Epstein Secrets

18 IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct 20 A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the Fruits of that Evidence. 20 B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell Ma

r. 2008) 22 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 23, 25 United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Or. 1996) 20 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 25 ii EFTA00028931 --- PAGE BREAK --- United States v. Payner, 447 U.S.

ew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.

1998) 16 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 16 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 16 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S I 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 18 United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) 18 United S

o prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation. Nothing in this record suggests to me that or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Action. On the con

1998) 16 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 16 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 16 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S I 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 18 United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) 18 United S

oena. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Counts Five and Six allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protecti

ew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.

o Judge McMahon. "An evidentiary hearing is normally required to address motions to suppress where a factual issue is in dispute." United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. SI 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776, at *1 June 8, 2009); United States v. Pena, 961 F.2d 333, 339 (2d Cir. 1992) ("[All evidentiary he

An Identical Gambit By The Government 10 ARGUMENT 11 A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The Evidence Obtained From Boies Schiller, And Dismiss Counts Five And Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That Evidence 11 I. The role of protective orders in civil litigation 11 2. The go

1998) 16 United States v. Cortina, 630 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1980) 16 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 16 United States v. Paredes-Cordova, No. S I 03 CR. 987DAB, 2009 WL 1585776 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2009) 18 United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2013) 18 United S