Epstein Secrets

that you had been "retained to provide opinions as an expert on legal ethics" in v. Dershowitz following the August 27, 2019 public hearing in US v. Epstein. I learned of your role in theaase by reading your affidavit, dated June 7, 2019, which includes your legal ethics opinion that David Boies should

alification from representing Ms. Guiffre (in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Tum the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would f

ecord. I learned that you had been "retained to provide opinions as an expert on legal ethics" in owing the August 27, 2019 public hearing in US v. Epstein. I learned of your role in theme case by reading your affidavit, dated June 7, 2019, which includes your legal ethics opinion that David Boies shou

ualification from representing Ms.. Lirint(in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would

ed that you had been "retained to provide opinions as an expert on legal ethics" in Dershowitz following the August 27, 2019 public heating in US v. Epstein. I learned of your role in the case by reading your affidavit, dated June 7, 2019, which includes your legal ethics opinion that David Boies shoul

Boles' disqualification from representing (in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would

tions were not successful, and through which the accusers and the accused would come face to face, allowing everyone to get their day in court. Mr. Epstein's death obviously means that a trial in which he is a defendant cannot take place. It is a rather stunning turn of events. The government's motion

ce, allowing everyone to get their day in court. Mr. Epstein's death obviously means that a trial in which he

ised that that aspect was not disclosed in the Law Journal. But in any event, I think you know where I'm heading. I respectfully disagree with the Law Journal piece. I was saying that the government's motion is relatively straightforward, and in my view, a public hearing is clearly, nevertheless, the pre

oposed order is similarly required by law. A few notes to make about that, though, your Honor. To be very clear, dismissal of this indictment as to Jeffrey Epstein in no way prohibits or inhibits the government's ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators, nor does it prevent the bringi