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

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N. Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initi

grand jury that had issued a alliena for the production of documents as parl'of an ongoing ation5). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

that standard." (Id. at 7) (emphasis in original). 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions Three months after Chief Judge McMahon issued her Order, Giuffre v. Maxwell was reassigned to the Honorable Loretta A. Preska on July 9, 2019. On or about July 23, 2020, Judge Preska ordered unsealed certain liti

.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 In her motion

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

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

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

that standard." (Id. at 7) (emphasis in original). 8. Unsealing of Maxwell's Depositions Three months after Chief Judge McMahon issued her Order, Giuffre v. Maxwell was reassigned to the Honorable Loretta A. Preska on July 9, 2019. On or about July 23, 2020, Judge Preska ordered unsealed certain liti

.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 In her motion

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

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

er the protective order was improvidently granted or whether the government had made a showing of exceptional circumstances or a compelling need"); Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 862 (reversing district court's modification of protective orders where district court did not make an "express finding" of improvidenc

allows a protective order to be overcome by a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order, extraordinary circumstances or compelling need."); Palmieri v. State of N.Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that "absent an express finding by the district court of improvidence in the magistrate's initial

ssued a "subpoena for the production of documents as part of an ongoing investigation." (Id. at 25). In support of her argument, the defendant cites Palmieri where the Second Circuit, applying Martindell, reversed the district court's decision granting the state Attorney General's motion to intervene to

P ("Boies Schiller") to comply with a grand jury subpoena. The application is granted. I. Background A. The Protective Order In September 2015, Virginia L. Giuffre commenced a civil suit against Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had defamed Giuffre by stating that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crime

A. The Protective Order In September 2015, Virginia L. Giuffre commenced a civil suit against Ghislaine Maxwell, alleging that Maxwell had defamed Giuffre by stating that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by, among others, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"). (15-cv- 7433, Dkt. N

und A. The Protective Order In September 2015, Virginia L. Giuffre commenced a civil suit against Ghislai

eason for the Government to carry the firm's water—the moreso because Judge Sweet ruled some months before he died that the intervenors' appeals in Giuffie meant the lawsuit had not "concluded," and so had postponed the day when that contractual obligation kicked in. (15-cv-7433, Dkt. No. 967 at 6.)3 3

al by motion to quash or modify the subpoena ... or to seek permissive intervention in the private action.") (internal quotations omitted); but see Palmieri v. State of N Y., 779 F.2d 861, 862 (2d Cir. 1985) (considering appeal where the New York State Attorney General, rather than the subject of the subpoena, w

er is "improvidently granted" where the presiding judge "reasonably should have recognized that [it] would facilitate or further criminal activity." Palmieri, 779 F.2d at 865-66. But there is absolutely no evidence that the district court harbored any such realization; indeed, at the time Judge Sweet ent

elationships with the mothers of his children as examples of his strong character. Stanford has been in federal custody since he was arrested in Virginia on June 18. Stanford denies allegations he defrauded investors, but tried to surremkt to federal authorities in the months before his indict- men

. Pacelli, Americo George, 96. of Boynton Beach, died Friday. Seobee-ComIxt- Bowden Funeral Home and Crematory, Boynton Beach. Funeral Monday. Palmieri, Theresa, 92, of West Palm Beach, died Thursday Tillman Funeral Home. West Palm Beach. Funeral in Rhode Island. Rau, Lothar F., 11), of Lake Pa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK panne nee eee X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. poe nen nee nee eee eee eee xX Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s O

RT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK panne nee eee X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHI

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK panne nee eee X VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXW

enseaecneaesaeaesaeseesseneeseeaeens 12 O’Brien v. Alexander, 898 F.Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N-Y. 1995) ooo. eesceseeceseerseeseeeseeereeeseeneeeeseees 30 Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) oo... eee esseeecsseesseeneeceseeseeeseeeseeenseesseeseeesseees 33 People v Thomas, 21 N.Y .3d 226 (2013)

T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn eee ee eee xX VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXW

T SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn eee ee eee xX VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHI

ISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn eee ee eee xX VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXW

esseeseeaeeceessessecaeeeeseeeseeseenes 12 O’Brien v. Alexander, 898 F.Supp. 162, 171 (S.D.N-Y. 1995) .oo.cecccececeeeeeeeeetecneeeeeeeeeeeeneenes 30 Palmieri v. Defaria, 88 F.3d 136, 141 (2d Cir. 1996) oo. coccccccccccccescesteesecseeeseenteesssesteesieenaees 33 People v Thomas, 21 N.Y .3d 226 (2013).....c