Epstein Secrets

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

n ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 7 at 16). She again cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boles Schiller") to obtain materials from the Giuffre civil litigation. (Id.). Leaving aside the fact that, as set forth in Section IV, the Government obtained su

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

n ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 7 at 16). She again cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boles Schiller") to obtain materials from the Giuffre civil litigation. (Id.). Leaving aside the fact that, as set forth in Section IV, the Government obtained su

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

n ongoing campaign to vilify Ms. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 7 at 16). She again cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boles Schiller") to obtain materials from the civil litigation. (Id.). Leaving aside the fact that, as set forth in Section IV, the Government obtained such mate