Epstein Secrets

ed by counsel in multiple ongoing civil lawsuits in the United States. As recently as in or about June 2020, attorney Laura Menninger appeared in in the Southern District of New York for oral argument before United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska on MAXWELL's behalf. 13. Based on my review of AT&T records, I have learne

or about June 2020, attorney Laura Menninger appeared in in the Southern District of New York for oral argument before United States District Judge Loretta A. Preska on MAXWELL's behalf. 13. Based on my review of AT&T records, I have learned that the Target Cellular Device is subscribed in the name of "G Max,"

ew York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7344, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: Q.

, who are "not acting at the behest of the police." Id. "Such an analysis is inherently speculative." Id. In fact, unlike every other civil case in the Southern District of New York against Maxwell or Epstein's estate, the government deliberately chose not to intervene in the on-going unsealing process in Giuffre v. Maxwell. In

ability analysis in this case," however, "is predicated on an assessment of the actions that might have been taken by third parties," such as Judge Preska and the Miami Herald, who are "not acting at the behest of the police." Id. "Such an analysis is inherently speculative." Id. In fact, unlike every

gent efforts to effect service, and that personal service would be impracticable. See Ransome v. Epstein, No. 17cv616 (JGK), 2018 WL 637421, at *1 (S.D.NY. Jan. 30, 2018); see also Farmer v. lndyke, No. 19cv10475 (LGS)(DF) (Text Order, dated Feb. 12, 2020). This Court further finds that Plaintiff's prov

ia.cominews/politics/2020/01/23/ghisla i ne-maxwell s-lawyers-adm it-they-dont-know- where-she-is-either/), which refers to a letter filed with Judge Preska in January 2020, and dated December 2019. The article claims that the letter admitted Maxwell's lawyers don't know where their client is. Maxwell's

the accompanying memorandum of law, the undersigned will move this Court, before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10003, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an order under

2019, together with the exhibits annexed thereto, and the accompanying memorandum of law, the undersigned will move this Court, before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10003, a

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding

d— because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality. 929 F.3d 4, 48, 122 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). So, too, has Judge Preska redacted substantial material from the documents she has released on remand from the Second Circuit, again reflecting that Maxwell reasonably relied

on first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true. As described above, attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J. Then, two months after the meeting with AUSA attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding

— because of a strong expectation of continued confidentiality. 929 F.3d 4, 48, n.22 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2). So, too, has Judge Preska redacted substantial material from the documents she has released on remand from the Second Circuit, again reflecting that Maxwell reasonably relied