Epstein Secrets

explain this in more detail. Maxwell Pre-Trial Mot. Nos. 4 8c 5. But the point is this: The defamation case should have been extremely narrow, but Boies Schiller transformed it into something much broader—a proxy prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell for allegedly trafficking and abusing Giuffre, which

ns," Reply ISO Mot. to Suppress, Ex. J, p 8, and David Boies later complained about his frustration that the g

A: Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Disclose Alleged "On-going Criminal Investigations by Law Enforcement" or, In the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv- 07433-RWS, Apr. 18, 2016 EXHIBIT B: Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-cv-07433-RWS, Transcript, Apr. 21, 2016 EFTA00100291 Ghislaine Maxwell

n District of New York against Maxwell or Epstein's estate, the government deliberately chose not to intervene in the on-going unsealing process in Giuffre v. Maxwell. In the only other active SDNY case against Epstein, Doe v. Indyke, No. 20-cv-484-JLIC, the government intervened and moved to stay discovery, sayi

nly in 2014, when her lawyers `pressured' her to do so for financial reasons."2° (u) August 30, 2019, on NewsmaxTV:2' "[A]s soon as [Plaintiff] met David Boies and the other lawyers, suddenly she remembered having had sex with me. It's totally made up. I never met her." (v) October 19, 2019, on Twitter: "

then they meet David Boies, and suddenly they make accusations. There's a term for that, and I want the federal government to be examining whether Boies is guilty of subornation of perjury. I want the federal government to examine whether Boies is guilty of extortion, of trying to get a billion doll

d not claim that Plaintiff's lawyers had told him that they did not believe her. 86. Instead, the morning of December 9, 2015, Defendant pleaded: "David, Have we given up on a mutually acceptable statement from VR or you. Let's keep trying. We are not that far apart." When Plaintiff's lawyer did not

e. She's made up the whole story. There is no truth to it." (t) August 12, 2019, in a press statement issued after the Second Circuit's ruling in Giuffre v. Maxwell: "She invented the false accusation against me only in 2014, when her lawyers `pressured' her to do so for financial reasons."2° (u) August 30, 201

mited number of emails from the attorneys (see Exs. 6 & 7).30 AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys and has never met David Boies. (See Ex. 4 at 4). AUSA-1 recalls being aware of depositions as a general matter, but she does not recall having knowledge of who had been deposed

gain cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boles Schiller") to obta

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00077689 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "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"' (

y contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. A

on in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition m

on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of the full factual record. The motion should be denied. allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)

mited number of emails from the attorneys (see Exs. 6 & 7).30 AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys and has never met David Boies. (See Ex. 4 at 4). AUSA-1 recalls being aware of depositions as a general matter, but she does not recall having knowledge of who had been deposed

gain cites the subpoena the Government issued to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP ("Boles Schiller") to obta

as aware, Doe v. Indyke was the "lone case in this District that has not yet been either resolved or stayed at this point. . . In 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00039504 particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which claims against Ghislaine M

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "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"' (

y contrast, the Government accurately conveyed to Chief Judge McMahon the opening of its investigation in late 2018, the reason it made contact with Boies Schiller shortly thereafter and served a subpoena in February 2019, and that no documents governed by the protective order had yet been produced. A

on in ordering the unsealing of the deposition materials and that Maxwell's interests outweighed the public's interests in access to the materials. Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.), (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 2). On October 19, 2020, the Second Circuit found that Judge Preska "correctly held that the deposition m

on a motion to dismiss without the benefit of the full factual record. The motion should be denied. allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)

ited number of emails from the attorneys (see Exs. 6 & 7).3° AUSA- I did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys and has never met David Boies. (See Ex. 4 at 4). AUSA- I recalls being aware of depositions as a general matter, but she does not recall having knowledge of who had been deposed

ges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded 60 EFTA000

stayed at this point. . . In particular, this matter appears to be the only remaining active civil case in this District in which 23 In particular, Giuffre v. Maxwell was resolved in 2017 and the determination of what material should remain sealed remains the only open issue. Accordingly, there is no more discover

by a stay in the Doe case because the outcome of the criminal case could resolve disputed issues in the Doe case. Such concerns are not present in Giuffre v. Maxwell. 57 EFTA00095149 claims against Ghislaine Maxwell have been asserted." (20 Civ. 484 (DCF) (JGK), Dkt. No. 80 at 2). The defendant's baseless con

rtindell standard. "circ --- it cited 11 times in its argument to both relevant courts. (See (Exs. 8 Instead, the Government issued a subpoena to Boies in connection with its investigation, and made an application to two judges to modify Rule 26(c) protective orders that precluded full compliance

ot. 3, Ex. D at 17). In support of her argument, Maxwell cites again to the Daily News Article, which reports that "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' (

ess attaches, and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Maxwell's meritless arguments that her interests superseded the presumption of access." Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 20-2413 (2d Cir.) (Dkt. No. 140-1 at 3).43 On October 22, 2020, the defendant's April 2016 deposition was publicly filed. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (L

Count Six, stating that the "testimony is .. . far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell." (Def. Mot. 4, Ex. I at 7:3-6.) (The last colloquy has been unsealed except for Minor Victim-2's name. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt. No. 1212-1).)

EOUSA-2019-003550 Completed Sigrid S McCawley BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP Request EOUSA INPUT: Pleas

1:16 -cv-3989 (S.D.N.Y.) Doe v. Trump et al, No. 1:16-cv-4642 (S.D.N.Y.) Doe v. Trump et al, No. 1 :16-cv-7673 (S.D.N.Y.) Page 12 EFTA00091027 Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 16-cv-3945 (2d Cir.) Doe (MM) v. Epstein et al, No. 1:17-cv-616 (S.D.N. K) Brown v. Maxwell, Nos. 18-2868-cv, 16-3945-cv (L), 17-1625 (CON), 1

v. Epstein et al, No. 1:17-cv-616 (S.D.N. K) Brown v. Maxwell, Nos. 18-2868-cv, 16-3945-cv (L), 17-1625 (CON), 17-1722(CON) (2d Cir. July 3, 2019) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 17-cv-16 25 (2d Cir.) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 17-cv-1722 (2d Cir.) Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 18-cv-2868 (2d Cir.) Gerber et al v. The Financial