Epstein Secrets

easons: BACKGROUND Accuser 4, was first contacted by the FBI in 2007. was interviewed on August 7, 2007 by Agents and asked about any abuse by Jeffrey Epstein. did not identify Ms. Maxwell as someone who recruited her, groomed her, or otherwise interacted with her in Palm Beach, Florida, or any other loca

ed with her in Palm Beach, Florida, or any other location. She identified as someone she interacted with and who took nude photographs of her at Mr. Epstein's direction. After her FBI interview, represented by counsel, filed i.' lawsuits against Jeffrey Epstein . Neither of those lawsuits mentions Ms

AINE MAXWELL'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

cted with and who took nude photographs of her at Mr. Epstein's direction. After her FBI interview, represen

UMENT 2 i EFTA00090467 TABLES OF AUTHORITIES Cases Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) 2, 3 Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) 2, 3 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 3 Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) 2, 3 Stovall v. Demo, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) 2 United States

12 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) 2 iii EFTA00100289 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 Fed. R. Cr

is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which then compelled Maxwell, over objection, to answer irrelevant and highly prejudicia

now disclosed several documents "with respect to any criminal investigations" 3 Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jed Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020), https://www.nydailynews.corninew-yorktny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-2020

LES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2

tends represent "direct evidence" of a conspiracy (to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse minor females or to entice, transport or traffic them for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual pleasure) that Resp. at 36. 2 The proffered evidence is found at GX 401-404, 409-410 and 413 7 EFTA00090733 The government contends that

government clearly intends to rely on how open the alleged abuse was, the relevance of evidence that even the people who claim they were abused by Epstein during the same time frame but without any knowledge or participation by Ms. Maxwell becomes highly relevant to rebut such testimony. 12 EFTA00090

ELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN &

s, 218 F.2d 675 (5th Cir. 1955) 5 Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) 38 People v. Davis, 423 N.Y.S.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) 39 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 34 Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397 (2d Cir.1996) 41 Solomon v. Smith, 645 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir. 198

12 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) 2 iii EFTA00097333 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 Fed. R. Cr

is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Maxwell, over objection, to answer irrelevant and highly prejudicial person

LES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2

12 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) 2 iii EFTA00097651 Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 Fed. R. Cr

is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing which then compelled Maxwell, over objection, to answer irrelevant and highly prejudicial person

LES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Mennin • er Christian R. E

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2

LES SCHILLER AND TO DISMISS COUNTS FIVE AND SIX Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated Feb. 18, 1988, 685 F. Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 1 Raheem v. Kelly, 257 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2001) 9 Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2014 WL 5420225 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2

N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012) 2 iii EFTA00018999 --- PAGE BREAK --- Other Authorities Stephen Rex Brown, Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016, New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) 11 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) 13 Fed. R. Cr