Anonymous ID: bb6588 July 30, 2020, 2:46 p.m. No.10130068   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0125 >>0278 >>0426 >>0558 >>0716 >>0734

Eyes On

>>10129652 (LB)

Maxwell doc 1086

Left is pic of redacted PDF. Below is the full text inc. redactions.

 

Dear Judge Preska, As a follow up to my letter from earlier today, we are now in receipt of the unredacted version of Ms. Menninger’s letter alleging that we made errors in our redactions. First, Ms. Menninger claims that we erred in the redaction of DE 172 by redacting names at pages 9 and 15 but not at page i. But DE 172, page i is presently publicly available on the docket with no redactions. Accordingly we did not redact what is already publicly available. Second, although we disagree that the word “mother” that was not redacted on DE 173-6, page 39 identifies the nonparty at issue, we will agree to redact the word “mother” in an abundance of caution. Third, we disagree with the allegation that there is an error in the redactions on DE 173-6, page 63. As to the remainder of the letter, we fundamentally disagree with Ms. Menninger’s objections to our redactions (DE 173-6 at pages 59-63, 104, 117, 158-59, 166-67) because they do not involve a nonparty’s identity or testimony as to any specific conduct in accordance with the Court’s Order. We are of course not in a position to provide our views on Ms. Menninger’s redactions because she has still not provided us with a set of the documents that are due to be released today. Again, Plaintiff stands ready to file the documents that this Court unsealed on July 23, 2020 at the Court’s direction.

 

PDF here:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/giuffre-v-maxwell/?order_by=desc

 

Copy the text of the 'redacted' PDF and you can paste, redactions and all into notepadd/text editor.

Anonymous ID: bb6588 July 30, 2020, 3:05 p.m. No.10130272   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0306

>>10130196

> And we shouldn't be able to see them if they are meant to be real redactions!

Nope, but some people redact correctly, some don't. PDF creation is difficult for some….hopefully they do the same on the meatier stuff, kek

 

Maxwell's been having panic over these documents for years - she likely purjors herself in some of them. Imagine that she may have spoken/testified too much previously (knowing it'd be sealed anyway - corruption, Acosta sweetheart plea deal). By cross referencing all the doc's you can probably work out who the main players are - they be non party to this case, but probably party to Epstein & Maxwell's debauchery.