DOJ-OGR-00003022.jpg
723 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
5
Events
4
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
723 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed by the prosecution, refutes the defendant's (Maxwell's) motion which alleges collusion between the law firm Boies Schiller and the U.S. Government. The prosecution argues that the defendant's narrative is false, stating that the perjury investigation began in late 2018, years after the meetings between Boies Schiller and a former AUSA, and that this AUSA had no involvement in the decision to open the investigation.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in a civil lawsuit and the subject of perjury charges. She alleges collusion between Boies Schiller and...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the subject of a government investigation and a meeting between AUSA-1 and attorneys from Boies Schiller.
|
|
| AUSA-1 | former Assistant United States Attorney |
Met with lawyers from Boies Schiller about Epstein in February 2016 and received a phone call from Stan Pottinger in ...
|
| Giuffre | Plaintiff |
Filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell in September 2015, represented by Boies Schiller.
|
| Stan Pottinger | Attorney |
An attorney who made a phone call to AUSA-1 in early May 2016.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| New York Daily News | company |
The source of an article the defendant bases her allegations on.
|
| Boies Schiller | company |
A law firm that allegedly colluded with the Government. Represented Giuffre in a lawsuit against Maxwell and met with...
|
| The Government | government agency |
Refers to the U.S. Government, which allegedly colluded with Boies Schiller and later opened an investigation leading...
|
| United States Attorney | government agency |
The office where AUSA-1 was formerly employed.
|
Timeline (5 events)
2015-09
Giuffre, represented by Boies Schiller, filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell.
Southern District of New York
2016-02
Boies Schiller met with the Government to urge an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell.
Summer of 2016
Boies Schiller met with the Government again to ask if they would consider charging the defendant with perjury.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where Giuffre filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell.
|
Relationships (4)
The law firm Boies Schiller represented Giuffre in her lawsuit.
The law firm met with the Government in February and summer of 2016 regarding Epstein and Maxwell.
Pottinger, an attorney, placed a phone call to AUSA-1, a government attorney, in May 2016.
Key Quotes (2)
"precise[] design[]"Source
— The defendant (Maxwell)
(Used to describe the alleged collusion between Boies Schiller and the Government.)
DOJ-OGR-00003022.jpg
Quote #1
"charged with perjury."Source
— The defendant (Maxwell)
(The alleged goal of the collusion between Boies Schiller and the Government.)
DOJ-OGR-00003022.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,135 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 88 of 239
A. Factual Background
The defendant’s motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded starting in at least early 2016 with the “precise[] design[]” of having the defendant “charged with perjury.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 10). In particular, she claims that Boies Schiller met with the Government in February 2016, urged the Government to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell, told the Government what was in its files, and met with the Government again in the summer of 2016 to ask if it would consider charging the defendant with perjury after her two depositions. (Id. at 2, 8).
That is not so. While a now former Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA-1”) met with a lawyer from Boies Schiller and two other attorneys about Epstein in February 2016, that meeting was not focused on the defendant, and AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys. Moreover, that February 2016 meeting pre-dated the depositions that gave rise to the perjury counts in the Indictment, which itself was obtained more than four years thereafter.26 The Indictment was instead the product of an investigation that was not opened until late 2018 and that had nothing to do with a meeting that had taken place nearly three years earlier with an AUSA who played no part in the decision to open the 2018 investigation and similarly played no part in the 2018 investigation itself.
1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell
In or about September 2015, Giuffre, represented by Boies Schiller, filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt.
26 While, as discussed herein, the Government has uncovered evidence of a phone call from one of the attorneys, Stan Pottinger, to AUSA-1 in early May 2016, AUSA-1 has no specific memory of that call, nor did AUSA-1 provide any notes or records of that call to the team working on the instant investigation.
61
DOJ-OGR-00003022
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document