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

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that that the Court can determine now—on a pre-trial record that is not factually developed—that the questions were fundamentally ambiguous

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

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den

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

f two depositions, the defendant knowingly made false material declarations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The defendant moves to dismiss those Counts, arguing that the Court can determine now—on a pre- 44 For similar reasons, the defendant's request for discovery regarding this matter should be den

is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui juris. 2. This Complaint is brough

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

vard Suite 2218 60 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury Goldberger & Wei

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui juris. 2. This Complaint is brough

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s

is a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is sui juris. 2. This Complaint is brough

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient factual allegations in the Counts and instead alleges labels and conclusions, and an attempted formulaic recitation of the elements in each Count. 2. In the alternative, Defendant s