Gary Bloxsome
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Prince Andrew
|
Legal representative |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
HRH The Duke of York
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew, the Duke of York
|
Client |
2
|
2 | |
|
person
[Redacted AUSA]
|
Opposing counsel |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Daniel Cundy
|
Professional |
1
|
1 | |
|
location
USANYS
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
HRH The Duke of York
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alison/SDNY
|
Opposing counsel |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jennifer Richardson
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
SDNY Assistant U.S. Attorney
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Assistant U.S. Attorney
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Daniel Cundy
|
Business associate |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Prince Andrew
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Client
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Duke of York
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-09-23 | N/A | Email correspondence regarding reference materials following a phone call. | View | |
| 2020-08-11 | N/A | Proposed follow-up call between SDNY and Gary Bloxsome. | Phone (London/New York) | View |
| 2020-08-03 | N/A | Scheduled call at 4:00 p.m. (LDN time) | Phone/Remote | View |
| 2020-08-03 | N/A | Teleconference between SDNY prosecutors and Blackfords LLP lawyers. | Teleconference (4:00 PM LDN... | View |
| 2020-07-27 | N/A | Conference call between Blackfords legal team and SDNY team. | Teleconference | View |
| 2020-07-27 | N/A | Scheduled conference call between Blackfords LLP (Gary Bloxsome) and SDNY to discuss potential in... | Teleconference | View |
| 2020-07-27 | N/A | Conversation between SDNY and Gary Bloxsome | Phone/Remote | View |
| 2020-07-14 | N/A | Proposal of a 'Negotiation Period' regarding Prince Andrew's interview | Email Correspondence | View |
| 2020-06-08 | N/A | Public statement issued by Prince Andrew's legal team (referenced in emails) | UK/Media | View |
| 2020-01-10 | N/A | Preliminary phone call between DOJ prosecutors and Prince Andrew's legal team. | Telephone | View |
| 2020-01-10 | N/A | Proposed preliminary telephone call between Gary Bloxsome (counsel for Prince Andrew) and SDNY pr... | Telephone | View |
| 2020-01-10 | N/A | Scheduled telephone call between Gary Bloxsome and DOJ team. | Telephone | View |
| 2020-01-10 | N/A | Preliminary telephone call between Blackfords LLP (Gary Bloxsome) and US Prosecutors (SDNY). | Telephone | View |
| 2020-01-10 | N/A | Telephone conversation between Gary Bloxsome and SDNY prosecutors regarding the interview request. | Telephone | View |
| 2020-01-10 | N/A | Proposed preliminary telephone call between Blackfords LLP (Gary Bloxsome) and SDNY Prosecutors. | Telephone | View |
| 2020-01-02 | N/A | US DOJ prosecutors reach out to Prince Andrew's legal counsel regarding the Jeffrey Epstein inves... | Email correspondence | View |
EFTA00030698.pdf
This document is an email chain from January 2020 between Gary Bloxsome (Blackfords LLP) and prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice, Southern District of New York (SDNY). The SDNY formally requests a 'consensual, voluntary law enforcement interview' with Bloxsome's client, HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew), regarding the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Bloxsome confirms he represents the Duke and arranges a preliminary telephone call for January 10, 2020.
EFTA00030692.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between the U.S. Department of Justice (SDNY) and Gary Bloxsome of Blackfords LLP in early January 2020. The DOJ formally requests a voluntary law enforcement interview with Bloxsome's client, HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew), regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The correspondence confirms Blackfords' representation of the Duke and arranges a preliminary telephone discussion for January 10, 2020.
EFTA00030190.pdf
This document contains a chain of email correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USANYS) and Gary Bloxsome, the attorney representing Prince Andrew (the Duke of York), from January to June 2020. The correspondence details the DOJ's attempts to schedule a voluntary interview with Prince Andrew regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, and the subsequent breakdown in relations after U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman publicly stated that the Prince had provided "zero cooperation." The emails show the legal team's stalling regarding "procedures" and their anger at the breach of perceived confidentiality, while the DOJ expresses frustration at the lack of a commitment to an interview date.
EFTA00028537.pdf
This document is an email header dated September 23, 2020, sent to Gary Bloxsome and copied to Daniel Cundy, Jennifer Richardson, and an individual at USANYS. The subject line 'RE: Reference materials further to our call' suggests a legal or professional follow-up providing documentation after a discussion. The document contains standard email metadata and significant redactions of contact information.
EFTA00026542.pdf
This document contains an email exchange from January 2020 between Gary Bloxsome of Blackfords LLP and federal prosecutors from the Southern District of New York. The prosecutors, investigating conduct related to Jeffrey Epstein, inquired if Blackfords represented HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew). Gary Bloxsome confirmed the representation and asked for clarification regarding the specific reason for the contact.
EFTA00023817.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 28 to August 3, 2020, between SDNY prosecutors (including an AUSA and Alison) and UK defense attorneys from Blackfords LLP (Gary Bloxsome, Jennifer Richardson). The correspondence negotiates the terms of a voluntary interview for a Blackfords client (unnamed in text, but contextually relevant to Prince Andrew) in connection with 'US v Maxwell'. Key topics include protections against evidence use outside the Maxwell case, immunity comparable to MLAT proceedings, elements of 18 U.S.C. 1001 (False Statements), and the extension of a 'Negotiation Period' to August 10, 2020.
EFTA00023804.pdf
This document is a chain of email correspondence between the U.S. Department of Justice (SDNY) and Gary Bloxsome, the lawyer representing Prince Andrew, spanning January to February 2020. The DOJ explicitly requests a voluntary interview with Prince Andrew regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. While Bloxsome claims the Prince desires to cooperate, tensions escalate when U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman publicly states that Prince Andrew has provided 'zero cooperation,' leading Bloxsome to accuse the DOJ of breaching confidentiality agreements.
EFTA00023791.pdf
This document contains a chain of emails between Gary Bloxsome (representing Prince Andrew, the Duke of York) and an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in July 2020. The correspondence details tense negotiations regarding a request for Prince Andrew to sit for a voluntary interview concerning the Epstein investigation. Key points of contention include the confidentiality of the proceedings, allegations of media leaks by US officials (specifically Geoffrey Berman and Audrey Strauss), and the legal mechanisms of the interview (voluntary vs. compelled via MLAT). The SDNY proposes a two-week confidential negotiation period to resolve the impasse.
EFTA00023783.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between Gary Bloxsome (counsel for Prince Andrew/Duke of York) and an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York in July 2020. The correspondence concerns negotiations for Prince Andrew to provide a voluntary interview to US authorities regarding the Epstein investigation. The US side threatens a compelled interview via MLAT if no voluntary date is set, while the UK side complains about leaks, 'media circus', and seeks strict confidentiality assurances before agreeing to an interview.
EFTA00023782.pdf
Email from an SDNY Assistant U.S. Attorney to Gary Bloxsome (lawyer, likely for Prince Andrew based on context of 2020 Epstein/Maxwell investigation and MLAT/London references) regarding 'Sensitive Correspondence.' The email provides a blank proffer agreement, outlines the legal elements of making false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and discusses protections under the MLAT process for a potential voluntary interview. It also confirms a negotiation period extension until August 10, 2020.
EFTA00022980.pdf
This document is a chain of emails between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and Blackfords LLP, legal counsel for Prince Andrew, in January 2020. The DOJ formally requests a voluntary interview with Prince Andrew regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. While Prince Andrew's lawyers claim he desires to cooperate, they delay the interview to handle 'preliminary issues,' leading to public tension when US Attorney Geoffrey Berman tells the press there has been 'zero co-operation,' provoking an angry rebuttal from Blackfords.
EFTA00022201.pdf
This document is an email thread between an Assistant U.S. Attorney from the Southern District of New York and Gary Bloxsome, a partner at Blackfords LLP in London, dating from July 28 to August 10, 2020. The correspondence details negotiations for a 'voluntary interview' (proffer) of Bloxsome's unnamed client regarding the client's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, specifically focusing on communications and knowledge of sexual activity with women or girls. Key points of negotiation include the scope of immunity (SDNY offering limited use immunity versus the broader protections of an MLAT compelled interview) and the specific legal ramifications of providing false statements under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001.
EFTA00022199.pdf
An email from Daniel Cundy (Blackfords LLP) dated August 9, 2020, providing legal reference materials following a phone call. The email attaches extracts regarding Financial Conduct Authority procedures and criminal law fraud procedures. The text discusses legal protections regarding compulsory powers in MLAT (Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty) requests, citing *United States v. Allen* and *Kastigar v. United States* (protection against self-incrimination).
EFTA00017042.pdf
This document is a chain of email correspondence between the U.S. Department of Justice (Southern District of New York) and Gary Bloxsome, the attorney representing Prince Andrew (Duke of York), spanning January to February 2020. The DOJ formally requests a voluntary interview with Prince Andrew regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The correspondence deteriorates into a dispute over confidentiality after US Attorney Geoffrey Berman publicly states that Prince Andrew has provided 'zero cooperation,' which Bloxsome argues violates previous assurances of confidentiality and misrepresents the Duke's willingness to cooperate.
EFTA00010321.pdf
This document is an email chain from August and September 2020 between the US Attorney's Office (SDNY) and Blackfords LLP, the legal team representing the Duke of York (Prince Andrew). The correspondence details a stalemate in negotiations regarding the Duke's cooperation with the investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The Duke's lawyers offer a written witness statement limited primarily to the 1994-1997 period, citing concerns that the US views him as a 'subject' rather than a witness. The SDNY rejects this offer, declaring the written statement insufficient, and informs the defense they will proceed with a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request to the UK authorities (UKCA) to seek a compelled interview.
RE: Reference materials further to our call
Subject indicates follow-up to a phone call providing reference materials. Contains embedded message file.
RE: Reference materials further to our call
SDNY rejects the offer of a written statement, stating it will not assist the investigation. SDNY informs Blackfords they will move forward with an MLA request to the UKCA for a 'compelled interview'.
Re: Reference materials further to our call
Bloxsome reiterates that the Duke will provide a witness statement and answer relevant written questions, including those outside the Maxwell indictment scope, but refuses an in-person/video interview.
Re: Reference materials further to our call
Bloxsome disputes SDNY's summary of their position. Offers a written witness statement regarding the Maxwell indictment (1994-1997) and written answers to relevant events even if outside that period.
RE: Reference materials further to our call
SDNY demands a yes/no answer on two points: 1) Will the client sit for a voluntary interview? 2) Will the client answer questions outside the 1994-1997 period? States that repeating the offer of written answers will be interpreted as a 'negative' to both.
RE: Reference materials further to our call
SDNY seeks to confirm their understanding that the client refuses a voluntary interview and refuses to answer questions outside the 1994-1997 period.
Re: Reference materials further to our call
Long email detailing the UK legal perspective. States the Duke is willing to provide a written witness statement on Maxwell/Epstein issues (1994-1997). Notes SDNY views the Duke as a 'subject' rather than a 'witness', justifying the refusal of an oral interview. Demands confidentiality assurance.
RE: Sensitive Correspondence
Discussing terms of proffer agreement, limited immunity, scope of interview questions regarding Maxwell/Epstein, and clarification on public accusations.
RE: Sensitive Correspondence
Acknowledging receipt of email and requesting documents be sent as soon as practicable.
Re: Sensitive Correspondence
Confirming time and date for call.
Unknown (Reply context)
Proposing a follow-up call for Tuesday, August 11 at 5:00 PM London time.
RE: Sensitive Correspondence
Receipt of email, will confer and speak Monday.
Re: Sensitive Correspondence
Requesting specific undertakings/protections equivalent to MLAT interview regarding use of evidence in US v Maxwell and potential UK prosecutions.
Re: Sensitive Correspondence
Outlining conditions for client interview, specifically regarding use of evidence in US v Maxwell and protections against prosecution.
RE: Sensitive Correspondence
Providing jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 1001 (False Statements) subsection (2).
Unknown (Reply context)
Providing update on jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. 1001 regarding false statements.
RE: Sensitive Correspondence
Follow up on conversation, attaching blank proffer agreement, discussing 18 U.S.C. 1001, extending negotiation period.
RE: Sensitive Correspondence
Sending blank proffer agreement, defining legal statutes (18 U.S.C. 1001), and extending negotiation period to August 10.
RE: Sensitive Correspondence
Follow-up to a call on July 27, 2020. Provides a blank proffer agreement and details on 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements). Discusses MLAT process and voluntary interview protections. Confirms a call for Aug 3 and extends a 'Negotiation Period' to Aug 10, 2020.
Re: Sensitive correspondence
Providing dial-in numbers and guest PIN for a conference call.
Re: Sensitive correspondence
Confirming call at 4pm LDN time on Monday 27th July 2020. Asking about dial-in logistics due to lockdown.
Re: Sensitive correspondence
Accepting conference number and confirming call on Monday.
Re: Sensitive correspondence
Confirming availability for call on Monday July 27 at 4:00 PM GMT+1. Clarifying that confidentiality applies to the 'Negotiation Period'.
Re: Sensitive correspondence
Accepting implicit non-disclosure from previous email. Proposing call for Monday 27th July.
Re: Sensitive correspondence
Confirming receipt of previous email and promising to revert back.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity