DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00034.png

Case 18-2868, Document 275, 08/09/2019, 2628223, Page3 of 18 It is unacceptable that letters sent by Ms Maxwell’s legal representatives to certain newspapers pointing out the truth and asking for the allegations to be withdrawn have simply been ignored. In the circumstances, Ms Maxwell is now proceeding to take legal action against those newspapers. “T understand newspapers need stories to sell copies. It is well known that certain newspapers live by the adage, “why let the truth get in the way of a good story.” However, the allegations made against me are abhorrent and entirely untrue and I ask that they stop,” said Ghislaine Maxwell. “A number of newspapers have shown a complete lack of accuracy in their reporting of this story and a failure to carry out the most elementary investigation or any real due diligence. I am now taking action to clear my name,” she said. Media contact: Ross Gow Acuity Reputation Tel: +44-203-008-7790 Mob: +44-7778-755-25 | Email: ross @acuityreputation.com Media contact: Ross Gow, Acuity Reputation, Tel: +44-203- 008-7790, Mob: +44-7778-755-251, Email: ross at acuityreputation.com 5. Plaintiff’s gratuitous and “lurid” accusations in an unrelated action. In 2008 two alleged victims of Epstein brought an action under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act against the United States government purporting to challenge Epstein’s plea agreement. They alleged the government violated their CVRA rights by entering into the agreement. 6. Seven years later, on December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre moved to join the CVRA action, claiming she, too, had her CVRA rights violated by the government. On January 1, 2015, Ms. Giuffre filed a “corrected” joinder motion. 7. The issue presented in her joinder motion was narrow: whether she should be permitted to join the CVRA action as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, specifically, whether she was a “known victim[] of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties.” Yet, “the bulk of the [motion] consists of copious factual details that [plaintiff] and [her co-movant] ‘would prove . . . if allowed to join.’” Ms. Giuffre gratuitously included 2