DOJ-OGR-00002420.jpg
569 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (motion/brief in criminal case)
File Size:
569 KB
Summary
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) dated February 4, 2021. It outlines Counts Five and Six of the indictment against Ghislaine Maxwell, citing specific testimony from April and July 2016 depositions alleged to be perjury regarding her knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's recruitment of underage girls and the presence of sex toys at his Palm Beach home. The text also notes a potential violation of a protective order by Giuffre's lawyers in sharing confidential deposition contents with the government.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Accused of making false statements (perjury) during 2016 depositions.
|
| Giuffre | Plaintiff (Civil Case) |
Her lawyers urged the government to charge Maxwell with perjury.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate/Subject of Inquiry |
Subject of deposition questions regarding recruitment schemes and possession of sex toys.
|
| Giuffre's lawyers | Attorneys |
Urged the Government to charge Ms. Maxwell.
|
| Brown | Author/Source |
Cited in footnote 5.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution/Law Enforcement urged to charge Maxwell.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mr. Epstein's property where sex toys were allegedly present.
|
|
|
General reference to locations where interactions with minors may have occurred.
|
Relationships (2)
Questioned about interactions at his properties and knowledge of his schemes.
Giuffre's lawyers urged perjury charges against Maxwell.
Key Quotes (4)
"I don’t know what you’re talking about."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002420.jpg
Quote #1
"I’m not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the plaintiff] who was 17 at this point."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002420.jpg
Quote #2
"No, not that I recall. . . ."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002420.jpg
Quote #3
"It is unclear how the attorneys could have done so without violating the protective order"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002420.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,566 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136 Filed 02/04/21 Page 11 of 27
In mid-2016 after this second deposition, according to media reports, Giuffre’s lawyers
urged the Government to charge Ms. Maxwell with perjury based on her testimony. 5 It is
unclear how the attorneys could have done so without violating the protective order, which
forbade them from sharing the contents of these “confidential” depositions with law
enforcement.
urged the Government to charge Ms. Maxwell with perjury based on her testimony. 5 It is
unclear how the attorneys could have done so without violating the protective order, which
forbade them from sharing the contents of these “confidential” depositions with law
enforcement.
II. The Indictment
Count Five of the Indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell made two false statements during
the first deposition in April 2016. Count 5 alleges that the following italicized testimony by Ms.
Maxwell was both material and false:
the first deposition in April 2016. Count 5 alleges that the following italicized testimony by Ms.
Maxwell was both material and false:
Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual
massages? If you know.
massages? If you know.
A. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey’s
properties?
properties?
A. I’m not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously [the
plaintiff] who was 17 at this point.
plaintiff] who was 17 at this point.
Indictment ¶ 21.
Count Six alleges that Ms. Maxwell gave false testimony during a subsequent deposition
in the same action in July 2016. Count Six alleges that the following italicized testimony from
that deposition was both material and false:
in the same action in July 2016. Count Six alleges that the following italicized testimony from
that deposition was both material and false:
Q. Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities
in Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach house?
in Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach house?
A. No, not that I recall. . . .
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual
activities?
activities?
5 Brown, supra n.4.
6
DOJ-OGR-00002420
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document