← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
Mega Edition: Ghislaine Maxwell's Application For Bail (3/29/26)
00:43:39
In her motion opposing the government’s request for pretrial detention, Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team argued that she posed no flight risk and should be granted release on strict conditions. They emphasized her lack of recent travel, her willingness...
Loading summary
Transcript13 lines
- [00:00]
VRBO Representative
At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support, so we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO Care Guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between and after your trip. Because a great trip starts with peace of mind and maybe a good playlist, but we've got the peace of mind part covered.
- [00:28]
Hallmarky's Podcast Host
Do you love romcoms? Do you wish you could talk about Christmas movies year round? Then we have the perfect podcast for you. Hallmarky's Podcast throughout the year, we cover all things romance, holiday and Hallmark, including recaps of every Hallmark show like When Calls, the Heart and the Way Home. You can also get loads of bonus content covering shows like Bridgerton, Sweet Magnolias and and Just like that. We are an all female group of friends who are passionate for these shows and movies and give our honest opinion opinions as well as gush over what we love so much. But that's not all. Every Monday there are interviews with all your favorite actors, writers, directors and more. Check out Hallmarkies podcasts on all your podcast providers and on YouTube. That's Hallmarky's podcast wherever you listen to podcasts.
- [01:16]
Epstein Chronicles Host
What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to keep it rolling with our exploration of the underbelly of of the Jeffrey Epstein criminal enterprise by taking a look at Ghislaine Maxwell and her attempt to get bail. So let's dive in. Preliminary Statement Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the government's July 2, 2020 memorandum in support of detention. It's difficult to recall a recent case that has garnered more public attention than than the government's prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. In July of 2019, Epstein was indicted for offenses relating to sexual misconduct amid overwhelming media attention focused on the nature of the charges and Epstein's wealth and lifestyle. On August 10, 2019, Epstein died in federal custody and the media focus quickly shifted to our client wrongly trying to substitute her for Epstein even though she had no contact with Epstein for more than a decade, had never been charged with a crime or been found liable in any civil litigation, and has always denied any allegation of claim misconduct. Many of these stories and online posts were threatening and harassing to our client and those close to her, but sometimes the simplest point is the most critical one. Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. She was not named in the government's indictment of Epstein in 2019, despite the fact the government has been investigating this case for years. Instead, the current indictment is based on allegations of conduct that allegedly occurred roughly 25 years ago. Ms. Maxwell vigorously denies the charges, intends to fight them, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Far from hiding, she has lived in the United States since 1991 and has litigated civil cases arising from her supposed ties to Epstein and has not left the country even once. Epstein was arrested years ago, even though she was aware of the pending and highly publicized criminal investigation. She should be treated like any other defendant who comes before the court, including as to bail. Under the Bail Reform act case law in this circuit and other circuits, as well as decisions of this court, Ms. Maxwell should be released on bond subject to the strict conditions proposed below. Ms. Maxwell, 58, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has resided in the United States since 1991. She is also a citizen of France, where she was born, and of the United Kingdom, where she was educated and spent her childhood and formative years. Ms. Maxwell graduated from Oxford University. She moved to the United States in 1991 and has lived in this country ever since. Ms. Maxwell has maintained extremely close relationships with her six siblings and her nephews and nieces. Oh, you mean the nephew that Hillary Clinton got a job at the State Department? That nephew? They all stood by her in the aftermath of the July 2019 indictment of Epstein and continue to stand by her. Now. She especially is close to two of her sisters and their children, all of whom reside in the United States. Ms. Maxwell also has numerous friends in the United States who themselves have children, and she is a godmother to many of them. Imagine being a parent and having Ghislaine Maxwell as the godmother to your kid. I know, I know. Nobody had any idea what she was up to. Ms. Maxwell's family and friends have remained committed to her because they do not believe the allegations against her, which do not match the person that they have known for decades. The Government's Position the government has the burden of persuasion in showing that detention is warranted and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will secure a defendant's appearance in court. In seeking to carry this burden, the government relies on the Presumption of Detention, U.S. code 18, Section 3142E, 3 and E, and argues that Ms. Maxwell poses a flight risk because she supposedly lacks ties to the United States, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and France, as well as a citizen of the United States, and has passports for each country, has traveled Internationally in the past and has financial means. And echoing recent media stories, the government speculates that Ms. Maxwell was hiding from law enforcement and during the pendency of the investigation, even though she has been in regular contact with the government through counsel since Epstein's first arrest. Yeah, how come the government couldn't find her when they had the lawsuit against her? They had to file via email. Nobody could find the lady. But no, she wasn't hiding. Finally, the government argues that the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of the evidence warrant detention. Importantly, it contrasts with the bail position it took with Epstein. The government does not and cannot assert that Ms. Maxwell presents a danger to the community under section 3142. Ms. Maxwell's. The court should exercise its discretion to grant bail to Ms. Maxwell on the strict conditions proposed below or modified by the court for two compelling reasons. Oh, this is a doozy right here, folks. First, the COVID 19 crisis. Boy, how many people tried to use the COVID 19 crisis for their own purposes? And its impact on detained defendants warrants release. As the Court noted, The COVID 19 pandemic represents an unprecedented health risk to incarcerated individuals. And COVID 19 related restrictions on attorney communications with free trial detainees significantly impairs a defendant's ability to prepare a defense. Literally, everybody in prison was under the same exact strict standards, not just Maxwell. Second, the court should grant bail because the government has not met its burden under the Bail Reform act and controlling case law. The presumption relied on by the government may be rebutted, and is so here. Ms. Maxwell has strong ties to the community. She is a US Citizen and. And has lived in the country for almost 30 years. She ran a non profit company based in the United States until the recent media frenzy about this case forced her to wind it down to protect her professional colleagues and their organizations. Well, here's an idea. Don't hang out with Ghislaine Maxwell. I know, I know. Novel idea. And she also has very close ties with family members and friends in New York and the rest of the country. Nor does her conduct indicate that she is a flight risk. She has no prior criminal record, has spent years contesting civil litigation arising from her supposed ties to Epstein, and has remained in the United States from the time of Epstein's arrest until the present. With her counsel in regular contact with the government. She did not flee, but rather left the public eye for the entirely understandable purpose of protecting herself and those close to her from. From the crush of media and online attention and its very real harms. Those close to her have suffered the loss of jobs, work opportunities, and reputational damage simply for knowing her. The government's remaining arguments about Ms. Maxwell's passports, citizenship, travel and financial means also fell because they would require that every defendant with multiple citizenships and financial means be denied bail, which is simply not the law. Finally, as discussed below, the government's position regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense and the weight of its evidence which relates to alleged conduct that is roughly 25 years old is not persuasive and does not alter the bail Analysis Proposed Bail Conditions in light of the above, we propose the following bail conditions which are consistent with with those that the court in this circuit have Imposed in other situations 1. A $5 million personal recognizance bond co signed by six financially responsible people, all of whom have strong ties to Ms. Maxwell and secured by real property in the United kingdom worth over $3.75 million. 2. Travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern districts of New York. 3. Surrender of all travel documents with no new applications. 4. Strict supervision by pretrial services. 5. Home confinement at a residence in the Southern District of New York with electronic GPS monitoring. 6. Visitors limited to Ms. Maxwell's immediate family, close friends and counsel. 7. Travel limited to court appearances and to counsel's office except upon application to pretrial services and the government and such other terms as the court may deem appropriate under section 3142. The bail reform act does not discard the presumption of innocence. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to the presumption here, as she is in all aspects of this case. See U.S. code 18, section 3142J. Nothing in this section 3142 shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence. The government has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Ms. Maxwell presents an actual risk of flight and must be detained under section 3142. The strict bail conditions outlined above are appropriate under the circumstances and are the least restrictive set of conditions that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance in court without the health and access to counsel risks inherent in the government request that Ms. Maxwell be detained pending trial. See U.S. code 18, Section 3142 c.1 and b. Under the controlling legal standards, Ms. Maxwell should be released on bail. The argument There are two compelling reasons why the court should order Ms. Maxwell's release on bail pursuant to the strict conditions she has proposed. First, Ms. Maxwell will be a significant risk of contracting COVID 19 if she is detained, and she will not be able to meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense due to the restrictions that have been placed on attorney visits and phone calls in light of the pandemic. Second, the government has failed to carry its burden under US Code 18, Section 3142 that no combination of conditions can be imposed that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. Alright folks, we're gonna wrap up with part one there and in the next episode we're gonna pick up with Part two. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're gonna pick up where we left off with with a Ghislaine Maxwell mail application. 1 the conditions created by COVID 19 pandemic mandate the release of Ms. Maxwell
- [12:35]
Cool Stuff Daily Host
every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science tech and the. Wait, what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to Cool Stuff Daily now because the future's happening fast and it's way too fun to miss.
- [13:10]
Alex Kanchwitz
Hi, this is Alex Kanchwitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology Podcast wherever you get your podcasts.
- [13:45]
Cool Stuff Daily Host
Every day the world gets a little weirder and a lot more awesome. Cool Stuff Daily takes a look at everything from mining in space to the latest in the fight against cancer to how AI is basically changing everything. It's all the cool stuff you didn't know you needed to know. Join us for Cool Stuff Daily as we take a quick look at science tech and the. Wait, what stories that make you sound way smarter at dinner. Subscribe to Cool Stuff Daily now because the future's happening fast and it's way too fun to miss.
- [14:20]
Epstein Chronicles Host
Impact of COVID 19 on the prison Population we submit that the conditions created by the COVID 19 pandemic compel Ms. Maxwell's release pursuant to appropriate bail conditions. Four months ago, this Court held in United States vs. Stevens, 15 CR 95 AGN 2020 WL 129, 5155 SDNY March 19, 2020, that COVID 19 is an unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous threat that justifies release on bail. In that case, the defendant, who had no underlying medical conditions, filed an emergency motion for reconsideration of the Court's prior detention order based in part on the risks brought by COVID19. At the time, COVID19 had only begun to take its devastating toll on New York and there was no known outbreak in the prison population. Nevertheless, the Court noted that inmates may be at a heightened risk of contracting COVID 19 should an outbreak develop and based in part on this change circumstance, ordered the the defendant released. Since the Court issued its opinion In Stephens, the COVID 19 risks to inmates have increased dramatically as there have been significant outbreaks of COVID 19 in correctional facilities. In the last month alone, the number of prison inmates known to have COVID 19 has doubled to 68,000, and the prison deaths tied to COVID 19 have risen by 73%. Indeed, as of July 2, the 2029 of the 10 largest known clusters of the coronavirus in the United States are in federal prisons and county jails. As this Court noted last month, the inability of individuals to socially distance shared communal spaces and limited access to hygiene products in correctional facilities makes community spread all but unavoidable. United States v. Williams Bethea 18 CR 78 AJN 2020wl 2848098@5SDNY June 2, 2020. The risks are further enhanced by the possibility of a second wave of coronavirus. In particular, COVID 19 has begun to spread through the Metropolitan detention center where Ms. Maxwell has been housed since the Bureau of Prisons transferred her there on July 6th of 2020. According to the MDC's statistics, as of April 3rd, 2020, two inmates and five staff had tested positive. By June 30th, 2020, those numbers had risen to 14 and 41, respectively. The increased spread among prisons means that the COVID 19 risks that were present in the Stevens case four months ago are far more serious for Ms. Maxwell now and mandate her her release. Impact of COVID 19 on the ability to Prepare the Defense the Stevens opinion provides yet another independent basis that we submit requires Ms. Maxwell's release. If she is detained, her ability to meet with her attorneys and prepare for her defense will be significantly impaired and she will not be able to meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense. In Stevens, the court found that this factor required the defendant's release under US Code 18 Section 342, which provides for temporary release based on a determination that such a release is necessary for the preparation of the person's defense. Stevens 2020 WL 129, 5155, at 3. The court noted that the spread of COVID 19 had compelled the BOP to suspend all in person visits, including legal visits, except as allowed on a case by case basis. That suspension persists to this day in a case such as this, which will require assessing evidence relating to events that occurred approximately 25 years ago, including documents and personal recollections. Numerous in person meetings between counsel and Ms. Maxwell will be critical to the preparation of the defense. The recent resurgence of the pandemic calls into question whether these meetings will ever be able to happen in advance of her trial. As in Stephens, Ms. Maxwell and her inability to meet with her attorneys while this policy is in effect constitutes a compelling reason requiring her release. Stevens 2020 WL129 5155 even speaking by phone with Ms. Maxwell presents daunting challenges and due to COVID 19 related protocols requiring at least 72 hours notice to schedule a call unless it is urgent, in which case counsel can email a request to the mdc. As counsel has learned in the past week, however, even an urgent call request does not mean the call will take place in the time required. At approximately 5:30pm on July 6, 2020, the court ordered us to confer with Maxwell about waiving her physical presence at the arraignment, initial appearance and bail hearing and ordered counsel for both sides to jointly report back by 9pm that night with a proposed date and time for these proceedings. We promptly emailed the MDC to request an urgent call making specific reference to the Court's order, but were not connected with Ms. Maxwell until 9pm There will no doubt be other orders of the court with with no guarantees we will be able to reach our client in time if she is detained. In addition, during this past week Ms. Maxwell has not been able to physically review documents and has had limited access to writing materials. The prohibition on in person visits means we need to read to her any documents requiring her review and she has virtually no ability to take notes. The age of allegations in this case compound these problems. Under these circumstances, Ms. Maxwell cannot review documents and other evidence from approximately 25 years ago and meaningfully assist in the preparation of her defense. These restrictions are additional compelling reasons justifying her release. Part 2 the government has not carried its burden under US code 183142. The grave concerns raised by the current COVID 19 crisis notwithstanding, Ms. Maxwell must be released because she has met her limited burden of production, showing that she does not pose a flight risk and the government has entirely failed to demonstrate that no release condition or a combination of conditions exist that will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. A. As the Supreme Court has recognized, in our society the liberty is the norm and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755, 1987. Pretrial detention is appropriate only where no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant. United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 6375 2nd Circuit 2007 quoting U.S. code 18, Section 3142 e. The bail reform act provides that a court shall order the pretrial release of the defendant US Code 18.3142B, but may impose bail conditions if such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant in court. U.S. code 183142. Where conditions are necessary, such release shall be subject to the least restrictive set of conditions that the court determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. US Code 18, Section 3142, emphasis added. Consequently, under this statutory scheme, it is only a limited group of offenders who should be denied bail but pending trial. Subhani, 493F.3d 75. The government bears a dual burden in seeking pretrial detention. First, the government must show by preponderance of the evidence that the defendant presents an actual risk of flight. Subhani, 493F.3D at 75, emphasis added. If the government is able to satisfy this burden, it must then demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court. In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, the court must consider 1. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged 2. The weight of the evidence against the person 3 the history and characteristics of the person and and 4 the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release. U.S. code 18, 3142. In this case, unlike in the Epstein case, the government does not contend that Ms. Maxwell poses any danger to the community, and therefore the fourth factor does not apply. The Bail Reform act contains a rebuttable presumption applicable based on certain of the crimes charged here, that no conditions will reasonably assure against flight. See U.S. code Section 3142E, 3 and E. In cases where this presumption applies, the defendant bears a limited burden on production, not a burden of persuasion, to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that she does not pose a risk of flight. See United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 Second Circuit, 2011. This rebuttal presumption can be readily satisfied. United States v. Conway, 411-70756 Mag. DMR 2011 WL 34, 21 321, at 2 Northern District California, August 3, 2011, and any evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a category listed in 3142 can affect the operation of the presumption. United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 7th Circuit 1986 See also United States v. Mattis, 2017, 13, 2020 WL 35, 36, 77, at 4.5 2nd Circuit, June 30, 2020. Although the presumption remains a factor to be considered even after the defendant has met her burden of production at all times, the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a flight risk that cannot be addressed by any bail Conditions and English, 629 F.3d at 319 Citation and eternal quotation marks omitted. See also United States v. Deutsch, 18 CR 502 FB 2020 WL 3577, 398 at 5 edny. July 1, 2020, and regardless of the presence and the presumption or the nature of the charges alleged, Nothing in this Section 3142 shall be construed as modifying or limiting the Presumption of Innocence. U.S. code 18, Section 3142J. See also United States Vroll 06 CR291EF 2006 WL 3541, 736, at 3wdny December 7, 2006 those charged with crimes involving minors and continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence in setting conditions of release. Alright folks, that's going to wrap up part two and in the next episode we'll pick up where we left off with Part three. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. This episode we're going to pick right back up where we left off with Glenn Maxwell bail request 1 Ms. Maxwell's personal history and characteristics demonstrate that she is not a flight risk.
- [27:05]
Alex Kanchwitz
Hi, this is Alex Cancerwitz. I'm the host of Big Technology Podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to Big Technology Podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [27:41]
American Psychiatric Association Foundation Spokesperson
The sun shining, birds are singing and all feels right in the world.
- [27:46]
Mental Health Advocate
Until the season changes and suddenly you lose your motivation to get out of the in fact, one in five people experience some form of depression no matter the season or time of year.
- [27:55]
American Psychiatric Association Foundation Spokesperson
At the American Psychiatric association foundation, our vision is to build a mentally healthy nation for all because we want you to live your best life and be your best you all year round.
- [28:06]
Mental Health Advocate
Please visit mentallyhealthynation.org to learn more.
- [28:12]
Epstein Chronicles Host
A Ms. Maxwell has no prior criminal record and has significant ties to the United States and the New York region. Ms. Maxwell's history and characteristics do not strongly support detention government's memorandum at 6, but instead demonstrate that she is firmly rooted in this country and that her appearance can be reasonably assured with appropriate bail conditions. Ms. Maxwell has no criminal record, which includes an approximately 25 year period from the time the conduct alleged in the indictment took place to the present. Ms. Maxwell has also significant ties to the United States. She has lived in the country for almost 30 years and became a naturalized US citizen in 2002. Ms. Maxwell also has strong family ties to the country. Two of her sisters have agreed to co sign or bond live in the United States and they have several children who are US born citizens. Ms. Maxwell is very close with her sisters and maintains regular contact with them as well as with her nieces and nephews. Ms. Maxwell also has numerous close friends and professional colleagues who reside in this country. In sum, the United states has been Ms. Maxwell's home for decades. Ms. Maxwell has actively litigated civil cases in this district and has not left the United states since Epstein's 2019 arrest. Ms. Maxwell has never once attempted to hide from the government or her accusers and and has never shown any intent to leave the country. To the contrary, Ms. Maxwell has always denied that she was involved in illegal and improper conduct related to Epstein, and her conduct has been entirely consistent with someone who fully intends to remain in this country and fight any allegations brought against her. For example, since 2015 and continuing through today, Ms. Maxwell has actively litigated several civil cases related to Epstein in the Southern District of New York and has sat for depositions in those cases. Similarly, throughout the course of the criminal investigation of the case, which has been publicly reported for nearly a year, Ms. Maxwell has remained in the United States. Indeed, on July 7, 2019, the day after Epstein's arrest, Ms. Maxwell reached out to the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York throughout through counsel and maintained regular contact with them right up to the point of her arrest. The government's broad assertion that Ms. Maxwell has engaged in frequent international travel in the last three years Government memo at six obscures the critical point. She has not left the country even once since Epstein's arrest. Ms. Maxwell's decision to remain in the United States after Epstein's arrest and subsequent death in August 2019 is particularly significant because any incentive she may have had to flee would have been even more acute at that time. Within days of Epstein's death, a steady stream of press articles began turning the public's attention to Ms. Maxwell, wrongly substituting her for Epstein and speculating that she had become the prime target of the government's investigation. Adding even more fuel to this fire, several of the women claiming to be victims of Epstein the began publicly calling for her immediate arrest and prosecution despite increasing the risk of being criminally charged and the media firestorm that was redirected toward her. After Epstein's death and despite having ample opportunity to leave the country, Ms. Maxwell stayed in the United States for almost an entire year until she was arrested. These actions weigh heavily in favor of release. See United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48, 49 and 52nd Circuit, 1988, overturning district court's decision that defendant posed a flight risk based in part on the grounds that the defendant took no steps to flee jurisdiction in the three week period between execution of search warrant at Home and the Arrest United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supplement 1176, 1179 and 80 DMAs 1990 concluding defendants did not present the flight risk because each of them for three years knew there was substantial evidence of the likely charges against them and did not attempt to flee before the indictment. Indeed, the absence of any allegation by the government that Ms. Maxwell was taking steps to leave the country at the time of her arrest is conspicuous. The government has offered no proof that she was making plans to leave the country. In fact, had the government alerted her counsel that she was about to be arrested, we would have arranged for Ms. Maxwell's prompt voluntary surrender. Instead, the government arrested Ms. Maxwell without warning on the day before the July 4th holiday, thus ensuring that she would be in federal custody on the one year anniversary of Epstein's arrest. Ms. Maxwell's actions to protect herself from intrusive media coverage and death threats do not demonstrate an intent to flee. Furthermore, the steps Ms. Maxwell took to leave the public eye after Epstein's arrest are not indicative of a risk of flight. The government notes that Ms. Maxwell dropped out of public view after Epstein's arrest, which the government seeks to portray as hiding from the law. The government further argues that that she has taken several steps to avoid detection, including moving residences and switching her phone and email addresses. Government memo at 18 but Ms. Maxwell did not take these steps to hide from law enforcement or evade prosecution. Instead, there were necessary measures that Ms. Maxwell was forced to take to protect herself, her family members, her friends and colleagues and their children from unrelenting and and intrusive media coverage, threats and irreparable reputational harm. Ever Since Epstein's arrest, Ms. Maxwell has been at the center of a crushing onslaught of press articles, television specials and social media posts painting her in the most damning light possible and prejudging her guilt. The sheer volume of media reporting mentioning Ms. Maxwell is staggering. Since Epstein's arrest, she has been mentioned in literally thousands of media publications, news reports and other online content. The media attention also spawned a carnival like atmosphere of speculation about her whereabouts in November of 2019. The British tabloid the sun even offered a £10,000 bounty for information about Ms. Maxwell's location. A headline reminiscent of a Wild West Wanted poster read Wanted. The sun is offering 10,000 pounds in reward for information on on Jeffrey Epstein pal Ghislaine Maxwell. In the days leading up to her arrest, there was a deluge of media reports, all untrue, claiming that Ms. Maxwell was hiding out in an apartment in Paris to avoid questioning by the FBI, she has seen helicopters flying over her home and reporters hiding in the bushes. Indeed, since Ms. Maxwell's arrest on July 2, 2020, her council has been flooded with hundreds of media inquiries and solicitations from members of the public. The open season declared on Ms. Maxwell after Epstein's death has come with an even darker cost. She has been the target of alarming physical threats, even death threats, and has had to hire security guards to ensure her safety. The media feeding frenzy, which has only intensified in recent months, has also deeply affected her family and her friends. Some of Ms. Maxwell's closest friends, who had nothing to do whatsoever with Epstein, have lost their jobs or suffered severe professional and reputational damage simply by being associated with her. Ms. Maxwell therefore did what any responsible person would do. She separated herself from everyone she cares about and removed herself from the public eye in order to keep herself and her friends out of harm's way. Lacking any evidence required under the governing standard that Ms. Maxwell presents an actual flight risk Subhani, 493 F.3d at 75, the government's flight risk argument is reduced to the Ms. Maxwell is a woman of means who has a foreign citizenship and has traveled internationally in the past and who now faces serious charges. But if that were sufficient, then virtually every defendant with a foreign passport and any meaningful amount of funds would need to be detained as A Flight Risk vs United States, 439 U.S. 1326, 1329, 1978. To detain based on risk of flight, governments must show more than opportunities for flight and instead must establish an inclination for flight that is not what the Bail Reform act requires. Indeed, courts in this circuit and elsewhere commonly find that bail conditions can adequately address risk of flight even when individuals have foreign citizenship and passports or otherwise substantial foreign connections and financial means. CEG Sapani, 493 F.3d at 66 United States v. Hanson, 108 F. Appx. 331 6th Circuit, 2004 United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85ddc 2009 United States Vadmer 03cr 947 Sas. 2004 WL 169790, at 2 and 3 SDNY, January 28, 2004 United States v. Kearney, 298 F. Su P. 2d 129ddc 2004 United States vs. Khashoggi, 717 F. Su PP. 1048, 1050-52SDNY, 1989. Finally, the ongoing travel restrictions caused by the COVID 19 pandemic would pose a significant hurdle to Ms. Maxwell's ability to flee the United States, particularly to France and the United Kingdom. Notably, two weeks ago, this Court recognized in United States V. Abdalati Al Moqadam, 19 CR646AJN 2020 WL 3440515SDNY, June 23, 2020, that concerns regarding risk of flight are mitigated by the ongoing COVID 19 pandemic, which has understandably curtailed travel across the country and indeed around the world. Id. At 1. In that case, despite finding detention to be warranted on two prior occasions, the court concluded that the government could no longer establish flight risk and ordered the defendant Release pending sentencing. Id. Taking account of the COVID 19 pandemic, which had not yet reached this country when the court last considered defendant's custody status, the balance now clearly and convincingly tips in defendants favor. Consideration of this factor weighs heavily in favor of release on the proposed bail conditions here. 2. The nature and the circumstances of the charges and the weight of the evidence militate in favor of bail. The defense has rebutted the presumption relating to certain of the charges, and the government relies on the statutory presumption of detention applicable to offenses involving minor victims. Government memo at 4 and 5. But unlike the position it took with Epstein, the government does not contend that Maxwell poses any danger to the community or that she suffers from compulsive or addictive sexual proclivities. See United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306, 314 and 15 SDNY 2019. Even according to the indictment, Ms. Maxwell's alleged participation in offenses involving minors ended in 1997. Here the only applicable presumption relates to risk of flight, and as noted, Ms. Maxwell has rebutted that presumption based on her ties to the United States, her decision to remain in this country after Epstein's arrest, and all of the other reasons discussed above. This court should follow other courts in this circuit and elsewhere that have found the defendants rebutted the presumption and imposed appropriately strict bail conditions in cases involving alleged offenses against minors. See Deutch, 2020 WL 3577398, at 5. 6 United States v. Varus, 3, 20 CR 18 J. 32 JBT 2020 WL 1042051, at 3 and 4 Maryland, Florida, March 4, 2020 Conway, 2011 WL 342, 1321 at 4. 5. The Impact of the potential penalties is overstated. The government asserts the detention is warranted because of the potential for a long sentence in this case government memorandum at 4 and 5, this oversimplifies the governing standard. Although the severity of potential punishment is a relevant consideration, the Second Circuit Court requires more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potentially long sentence to support a finding of flight risk. Freedman, 837F.2d at 49 and 50 district court's findings that defendant posed the risk of flight while was clearly erroneous despite potential for long sentence of incarceration. See also Sapani, 493 F.3d at 65, 76 and 77 reversing detention order where defendants agreed to significant physical and financial restrictions despite the fact that they faced a lengthy term of incarceration. Accordingly, the asserted potential for a long sentence does not meet the government's burden of persuasion. Moreover, the government overstates the potential for Ms. Maxwell to spend decades in prison if she is convicted. In fact, her likely total exposure even if she were convicted on all 10 counts is 10 years, assuming the court were to follow the traditional practice in this district and impose concurrent sentences. Although a 10 year sentence would be significant, it is a far cry for from the government's forecast, further demonstrating that the government has not met its burden of showing Ms. Maxwell is an actual risk of flight. The government's case is subject to significant challenges. In evaluating the strength of the government's case, we note that Ms. Maxwell intends to mount several legal challenges to the indictment, including that this prosecution is barred by Epstein's September 24, 2007 non prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice which covers any potential co conspirators of Epstein. The conspiracy, enticement of minors and transporting of minors charges are time barred and otherwise legally flawed and three the two perjury charges are subject to dismissal on several legal grounds. In addition, as we understand from the face of the indictment, the government's case is based primarily on on the testimony of three individuals about events that allegedly occurred roughly 25 years ago between 1994 and 1997. It is inherently more difficult to prosecute cases relating to decades old conduct. These issues further call into question the strength of the government's case and provide an independent basis justifying release on bail. 3 the proposed bail package is more than adequate to secure Ms. Maxwell's presence. For the reasons stated above, the Court should release Ms. Maxwell because the circumstances created by the COVID 19 pandemic will greatly increase her personal risk and prevent her from meaningfully participating in her defense and because the government has not carried its burden under U.S. code 18 3142, we respectfully submit that the proposed bail package represents the least restrictive set of conditions that will reasonably ensure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. US Code 18 3142C1. And the package includes six CO signers, Ms. Maxwell's siblings, relatives and friends, many of whom reside in the United States, and all of whom continue to support her despite the unrelenting media attacks that Ms. Maxwell and they themselves have suffered as a result of this case. Maxwell the victim, huh? It's always Maxwell the victim. I wonder just how bad the survivors are suffering. Maybe that's something we should talk about. Each of them have voluntarily agreed to assume responsibility for an extremely large bond amount of $5 million in order to secure her appearance. The bond is also to be secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth roughly $3.75 million. The package also includes stringent travel and and physical restrictions, including surrendering all passports and no new travel applications, travel restricted to the southern and Eastern districts of New York, and home detention with electronic monitoring. Ms. Maxwell, for personal reasons, will continue to need security guards to protect her upon release. Under the circumstances if the court requires, the security guards could report to pre trial services. Ms. Maxwell has a number of other family members and friends who under normal circumstances would also co sign and secure a bond. She is not relying on them in connection with this bail application in an effort to safeguard their privacy and protect them and their families from harm. The proposed bail conditions are consistent with those approved by the courts in this circuit and other high profile cases and should be approved here. CEG United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24, 32 SDNY 2018. Alleged leader of the Genovese crime family who was charged with racketeering and extortion. Granted release subject to conditions. United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831, 832 F SDNY 2009. Mark Dreier, accused of colossal criminality and alleged to be a high flight risk. Granted release subject to conditions. United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240, 243 SDNY 2009. Bernie Madoff, charged with the largest Ponzi scheme ever and alleged to be a serious risk of flight. Granted release subject to conditions. For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the court order her release on bail pursuant to the conditions she has proposed. This was dated on July 10, 2020 and it was signed by Mark S. Cohen. Alright folks, that's gonna do it for this one. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description.