Anonymous ID: 22cf7b Jan. 27, 2021, 10:21 p.m. No.12740055   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0076 >>0087

>>12740000

digits noted - zero progress made in the exposure of the elites in this case of pedo's

THESE ARE THE DOCUMENTS RELEASED INTO THE GHISLAINE MAXWELL CASE JUST TRYING TO GET THE UNSEALING DONE BY THE LAWYERS.

Massive legislation just to get the unsealing to happen, blocked at every turn to hide the elites names and activities.? ( from what i can make out)?

Anonymous ID: 22cf7b Jan. 27, 2021, 11:24 p.m. No.12740424   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>0462

GHISLAINE MAXWELL DOCUMENT RELEASE, - IMAGE AND SOURCE LINKED !!!

note : right click on image and open in new tab and then use zoom.

=

What you see here is those lawyers who she has called to represent her in the court are the same people who were traveling on holidays with her ?

conflict of interest or saving their own skins, the whole system is corrupt and this is what they call the rule of law?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/1202/1/giuffre-v-maxwell/

1

On or about June 27, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel Bradley Edwards and Defendant’s counsel Jeffery Pagliuca

held a telephone meet and confer conference on a number of issues. Among the issues raised by Mr. Pagliuca was

the overbreadth of the proposed search terms. The discussion was left that Mr. Edwards would talk with Plaintiff’s

team of lawyers to narrow the scope, as Mr. Pagliuca understood it. Thus, contrary to the representation in the

Motion, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel did inform Plaintiff’s counsel of their disagreement with the proposed search terms.

As well, Mr. Pagliuca informed Mr. Edwards that because he, Laura Menninger and Ms. Maxwell were all traveling

on vacations in the weeks before and after the 4th of July holiday, that they would need additional time to comply

with the Court’s Order and provide the production. Mr. Pagliuca and Mr. Edwards agreed that productions would be

made prior to Ms. Maxwell’s second deposition, scheduled by agreement on July 22, 2016.

Based on this discussion, defense counsel was blindsided when they received the Motion for Sanctions,

anticipating that they would soon be receiving a substantially limited and modified list of proposed search terms to

permit search and production prior to the July 22 deposition. In the interim, all of Ms. Maxwell’s electronic devices

had been sent for imaging.

Defense counsel corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel upon receipt of the Motion for Sanctions, requesting

that it be withdrawn (without prejudice), pending completion of conferral on the search terms as required by this

Court’s specific and general orders on conferral. It appears there was a miscommunication between Plaintiff’s own

counsel on this issue, as well as between counsel for both of the parties; but, it was clearly just that – a

miscommunication and misunderstanding on where things stood.

Anonymous ID: 22cf7b Jan. 27, 2021, 11:51 p.m. No.12740562   🗄️.is đź”—kun

SO THE SHILLINGS OF THE BAKER WARS IS BACK, SLIDE ANONS,THESE ARE DISTRACTIONS AND OCCUR WHEN NEWS IS DROPPING WHICH NEEDS TO BE SILENCED.

SHILLCOM 5:5 TACTICS DETECTED !!

GHISLAINE MAXWELL DOCUMENT DUMP.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4355835/giuffre-v-maxwell/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc