Epstein Secrets

l servitude. Id., 11 97. CICO action Defendants Great St. Jim, LLC and Nautilus, Inc.—for which CICO action Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn served, respectively, as Secretary and Treasurer—knowingly participated in the Epstein Enterprise and facilitated the trafficking a

n Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn served, respectively, as Secreta

O action Defendants and Epstein Estate Executors Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn served, respectively, as

mechanism. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), rev'd on other grounds, Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016), ECF No. 496 (Opinion Granting Dershowitz Motion to Intervene); Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 Civ. 743

r US$4.95 million by an anonymous limited liability company, with an address that matches the office of J. Epstein & Co. Representing the buyer was Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer.12] In April 2016, the property was sold for US$15 million.(21 Following her personal and professional involvement with

Epstein & Co. Representing the buyer was Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer.12] In April 2016, the

e of J. Epstein & Co. Representing the buyer was Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime lawyer.12] In April 20

ircuit.rI91 On March 11, 2019, in the appeal of the district judge's refusal to unseal the documents relating to • the 2017 defamation settlement of Giuffre v. Maxwell, the Second Circuit Court gave parties one week to provide good cause as to why they should remain under seal, without which they would be unsealed

ted States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v.

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

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

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

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

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

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

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

e like a queen and protect me from my ex husband, Darren McDiarmid / restraining order / domestic violenc

ircuit.1i531 On March it, 2019, in the appeal of the district judge's refusal to unseal the documents relating to the 2017 defamation settlement of Giuffre v. Maxwell, the Second Circuit Court gave parties one week to provide good cause as to why they should remain under seal, without which they would be unsealed