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

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

irectly rebutting the defendant's allegations, there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing. The defendant cites Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to suggest that a hearing is somehow warranted, but her motion falls far short of the Franks standard to obtain a hearing. "W

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

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

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

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

. 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

(2d Cir. 1928) 45 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146 Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170, 171 Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK) 275 Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) 125 Graham v. C

. 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

(2d Cir. 1928) 45 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146 Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170, 171 Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK) 275 Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) 125 Graham v. C

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,

(2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-379

have a history of working diligently on behalf of victims of crime. While at the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, I was a part of the prosecution team that prosecuted the first case in the country under the federal Violence Against Women Act. United States v. B

d it really fast because I didn't want to make it sound like I was lying or anything. Tr. at 38-39. Thus, consistent with the guidance provided in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is p

have a history of working diligently on behalf of victims of crime. While at the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia, I was a part of the prosecution team that prosecuted the first case in the country under the federal Violence Against Women Act. United States v. B

aid it really fast because I didn't want to make it sound like I was lying or anything. . at 38-39. Thus, consistent with the guidance provided in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is p