Epstein Secrets

se "publicly available information regarding the [Giuffre v. Maxwell] 6 EFTA00086668 Litigation, includ

d Six of the superseding indictment allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions taken in v. Maxwell, a civil defamation case Virginia =filed in 2015. claimed that Maxwell defamed her when Maxwell's attorney-hired press agent denied as "untrue" and "obvious numerous allegations,

ial discovery material (including the two Maxwell depositions) with anyone else, including with the government and law enforcement. Faced with that Protective Order, the government issued a grand jury subpoena for Boies Schiller's file and instituted an ex parte proceeding before Chief Judge McMahon to modify t

To: Laura Menninger, Esq. Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No. 15-cv-07433 United States District Court For the Southern District of New York March 17, 2016 Protective Order by United State

ork March 17, 2016 Protective Order by United States District Court Judge Sweet The undersigned acknowledges that he has read the above-referenced Protective Order, a copy of which is attached, and agrees to be bound by the provisions thereof. Dated: August 3, 2016 Jeffrey Epstein EFTA_R1_00008739 EFTA01733

charges, would register as a sex offender for life, and "he had made certain concessions related to the payment of damages to the victims, including Jane Doe #I." (DE48 at 12.) Despite this, Petitioners suggest that it was "quite reasonable" for Jane Doe #1 to believe that "Jane Doe #1 also understood her ow

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their

llow the Fifth Circuit's holding in Dean (and the view of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia) and conclude that the CVRA extends rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 under the facts of this case. C. The U.S. Attorney's Office Has Previous

tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their