Epstein Secrets

as a few mouse clicks to find a gun for sale from a private seller on an online marketplace or through social media." Gun violence prevention group Brady says that as a result, "about one in five gun buys is conducted with no background check" Some In Greenville See Connection Between Trump Rally And

d charged with third-degree felony terroristic threat." Porter asked, "I'd like to know if he has any bomb-making ability." KTRK-TV Houston (8/13, Schiller, 431K) reports Fonseca "is facing a felony charge after police say he made a terroristic threat on Snapchat." KPRC-TV Houston (8/13, McCord, Arche

Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006) 8 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 Brown v. Maxwel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.

t the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions. Id. at 21

ccept information it considers unfavorable to Ms. Maxwell, begrudgingly EFTA00096510 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan May 12, 2021 Page 2 produce Brady material with various disclaimers such as "although the government is not obligated to do so" (Dkt. 269 pp. 8, 9), and obfuscate the importance of l

dge Nathan, On March 15, 2021, Ms. Maxwell asked the Court to issue a F.R.Crim.P. 17(c)(3) subpoena for production of evidence controlled by Boies, Schiller, and Flexner ("BSF") lawyers working with the government on behalf of alleged (now-adult) witnesses. In her ex-parte application, Ms. Maxwell provi

appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. Even though AUSA had a "complet

l filed her Motion, she did not have access to the government's emails and AUSA contemporaneous notes, despite their obvious exculpatory value. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87-88 (1963). The government did not disclose these materials until Maxwell challenged the government's candor and conduc

ses Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313 (.=. Sept 14, 2006) 8 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) 24 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 11 Brown v. Marcel, 929 F.3d 4 (2d Cir. 2019) 19, 20 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 19

appeared before Judge McMahon barely four months later, however, he told her none of this, unequivocally and falsely disavowing any role by Boies Schiller in fomenting the investigation and denying any contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018. Even though AUSA had a "complet