Epstein Secrets

make any sense. What is the universe we are 13 talking about? 14 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, I certainly understand all 15 of the members of the Boles firm that currently represent her. 16 The third individual, if I understand correctly, is a gentleman 17 by the name of Stan Pottinger. He is a l

ant to the Court's exercise of its inherent supervisory powers. The documents at issue here relate to discovery motions previously decided by Judge Sweet, and so the Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00076444 Case 20-2413, Document 44, 08/20/2020, 2913556, Page63 of 78 3

claim the statement he attributed to Boies that claims were "wrong ... simply wrong." (Comp. at 17(c)). Although the Complaint does not state that Boles is the lawyer who made the statement, it concedes that the statement was made and that the statement was used to sup r ii ershowitz's claim that D

ge at all." (Del Dismiss Rep. at 10). Whatever he means by this formulation, it does not trump the New York Court of . The Court agrees with Judge Sweet's holding in v. Maxwell that either constitutional malice or law malice can defeat the self-defense privilege, Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d at 155, an

016) (cf)". WWW.BSFLLP COM EFTA00625094 09/13/2018 18:LA FAX • • ease 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 433 Filed 09/15/16 Page I of I a] 0003/0003 Boles. SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Honorable Judge Sweet District Court Judge September 13, 2016 Page 2 Neither on or before August 25, 2016. In ligh

rict Court Judge United States District Court 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Giuffre v. Maxwell, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS Dear Judge Sweet: -22il • PH. 954.356 00il • rA Si id S. McCawley. Esq. E-mail: 2 ,TECEOWIE - Th ISEP 1 12016 I JUDGE SWEET CHAMBERS USDC SDNY ELECTR a A 7 t

-1.1465631 EFTA00075069 Cea110812111004032112160AVINDISitioititrSINWIME28207Agacanif 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan July 21, 2020 Page 6 Mr. Boles and Ms. McCawley gave on-air interviews with ABC News following Ms. Maxwell's detention that contained repeated, presumptively prejudicial quotes, i

n part, Ms. Maxwell needed information concerning any such investigation to assess "the impact on any 5th Amendment privilege." Id. at 2, 4-5. Judge Sweet denied that motion. The day before Ms. Maxwell's deposition, the Court ordered that "[a]ny materials that the plaintiff has with respect to any cri