Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. Even though AUSA had a "complet

appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. Even though AUSA had a "complet

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