Epstein Secrets

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

n in April 2019. Ex. E. Judge McMahon held that conference for one reason: to learn "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller law firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena." Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge McMahon that the government's investigation beg

AUSA met with attorneys from Boies Schiller, who "urged n o 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."

; 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."

to make reference to certain subjects relating to the Investigation." That "publicly available information," the government claimed, indicated that the Boies Schiller file might "contain information relevant to the ongoing Investigation" of Jeffrey Epstein. Ex. C, 14. Nowhere did the government acknowledge that B

en AUSA 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

y prosecution after a second meeting with attorneys, which took place after at least one of Maxwell's depositions. As reported in the Daily News, "David [Boles] was particularly frustrated by the failure to pursue a perjury charge.s13 "We have her dead to rights," he said.14 This Court cannot accept without

y should have told Judge McMahon about the February 2016 meeting when she asked him "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation"—i.e., Epstein. AUSA did not tell Chief Judge McMahon about the 17

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

n in April 2019. Ex. E. Judge McMahon held that conference for one reason: to learn "about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller law firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena." Ex. E, p 2. The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Judge McMahon that the government's investigation beg

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."