Epstein Secrets

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

onson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) 143 Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir.

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

onson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) 143 Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir.

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' (

nduct denies a defendant due process only when it is `of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial.' Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434, 440 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765 (1987)). The defendant has otherwise failed to identify ho

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

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

onson v. K. Arakelian, Inc., 154 F.2d 231 (7th Cir. 1946) 19 Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010) 299, 302 Blaszczak, 17 Cr. 357 (LAK) 275 Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1991) 158 Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) 143 Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964 (11th Cir.

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

duct denies a defendant due process only when it is `of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial."' Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434, 440 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765 (1987)). The defendant has otherwise failed to identify ho