Epstein Secrets

g in US v. Epstein. I learned of your role in theaase by reading your affidavit, dated June 7, 2019, which includes your legal ethics opinion that David Boies should be disqualified from representing Ms. in that matter. As you are aware, both Mr. Boles and Ms. were invited to testify at the August 27, 20

alification from representing Ms. Guiffre (in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Tum the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would f

ument 56 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 2 Finally, it is unfortunate that your opinion piece may have been construed as an effort to chill Ms. a and Mr. Boies' right to be heard under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 at the August 27, 2019 public hearing. You wrote: "[W]hatever informational interests the victims may have

in US v. Epstein. I learned of your role in theme case by reading your affidavit, dated June 7, 2019, which includes your legal ethics opinion that David Boies should be di ualified from representing Ms. in that matter. As you are aware, both Mr. Boles and Ms. were invited to testify at the August 27, 201

ument 56 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 2 Finally, it is unfortunate that your opinion piece may have been construed as an effort to chill Ms. a and Mr. Boies' right to be heard under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 at the August 27, 2019 public hearing. You wrote: "[W]hatever informational interests the victims may have

ualification from representing Ms.. Lirint(in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would

in US v. Epstein. I learned of your role in the case by reading your affidavit, dated June 7, 2019, which includes your legal ethics opinion that David Boies should be disqualified from representing- in that matter. As you are aware, both Mr. Boles and were invited to testify at the August 27, 2019 heari

MB Document 56 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 2 Finally, it is unfortunate that your opinion piece may have been construed as an effort to chill-and Mr. Boies' right to be heard under 18 U.S.C. § 3771 at the August 27, 2019 public hearing. You wrote: "[W]hatever informational interests the victims may have

Boles' disqualification from representing (in a case obviously related to US v. Epstein) was not disclosed simultaneously with your August 26, 2019 Law Journal opinion piece entitled "The Judge in Epstein's Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims." I am also surprised that you would

ised that that aspect was not disclosed in the Law Journal. But in any event, I think you know where I'm heading. I respectfully disagree with the Law Journal piece. I was saying that the government's motion is relatively straightforward, and in my view, a public hearing is clearly, nevertheless, the pre

of the District Court of Utah, I believe, and it's a pleasure to have you here today. MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Thanks. Mr. Boies? MR. BOIES: Thank you, your Honor. David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner. We have with us today five of the victims that we represent. There are a

, and it's a pleasure to have you here today. MR. CASSELL: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Thanks. Mr. Boies? MR. BOIES: Thank you, your Honor. David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner. We have with us today five of the victims that we represent. There are a number of additional victims who either were u

E COURT: Can we have the spelling of your name? MS. McCAWLEY: Sure. Sigrid, S-i-g-r-i-d, and the last name is M-c-C-a-w-1-e-y, and I'm a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner. THE COURT: Thank you. Good morning. THE COURT: Good morning. Thank you, prosecutors and Judge, and the Court. My name is I not