Epstein Secrets

District of New York. Contrary to the government's portrayal of events, what happened here is that a prosecutor from the public corruption unit of the United States Attorney's Office, in an a parte proceeding, affirmatively misled Chief Judge McMahon to circumvent a Protective Order entered by one of her colleagues. The prosecut

dmits the following facts are true: • On February 29, 2016, AUSA M, the Human Trafficking Coordinator and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, Ex. J, p 1, met with Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Stan Pottinger, and Brad Edwards, who represented M,

ad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the government's failure to in

District of New York. Contrary to the government's portrayal of events, what happened here is that a prosecutor from the public corruption unit of the United States Attorney's Office, in an a parte proceeding, affirmatively misled Chief Judge McMahon to circumvent a Protective Order entered by one of her colleagues. The prosecut

] or anyone else." Id. 7 Two other aspects to the privilege log are notable: (a) In the litigation, Boies Schiller did not produce its emails with the U.S. Attorney's Office to Maxwell, despite the fact that they were directly responsive to a Request for Production of Documents Maxwell served just a couple of weeks afte

ad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with attorneys. Most conspicuous, of course, is the government's failure to in

es v. United States, a federal case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, usefully illustrates the issue. *° In that case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida 22 Td. 33 Td. at 7302 (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). 34 Compare /8 U.S.C. § 3771(d), with Susan Bandes, Victim S

should not be afforded statutory protections. !°! Yet none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner - provide strong support for OLC's position. Turner is a particularly 9 See 42 U.S.C. § 10607(c). % Td. § 10607(c)(3)(A). % Td. § 10607(c)(1)(A).