Epstein Secrets

Prince Andrew, and it's actually not his denial, as I 24 understand it, Buckingham Palace's denial of the allegation of 25 my client. But again, Prince Andrew is not on the witness SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00794570 16 H3V0GIU1 1 list, we're not able to cross examine him,

U1 1 list, we're not able to cross examine him, so what they want to 2 do is introduce triple hearsay of Buckingham Palace saying what 3 Prince Andrews said in a news article without the reporter 4 against my client without our ability to cross examine him on 5 that. 6 So your Honor, they've tr

who has put her reputation 14 at issue. Having the Duke of York and Buckingham Palace issue 15 denials is not h

no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the defendant, which

ld not be an issue relevant to this trial. Next, your Honor, they also seek to include statements, hearsay statements and newspaper articles about Prince Andrew, and it's actually not his denial, as I understand it, Buckingham Palace's denial of the allegation of my client. But again, Prince Andrew is not o

3VOGIU1 16 list, we're not able to cross examine him, so what they want to do is introduce triple hearsay of Buckingham Palace saying what Prince Andrews said in a news article without the reporter against my client without our ability to cross examine him on that. So your Honor, they've tried to ar

rse, who has put her reputation at issue. Having the Duke of York and Buckingham Palace issue denials is not hears

no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the defendant, which

s about Prince Andrew, and it's actually not his denial, as I understand it, Buckingham Palace's denial of the allegation of my client. But again, Prince Andrew is not on the witness SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011318 10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21

16 H3VOGIU1 list, we're not able to cross examine him, so what they want to do is introduce triple hearsay of Buckingham Palace saying what Prince Andrews said in a news article without the reporter against my client without our ability to cross examine him on that. So your Honor, they've tried to argu

rse, who has put her reputation at issue. Having the Duke of York and Buckingham Palace issue denials is not hearsa

ere is just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these other bad acts. Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh CircuLt case, Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when it ruled that the defendant, which allegedl

support to al Qaeda. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2331 et seq. Andrew J. Maloney, III, Blanca I. Rod- riguez, Brian J.

in intentional wrongdoing—albeit extraterri- torially—expressly directed at forum") (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. at 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482)); Time, Inc. v. Simpson, No. 02 Civ. 4917(MBM), 2003 WL 23018890, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2003) (finding Calder turned on "personal in- volvement of the indiv

admissible (Motion in Limine 3).................+ 8 4. Louis Freeh’s testimony and report are admissible evidence (Motion in Limine 4) ....... 9 5. Prince Andrew and Buckingham Palace’s denials of Plaintiff's claims are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted (Motion in Limine 5)... i.e seeeesseeseere

essment rere memeneistseee 13, 28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N-Y. 2009) oo. ceeeeeecesteeteeteeeeeeeees 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (1 1th Cir. 1998) oo. eee ceseesseesseeeseeeseeeseeeneessaee 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp., 257 N

sible evidence (Motion in Limine 4) ....... 9 5. Prince Andrew and Buckingham Palace’s denials of Plaintiff's cl

2015 WL 3533844, at *5 (D. Utah i eb) 13,28 S.E.C. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) oo. cccccteeeseeeee 19 Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361, 1364-75 (11th Cir. 1998) oo ccceeeeeseteeteesetseteeteesenes 3 Seligson, Morris & Neuburger v Fairbanks Whitney Corp., 257 N.Y.S.2d