Epstein Secrets

(A) confirm the existence of and (B) receive any communications between Buckingham Palace or the Office of "Prince Andrew" or "The Duke of York" and the Justice department in relation to the sentencing and case of Epstein. These communications were requested by Brad Edwards in the case referred to above, in a bundle of

died on August 10, 2019. Given that Epstein died in Federal custody while facing Federal charges, and the resulting media attention, we assume that the Department of Justice is well aware of his death. As Jeffrey Epstein is now deceased, any privacy concerns are extinguished. 1. Any and all records from the from the Uni

1:16 -cv-3989 (S.D.N.Y.) Doe v. Trump et al, No. 1:16-cv-4642 (S.D.N.Y.) Doe v. Trump et al, No. 1 :16-cv-7673 (S.D.N.Y.) Page 12 EFTA00091027 Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 16-cv-3945 (2d Cir.) Doe (MM) v. Epstein et al, No. 1:17-cv-616 (S.D.N. K) Brown v. Maxwell, Nos. 18-2868-cv, 16-3945-cv (L), 17-1625 (CON), 1

v. Epstein et al, No. 1:17-cv-616 (S.D.N. K) Brown v. Maxwell, Nos. 18-2868-cv, 16-3945-cv (L), 17-1625 (CON), 17-1722(CON) (2d Cir. July 3, 2019) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 17-cv-16 25 (2d Cir.) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 17-cv-1722 (2d Cir.) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-cv-2868 (2d Cir.) Gerber et al v. The Financial

l suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe l) and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by the U.S.. Department Of Justice's NpA with Ante; Ti and his limited 1658 state plea. There was a liter unsuccessful effort to add (Jane Doe 3) and another woman (Jane Doe 4) as plaint

ubpoena.0°') USVI prosecutors consider Maxwell to be a "critical fact witness" in their lawsuit against Epstein's estate.['-°i1 A court filing from the USVI Department of Justice, released on io July 2020, stated that Maxwell was also under investigation for her alleged participation in Epstein's sex trafficking operation in

ircuit.rI91 On March 11, 2019, in the appeal of the district judge's refusal to unseal the documents relating to • the 2017 defamation settlement of Giuffre v. Maxwell, the Second Circuit Court gave parties one week to provide good cause as to why they should remain under seal, without which they would be unsealed

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00077689 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

t 1: Notes from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York Exhibit 2: June 14, 2007 Email Exhibit 3: November 2020 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Exhibit 4: Notes from February 11, 2021 Call Exhibit 5: Notes from February 29, 2016 Meeting Exhibit 6:

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00039504 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

DFL has explained, the NPA did not bind other districts, and could not. That is because the USAO-SDFL lacked the authority to do so under applicable Department of Justice guidelines: Significantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney's Manual, the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unila

stayed at this point. . . In particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00095149 claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless con

suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe 1 (Courtney Wild) and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Justice's NPA with Epstein and his limited 2008 state plea. There was a later unsuccessful effort to add Virginia Roberts (Jane Doe 3) and another woman (Jane

ircuit.1i531 On March it, 2019, in the appeal of the district judge's refusal to unseal the documents relating to the 2017 defamation settlement of Giuffre v. Maxwell, the Second Circuit Court gave parties one week to provide good cause as to why they should remain under seal, without which they would be unsealed