Epstein Secrets

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

ssim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y.

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

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y.

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

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y.

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

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-3798, 2017 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y.

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