EpsteinProject.org

Court records

20250728111721067_24-1073ReplyInSupportOfPetitionForWritOfCertiorari_1

24-1073ReplyInSupportOfPetitionForWritOfCertiorari 1

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

                           No. 24-1073

                               IN THE

   Supreme Court of the United States
                              ————

  GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1,
                                                Petitioner,
                                  v.
                UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                             Respondent.
                              ————
     On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
         United States Court of Appeals
             for the Second Circuit
                              ————
           REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
     PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
                              ————

                                       DAVID OSCAR MARKUS
                                         Counsel of Record
                                       MONA MARKUS
                                       MARKUS/MOSS PLLC
                                       40 N.W. Third Street
                                       Penthouse One
                                       Miami, FL 33128
                                       (305) 379-6667
                                       dmarkus@markuslaw.com
                                       Counsel for Petitioner
July 28, 2025

WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                  Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................               ii
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....                               1
  I.    The government concedes that the
        circuits are split as to whether a promise
        on behalf of the “United States” by a
        United States Attorney’s office in one
        district is binding upon other districts. ...                2
  II.   The Second Circuit’s decision below is
        wrong and violates the principles set
        forth in this Court’s prior opinions. ......

[…]

Open in the archive