strict of Florida Virginia L. Giuffre, Plaintiff, Case No.: 9:16-mc-81608-DMM Underlying Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS (Southern District of New York) (Sweet, J.) v. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. / PLAINTIFF’S SEALED DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE

acts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.’ Jd. Ginternal quotations and citations omitted); Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80, 83 (2d Cir.2000). “But where evidence relevant to the jurisdictional question is before the court, ‘the district court ... m

at “Donald Trump liked flicking and sucking her nipples until ' As you know, on June 21, 2017, we, on behalf of Professor Dershowitz ,wrote to Judge Sweet asking that, in the event that Ms. I deposition were unsealed (or its designation as “confidential” by the parties withdrawn), the Court permit publi

ings, that Mr. Epstein invoked his 5“ amendment rights and declined to answer substantive questions during the deposition. It also appears that Judge Sweet had not yet made a final determination as to whether Mr. Epstein’s depo, or selected portions thereof, would be admitted at trial (which is obviously

SE_OVERSIGHT_025430 --- PAGE BREAK --- Flags: 1085445 Is Read: No Is Invitation: No Gl OF (o} GUID: 7A66020B-E39D-4FE4-BE8C-AC162755DI Message: Sweet Sender: e:[email protected] Time: 02/27/19 09:25:36 AM (572981136) Flags: 1085445 Is Read: No Is Invitation: No GUID: 7AE4B76F-91E7-4CDE-ACCB-

[email protected]]; Bennet J. Moskowitz Fwd: JUDGE SWEET ALLOWING STEVEN HOFFENBERG TO TALK WITH THE TOWER

Jeffrey Epstein [[email protected]] RE: JUDGE SWEET ALLOWING STEVEN HOFFENBERG TO TALK WITH THE TOWER

Jeffrey Epstein [[email protected]] RE: JUDGE SWEET ALLOWING STEVEN HOFFENBERG TO TALK WITH THE TOWER

T TRUMP GET OUT THE VOTE IN NOVEM BER !!!!! JUDGE SWEET PLAYS THE KEY PART NOW IN THE TOWERS VICTIMS SUIT

in. Finally, cyanide pills had been secreted inside their bodies, in order to eliminate the killers once they had fulfilled their programs. No wonder Sweet admitted, "If I were to die without finishing this book, then someone out there would undoubtedly set up a Web page claiming that I' d been bumped of

our time. I am attaching the following documents for your review: 1. Complaint in the defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell (just today, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss today); 2. Declarations tha=filed in the CVRA case; 3. The Rule 56.1 statement recently filed in the CVRA case;

your time. I am attaching the following documents for your review: 1. Complaint in the defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell (just today, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss toda 2. Declarations that iled in the CVRA case; 3. The Rule 56.1 statement recently filed in the CVRA case;

u. (He may be the only person who has these additional names. Not sure that the USA or the Bureau has them.) 2. I will be receiving a copy of Judge Sweet's confidentiality order in v. Maxwell and will forward it to you when I get it. (Vacations this week are slowing things a bit.) 3. With regard to

From: To: Subject: FW: Confidentiality Order - v. Maxwell (Judge Sweet) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 19:14:52 +0000 Attachments: 2017-11-14_Sealed_Opinion.pdf; 2016-03-18 [DE 62] Protective_Order.pdf; 2017-07- 18 JDE_56]_New

te: July 18, 2017 Docket #: 16-3945cv Short Title: v. Maxwell CLERK OF COURT DC Docket #: 15-cv-7433 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY) DC Judge: Sweet NOTICE OF CASE MANAGER CHANGE The case manager assigned to this matter has been changed. Inquiries regarding this case may be directed to EFTA000

021 10:40 AM To: (USANYS) Cc: (USANYS) ‹ > Subject: RE: Question re A1N/Maxwell Suppression Hearing Can I see our original application to Judge Sweet? And I assume there was no transcript before Judge S? EFTA00015277 --- PAGE BREAK --- From: (USANYS) Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 5:45 PM To:

idential information at the conclusion of the case, including Maxwell's deposition transcripts refused to do so although ordered to do so by Judge Sweet.' In its application to the governmen Not only did the government misunderstand how the Protective Order worked, but its argument also supports r

The district court denied the motion to unseal. The Miami Herald appealed on September 28, 2018. On July 3, 2019 the Second Circuit reversed Judge Sweet's ruling. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 44-45 (2d Cir. 2019). Upon the issuance of the mandate, on August 9, 2019, it largely unsealed the summary

be heard, but also by affirmatively misleading Chief Judge McMahon, 2 To this day, Judge Preska—who is presiding over the Giuffre action since Judge Sweet's passing and is addressing the Protective Order on a daily basis as the parties brief what material should be unsealed—apparently does not know th

your time. I am attaching the following documents for your review: 1. Complaint in the defamation case against Ghislaine Maxwell (just today, Judge Sweet denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss today); 2. Declarations that filed in the CVRA case; 3. The Rule 56.1 statement recently filed in the CVRA cas