21-58_Documents%20Pt%203%20of%204.pdf
49 MB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing - memorandum in opposition to motion for release
File Size:
49 MB
Summary
This document is the Government's Memorandum in Opposition to Ghislaine Maxwell's Renewed Motion for Release on bail, filed on April 1, 2021. It argues against her release, citing a previous court finding from July 2020 that she posed a serious flight risk and that no bail conditions could ensure her appearance, a conclusion the Government maintains is still valid due to the seriousness of the offense, strong evidence, and her extensive financial resources and foreign ties.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL | Defendant |
Subject of the renewed motion for release on bail.
|
| AUDREY STRAUSS | Acting United States Attorney |
Representing the United States in the Southern District of New York.
|
| Maurene Comey | Assistant United States Attorney |
Of Counsel for the United States.
|
| Alison Moe | Assistant United States Attorney |
Of Counsel for the United States.
|
| Lara Pomerantz | Assistant United States Attorney |
Of Counsel for the United States.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |
The court where the case is being heard.
|
|
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
The plaintiff in the case.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2020-07-14
Bail hearing where the Court rejected the defendant's request to keep the record open and concluded she posed a serious flight risk.
Southern District of New York
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Court
2020-12-08
Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail (Renewed Bail Motion) filed.
Southern District of New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court and jurisdiction.
|
Relationships (4)
Maxwell is the defendant, Strauss represents the United States against her.
Comey is an Assistant United States Attorney 'Of Counsel' to Strauss.
Moe is an Assistant United States Attorney 'Of Counsel' to Strauss.
Pomerantz is an Assistant United States Attorney 'Of Counsel' to Strauss.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s renewed motion for release on bail, dated December 8, 2020 (the “Renewed Bail Motion”)."Source
21-58_Documents%20Pt%203%20of%204.pdf
Quote #1
"Five months ago, after thorough briefing and a nearly two-hour hearing, this Court concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could ensure her appearance in court."Source
21-58_Documents%20Pt%203%20of%204.pdf
Quote #2
"The Court’s conclusion was plainly correct, and the Renewed Bail Motion does nothing to undermine it."Source
21-58_Documents%20Pt%203%20of%204.pdf
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (8,617 characters)
Case 21-58, Document 39-3, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page1 of 165
Exhibit F
Doc. 100
The Government's Memorandum in Support to the Defendant's Renewed
Motion for Release
The Government's Memorandum in Support to the Defendant's Renewed
Motion for Release
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1002 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-v.-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO THE DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE
TO THE DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE
AUDREY STRAUSS
Acting United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States of America
Acting United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States of America
Maurene Comey
Alison Moe
Lara Pomerantz
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -
Alison Moe
Lara Pomerantz
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1002 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE.................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2
APPLICABLE LAW .................................................................................................................. 6
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 8
RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE.................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2
APPLICABLE LAW .................................................................................................................. 6
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 8
A.
The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense ............................................................. 8
B.
The Strength of the Evidence........................................................................................ 9
C.
The Characteristics of the Defendant.......................................................................... 12
D.
Conditions of Confinement ........................................................................................ 29
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... 33
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1002 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 36
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Jackson v. Goord, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)...............................................................................27
United States v. Abdullah, 488 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)...................................................................19
United States v. Banks, 10 F. Supp. 10(K) (D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2010), aff’d, 369 F. App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010)...26
United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002)........................26
United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004)..........................28
United States v. Bolton, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960 (N.D. Tenn. 2004).....................................................................15
United States v. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028 (D. Fla. 1985)................................................................................15
United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir. Mar. 7,
2019)...................................................................................................................................................................28
United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019)....................................................................................6, 25, 26
United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 (N.D. Cal. 1992).....................................................................15
United States v. Citron, No. 14 Cr. 415 (WHP), 2015 WL 3802012 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013)............................16, 19
United States v. Costello, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1452436 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1999).......................................15
United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757 n.l1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010)............................15
United States v. Drexler, 592 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)........................................................................27
United States v. English, 629 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2011)......................................................................................15
United States v. Epstein, 15 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D. Pa. 2001)............................................................................27
United States v. Epstein, 423 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).......................................................................15, 29
United States v. Epstein, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)..........................................................................27
United States v. Georgiou, No. 08-020, 2008 WL 493720 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008).........................................15
United States v. Karmi, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004)..............................................................................15
United States v. Kasseem, No. 15 Cr. 112, 2018 WL 4645357 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015).........................................15
United States v. Khawagali, 517 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).....................................................................15, 28
United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)........................................................................27
United States v. Mercedes, 124 F. Supp. 2d 233 (2d Cir. 2001)...........................................................................7, 29
United States v. Morton, No. 00-Cr-1049, 2010 WL 7421924 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016)................................15
United States v. Namer, 738 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000)...........................................19
United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 18, 2018 WL 1531 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2018)...................28
United States v. Petrov, 12 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11000986 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2015)...................................7, 8
United States v. Pryor, No. 02 Cr. 734 (JFM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)............................7
United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007)............................................................................................6
United States v. Santopietro, 9 F. Supp. 2d 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)..........................................................................15
United States v. Scrushy, No. 41 Cr. 348 (JCS), 1997 WL 27130 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992)......................18
United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 183295 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000)..........................................15
United States v. Young, No. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 1213100 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013)....................15
United States v. Zurgery, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1164364 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000)..............................26
United States v. Abdullah, 488 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)...................................................................19
United States v. Banks, 10 F. Supp. 10(K) (D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2010), aff’d, 369 F. App’x 152 (2d Cir. 2010)...26
United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JG), 2002 WL 31410262 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002)........................26
United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004)..........................28
United States v. Bolton, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960 (N.D. Tenn. 2004).....................................................................15
United States v. Botero, 604 F. Supp. 1028 (D. Fla. 1985)................................................................................15
United States v. Boustani, 356 F. Supp. 3d 246 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, No. 19-344, 2019 WL 2070656 (2d Cir. Mar. 7,
2019)...................................................................................................................................................................28
United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019)....................................................................................6, 25, 26
United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 (N.D. Cal. 1992).....................................................................15
United States v. Citron, No. 14 Cr. 415 (WHP), 2015 WL 3802012 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2013)............................16, 19
United States v. Costello, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1452436 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1999).......................................15
United States v. Cohen, No. C 10-00547, 2010 WL 5387757 n.l1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010)............................15
United States v. Drexler, 592 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)........................................................................27
United States v. English, 629 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2011)......................................................................................15
United States v. Epstein, 15 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D. Pa. 2001)............................................................................27
United States v. Epstein, 423 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).......................................................................15, 29
United States v. Epstein, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)..........................................................................27
United States v. Georgiou, No. 08-020, 2008 WL 493720 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2008).........................................15
United States v. Karmi, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004)..............................................................................15
United States v. Kasseem, No. 15 Cr. 112, 2018 WL 4645357 (D. Or. Aug. 3, 2015).........................................15
United States v. Khawagali, 517 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).....................................................................15, 28
United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)........................................................................27
United States v. Mercedes, 124 F. Supp. 2d 233 (2d Cir. 2001)...........................................................................7, 29
United States v. Morton, No. 00-Cr-1049, 2010 WL 7421924 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016)................................15
United States v. Namer, 738 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000)...........................................19
United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 18, 2018 WL 1531 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2018)...................28
United States v. Petrov, 12 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11000986 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2015)...................................7, 8
United States v. Pryor, No. 02 Cr. 734 (JFM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)............................7
United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007)............................................................................................6
United States v. Santopietro, 9 F. Supp. 2d 15 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)..........................................................................15
United States v. Scrushy, No. 41 Cr. 348 (JCS), 1997 WL 27130 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992)......................18
United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 183295 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2000)..........................................15
United States v. Young, No. 12 Cr. 502, 12 Cr. 645, 2013 WL 1213100 (D. Utah Aug. 27, 2013)....................15
United States v. Zurgery, No. 00 Cr. 773 (JG), 2000 WL 1164364 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000)..............................26
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 1002 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-v.-
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
----------------------------------------------------------------------x
THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE
RENEWED MOTION FOR RELEASE
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s
renewed motion for release on bail, dated December 8, 2020 (the “Renewed Bail Motion”). Five
months ago, after thorough briefing and a nearly two-hour hearing, this Court concluded that the
defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could
ensure her appearance in court. The defense now asks this Court to reverse that finding by
essentially repackaging its prior arguments and presenting a more specific bail package. However,
at the July 14, 2020 bail hearing in this case, this Court rejected the defendant’s request to keep
the record open to allow the defendant to do precisely what she has done here—namely, present
more detailed information about her finances and a more concrete package—determining that
further information about her financial picture would be irrelevant because no combination of
conditions could ensure this defendant’s appearance. The Court’s conclusion was plainly correct,
and the Renewed Bail Motion does nothing to undermine it. The offense conduct outlined in the
Indictment remains incredibly serious, the evidence against the defendant remains strong, and the
defendant continues to have extensive financial resources and foreign ties, as well as the
renewed motion for release on bail, dated December 8, 2020 (the “Renewed Bail Motion”). Five
months ago, after thorough briefing and a nearly two-hour hearing, this Court concluded that the
defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could
ensure her appearance in court. The defense now asks this Court to reverse that finding by
essentially repackaging its prior arguments and presenting a more specific bail package. However,
at the July 14, 2020 bail hearing in this case, this Court rejected the defendant’s request to keep
the record open to allow the defendant to do precisely what she has done here—namely, present
more detailed information about her finances and a more concrete package—determining that
further information about her financial picture would be irrelevant because no combination of
conditions could ensure this defendant’s appearance. The Court’s conclusion was plainly correct,
and the Renewed Bail Motion does nothing to undermine it. The offense conduct outlined in the
Indictment remains incredibly serious, the evidence against the defendant remains strong, and the
defendant continues to have extensive financial resources and foreign ties, as well as the
1
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document