Epstein Secrets

ed, but Plaintiff would not, however, consent to the use of all of the Jane Doe Evidence. On October 3, 2017, we submitted a letter motion to Judge Sweet seeking permission to file under seal a motion to modify the Protective Order entered in the Giuffre matter before him. On October 4, 2017, Judge S

erning the Ili on and documents Plaintiff produced as a non-party witness in an action captioned v. Mayen, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), pending before Judge Robert Sweet ("July 17 Order" and "Jane Doe Evidence", respectively). Pursuant to the July 17 Order, we have sought consent from Plaintiff's counsel to use the

P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6). I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT: MULTIPLE SDNY JUDGES WARNED THE PERSON DRIVING THIS ACTION AGAINST SUCH FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS Judges Sweet, Berman and Castel warned Steven Hoffenberg ("Hoffenberg"), whom Plaintiffs identify as the "Non-Party Affiant" (Compl. 15) and whose affidavit for

94, Hoffenberg was indicted on various fraud charges, in multiple jurisdictions, including the SDNY. (Comp!. ¶¶ 51-52). • On March 4, 1997, "Judge Robert Sweet issued a Sentencing Opinion ("Sentencing Opinion") which lays bare the fraudulent conduct that resulted in Hoffenberg's conviction and which was im

produced, but Plaintiff would not, however, consent to the use of all of the Jane Doe Evidence. On October , 2017, we submitted a motion to Judge Sweet under seal for a modification of the Protective Order entered in the matter before him. Specifically, we requested Judge Sweet to modify the Prote

ning the /l ion and documents Plaintiff produced as a non-party witness in an action captioned v. Maxwell, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS), pending before Judge Robert Sweet ("July 17 Order" and "Jane Doe Evidence", respectively). Pursuant to the July 17 Order, we have sought consent from Plaintiff's counsel to use the

fendants' request, and issued an Order under seal, directing (a) Defendants to make their application for relief from the Protective Order to Judge Sweet and (b) file their Motion to Dismiss within seven (7) days after Judge Sweet's decision (the "July 17 Order"). Contrary to Mr. Edwards' contention,

tion that Plaintiff be allowed to depose Mr. Epstein on the ground that Defendants have been engaging in discovery from another matter before Judge Robert Sweet is baseless. Defendants have not engaged in any discovery; rather, it is the Plaintiff who is seeking to engage in a one-sided and premature fishin

ed, but Plaintiff would not, however, consent to the use of all of the Jane Doe Evidence. On October 3, 2017, we submitted a letter motion to Judge Sweet seeking permission to file under seal a motion to modify the Protective Order entered in the matter before him. Once Judge Sweet rules on the lett

July 17, 2017 concerning the de l ion and documents Plaintiff roduced as a non-party witness in an action captioned v. Maxwell nding before Judge Robert Sweet ("July 17 Order" and "Jane Doe Evidence", respectively). Pursuant to the July 17 Order, we have sought consent from Plaintiff's counsel to use the