Epstein Secrets

al in full. 211. That's the reply to the motion. The portions mentioning Does 1 and 2 which appear at pages 2, 5, and 6 may be unsealed. 212. Ms. Schultz's declaration in support of the motion. The portions mentioning John Does 1 and 2 which appear at page 2 may be unsealed. 212-1. Doe no. 162's dep

the caveat. 10 173. Ms. McCawley's declaration in support. Unseal 11 173-5. May 18, 2016 deposition transcript of Doe 162. 12 Pages released by the Second Circuit, of course, will remain 13 sealed -- will remain unsealed. Let me say it again. The 14 pages unsealed by the Second Circuit, of course, remain 1

al in full. 211. That's the reply to the motion. The portions mentioning Does 1 and 2 which appear at pages 2, 5, and 6 may be unsealed. 212. Ms. Schultz's declaration in support of the motion. The portions mentioning John Does 1 and 2 which appear at page 2 may be unsealed. 212-1. Doe no. 162's dep

Case 20-2413. Document 40. 08'20/2020. 2913550, Pagel of 74 20-2413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD M

al in full. 211. That's the reply to the motion. The portions mentioning Does 1 and 2 which appear at pages 2, 5, and 6 may be unsealed. 212. Ms. Schultz's declaration in support of the motion. The portions mentioning John Does 1 and 2 which appear at page 2 may be unsealed. 212-1. Doe no. 162's dep

F APPEAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the district court's Order of July 23, 2020, unsealing the deposition materials and the Order of July 29, 2020, denying Ms. Maxwell's motion t

involved in sadomasochistic conduct and sexually explicit child pornography that did not j r involve Cher violence or sadism. United States Schultz, 970 F.2d 960 (1st Cir.I99 AFFIRMED. C.A.6 (Ohio),2003. U.S. I. Fuller 77 Fed.Appx. 371, 2003 WL 22331999 (C.A.6 (Ohio)) END OF DOCUMENT O 200

f- fense, which applies? United States, ev rel. Harris' Daniels, 279 Fed. 844 (2nd Cir.I992), provides guidance on this issue. In Ex. rel. Harris, the Second Circuit was faced with a potential conflict between two senten- cing provisions, one which permitted " 'all sen- tences' of summary court-martial [to] be ca