Epstein Secrets

uly 10.2020.2:06 AN1 • I I mm mod GNsialne Maxwell behind ban as new details emerge Jeffrey Epstein's ex-gw1.0. Wenta. groom and 11 VI • J.66, Epstem's sex aunts by he@ng him Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and longtime companion of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, is facing a reckonin

ficant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after

his apartments in New York City — near his own townhouse, where he would allegedly rape her the next year. MAIM Feds finally start investigating Jeffrey Epstein's gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell "In 1997, while at Epstein's townhouse on 9 East 71st Street in the City of New York. Epstein asked 17-year-old Doe if sh

TA00075089 ca3FtsVrit5164 Get. PtiftitPtiktivektA8Siig W*40441319 Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously (the plaintiff) who was 17 at this point. (Title 18, Unit

months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in

deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a party for access to transcripts of depositions twelve

numerous allegations, over the span of four years, that Ms. Maxwell participated in a scheme causing her to be "sexually abused and trafficked" by Jeffrey Epstein. 2 EFTA00074911 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 2896538, Pagel 0 of 38 Plaintiff, a public figure required to prove actual malice, liti

and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim solely by, in effect, "prosecuting" Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. Plaintiff chose this course of action because even she admitted some of her public statements were false. Discovery in the case was correspondingl

ng her to be "sexually abused and trafficked" by Jeffrey Epstein. 2 EFTA00074911 Case 20-2413, Documen

F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 1997) 15 In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 20 In re Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) 14 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011) 9 In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987) 14 ii EFTA00074906 Case 20-2413, Document 10-1, 07/30/2020, 289653

413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM TH

and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim solely by, in effect, "prosecuting" Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. App. p 116, ¶ffil 8-10; p 119 9¶ 27; p 122, ¶ 12; p 123, 51114, 16; p 124,9120. 3 EFTA00075485 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, P

MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6, 25, 40 In re Mazzeo, 167 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1999) 17 In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) 37, 40 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011) 1 Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) 22 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 201

ficant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after

months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in

deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a party for access to transcripts of depositions twelve

ficant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after

months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in

deposition transcripts. In Martindell v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 594 F.2d 291, 293 (2d Cir. 1979), cited with approval in In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53, 58 (2d Cir. 2011), the government moved in a civil action to which it was not a party for access to transcripts of depositions twelve