Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-32395House OversightOther

Internal emails discuss handling of alleged abuse claims involving Jeffrey Epstein, G. Maxwell, and advice from Alan Dershowitz

The correspondence reveals coordinated attempts to manage public statements about alleged abuse linked to Jeffrey Epstein, mentions high‑profile legal counsel (Alan Dershowitz) and suggests potential Emails dated Jan 10‑11 2015 reference “JE” (Jeffrey Epstein) and direct abuse allegations against an Philip Barden urges G Maxwell to issue a denial and to consult Epstein’s lawyer, indicating possib

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #030295
Pages
3
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The correspondence reveals coordinated attempts to manage public statements about alleged abuse linked to Jeffrey Epstein, mentions high‑profile legal counsel (Alan Dershowitz) and suggests potential Emails dated Jan 10‑11 2015 reference “JE” (Jeffrey Epstein) and direct abuse allegations against an Philip Barden urges G Maxwell to issue a denial and to consult Epstein’s lawyer, indicating possib

Tags

financial-risk-potential-settljeffrey-epsteinmedia-influencedefamation-riskmedia-manipulationlegal-strategycivil-litigationlegal-exposuremoderate-importancehouse-oversightsexual-abuse-allegationssexual-misconduct

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: Sent: To: Subject: G Maxwell 1/11/2015 1:25:56 PM J Jep [[email protected]] Fw: THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INSTAGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH From: Philip Barden Sent: Sunday, 11 January 2015 05:27 To: __________ Cc: G Maxwell Subject: Re: > Saying nothing is reputational suicide. Even if. is discredited by people will know JE paid her off and believe G was complicate absent a credible denial. Now it is reported that G engaged in direct abuse - as I feared would happen. Next reports to the authorities will be made. It is necessary from a litigation, investigatory and reputational reason to issue a cogent denial. I can see why JE doesn't want this as it may not suit him but he is already toast. Philip Sent from my iPhone On 10 Jan 2015, at 18:42,' > wrote: Had Geordie on the phone half a dozen times today. He would have give us a better hearing than most I figure. Strongly believe saying nothing is the wrong thing - especially as Dershowitz has a big piece coming in The Times on Monday. Rest up and speak Monday Best Ross Sent from my BlackBerry0 wireless device From: Philip Barden < Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 18:27:12 +0000 To: G Maxwell>> Cc: Ross G°w> Subject: Re: All I am back on line now. I see the statement didn't go. Monday? Maybe tomorrow? > I will speak to Jeffery Epstein's lawyer but JE has a conflict with you and will want your silence as whilst you are being attacked there is less heat on him. Either is lying or not. If we let her lie without challenge then the lies become the reality and that may lead to you facing investigation. These are serious allegations and In the UK prosecuting people who face allegations of sex abuse is now common place and a lot of resources are focused on this. We can't sit back and let you be a conspirator by silence. Your are not guilty and must follow Dershowtiz line. He is a leading lawyer and he hasn't followed the don't say anything for fear of litigation. He has rightly called . bluff and shouted his innocence. You have to stand up and deny the allegations or be branded guilty by association and that may lead to other investigations and worse. I feel I am going around in circles. I know what is right to do and that is to shout your innocence. Try and get some rest. Call me tomorrow if you want anytime. Speak to Deshowitz. Don't allay yourself to JE as that is not the way to go. Best Philip Sent from my iPhone On 10 Jan 2015, at 16:02, "G Maxwell" wrote: I am out of my depth to understanding defamation and other legal hazards and don't want to end up in a law suit aimed at me from anyone if I can help it. Apparently even saying is a her has hazard! I have never been in a suit criminal or civil and want it to stay that way. The US lawyers for the Jane Does are filling additional discovery motions and if I speak I open my self to being part of discovery apparently. I am trying to stay out of litigation and not have to employ lawyers for years as I get lost in US legal nightmare. I stand no legal risk currently on these old charges and civil suits against Jeffrey We need to consult with US lawyers on any statement I make and the complaints too Perhaps we make a statement of the legal risk of saying anything for potential defamation or something that prevents a full and frank detailed rebuttal + the press not being the place for that? Regardless, Philip plse call jeffrey lawyer and see what you can understand from him and pehaps craft something in conjunction with him? Either way I think you need to speak to him to understand my risk so you can help me understand it - too may cooks in the kitchen and I can't make good decisions. Plse reach out to him today + I have already suffered such a terrible and painful loss over the last few days that I can't even see what life after press he'll even looks like - statements that don't address all just lead to more questions. .what is my relationship to clinton ? Andrew on and on. Let's rest till monday. I need head space THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INSTAGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH This email is intended for the addressee named within only. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the named individual you should not read this email and if you do so, you must not under any circumstances make use of the information therein. If you have read this email and it is not addressed to you, please notify [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and no copies made. This Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the name of Devonshires Solicitors and registration number 0049857. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or facsimile. A list of partners, together with further legal statements, is available upon request or at www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/legal-notices.html<http://www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and- conditions/legal-notices.html> Devonshires Solicitors, 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT tel fax Where instructions have been given by Devonshires Solicitors to a barrister to work on a client's matter, we notify you, on behalf of that barrister, that you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chambers. A copy of the barrister and / or their Chambers' complaints procedure may be obtained by contacting the Senior Clerk of that Chambers, whose contact details can be found online, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barrister / their Chambers. Please note that there may be a time limit for bringing your complaint. You may also have the right to ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint at the end of the complaints process. Information on complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, including the details of strict time limits to bring a complaint, may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk. The Devonshires Foundation is proud to support Action for Kids (reg. charity 1068841), Wide horizons (reg. charity 1105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (reg. charity 233801) during 2013/2014. Please consider the environment before printing this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Technical Artifacts (4)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

URLhttp://www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and
URLhttp://www.legalombudsman.org.uk

Related Documents (6)

House OversightUnknown

Internal emails discuss handling of alleged abuse claims involving Jeffrey Epstein, G. Maxwell, and advice from Alan Dershowitz

Internal emails discuss handling of alleged abuse claims involving Jeffrey Epstein, G. Maxwell, and advice from Alan Dershowitz The correspondence reveals coordinated attempts to manage public statements about alleged abuse linked to Jeffrey Epstein, mentions high‑profile legal counsel (Alan Dershowitz) and suggests potential litigation risk for G Maxwell. It provides concrete names, dates (Jan 2015) and a clear line of communication that could be followed up for documents, lawyer contacts, and any undisclosed settlements, making it a useful investigative lead, though the specifics are vague and the claims unverified. Key insights: Emails dated Jan 10‑11 2015 reference “JE” (Jeffrey Epstein) and direct abuse allegations against an unnamed party.; Philip Barden urges G Maxwell to issue a denial and to consult Epstein’s lawyer, indicating possible coordination with Epstein’s legal team.; Reference to Alan Dershowitz as a “big piece” in The Times, suggesting media strategy involving a prominent attorney.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court filings reveal alleged links between Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking network and high‑profile figures including Prince Andrew and Alan Ders...

The documents contain multiple sworn statements, media excerpts, and court orders that reference alleged sexual encounters between [REDACTED - Survivor] (Jane Doe 3) and Prince Andrew, as well as accusatio Exhibits list media articles linking Prince Andrew and Dershowitz to alleged sexual abuse of a minor Court order strikes detailed allegations but preserves the right of Jane Doe 3 to reassert them wi

25p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Court Transcript Reveals Potential Undisclosed Evidence and High‑Profile Connections in Giuffre v. Maxwell Defamation Case

The transcript contains several concrete references that could be pursued for investigative value: attempts to depose former President Bill Clinton; FOIA requests and alleged FBI involvement (Louie Fr Plaintiff’s counsel sought to depose Bill Clinton to establish his relationship with Epstein. Reference to former FBI Director Louis Freeh as an expert witness without a Rule 26 disclosure. Discussio

138p
House OversightMar 20, 2017

Court filings reveal alleged links between Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking network and high‑profile figures including Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz

Court filings reveal alleged links between Jeffrey Epstein’s sex‑trafficking network and high‑profile figures including Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz The documents contain multiple sworn statements, media excerpts, and court orders that reference alleged sexual encounters between [REDACTED - Survivor] (Jane Doe 3) and Prince Andrew, as well as accusations against Alan Dershowitz. While many of the claims have been publicly reported, the filing includes sealed exhibits and specific procedural motions (Rule 21/15) that could provide new evidentiary leads, such as the referenced sealed documents and the alleged list of other powerful individuals (politicians, business executives, foreign leaders). The presence of a judge’s order striking certain allegations and the detailed procedural history suggest actionable avenues for further discovery and verification. Key insights: Exhibits list media articles linking Prince Andrew and Dershowitz to alleged sexual abuse of a minor.; Court order strikes detailed allegations but preserves the right of Jane Doe 3 to reassert them with proper evidence.; Reference to a “list of numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well‑known Prime Minister, and other world leaders” in the Rule 21 motion.

1p
House OversightMay 25, 2017

Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell – Oral Argument Docket (Southern District of New York, March 31, 2017)

Virginia L. Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell – Oral Argument Docket (Southern District of New York, March 31, 2017) The document is a routine court docket listing parties, counsel, and judge for an oral argument. It contains no substantive allegations, financial details, or connections to powerful actors beyond the already public parties. As such, it offers no actionable investigative leads. Key insights: Case number: 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS); Judge: Hon. Robert W. Sweet; Plaintiff: Virginia L. Giuffre

1p
House OversightUnknown

Jeffrey Epstein non‑prosecution agreement and alleged high‑level connections revealed in multiple Palm Beach filings

Jeffrey Epstein non‑prosecution agreement and alleged high‑level connections revealed in multiple Palm Beach filings The passage aggregates numerous contemporaneous reports about a secret non‑prosecution agreement that allowed billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to avoid federal charges, mentions specific federal actors (U.S. Attorney's Office, FBI, Assistant U.S. Attorneys), and lists a roster of powerful individuals allegedly on Epstein’s private jet (Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Ehud Barak, Andrés Pastrana, Lawrence Summers, Ron Burkle, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker). It also cites procedural irregularities, victim exclusion, and potential immunity for co‑conspirators. These details provide concrete leads – names, dates, court actions, and alleged financial flows – that merit further investigation into possible prosecutorial misconduct, quid‑pro quo arrangements, and foreign‑political influence. Key insights: Sealed non‑prosecution agreement between Epstein and U.S. Attorney's Office (2007‑2008) prevented federal charges.; Agreement granted immunity to co‑conspirators Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, Nadia Marcinkova.; Victims were not consulted; attorneys claim the deal is unprecedented for an individual.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.