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

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.

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

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

ed 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 Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential discovery material (including the two

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.

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

s sexual trafficking victims in a case pending in the Southern District of Florida, specifically case no. 08-cv-80736- KA

e referenced case. His rulings are as follows: Non Party's motion to quash, or for protective order, regarding subpoena served on non party law firm Boies Schiller: | The subpoena, as to the law firm, is quashed As to the "Jane Doe #3" subpoena: The motion is granted as to request #9, 17, 18, 20 and 23. The mo

) the government acted in good faith; and (3) the government inevitably would have come to possess the 90,000-sum pages of material it obtained from Boies Schiller. The facts and law belie the government's claims. A. Maxwell has standing. The government's standing argument boils down to this: Maxwell cannot c

, 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

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

ed 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 Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential discovery material (including the two

berg Defamation Suit `',Law360 Pro Say Podcast Listen to our new podcast here LAW FIRMS Akin Gump Arnold & Porter Baker Botts Berger Montague Boies Schiller Briggs and Morgan Buchanan Ingersoll Calcagni Kanefsky Certilman Balin Clifford Chance Cohen & Gresser Cohen Milstein Cravath Swaine Davidof

Office Securities and Exchange Commission Texas Supreme Court U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Supreme Court United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Not sine if your firth subscribes? Ask your librarian. We hope you found this message to be useful. EFTA00032979 --- PAGE BREAK --- However. if