EFTA02731260Set 12removed from DOJ
2012-05-1081p10,921w
osoSyo• (Os V.vt, vokm \(\ \\4•161
v
i -I ioA \\ lak\ VI oitgom Viv. ViOt(kalcilk ‘Itt \ ottakA ko \TPA c\ ‘64.
1 b Its$ Vat ‘306k1 ... t.40 ssist
Aq Vi-k. ; (1 ‘v) WI\ tvt:A Wows`o A 0.1-1(.,.
• \\A &AC i OA
VA\ .\) %.4C(\ but \ W\14 IOW \\a‘n1 \ 011\ \6 bTit ... ihts c_Ainnk,
a l'lk. be nsWs \Nen_ - I v Vou-s bract 40 kelp
a
you., t-errye beir LAo / a LL... )-etel
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2012/EFTA02731260.pdf
EFTA00103709Set 9
2018-08-0925p6,523w
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
v.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
Defendant.
x
MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ... child. 15
CONCLUSION 18
EFTA00103710
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Bowen v .Georgetown Univ. Hosp.,
488 U.S. 204 (1988) 5
Bridges v. United States ... Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.,
464 U.S. 89 (1983) 8
Burrage v. United States,
571 U.S. 204 (2014) 15
Commit. v. Clark
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00103709.pdf
EFTA00802452Set 9
1997-03-0425p6,896w
them to bring their claims. Plaintiffs assert that, until the affidavit, they
See U.S. v. Hoffenberg, 94-cr-213, 1997 WL 96563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 1997), a copy of which ... Victim Families Note Holders Owners of Secs. in Towers Fin. Corp. v. Schulte Roth & Zable, 210 F.
Supp. 2d 286, 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
3 See Hoffenberg v. Hoffman & Pollok ... Sweet, J.) (emphasis added)).
4 See 200,000 Towers Inv'rs Restitution Victims v. United States, No. 3-cv-8563, 2013 WL 6673612, at •1
(S.D.N.Y
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00802452.pdf
EFTA00792343Set 9
57p11,385w
Board's Recommendation 7
IV. Pre-Hearing Investigation By the District Attorney 11
V. SORA Hearing 12
ARGUMENT 16
I. THE COURT'S LEVEL 3 DETERMINATION IS NOT
SUPPORTED ... Pataki,
3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 32, 33, 35, 36
E.B. v. Verniero,
119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997),
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) 34, 35
Fresh ... Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe,
40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43
Goldberg v. Kelly,
397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48
Matthews v. Eldridge
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00792343.pdf
EFTA00201190Set 9
2009-03-1221p6,896w
COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 08-CV-80811-MARRA/JOHNSON
C.M. A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
EPSTEIN and
Defendants,
DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE ... Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/12/2009 Page 2 of 21
C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al.
Page 2
Dismissal is required on the following grounds: (1) A review ... Motion To Dismiss Standard
As established by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly, 127
S.Ct. 1955 (2007), a motion to dismiss should be granted if the plaintiff
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00201190.pdf
EFTA01325692Set 10removed from DOJ
2021-04-09340p219,339w
none
xm.froi cwect to ”:" 'WOE., WO reow..<
•." cmeruomootosKov....
nownn
V49:fraCMAX<I4GOVInt
V•07,1aMcwox<m001.:111.3.eins ... V
J t illigtItag.i'''''''' i is liiV'' ''' ''' ''" "='''''''l L. "I 1 ls:-1, L 'I''..:1 :
III MIOMMOMM M MIIIM MOMMIMM ... litlit f r, !TiT; .!, Itl„ • Il, 11,!vt. v
0,1 VI et 6, NI IP ,* 4i.ffm. ,I „iv/a Nommi, Irmm. ,,• P, ff, -,,, „II„ - I , p. AAA , WI If, }
iiIiiiiiiiiiiiiii6iIiiii
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01325692.pdf
EFTA01707384Set 10
100p54,195w
Call To _Min _code Pd ture Charge DA _guage .
;. nesig.?'•airlanx'" 'PAV , !SDI - .tio.ao • v:
755 1...206/01 ‘.081361:11t MI Pate • . t. rieri-'11.7.• • sac • •••:.•I •••••thob,
756 06/01 ... RSD1 . ' 9.00
284 06/02 05.02PX 74/, PAL -fl 2-'RSD1 V •
785 04/63 est1mi XI TS FL• 2 RSD V 0.00
786 06/02 05 576X MI PALM ... Incoming Coll; K-Fax Call; M•Mobile To Mobile Discount; Access Service; Q•V-VPN; RRoom with Home;
S.Shared Minutes; T=Muce Way Calling; WNights and Weekends
Number Rate Rate
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01707384.pdf
EFTA01079203Set 9
2016-01-1260p13,979w
Cassell"), filed certain
now-stricken allegations in the action styled Jane Doe, et at v. United States of America, No. 08-
80736 (S.D. Fla.) (the "Federal Action"). After Dershowitz defended ... litigation of its effect upon them . . . ." John Doe-1 Through John Doe-4 v. Museum
of Sci. & History of Jacksonville ... restrictive means necessary to
accomplish its purpose. The Florida Supreme Court held in Barron v. Florida Freedom
Newspapers, 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), that a sealing order
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01079203.pdf
EFTA00097312Set 9
17p4,078w
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
20 Cr. 330 (MN)
v.
•
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
•
•
•
•
Defendant.
•
•
•
x
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION ... Inadmissible Evidence 6
CONCLUSION 11
Certificate of Service 13
EFTA00097313
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 7
United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d ... Cir.1991) 1
United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 3
United States v. Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) 5
United States v. Cohn
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00097312.pdf
EFTA00076468Set 9
2018-06-1320p6,187w
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOC #:
X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DATE FILED: St " - Mr
v. 15-CR-317 (KMW)
DEAN SKELOS and ADAM SKELOS, OPINION & ORDER
Defendants.
X
KIMBA ... quash a subpoena "if
compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive." Under United States v. Nixon, the party
requesting the subpoena has the burden of showing "(1) that the documents ... almost unanimously
applied Nixon to subpoenas served on third-parties. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. I5-CR-
551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) (Nathan
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00076468.pdf
EFTA00605403Set 9
2007-11-1926p7,389w
Eleventh
Circuit has recognized:
(T)his particular sub-section was included in Title V of the
Telecommunications Act, which is the section titled
'Obscenity and Violence,' after the Senate Judiciary ... Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment
via the intemet.
So United Sates v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11) Cir. 2005) (citing ... pretends to be a young teenager on-line, and is directly solicitated. United States v.
Father, 251 F.3d 510 (5ih Cir. 2001). See also United States v. Root 296 F.3d
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00605403.pdf