Epstein Secrets

2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 v. Maxwell, 325 F

n in April 2019. Ex. E. Judge McMahon held that conference for one reason: to learn "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller law firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena." Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge McMahon that the government's investigation beg

ted States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 Brown v. Marcel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 1994) 14, 18, 19 Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 20 Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 1

y should have told Judge McMahon about the February 2016 meeting when she asked him "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation"—i.e., Epstein. AUSA did not tell Chief Judge McMahon about the 17

2 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 2017) 17 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 v. Maxwell, 325 F

n in April 2019. Ex. E. Judge McMahon held that conference for one reason: to learn "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller law firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena." Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge McMahon that the government's investigation beg