DOJ-OGR-00002354.jpg

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