Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9

Ces2e.29-12,407413r3cliAlienDtidutinEl t310282 if663615/233/2174ig Plage aoat 9 HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN July 29, 2020 Honorable Loretta A. Preska United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P C Ty Gee 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com tgee@hmflaw.com Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protective Order and punish its violation. Ms. Maxwell's two deposition transcripts were designated "Confidential" and subject to the protection of the Protective Order. Both transcripts ended up in the hands of the government, which used them to bring an indictment against Ms. Maxwell, charging her with, among other things, perjury in her deposition testimony. This is a serious violation of the Protective Order, and merits the commencement of contempt proceedings. We also write to seek reconsideration of the Court's July 23, 2020 ruling concluding that the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition and Doe 1's deposition should be unsealed in their entirety (with the exception of non-party names). We recognize that a reconsideration motion is an extraordinary request, but we suggest it is appropriate under the circumstances. There are new facts since Ms. Maxwell lodged her objections to the unsealing of the transcript of her deposition, and there is a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice relating to the unsealing of the transcript. We respectfully request that the Court keep sealed Ms. Maxwell's and Doe l's deposition transcripts and any sealed or redacted order or paper that quotes from or discloses information from the transcripts ("deposition material"). We do not seek unnecessary delay; however, if the Court denies our request for reconsideration, we do wish to seek relief from the Second Circuit. Accordingly, in the event the Court denies this reconsideration request, we ask that the Court stay any unsealing of the deposition material for at least two business days to give us time to apply to the Second Circuit for a stay of the unsealing order pending appeal. As the EFTA00075055 Caest:2942,40741334AfenDtkalnifiatI0282CHNOCPACIfgattgf210209f 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 2 courts have recognized, temporary stays of unseal orders are appropriate so that "[t]he genie is [not] out of the bottle," Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 (2d Cir. 2004), before the interested parties have an opportunity to seek review of the orders. See, e.g., United Staten. Martoma, No. Si 12 CR 973 PGG, 2014 WL 164181, at •8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014) ("The Court stays immediate disclosure of these materials to permit Defendant to make application to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a more extended stay."); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 54 (2d. Cir. 2019) (recognizing likelihood of future appeals in this matter). 1. There are new, intervening and significant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after Ms. Maxwell filed her reply in support of her objection to unsealing documents containing references to Does 1 and 2, the government staged a dramatic, forced entry at dawn into her home and arrested her. EXHIBIT A, at 3. Immediately after Ms. Maxwell's arrest, Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss held a press conference and made numerous comments attacking Ms. Maxwell's credibility and expressing her opinion of Ms. Maxwell's guilt, e.g., that she was guilty of "l[ying]" in her deposition "because the truth, as alleged, was almost unspeakable." M Plaintiff's counsel piled on, offering their own opinions about Ms. Maxwell's guilt. For example, Mr. Edwards opined that Ms. Maxwell was "a main facilitator" of Mr. Epstein's crimes who "started the whole thing." M Ms. McCawley praised the prosecutors: "[They] have done an incredible job and they're being very meticulous, they want to make sure that the Indictments stick. ... They took a lot of time to be very careful and thoughtful and that gives me a lot of hope that [Ms. Maxwell] will remain in prison for the remainder of her life. ... [Ms. Maxwell] was really the central figure ...." Id. at 6. Ms. Maxwell's motion for an order barring such extrajudicial comments led Judge Nathan to admonish "counsel for all involved parties [to] exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court's local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility." ExHIBIT B. She further "warn[ed] counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules." Id. judge Nathan said she would ensure "strict compliance" with the rules and "ensure that the Defendant's right to a fair trial will be safeguarded." Id. On July 8 the government filed a superseding indictment alleging that Ms. Maxwell "assisted, facilitated, and contributed" to Mr. Epstein's abuse of minors. The indictment quickly turned to this civil action, alleging that in 2016 Ms. Maxwell made "efforts to conceal her conduct" EFTA00075056 Caes:f9-0,40741133cia4CnDtidtkat3102821:Fi Rial3615,233/ aft g Fratge 23a9f 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 3 by "repeatedly provid[ing] false and perjurious statements" in deposition testimony. EXHIBIT Cl 8. Quoting verbatim from Ms. Maxwell's April 2016 deposition transcript, the indictment alleges Ms. Maxwell gave false testimony (a) when she testified "I don't know what you're talking about" in response to a question whether Mr. Epstein "ha[d] a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages ... [i]f you know"; and (b) when she testified, "I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with [other than plaintiff] who was 17 at this point." Id. 1 21. None of these questions and answers was used in the summary judgment papers or released by the Second Circuit. The transcript containing this testimony is sealed. 2. The Court should commence proceedings to vindicate the government and plaintiff's violation of the Protective Order. Only two parties—plaintiff and Ms. Maxwell—and their counsel had proper access to the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell's deposition. The transcripts, which were designated "Confidential," were the subject of the Protective Order strictly limiting the persons to whom the parties may disclose "Confidential"-designated documents. For example, the parties could only disclose such documents to "attorneys actively working on this case" and "persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys who are working on this case." Doc.62, quoted in Doc.1071 at 3. This language was negotiated by the parties to specifically exclude an exception for investigations by law enforcement. On February 26, 2016, counsel for plaintiff proposed protective order language that would have allowed for a "law enforcement" exception: Paragraph I(a)4 of plaintiff's draft proposed that: "CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to, investigations by law enforcement." See Exhibit D at 3. This language was rejected by Ms. Maxwell because of her concerns that plaintiff and her lawyers were acting as either express or de facto agents of the Government. The language agreed upon, and made an Order of this Court specifically excluded an exception for law enforcement. Had the language not been made an order of the Court, Ms. Maxwell would have proceeded in a different fashion. She relied on this language and the protection afforded to her by this Court under established Second Circuit law. In its Order dated July 1, 2020, the Court said it was "troubled" to learn that plaintiff's successor counsel, Cooper & Kirk, had received from plaintiff's former counsel, Boies Schiller Fierier, various discovery materials that were subject to the Protective Order. Doc.1071 at 4. The Court rejected Cooper & Kirk's suggestion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) discovery materials designated CONFIDENTIAL cannot be EFTA00075057 Caest 131-63.403481XliAfFenDbet.4nORM282(Fili16198/Seiginigktge 209f 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 4 disclosed or used outside of the Maxwell action and (2) that properly designated discovery materials may only be disclosed to speafic groups of individuals, including attorneys "actively working on" the Maxwell litigation. Doc.1071 at 4-5 (emphasis supplied) Five things are plain. One, as the indictment and superseding indictment establish, the government has a copy of the transcripts from Ms. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions, both of which were designated "Confidential." Two, the government had no ability legally to obtain the deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a party for access to transcripts of depositions twelve witnesses, including some of the civil defendants. The government said it was investigating possible violations of federal criminal laws, including perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. The government: speculated that the pretrial deposition testimony might be relevant to its investigation into matters similar to those that had been the subject of the Martindell action and might be useful in appraising the credibility, accuracy and completeness of testimony given by witnesses in the Government's investigation or might provide additional information of use to the Government. The Government, moreover, feared that unless it could obtain the deposition transcripts, it would be unable to secure statements from the witnesses because they would claim their Fifth Amendment rights in any investigative interviews by the Government. 594 F.2d at 293. The district court denied the government's request, holding that "the deposition testimony had been given in reliance upon the protective order, thus rendering unnecessary invocation by the witnesses of their Fifth Amendment rights, that the requested turnover would raise constitutional issues, and that principles of fairness mandated enforcement of the protective order." Id The Second Circuit affirmed: In the present case the deponents testified in reliance upon the Rule 26(c) protective order, absent which they may have refused to testify.... [T]he witnesses were entitled to rely upon the terms of a concededly valid protective order and Judge Conner did not abuse his discretion in refusing to vacate or modify that order. Id at 296-97. Three, the government did not obtain a copy of the deposition transcripts from Ms. Maxwell or her counsel. Four, following plaintiff's counsel's admitted violation of the Protective Order EFTA00075058 Caest 29-6.4034B94MenDbOutneRfill1282CHN0005,83301eglageZ09f 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 5 earlier this month, it is clear now that there has been a second violation of the Protective Order in a manner consistent with the plaintiff's intent and goals—namely, the prosecution of Ms. Maxwell and the pursuit of a sentence that would imprison her "for the remainder of her life," EXHIBIT A, at 3. Five, no one should be permitted to violate this Court's Protective Order with impunity. As it did in connection with plaintiff's violation of the Protective Order via her attorneys, the Court should enter orders to determine the nature and extent of the violation of the Order, identify those persons who violated the Order, and impose appropriate sanctions. Until this process is completed, the Court should stay any disclosure of the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell's deposition and deposition material. We respectfully submit that in the event the Court finds a violation of the Protective Order, this Court should direct the government to return to the Court any copies of the deposition transcripts and enter an order to show cause why the person(s) who violated the Order should not be held in contempt. See, e.g., Blum v. Schlegel, 108 F.3d 1369 (2d Cir. 1997); Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 337, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 3. The indictment provides a compelling reason not to unseal the transcript of Ms. Maxwell's deposition. That Ms. Maxwell was under criminal investigation, the Court ruled, "is not entitled to much weight here." Tr. of July 23 Hearing, at 5. The Court said Ms. Maxwell had not explained how the sealed material could inappropriately influence potential witnesses or victims. Id The effect of Ms. Maxwell's indictment, arrest, upcoming trial and of Judge Nathan's efforts to ensure a fair trial was not discussed in our objections since none of these things had happened before briefing was closed. Two cases are instructive. In each the courts indicated that in deciding whether to unseal materials it was important to give weight to the impact on a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), a number of media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of four of President Nixon's former advisors. The media intended to copy the tapes for broadcasting and sale to the public. District Judge Sirica denied the motion, principally on the ground that the rights of the four defendants, who had been convicted and had filed notices of appeal, would be prejudiced if they prevailed in their appeals. 435 U.S. at 595, 602 n.14. Judge Sirica noted that the transcripts of the audio tapes had been released to the public. Id at 595. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held Judge Sirica abused his discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and rejected the media's arguments that release of the tapes was required under the common law right of access and the First Amendment. The Court noted apparently with approval that (a) "Judge Sirica 's view" that "the public's `right to know' did not ... overcome the need to safeguard the defendants' rights on appeal," and (b) "Judge Sirica's principal reason for refusing to release the tapes EFTA00075059 Caest 15-63.4034BectiAgenDtet4nORM282(Fili161f36MWECaglageZOM 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 6 [was] fairness to the defendants, who were appealing their convictions." Id at 595, 602 n.14. The Court indicated that the public interest in access to the tapes properly was balanced against "the duty of the courts," id. at 602, including the duty to ensure fairness to the defendants, see id. at 602 n.14. In In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987), cited with approval in United States v. Longueuil, 567 Fed. App'x 13, 16 (2d Cir. 2014), Judge Weinstein denied the media's motion to unseal papers filed in connection with an unsuccessful defense motion to suppress evidence obtained by electronic surveillance. He found that "defendants' interest in a fair trial and the interests of third parties [referenced in] the motion papers justified continued sealing of the papers." 828 F.2d at 112; see id. at 112 (defendants opposed unsealing on the grounds it would prejudice their Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, their privacy rights, and third parties' privacy rights). The Second Circuit vacated the order in part because "the wholesale sealing" of the motion papers was "more extensive than necessary to protect defendants' fair trial rights, their privacy rights, and the third persons' privacy interests. Id at 116. The court noted, "now that the jury has been impaneled, defendants' fair trial rights can certainly be adequately protected by sequestration." let In Nixon and New York Times, the courts properly were concerned about the effect of unsealing materials notwithstanding that they were core judicial documents—audio tapes admitted into evidence at the merits trial and motion papers seeking suppression of evidence which the judge denied. And the courts continued to hold these concerns even after the defendants had been convicted and had launched appeals (Nixon) and after the petit jury had been empaneled (New York Times). The courts have recognized that the right to a fair criminal trial is a compelling interest in "weighing the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interests and the duty of the courts," Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602. See United States v. Cicale, No. 05-CR-60-2 (NGG), 2018 WL 388941, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2018) ("Compelling interests warranting closure of a courtroom—and, by extension, sealing of court documents— `may include the defendant's right to a fair trial ....' ") (quoting with alterations United States v. Doe, 63 F.3d 121, 128 (2d Cir. 1995)); United States v. Martoma, No. Si 12 CR 973 PGG, 2014 WL 164181, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014) ("A court's conclusion that a qualified First Amendment right of access to certain judicial documents exists does not end the inquiry, however. `Courts must balance the right [of access] against other important values, like the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to a fair trial... and the defendant's ... privacy interests.") (internal quotations omitted; quoting United States v. Rajaratnam, 708 F. Supp. 2d 371, 374-75 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Excalibur Reins. Corp., 3:11-CV-1209 CSH, 2013 WL 4012772, at *3 (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2013) ("The public's right to access court documents is not, however, absolute in that it may be surmounted by a party's showing that sealing will further other substantial interests, for example, a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial or a third party's privacy EFTA00075060 CaesR1294.403499(hAfFenDbfitheRt331282(Fia119015Bf9allegfPage20a 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 7 interests."); United States a McVeigh,119 F.3d 806, 813 (10th Cir. 1997) (upholding district court's sealing of discovery materials deemed inadmissible at trial, holding that "disclosure of such [materials] would play a negative role in the functioning of the criminal process, by exposing the public generally, as well as potential jurors, to incriminating evidence that the law has determined may not be used to support a conviction"), cited with approval in United States v. Avenatti, (S1) 19 CR 373 PGG, 2020 WL 70952, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020). Based on these cases, the Court may make specific findings supporting the sealing of Ms. Maxwell's deposition transcript: The Court may take judicial notice, as Judge Nathan herself may have, of the widespread negative media publicity and speculation directed at Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. See Condit v. Dunne, 317 F. Supp. 2d 344, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). We attach a compilation of such articles in EXHIBIT E. The Court also may take judicial notice of Ms. Maxwell's arrest and indictment, and the government's charge against her based on her answers in a deposition transcript that was subject to this Court's Protective Order. The unsealing of Ms. Maxwell's deposition transcript would result in substantial negative media publicity and speculation in an internet world in the same way that Judge Sirica found release of the audio tapes in Nixon would generate publicity and affect those defendants' right to a fair trial. And the Court may take judicial notice of Judge Nathan's own concerns about the need for counsel for the parties and witnesses in the criminal case to comply with Local Criminal Rule 23.1 to "safeguard" and "protect [Ms. Maxwell's] right to a fair trial by an impartial jury," EXHIBIT C. The public's right of access to Ms. Maxwell's deposition transcript is substantially outweighed by the compelling interest in ensuring her right to a fair trial. Particularly is this true in light of the other countervailing interests discussed in our objection papers and below. 4. The deposition transcripts obtained by the government and the indictment's perjury counts place in a new light plaintiff's earlier litigation conduct—suggesting the planned use of Ms. Maxwell's deposition as a perjury trap. Throughout much of the first year of this litigation plaintiff through her counsel had represented to the Court and defense counsel that plaintiff was privy to and participating in an ongoing criminal investigation in which Ms. Maxwell was a "person of interest." Doc.101 at 2. Toward that end plaintiff withheld documents responsive to defense discovery requests for any documents relating to such a criminal investigation; plaintiff asserted such documents were subject to a law enforcement, "investigative" or public interest "privilege." Id at 2-3. In response to Ms. Maxwell's motion to compel the production of documents, plaintiff submitted the "law enforcement materials" ex pane and in camera to the Court. Doc.128. Ms. Maxwell objected to the submission of the materials ex parte and in camera. Doc.130. The Court denied the motion to compel. Doc. 264-1. The materials never have been produced to the defense. Based on plaintiff's claim of an ongoing investigation, Ms. Maxwell requested, prior to her deposition, that plaintiff disclose any alleged "on-going criminal investigation by law EFTA00075061 CaesR2942.403499dAfenDbOthnORM282(FiN96151M9/Thigfetge21061 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 8 enforcement" or alternatively to stay this action pending completion of any such investigation. Doc.101. In part, Ms. Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess "the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege." Id. at 2, 4-5. Judge Sweet denied that motion. The day before Ms. Maxwell's deposition, the Court ordered that "[a]ny materials that the plaintiff has with respect to any criminal investigations will be turned over [by plaintiff] except for any statements made by plaintiff to law enforcement authority." Tr. of Apr. 21, 2016 at 21. Plaintiff produced no such materials and Ms. Maxwell was deposed the next day. In reliance on the protective order which included no exception for any law enforcement need or subpoena and based on plaintiff's failure to disclose any "on-going criminal investigation," she did not assert the 5th Amendment during that deposition. This background is given a new context in light of (a) the provision of the sealed transcripts to the government without court authorization and (b) the indictment and perjury charges lodged against Ms. Maxwell based upon the transcripts. Under Martindell, decided forty years ago and still binding precedent in this district, it is settled law that the government may not breach a protective order to gain access to deposition transcripts in a civil lawsuit. As the Second Circuit held in that case, the government "may not ... simply by picking up the telephone or writing a letter to the court ... insinuate itself into a private civil lawsuit between others." 594 F.2d at 294. The court rejected the government's argument that the district court's "solicitude for the witnesses' Fifth Amendment" over the government's desire for the deposition transcripts was an abuse of discretion. It held that "a more significant counterbalancing factor" is the civil rules' goal of encouraging witnesses to participate in civil litigation: Unless a valid Rule 26(c) protective order is to be fully and fairly enforceable, witnesses relying upon such orders will be inhibited from giving essential testimony in civil litigation, thus undermining a procedural system that has been successfully developed over the years for disposition of civil differences. In short, witnesses might be expected frequently to refuse to testify pursuant to protective orders if their testimony were to be made available to the Government for criminal investigatory purposes in disregard of those orders. 594 F.2d at 296. After balancing the interests at stake, the court held that absent improvidence in issuing the protective order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need, witnesses must be permitted to rely on the protective order's enforceability. Id. The protective order should not be vacated or modified "to accommodate the Government's desire to inspect protected testimony for possible use in a criminal investigation, either as evidence or as the subject of a possible perjury charge." Id. (emphasis supplied). The procedural history of this litigation culminating in plaintiff's gratuitously attaching the entire transcripts of both Ms. Maxwell's depositions to court submissions, and leaking or EFTA00075062 Caest:29-0,40745341/kfenDtkulmEIVtalne2CFifitif9615,233/211g ecige Wet 9 Honorable Loretta A. Preska July 29, 2020 Page 9 causing someone to leak the transcripts to the government, which then charged Ms. Maxwell with perjury counts, suggest plaintiff in conjunction with the government sought to circumvent Martindell: they set a perjury trap for Ms. Maxwell when plaintiff took her deposition. Ms. Maxwell requests that this Court examine the law enforcement materials submitted ex parte and in camera in connection with its vindication of the Protective Order. In the meantime we respectfully submit it is appropriate to maintain the seal over the depositions. 5. Ms. Maxwell's reliance on the Protective Order is entitled to substantial weight. In its July 23 ruling the Court did not address a substantial ground Ms. Maxwell asserted in support of her objection to unsealing her deposition transcript. The first countervailing interest Ms. Maxwell presented was that she reasonably relied on the Protective Order in disclosing intimate information about her personal life. Doc.1057 at 4-5. As we pointed out, id. at 5, even without any evidentiary or other showing from an interested party, the Second Circuit in Brown v. Maxwell protected from disclosure "deposition responses concerning intimate matters where the questions were likely only permitted—and the responses only compelled— because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality."929 F.3d 41, 48 n.22 (2d Cir 2019). The Protective Order was entered before Ms. Maxwell's deposition was taken; in fact plaintiff's counsel explicitly consented to the Order because "'I just want [Ms. Maxwell's] deposition .... It is that important to me." Doc.1073 at 8 (quoting Doc.66 at 9). The Court may make specific findings supporting the sealing of the transcript based on the information Ms. Maxwell supplied from the court submissions. See id We incorporate by reference here the facts asserted and arguments made in the objection and reply in support of this countervailing interest. For the foregoing reasons we respectfully request that the Court reconsider its decision to unseal (1) the transcripts of Ms. Maxwell's and Doe l's depositions, and (2) court submissions excerpting from, quoting from or summarizing the contents of the transcripts. Very truly yours, Ty Gee C: Counsel of Record via ECF EFTA00075063 ca€®Sema4aaasex.erme&Abet..ioasa0. Mil603824/20e VaCYeZtlbf 8 EXHIBIT A EFTA00075064 Cagage2322M7DCB130425NDditisto&MCEEffeal 2:3; : IDIEM2(REIdagedflOf 8 II A D D O N MORGAN FOREMAN July 21, 2020 VIA ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.0 Jeffrey Paoflue° 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 pH 303.831.7364 FA 303.832.2628 www.hmflow.com jpagluca@hmflaw.com Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case No. 20 Cr. 330 (MN), Local Criminal Rule 23.1 Dear Judge Nathan, On behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we write to request that the Court enter an order prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case. Although Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, the Government, its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial to a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an accused the right to an impartial jury. This fundamental guarantee is part of a criminal defendant's basic right to a fair trial, which requires that a defendant must be judged by a jury of her peers based on evidence presented at trial, not in the media. The Court, to safeguard the due process rights of the accused, has "an affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pretrial publicity." Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 378 (1979). This District has given effect to this Sixth Amendment right through Local Criminal Rule 23.1. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court exercise its express power under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) and enter an Order requiring compliance with that rule to prevent further unwarranted and prejudicial pretrial publicity by the Government, its agents, and lawyers for alleged witnesses. Legal Standard More than fifty years ago, warning of the danger of pretrial publicity to fair trials, the Supreme Court directed trial judges to take "such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences. Neither prosecutors, counsel for defense, the accused, witnesses, court staff nor enforcement officers coming under the jurisdiction of the court should be permitted to frustrate its function." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (emphasis added). EFTA00075065 CdgeS02124CialiatIOARttailltdolitial2M033t1 .:$ 2R411:0208f 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 2 In an effort to protect the trial process from "prejudicial outside interferences," this Court promulgated Local Criminal Rule 23.1(a) which provides, in relevant part, that: It is the duty of the lawyer or law firm, ... and government agents and police officers, not to release or authorize the release of non- public information or opinion which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication, in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which they are associated, if there is a substantial likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. To avoid any confusion this Court identified seven "subject matters" that "presumptively involve a substantial likelihood that their public dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice." Id. at (d). Accordingly, lawyers for parties and witnesses and their agents are prohibited from publicly disseminating information concerning: (1) The prior criminal record (including arrests, indictments or other charges of crime), or the character or reputation of the accused...; (2) The existence or contents of any confession, admission or statement given by the accused, or the refusal or failure of the accused to make any statement; (3) The performance of any examinations or tests or the accused's refusal or failure to submit to an examination or test; (4) The identity, testimony or credibility of prospective witnesses, except that the lawyer or law firm may announce the identity of the victim if the announcement is not otherwise prohibited by law; (5) The possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or a lesser offense; (6) Information the lawyer or law firm knows is likely to be inadmissible at trial and would if disclosed create a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an impartial trial; and (7) Any opinion as to the accused's guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case. Id. at (d)(1-7) (emphasis added). EFTA00075066 Ceaufelffild41112100ARINIDdlibiofinISICIMMENSIBIEBEIteacjbant 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 3 Recent Prejudicial Public Statements by the Government, its Azents and Counsel to Prospective Witnesses Recent public statements by the Government, its agents and counsel for prospective witnesses have included presumptively prejudicial information. On July 2, 2020 Ms. Maxwell was arrested without notice to her lawyers who had been in active communication with the Government for one year. Because plain vanilla surrenders lack the fanfare and attendant media coverage afforded to secret, armed, raids at dawn, the Government chose to invade Ms. Maxwell's New Hampshire residence, arrest her, and stage a media presentation that included numerous statements that prejudice Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial. Immediately following Ms. Maxwell's arrest, Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss held a press conference in which she commented on Ms. Maxwell's credibility and her incorrect opinions concerning "guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case" in violation of Local Rule 23.1(d)(1), (4) and (7): Per the New York Law Journal: 'Maxwell lied because the truth, as alleged, was almost unspeakable,' Strauss said at a press conference announcing the charges. `Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her and then delivered them into the trap that that she and Epstein had set for them. She pretended to be a woman they could trust, all the while she was setting them up to be sexually abused by Epstein and, in some cases, by Maxwell herself." As reported in the Washington Post, Strauss, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, said the socialite told that lie and others in deposition because the truth 'was almost unspeakable.' Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss called the sex abuse described in the Maxwell case 'the prequel' to the charges they lodged against Epstein.... Maxwell played a critical role in helping Epstein to identify, befriend, and groom minor victims for abuse' ... 'In some cases Maxwell participated in the abuse itself.'2 https://www.law.corninewyorklawjournal/2020/07/02/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-in- connection-with-jeffrey-epstein-sex-trafficking-ringfislreturn=202006 14124921 2 hups://www.washingtonpost.comMational-security/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffrey- epstein/2020/07/02/20c74502-bc69-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6 story.html EFTA00075067 CeaageSIMIGOAMONEDThitbehill0/EgallaMSOMES2C)~2ift 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 4 Although Ms. Strauss sprinkled her comments with the phrase "as alleged," she presented certain of her statements as fact? Regardless, after Ms. Strauss's remarks, FBI Special Agent William Sweeney went even further, calling Ms. Maxwell "one of the villains in this investigation" and compared her to a snake that "slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire." Thus, Mr. Sweeney offers the Government's, again flatly wrong, opinions about character and guilt while, at the same time, invoking a semi-biblical reference involving a snake slithering away to a garden in New Hampshire. These types of comments, which serve no compelling law enforcement or investigatory purpose, are prohibited by the local rules of this District. New York attorney David Boies and his partner Sigrid McCawley, who represent several witnesses in this matter, have also made public and presumptively prejudicial statements in recent days, notwithstanding the fact that such conduct is prohibited by Local Rule 23.1, which applies to lawyers practicing in this District, generally, and lawyers for witnesses, specifically. See Rule 23.1(a) and (b). As reported by the Washington Post, Mr. Boies expressed his views on the prohibited subject of "the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or a lesser offense" in violation of sections (d)(5) and (7) of the Rule: Boies said he thinks Maxwell will be `under tremendous pressure to cooperate' as she looks for ways to shave time off what may be a significant prison sentence. Maxwell could potentially help prosecutors shed light on Epstein's dealings with other wealthy and influential people who may have had encounters with underaged victims, he said, adding `There were a lot of people with a lot of public stature who were involved with Epstein!' Ms. McCawley echoed Mr. Boies, saying that, "The pain [Maxwell] has caused will never go away but today is a step toward healing." Id. Bradley Edwards, another attorney representing witnesses in this matter made similar presumptively prejudicial statements following Ms. Maxwell's arrest:5 `The reality of how this organization worked was that 99.9% of it was orchestrated for Jeffrey Epstein's personal sexual satisfaction. So to the degree that um there was a main facilitator that started the whole thing, it was Ghislaine. 3 A purported transcript of the press conference is contained on the intemet at https://www.rev.comiblog,/transcripts/announcement-transcript-of-charges-against-ghislaine- maxwell-in-new-york-jeffrey-epstein-associate-arrested. https://www.washingtonpost.cominational-security/ghislaine-maxwell-arrested-jeffrey- epstein/2020/07/02/20c74502-bc69-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6 story.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKHdzix2kO EFTA00075068 CeaS312D04113212130AIRINDdikidatiladingaltnigg92(Pagbailf 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 5 So to cooperate in the way that that kind of rumors out there would mean that she's cooperating downwards. She'd be cooperating with people who are much less culpable than her. Will she name names to try to shave years off of what would be a lengthy prison sentence maybe, I think you should probably expect that if she's going to share information that's going to actually help her, it's probably gonna be about unrelated crimes that she may be aware about because with respect to this particular operation, in terms of living people, she's as high as it gets. ... I think like most of my clients would really hope that she does cooperate, at least shares the information that she has. I mean I know that it would only be to help herself but the public deserves to know who was involved besides her and Jeffrey Epstein, and only she knows that. The violations of Rule 23.1 did not stop after Ms. Maxwell's arrest and detention. Following the detention hearing on July 14, 2020, Mr. Boies, counsel for one of the accusers who spoke at the hearing, commented on the content of the hearing. As reported by Bloomberg, Mr. Boies offered his gratuitous critique of defense counsel, commented on the credibility of Ms. Maxwell and his client, and commented on what Mr. Boies considers "evidence" in this case, all in violation of subsections (1), (4), (6), and (7) of the Rule: That's a dan erous tactic that might backfire at trial, said David Boies, who represents and several other women who say they were sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell. ... It's "a tone-deaf argument" that cost Maxwell her credibility, said Boies, who listened to the hearing remotely. `To mount a `blame the victim' defense, particularly in today's world and trying to blame these girls for what happened is so contrary to the evidence, is so contrary to people's normal sense of morality,' Boies said. `I think that's just going to enrage a jury if she goes to trial -- which I would not do if I were representing her.' Boies said he was confident would stand up to cross-examination if there's a trial. , who addressed the court by telephone, urged the judge not to grant Maxwell bail, calling her a `sexual predator who groomed and abused me.' Maxwell `lied under oath and tormented her survivors,' said. Boies said that was a 16-year-old who 'wanted to go to college' when she met Maxwell. `Maxwell and Epstein tell and her mother `we're having a group of high school students to this ranch to help them get into college,' Boies said. 'But when gets there, there are no high school students, all these claims are fraudulent and she's in this isolated place in New Mexico.'6 6 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/ghislaine-maxwell-may-play-the-victim-card-in-trial- defense-1.1465631 EFTA00075069 Cea110812111004032112160AVINDISitioititrSINWIME28207Agacanif 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 6 Mr. Boles and Ms. McCawley gave on-air interviews with ABC News following Ms. Maxwell's detention that contained repeated, presumptively prejudicial quotes, including: 7 Boles: Remember these girls were abused twice, once sexually years ago and then a second time when Epstein and Maxwell and all their enablers began these vicious attacks on their credibility. ... No question about it. Maxwell knows where a lot of the bodies are buried. If I was somebody who had participated in their sex trafficking, um, I would not be sleeping easily tonight. Boles: I think that [the accusers] want to see her go to trial. On the other hand, the arrest and conviction that would come from a plea deal is an enormous step and I think they also recognize that Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell did not act alone. There are lots of other people that need to be brought to justice. McCawley: I think that the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have done an incredible job and they're being very meticulous, they want to make sure that the Indictments stick. ...They took a lot of time to be very careful and thoughtful and that gives me a lot of hope that she will remain in prison for the remainder of her life. ... This morning was a very joyful and tearful filled morning, it was a wonderful moment in my journey with these survivors, to be able to call them and tell them that the one person's who's been out in the public without being held accountable was finally in prison....She was really, Ghislaine was really the central figure, so she worked hand-in-hand with Jeffrey Epstein to be able to facilitate these crimes over the course of more than two decades; and she was the main person who assisted him and allowed him to be able to perpetrate so many crimes against young females. These comments violate subsections (6) and (7) of the Rule. It appears that given any opportunity lawyers associated with the prosecution of this case will offer any opinion that damages Ms. Maxwell's opportunity for a fair trial. Entry of an order prohibiting extrajudicial statements, therefore, is a necessary remedy to avoid further dissemination of prejudicial information. The Court, under Local Criminal Rule 23.1(h) should enter an Order, punishable by contempt, that all lawyers associated with this case, and their agents, comply with the Rule and refrain from publicly commenting on the seven prohibited topics identified in subsection (d). 7 https://abcnews.go.corn/US/ghislaine-maxwell-epsteins-alleged-recruiter-private-battle- public/story?id=7 1705375 EFTA00075070 cepasinEaft,40=230,4ffientDdlignitiaffiatalelitheffffefilagtegtataf 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 7 Respectfully Submitted, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca cc: U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Mark Cohen Christian Everdell Cohen & Gresser LLP Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C. EFTA00075071 Cagesle120o140ZaUX.PertDo&Aflt."1016ZO. PEIR603824/20e1a4e205f 2 EXHIBIT B EFTA00075072 Cagaltellnatt0WICS30A(MIDgisticerAWIEWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ataiStatga r DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC it DATE Fii-ED:7/23/2020 20-CR-330 (MN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Defense has moved for an order "prohibiting the Government, its agents and counsel for witnesses from making extrajudicial statements concerning this case." Dkt. No. 27 at 1. The Court firmly expects that counsel for all involved parties will exercise great care to ensure compliance with this Court's local rules, including Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and the rules of professional responsibility. In light of this clear expectation, the Court does not believe that further action is needed at this time to protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. Accordingly, it denies the Defendant's motion without prejudice. But the Court warns counsel and agents for the parties and counsel for potential witnesses that going forward it will not hesitate to take appropriate action in the face of violations of any relevant rules. The Court will ensure strict compliance with those rules and will ensure that the Defendant's right to a fair trial will be safeguarded. SO ORDERED. Dated: July 23, 2020 New York, New York A ( 4 ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge EFTA00075073 Ca69,bil9C.2493.309.91961otbilleDY1319B920F/19g1571/29Pd4999€1O d9919 EXHIBIT C EFTA00075074 caglattetWilvgANMeriamt&FtwigliWAQAtaNtaaraSticRoft19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sax Acts) The Grand Jury charges: OVERVIEW 1. The charges set forth herein stem from the role of GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls by Jeffrey Epstein. In particular, from at least in or about 1994, up to and including at least in or about 1997, MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18. The victims were as young groomed and abused by MAXWELL and that certain victims were in fact as 14 years old when they were Epstein, both of whom knew under the age of 18. 2. As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to EFTA00075075 CadiataKibt141 r: t 3 Al b moIMOSIVAPPAQP44140ANIMPOlacW41319 Epstein's residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse. Moreover, in an effort to conceal her crimes, MAXWELL repeatedly lied when questioned about her conduct, including in relation to some of the minor victims described herein, when providing testimony under oath in 2016. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3. During the time periods charged in this Indictment, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, had a personal and professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and was among his closest associates. In particular, between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, MAXWELL was in an intimate relationship with Epstein and also was paid by Epstein to manage his various properties. Over the course of their relationship, MAXWELL and Epstein were photographed together on multiple occasions, including in the below image: EFTA00075076 caglataaftienWrifif igtae t P.• 4. Beginning in at least 1994, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods, including but not limited to the following: a. MAXWELL first attempted to befriend some of Epstein's minor victims prior to their abuse, including by asking the victims about their lives, their schools, and their families. MAXWELL and Epstein would spend time building friendships with minor victims by, for example, taking minor victims to the movies or shopping. Some of these outings would involve MAXWELL and Epstein spending time together with a minor victim, while some would involve MAXWELL or Epstein spending time alone with a minor victim. b. Having developed a rapport with a victim, MAXWELL would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein. c. MAXWELL'S presence during minor victims' interactions with Epstein, including interactions where the minor victim was undressed or that involved sex acts with Epstein, helped put the victims at ease because an adult woman was present. For example, in some instances, MAXWELL would 3 EFTA00075077 caglatiVALWAMAZNEWstiteirigilgAILANSOMPIMiatO 19 massage Epstein in front of a minor victim. In other instances, MAXWELL encouraged minor victims to provide massages to Epstein, including sexualized massages during which a minor victim would be fully or partially nude. Many of those massages resulted in Epstein sexually abusing the minor victims. d. In addition, Epstein offered to help some minor victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein's assistance. As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them. e. Through this process, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed victims to engage in sexual activity with Epstein. In some instances, MAXWELL was present for and participated in the sexual abuse of minor victims. Some such incidents occurred in the context of massages, which developed into sexual encounters. 5. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims knowing that he had a sexual preference for underage girls and that he intended to engage in sexual activity with those victims. Epstein's resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim's breast, touching a victim's genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim's genitals, 4 EFTA00075078 catakibkli NattoktftigailMAIEWNISMASO 19 directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein's genitals. MAXWELL AND EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS 6. Between approximately in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's access to minor victims by, among other things, inducing and enticing, and aiding and abetting the inducement and enticement of, multiple minor victims. Victims were groomed and/or abused at multiple locations, including the following: a. A a multi-story private residence on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, New York owned by Epstein (the "New York Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: EFTA00075079 c4aatagwdoroAwiematoktfiwrmsq4a4w0A1tQA9woaoitis b. An estate in Palm Beach, Florida owned by Epstein (the "Palm Beach Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: c. A ranch in Santa Fe, New Mexico owned by Epstein (the "New Mexico Residence"), which is depicted in the following photograph: 6 EFTA00075080 cadiattelaW414§§1WeriamokftitaliWila01§§72132Varaige 19 England. d. MAXWELL's personal residence in London, 7. Among the victims induced or enticed by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, were minor victims identified herein as Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-2, and Minor Victim-3. In particular, and during time periods relevant to this Indictment, MAXWELL engaged in the following acts, among others, with respect to minor victims: a. MAXWELL met Minor Victim-1 when Minor Victim-1 was approximately 14 years old. MAXWELL subsequently interacted with Minor Victim-1 on multiple occasions at Epstein's residences, knowing that Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18 at the time. During these interactions, which took place between approximately 1994 and 1997, MAXWELL groomed Minor Victim-1 to engage in sexual acts with Epstein through multiple means. First, MAXWELL and Epstein attempted to befriend Minor Victim-1, taking her to the movies and on shopping trips. MAXWELL also asked Minor Victim-1 about school, her classes, her family, and other aspects of her life. MAXWELL then sought to normalize inappropriate and abusive conduct by, among other things, undressing in front of Minor Victim-1 and being present when Minor Victim-1 undressed in front of Epstein. Within the first year after MAXWELL and Epstein met Minor Victim-1, Epstein began sexually abusing Minor Victim-1. MAXWELL was present for 7 EFTA00075081 cw t 0 19 and involved in some of this abuse. In particular, MAXWELL involved Minor Victim-1 in group sexualized massages of Epstein. During those group sexualized massages, MAXWELL and/or Minor Victim-1 would engage in sex acts with Epstein. Epstein and MAXWELL both encouraged Minor Victim-1 to travel to Epstein's residences in both New York and Florida. As a result, Minor Victim-1 was sexually abused by Epstein in both New York and Florida. Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel across state lines for the purpose of sexual encounters with Epstein, and MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-1 after Minor-Victim-1 traveled to Epstein's properties, including in the context of a sexualized massage. b. MAXWELL interacted with Minor Victim-2 on at least one occasion in or about 1996 at Epstein's residence in New Mexico when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18. Victim-2 had flown into New Mexico from out of state at Epstein's invitation for the purpose of being groomed for and/or subjected to acts of sexual abuse. MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18 at the time. While in New Mexico, MAXWELL and Epstein took Minor Victim-2 to a movie and MAXWELL took Minor Victim-2 shopping. MAXWELL also discussed Minor Victim-2's school, classes, and family with Minor Victim- 2. In New Mexico, MAXWELL began her efforts to groom Minor Victim-2 for abuse by Epstein by, among other things, providing 8 Minor EFTA00075082 cadstlivi444614MnritthrlikkWifenaiNsfitaFerm* WA 19 an unsolicited massage to Minor Victim-2, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. MAXWELL also encouraged Minor Victim-2 to massage Epstein. c. MAXWELL groomed and befriended Minor Victim-3 in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed Minor Victim-3's life and family with Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL introduced Minor Victim-3 to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between Minor Victim-3 and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with Minor Victim-3 during those massages. Minor Victim-3 provided Epstein with the requested massages, and during those massages, Epstein sexually abused Minor Victim-3. MAXWELL was aware that Epstein engaged in sexual activity with Minor Victim-3 on multiple occasions, including at times when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, including in the context of a sexualized massage. MAXWELL'S EFFORTS TO CONCEAL HER CONDUCT 8. In or around 2016, in the context of a deposition as part of civil litigation, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, repeatedly provided false and perjurious statements, under oath, regarding, among other subjects, her role in facilitating the 9 EFTA00075083 ca§tsV4% Get. PgAt0406NialiWitaviflag 4RAPRr6gint19 abuse of minor victims by Jeffrey Epstein, including some of the specific events and acts of abuse detailed above. STATUTORY ALLEGATIONS 9. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAIN£ MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, enticement, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. 10. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did knowingly persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one and more individuals to travel in interstate and foreign commerce, to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2422. Overt Acts 11. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: 10 EFTA00075084 ca§ftsVrit5i4a PofietqueatialiWiteM2kg4414,3 7471.1.;?i, ft*Ol(10041319 a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with Epstein and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) COUNT TWO (Enticement of a Minor to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) The Grand Jury further charges: 12. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. 11 EFTA00075085 case Stt 120fititOratialiVIPMElig agOar0441319 13. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do the same, and aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422 and 2.) COUNT THREE (Conspiracy to Transport Minors with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) The Grand Jury further charges: 14. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. 15. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit an offense against the United States, to 12 EFTA00075086 cagsVg14,4 c St Ptet4D4s4kiwATIPAteSEilg jkle::747;7;?i, 144f319 wit, transportation of minors, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). 16. It was a part and object of the conspiracy that GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and others known and unknown, would and did, knowingly transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). Overt Acts 17. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the illegal object thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere: a. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL participated in multiple group sexual encounters with EPSTEIN and Minor Victim-1 in New York and Florida. b. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-1 was under the age of 18, Minor Victim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the 13 EFTA00075087 castsVtitSitoc0 titAttOiliktilmaptsgeS2ii€ 1:;14,37gmil.;?t WWkg0041319 New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. c. In or about 1996, when Minor Victim-2 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL provided Minor Victim-2 with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico, during which Minor Victim-2 was topless. d. Between in or about 1994 and in or about 1995, when Minor Victim-3 was under the age of 18, MAXWELL encouraged Minor Victim-3 to provide massages to Epstein in London, England, knowing that Epstein intended to sexually abuse Minor Victim-3 during those massages. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) COUNT FOUR (Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity) The Grand Jury further charges: 18. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. 19. From at least in or about 1994, up to and including in or about 1997, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, knowingly did transport an individual who had not attained the age of 18 in interstate and foreign commerce, with the intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and attempted to do so, and 14 EFTA00075088 ca§itsVtbitocel V':•: titetPtailat711139fliig efflekg6Wile19 aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) COUNT FIVE (Perjury) The Grand Jury further charges: 20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. 21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. A. I don't know what you're talking about. • • • 15 EFTA00075089 ca3FtsVrit5164 Get. PtiftitPtiktivektA8Siig W*40441319 Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously (the plaintiff) who was 17 at this point. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) COUNT SIX (Perjury) The Grand Jury further charges: 22. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. 23. On or about July 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: 0: Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? A: No, not that I recall. . . . Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? A. No. 16 EFTA00075090 ca§isViBitocei teW5t0blittniarktasitfrteglig 31t01;?i, aggigfeti#41319 FOi#PERSON • • • Q. Other than yourself and the blond and brunette that you have identified as having been involved in three-way sexual activities, with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities? A. I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself. Q. I want to be sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself and the blond and brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you? A. That is my testimony, that is correct. • . . Q. Is it your testimony that you've never given anybody a massage? A. I have not given anyone a massage. Q. You never gave Mr. Epstein a massage, is that your testimony? A. That is my testimony. Q• You never gave (Minor Victim-2) a massage is your testimony? A. I never gave (Minor Victim-2) a massage. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) 17 AUDREY RAUSS Acting sited States Attorney EFTA00075091 ca§itsVt§14)44. cett talet~faliWitetsgEkg MO if ciAeRgekint19 Form No. USA-33s-274 (Ed. 9-25-58) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) (18 U.S.C. SS 371, 1623, 2422, 2423(a), and 2) AUDREY STRAUSS Acting United States Attorney Foreperson 18 EFTA00075092 Ca6.0_0[..09-400004F006101,001.5Y1B1B40FIletle61219Pdligengh d0910 EXHIBIT D EFTA00075093 02/26/2016 14:Qe*A41Sam.24)1721.313dcAPIe CitaliarilieffiltrI8Q4RO,Faii9657329 Puce 202 laib 0001/0026 BOLES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Sie,'w Vert( ■ WasbinntotitDC Florida • New i California New Jersc • 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Facsimile: (954) 356-0022 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET TO: Laura Menninger, Esq. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. Fax No. Telephone No. 303.832.2628 301831.7364 FROM: Sigrid S. McCawley, Esq. DATE: February 26, 2016 RE: v. Maxwell, Case no. 15-cv-07433-RWS Total Number of Pages: 26 (including this cover sheet) MESSAGE: Attached please find a copy of my email transmission to you from today at 12:10 pm, along with the accompanying Agreed Protective Order in both redline and clean version. Thank you. THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGES This facsimile transmission is intended solely for the above-named recipient and may contain confidential information which is exempt from disclosure and protected by the attorney-client and/or attorney work-product privikges. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is strictly prohibited and may result in civil and/or criminal liability. limy of the information contained in this transmission is misdirected to you, pkase call (954) 356-0011 collect and mail such information back to us. Thank you. EFTA00075094 02/26/2016 14: Cattioatileam.2-017-43130EARle litoteniheni alma o cathilariaS Page 302 10Zoolsioo26 United States District Court Southern District Of New York Plaintiff, v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. 15-cv-07433-RWS AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER Upon a showing of good cause in support of the entry of a protective order to protect the discovery and dissemination of confidential information, including sensitive personal information relating to a victim of sexual abuse, copyright or trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, or proprietary information. I. Purposes And Limitations (a) The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures during discovery. Designations under this Order shall be made sparingly, with care, and shall not be made absent a good faith belief that the designated material satisfies the criteria set forth herein. If it comes to a Designating Party's attention that designated material does not qualify for protection at all, or does not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, the Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing or changing the designation. IT IS ORDERED: EFTA00075095 02/26/2016 14: BC62-0174.534cAM e 0lotbrib 1311))78(4 0 Faiii657329 PAO AGM HQ 0020/0026 1. This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. As used in this Protective Order, "document" is defined as provided in FED.R.CIV.P. 34(a). A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. 3. Information designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be information that is confidential and is covered by common law and statutory privacy protections of (a) plaintiff hrid (b) defendant Ghislaine Maxwell or any non-party that was subject to sexual abuse. 4. CONFIDENTIAL information shall not be disclosed or used for any purpose except the preparation and trial of this case and any related matter, including but not limited to, investigations by law enforcement. 5. CONFIDENTIAL documents, materials, and/or information (collectively "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION") shall not, without the consent of the party producing it or further Order of the Court, be disclosed except that such information may be disclosed to: a. attorneys actively working on this case; b. persons regularly employed or associated with the attorneys actively working on this case whose assistance is required by said attorneys in the preparation for trial, at trial, or at other proceedings in this case; EFTA00075096 02/26/2016 14:c4/ka tain ‘ 24)V22134CArneCtolciatrile eaang40 Faaa6M29 pao 8Q91%0021/0026 c. the parties; d. expert witnesses and consultants retained in connection with this proceeding, to the extent such disclosure is necessary for preparation, trial or other proceedings in this case; e. the Court and its employees ("Court Personnel") in this case; f. stenographic reporters who are engaged in proceedings necessarily incident to the conduct of this action; g. deponents, witnesses, or potential witnesses; h. any person (1) who authored or received the particular Protected Material; (2) who has or had at any point in time access to the Protected Material outside of the context of this action; or (3) for which there is a good faith basis to conclude that the individual has earlier received or seen such Protected Material; and i. any other persons by written agreement of the parties or by Order of a Court of competent jurisdiction. 6. Prior to disclosing any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION to any person listed above (other than counsel, persons employed by counsel, Court Personnel and stenographic reporters), counsel shall provide such person with a copy of this Protective Order and obtain from such person a written acknowledgment stating that he or she has read this Protective Order and agrees to be bound by its provisions. All such acknowledgments shall be retained by counsel and shall be subject to in camera review by the Court if good cause for review is demonstrated by opposing counsel. 3 EFTA00075097 02/26/2016 14 :aPagetN 247431340.1Ple Motarillean3978C4 °FaiNeralt9 040 atif 1 aoo22/oo2s 7. Documents are designated as CONFIDENTIAL by placing or affixing on them (in a manner that will not interfere with their legibility) the following or other appropriate notice: "CONFIDENTIAL." Discovery material designated CONFIDENTIAL shall be identified by Bates number. To the extent practical, the respective legend shall be placed near the Bates number. 8. Designation of a document as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall constitute a representation that such document has been reviewed by an attorney for the designating party, that there is a valid and good faith basis for such designation, made at the time of disclosure or production to the receiving party, and that disclosure of such information to persons other than those permitted access to such material would cause a privacy harm to the designating party. 9. Whenever a deposition involves the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, the deposition or portions thereof shall be designated as CONFIDENTIAL and shall be subject to the provisions of this Protective Order. Such designation shall be made on the record during the deposition whenever possible, but a party may designate portions of depositions as CONFIDENTIAL after transcription, provided written notice of the designation is promptly given to all counsel of record within thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the completion of the transcript, and until the expiration of such thirty (30) days after notice by the court reporter of the 4 EFTA00075098 02/26/2016 14:W9Asitasco,24nuaormne aloarlbeard3978‘4°File0852329 113514 2°Sf 100 oonioo26 completion of the transcript, no party or counsel for any such party may share the contents of the deposition outside the limitations of this Protective Order. 10. Whenever a party seeks to file any document or material containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION with the Court in this matter, it shall be accompanied by a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. 11. Challenging Designations Of Protected Material (a) A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of any designation of Discovery Material under this Order at the time the designation is made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. Moreover, failure to challenge the designation of any Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIALshall not in any way constitute an admission that such material contains any competitively sensitive information, trade secret information, or other protectable material. (b) In the event that counsel for the Party receiving Protected Material objects to the CONFIDENTIAL designation of any or all such items, said counsel shall provide the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party written notice of, and the basis for, such objections. The Parties will use their best efforts to resolve such objections among themselves. Should the Receiving Party, the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party be unable to resolve the EFTA00075099 02/26/2016 14:clafig aBt24)/7213GelfArneractibriW aV A INerag9 Page WM 1(1410024/0026 objections, the Receiving Party may seek a hearing before this Court with respect to the propriety of the designation. The Designating Party will cooperate in obtaining a prompt hearing with respect thereto. Pending a resolution, the discovery material in question shall continue to be treated as Protected Material as provided hereunder. The burden of proving that Discovery Material is properly designated shall at all times remain with the Designating Party. 12. At the conclusion of this case, unless other arrangements are agreed upon, each document and all copies thereof which have been designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be returned to the party that designated it CONFIDENTIAL, or the parties may elect to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents. Where the parties agree to destroy CONFIDENTIAL documents, the destroying party shall provide all parties with an affidavit confirming the destruction. 13. With respect to any Discovery Material produced by such non-party, the non-party may invoke the terms of this Order in writing to all Parties by designating Discovery Material "CONFIDENTIAL". Any such Protected Material produced by the non-party designated "CONFIDENTIAL" shall be subject to the restrictions contained in this Order and shall only be disclosed or used in a manner consistent with this Order. 14. In the event that any Producing Party inadvertently produces Discovery Material eligible for designation as CONFIDENTIAL without such designation, the Parties agree that the Producing Party may retroactively apply the correct designation. If a EFTA00075100 02/26/2016 14 :c#A0KEICt-‘24172334cAPie Mob/fill eiIii3978et 0 Filileane9 PAO 9Q:41000025/0026 Producing Party makes a subsequent designation, the Receiving Party will treat the Protected Material according to the retroactive designation, including undertaking best efforts to retrieve all previously distributed copies from any recipients now ineligible to access the Protected Material. 16. Limitations. Nothing in this Order shall restrict in any way the use or disclosure of Protected Material by a Receiving Party (a) that is or has become publicly known through no fault of the Receiving Party; (b) that is lawfully acquired by or known to the Receiving Party independent of the Producing Party; (c) that was previously produced, disclosed, and/or provided by the Producing Party to the Receiving Party or a non-party without an obligation of confidentiality and not by inadvertence or mistake; (d) with the consent of the Producing Party and, if different, the Designating Party; (e) pursuant to Order of the Court; or (f) for purposes of law enforcement.15. This Protective Order shall have no force and effect on the use of any CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION at trial in this matter.This Protective Order may be modified by the Court at any time for good cause shown following notice to all parties and an opportunity for them to be heard. EFTA00075101 02/26/2016 14 Q4sk,4stet/3474311LAFtneDbd0Ae6i7137.0(212CFMCOM)/PegPitef 153Dbf 0026/0026 BY THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EFTA00075102 Cas€dstrE144143100sIdMabddhtlit7180gffiCViaB9OMMagPI;dgef2613161 EXHIBIT E EFTA00075103 Cas6 asted-A4743111LAPTI EDO d &de 6t7107e-0112 CF 07/29/20gEF6itjef 209161 New Jeffrey Epstein accuser says he molested her at 13, told her to wear children's underwear January18.2020 I 12:04am I Updated Jeffrey Epstein AP A woman claiming she was Jeffrey Epstein's "first-known victim" says she was sexually abused by the now-dead pedophile — who called himself her "Godfather" — when she was 13 years old. Jane Doe met Epstein and his friend, Ghislaine Maxwell, in the summer of 1994 at Michigan's interlochen Arts Camp, where she was In voice training, according to newly flied court papers suing Epstein's estate and Maxwell. The duo quickly took her under their wing, taking her to movies and on shopping trips in her home state of Florida and all the while grooming her for abuse, the Manhattan federal court suit says. Epstein "started to slowly display his pedophilic ways when shopping with Doe and Maxwell. Instead of letting Doe pick out clothes she wanted to wear, Epstein Insisted that she pick out and wear little children's cotton underwear," the suit says. EFTA00075104 Casgast56/201433/atAirnattdiintiertit7107.22-62CF 052/903gEfEaget 2269161 She was first allegedly abused in a pool house that same year when Epstein pulled her onto her his lap and began masturbating — claiming this was what "professionals" did. The attacks escalated, the court papers claim. The financier would regularly sexually assault her and force her to perform sex acts in Palm Beach, New York City and his New Mexico ranch, always traveling to the locations on his private plane dubbed the "Lolita Express." At 16, Epstein put Doe up in one of his apartments in New York City — near his own townhouse, where he would allegedly rape her the next year. MAIM Feds finally start investigating Jeffrey Epstein's gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell "In 1997, while at Epstein's townhouse on 9 East 71st Street in the City of New York. Epstein asked 17-year-old Doe if she had a boyfriend. Doe replied that she did not," the lawsuit reads. "Epstein responded that when she did have a boyfriend she would want the sex to be 'good' and that she should 'get it over with already; meaning lose her virginity." "Despite Doe's resistance, Epstein then pushed Doe down onto her stomach and raped her. From that point forward for several years in New York. Epstein raped Doe on multiple occasions," the papers claim, noting Maxwell was often present when the abuse took place. The court papers also claim Epstein introduced her to President Trump when she was 14 years old, allegedly elbowing Trump and saying, "This is a good one, right?" "Trump smiled and nodded in agreement." the suit states. A spokesperson for the president did not immediately return a request for comment. Doe is suing Epstein's estate, alleging sexual assault, sexual battery, false imprisonment and other charges. Her complaint joins over a dozen filed by other women claiming they were trafficked and abused by the multi-millionaire. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell in August while awaiting trial for sex trafficking. His death was officially ruled a suicide by hanging. Lawyers for Maxwell and Epstein's estate did not immediately return emails. FILED Uk, • COURTS. DONALD TRUMP. GHISLAINE MAXWELL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, LAWSUITS, PEDOPHILES, SEXUAL ABUSE, I/18/20 EFTA00075105 Cas63sE 941143 VI/0Rn ©Want rtit7100V2 CFM2ft 057233/2 G g gatjef tv 013161 Epstein, Maxwell wanted me to have surrogate baby: Virginia Roberts March 22.2020 I 3:24pm Virginia Roberts Giuffre wham Farrington Former teen "sex slave" when they asked her, at g , pear mew sur MUM says she finally fled Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell after three years, ogate baby. Epstein's former gal pal sues his estate EFTA00075106 Casg astgAW414331atAirnEetdatit '&711012242CE EI; 05V9REIgaggefe69161 The latest creepy allegation bs=vho has also accused Epstein of pimping her out to Prince Andrew when she was just 17, was revealed by her attorney, Bradley Edwards, in his new memoir, "Relentless Pursuit." "It was the final straw," Edwards writes in an excerpt published in the Daily Mail. "She knew she had to escape." FILED UNDER GHISLAINE MAXWELL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PRINCE ANDREW, 3/22/20 EFTA00075107 Casgastetal14331atitilmetbdOnttit7187.82412CF 057g9/28gEFEeigef 6208161 Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell 'groped a 16-year-old girl during a naked massage,' victims' lawyer says El dailvmail.co.ukThews/article-8163681/Socialite-Ghislaine-Maxwell-qroped-16-vear-old-airl-naked-massaae-victims- lawyer-says.html March 28. 2020 Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell 'groped a 16-year-old girl during a naked massage while Jeffrey Epstein watched,' lawyer who dedicated his life to nailing Prince Andrew's paedophile friend claims in new book • Ghislaine Maxwell, 58, allegedly sexually assaulted i6-year-old • It reportedly happened at paedophile Epstein's 7,500-acre New Mexico ranch • A lawyer for more than 20 of Epstein's victims has made the allegation By Mark Hookham For The Mail On Sunday Published: 18:O3 EDT, 28 March 2O2O I Updated: 15:59 EDT, 2 July 2O2O • • • e-mail • 713 shares Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly groped a teenage girl during a naked massage while paedophile Jeffrey Epstein watched, a new book claims. Maxwell, 58, allegedly sexually assaulted 16-year-old at Epstein's 7,5OO-acre ranch in New Mexico, according to the book by Bradley Edwards, a lawyer for more than 2O of Epstein's victims. The book, from which we are summarising stories in The Mail on Sunday, details Maxwell's alleged role in recruiting and grooming underage girls for Epstein. According to some accounts, she was even involved in some of the abuse herself. 116 EFTA00075108 EFTA00075109 Cas6asted2074311)tigtFmcDOCIOnfiertit71378-120F 0! 05703/120gEFEagef It raises serious questions as to why Maxwell, whose whereabouts have been a mystery for months, has never been charged with any wrongdoing. She has always maintained that allegations against her are abhorrent and untrue. The book also claims that: Maxwell, Epstein's ex-girlfriend, was at the wedding of former US President Bill Clinton's daughter Chelsea in July 2010, a year after Epstein was released from jail as a convicted sex offender; She loved to take nude photographs of girls and allegedly took many of the pictures displayed on the walls of Epstein's mansions. According to one witness, she felt `indebted' to Epstein for helping her following the mysterious death in 1991 of her father, disgraced tycoon Robert Maxwell; Epstein `wasn't beyond killing someone' to keep his sex addiction alive, the witness claimed. now 40, helped keep Epstein behind bars last July after giving evidence about her ordeal as a teenager during a bail hearing. The financier was found dead in his cell the following month. Ms is now suing Epstein's estate and Maxwell in the New York district court for damages. According to Ms testimony, detailed in the book, she was flown to the financier's vast Zorro Ranch after he offered to pay for her to attend a summer educational programme in Thailand. 316 EFTA00075110 Cas€ast EWA11431D4041PncettliiMegit710722-62CF 05703/128gEFEffget V68161 Prince Andrew pictured with his arm around Queen's 'favourite son' of having sex with her who has accused the 416 EFTA00075111 Caselta52111/42411 13mDttcUdnenVICBID2292Fike90/29/BligPa§et11)02 161 516 EFTA00075112 CaseCliS529fral mErttclidnen014278292Vilat9M9/2bagPallotlIC6f 161 616 EFTA00075113 CaseCILS52at-Z4133EtoisRmettctiinen01,002292Vilat9I629/Eapaget1202 161 When will feds arrest Jeffrey Epstein `fixer' Ghislaine Maxwell? May 28. 2020 I 4:l7pm I Updated Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell Patticit McMullan via Getty Images Nine months after Attorney General William Barr warned that Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators -should not rest easy: the pedophile's alleged madam. Ghislaine Maxwell. remains at large — and is using a potential criminal investigation to thwart civil action against her. Maxwell is currently a co-defendant in several civil cases brought by alleged Epstein sex-trafficking victims. Among them is lured to his New ho claims in her suit against Maxwell and the proprietors of Epstein's estate that she was emu:, rant as a teenager and sexually abused by the pair. According to the suit. Maxwell allegedly forced n undress in view of Epstein after promising to give her a massage. "Maxwell touched intimate parts of .Mody against her will for the sexual benefit of Maxwell and Epstein." the suit states. "Maxwell exposed reasts and groped her," it adds. EFTA00075114 Caselta52attiltnlaWmerittclientaignanFiatminategftbett302 161 Through her attorne=as sought to depose Maxwell and have her respond to written questions related to the alleged sexual abuse. gGhislaine Maxwell Paul BmInoogelPatack MclAullan ma Getty Images But the former fixer has successfully dodged a grilling in the case, citing an ongoing criminal investigation into co- conspirators of Epstein — all while not admitting she herself is being probed by the feds. An investigation into Epstein's accomplices was alluded to by Barr days after the pedophile's suicide in a Lower Manhattan lockup, and has been mentioned repeatedly by the US Attorneys Office in New York. according to court filings. A spokesperson for the Southern District of New York declined to comment on the investigation. Maxwell's attorney cited the investigation in an effort to block her testimony in the Farmer case. .1.11ALL2 Ghislaine Maxwell wins questioning delay in sexual battery suit "The Southern District of New York has publicly and repeatedly announced its 'ongoing' criminal investigation into alleged Epstein 'co-conspirators' on the same topic as Plaintiff alleges in this case," Maxwell's attorney wrote in a May13 letter to Manhattan federal Judge Debra Freeman seeking to stay discovery in the case. "Denial of a stay, particularly a stay of Ms. Maxwell's deposition, pending outcome of the criminal investigation could impair her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination," added her attorney, Laura Menninger. Farmer's attorney, David Boies, noted in his response that Maxwell has not publicly admitted she herself is the center of a federal investigation, but is nevertheless using it to shield herself. "Maxwell has provided no information about the subject matter of the criminal investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators. the status of the investigation, or even disclosed whether she herself is a target of the Southern District's investigation," Boies wrote. Epstein investigators contacted by 'dozens' since his death EFTA00075115 Caselta52/1435/11.1SlotRmDittctidienOICM92V,ilegt9ST/29/BitgP6Aet1202 161 "When Plaintiff's counsel asked Maxwell's counsel for information about the criminal investigation during their meet and confer, Maxwell's counsel refused to provide any details," he added. Freeman agreed Maxwell could potentially incriminate herself by giving a deposition and ordered that she not be required to sit for one as part of the suit. r. the $570 single speed tokyobike Maxwell, who is apparently in hiding, has not given testimony or a public statement since Epstein's arrest and suicide. Attorneys for Farmer and Maxwell did not immediately respond. FILED UN:flk GHISLAINE MAXWELL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, LAWSUITS, SEX TRAFFICKING, WILLIAM BARR, 5/28/20 EFTA00075116 CaselilLatallagactlineatclimen01,00292Cile890120/REetl8054 161 Ghislaine Maxwell felt no guilt in procuring girls for Jeffrey Epstein, claims friend mi dailymail.co.uk/femailiarticle-8384165/Ghislaine-Maxwell-felt-no-guilt-procuring-airls-JeffrerEostein-claims- friend.htrnl June 3, 2020 • US_based 57, has spoken out in new documentary • Claims Ghislaine Maxwell felt 'no guilt' in procuring girls for Jeffrey Epstein • reveals she 'feared for her life' at the hands of Epstein and Maxwell • Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein? premieres at npm Saturday 6th June on Quest Red and dplay • • • e-mail • 592 shares Ghislaine Maxwell felt no guilt in procuring girls for ,Jeffrey Rpsteja to satisfy his 'incredible sex drive,' Prince Andrew's distant cousin has claimed - adding that 'if anything, she was proud.' In Quest Red's new true crime documentary special Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein? it is alleged that socialite Ghislaine Maxwell - Epstein's former partner - procured girls for Epstein to 'satisfy his insatiable sex drive.' Socialite writer Christina Oxenberg, 57, from the US, who is a friend of Maxwell, notes that Maxwell felt no guilt in procuring girls for his pleasure. 'She says he has an incredible sex drive, he has to have three orgasms a day, so I help him out by bringing in the females,' explains Christina. 'She felt no compunction about telling me this, if anything she was proud.' Christina is the daughter of a Serbian princess and sister of the Hollywood actress, Catherine Oxenberg - who rescued her eldest daughter India, now 28, from the Nxivm sex cult run by its leader, Keith Raniere, after an 18 month battle. India was among the women he recruited under the guise of offering them self-help courses. Her actress mother pulled her out of it in 2018 after fighting relentlessly in the press to expose Raniere and his practices. 1112 EFTA00075117 Caselili5ZONNIagaotRmerittclIenen01,00229211Filae90/20/RagraW1202 161 Christina Oxenberg claims that Ghislaine Maxwell felt no guilt in procuring girls for Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy his 'incredible sex drive' in Quest Red's new true crime documentary special Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein? Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell attend de Grisogono Sponsors The 2005 Wall Street Concert Series Benefitting Wall Street Rising on March 15, 2005 in New York 2112 EFTA00075118 CasECILS5a6/434113.311;413mectclknenViat2292VilM91V/28/ItagPa§e17051 161. liged 17 at Ghislaine Maxwell's townhouse in London, Prince Andrew and Britain on March 13, 2001 The documentary dives headfirst into the Epstein story, examining the mysterious circumstances surrounding the financier's death, aiming to answer one vital question: Did Epstein take his own life, or was it something much more sinister? On loth August 2019, disgraced American financier Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his New York prison cell as he awaited his trial on sex trafficking charges. 3112 EFTA00075119 CaseltS52ffit-t4113,31aolatmEatthimealt$022921File8926Matagre§efU302 161 It was a dramatic end to one of the world's most mysterious billionaires, with the coroner officially ruling the cause of death as suicide. RELATED ARTICLES • Previous • • Next The Queen's official birthday will he marked with a 'small'... hops I dyed it again! Boyfriend ends up with black hands... From a luxury Hotel Chocolat hamper to personalised... Meghan Markle detailed her experience with racism and... But it wasn't long before the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death were called into question. Having being linked with some of the world's most influential and powerful celebrity figures — including Prince Andrew, Donald Trump and Bill Clinton — some believe that Epstein may have been murdered. 4112 EFTA00075120 ZLI9 g061169q1gabuaVOME6S3t1IVECEGM/0119u4floilaweltobtilaCtiarMU)svO EFTA00075121 CaseCILS5239A4112.3ElotRmattctidnealti5162292V,i0890/29/2tegIKAeM302 161 6)12 EFTA00075122 CasCliS529fral1133UARmErttclidnenOICBMZ2FilMM2e/lbagEteoU0Sf 161 7/12 EFTA00075123 CaseCla529,1/4/35113. 1A13mDttclidnenOlanZ2V,i1N90/29/2bagP7t§e202 161 8/12 EFTA00075124 Case11.1t5a,1/4bV1a3QcoRmettcthitrielt$MZ2V,ileilM20/2b3gIntet2302 161 9/12 EFTA00075125 Case11.15Z0/431120aDwmeaddlibitn@leaea92V,iegesn28/1tagPAW2102 161 10/12 EFTA00075126 Castfligi5a1/42)7433UptElmOttclidnent ltiVZ2Vilat916;E/29/2tagPMeoMf 161 11/12 EFTA00075127 Caselt.It5a,1/4bViSaUctiRmeattOntrielt$MZ2Vilei19113T120/2b3gPitOet28014 161 12/12 EFTA00075128 Caselabl5Z0/2411S3lactameaddiditnelatea92Cile8926ffie/RagPl@e12202 161 Whe tliashingtott post Democracy Dies in Darkness Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, charged in sex abuse case By Shayna Jacobs and Devlin Barrett July 2, 2020 at 3:14 p.m. MDT NEW YORK — Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime confidante of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was arrested Thursday in New Hampshire on charges she recruited and groomed underage girls for abuse by her then-boyfriend, officials said. Support our journalism. Subscribe today. 3 A grand jury indictment unsealed Thursday charged Maxwell, daughter of the late media tycoon Robert Maxwell, with perjury and conspiring to entice minors to travel to engage in sex acts. Maxwell has been under investigation for months as a possible accomplice to Epstein's history of sexual abuse of underage girls. Epstein, who committed suicide while in federal custody last summer, dated Maxwell for years, and the indictment charges she played a key role in grooming girls for him to abuse. AD EFTA00075129 CasC1.15Z6,,Z7n3LbitRmErttcWneneleMZ2VilatM20/2bagPli§et2802 161 Beginning in at least 1994, the indictment alleges, Maxwell "enticed and groomed multiple minor girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, through a variety of means and methods." Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss called the sex abuse described in the Maxwell case "the prequel" to the charges they lodged last year against Epstein covering alleged acts of abuse in the early 2000S. "Maxwell played a critical role in helping Epstein to identify, befriend, and groom minor victims for abuse," said Strauss, who oversees the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New York. "In some cases, Maxwell participated in the abuse herself." A lawyer for Maxwell, Jeff Pagliuca, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. David Boies, who along with Sigrid McCawley represents a dozen of Epstein's accusers, said their clients were elated by the development. "It's just an enormous step," he said. AD EFTA00075130 Casen5a4)1103ElotiRmeatellikien@IMS2c,i 01190/20/RilgPMeto MOM 161 Boies said he thinks Maxwell will be under "tremendous pressure to cooperate" as she looks for ways to shave time off what may be a significant prison sentence. Maxwell could potentially help prosecutors shed light on Epstein's dealings with other wealthy and influential people who may have had encounters with underage victims, he said, adding, "There were a lot of people with a lot of public stature ... who were involved with Epstein." "The pain [Maxwell] has caused will never go away but today is a step toward healing," McCawley added in a statement, praising prosecutors on the case for their "unrelenting courage." U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea Johnstone ordered Maxwell to remain in custody at a brief hearing via videoconference in federal court in New Hampshire, where another of her attorneys, Lawrence Vogelman, did not seek an immediate bail hearing because her lawyers plan to make those arguments after she is transferred to New York. AD EFTA00075131 CaseElt5Zicatagaot,13mErdclimen01,0M92V,i08916ffie/Ragn§eDSOG2 161 In a court filing, prosecutors said Maxwell should stay behind bars pending trial because she might flee given her "extensive international ties," noting she has citizenship in two countries and three passports in her name. Maxwell, 58, faces the possibility of 85 years in prison if convicted and has "absolutely no reason to stay in the United States," prosecutors argued in the filing. Prosecutors also said the Epstein investigation is not over and asked any victims or witnesses to Epstein's abuse of minors to contact the FBI. William Sweeney, head of the FBI's New York office, called Maxwell "one of the villains" of the Epstein saga and said that agents kept close tabs on her after she "slithered away to a gorgeous property in New Hampshire." AD The indictment charged that Maxwell "would try to normalize sexual abuse for a minor victim by, among other things, discussing sexual topics, undressing in front EFTA00075132 CasC13.252114)ThatotinevictentalateaS2Cila89=0/Riagnijet3102 161 of the victim, being present when a minor victim was undressed, and/or being present for sex acts involving the minor victim and Epstein." One of the victims was 14 years old when Epstein and Maxwell began grooming her for sex acts with Epstein, according to the indictment. The victims were groomed or abused at a number of Epstein's luxurious homes, including his sprawling Upper East Side townhouse in Manhattan, an estate in Palm Beach, Fla., a ranch in Santa Fe, N.M.,