Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Giuffre Vs Maxwell
Giuffre Vs Maxwell
Legal Document
New York Southern District Court
Case No. 1:15-cv-07433-RWS
Giuffre v. Maxwell
Document 435
View Document
View Docket
VIRGINIA GIUFFRE,
Index No. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS)
Plaintiff,
1. I am personally familiar with the facts set forth in this Reply Declaration,
which I submit in further support of my pending motion to intervene and to unseal the
Declaration.
2. Rather than offering a valid and proper basis for opposing my motion, the
declaration of Paul Cassell, one of Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers and a former federal judge—are little
more than an effort to revive and further the false and scurrilous allegations of sexual misconduct
that compelled me to seek the Court’s assistance in the first place. As his declaration makes
clear, Mr. Cassell has crossed the line from being a legitimate advocate for a client, to being a
lawyer who is seeking to justify his own conduct in the face of compelling evidence that his
client is a thoroughgoing liar. That was, after all, the gravamen of Mr. Cassell’s defamation case
against me: the assertion, now repeated at length before this Court, that Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers
1
had a valid basis for disseminating her false, grotesque and impertinent allegations against me in
a public filing. And it is that “fight,” essentially, that Mr. Cassell reignites in his declaration in
this matter. To be clear, this not a fight that that I started and it is certainly not one that I am
asking this Court to referee or resolve in any way. I am only asking that the Court refuse to
allow its Protective Order, which was entered based upon a stipulation that explicitly
contemplated that the Order might be modified, from being used to prevent me from disclosing
documents that reveal the truth. Having now, again, been subjected to an unfair and unwarranted
false attack on my credibility and reputation for personal rectitude, I have no choice but to
3. I begin by, again, swearing under oath that I did not sexually abuse
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, and that any allegation or suggestion to the contrary is categorically
false. I never had sexual contact with Ms. Giuffre of any kind, and, to my knowledge, I never
even met her until her deposition in 2016. By swearing to this, I am deliberately exposing
myself to a perjury prosecution and disbarment if I am not telling the truth. If Ms. Giuffre were
to submit an affidavit repeating her false allegations against me, I would welcome and cooperate
with a criminal investigation by any prosecutorial office as to whether it is Ms. Giuffre or I who
is committing perjury. It is inescapably clear that one of us is lying under oath. I know it is not
me.
4. Against this backdrop, and the facts set forth in my August 11, 2016
Declaration, Mr. Cassell, on his client’s behalf, has put into the record a declaration replete with
misstates important elements of both the Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit filed by Ms. Giuffre,
and others, in Florida (the “CVRA Action”), and the defamation lawsuit that he and his
2
colleague, Bradley Edwards, brought against me (Edwards v. Dershowitz, Case No. CACE
15-000072 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cnty., Fla.)). Moreover, he elides or mischaracterizes testimony
gathered in those and other proceedings in order to make them appear inculpatory of me when, in
charges of sexual misconduct, while allowing Ms. Giuffre and her allies to publicly disseminate
those selected “facts” that, they believe, support her allegations against me; and, second, to prove
that Mr. Cassell—and , by extension, his colleague Mr. Edwards and Ms. Giuffre’s current
lawyers at Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP—have a valid factual basis for continuing to press Ms.
Giuffre’s false allegations. Mr. Cassell’s effort is an unmitigated failure, as this declaration
demonstrates.
6. While much of the Cassell Declaration goes far beyond what is reasonably
required to respond to the instant motion, and while it surely has the distinct air of “protesting
too much,” I cannot stand mute in the face of this continuing assault on my character. As this
declaration and the accompanying reply brief will demonstrate, the charges against me are
baseless, and unsealing the Requested Document is the only proper response to Ms. Giuffre’s
justify Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers’ decision to represent her, the Cassell Declaration cites five
sources:
3
I will address each of these,
in detail, in turn. As will immediately become clear, the information presented by Mr. Cassell in
no way substantiates Ms. Giuffre’s claims. To the contrary, much of the evidence contradicts
Ms. Giuffre’s version of events. In addition, I offer a few final points about matters that
as Mr. Cassell conceded in his deposition in the Edwards defamation case, my name does
not even appear in the Palm Beach Police Department Report—much less does the Report
contain an allegation that I sexually abused someone. See Ex. O at 31 (Deposition Transcript of
9.
First, I was
not present in that home—or on Mr. Epstein’s private island, or at his New Mexico ranch, or on
4
his airplane—during the time Ms. Giuffre was associated with him. Dershowitz Decl.,1 ¶ 9.
Nothing about Ms. Giuffre’s relationship with Mr. Epstein, or her age, could have been
“obvious” to me, because I never met her. Second, there is simply no evidence that Mr.
Epstein’s alleged abuse of minor victims at his home in Palm Beach was “obvious” or known to
any “visiting guests,” given that the abuse took is alleged to have taken place in a separate part
10. Ms. Giuffre and her counsel have alleged that she was not the only “young
girl” that I had sexual contact with – i.e., that there were others. Of course, no such persons have
ever presented themselves to corroborate this accusation. Nonetheless, Mr. Cassell latched on to
this allegation as a “basis” for his filing in the CRVA Action, which named me as a serial abuser.
11. Demonstrating how little Mr. Cassell really had to go on in this regard, I
ask the Court to consider Mr. Cassell’s response to a question put to him in deposition
concerning who, other than his client, he had reason to believe was abused by me. All Mr.
Ex. O at 36-37.
12. The very idea that Mr. Cassell could claim that, without more, a mere list
of alleged victims that he believes that I “may or may not have abused” would provide a basis for
1
Citations to “Dershowitz Decl.” refer to my August 11, 2016 moving declaration. Exhibits O through X are
attached to this Reply Declaration.
5
13. As the record demonstrates, I could not have abused Virginia Roberts
Giuffre because, as the records establish, I was never in Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach home, private
island, ranch or airplane during the two years that she was associated with Mr. Epstein.
supports the decision by Mr. Cassell, Mr. Edwards and the other lawyers for Ms. Giuffre to
15. In his deposition in the defamation case against me, Mr. Cassell
acknowledged that my name did not appear in the aircraft flight logs during the time period in
[CASSELL]: The face of the flight logs for the relevant period of
time, we can call it the hot period of time or whatever you want,
did not reveal the presence of Mr. Dershowitz on those flights, yes.
Ex. O at 205.
6
16. Desperate to draw some connection between me and young girls on the
17.
shown photos of “Tatiana”; I said that I thought she appeared to “about 25” years old. It turned
2
In fact, I meant the year 2005. According to Wikipedia, Ms. Kovylina was born on November 4, 1981. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatiana_Kovylina.
7
18. Mr. Cassell was present at my October 2015 deposition in the Edwards
That is simply
false.
19.
20. Mr. Cassell was not relieved of his professional obligation to investigate
Moreover, Mr. Josefsberg has continued to maintain a personal and professional relationship
with me, something he would not have done if he believed I had abused his client—a fact that
Mr. Cassell and the other lawyers could have readily ascertained.
8
As Mr. Cassell is well aware, Jeffrey Epstein was heavily
involved in funding academic research at Harvard and kept an office there,3 and he was
consequently friendly with many academics, including David Gergen, Marvin Minsky, Larry
Summers, Stephen Kosslyn, Henry Rosovsky, Howard Gardner, and Stephen Jay Gould, among
others.
Palm Beach mansion, he received visits from “friends from Harvard” and other “very important
people.” Ex. U at 28 (Deposition Transcripts of Alfredo Rodriguez, July 29, 2009 and August 7,
2009). All of the “evidence” that Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers claim implicates me is equally
applicable to dozens of other academics and public figures who were associated with Mr.
Steven Pinker, Martin Nowak, Daniel C. Dennett, David Gergen, George Church, Richard
Dawkins, Gerard ‘t Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilzek, Howard Gardner, Stephen Jay Gould,
22. Of course, Ms. Giuffre’s credibility on these matters is nil. To cite one
3
My relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, prior to when he was accused and I became one of his lawyers, was
academic and intellectual in nature. Along with many prominent academics, I attended seminars and other events,
mostly at his office in Cambridge. I did send him my manuscripts to review and I acknowledged his intellectual
input in the acknowledgments to several of my books. Many other academics were acquaintances of Mr. Epstein.
They interacted with him on a somewhat regular basis, including during the time period in which he was allegedly
abusing Ms. Giuffre, and yet, to my knowledge, they had no idea that he may have engaged in sex acts with minors,
because he kept his private life completely separate from his academic life. I have never see Mr. Epstein with an
underage girl.
9
Dershowitz Decl., Ex. B at GIUFFRE004192-93.
10
23.
24.
25. Ms. Giuffre has also claimed to have had sex with such prominent
individuals as former
11
26. To summarize: before choosing to file the Motion for Joinder in the
CVRA lawsuit that publicly accused me of pedophilia, Mr. Cassell and Mr. Edwards were aware,
Moreover, they
were aware, or should have been aware, of glaring problems in Ms. Giuffre’s credibility. Yet,
Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers decided to treat her as a credible witness, and to accuse me of a heinous
27.
4
12
28. In the first place, even a second-year law student knows that adverse
inferences can only be drawn against a party who either invokes the Fifth Amendment in a civil
case him or herself, or controls the witness who does so (as in an employer-employee
relationship). See LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1997). Obviously, I
have never refused to answer questions about Ms. Giuffre’s absurd and false allegations against
me—I have repeatedly denied them outright, under oath—and I exercise no control over any of
29.
Nadia Marcinkova—all asserted their Fifth Amendment privileges when answering every single
question posed to them in their depositions, not solely in response to questions about me. For
....
Q: Did you ever fly with these three gentlemen and Jeffrey Epstein
to Africa on Jeffrey Epstein’s 727 airplane?
....
13
Ex. R at 39-40 (Deposition Transcript of Sarah Kellen, March 24, 2010).
30.
31. As Mr. Cassell well knows, witnesses risk waving their Fifth Amendment
privilege by invoking it only selectively. This is why defense attorneys generally advise their
Had these individuals been asked if they knew whether I had assassinated John F.
32. In truth, I sincerely wish that Mr. Epstein’s associates had not invoked the
Fifth Amendment with regard questions about me. Had they testified fully and truthfully, I
33.
5
Likewise, Ms. Kellen, Ms. Mucinska, and Ms. Marcinkova asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege when
questioned about a number of celebrities, including David Copperfield, Kevin Spacey, and Les Wexner, among
others. One of the prosecuting attorneys, frustrated by this tactic observed:
I think it’s absolutely absurd that she’s objecting to some for these questions or
taking the Fifth to some of these questions. I mean, I want to Sid [sic] to ask her
now if the sky is blue. I think she’s going to take the Fifth to that question, as
well.
Ex. R at 12.
14
This effort fails
34.
35.
36.
15
37. In fact, Mr. Alessi has since provided an affidavit flatly denying that he
saw both Ms. Giuffre and I at the Palm Beach mansion at the same time.
Ex. Q at ¶ 19 (Affidavit of Juan P. Alessi, January 13, 2016). Indeed, in his affidavit, Mr. Alessi
goes on to say, “I never saw Mr. Dershowitz do anything improper or be present while anyone
38. Juan Alessi’s affidavit also confirms that Mr. Cassell and Edwards failed
to interview him as part of their supposed “investigation” into Ms. Giuffre’s claims, and
Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.
39.
16
The following statement made by Virginia Roberts’s attorneys in a
filing on January 21, 2015 is not accurate and is a
misrepresentation of what I said in my deposition: “the private,
upstairs room where Dershowitz got his ‘massages’ was one that
contained a lot of vibrators—Maxwell had a ‘laundry basket… full
of those toys’ in that room.””
....
I did not state or imply that vibrators or sex toys were found after
massages in other rooms used by guests because that was not the
case. Guests having massages did not have massages in Mr.
Epstein’s private bedroom suite. This area was private and off-
limits to guests, which I explained to the lawyers during my
deposition.
Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.
40. Juan Alessi undermines numerous other elements of Ms. Giuffre’s account
as well. For example, Mr. Alessi did not see “any photographs of Virginia Roberts in Mr.
Epstein’s house”—partially naked or otherwise. Id. at ¶ 17. And, contrary to Ms. Giuffre’s
description, massages were not simply a code word for sexual encounters. Many guests at the
Epstein mansion received massages from professional masseuses—and all of whom were, as Mr.
Alessi testified, “overage” to “maybe mid-forties.” Id. at ¶ 8. Indeed, despite working for
Jeffrey Epstein for many years, Mr. Alessi was “unaware of any masseuses being under the age
of 18.” Id.
41. To be clear, the only massage I recall receiving at the Epstein home was
conducted by a professional masseuse—a woman in her in her 30s or 40s. This occurred well
outside the timeframe when Ms. Giuffre was associated with Mr. Epstein and I acknowledged
this in numerous interviews shortly after Ms. Giuffre accused me.6 In addition, there were never
6
See, for example: Bob Norman, “Alan Dershowitz: ‘Sex Slave’ Accuser is Serial Liar, Prostitute,” Local 10 News,
22 January 2015, available at http://www.local10.com/news/alan-dershowitz-sex-slave-accuser-is-serial-liar-
17
any sex toys in any room I ever stayed in, nor were there any visible pictures of naked young
women. My children and grandchildren stayed in the rooms in question at Mr. Epstein’s home
during Christmas of 2005. I would never have allowed my family to stay in a home with such
42.
he did not know whether I received a massage, and did not know if I was aware that there were
A: Exactly.
....
....
prostitute. I never denied having one professional massage. I did truthfully state that it was a lie to claim that I had
sexual massages in a room full of sex toys.
7
Ms. Kellen was in her late 20s and to my knowledge, was a legitimate employee of Mr. Epstein. Ms. Marcinkova
was, to my knowledge, an adult friend of Mr. Epstein.
18
A: I don’t know sir.”
Ex. U at 426-27.
inasmuch as it concerned the period 2005 and later, it has absolutely no bearing on Ms. Giuffre’s
allegations about me, since Ms. Giuffre left Mr. Epstein’s orbit in 2002.
44.
Q: It’s true also, is it not, that Mr. Trump was a frequent visitor to
Mr. Epstein’s residence?
19
A: I believe it is.
A: No.
Ex. O at 233.
45.
extensive legal team, which collectively decided how Epstein should interact with law
enforcement during their investigation. Together with other members of the legal team, I,
among others, communicated with the Palm Beach State Attorney’s Office—including
scheduling meetings to depose Epstein—at the behest of the client. This behavior does not
defense lawyers aiming to secure the best possible result for their client.
20
47.
48. Although a legal assistant for Bradley Edwards, one of Ms. Giuffre’s
lawyers, once claimed that I was served with a subpoena in 2009, this was not true; I was never
49. In August 2011, another attorney representing Ms. Giuffre, Jack Scarola,
called me to ask that I provide information on Mr. Epstein’s alleged abuse of minors, and
particularly young women. I responded on August 15th, in writing that, if Mr. Scarola were to
provide me with a more detailed request, I would try to provide any relevant non-privileged
2011). Mr. Scarola wrote back to me on August 23rd, stating that “We . . . have reason to
believe that you have personally observed Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of underage females,
and we would like the opportunity to question you under oath about those observations.” Id at
SCAROLA 016567. I replied that “If you in fact have such testimony it is perjurious. I have
never seen Epstein in the presence of an underage female.” Id. at SCAROLA 016570.
50. Despite this unambiguous answer, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Scarola
attempted to subpoena me in 2013. This time, they left a subpoena with an assistant to another
faculty member at Harvard Law School—an improper form of service. I again made it clear to
them that I had no relevant non-privileged information to provide, and that I had been instructed
by my client not to volunteer any information. There was no follow up by Mr. Scarola and no
21
51. At no point did Mr. Edwards, Mr. Scarola, or any of their associates tell
me that Ms. Giuffre had accused me of sexual abuse, because, at that point, she had not. Had I
been accused at that time, I would have provided records demonstrating the falsity of any such
allegations.
52. Inasmuch as Mr. Cassell is inviting this Court to accept Virginia Roberts
Giuffre’s assertions about me, other examples of her lack of credibility are relevant.
53. In the first place, Ms. Giuffre has been demonstrated to have made up
wildly implausible tales for financial gain. In 2011, for example, Ms. Giuffre was interviewed
by Sharon Churcher at The Daily Mail, and provided detailed accounts of an alleged encounter
with Bill Clinton on Jeffrey Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean. In exchange for that
interview, Ms. Giuffre was paid $160,000. Ms. Giuffre’s account of meeting Clinton is both
completely unbelievable on its face, and demonstrably untrue. For example, she claims that:
“Ghislaine Maxwell went to pick up Bill [Clinton] in a huge black helicopter that Jeffrey had
bought her. She’d always wanted to fly and Jeffrey paid for her to take lessons, and I remember
she was very excited because she got her license around the first year we met. I used to get
frightened flying with her but Bill had the Secret Service with him and I remember him talking
about what a good job she did.” Ex. T at 2-3 (Daily Mail Article, March 5, 2011). Ms. Giuffre
then described, in detail, a dinner with President Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein and others on Little St.
9
Further demonstrating her ability to weave a vivid, yet utterly false tale, Ms. Giuffre also recounts that: “We all
dined together that night. Jeffrey was at the head of the table. Bill was at his left. I sat across from him. Emmy
Tayler, Ghislaine’s blonde British assistant sat at my right. Ghislaine was at Bill’s left and at the left of Ghislaine
there were two olive-skinned brunettes who’d flown in with us from New York…. Maybe Jeffrey thought they
would entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them. He and Jeffrey and Ghislaine seemed to
have a very good relationship. Bill was very funny.” Ex. T at 3-4.
22
54. Ms. Giuffre’ entire account is fabricated out of whole cloth: President
Clinton was never on the island during the relevant period. A FOIA request submitted by
former FBI Director Louis Freeh for “all shift logs, travel records, itineraries, reports, and other
records for USSS personnel travelling with former President Bill Clinton to Little St. James
Island and the US Virgin Islands” revealed that “Bill Clinton did not in fact travel to, nor was he
present on, Little St. James Island between January 1, 2001, and January 1, 2003.” See
Dershowitz Decl., Ex. I. Moreover, the notion that the Secret Service would allow a former
55. In that same Daily Mail article, Ms. Giuffre claimed “that Mr. Clinton’s
vice-president Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, were also guests of Epstein on his island” on a
different occasion. Ex. T at 4. Ms. Giuffre purported to provide specific details of this
encounter: “I had no clue that anything was up. The Gores seemed like a beautiful couple when
I met them. All I knew was that Mr. Gore was a friend of Jeffrey’s and Ghislaine’s. Jeffrey
didn’t ask me to give him a massage. There might have been a couple of other girls there on that
trip but I could never have imagined this guy would do anything wrong. I was planning to vote
56. This story too was made up – a fiction peddled for money. By all
available accounts, Mr. Gore and his wife never set foot on Mr. Epstein’s private island, nor
even met Mr. Epstein. Ms. Giuffre’ lawyers, who included David Boies, could easily have
ascertained as much. Vice President Gore had been Mr. Boies’s client and Mr. Boies could
have simply asked him whether he had ever visited Mr. Epstein’s island in the Caribbean. Had
he done so, Mr. Boies would have learned that Ms. Giuffre’s account was false.
23
57. Critically, Ms. Giuffre also lied about her age—specifically, the age she
was during the time period in which she was associated with Jeffrey Epstein. Contrary to
previous statements that she was fifteen when she was trafficked by Mr. Epstein, Ms. Giuffre
could not have even have met him until 2000, the year she turned seventeen. There is
documentary evidence, recently discovered and undisputed, that Ms. Giuffre’ father—who
arranged her employment at The Mar-A-Lago Club in Palm Beach—did not begin working
there until April 11, 2000. Ms. Giuffre has repeatedly stated that she first met Ghislaine
Maxwell at the Mar-A-Lago where she had a summer job as a changing room assistant—indeed
it is one of the few aspects of her story that has remained consistent from the outset.10 Ms.
Giuffre turned seventeen in the summer of 2000. By the time Mr. Epstein is alleged to have
begun trafficking her to his acquaintances—six to nine months after their first encounter,11 or in
at least one telling two years later,12 Ms. Giuffre may have been over eighteen.
58. The issue of Ms. Giuffre’s age at the time of certain events is important as
a legal matter—and her lack of credibility about it is telling. The age of consent in New York is
seventeen. As to the other locations with varying ages of consent—in Florida it is eighteen—
it is impossible to know whether Ms. Giuffre is claiming to have been a minor because she has
never specified—presumably even to her own lawyers—when the alleged acts were supposed to
have occurred. She has not even provided the year in which she claims specific events occurred.
So it cannot be presumed—by her lawyers or by anyone else—that she was a minor when she
10
See for example, Zachary Davies Boren, Virginia Roberts: Who is the woman at the centre of the Prince Andrew
sex allegations?, The Independent (Jan. 5, 2015), available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-
news/virginia-roberts-what-do-we-know-about-the-woman-at-the-centre-of-the-prince-andrew-sex-allegations-
9958539.html.
11
See for example, Ex. V at 10 (Telephone Interview with Virginia Roberts, April 7, 2011).
ͳʹSee Sharon Churcher, Prince Andrew and the 17-year-old Girl His Sex Offender Friend Flew to Britain to Meet
Him, DailyMail.com (Mar. 2, 2011) (“‘After about two years, he started to ask me to ‘entertain’ his friends.’”).
Available at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361039/Prince-Andrew-girl-17-sex-offender-friend-flew-
Britain-meet-him.html?ito=feeds-newsxml.
24
claims that Mr. Epstein trafficked her. It is much more likely, in light of when she actually met
Jeffrey Epstein and when she says she began to have sex with his acquaintances, that she was not
a minor when she claimed to have had sex with any such people.
59. Moreover, Ms. Giuffre has perjured herself by claiming that she was 15
when she met Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, most notably by submitting an untruthful
declaration in the Edwards defamation lawsuit. On November 20, 2015 Ms. Giuffre executed
an affidavit in which she alleged that: “In approximately 1999, when I was 15 years old, I met
Ghislaine Maxwell . . . Soon after that I went to Epstein’s home in Palm Beach on El Brillo
Way. From the first time I was taken to Epstein’s mansion that day, his motivations and actions
were sexual, as were Maxwell’s…. Epstein and Maxwell forced me into sexual activity with
Epstein. I was 15 years old at the time.” Ex. W at ¶ 4-5 (Declaration of Virginia Roberts,
60. She also asserted that when she “was approximately 15 or 16 years old”
when Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell began trafficking her to Epstein’s acquaintances. These
Conclusion
61. In his Declaration before this Court, Paul Cassell has provided an
accounting of the “evidence” that he claims supports the truth of Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s
demonstrate. The irony, of course, is that Mr. Cassell’s accounting is in service to his and his
client’s goal of keeping sealed far more compelling evidence—namely, the Requested
25
fabrication. This is part of an overarching plan by Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers to cherry-pick the
evidence they want to publically reveal while using this Court’s powers to suppress evidence
damaging to them. There is a further irony as well, which is that the entire basis of Ms.
Giuffre’s participation in the CVRA Action was a complaint that the Government unlawfully
kept secret the details of her alleged victimization at Mr. Epstein’s hands. Yet it is now Ms.
Giuffre and her lawyers who are seeking to keep secret the whole truth about Ms. Giuffre’s
story.13
62. I believe that the law and basic notion of fairness should permit me to
prove the whole truth, namely, that Ms. Giuffre never accused me of misconduct until 2014, and
that her belated complaint against me is, as I have always said, a fabrication from start to finish.
The Requested Documents help prove those critical points. This Court ought not allow itself to
be a tool of secrecy used by Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers to keep the whole truth from coming
out.
13
As described in my opening Declaration, Ms. Giuffre’s legal assault on me, conducted through her lawyers at
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP (“BSF”), continues in the form of a motion for sanctions in Florida state court.
There, she claims that I violated a court order in the Edwards defamation lawsuit by testifying truthfully in a
deposition about discussions that I had had with David Boies. Prior to my testimony, my lawyers submitted an
affidavit from me to the Florida court describing these discussions, and the Florida judge sealed the affidavit. He
did not direct that I refrain from testifying about the matter, nor did he sanction me for disclosing the discussion in
an affidavit, as Ms. Giuffre’s lawyers requested. When asked whether he was making a ruling on the BSF motion for
sanctions regarding the content of the affidavit, Judge Lynch replied “No. I’m just sealing these [the affidavit]
because I think they should be sealed.” Ex. X at 24 (Transcript of Emergency Motion to Seal, December 18, 2015).
Thus, contrary to the later motion for sanctions, there was no “gag order” placed in me when the affidavit was
submitted, nor did I violate any court order by truthfully answering a question put to me by the opposing lawyer and
offering to seal my answer. The BSF motion for sanctions was subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and
standing, and is now being appealed by Ms. Giuffre.
26