EFTA00867316.pdf

From: G Maxwell < To: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 20:48:13 +0000 Draft Letter to the Editor of the Mail on Sunday Dear Sir, Our client: Ghislaine Maxwell Matter: We have previously written to you recording our client's denial of allegations made by and calling into question the accuracy of reporting. As a publication regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation, you must uphold the Editor's Code of Practice. You will be familiar with this and in particular: All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. It is essential that the agreed code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit. It is a responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously. The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and where appropriate, an apology published. Contrary to the above, you have run a number of articles which accuse our client of having engaged in procuring minors for prostitution, which is obviously a most serious accusation and so requires detailed investigation prior to publication. The articles date back to March 2011 and remain online via your website even though they contain contradictory accounts, from which it is evident that you knew that material you have published and which denigrates our client, is inaccurate, misleading or distorted. The stories you have run are based upon information provided to you by It would appear that you have taken no effective steps to check the information provided or to investigate On 7 March 2011 you first published allegations under the heading "Epstein's Girl Friday 'fixer': dead tycoon's daughter Ghislaine Maxwell and the girl she hired for paedophile stable". On 4 April 2014 you published basically the same allegations again under the heading "The bombshell court document that claims Prince Andrew knew about billionaire friend's abuse of underage girls". More recently on 4 January 2015 you published a "world exclusive" under the heading "The first full account of the masseuse at the centre of the explosive Prince Andrew 'sex slave' drama... but is she telling the truth?" It should have been readily apparent to you from the content of your article on 4 January 2015 that is not telling the truth. EFTA00867316 Your stated sources for the article on 4 January 2015 are "the court documents Ms lodged in Florida last week" and "we spoke to Ms twice, the last time just 12 months ago". The other occasion was obviously prior to publication on 7 March 2011. There is a glaring inconsistency, which you have ignored, between the versions of events you put forward in your article dated 7 March 2011 and what you now say is "the most complete story yet". The central allegation made b Our client emphatically deni r happened. We wrote to you following publication of these allegations in 2011 and 2014 and you stood by them. It now emerges that this is not ' case at all. Rather, that it was somebody else, who is unnamed, and not our client who is alleged to have led to Mr Epstein's bedroom and who was then present whilst Ms claims to have had sex with Mr Epstein. This is an entirely different version of events. It cannot, or should not, have escaped your notice that the story you published this Sunday was so materially different from the allegations previousii.shed that both versions of events cannot be reconciled. As both versions are based on interviews with Ms , she has clearly lied. You should have reported this prominently, and drawn the conclusion that her testimony is unreliable. Further, you should have conducted a professional investigation, in which you would have spoken to, amongst others, her family and you would then have learnt that her father states that Ms told him she met the Queen when she came to London. You could have checked that with Buckingham Palace and would have found it to be untrue. This shows Ms makes up stories. Further, you ought to have established that was employed in a burger bar which is wholly inconsistent with her sex slave account. We understand that Ms left America shortly after her then employer reported that she had stolen money. We have previously drawn to your attention that was one of the complainants THAT SURFACED CONTEMPORANOUSLY AND MAY HAVE BEEN generated by who was jailed for a substantial period for his part in a Ponzi fraud scheme, which related to encouraging investors to fund litigation against Epstein in respect of which produced false claimants. As you know, Despite the fact that was convicted of serious criminal offences of fraud relating to his conduct in generating false claims, that is a matter that you have ignored within your reporting. Any balanced journalism would have looked at the circumstances of the origin of the claim, have investigated its voracity and then taken a view as to whether or not it was accurate before reporting it. Your has failed to address the material inaccuracies in account and you have used Ms ' obviously false allegations to denigrate our client, who as Robert Maxwell's daughter YOU VIEWED AS an easy target. Ms claims are fantasy fuelled including the suggestion that she had sex with a famous prime minister. You have not challenged her to name this person as you should have done, as this is yet another fantasy. It should be apparent to you that Ms and FIRM ORIGINALLY GOT get together to make HER FALSE AND DEFAMATORY DEPOSITION false claims. Had these been properly investigated you would have reported them as such, if you reported them at all. FURTHER AS YOU ARE FULLY AWARE NON OF HER CLAIMS HAVE BEEN TAKEN UNDER OATH AND THEREFORE NOT TESTED TO ANY STANDARD OF PROBITY The above calls for an apology to our client, RETRACTIONS IN PRINT and a detailed explanation. Yours faithfully EFTA00867317 THE TERRAMAR PROJECT FACEBOOK TWITTER G+ PINTEREST INSTAGRAM PLEDGE THE DAILY CATCH From: J Jep Date: Monday, January 5, 2015 at 15:45 PM To: gmax Subject: <no subject> call now please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA00867318