Epstein Secrets

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' (

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

irectly rebutting the defendant's allegations, there is no material issue of fact sufficient to justify an evidentiary hearing. The defendant cites Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to suggest that a hearing is somehow warranted, but her motion falls far short of the Franks standard to obtain a hearing. "W

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."13 "We have her dead to rights," he said.14 This Court cannot accept without

t foment the Government's investigation. Moreover, the Assistant United States Attorney has represented to this Court that he has no idea what is in Boies Schiller's files, and that for all he knows every witness who was deposed stood on his/her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions.

Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) 20 Four Star Fin. Servs., LLC v. Commonwealth Mgmt. Assocs., 166 F. Supp. 2d 805 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 25 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 20, 22 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 8, 15 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) 20 In re WinNet

; 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."

(2d Ck 2019) 3, 6 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 510 U.S. 32 (1991) 17 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) passim Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 18 Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 16 Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 6 Klein v. Weidner, Civ. No. 08-379

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

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

20 (2d Cir. 1928) 45 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146 Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Assn, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170,171 Gatlo, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK) 275 Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) 125 Graham v. Co

Boies it was issued. The materials provided by Boies Schiller inclnin addition tIl inscripts of Maxwell and other individuals, materials proday N/14!I

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' (

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

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

(2d Cir. 1928) 45 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146 Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170, 171 Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK) 275 Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) 125 Graham v. C

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

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

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

(2d Cir. 1928) 45 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146 Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170, 171 Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK) 275 Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) 125 Graham v. C

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

tain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing," United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were "inaccuracies or omissions" in the affidavit, (ii) "the alleged falsehoods or omissions were nece

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

(2d Cir. 1928) 45 Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) 140, 146 Flagg v. Yonkers Say. & Loan Ass 'n, 396 F.3d 178 (2d Cir. 2005) 143 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) 166, 169, 170, 171 Gatto, 17 Cr. 686 (LAK) 275 Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (2d Cir. 1991) 125 Graham v. C