DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
621 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
621 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing in the criminal case against Maxwell, argues that the government's prosecution is fundamentally flawed. The defense claims the government made untrue representations to circumvent a civil Protective Order from the 'Giuffre v. Maxwell' defamation case, and improperly used Maxwell's deposition transcripts from that case to bring perjury charges. The document requests that the Court suppress this evidence or grant a hearing to investigate the matter.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mary McCarthy |
Mentioned in a paraphrase at the beginning of the document regarding her 'philippic about Lillian Hellman'.
|
|
| Lillian Hellman |
Mentioned in a paraphrase at the beginning of the document as the subject of Mary McCarthy's 'philippic'.
|
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
The subject of the prosecution, accused of perjury based on depositions from a civil case. The document argues for th...
|
| Virginia Giuffre | Plaintiff |
Filed a civil defamation case against Maxwell in 2015, alleging Maxwell defamed her by denying allegations of sexual ...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Mentioned as the person by whom Giuffre alleged she was 'sexually abused and trafficked' in a scheme involving Maxwell.
|
|
| Norman Mailer | Author |
Cited in a footnote as the author of an article in the New York Times titled “An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary M...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government | government agency |
Refers to the prosecuting body in the Maxwell case, whose representation is described as 'untrue'.
|
| This Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, which the document argues has the authority to suppress evidence.
|
| New York Times | company |
Cited in a footnote as the publisher of an article by Norman Mailer.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2015
Virginia Giuffre filed a civil defamation case, Giuffre v. Maxwell.
The Maxwell prosecution, which the document claims was fomented based on information obtained by circumventing a civil Protective Order.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for the New York Times article.
|
Relationships (2)
Giuffre filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell (Giuffre v. Maxwell).
The document states Giuffre alleged that Maxwell participated in a scheme with Jeffrey Epstein to cause Giuffre to be sexually abused and trafficked.
Key Quotes (4)
"including ‘and’ and ‘the.’"Source
— Mary McCarthy (paraphrased)
(Used to describe the extent to which the government's representation was allegedly untrue, referencing a famous quote.)
DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
Quote #1
"untrue"Source
— Maxwell’s attorney-hired press agent
(A word used by Maxwell's press agent to deny Giuffre's allegations.)
DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
Quote #2
"obvious lies"Source
— Maxwell’s attorney-hired press agent
(A phrase used by Maxwell's press agent to deny Giuffre's allegations.)
DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
Quote #3
"sexually abused and trafficked"Source
— Virginia Giuffre (allegation)
(Describes what Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein caused to happen to her.)
DOJ-OGR-00002354(1).jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,721 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 134 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 23
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy’s philippic about Lillian Hellman, every word of the government’s representation was untrue, “including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”¹ The government knew what was in the [REDACTED] had provided that information well before the investigation began. The government did indeed have previous contact with [REDACTED]. And [REDACTED] was instrumental in fomenting the Maxwell prosecution.
The record is surpassingly clear: But for the [REDACTED] never would have permitted the circumvention of the civil Protective Order, on which Maxwell relied in agreeing to sit for her depositions. This Court therefore has both the authority and the duty to suppress the fruits of that misrepresentation, including the [REDACTED] and the two perjury counts based on those transcripts. If the Court is disinclined to exercise that inherent authority on the present record, Maxwell should be granted a hearing to examine the circumstances that resulted in the [REDACTED].
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Protective Order in Giuffre v. Maxwell
Counts Five and Six of the superseding indictment allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions taken in Giuffre v. Maxwell, a civil defamation case Virginia Giuffre filed in 2015. Giuffre claimed that Maxwell defamed her when Maxwell’s attorney-hired press agent denied as “untrue” and “obvious lies” Giuffre’s numerous allegations, over the span of four years, that Maxwell had participated in a scheme to cause Giuffre to be “sexually abused and trafficked” by Jeffrey Epstein.
¹ See Norman Mailer, “An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy,” 5/11/80 New York Times.
2
DOJ-OGR-00002354
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document