Epstein Secrets

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which then comp

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Ma

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

n this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Ma

as standing. 1 B. There is no good faith. 5 C. The government's inevitable discovery doctrine fails. 5 II. The Government's violation of Manindell requires suppression. 7 III. The Government's violation of the Fifth Amendment requires suppression 10 IV. The Court should hold an evidentiary

r 18, 2018. Shortly thereafter, in or about December or January 2018, the Government indicated to at I that it intended to make document requests. Schiller generally advised the Government that a protective order would govern some of the materials. (Id. at 3). In or about February 2019, approximately t

atively limited, due to the confidential nature" of the litigation. (Id. at 2 n.1). The Government also submitted that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test to evaluate the Government's ability to obtain access to materials covered by a protective order because (1) the Martindell balancin

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu

ast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. Aside from

fy Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance with those subpoenas. While the Government argued that the court need not employ the Manindell balancing test for several reasons, it also made arguments under Martindell in the alternative. Ultimately, both Chief Judge McMahon and Judge Netbu