UN-5 TED4 TA3 TES COURT OU4 TH3 ERN O3 F6 NE-6 W4 YO4 UN-5 TED4 TA3 TES F6 MER-2 A GH-5 LA-6 NE3 MA-8 XW6 EL-7 De6 fe7 nd-9 a4 nt A5 JN REPL-2 M4 M4 ORAN4 UM6 OF HIS-6 AIN3 M4 AX4 WE-2 IN SUPPORT HE-4 M4 OT-4 ION DIS-4 M4 IS5 COUN4 ONE-2 HR10 OUGH-3 FOUR3 OF HE-4 UP3 RS8 DIN3 I9 ND4 ICTMENT FOR LACK OF PECIFICITY Je3 ff6 e4 a4 gli-3 uc4 a La5 ura7 A e4 nninger M9 C7 De6 nve4 hone4 hristi-3 a4 Eve5 rde7 ll OH4 EN3 GR-2 ES-2 ER L9 LP obbi ter5 nhe4 im La5 O4 fic5 e4 of Bobbi-2 ter5 nhe4 im W4 e4 st tre5 e4 F6 loor or13 NY14 hone4 Attor-3 ne4 y4 for-3 Ghisl-2 aine M5 ax4 e4 ll Case Document Filed Page of A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O I I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY S??B X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V I CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 Case Document Filed Page of The government continues to stonewall Ms Maxwells requests for clarity abou what it claims she did to justify her continued incarceration and prosecution Although he government has dumped thousands pages of irrelevant discovery from inapplicable i me periods on Ms Maxwell and her counsel it refuses to provide the most basic information abo he allega ti ons in Counts One through Four who what when and how Because Counts One through Four the superseding indictment Indictment ack the basic fac ual information necessary fo Ms Maxwell to prepare her defense and the government refuses to provide an meaningful discovery the Court should i ther dismiss these counts or direc the government answer Ms Maxwell requests for particularity I The Indictment Lacks the Necessary Specificity The government attempts to jus ify some of the Indictments deficiencies e.g lack of names and dates through citation to obviously inapplicable cases Fi rst the government offers United States Stringer F.3d 2d Cir for the proposition that the use of pseudonyms to refer to minor victims of the cha rg ed conduct does not warrant dismissal of he indictment Resp at The government fails to point out howe ve hat Stringer was a fraud case in which the conduct was alleged have occurred over a 7-month period The indictment was brought within a few years not decades of the alleged crime and the identi ty of the two people whose names were used in connection with the fraud had been revealed in the documents disclosed by the government a year before trial Id at Un it ed States Kidd Supp 3d is equally unpersuasive Kidd was indicted in for crimes alleged to have occurred as late as The case involved two alleged victims and the government produced suffic i en disco ery obviate the need for a bill of particulars Id at Case Document Filed Page of The Indictment against Ms Maxwell registers a on the opacity chart Instead of two alleged ictims the indictment here has different categories with three people being identified as Minor Victims even though they are not minors Additionally an unknown number of unexplained categories of unidentified human beings appear in the Indictment ultiple minor girls victims minor victims minor vi ctims described herein ome of Epsteins minor victims and multiple minor victims It is a mystery if the government claims that these alleged people are the same part of the alleged crime or surplusage Multiple among other thing and means and methods alleged acts are bandied about in the indictment such as assisted facilitated contributed recruit groom befriend spending time being present help etc This Indictment is subject to considerable interpretation and manipulation Ms Maxwell cannot prepare a defense without knowing who her accusers are and whether they are limited the alleged Min or Victims or the rest of the uni erse Second the government relies on the general proposition that ourts in the Second Circuit have consistently upheld indictments containin a range of time rather than a specific date Resp at Again the cited cases are easil distinguishable Kidd involved a date range ending in the year of indictment Moreover the quoted general langua ge from Kidd Supp 3d is incomplete The court in Kidd explains the range it is referring to by the following reference See United States Nersesian 2d 2d Cir holding that on or about June put a defendant on notice for potential crimes in July or early August of because the Go vernment is not required to prove the exact date if a date reasonably near is established Id The government fails to include this language because it is inapposite to the suggestion that there is anything routine about a date range be innin Case Document Filed Page of years ago that may be applicable to dozens of people in multiple places including a foreign country United States Vickers No WL at W.D.N.Y May also does not help the government This case concerned a one count indictment in It is patently clear from the opinion by the district court that the statements from the alleged victim detailing the allegation had been provided to the defendant and the court which noted that the lengthy recitation of facts in the opinion are taken from the allegations set forth in the Affidavit of Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Jennifer Jayne Amo submitted in support of the May Criminal Complaint Dkt the Indictment Dkt and the governments response to the instant motions Dkt WL at The dates and times of the alleged conduct would have been fairly easy to identify given the detail provided in discovery Here Ms Maxwell has not been provided with any rele van statements the government or its witnesses The governments attempt to hide behind the general proposition that children cannot be expected to remember dates also fails Resp at The alleged victims here are not children they are adults Moreover a review of the case relied on by the government United Stat Young No KMK WL at Sep demonstrates the proper way to charge these types of allegations which is not as the government did here Count One alleges that Defendant sexually abused Victim One aged fourteen at the time during the daytime on a Saturday in or about the Fall of Count Two alleges that Defendant sexuall abused Victim One aged fifteen at the time during the daytime on a Saturday in or about September and Count Three alleges that Defendant sexually abused Victim Two aged sixteen at the time on an evening in or about the Summer of Stated differently the three counts each specify a particular time of day daytime or evening and feature variances in date ranges stretching from roughly four days in Count Two to thirteen days in Count One to four months in Count Three Case Document Filed Page of Thus the court found the indictment contains dates ranges for each count stretching from approximately four days to four months These date ranges are well within the boundaries permitted by the Second Circuit and other federal courts and have been supplemented with additional details provided by the Government Id at emphasis added To date the only time the government has supplemented any information about the accusations is when it is attempting to excuse some failure Here the accusers have given statements to the government Accuser I gave a statement to the government in All three accusers have made claims against the Epstein Estate Presumably the Accusers had to tell the Estate when and where any alleged abuse by Epstein occurred Accordingly this is not a situation where children do not remember things This is a situation where the government has refused to provide basic necessary information in an attempt to prejudice Ms Maxwell defense Third the indictment is not clear Resp at it was purposel drafted to maximi charges and minimi clarity For ample the photograph of Ms Maxwell in the indictment is not from the time-period alleged The pictures of the arious properties were not included for specificity they were included to maximize pretrial prejudice The indictment is full of weasel words which are words the meaning of which are malleable to a poin where they mean hat the user ants them to mean in an gi en situation the ha no meaning of their own Ab tra In ew tt-Pa a rd Co No WL at Tex Nov For example up to and includin at le a st in or about contributed among other things for example in some instance cert a in ictims and groomed and/or abused at multiple locations including the following Ms Maxwell i at a los to understand what she is charged with and when it is alleged to have happened She can guess at Case Document Filed Page of names but given the governments recent harbinger of a superseding indictment likel to attempt to fix some of these problems Ms Maxwell is wasting time and money playing whack a-mole with this Indictment II This Indictment Does Not Satisfy Minimal Notice Requirements In Hamling United States U.S the United States Supreme Court explained the circumstances in which an indictment simply setting forth the offense in the words of the statute may not suffice Our prior cases indicate that an indictment is sufficient if it first contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend and second enables her to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the ords of the st a tute itself as long as those words of themselves fully directly and expressly without any uncertainty or ambiguity set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offence intended to be punished Undoubtedly the langua of the statute may be used in the general description of an offence but it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offence coming under the general description with which she is charged cleaned up The government has failed to provide an indictment that directly ex pressl and withou uncertainty or ambiguity sets forth the allegations against her The alleged facts are vagu and illusory and no meaningful discovery a been provided Accordingly Ms Maxwell cannot adequately defend herself in vi olation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution CONCLUSION Because Counts One through Four of the Indictment lack the asic factual information necessary for Ms Maxwell to prepare her defense and the government refuses to pro vide any meaningful discovery the Court should either dismiss these counts or direct the vernment to answer Ms Maxwells requests for particularity Da6 ted Ma3 c4 e4 spe3 c4 tfully-2 subm-2 it-3 ted J4 e4 ff-3 re3 y4 Pagli-2 uc4 a Je3 ff6 e4 a4 gli-3 uc4 a pro hac4 v4 ice La5 ura7 A e4 nninger HA4 DD4 ON4 MORG-9 AN4 F4 OREMAN3 Ea5 st Ave6 nue De6 nve4 CO hone4 hristi-3 a4 Eve5 rde7 ll OH4 EN3 GR-2 ES-2 ER L9 LP Third A4 ve4 nue4 Ne6 Y4 ork NY4 hone4 obbi ter5 nhe4 im La5 O4 fic5 e4 of Bobbi-2 ter5 nhe4 im W4 e4 st tre5 e4 F6 loor Ne6 Y4 ork NY4 hone4 Attor-3 ne4 y4 for-3 Ghisl-2 aine M5 ax4 e4 ll Case Document Filed Page of Case Document Filed Page of Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on March I served by email pursuant Rule of the Courts individual practices in criminal cases the pl mor a ndu of Ghi lain axwell i upp rt of Her ti Di mi ss ount On thr ugh th Su se din Indi tm nt Lack of Sp cifi i ty upon the following Alison Moe Maurene Corney Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S Attorney Office SDNY One Saint Andrew Pl a za New York NY Alison.moe usdoj.go Maurene.come usdoj.go Andrew Rohrbach usdoj ov Lara.Pomerantz usdoj.go hri ian rde ll
