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

rn District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over defamation against Maxwell—that there was an 4 EFTA00029108 --- PAGE BREAK --- "ongoing criminal investigation" into Max

] 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

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,

rn District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over defamation against Maxwell—that there was an 4 EFTA00028937 --- PAGE BREAK --- "ongoing criminal investigation" into Max

idential information at the conclusion of the case, including Maxwell's deposition transcripts refused to do so although ordered to do so by Judge Sweet.' In its application to the governmen Not only did the government misunderstand how the Protective Order worked, but its argument also supports r

and the Fi h Amendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the government's Subpoena t and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six upon the following: U.S. Attorney's Office SDNY New York, NY 10007 s/ Christian R. Everdell 18 EFTA00015324

be heard, but also by affirmatively misleading Chief Judge McMahon, 2 To this day, Judge Preska—who is presiding over the Giuffre action since Judge Sweet's passing and is addressing the Protective Order on a daily basis as the parties brief what material should be unsealed—apparently does not know th

mendment to Suppress All Evidence Obtained from the government's Subpoena to Boies Schiller and to Dismiss Counts Five and Six upon the following: U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 s/ Christian R. Everdell 15 EFTA00019016