Epstein Secrets

(S.D.N.Y. 2005) has been a party to lawsuits in the South- ern District of New York, both as a plain- tiff and defendant.

acts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.’ Jd. Ginternal quotations and citations omitted); Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80, 83 (2d Cir.2000). “But where evidence relevant to the jurisdictional question is before the court, ‘the district court ... m

, who are "not acting at the behest of the police." Id. "Such an analysis is inherently speculative." Id. In fact, unlike every other civil case in the Southern District of New York against Maxwell or Epstein's estate, the government deliberately chose not to intervene in the on-going unsealing process in Giuffre v. Maxwell. In

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

ents that were placed under seal and included in protective order. Holdings: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sweet, J., held that: m news media and journalist could intervene in action; 121 public did not have right of access, either under First Amendment or co

dential with the Court, it was to additionally file a Motion to Seal pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions for the Southern District of New York. Id. ¶ 10. Absent consent of the producing party, designated documents "shall not ... be disclosed."3 Id. 115 . WESTLAW 2018 Thomson Reuters. No c

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern 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

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

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern 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

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