Epstein Secrets

United States v. Valentine, 820 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1987) 16 Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) 16 ii EFTA00086660 Other Authorities Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York Times 2 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue J

aw firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witting or not

Daily Intelligencer Page 3 of 3 I low Sleep Deprivation Is ❑arming Your Children Ads by Google labours Politics Once Again Have Money and Hype Norman Mailer on God and Our Permanent State of Ruined Art? the Devil I hysterical (h erreactim Paralegals Army Paralegals Free Cash Paying Jobs For Parale

yl (Eco Crime) Santamaria, Michelle (HOM) Satcher, Linda (Appeals) Satcher, Lisa (Fel U) Sauvola, Nicole (Belie Glade) Scharaga, Joan (CAC) Schiller, Gregory (Juv Intake) Seder, Sandra Mall Rm) Selvig, Kenneth (INTAKE) Shepherd, Caroline (CC) Shepherd, Robed Juv Intake) Shepherd, Tonya (I

1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell 2 B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon 6 E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An

lentine, 820 F.2d 565 (2d Ck. 1987) 16 Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) 16 ii EFTA00011454 --- PAGE BREAK --- Other Authorities Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York Times 2 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue J

law firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Pomp Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witting or not

lentine, 820 F.2d 565 (2d Ck. 1987) 16 Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) 16 ii EFTA00029079 --- PAGE BREAK --- Other Authorities Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York Times 2 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue J

McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation. Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have any role in

aw firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witting or not

1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 A. The Protective Order in v. Maxwell 2 B. Maxwell's April and July 2016 depositions 4 C. The Settlement And Boies Schiller's Refusal To Comply With The Protective Order 6 D. The Government's False Statements To Judge McMahon 6 E. Judge Netburn Separately Rejects An

lentine, 820 F.2d 565 (2d Ck. 1987) 16 Young v. United States, 481 U.S. 787 (1987) 16 ii EFTA00029818 --- PAGE BREAK --- Other Authorities Norman Mailer, "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy," 5/11/80 New York Times 2 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue J

stify the government's secret, ex parte application . Ex. H, p 6. Judge Netburn also implicitly recognized what Judge McMahon never knew—that Boies Schiller was all too eager for the government to investigate and prosecute Maxwell: 6 Maxwell has not yet been provided discovery of whether Boies Schiller s