DOJ-OGR-00001261.jpg
730 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court motion/memorandum)
File Size:
730 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 172) dated March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues that Maxwell has been transparent about her assets, including those held jointly with her spouse, and that the government's argument regarding asset control and flight risk is illogical. A footnote strongly defends the integrity of Maxwell's New York legal team against the government's implication that they would use escrow funds to help her flee as a fugitive.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the bail application; described as suffering adverse conditions; assets are being discussed.
|
| The Spouse | Family Member |
Mentioned as holding assets jointly with Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Defense Counsel / New York Counsel | Attorneys |
Mentioned in footnote 3; defending their reputation against government suggestions they would aid a fugitive.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pretrial Services |
Government agency that posed questions regarding personal assets.
|
|
| The Court |
The judicial body overseeing the case.
|
|
| The government |
The prosecution/DOJ opposing the bail application.
|
|
| Unnamed Accounting Firm |
Described as 'highly respected'; vetted financial documents.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of defense counsel's practice ('this district').
|
Relationships (2)
Reference to assets 'jointly held with the spouse'.
Defense counsel arguing for her bail; funds held in attorney escrow for legal services.
Key Quotes (4)
"Ms. Maxwell responded appropriately and accurately to questions posed by Pretrial Services which were restricted to her personal assets."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001261.jpg
Quote #1
"financial documents - collected and professionally vetted by a highly respected accounting firm – have been submitted to the government"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001261.jpg
Quote #2
"The government challenges the Court by inanely stating that if 'the only way to keep the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too great a risk to release.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001261.jpg
Quote #3
"To suggest that defense counsel would become accomplices to a violation of a court order shows utter disrespect for Ms. Maxwell’s defense team."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001261.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,196 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 172 Filed 03/22/21 Page 6 of 18
deprivation, and other conditions adverse to her physical health and mental well-being, Ms.
Maxwell responded appropriately and accurately to questions posed by Pretrial Services which
were restricted to her personal assets. Since then, financial documents - collected and
professionally vetted by a highly respected accounting firm – have been submitted to the
government and the Court and provide full details and supporting documentation concerning
Ms. Maxwell’s personal assets and those jointly held with the spouse. Further, no valid
challenge has been made to those submissions.
Maxwell responded appropriately and accurately to questions posed by Pretrial Services which
were restricted to her personal assets. Since then, financial documents - collected and
professionally vetted by a highly respected accounting firm – have been submitted to the
government and the Court and provide full details and supporting documentation concerning
Ms. Maxwell’s personal assets and those jointly held with the spouse. Further, no valid
challenge has been made to those submissions.
The government challenges the Court by inanely stating that if “the only way to keep
the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too
great a risk to release.” (Dkt. 165 at 8.) This statement is fundamentally illogical as it
undermines most conditions of release. For example, the same could be said of electronic
monitoring – i.e., if the only way to keep a defendant from fleeing the jurisdiction is to place
him on home confinement with electronic monitoring, then he is too great a flight risk to
release.³ The Court should readily dismiss this frivolous argument. Under the Bail Reform Act,
if there are appropriate conditions for release, bail should be granted. The conditions
collectively proposed in the previous and present bail applications provide ample assurance that
Ms. Maxwell will be present at trial.
the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too
great a risk to release.” (Dkt. 165 at 8.) This statement is fundamentally illogical as it
undermines most conditions of release. For example, the same could be said of electronic
monitoring – i.e., if the only way to keep a defendant from fleeing the jurisdiction is to place
him on home confinement with electronic monitoring, then he is too great a flight risk to
release.³ The Court should readily dismiss this frivolous argument. Under the Bail Reform Act,
if there are appropriate conditions for release, bail should be granted. The conditions
collectively proposed in the previous and present bail applications provide ample assurance that
Ms. Maxwell will be present at trial.
³ Moreover, in an effort to further obfuscate the merits of Ms. Maxwell’s bail application, the government
desperately argues that funds for legal services, presently held in attorney escrow accounts, would be
released and made available to support Ms. Maxwell as a fugitive. To suggest that defense counsel would
become accomplices to a violation of a court order shows utter disrespect for Ms. Maxwell’s defense team.
In particular, New York counsel, who have spent the entirety of their legal careers practicing in this district
and establishing well-respected reputations among the bench and bar, take umbrage at the government’s
callous assertion.
desperately argues that funds for legal services, presently held in attorney escrow accounts, would be
released and made available to support Ms. Maxwell as a fugitive. To suggest that defense counsel would
become accomplices to a violation of a court order shows utter disrespect for Ms. Maxwell’s defense team.
In particular, New York counsel, who have spent the entirety of their legal careers practicing in this district
and establishing well-respected reputations among the bench and bar, take umbrage at the government’s
callous assertion.
6
DOJ-OGR-00001261
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document