Epstein Secrets

; the law firm had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with the firm. And Boies Schiller was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution. The record is surpassingly clear: But for the government's misrepresentation, witti

, AUSA met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury."

17 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

o unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (the "Application"), in c

s the materials at issue here appear not to be of the sort that ordinarily would provide protection against Government investigation. See 3 To read Martindeli more broadly would not only be contrary to the opinion itself, as described above, but would risk rendering that opinion in even further conflict wi

o unseal discovery materials in the possession of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP the "A in connection wit

s the materials at issue here appear not to be of the sort that ordinarily would provide protection against Government investigation. See 3 To read Martindeli more broadly would not only be contrary to the opinion itself, as described above, but would risk rendering that opinion in even further conflict wi

17 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

Judge McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation. Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have any

arties and an opportunity to be heard." Ex. A Y 14 (emphasis added). In its ex pane application, the prosecutors professed that they had sought out Boies Schiller's file only because "publicly available information regarding the [ v. Maxwell] 6 EFTA00011462 --- PAGE BREAK --- Litigation, includi

17 WL 2834260 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2017) 17 Manhattan Review LLC v. Ytni, 16 Civ. 0102 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 11455317 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC

Judge McMahon that the prosecutors had no idea what was in Boies Schiller's file. Indeed, he insisted, there had been no contact whatsoever between Boies Schiller and United States Attorney's Office before the government commenced its investigation. Nor, said the prosecutor, did Boies Schiller have a

met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged Kramer to open an investigation of" Epstein and Maxwell!' Then, after Maxwell's two depositions, David Boies himself apparently approached the government in the summer of 2016, asking "if the Southern District would consider charging Maxwell with perjury."