Epstein Secrets

That investigation was opened more than two and a half years after the last known contact between any lawyer associated with any civil counsel for Giuffre and, in any event, was initially focused on Epstein, not this defendant. As detailed above, the USAO-SDNY opened the instant investigation in late

.F.L). See generally Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1002 (11th Cir. 2014) (describing the background of the suit). On December 30, 2014, Virginia Roberts Giuffre moved to join the petition, alleging that the USAO-SDFL had also violated her CVRA rights. See Doe, No. 08 Civ. 80736, Dkt. No. 279.45 the9 "one of

t persons, people under the age of 18. A. I looked for people or tried to find people to fill professional jobs in professional situations. Q. So Virginia Roberts was under the age of 18, correct? A. I think we've established that Virginia was 17. Q. Is she the -- sorry, go ahead. Is she the only individual t

e to fill professional jobs in professional situations. Q. So Virginia Roberts was under the age of 18, correct? A. I think we've established that Virginia was 17. Q. Is she the -- sorry, go ahead. Is she the only individual that you met for purposes of hiring someone for Jeffrey that was under the ag

No. 542-4). Giuffre has since self-identified as Jane Doe #3. (See id., Dkt. No. 23 n.2). 117 EFTA00095209

se questions-for instance that Epstein in fact had a scheme to recruit underaged girls for sexual massages—would have been corroborative of some of Giuffre's claims. Second, had the defendant honestly answered the deposition questions, Giuffre could have located other victims or witnesses who may have cor

ecific acts of which he is accused!" United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Torres, 901 F.2d at 234); see United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014). In exercising its broad discretion to determine whether the charges are so genera

. Mot. 7 at 16). She again cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boles Schiller") to obtain materials from the Giuffre civil litigation. (Id.). Leaving aside the fact that, as set forth in Section IV, the Government obtained such materials through a judicially approv

inner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29 At the meeting, Edwards p

oies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29 At the meeting, Edwards provided AUSA-1 wi

) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 267

. Mot. 7 at 16). She again cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boles Schiller") to obtain materials from the Giuffre civil litigation. (Id.). Leaving aside the fact that, as set forth in Section IV, the Government obtained such materials through a judicially approv

inner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29 At the meeting, Edwards p

oies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29 At the meeting, Edwards provided AUSA-1 wi

) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 267

side, the civil matters were in completely different procedural postures, which implicate different concerns regarding a pending criminal case. The Giuffre v. Maxwell litigation was settled and complete well before the Government even opened its investigation in this case. By contrast, the Doe v. Indyk

inner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29 At the meeting, Edwards p

oies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29 At the meeting, Edwards provided AUSA-1 wi

) 45 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 18, 21 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 52, 53, 54, 55 United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 174, 176, 177 United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 175 Uni

seek modification of the protective order in this case to use such materials in the civil case, which the protective order expressly precludes. See Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) (Dkt. 1100). Moreover, even assuming the defendant intends to scrupulously adhere to the terms of the

bmits that in any event such a motion could not be meaningfully evaluated at this stage, prior to the completion of discovery. See United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) (denying a motion for a bill of particulars that sought, among other things, the

seek modification of the protective order in this case to use such materials in the civil case, which the protective order expressly precludes. See Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) (Dkt. 1100). Moreover, even assuming the defendant intends to scrupulously adhere to the terms of the

bmits that in any event such a motion could not be meaningfully evaluated at this stage, prior to the completion of discovery. See United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) (denying a motion for a bill of particulars that sought, among other things, the