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

80431, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), aff'd, 348 F. App'x 636, 638 (2d Cir. 2009) (first alteration in original) (quoting Werner, 620 F2d at 927). Joinder is also proper for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 511

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

80431, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), aff'd, 348 F. App'x 636, 638 (2d Cir. 2009) (first alteration in original) (quoting Werner, 620 F2d at 927). Joinder is also proper for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 511

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

80431, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2007), aff'd, 348 F. App'x 636, 638 (2d Cir. 2009) (first alteration in original) (quoting Werner, 620 F2d at 927). Joinder is also proper for "distinct criminal acts where they originated from a common scheme." United States v. Ying Lin, No. 15 Cr. 601 (DLI), 2018 WL 511

or Violation of Court Order and the Intervenors' Joinder; work on Motion to Compel B. Edwards to Identify his Trial Witnesses and Motion to strike V. Giuffre as a Witness; work on Renewed Motion for Leave to Disclose Expert Witness; work on Adverse Inference Jury Instruction and prepare Notice of Filing

tify his Trial Witnesses and Motion to strike V. Giuffre as a Witness; work on Renewed Motion for Leave t

late to opposing counsel for review in advance of hearing; work on Response to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause in bankruptcwork on Response to Joinder filed by Intervenors ., E.W. and Jane Doe 04/03/18 SJL Work on insurance demand to Fowler White; work on Motion for In Camera Review; review pro

Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2014 Page 10 of 13 Jane Doe #3's and Jane Doe #4's participation is also directl

witz"), a nonparty to this litigation, is the victim of scurrilous allegations made in Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Motion Pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in the Action (the "Joinder Motion"), filed as of record at DE 279. Having no remedy in this proceeding for the harm to his reputational interest, P

12, 2016, and in support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order shou

n M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12,

support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order should be modi

poena, as to the law firm, is quashed As to the "Jane Doe #3" subpoena: The motion is granted as to request #9

al abuse Allegations. Rather, these records are an important part of this case, since they not only support the conclusion that Dershowitz abused Ms. Giuffre, but also indisputably establish Edwards and Cassell’s strong basis for filing the allegations on her behalf. Moreover, contrary to assertions made i

e defense attorneys’. Moreover, because the first time Jane Doe #3 made these contemptible allegations against Prof. Dershowitz was in her Motion for Joinder in December 2014, those allegations are irrelevant as to the inquiry of whether Jane Doe #3’s rights under the CVRA were violated at the time the NPA

sed above show a complete lack of investigation into the credibility of the woman making these scurrilous allegations®, what is most remarkable about Jane Doe #3’s Response is what it omits. Approximately six years ago, Jane Doe #3 took advantage of the NPA’s provisions, sued Mr. Epstein and received a monetary

ion (the "Joinder Motion") included numerous details about sexual abuse and listed the perpetrators of her abuse. repeatedly named Maxwell in the Joinder Motion as being personally involved in the sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme created by Epstein. *2 On January 3, 2015, Maxwell again issued

rovides the public and the press a constitutional right of access to all trials, criminal or civil." Id. at 468 (citing Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) ) (internal citation omitted). This right applies specifically to "related proceedings an