because we av ot be atl t ist e i he MDC toss er simatic inc e wa quentin ner two mess ap. Se wil ig thm as soo alona vas euene ‘alee dust gabe 13 220 we ailihe sormmmen o porte atiroul dicorey icutine anon we wom ~ moos Waco t eca cn tote t Coun ante recur ende a i ane pa a BOL HT) ofthe Pian Rute o Cin rocabae fue Dit 00 te porcments flue or BRR coon ad comening s Case 1:20—0r00390—AIN Document 97. Filed 1224/20 Page 12 0f 45 was aresed and has shown no signs of abating. Indeed, in th tree months after he arrest, Ms Maxwell was the subject of over 6,500 national media articles. That exceeds th number of ariles tht mentioned such high—profile defendants as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Joaquin "El Chapo" Gurmin Loera, and Keith Raniere in the 90—day period following thei arrests, combined. The media coverags has ruthlessly vilified her and prejudacd her uit, and has exposed her family and fiends to harassment, physical threats, and other negative consequences But Ms. Mawel i ot the person the media has portrayed her tobe far fom t, And he response t hese unfounded allegation remains unchanged: she resolutely and vehemently denies hem, and sh is steadfisly commited to remaining i this county, where she has been since Epstein‘ rest in July 2019, to fight them in court For Ms. Mell t fe, she would have to abandon he spouse [RRRIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRIRL She will no risk destroying the Ives and financial wel—eing of hose she holds most dear to live asa fugitive during a worldwide pandemic. In fct, every action Ms. Maxwell as taken from the time f Epstein‘s arrest up to the time of he fist buil hearing was designed to prorec her spouse @@@ rom harassment, economic harm, and physical danger. Ms. Maxell wants o stay n New York and have her day in court so hat she can clear her name and retur toher family Justi is not reserved solely fo the victims ofa crime; itis for the accused as well Her, justice would be served by granting Ms. Maxwell bail under the comprehensive conditions we propose. The alemativ is continued detention under appressive conditions thatare unprecedented for a non—volent retrial deine, which significantly impair her ability to participate in he defense and prepare or tra and which jeopardize he physical hath and psychological welling 6 Case 1:20—2—00320—AIN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page 13 0f45 arcument 1 Reconsideration ofthe Courts Bail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. asan A prior determination that a defendant should not b released on bail does not preclude the Court from reconsidering ts decision in light of now information, To th contrary, a bil hearing may be reapened ... at any time before tat ifthe judicial office finds that information exist that was not known to he movant at the me of he hearing and that hasa material bearing onthe issu whether her ae conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety ofany other person and the community. muse sram Cours have relied on § 3142() in revising bil determinations where the defendant presents materia testimony or documentary evidence that was not available to her at the me of the intl hearing, even f th underlying fcts might have ben withi the defendants knowledge. For example, in United Sures : Ward, 63 E. Supp. 24 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999), the court grated the defendant‘s equest t reopen his bail hearing to present evidence ofhis immediate family‘s willingness to acta sureties for is release, A at 1207, The court held that although "his immediate family and relatives wer obviously known to" the defendant at he time ofhis ares, hi inability to contact them and secure their pearance at his ital buil hearing Justifed reconsideration. A4 Cours als have found § 3142(D satisfied where thee is new information regarding the defendant‘s gul or innocence o the nature and seriousness of the alleged ofense—fcts qenerlly not known to a criminal defendant at the ine of th inital hearing~pariclaly where the evidence undemmines the government rior representations to the Cour regarding the strength of is case. See e., Unted State v. Stephens 447 . Supp. 30 63, 65 (8.D.NY. 2020) 7 Case 1:20—<—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 1272420 Page 14 of 45 (Nathan ) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence sugesting povernments case weaker than allged a intl hearing and concem about possible outbreak of COVID—19 n BOP cilities; United Sures . Lee, No. CR—99—1417 JP, 2000 WL 36730632, a * (DNM; 200) (reopening hearing to onside, ntr ll, afidaits eling to seriousness of th offense that defendant "could bave not have matialed® in th 17 days between his indictment and the original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been foun to sais § 3142(D even when the change was withi he defendants contol. See United Sare v. Bradshaw, No.00—10033— 04—DES, 2000 WL. 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) reopening hearing where defendant dlcided to seck substance abuse treatment following intl hearing) In addition, the Court may exerci is inherent authority o reconsider is own decision "{A release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing" United States v. Rove, No. 02 CR 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *I (8.D NY. May 21, 2003); see also United Sturesv Petron No. 1—CR—66—LT9, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (.D N.Y. Mar 26, 2015) (noting "Courts inherent authority for reconidention of the Cours previous bil decision") Her, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not available o he atthe ime of her inital detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the vlumnious discovery produced by the goverment (over 2.7 milion pages, which was not available atthe inital hearing and which raises serious questions about th strength of he govermment‘s cas, As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present fo the Cours considetion the additonal evidence discussed above in suppor of her bail pplication It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of §3142(; thatit have a "material baring on the issu whether here ar conditions ofrelease s Case 1220—5r00380—AIN Document 97. Filed 2/24/20 Page 15 04 that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person a required and the safty of any other person and the community." The evidence submited herewith relates directly to fctors on which the Cour reid in i intl detertion order. Among th bases for the Court inital order denying bail were ts findings that * Ms. Maxwells ick of "significant fmiy ties" in the United Sats sugnestd "that Might would not pose an insurmountable burden fo her" (Tr. 84); +. the Court lacked "a clear picture of Ms. Maxwells finances and th resources available to her" that would allow tto et reasonable bil condition (T. 87} *: ‘{elrcumstances of he arrest.... may cast some doubt on the clim that she was not hiding from the goverment" (T. 89) * Ms. Maxwell is a citizen of France, a nation that does not appear to extradite it citizens" (Tr 83) and — the government had proffered that its witress esimany willbe corroborated by significant contemporancous documentary evidence‘ (Tr. 82) "Th addtional evidence submited herewith demonstrates hat Ms. Maxwell docs have significant family ies n the United States that her assets have been thoroughly disclosed and reasonable bail conditions can be et that Ms. Maxwell has never attempted to hide rom the goverment tht Ms Maxwell has waived her extradition rights an itis highly likely she would be extradied from the United Kingdom or Franc; and thatthe goveenment s case auninst her is not supported by the corroborating documentary evidence which the overnment represented at the intl hearing "Th evidence submited herewith is significant and substantial, and it could not have reasonably been obtined, assembled, and submited n the 12 days between Ms. Maxwells arrest and her intial detention hearing. This evidence has a materal bering on whether reasonable bail conditions can be et, and it shows thatthe proposed st of conditions will reasonably assure Ms. Maxell‘ appearance in cout o Case 1:20——00330AJN Document 97. Fled 1224020 Page 16 of 45 11. —— Ms. Maxiell Should Be Granted Bail Under he Proposed Strict Bail Conditions Ac Ms. Minanell Has Deep Family Ties to the United States and Numerous Sureties to Support Her Bond Adtached to this submission are leters from Ms. Maxwells spouse and from numerous close family members and friends, many of whom have agreed t serve as sureties to support Ms. Maxwell‘ renewed bai application. (See Exs. A—N, W—X). Far fom the erve caricature thatthe press has so recklessly depicted since the arrest of Jeffy Epstein, these eters demonstrate that Ms. Maxwell is generous, loving, and devoted to her fmily and friends, and tat her if s firmly rooted in this country with her spouse RRR ERR i sicnnorics of these letrs have known Ms. Maxwell for decades, and some for her entre life, All know he to be the antithesis of what the government has alleged. They trust her completely, including with thei minor children "These people have stepped forward to support Ms. Maxwell, despite the considerable risk that, if their names ever become public they willbe subjected o some of the same relentess and harassing media intrusion and personal threats that M. Maxwell has experienced for years. As a sign of thir confidence that Ms. Maxwell will remain in this country, th surties have agreed to sign their own bonds and to post meaningful pledges of eash or property in amounts that would csuse them significant financial distress if Ms Maxell were to vila her bail conditions ‘These leters directly address the concem the Cort expressed at the las bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell did not have "any dependents for] significant family tes" o the United Stites. (Tr. $4). If Ms. Masswell were to fee, he would be leaving behind th family that has been the center of her lt [IRRWWWRRRRER she would be abandoning her spouse [IBJ 10 Case 120—000390—AIN Document 97. Filed 12/14/20 Page 17 of 4 R so ws alrcacy suflring without her presence, and she would cause inancial ruin to herself and her closest family an frends 1. Ms. Maxwells Devored o Her ~~—@@Ri and Would Never Destro Her Family By Leaving the Country "The leter submited by Ms. Masswells spouse powerfull demonstrates that Ms: Mixavel has deep root in the United States andis not a fight risk. The eter describes Ms Massel‘ domestic lf with her spon@@¥P¥pipi¥iRRRRiRRY in me fou years prio to her arrest. Her spouse describes Ms. Mxivell asa *wonderfil and loving pose 7 Ogigrereemmmmmmgy coos so sommcicty ssonittc the person depicted in the indictment. (Ex. A44). Contrary to the governments assertion that Ms. Maxwell lived a rootless, transient" Lifestyle (Dt. 4 at 9) Ms. Maxwell ived a Epstein‘samest n July 2019 ignited a media frenzy that has ripped the fumily apart "The person described i the criminal charges is not the person we know. Thave never winessed anything close t inappropriate wi Ghislaine: qure o he U the Ghishine Tknow isa wonderfl nt loving i R ‘nil the explosion of media interst that followed the anes and subsequent death incusody or i Epstein in Jub thu Ausust er wires The eters fom Ms. Maxwells family members similarly describe how Ms Massel‘ home is o the United States with he spouse BRR ant how deasly commited sh i o he family. see I @R@i@R@¥@igippppppmmmmmmmnmmmmg u Case 120—000300—AIN. Document 97. Filed 12/14/20. Page 18 of 4 ppp 1 <5 cis i i< her deeply. They an a inredily stong and cloe fnily onit %; . c @i EE 50+ n se iis «veut hosed by Ghislaine and her husband in which she was very hospitable and obviously very march at home and n love."; Ex. C ({Ghistine] has called the United Stites her home for almost 30 ears. She has deep affective family tis hee in this coun ORRI soos or all he own husband RWGRSSSBBRJ are here; Ex. B (*I wish .. o atestto the oving relationship she has wth her bn ant RR@RRRRRRRRRRRE which 1 have personally witnessed on many different occasions) Indeed. it was because of Ms. Maxswel‘s devotion o her fumily, and her deste to protet her spo [ORRRRIRRRRRRRRRRRRRIE] tom harassment and threats, that she went forward atthe fist buil hearing without relying on he spouse asa co—siner, even though she knew his support would areal strengthen he bil application. As he spouse wntes 1 did ot initally come forward as a co—signcs of her ist bail pplication [because we ws ining to procs bow frocow neta Siim . maho (Ex. A 13), Her spouse is coming forward now because he is deeply concemed about how she is being treated i the MDC and because the tembl consequences hat he and Ms Massel were ving to prevent have abendy occure, Rigg berry bmmmmmmmmmmmmmr HRR Co 100 Ms. Mwells spouse fill supports her and is prepared to put u all of is and Ms: Maxsell‘ assets to ensure that Ms. Maxiell abides by the strict conditions proposed. He 12 Case 120—000390—AIN Document 97. Filed 12/14/20 Page 19 of 4 has agreed to o—sign Ms. Maxwells $22.5 milion bond and to post al three properties he owns—all located in the United States and worth a otal of approximately $8 milton combined—as security for the bond. As the inancial report discussed late in this submission makes clear 522.5 millon represents allo the current assts of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse. One of the properties isthe family home where Ms. Maxwell, her spouse, ERR ic Isc coches IRR. 10s. Mixccll were o violate her bail conditions, which she has no imention of doing, she would be lesving her spouse ) RRR @ villy nothing. Itis unfathomable that Ms. Maxwell would abandon her family, which she has fought so hard to protect, under hese circumstances 2. A NumberoCMs, Miwell‘s Family and Friends and the Security Company Protecting Her Are Prepared to Sizn Siznifcant Bonds In addtion to he spouse, a number of Ms. Maxwells family members and friends, many of whom are U.S. ities and residents, have volunteered to step forward as co— signers. These sureties, as wellas the others who have writen leters on Ms. Maxell‘ behalf, know that Ms. Maxwell ha never run from a diffcult itation and willnot do so now. To show the depth o their support an their confidence that Ms. Maxwell wll abide by her bail conditions and remain in this country, the sureties have agreed t ign separate bonds for Ms. Maxwell in amounts that are significant and meaningful t them, and each would cause severe financial hardship f she were to violate he bail conditions For example, one surety, who s a U.S. citzen and resident, will post the only property she owns. This property is worth approximately S1.5 milion and is her "only nest cae for retirement." (Ex. C). She writes 1 do not have any other savings and it would be completely devastating financially and in every way to my own family were the hou to be taken over by th Government due t a breach & Ioigniiinl buil conditions is Case 1:20—0r00390—AIN Document 97. Filed 1224/20 Page 20 of 45 (Id), Nevertheless, she has "no hesttion" posting her home because she knows "in every fibre of her] being" that Ms. Muswell will never ty to flee" (%) Similar, another surety who has greed t sign a S3. milion bond writes ‘tis agtouns comennns th uce af itd cate ait a ae sete Seglnding m :o». Reeaippppppppppanel TH ostthese asote because Ghistaie violated the conditions ot her release, I would be financially ruined. 1 make this pledge without reservation because Iknow that Ghislaine wil remain in the United States to face th charges against her (Ex. F, Two other sureties, one of whon is a U.S, citizen and resident, wll post cash bonds in the amount of $25,000, and another will post $2,000 in cash, which are significant pledaes fr hese individuals In addition to these bonds, he security company that will rovide securty services to Ms. Maxwell upon her transfer nto home confinement has agreed to posta SI millon bond in support of he buil application. In our collective experience as defense counsel we are not aware ofa previous example where a security company has posted a bond for a defendant, The head of the security company has confirmed that they have never done this for a defendant in the past but are willing to do so here because o his companys ong— standing relationship with Ms. Maxwell® and because h is "confident that she will not try to flee." (Ex. S) In sum, these bonds reflect the depth of support that Ms. Maxwell ha fom her family and friends, who are risking ther livelihoods, thir safty, and thir ablity to tive Sion aomint medie fimnnment i mugo he. (he ti 15 01 80am angeme whs dares to put ther head sbove the parapet so to speak to .. support Ghislaine personally, gets it shot off immediatl amid a hil of social vilfeation and malignancy and reputational slaughtering"). Ms. Maxsell would never destroy those closes to her by feng. aftr they have risked so much to support her 14 Case 120—000390—AIN Document 97. Filed 12/14/20 Page 21 of 45 B. Ms. Mananell Has Provided a Thorough Review of Her Finances for the Past Five Years The government mised concems at the inital bil hearing about the accuracy and completeness ofthe financial disclosures that Ms. Maxwell provided to Pretrial Services (Die. 22 at 11—12; T 28:29, 34—35), The Court stated that t did not have "a clear picure of Ms. Maswelfs finances and the resources available to her" and therefore had no way "to set financial bail conditions that could reasonably assure her appearance in court" (Tr. 8647) ‘To address the Court‘s questions about Ms. Maxwells finances, defense counsel retained Macalvins, a highly reputable accounting firm in the United Kingdom, to conduct an analysis of Ms, Maxwell‘s assets and Finances for the past five years. The Macavins accountants reviewed thousands of pages of financial documents, including bank surements, tnx returms, FBAR flings, and other materials to crete a clear picture ofthe assets held by Ms. Maxwell and her spouse, as wel as any assets held in trast fo the benefit of Ms Maxwell, an the source of hose assets from 2015—2020, This analysis, whichis based in substantial part on documents that he government provided in discovery, has involved a significant amount of work and has taken substantial time to complete. It was not possible to perform this analysis in the brie time between Ms. Massel‘ arrest and the inital bail heating specially with M. Maxwell detained following her arrest The Macalvin report was also reviewed by BRR a Cenified Fraud Examiner and a former IRS Special Agent with over 40 years of experience in complex financial fraud investigations. As a Special Agent BRWBBKJ investinted numerous financial ud and criminal ta cases, including several i this District. [RRR reviewed the Macalvins report and the underlying documents and determined that it presets a complete and accurate summary of the assets held by Ms. Miwwell and her spouse, as wellas asses that were, or are curenty, held n is Case 1:20—r—00330—AJN Document 97. Fled 1224020 Page 22 of 45 trast for the benefit of Ms. Maxwell, from 2015—2020, The Macalvins report and BRR s report are attached as Exhibits O and P.* As set forth inthe Macalvins report, Ms. Maxwells net worth atthe beginning of 2015 was approximately $20,200,000. (Ex. 04 11). The 2015 tax return records the sale of a residential property in New York City for $15,075,000. "The address of this property is \_ Tc cocci cic soc ere icvosic 1 ppp (0s i>. n<siccoos Maxsell‘s New York apartment coincided with her inn on [R@@gRiRiiiiRRRiR) to tive with her spouse [NRRSRBRBRRRRR (See Bx. A12) Ms, Maxsell maried he spouse in 2016 and commenced fling joint U.S. ac returns from the 2016 tax year unt oday. (Ex. 0% 13). In 2016, Ms. Maxwell transfered the majority of he asses imo a trist controlled by her spouse and RR@@RRBBJ (). All asses in the trust wer distributed to Ms. Maxwells spouse in 2019. (Id. at 9). Ms. Maxwell and her spouse‘s net worth as of October 31, 2020 was approximately $22,500,000. (4.9 15)" There has been no alienation of any assets and no significant sum of cash has been transfered outside ofthe control of Ms. Maxwell or her spouse n the period from 2015— £s hive not povided te Cout wit th apendis to h Macahin repo because they ar voluninos. Iie Cour wold hike copes of te apres we are happy o provide tom ‘At her Prtal Servies intervie, Ms Macnllreponed tat sh eve sh u aponinay 5. tio in asits wich include her Londo roidece worl appron ately illo and aproximately 580.000 n bank acsouts Ms Macell was dein atthe tine and x n ccs toher nancial ncods and wasting o pee wopeter hese numba rom memory: Accoting o h Mcain eport the pues area low apponinaton of th aloe ofthe set hat Ms Moov eld in e own name tth time ofhr anes, ( 3) Por he reson ately dimuned, ts Monell wa rlocat to doco anthing abo er hatun and expend tto Prova i6 Case 1220—5r00300—AIN Document 97. Filed 2/24/20 Page 23 045 2020, other than dail living expenditures for her family and for professional services in the defense of Ms. Mawell fom the charges she fice. (2.4 16) The Macalvins report confirms that Ms. Maxsell disclosed all o her foreign bank accounts in FBAR filings and properly disclosed her bank accounts, investments and other asses in her U.S. tax filings atall times. (I7. 9 25, 30). The eport also explains thatthe transfers f finds between various accounts in the pst ew years, which the novemment highlighted i heir ntl bail submission (Dkt 22 at 1112), reflected movements between banks triggered by the closire of one banking relationship and the opening of new relationship, as well movements of cash maturing on deposit and other financial investments. (2.418) A the last buil hearing, the povemment suggested that Ms. Maxwells finances were "opaque" and that she potentially had "significant {] undetermined and undisclosed wealth." (Ts 27; Dla, 22 at 11—12), The Macalvins report ils this cloud of unjustified intrigue and provides a straightforward answer: Ms. Maxiell and her spouse curently have assets worth approximately $22.5 million ® Accordingly, the proposed bond amount of $22.5 milion represents all of the couple‘s curent asses "The report futher shows hat Ms. Maxiell as no undisclosed wealth and is not hiding assets overseas. To the contr, fo the past severl years, Ms. Mswell and her husband have disclosed ther foreign assets by submiting FBAR flings regarding their hout te eommmrmmoinmenmmmumanmmameamemaneno—Sysen inoue rent to to roc apodeme neta o te cou andthe povernmen if rept. nar vt we k tate Cot abla midine lnstng ntt h pveninet ando wit the information 17 Case 1:20—0—00330—AIN Document 97. Fed 1272420 Page 24 of 45 foreign bank accounts. Ms. Maxwell is not trying to hide anything from the goverment She has been entirely transparent with her finances and has fled accurate and timely joint tax returms with her spouse for the las four years, and she has put it lla risk of forfiture if she fees under the proposed bil package. The Macalvins report and the report @ WBB cise ths Court a clear picture of Ms. Maxwells finances. Accordingly, the Court should have no pause about ranting he on bil on the proposed terms C. Ms. Maxavell Was Not Hiding from the Government Before Her Arrest 1 Ms. Mixwell Was Trving to Protect Hes! IRRI) fom a Media Fren and fom Physical Threats "The lete rom Ms. Maxivels spose also freefully debunks th fiction that Ms Maxwell was rying to conceal her wheresbouts from the government before her arrest as the government argued atthe first buil hearing. (Tr, 23). Ms. Maxwell made effors to remove herself from the public eye solely to prevent the intrusion of the enzied press into her personal family life and to protect herself her spouse [RRR from third parties who threatened violence. To suggest that she was a fuzitive is patently wrong Afer Epstcin‘s arrest and subsequent death in BOP custody, the media coverage of Ms. Maxwell spiked dramatically, asthe press rushed to substitute Ms. Maxwell for Epstein as th taget of the scandal. The graph below illustrates the volume of ress articles relating to Ms. Maxwell over the course of the last five years." The graph shows that Ms. Maxwell was mentioned i news articles only sporadically between October 2015 and June 2019. It was not until Mr. Epstin‘s arrest in July 2019 that Ms. Maxsell was thrown into the media spotlight Forexample, Ms. Maxwell was mentioned in only S9 articles in total fom: October 2015 to June 2019. Immediately following Epstein‘s arrest, however, she was "norte ts quantity th number ofaricle pubtated abou Ms Mowe w ed Nes Newson a mata nontoring and anlnes sevice prove by Levies 18 Case 1:20—000390—AIN Document 97. Filed 1224/20 Page 25 of 45 named in 97 article n the month of July 2019 alone. The leve of press coverage spiked agsin in November 2019 when the Britsh tabloid The Sun ran an advertisement offering a £10,000 bounty for information about Ms. Maxwells whereabouts and it continued at a heightened leve over the next several months. cpstame maxweus meoia mentions: — , » iw Iw i% ira ane ——— a PPRELLELRELEEERLEEELELELEELLELEL EL mmmmmmmmmmmmmm "This graph depict in stark visual terms the sea change in media attertion that upended Ms. Maxwell‘ ife at th time of Epstin‘sarest. But it was not only harassment from the press that Ms. Maxwell suddenly encountered at this ime. She also faced a deluge of threatening messages on social medi in the days immediately following Epstin‘sarest and death. (See Ex. Q). The hatred directed towards Ms. Masswell in these post is palpable and unsettling. Despite the fct that Ms. Maxiell was not charged—indeed, not even mentioned—in the Epstein indictment and had not been charged with any rimes, the authors refered to he asa "erry, pedophile, pimp, bitch" and a "subhuman tnt," and alld for he to "rot in jail" These people als encouraged all manner of violent ats 19 Case 120—000390—AIN. Document 97. Filed 12/14/20. Page 26 of 4 agninst Ms. Maxwell For example one post stated "they need to get this bich n sting her up by her neck.... fckin monster." Another stated hope someone finds her and kills her. That would be justice. Obviously her Inseyers know‘s [sie] where she is someone should stick them up to batteries until we find out where she is "These post were particularly chilling because some of hem suggested that the violent acts they had been threatening. For example, in response to an August 14,2019 news eport that Ms. Masswell might be iving in Massachusets,one person wrote. SHES HERE in #Massachusetts 2! The bich #GhislaincNMmwell who #SexTraffcked youne girls for #Epstein 2?! Why th hell isnt she being brought in for questioning @ManchesterM APD 7! WE Do NOT WANT HER HERE! #SleezyLeach She is CLOSE ENOUGH to me,I could grab her mysein "The intense media atention and violent threats made it no longer possible for Ms Mie {OWGR t Live a quie ife and required Mo. Masswell to take more drastic steps to protect berseRRRRRRRRRRRRRR: Rathe than see [RRR normed by even more unnvanted media attention, Ms. Maxwell made the diffcult decision to separate hersel (BRI) RRR st cove hes home. As her spouse writes "The reporting" of Ghislain over th pat ear has exploded exponentially. From the time of Epstein‘s ares and death in custody in the summer of 2019 untl Ghisaine‘s own arest in July ofthis yex, huss ant ncrsusincly fisirening levels of media interest meant HERR Tc we many exampies of votence whose sects wer bom in conspiacy theories, and the experiences of Q Anon, Pizagate, and th recent Judge Salas atack are tering Itis hard to communicate n words the feeling of bong aulied pied upon and irsppediby constant 247 media ntmasoul zo Case 120—000300—AIN. Document 97. Filed 12/14/20. Page 27 of 45 (Ex. A f 8—10). Ms. Maxsell had no choice but to separate hers IR@gRgRRRBRtttP DOP Since Ms. Masiwells own arrest in July 2020, he pres attrtion has exploded. It significantly divarfs the media atention given to other recent high profile defendants such as Harvey Weinstein. Bill Cosby, Joaquin "El Chaps" Guzmin Loera, and Keith Raniere As reflected in the graph below, in the 90—day period immediately following her arest, Ms Maxiell was mertioned in more national media articles than in the analogous 90—ay periods for M. Weinstein, Mr. Coby, M Gurmin Loera, and Mr. Raniere combined Aur vis. mepia covenaor comparison (oo oays or arsesn EOR a_ ~ Grummett. rnamean .. bice — snamcemmices — moms ammmmmmmmmmmummmmem a Case 120—000390—AIN Document 97. Filed 12/14/20 Page 28 of 45 2. Ms. Mixwell‘s Counsel Was in Regular Contact with the Govemment Prior to Her Amest Amo time, however, did Ms, Maxwell imend t fee or hide rom the government, as the government argued atthe last buil hearing. In fct, her tent was exactly the opposite. As her spouse‘s eter makes clear, ater spenting a ow months away [RRR Ms. Maxwclt move ERR] so that she coo RRR os win driving distance of the prosecutors in New York in case they wished t speak toher. (Ex. A4 12) ([Ghistaine] was adamant o not only sta in the United Sats to fight th smears aginst her, but o be wthin driving distance of New York. Contay to he impression given by the goverment, Ms. Maxwell was not ‘changing locations on multiple occasions" s if she were a fugitive from justice. (Tr.87). Afr Ms. Maxwell moved ito the hous in New Hampshire in December 2019, she remained there continuously for approximately seven months until her arrest (See Ex.) (8 Jre was finaly able to locate a place where she could not be moving around constantly and collect herself to fight fr her if and t cea her name.") Ms. Maxwell, through her counsel, was als in regular contact wth the government from the moment of Epstein‘ arrest up the time of he own artes, as would be customary in such situations. Defense counsel corresponded by email spoke on the phone, or had in— person meetings with govemmentin July, August, September, and October 2019, and also in January and March 2020, The timeline attached o this submission ilustates the extent of these contacts. (Ex. . Defense counse also requested an opportunity to be heard in the event that the government was considering any charging decisions against Ms. Maxwell We were never given that opportunity, which is uncharacteristic for the Souther District of New York, nor were we given any notice of he impending arrest 2 Case 120—000390—AIN. Document 97. Filed 12/14/20. Page 29 of 45 "The government argued t the Court that defense counsel‘s contact with the prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwells arest prove litle about her iment to stay in this country simply because she never disclosed her location. (Tr. 26). While Ms Maxsell was understandably not in the habit of volunteering her whereabouts given the intensity of th press attention, her counsel would have provided that information had the government asked fo it. The government never did 3... Ms Micwell Did Not Try to Avoid Arrest Nor Was She "Good At" Hiding Similarly, had the government reached out t defense counsel before Ms. Maxwell‘ arrest, we would have willingly armnged for he self surrender, We were never given that chance. Instead, the government arrested he i a totaly unnecessary arly morning raid with mutiple federl agents at her residence in New Hampshite, on the eve ofthe one—sear anniversary of he arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, creating the misimpression that Ms, Maxwell was hiding fom them. That is simply not the case "The government argued that the events of Ms. Maxiell‘ arrest—in particular, hat she moved herself into an interior room when the ofiees appronched the house and that they found a cel phone wrapped in tin foil——evidence an attempt to evade law enforcement (Tr 32:34). As we previously explained to the Court, M. Maxwell was protecting herself from the press, not trying t avoid arrest. (Tr 54:57) Since the hearing, we have obtained the accompanying statement rom [@@ RRR (hs head of the sccuriy company guarding Ms. Maxwell atthe time of her arrest, which was not avalible atth ime of th intial hearing. (Ex. 5). BRRRRRRRI statement demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell was not avoiding arrest but was following an agreed—upon procedure to protect herself in the event o a potential threat to her safity or security a Case 1:20——00330AJN Document 97. Fled 1224020 Page 0 of 45 According to [RRRRRRRIBL the security gvard on duty that day had seen helicopters fying over the house, which he assumed to be the press. (it). When the guard saw the FBI agents walking up th driveway to the house, he agin assumed tat they were members of the press. (). Accordingly he radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert he thatthe press was on the grounds and approaching the house. (I4), In accordance with the procedure hat Ms Maxell‘ security personnel had putin place for such an event, Ms. Maxwell moved away from the windows and into a safe room inside the house. (Id). Ms. Maxwell was not trying to avoid arrest she was simply following th established securty protocols to protect herself from what had been informed was an ambush by the press Regarding th celiphone wrapped in tinfoil, we explained o the Court at the inital bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell took this step to prevent the press from accessing her phone afte the Sccand Cieuit inadvertently unsealed certain cour records with the phone number unredacted. (Tr, 5556). Having now reviewed th discovery produced by the goverment itis clear hat Ms. Maxwell was no at all the "master sps" the government makes he out to be and was not wrapping the phone in order to evade detection by law enforcement Firs, th cellphone in question was subscribe in the name of "Terramar Project, Inc." which i easily identifiable through a simple Goole search as Ms. Maxwell s charity Second, Ms. Maxsell used the phone to make calls as late as May 2020, jus before her arrest. She would never have used the phone if she had been concerned that the authorities were using itt rick her. Third, Ms. Maxwell had another phone subscribed in the name of "G Max" that she was using as her primary phone, which was not covered. It would make no sense for her to try to wrap one phone n tinfoil to avoid detection and not th other a Case 1:20—r—00330—AJN Document 97. Fled 124020 Page 31 of 45 Indeed, the discovery reflects hat t was no hard at al forthe government to locate Ms Maxsell when they wanted to fin her by tracking he primary phone. In sum, the celiphone clearly shows that Ms. Maxwell was not "good a" hiding or that she was avoiding arrest as the government claimed. (Tr. 31—32). She was trying to protect herself as best as she could from harassment by the press, not capture by law enforcement. Moreover, this should not b a bar to granting bail. The proposed conditions ensure he presence at home in plain sight o RRR (and the security avards), GPS— monitored, and under strict Preti supervision D. Ms, Minosell Has Waived Her Extradition Rights and Could Not Seck IRefuge in the United Kingdom or France Atthe intl hearing, the government argued that Ms. Maxwell, a naturalized U.S. citizen who has lived in the United Sates for almost 30 year, might le o the United Kingdom or France i ranted buil, despite the fit that she did not leave th country for neatly a year afer Epotei‘s ares. (Dit 22 at 6) The government assried in its reply brief that France "does not extradite ts citizens tothe United States pursuant to French law." (&t). At th buil hearing, the goverment represented that "France wll not extradite a French cizen to the United Sats as a mater of aw, eve if th defendant isa dual itien of the United Stites," and that extradition by the United Kingdom wouldbe "Tengthy® and "uncertain" with bil "very likly® pending the extradition proceeding. (Tr. 27) These asserions are incorrect, partculaly given Ms. Maxwells irevoesble waiver of he extradition righs with respect o bth the United Kingdom and France As we noted for the Court atthe inital hearing, the concem that Ms. Maxwell would attempt to fee the United States is entiely unfounded given that Ms. Maxwell had every motve and opportunity to flee ate the arest and death of Jefiey Epstin, but chose t remain in this as Case 1:20—<—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 1272420 Page 92 of 45 country. (Dit 18 at 12—14, T, 52:53), Itis even more unfounded n light ofthe daily avalanche of media coverage of Ms. Maxwell She is now one ofthe most recognizable and infamous people in the world. She is being pusied relentessly bythe pres, which would no doubt be camped out by her front doo every day if she were granted bil. The notion that Ms. Mansell could somehow flee to a foreign county during a worldwide pandemic (presumably, by plane), while being supervised and monitored 24 hours a day and with the eyes of the lobal press corps on her every minute, without being aught, is absurd. ‘To th extent the Cour is concerned that her calculus may have changed since her arest because the threat of prosecution has now enjsta lized into coneret charges (T. 85—86), Ms Maxwell has addressed that concem head.on—she will execute irrevocable waivers of her ight to contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France. (Ex. T). These waivers demonstrate Ms. Maxwells frm commitment o remain in this country to fice the charges against her. Moreover as discussed more fully in th attached expert report, because of these waivers and othr icts, itis highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to successfully resist an extradition request fom the United States o citer county, in th extremely unliely event he were to vilite her bail conditions. (Eas. U:). Moreover, any extradition proceedings i ither country would be resolved promptly. (4) Cours have addressed concerns about a defendant‘ esto a freign stat hat enfrees extradition waivers by requiring the defendant to execute such a waive a a condition of release—including in cases where the defendants, unlike Ms. Maxwell were not U.S.ciizens See, eg. United States v. Cirtlo, No.99—1514, 1999 WIL 1496836, at +2 (3 Cir July 13, 1999) (vacating distct cours detention order and reinstating magistrate‘ release order, which required foreign citien and resident to sin an "revocable waiver of extradition" asa condition 2 Case 1:20——00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 12/2420 Page 93 of 45 ofrelease); United States v. Sehagno, 314 F, Supp 2d 115, 19 (NID NY. 2004) (ordering each of wo defendants to "execute and ile withthe Clerk of the Cour a waiver of extradition applicable to any nation or foreign territory in which he may be found asa contin of his continued release") Unted States v. Karni 298 F, Supp 2d 129, 132.33 (D.D.C. 2008) (requiring Israel citizen who live in South Afi and had "no ies to the United Stats" to sign waiver of rights not o be extradited under Israeli and South Afrcan extradition treaties with United Sates); United Sures : Chen, £20 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (NID. Cal. 1992) (ordering as a condition of release that defendants "execute waivers o challenges to extadion fom any nation where they may be found?). Moreover, a defendant s waiver of th right o appeal an extradition order has been recognized asan indication of th defendant itent no o fee. See «g. Unted Sates v. Khashoggi 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (8 D.N‘Y. 1989) Judge Keenan found defendant‘s extradition appeal waiver "manifests an tention o remain here and fice the charges against him") In response to the government s assertions, Ms. Maxwell ha obtained the accompanying reports of experts i United Kingdom and French extradition law, who have analyzed the Hiklitood that Ms. Mawel in the event she were to le to the United Kingdom or France, would b able to resist extradition t he United Stites ater having executed a waiver of er ight to do so. Both have concluded that iti highly unlitely that she would be able to rest extradition succesfill. United Kingdom. With respect to the United Kingdom, submited herewith i report from David Pery (‘Pery Rep."), a U.K. barrister whois widely considered one of the United Kingdom‘ preeminent extradition prctitioncts. (Pery Rep. Annex B 42.1) (atached as Exhibit U); Mr. eny has acted on behalf of many overseas governments in extradition proceedings; has a Case 1:20—2—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page 34 of 45 appeared in the High Court, House af Lords and Supreme Cour in leading extradition cases; and has acted as an expert consultant to the Commonsealth Seercariat on international cooperation (Id), In 2011 and 2012, Mr. Pery was part ofa select eam appointed by the U.K. government to condact a review of he United Kingdom‘s extradition arrangements, a review that formed the basis of changes o he 2003 Extradition Act. (K. Amex B 43.1) In Mr. Pery‘s opinion, it is "highly unlily that Ghisaine Maxwell would beable suecessfily to resist extradition o the United States n connection with this case. (Pery Rep. 12(6). After concluding that none of th potentially applicable bars t extradion o human righ objections would prevent Ms. Maxwells extradition, Mr. Pery explains that Ms Maxwell‘ waiver of her extradition rights would be adinis ble in any extradition proceedings and, in cases such as hi one, where the requested person consents to thirexradton, the extradition proces is itly to alk between one and three months to complete." (R. 1 2439) Mr. Pery‘s report also undercut the government‘ representation atthe nia hearing regarting Hiliood o ail (see Tr. 27), opining that "a person who absconded ftom [a) US criminal proceeding in breach of bail... is extremely unlikely o be granted bil" n a subsequent U. extradition proceeding. (Pery Rep. 423) France, The accompanying report of William Jul (ult Rep." reviews th French extradition process as t would likely be applied t Ms. Maxwel. Mr. Juli is an expert on French extradition law who has handled extradition cases both within and outside the European Union and regularly appears asan extradition expert n French court. (Juié Rep, (atached as Exhibit V). Mr Juli explains hat, contrary to the government s representation, "the extaditon ofa French national t he USA is egal permissible under French law." (% at 1) as Case 1:20—2—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 12/2420 Page 95 of 45 Mr Juli opines hat he French entity with jurisdiction over th legality of extradition requests would not oppose Ms. Maxwells extradition on th ground that sh is a French citzen, and that itis *highy unlikely that the French government would refuse to issue and execute an extradition decree" against her. (R. at 2). Mr. Juli bases his opinion largely on () Ms Maxwell‘ U.S. citizenship; (i) he ievocable waiver of her extadtn rights with respect to the United Stites; (i the fit thatthe issue would aris ony if Ms. Maxwell ha fed to France in violation of tit buil conditions in the United Sates; (i) the fit thta failure to extradite would obligate French authors to ty Ms. Maxwell in French courts for the same 25—yearold conduct alleged in the indictment, which did no ake place in France and (v) France‘s diplomatic interes in accommodating an extaditn request from the United States, (It). Mr Julit adds that the extradition process would ikely be disposed of expedient"; where the requesting tate emphasizes the urgent nature ofthe extradition request, th extradition deere is generally issued in only a few weeks." (. at 23), And n any event while he extradition proceedings are pending, "the French judicial authortes would most ceinly decide that [Ms. Maxwell has t emain in custody given he fight fom the USA and the violation a he bil terms and conditions in this requesting State." (% at 12). Ms, Maxwell has no intention of fling the country and has relinquished her rights to contest extradition. She ha always maintained her innocence and wll continue to fight the allegations against her here in the United Sites, as she ha in the past, Even if she were o fee after bing granted bail which she will nod, i i likely that Ms, Maxwell would be extradited expeditiously from France orthe United Kingdom. Accordingly, the Court should give no weight in th bil analysis o the fit that Ms. Maxwell is a dual cizen of these counties." Mis Mvvel woud abo hare vey ite nntve o fet Fane. Arcon to cen pss pos Ferch autbonteesenty bondendiheirexining cin mvsigato imo Jefey Eps includes Manvel. See » Case 120—c00390—AIN Document 97. Filed 1224/20 ‘Page 36 of 45 E. The Discovery Contains No Meaningful Documentary Corroboration of the Government‘s Allegations Against Ms. Maxwell Atthe inital bil hearing, he government represented to the Court that the evidence in this case is strong" and that the allegations of th alleged victims were "backed up (by] contemporaneous documents .. [including} fight records, diary entries, business records, and other evidence." (Dit 4 at 5) The Court credited those representations and accepted the governments proffer that the witness testimony would be "corroborated by sign/ cont contemporaneous documentary evidence" (Tr. 82) (emphasis added), The defense, of course, could not rebut the govemment‘s representations at he hearing because the government had not yet produced discovery Since then, the government has produced. and the defense has reviewed, hundreds of government represented was the core o ts ase against Ms. Maxwell® The discovery "significant" corroboration thatthe Court was le to believe existe. The vast majority of 20105, well afer the conspiracy charged in the indictment (1994—1997). These documents io . PRR onl :<: 30 Case 120—000390—AIN Document 97. Fled 12/2420. Page 37 o 4 kept contemporaneous diaries that implicated Ms. Maxwell. (Dit 4 at 5), The discovery produced thus far contains » .; O@@°°eirerererererereemmmmmmmmmmmmmmg in addtion, th flight records that the government touted at the bil hearing, which ___ ___ 31 Case 120—000390—AIN Document 97. Filed 12/14/20 Page 38 of 45 bnommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmemmmmmmmmne opm bord "The discovery also does not contain any police report n which the people we believe t be the complainants reported the alleged crimes t iw enforcement. To the contrary, the oly police reports provided are exculpatory. BRR oon bnnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmea ecpmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmemmd n In sim, the discovery contains nota single contemporaneous email, text message, phone record. diary eat, polic report, or recording that implicates Ms. Maxell n the 1994—1997 conduct underlying the conspiracy charged in th indictment. The few document n the discovery that pertain to the people we believe to be the three complainants referenced in th indictment do itl, if anything, to support the govermment‘s case against Ms. Maxiell x Case 120—000390—AIN. Document 97. Filed 12/14/20. Page 39 of 4 In addition, the discovery appears t show tt R@@RgigpiiiiiiRRRRiiiiiiiiiiiiiid emmm NHK to sovsmmenent did no iene scbpoesas for documents rlared to Ais. Massel unl after Epstein‘s death. Although the discovery does not include the grand jury subpoenas themselves, the subpoena retims appear to indicate thatthe goverment began issuing subpoenas for Ms. Maswells financial information on August 16, 2019, six days afer Epstein‘s death, and issued additional subpoenas in the months that followed. The fits stronaly imply tht government only chose to pursue a case against Ms. Mixiell——who was not named in the Epstein indictment —because the main target Jeffrey Epstei, had died n their custody. The lack of orzobortion in the discovery confirms that the case against Ms Maxavell was an afterthought and was reverse engineered based on allegations of 25—year— old conduct rom a small number of alleged victims. Thus, notwithstanding the statement in the governments bil submission, we have been provided with no meaningful documentary corrobortion in this case. t appears hat the evidence in this ase boils down to witness testimony about events tht allegedly took place over 25 years ago. Far from erating a flight rik, th lack of corroboration only reinforces Ms. Mills conviction that she has been flsely accused and strenathons her Jon—standing desire to face th allegations against her and clear her name in court. This factor should weigh heavily in fivor of ranting Ms. Maxwell bui 3s Case 1:20—0r—00330/AIN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page 40 of 45 F. The Proposed Bail Package Is Expansive and Far Exceeds What Is Necessary to Reasonably Assure Ms. MaxwelPs Presence in Court In ight ofthe additional information that Ms. Maxwell has provided in connection with this submission, which responds t each of the concems raised by the government at the inital bil hearing, he government cannot meet its burden to establish that no set or bil conditions would reasonably asure Ms. Maxwells appearance in court The proposed bail package is exceptional in its scope, addresses all of the factors thatthe Court considered in evaluating risk of Night, and is more than suicient to warrant her release fom BOP custody and transfer to restricted home detention Cours in this Circuit have ordered release of high—profil defendants wih financial means and forsin citizenship on bonds in lower amounts wit ess or no security wth simar or Jess restrictive conditions: mut | _o | MM | @ | je | se | mimenies « me | oe | g | g l 9 9 ic — ml g | g | % le — 9 io 5 mu | & | w | @ | sec) @ | mans ww mm | q | g | 9 wees (o re BRR <= | o | o | u | e | y es Chig mo| wo | ol w |e | a na CARE < | u | o | u | ce | ce | ses t mm | q | & | & | me | jo | enim s withe |_ & & & = & 25 Ea wee | se (| ve | be | se ) ve Gema f m= |_G | G | G| GLG inal "The Court should also not give any weight t he government‘ speculative assertions hat other might provide money and other support to Ms, Maxwell if she were to fee. (Dit 22 at x Case 1:20—2—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 12/2420 Page 41.f 45 112), Ms. Maxwell isnot obligated t rebut every theoretical possiblity thatthe government might aise that may contribute to a porenil Night isk in order to b grated bil That isnot the standard. CF United States. Ort, 760 F.2d $87, $88 nd, $92.93 (8th Cr, 1985) ("The Jesal standard required bythe [Bail Reform} Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute quarantes "). Ms. Mawel has no ntetion of Aeeing. Uf she di, then under the proposed bail conditions she would los everything and destroy the amily she has been fighting so hard to protect since Epstein‘ arest. Ms. Maxwell wll no do that, an should be granted buil G.. The Alternative to Bail Is Confinement Under Oppressive Conditions that Impact Ms. Maxiell‘s Health and Ability to Prepare Her Defense Granting bail to Ms. Maxwell is all the more appropriat and necessary because th past few months hav shown that Ms. Massel cannot adequately participate in her defense and prepare for tra from the inside the MDC. The alterative to release i hr continued confinement unde extraordinarily onerous conditions thatare not onl unjust and punitive, bt also meaningfully impair Ms. Maxwell ability to review the voluminous discovery produced by the government and to communicate effectively with counsel o prepare her defense Ms. Maxwell has pent the entirety of her detetion=—now over five months—in de eeto solitary confinement, under conditions that rival thos used at USP Florence ADMAX to supervise the most dangerous inmates in th federal system and ar tantamount to imprisonment as a defendant convicted of capital murder and incarcerated on deth row. In fit, multiple wardens and interim wardens have remarked that in their collective years o experience tey have never seen anything lke her current regime. The restrictive regulations o which Ms Maxwel i subjected are not reasonsbly related t a legitimate gol to ensure th security of Ms: Maxwell orthe MDC. Instead, it seems clear thatthe overly estctve conditions are an 3s Case 1:20—0r—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 122420 Page 4z of 45 exagperated response to Epstcin‘ death effectively punishing Ms. Maxwell fo the BOP‘ oun neelience with respect to Epstein." Counsel has attempted to address th restrictions in numerous ltrs, emails and call to the MDC warden, the MDC legal department, and th prosccuton, but t no avai. Rather than repeating these ponts hee at length, we refer the Cour to our leter to he MDC warden, dated October 29,2020, which deils the most serious and extisondinariy restrictive conditions of confinement " These include *: De Facto Soliary Confinement *: Excessive Survailince * Excessive Scanning and Stip Searching * Deprivation of Food * Deprivation of Sep * Deprivation of Communication with Family and Friends * Compromised Communication with Legal Counsel The conditions of Ms. Maxwells detention are uteryinappropriat, and otlly disproportionate for a non—vilent pretil detainee with no prior criminal history facing nonviolent charges a quartecentury old. Moreover, they adversely impact her ablity to prepare he defens and compromise her physical health and peychlopial welbcing In addition t these intolerable conditions, Ms. Maxwell has had o contend wth numerous unacceptable delas and technical problems wth the discovery that the povernment has produced to he thas fr We have raised these issues withthe prosecutors on numerous occasions. As we advised the Cour in our leter of October 23, 2020, defense counsel fist © Th condition re iesialy inara becaue Ms Maovel u eon an excmolay inatc and hasnt fsh y dniplna nncion occ her are I c thas ben made nove wach nnate whieh n th lghs and mas nated rpomiiy tata iwc can have eis h igh firny ac Ms Mav n being eontandy svat si ah were a swirl when ate, henlf s toad enough (fihe wor evr ideal fom lato o mondor inmate who ae til at rik ofavcil © the Wark neve raponda t th lete. In ou rapom to h overment‘ 00cly au eport eonconing MDC conitom, coum rpuend tt the Warten provid ind ej ote Coat andcoamel Tolowing (Cou drstne or a ripa hom th NMDC: MDC Lagal mita a te e ected BOP poly baled n sddrseananberotcomes 36 Case 1:20—0—00330—AIN Document 97. Fied 1272420 Page 43 of 45 alerted the government on August 27, 2020 hat there were sinifeant portions o the fist three discovery production that Ms. Maxwell could no ead. (Dit, 66). Despite numerous atempts to fi these problems ove the succeeding weeks, including producing a replacement hrd drive containing these production, the problems were not resoived and the replacement hard drive was broken. In addin, th forth and ith productions, which were produced afer th defense alerted the government to these problems, contained some of thesame technical problems and included a significant number of ureadabl document. Mos recent, the hard dive fr the sixth and seventh productions have stopped fnctioning properly. As a result, Ms. Maxwell has not had access toa complete se of readable discovery fr ove four months. Ms. Maxwell cannot defend herslf if sh cannot review the discovery Most recently, Ms: Masel has had t endure th added burdens of quarantine. On November 18, 2020, Ms. Maxwell was given a COVID test and placed in 14—day quarantine due to contact witha staffer who tested positve, The revolving team of uurds assigned to Ms Massel. some coming fom other BOP nsittions confronting their own COVID outreats, heightens her exposure to the virus. As reported bythe associate warden to the Criminal Justice Advisory Board on December 2, MDC docs not mandate sting among its taf. A temperature check and response o a few questions dos tle to detect an asymptomic carrier, The constant strip searching, touch waning, and remouth checking of Ms: Mawel heightcns her ik for exposure to COVID—19 " On Nownber 18,200 te goverment at ou gut, povided a atp conput to Ms Masel n te MDC, wich it belevad woul remedy he now sll anacile docents and as agent to pide anew had dtve emairing a othe dheovay Ii o cy t l uhr th re lop ant had dne wil whe a f e kedwre rotamer. Rove hat row tt Mo Merwe a e elo om aran sh only has ansen o he anon rm tan Sp v diya wou which wi efictvly imi a evie ime to dt timer ian ofconpatbiiy imusfetveen he reely podunt hrt iv anit poon conpuce 37 Case 1:20——00330—AJN Document 97. Fled 12420 Page 44 of 45 Ms. Maxwells quarantine period also resulted in cancelation of weekly in—prson egal visits. This is kel o continue in light of the spike in COVID infection within and ouside the MDC. Within a two—day period rom December 1 to December 3, S inmates tested postive, compared with 25 rom March to December 1. As ofthe dte ofthis filing, the BOP reports 80 MDC inmates and staff with COVID.* If legal visits are suspended. it will further limit our ability to review the voluminous discovery (well i excess ofone milion documents) with Ms: Maxwell and will futher compromise her ability to prepare her defense. Moreover, as this Court observed in United Stes Stephens, it an outbreak occur ‘substantial medial and security halenges would almost ceriainly arise." Stephens, 447 F; Supp. 3d at 65. We urge the Court to weigh th threat of COVID asa facto fvoring release in this cas, as tid n Stephens concuusion Chisine Mawell is commited o defending herself and wants nothing more than to remain in ths country, wth her amily and friends by her side, s that she can figh the allegations against her and clear her name. Sh is determined t ensure that her surctes and her family do not suffer because of any breach of th terms other bond. We have presented a substanta bail package that sats the concems o the Court and the government, which contains more than ample security and sfeguards to reasonably assure hat Ms, Maxwell remains in New York and appears in court. The Court has the obligation to ensure that a dfendant‘s constitutional righ to prepare a defense i safegvarded. The correct—and only levitimate—deision isto grant Ms. Mawel buil on the proposed strict conditions. "se lips/hnc bo so suromninn! 3s Case 1:20—2—00330—AIN Document 97. Fled 12/2420 Page dS of 45 For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell espectilly requests that the Court order her release on bail pursuant to th conditions she has proposed. Dated: December 4, 2020 Respectfily submited. i MerkS Cohen Mark S. Cohen Christin R. Everdell colteN & orEssER LLP $00 Third Avenue New York, NV tooz2 Phone: 212:957—7600 Jethiy S. Pagluca Lara A. Menninger wbbon, MORGAN & FOREMAN RC 150 ast 10h Avenve Denver, C0 80203 Phone 30t—31—7264 Bobbi C Stemheim Lan Offs of Bobbi C. Sermheim 33 West 19 Street — 4th Floor New York, NVY 10011 Phone: 21220—1100 Atoricss for Ghislaine Mevvell »