CHAPTER 8

A Pattern of Perjury Suborned

 

In sexual assault cases, prosecutors often seek to introduce evidence that the accused rapist had a pattern of prior assaults that gives credence to the accusation for which he is standing trial. Such a pattern can constitute powerful corroboration for an alleged victim’s testimony. In Bill Cosby’s first trial, prosecutors failed to introduce pattern evidence and the result was a hung jury. In the second trial, they introduced the testimony of other women who said they were drugged before being raped. The jury then convicted.⁴⁵ In the Weinstein case, the prosecutor—over strong objection by the defense—is being permitted to introduce pattern evidence.

But there is another side of the coin with regard to pattern evidence. Sometimes there is a pattern of perjury or of suborning perjury for financial gain. In my case, after I proved that Giuffre was lying, her lawyers got two other women to follow her pattern.⁴⁶

David Boies had threatened to find “another girl” to accuse me, unless I withdrew disciplinary charges I had filed against him with bar associations. As he told my source, “Two are better than one.” That person told me that Boies was “trolling” for another woman to accuse me. I refused to withdraw the charges, and he “found” a thirty-something-year-old woman named Sarah Ransome, who was willing to say that she had participated in a “threesome” with me when she was 22 years old and working with Epstein. As with Giuffre, I had never met or heard of this liar. She, too, had made up the story after meeting with and presumably being pressured by the same lawyer or lawyers who had pressured Giuffre to lie about me. The pattern was beginning to become obvious. But this woman was even a bigger liar—which she eventually admitted—than Giuffre. In the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Ransome wrote dozens of emails to a reporter for the New York Post claiming that she possessed “sex tapes” of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Richard Branson. (Appendix H)

She also claimed to have been targeted for assassination by Hillary Clinton and the CIA and that she was working with Russian KGB to prevent the election of the two “pedophiles” who were running for president. The New York Post reporter asked her for proof of what she was saying, but the woman had none. So the reporter told me that she concluded that Ransome was either hallucinating or lying and refused to publish her claims even on the gossipy Page 6. But what wasn’t credible enough for Page 6 was apparently credible enough for David Boies, who vouched for Ransome’s truthfulness by filing her affidavit falsely accusing me.

It is a sad sign of the times that the New York Post reporter has refused to publish these emails—which she and the Post are free to do. They, like other media, refuse to disclose negative factual information about alleged #MeToo victims, if such information would undercut the politically correct, but often factually incorrect, narrative of victimization.

In her emails, Ransome, like Giuffre, mentioned me. And like Giuffre, she mentioned me as someone she did not have sex with. She claimed, quite absurdly, that I had been her lawyer and was suing a man who met her on the “sugar daddy” website where young women express a willingness to exchange sex with wealthy men for money. Of course she had no evidence—no retainer agreement, court documents, letters, witnesses or anything else—to support her absurd claim, because I had never met her and was not her lawyer. But that isn’t the important point. What is critical is that the story she made up about me before meeting her lawyers was that I was her lawyer and not her sex partner. She concocted the phony sex story about me only after she met her greedy lawyers, who were aware that she had previously made up false stories about the sex tapes and Clinton assassination plot.⁴⁷

When I publicized Ransome’s many lies, she was forced to admit to a journalist that she had “invented” the story and the sex tapes in order to take revenge against Epstein and prevent him from harming her.⁴⁸ She did not say why she invented the story about me, but the obvious reason is that it was part of a pattern of being pressured by the same lawyer or lawyers who had pressured Giuffre into falsely accusing me.

Perhaps two nearly identical instances of lying as a result of being pressured by the same lawyers does not constitute a pattern, but three does. And there is indeed a third component of the pattern.

A woman named Maria Farmer worked for Epstein in his New York home until the early summer of 1996, when she claims he assaulted her on Leslie Wexner’s property in New Albany, Ohio. She then stopped working for Epstein and never again set foot in his house. Boies—who else?—submitted an affidavit from Farmer swearing she had seen me in Epstein’s house when she worked for him. She swore she saw me in the presence of young women, though she said she didn’t witness any wrongdoing on my part.⁴⁹ The problem with her affidavit is that I didn’t even meet Epstein until well after she stopped working for him, and was never in his house until months after she stopped coming there. The documented chronology makes it impossible for her to have seen me in his house. Yet Boies submitted her perjured affidavit, knowing that I hadn’t even met Epstein, and was certainly never in his house, until after she terminated her relationship with him.

Thus, the pattern of perjury is clear: three women, all represented by the same lawyers, change their stories in an effort to incriminate me only after meeting these lawyers and apparently being pressured by them.

I believe this insidious pattern should be investigated by law enforcement. Subornation of perjury is a serious crime,⁵⁰ especially when committed by lawyers. A pattern of subornation is even more serious. If such a pattern in fact occurred with three perjuring women, and if their perjury was suborned by lawyers, there should be legal consequences.

In any event, none of these three women should now be believed, based on the indisputable evidence that they are lying. Three false witnesses are not better than one, especially if all three are represented and pressured by the same lawyers. Some may say that where there’s smoke, there must be fire. But is some cases, like this one, the smoke may be a sign of arson—of three fires set by the same team of arsonists.

 

45 Kris Maher, Bill Consby Is Found Guilty in Second Trial for Sexual Assault, Wall Street Journal, April. 26, 2018.

46 Stephen Rex Brown, Second Woman Claims Billionaire Perv Jeffrey Epstein ‘Directed’ Her to Have Sex with Alan Dershowitz, New York Daily News, Dec. 18, 2018; Julie K. Brown, New Jeffrey Epstein Accuser Emerges; Defamation Suit Filed, Miami Herald, April 16, 2019.

47 The actual emails—dozens of them—remain sealed, but the Post reporter told me their content and I’m free to repeat what she told me and I memorialized in a contemporaneous memorandum. See Appendix H. Eventually, Ransome’s mendacious emails will be unsealed, and I will send them to appropriate bar associations and prosecutors to assess the conduct of lawyers who would submit affidavits from so obviously non-credible an accuser.

48 As Connie Bruck reported in her long New Yorker profile, “For Ransome, as for the other women, these benefits [from Epstein] depended on her having sex with Epstein and with his friends. In her affidavit, she named Dershowitz as one of those friends. Ransome was another imperfect witness. In the fall of 2016, she had suggested to the New York Post that she had sex tapes of half a dozen prominent people, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump – but couldn’t provide the tapes when asked. (Ransome told me that she invented the tapes to draw attention to Epstein’s behavior, and to make him believe that she had “evidence that would come out if he harmed me.”)” Connie Bruck, Alan Dershowitz, Devil’s Advocate, The New Yorker, July 29, 2019.

Bruck was misstating the facts when she “reported” that Ransome had merely “suggested” that she had sex tapes of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. She had categorically stated that she had actual possession of such tapes. Bruck also conveniently left out Hillary Clinton from the list of sex tapes that Ransome claimed to have.

49 https://www.scribd.com/document/406613394/Affidavit-of-Maria-Farmer.

50 Title 18 U.S.C. §1622.