Epstein Secrets

That's correct. Q. When were you a judge? A. From about 2002 'til about November 2007. Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first President Bush? A. Yes. Q. Uh, second President Bush? A. Second President Bush, yes. Q. And then after resigning as a judge, you ROUGH DRAFT ONLY EFTA0060

7. Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first President Bush? A. Yes. Q. Uh, second President Bush? A. S

id you have a common interest privilege? A. Brad Edwards from, obviously, the law firm that I've been working with here. Also attorneys from the Boies Schiller law firm who were representing at that time. Q. Anyone else? A. The -- at that time, on December 30th, I don't know that it's directly responsi

to finality like every other defendant. Kenneth W. Starr Martin G. Weinberg Jack Goldberger Lilly An

le and we were able to do that by bringing this case ... which we ultimately settled very successfully for her,” said McCawley, an associate of noted Bush-Gore recount lawyer David Boies, who has also pursued cases against Epstein in federal court in New York. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/art

ons but he also said that the client strongly believed what she was saying. At Mr. Dershowitz’s request I attended a meeting on July 6, 2015, at the Boies Schiller Flexner offices in New York City with David Boies and Sigrid McCawley with Mr. Dershowitz participating by Skype. The purpose of the meeting as state

? A. That's correct. Q. When were you a judge? A. From about 2002 'til about November 2007. Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first President Bush? A. Yes. Q Uh, second President Bush? A. Second President Bush, yes. Q And then after resigning as a judge, you ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGH

007. Q. Okay. So you were appointed by the first President Bush? A. Yes. Q Uh, second President Bush? A. Secon

ys did you have a common interest privilege? A. Brad Edwards from, obviously, the law firm that I've been working with here. Also attorneys from the Boies Schiller law firm who were representing Virginia Roberts at that time. Q. Anyone else? A. The -- at that time, on December 30th, I don't know that it's dire

he Court's dear departed colleague, Judge Robert W. Sweet, held that because the qualified privilege

thereo is fore the Court. Attorneys and Law Firms *566 Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Joshua Schiller, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Arthur Louis Aidala, Law Offices of Aidala & Bertuna, P.C., Brooklyn, NY, Christian Kiely, Howard M. Coo

FILED UNDER SEAL VIA EMAIL The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern Dis

it A. Background As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an o

FILED UNDER SEAL VIA EMAIL The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern Dis

it A. Background As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an o

tective order entered in Maxwell by Judge Robert W. Sweet. (See Protective Order (the "Maxwell Prote

had obtained access to the materials because retained them "both to represent her in [ v. Dershowitz] and to represent her in conjunction with the Boies Schiller firm in the Maxwell case." (Transcript at 9:15-19.) The Court is not privy to the full details of arrangement with Cooper & Kirk, but, in any even

FILED UNDER SEAL VIA EMAIL The Honorable Robert W. Sweet United States District Court Southern Dis

it A. Background As described in the Application, the Government has served a grand jury subpoena (the "Subpoena") upon Boies Schiller & Flexner ("Boies Schiller") requiring the production of copies of discovery and related materials related to the Litigation. The Subpoena was validly issued pursuant to an o

ccess to the tapes properly was balanced against "the duty of the courts," id. at 602, including the duty to ensure fairness to the defendants, see W. at 602 n.14. In In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987), cited with approval in United States v. Longueuil, 567 Fed. App'x 13,16 (2d

tion that it properly was a recipient of the material: [W]hatever Cooper & Kirk's intentions in requesting and obtaining the Maxwell materials from Boies Schiller, the Maxwell Protective Order explicitly provides that (1) discovery materials designated CONFIDENTIAL cannot be EFTA00094806 Case 1:15-cv-07433-

as to confer a benefit on the third party." Fla. W. Intl Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quot

The defendant's motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded starting in at least early 2016 with the "precise[] design[]" of having the defendant "charged with perjury." (Def. Mot