Epstein Secrets

Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmllaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protect

baby: Virginia Roberts March 22.2020 I 3:24pm Virginia Roberts Giuffre wham Farrington Former teen "sex slave" when t

18/20 EFTA00075105 Cas63sE 941143 VI/0Rn @Want rtit7100V2 CFM2ft 057233/2 G g gatjef tv 013161 Epstein, Maxwell wanted me to have surrogate baby: Virginia Roberts March 22.2020 I 3:24pm Virginia Roberts Giuffre wham Farrington Former teen "sex slave" when they asked her, at g , pear mew sur MUM

it7100V2 CFM2ft 057233/2 G g gatjef tv 013161 Epstein, Maxwell wanted me to have surrogate baby: Virginia Roberts March 22.2020 I 3:24pm Virginia Roberts Giuffre wham Farrington Former teen "sex slave" when they asked her, at g , pear mew sur MUM says she finally fled Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwe

k for Epstein can be found in excerpts -- unsealed by a federal court last year -- of two 2016 depositions related to a defamation lawsuit filed by Virginia Giuffre. one of Epstein's alleged victims, who has accused Maxwell of recruiting her into Epstein's alleged child trafficking scheme, an accusation Maxwell

baby: Virginia Roberts March 22.2020 I 3:24pm Virginia Roberts Giuffre wham Farrington Former teen "sex slave"

l notice, as Judge Nathan herself may have, of the widespread negative media publicity and speculation directed at Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. See Condit v. Dunne, 317 F. Supp. 2d 344, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). We attach a compilation of such articles in EXHIBIT E. The Court also may take judicial notice of Ms. Ma

5439090 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2015) 7 In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) 15 Landmark Commcins, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978) 10 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) passim Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239 (S.D.N.Y.

iminal case against Mr. Epstein, which include the now-settled above-captioned action. Here, the underlying claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwell ("Ms. Maxwell" or "Defendant") on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell, in coordination with Mr. Epstein

claim is a defamation action brought by Virginia Giuffre ("Ms. " or "Plaintiff') against Ghislaine Maxwe

. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239, 254 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (movant must demonstrate good cause for order barring public dissemination of discovery materials); Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 113, 115 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (same). To show good cause under Rule 26(c), parties must demonstrate that disclosure will cause a clear and

Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 HI 303.832.2628 www.hmtlaw.com [email protected] Re: Reconsideration of the Court's July 23 Ruling Giuffie v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP) Dear Judge Preska: As counsel for Ms. Maxwell we write to request that the Court vindicate its Protect

l notice, as Judge Nathan herself may have, of the widespread negative media publicity and speculation directed at Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. See Condit v. Dunne, 317 F. Supp. 2d 344, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). We attach a compilation of such articles in EXHIBIT E. The Court also may take judicial notice of Ms. Ma