Epstein Secrets

13 CONCLUSION 13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00100288 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which then comp

13 CONCLUSION 13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00097332 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Ma

13 CONCLUSION 13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00097650 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Hughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Ma

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 159 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 passim Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 159 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D.

r 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in or about December or January 2018, the Government indicated to at I that it intended to make document requests. Schiller generally advised the Government that a protective order would govern some of the materials. (Id. at 3). In or about February 2019, approximately t

basic purpose of this Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that `Fourth Amendment

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

basic purpose of this Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that `Fourth Amendment

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

96 U.S. 64 (1969) 101 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 37 Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) 108 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 82, 83, 84, 85 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) 109 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154

bpoenas and Ex Pane Applications for Materials SOW- after opening t mment identified possible victims and their counsel trroiigh ich ina Boies Schiller. (Def. Mem. 3, Ex. E at 2-3). SDNY first cont oies Schiller about its investigation on or about December 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in oar Dec

basic purpose of this Amendment ... is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that `Fourth Amendment

t complying with any of the specific procedures or exceptions provided in the [confidentiality] orders." Id. Here, by contrast, ga on in late 0111 Schiller shortly the na in Februan Miran order, Aside from rank speculation loosely premised on an anonymously sourced news report, the defendant offers n

asic purpose of this Amendment . . . is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "It has been clear for a generation that `Fourth Amendment

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00018998 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal ofHughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which then comp

not actively investigating her. That understanding, as it turned out, was incorrect, but it was a misunderstanding deliberately encouraged by Boies Schiller with cooperation from the government. If Boies Schiller had disclosed that material Judge Sweet ordered them to disclose, Maxwell would have invoked