dChan
Anonymous ID: 456dac July 31, 2020, 2:38 a.m. No.10136707   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6709 >>6718 >>6841 >>6902 >>6954

During her recent deposition, Defendant refused to answer numerous questions about allegedly “adult” sexual activity related to Jeffrey Epstein. Because this activity is highly relevant to this case, Defendant should be ordered to answer questions about it.As the Court is aware, this defamation case involves Ms. Giuffre’s assertions that she and other femaleswere recruited by Defendant to be sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein under the guise of being “massage therapists.” See Complaint, (DE1), at ¶ 27 (Giuffre “described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme”). In response to these assertions, Defendant has made the sweeping claim that Ms. Giuffre’s assertions are “entirely false” and “entirely untrue.” Complaint, DE 1, at ¶ 31

 

Yet during her deposition, Defendant refused to answer any questions that she construed as having something to do with “consensual adult sex.” Defense counsel supported that position that “frankly, [that’s] none of your business and I instruct the witness not to answer.” SeeDeclaration of Sigrid S. McCawley (“McCawley Decl.”)at Exhibit 1, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 21. The result was that at a number of points throughout her deposition, Defendant refused to answer questions aboutsubjects integral to this lawsuit, including questions about whatthe alleged “massage therapists” were doing at Jeffrey Epstein’s house and the sexual nature of those massages. For example, Defendantrefused to answer questions about whether she had given Jeffrey Epstein a massage:Q. Have you ever given Jeffrey Epsteina massage?MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form,foundation. And I'm going to instructyou not to answer that question. Idon't have any problem with you askingquestions about what the subject matterof this lawsuit is, which would be, asyou've termed it, sexual trafficking ofMs. Roberts.To the extent you are asking forinformation relating to any consensualadult interaction between my client andMr. Epstein, I'm going to instruct hernot to answer because it's not part ofthis litigation and it is her privateconfidential information, not subject tothis deposition.MS. McCAWLEY: You can instruct hernot to answer. That is your right. ButI will bring her back for anotherdeposition because it is part of thesubject matter of this litigation so sheshould be answering these questions.This is civil litigation, deposition andshe should be responsible for answeringthese questions.MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree and youunderstand the bounds that I put on it.MS. McCAWLEY: No, I don't. I willcontinue to ask my questions and you cancontinue to make your objections.Q. Did you ever participate from thetime period of 1992 to 2009, did you everparticipate in a massage with Jeffrey Epsteinand another female?MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Do notanswer that question. Again, to theextent you are asking for some sort ofillegal activity as you've construed in

Anonymous ID: 456dac July 31, 2020, 2:38 a.m. No.10136709   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6713 >>6841 >>6902 >>6954

>>10136707

 

connection with this case I don't haveany problem with you asking thatquestion. To the extent these questionsinvolve consensual acts between adults,frankly, they're none of your businessandI will instruct the witness not toanswer.MS. McCAWLEY: This case involvessexual trafficking, sexual abuse,questions about her having interactionswith other females is relevant to thiscase. She needs to answer thesequestions.MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm instructing hernot to answer.MS. McCAWLEY: Then we will be backhere again.SeeMcCawley Decl. at Exhibit 2, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 19-22 (emphasis added).Defendant’s participation in massages with Epstein is a central part of this case. Ms. Giuffre has explained that during her first sexual encounter with Jeffrey Epstein, it was Defendant who provided instructionon how to do it and how to turn the massage into a sexual event. Obviously, proof that Defendant hadpreviously massaged Epstein –include massages with sexual component –wouldprovide important corroboration for Ms. Giuffre’s testimony at trial. Andproofthat Defendantwasinvolved in massages will further help prove that statements to the press that Virginia’s allegations were “obvious lies”wasitself an obvious lie.As another example, Defendant refused to answer questions abouther knowledge that Johanna Sjoberg was hired to work for Epstein andprovidedmassages. In the police report, Johanna admitted that Maxwell recruited her to workfor Epstein. SeeMcCawley Decl. at Exhibit3, Giuffre000076-77(police report indicating that Johanna was recruited by Maxwell).Yet during Defendant’sdeposition, she refused to answer questions regarding Johanna Sjoberg.Q. Do you know what tasks Johanna was hired to performance?A. She was tasked to answer telephones.Q. Did you ever ask her to rub Jeffrey's feet?. . . A. Ibelieve that I have read that, but I don't have any memory of it.

 

Q. Did you ever tell Johanna that she would get extra money if she provided Jeffrey massages?A. I was always happy to give career advice to people and I think that becoming somebody in the healthcare profession, either exercise instructor or nutritionist or professional massage therapist is an excellent job opportunity. Hourly wages are around 7, 8, $9 and as a professional healthcare provider you can earn somewhere between as we have established 100 to $200 and to be able to travel and have a job that pays that is a wonderful job opportunity. So in the context of advising people for opportunities for work, it is possible that I would have said that she should explore that as an option.Q. Did you tell her she would get extra money if she massaged Jeffrey?A. I'm just saying, I cannot recall the exact conversation. I give career advice and I have done that.Q. Did you ever have Johanna massage you?A. I did.Q. How many times?A. I don't recall how many times.Q. Was there sex involved?A. No.. . . Q. Did you ever have sexual contact with Johanna?MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the formand foundation. You need to give me anopportunity to get in between thequestions.Anything that involves consensualsex on your part, I'm instructing younot to answer.Q. Did you ever have sexual contactwith Johanna?A. [MR. PAGLIUCA?] Again, she is an adult –Q. I’m asking you, did you ever havesexual contact with Johanna?A. I’ve just been instructed not toanswer.Q. On what basis?A. You have to ask my lawyer.See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 4, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 60-62 (emphasis added).

Anonymous ID: 456dac July 31, 2020, 2:39 a.m. No.10136713   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6716 >>6841 >>6902 >>6954

>>10136709

 

5

Here again, this information is critical to the case. Among other things, these questions are designed to show a modus operani (“M.O”) for Epstein and Maxwell –specifically, how they recruited for a non-sexual massage than converted the massageinto sexual activities. One last illustration comes from Defendant’s refusal to answer about her knowledge of Epstein’s sexual interests during massages:Q. Does Jeffrey like to have his nipples pinched during sexual encounters?MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to form and foundation.A. I'm not referring to any advice on my counsel. I'm not talking about any adult sexual things when I was with him.Q. When Jeffrey would have a massage, would he request that the masseuse pinch his nipples while he was having amassage?A. I'm not talking about anything with consensual adult situation.See McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 5, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 82. While Epstein himself might also provide answers to these questions, it appears likely that he will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding his sexual activities. Accordingly, Ms. Giuffre must pursue questioning of Maxwell to obtain information on this subject. Here again, information about Epstein’s sexual idiosyncrasies will provide important corroboration to Ms. Giuffre’s testimony that she had sexual interactions of an identical nature with Epstein. Theserefusalsare not an isolated instance. Instead, similar refusals to answer questions occurredrepeatedlythroughout the deposition. See, e.g., McCawley Decl. at CompositeExhibit 6.52-55; 64-65; 82; 92-93; 137-38; 307-09.The Court should compel Defendant to answer all these questions.In addition to the specific points made above, the “big picture” here reveals how vital such discovery is.At the core of Ms. Giuffre’s allegations is the allegation that Defendant luredherinto a sexual situation with the offer of a job making money as a massage therapist; that Epstein always habitually tried Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 143 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 10

 

to turn massages into sex (that was his modus operandi and plan all along); and that Maxwell recruited other females for an ostensibly proper position, such as therapeutic masseuse, with knowledgethat the intent was for that person would be pressured to provide sexual gratification to Epstein. As a result, Epstein’s use of massages for sexual purposes is a central part of this case.And Defendant’srole in those massages –and knowledge of the purposes of those massages –is a critical piece of evidence showing her state of mind when she attacked Ms. Giuffre’s assertions as “entirely untrue.” Ms. Giuffre intends to prove at trial that Defendant knew full well the sexual purpose for which she was recruiting females –including underage females like Ms. Giuffre. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to explore Defendant’s knowledge of the sexual activities that took place under the guise of “massages.” Otherwise Defendant will be able to portray to the jury an inaccurate picture of that what was happening at Epstein’s house what nothing more than run-of-the-mill massage therapy. See, e.g., McCawley Decl. at Exhibit 7, Tr. of Maxwell Depo. (Apr. 22, 2016) at 51 (“Q: Did [the pay for massage therapists] vary on what sexual acts they performed? . . . A: No, it varied depending on how much time, some massage therapists charge more and some charge less.”).Defendant’s refusal to answer questions about alleged “adult” consensual sex also blocks Ms. Giuffre from seeking legitimate discovery in this case. By refusing to answer questions about her and Epstein’s sexual activities with alleged “adults,” Defendant is essentially given the ability to refuse to answer any sexual question she does not wish to answer. Defendant simply has to deem the question as involving “consensual adult sex” and no need be given. The result is to leave Ms. Giuffre with no way of exploring the identity of these alleged adults, the ages of these alleged adults, and indeed whether they were adults at all. This allows Defendant to claim

Anonymous ID: 456dac July 31, 2020, 2:40 a.m. No.10136716   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6726 >>6841 >>6902 >>6954

>>10136713

 

that she is unaware of any sexual activity involving underage females, because (she claims) the only sexual activity she was aware involved adults.The Court should compel Ms. Maxwell to answer all questions about her knowledge relating to sexual activities with Epstein and other females while at Epstein’s various homes.See Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(i); see, e.g., Kelly v. A1 Tech., No. 09 CIV. 962 LAK MHD, 2010 WL 1541585, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2010) (“Under the Federal Rules, when a party refusesto answer a question during a deposition, the questioning party may subsequently move to compel disclosure of the testimony that it sought. The court must determine the propriety of the deponent's objection to answering the questions, and can order the deponent to provide improperly withheld answers during a continued deposition” (internal citations omitted)). Ofcourse, the party objecting to discovery must carry the burden of proving the validity of its objections, particularly in light of “the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules . . . .” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books,LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). For purposes of a deposition, the information sought “need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 293 F.R.D. 557, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)).Defendant cannot carry her burden of showing that the questions asked are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.This is a case in which sexual activities lie at the heart of the issues in dispute. As a result, it is hardly surprising to find that discovery pertains to alleged “adult” sexual activities –and questions about such subjects are entirely proper.See, e.g.,Condit v. Dunne, 225 F.R.D. 100, 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (in defamation case, “Plaintiff is hereby ordered to answer questions regarding his sexual relationships in so far

 

as they are relevant to a defense of substantial truth, mitigation of damages, or impeachment of plaintiff.”); Weber v. Multimedia Entm't, Inc., No. 97 CIV. 0682 PKL THK, 1997 WL 729039, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 1997) (“While discovery is not unlimited and may not unnecessarily intrude into private matters, in the instant case inquiry into private matters is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, plaintiff Misty Weber shall respond to defendants' interrogatories concerning her sexual partners . . . .”).Generally speaking, instructions from attorneys to their clients not to answer questions at a deposition should be “limited to [issues regarding] privilege.” Morales v. Zondo, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 50, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).In this case, defense counsel ranged far beyond the normal parameters of objections and sought to decide for himself what issues were relevant. That was improper and the Court should order a resumption of the Defendant’s deposition so that she can answer questions about her knowledge of sexual activity relating to Jeffrey Epstein.CONCLUSIONDefendant should be ordered to sit for a follow-up deposition and directed to answer questions regarding her knowledge of alleged “adult” sexual activity.

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.143.0_2.pdf

Anonymous ID: 456dac July 31, 2020, 2:50 a.m. No.10136751   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6841 >>6902 >>6954

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/world/australia/new-zealand-abortion.html

 

New Zealand Eases Abortion Restrictions

 

March 18, 2020

 

Lawmakers voted on Wednesday to liberalize New Zealand’s abortion law and allow unrestricted access during the first half of pregnancy, ending the country’s status as one of the few wealthy nations to limit the grounds for abortion during that period.

 

Members of Parliament also greatly loosened restrictions on abortions in the latter half of pregnancy, with language that opponents say amounts to no meaningful limitations until the moment of birth.

 

Lawmakers voted 68 to 51 to approve the bill, which would take effect a day after receiving assent from the governor-general, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in New Zealand, which is considered a formality.

 

New Zealand’s existing law on abortion, adopted in 1977 and amended a few times, treats termination, even early in pregnancy, as a crime, though officials say that no one has ever been prosecuted for it. The new law would remove it from the criminal statutes, and provides no penalties for violation.

 

The existing law does allow for some exceptions — about 13,000 abortions a year are performed legally, the government said — as when a woman’s physical or mental health is endangered. Critics claim that has made it common for women to feign mental illness to obtain abortions, and for doctors to play along.

 

But even then, the approval process has been difficult and slow.

 

“The current framework requires women seeking an abortion to maintain a fiction about their mental health,” said New Zealand’s justice minister, Andrew Little, a member of Parliament from the Labour Party. “They have to consult multiple practitioners, multiple health professionals. And what that has done in New Zealand is caused women, those who get an abortion, to get it much later in the pregnancy than is desirable.”

 

Amy Adams, a former justice minister and National Party lawmaker, called the law “outdated and incredibly paternalistic,” and spoke of women she knows who have had abortions.

 

“I have seen them face the delays, the difficulties, the struggles, the judgment, the abuse, frankly, and feel marginalized and criminalized because of our law,” she said in Parliament on Wednesday.

 

The issue cut across some of the lines that usually divide the liberal Labour Party, which leads the governing coalition, and the conservative National Party, the main opposition. Public opinion surveys show that most New Zealanders favor liberalizing the law, but even some lawmakers in that camp said lawmakers went too far.

 

The new law will allow a woman to obtain an abortion on demand up to 20 weeks into a pregnancy. Beyond that point, abortion would be legal only “if the health practitioner reasonably believes that the abortion is clinically appropriate in the circumstances.”

ImageJustice Minister Andrew Little speaking to lawmakers on Wednesday.

Justice Minister Andrew Little speaking to lawmakers on Wednesday.Credit…Nick Perry/Associated Press

 

But the bill does not say what counts as appropriate. It states only that the practitioner must consult with at least one other colleague, and take into account “all relevant legal, professional and ethical standards,” the woman’s physical and mental health and “overall well-being,” and the age of the fetus.

 

Agnes Loheni, a National Party member of Parliament who opposed the bill, said: “It will allow for abortion up to the moment of birth. It is a broad, ill-defined, vague section with no regard to the unborn child.”

 

Simeon Brown, another National Party lawmaker, said the new law would allow abortion in cases when a fetus could survive outside the womb, or for sex selection. And he complained that the bill’s supporters dismissed any objections as religiously based, and denigrated those that were.

 

“I’m opposed to this bill not because of the tenets of any religion but because of scientific, philosophical and ethical principles,” he said.

 

Advocates of the bill argued that neither women nor their health care providers would pursue late-term abortions lightly.

 

The law does not prohibit abortion for the purpose of sex selection, but states that Parliament is opposed to the practice, and directs the government to study the issue and report back on it within five years.

 

The vote in Parliament came after a failed attempt to hold a national referendum on the issue. It culminated years of political battles over attempts to loosen the law.

 

Most countries in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East have abortion laws that are as restrictive as New Zealand’s has been, or more so. But among the most highly developed countries, only Poland and South Korea do, according to groups that study the issue.

 

Ireland had the most complete ban in Europe until the law was changed in December 2018. Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales, decriminalized abortion last September.

Anonymous ID: 456dac July 31, 2020, 2:58 a.m. No.10136791   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>10136784

>an anon posted every link

good job whoever payed pacer

I'll wait for them to percolate back into the conversation, I have coffee to drink and shit to post.

Anonymous ID: 456dac July 31, 2020, 3:08 a.m. No.10136827   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6830 >>6837 >>6841 >>6902 >>6954

>>10136816

>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/31/prince-andrew-lobbied-us-government-favourable-epstein-plea/

https://voat.co/v/QRV/3952331

 

Prince Andrew lobbied US government for 'favourable' Epstein plea deal, court documents claim

 

 

Prince Andrew allegedly lobbied the US government on Jeffrey Epstein’s behalf for a "favourable" plea deal in a underage prostitution case in Florida in 2008, it has been claimed in newly unsealed court documents.

 

The trove of documents, published for the first time after an appeal to keep them secret by Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers was rejected this week, highlights the relationship between the Duke and the disgraced late financier.

 

They are part of a 2015 civil lawsuit brought against Epstein and Ms Maxwell, 58, by Viriginia Roberts Giuffre, who claims she was forced by the millionaire to sleep with Prince Andrew and others when she was 17.

 

The Duke has strenuously denied Ms Giuffre’s allegations….