Epstein Secrets

RPHY,GARY JOHNSON,THEODORE M FISHER,MARCELLA PALMERIO,IMOGENE W BARBERIAN,HARRY

QUINN,OLIVER H LOCKER,NANCY OWEN,JANE D CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD KELLER,MICHAEL

townhouse a few blocks away. Epstein Is frequently seen around team with a hay- at coin* yang; women but Mar hat been no boldfaced name to replace Marvell. "You 'nay read about Jeffrey in these:ail column, but there Is mud: Rant to him than that; mys Jeffrey-7. lee& of tlw private *quite rem Leeds Weld

ome whose resident had died and the provided tekplione contact information was also not a functioning contact.'" The woman (now using the pseudonym "Jane Doe) filed a new lawsuit in June 2016, this time in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. She excluded some of her previous acc

ked questions about his sexual abuse of young girls, including Jane Doe No. I, Jane Doe No. 2, and Jane Doe No. 3. See generally Exhibit 16 at 1-7. Marvell. In 2009, undersigned counsel (Brad Edwards) served Ghislaine Maxwell with a subpoena for a deposition in a civil case against Jeffrey Epstein. Afte

court in Doe'. Epstein, No. 9:08- cv-80I19-KAM (S.D. Fla.). Brunel's attorney asked counsel for Jane Doe to postpone the scheduled deposition date. Jane Doe's counsel agreed, and then Brunel's attorney cancelled the rescheduled deposition date. Brunel's counsel represented that Brunel was outside the count

or who was deposed in the case. The prosecutor defended the subpoena's breadth—which sought all "copies of discovery and related materials" irMv. Marvell—on the ground that the government simply had too little knowledge of what was in the law firm's files to craft a more narrowly tailored subpoena:

on granted the government's ex parte request, Magistrate Judge Netburn rejected an identical request from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Judge Netbum recognized the government's conduct for what it was: an attempt to deprive Maxwell of not

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

t from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Jud

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

t from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Jud

uring two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protective Order entered in that case prohibited the parties and their lawyers from sharing confidential di

t from the government in a different civil case, Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, Case No. 17-cv-616 (JGK) (SN). Jud