Epstein Secrets

LC), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 24 Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956) 20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 20

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,

C), Apr. 13, 2017) 24 Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 18, 21 McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943) 20 Morales v. Portuondo, 165 F. Supp. 2d 601 2001) 24 Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956) 20 United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) 23

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

ficers have ordered that all filings regarding those matters, including the discovery materials referenced in the Defense Letter, remain sealed? As the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has stated publicly, the investigation into the conduct of the defendant in this case and other possible co-co

g the relative lack of specific guidance in the context of an application to modify protective orders in criminal cases), see also United States v. Morales, 807 F.3d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 2015) ("[m]otions to modify protective orders in criminal cases appear to be infrequent"), decisions that do exist have