Epstein Secrets

d January 2, 2015. 3. Attached as Exhibit B 1s a true and correct copy of an article by Sharon Churcher titled “Teenage girl recruited by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton,” DAILY MAIL, dated March 5, 2011. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014797 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Docume

to Africa, to ‘discuss AIDS policy’. GM_00715 http:/Awww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363452/Bill-Clinton-15-year-old-masseuse-I-met-twice-claims-Epsteins-girl.htm| 1/7 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014805 --- PAGE BREAK --- 5/2/2016 Case 1:15-cVOP4aS SR Why aWeRhiRsiTEYABIAD evEaeaGBy Mpyelret BD Girtors Of 8 Cl

: Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell, right, pictured with President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, frequently visited Epsteings New York residence, Virginia also claims But he also took his defence very seriously indeed. Epstein engaged his friend, the Harvard law professor

6/17 Page 2 of 7 3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an article by Sharon Churcher entitled “Teenage girl recruited by paedophile Jeffrey Epstein reveals how she twice met Bill Clinton,” DAILY MAIL, dated March 5, 2011. 4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a statement on beha

E FBI to reopen case = Epstein’s Girl Friday http:/Awww.dailym ail.co.uk/news/article- 1363452/Bill-Clinton- 15-year-old-masseuse-|-met-twice-claims-Epsteins-girl.htm! 1/31 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014669 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 539-2 Filed 01/06/17 Page 3of5 6/15/2016 against sex of

/article-1363452/Bill-Clinton- 15-year-old-masseuse-|-met-twice-claims-Epsteins-girl html U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, frequently visited Epsteings New York residence, Virginia also claims Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 539-2 Filed 01/06/17 Page5of5 Case 1:15 Gyo 7ahehs RWS oC yercerraerin 2 Hi

v. Indyke, Case No. 19-cv-10475-LGS See, e.g., wants Ghislaine Maxwell to `rot in jail," NY Post (Dec. 4, 2019); Andrew Denney and Bruce Golding, "Jeffrey Epstein's no-bail ruling may encourage more accusers to come forward," NY Post (July 18, 2019) ("McCawley wouldn't identify her new clients but said she enco

ted pleadings involve Plaintiff's effort which were not and should not have been relevant to Plaintiffs false claim that she was sexually abused by Epstein as a minor. The Second Circuit in Brown itself redacted from the summary judgment pleadings and exhibits all of Ms. Maxwell's deposition answers in

o tnsealinu Sealed Materials Laura A. Menninger Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Ty Gee HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN,

l the questions, lawsuit filed a lawsuit against Mr. Epstein to produce In fact, in connection with her cur

by The Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter, No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 248 F.R.D. 4

t the respondent Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual crimes while they were minors. (ILL). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (a). GIUFFRE002844 EF

oin this action." a at 3, 7). Specifically, Jane Doe 3 proffers that she could prove the circumstances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to several high-profile non-party individuals, "including numerous prominent American politicians, pow

fore negotiating a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, who subjected them to various sexual cr

stances under which a non-party introduced her to Mr. Epstein, and how Mr. Epstein sexually trafficked her to

y I The Court notes that, regardless of which motion it considers, the same standard governs the addition of parties under Rule 21 and Rule 15. See Goston v. Potter No. 08-cv-478 FJS ATB, 2010 WL 4774238, at •5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal Music Grp., Inc. 248 F.R.D. 408