Epstein Secrets

tion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas 6(e) Box #3 P-012089 Thru P-012129 United States' Response to Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Cross-Motion to Compel 6(e) Box #3 P-012130 Thru P-012150 Declaration o i 6(e) Box #3 P-

hibit 6. 17. In the declaration, Ms. makes a number of assertions, including that "there could not have been any doubt in anyone's mind .. . that Epstein sexually molested me as a minor"; "I believed that if I told the truth about what happened at Epstein's house, the police "; "I had been greatly in

/2013 Page 19 of 23 Bates Range Description Privilege(s) Asserted Box #3 P-011923 Thru P-011966 Folder entitled "Responses to Arguments from JE Counsel" containing: Work product Deliberative process 6(e) Attorney-Client Privilege ■ 7/13/2007 letter from to with handwritten attorney (

tified as a potential victim of the lead target, Jeffrey Epstein. 2. After service of the subpoena, Ms.=

have prepared documents to charge at least one of Mr. Epstein's lady friends in state court. If they can push

position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating one case remain prot

tein 12889705 NCA customised Closed - liit 16/06/2017 BIS RESULTS: Negative Media: Mali On I ine MailOnline May 24, 2017 Wednesday 10:53 PM GMT Jeffrey Epstein's 'sex slave' settles her defamation lawsuit against British socia xwell who 'passed her around for sex' and trained her to be 'everything a man wa

recruited her as a sex slave when she was 15 for convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and passed around to his friends Maxwell, who was Epstein's girlfriend at the time, is also accused of forcing her to have sex with Maxwell and other underage girls The 55-year-old responded to the allegat

ion of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. Date:6/16/2017 Report processed by: DEUTSCHE BANK AGII Full Name Address County Phone EPSTEIN. JEFFERY E 9 E 71ST ST NEW YORK (212) 750-9895 NEW YORK. NY 10021-4102 (212) 249.1122 NEW YORK COUNTY (212) 772-9416 ADDITIONAL PERSONAL INFORMATION SSN

2546965 (Age 64) Subject Summary Name Variations 1: EDWARDS. JEFFERY 2: EPSTEIN, J 3: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY 4: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY E 5: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY 6: EPSTEIN. JEFFREY E 7: EPSTEIN. JERRERY 8: EPSTIEN, JEFFERY 9: EPTSTEIN. JEFFERY SSNs Summary No. SSN 1: 090-44-XXXX DOBs Reported DO

N. MARK L SSN:117-444OOCX DOB:1955 (Age: 62) EPSTEIN, PAULA A Deceased • AKA EPSTEIN, PAULINE SSN:050-09-XXXX DOB:10/1918 (Age: 98) TUCKER. ELLYN EPSTEIN • AKA EPSTEIN, ELLY • AKA EPSTEIN, ELLYN ELLYN • AKA EPSTEINTUCKER. ELLYN EPSTEIN • AKA EPSTEIN. E • AKA TUCKER. EPSTEIN ELLYN • AKA EPSTEIN-TU

subsequent litigation." 462 U.S. 19, 25, 103 S. Ct. 2209, 76 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1983) (emphasis in original); see also 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 519 n.47 (3d ed. 2010) (collecting cases). Similarly, the work-product doctrine applies regardless of whether litigation actually en

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

parties, the court must consider "the importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits of a dispute." 6 Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 1488, p. 814 (3d ed. 2010). Justice does not require amendment where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially adva

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

parties, the court must consider "the importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits of a dispute." 6 Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 1488, p. 814 (3d ed. 2010). Justice does not require amendment where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially adva

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. (Id.). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (Id.). EFTA00210130

this action." (Li. 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

parties, the court must consider "the importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits of a dispute." 6 Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 1488, p. 814 (3d ed. 2010). Justice does not require amendment where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially adva

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. (Id.). Petitioners initiated this action in July 2008. (Id.). EFTA00210559

this action." (Li. 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

parties, the court must consider "the importance of the amendment on the proper determination of the merits of a dispute." 6 Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 1488, p. 814 (3d ed. 2010). Justice does not require amendment where the addition of parties with duplicative claims will not materially adva

ed: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE I). The parties and intervenors d

o every privilege asserted. (DE 265). Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government's assertion that

position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating one case remain prot

ed: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE I). The parties and intervenors d

o every privilege asserted. (DE 265). Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government's assertion that

position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating one case remain prot

ed: The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses

ating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771, by failing to involve Petitioners (and other similarly situated victims of Intervenor Epstein) in the process that ultimately led to a federal non-prosecution agreement between the Government and Epstein. (DE 1). The parties and intervenors d

o every privilege asserted. (DE 265). Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government's assertion that

position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating one case remain prot