Epstein Secrets

you now, I will deal with the disk problem here. The, quote, "ten boxes" in the possession of Mr. Farmer and Mr. Edwards can be dealt with at the State Court level. MR. KNIGHT: Okay. And -- THE COURT: Now, turning to the disk issue, let me hear from Mr. Silver and Mr. Lichtman. MR. LICHTMAN: You go fir

sert the privilege. And I'm seeing legally some appellate issues with that one. Actually, I think we may end up being in a reversible situation in the State Court on that, if it goes before Appellate Court scrutiny. So I'm concerned at this point legally telling Mr. Edwards and telling Mr. Farmer that they

Epstein. This Court has already ruled that everything post Link & Rockenbach is not a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order but, rather, is a State Court issue, and will not be considered at the Show Cause hearing. Therefore, there is no further live testimony that can be elicited from Epstein that wo

ns is of no moment in these proceedings. The alleged privileged e-mails and all issues related to privilege and waiver are currently pending before the State Court. CONCLUSION As the sole basis for seeking to hold Epstein liable for a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order, Movants contend that Epstein's

Epstein. This Court has already ruled that everything post Link & Rockenbach is not a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order but, rather, is a State Court issue. Therefore, there is no further live testimony that can be elicited from Epstein that would benefit the Court in deciding if Epstein violated

o answer those questions is of no moment. The alleged privileged e-mails and all issues related to privilege and waiver are currently pending before the State Court. 5 EFTA00794242 CONCLUSION As the sole basis for seeking to hold Epstein liable for a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order, Edwards cont

Epstein. This Court has already ruled that everything post Link & Rockenbach is not a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order but, rather, is a State Court issue, and will not be considered at the Show Cause hearing. Therefore, there is no further live testimony that can be elicited from Epstein that wo

ns is of no moment in these proceedings. The alleged privileged e-mails and all issues related to privilege and waiver are currently pending before the State Court. CONCLUSION As the sole basis for seeking to hold Epstein liable for a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order, Edwards contends that Epstein'

CCONV? Goon, FLOOOM 33133 4 cot 40 EFTA00234071 • • Case 9:08-cv-80811-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 40 5. The State Court docket has been filed. All papers filed in the State Court are attached to this Removal Petition. Conclusion Because this is a civil action betwee

Case 9:08-cv-80811-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 5 of 40 5. The State Court docket has been filed. All papers filed in the State Court are attached to this Removal Petition. Conclusion Because this is a civil action between citizens of different states, excluding any fraudulently

only the instant claim, but for six (6) other claims filed against Defendant EPSTEIN, including but not limited to the Florida RICO claims filed in State Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request the Court grant her Motion to Preserve of all of the seized Evidence identified in Ex. A, to Exhibit 1 o

seized Evidence identified in Ex. A, to Exhibit 1 of this Motion (Palm Beach Police Department Property Receipt) should it be Returned to EPSTEIN by the State Court, and EFTA00234456 Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2008 Page 2 of 5 expedite the duplication of this evidence i

, sir, your Honor. CHARLES H. WHOA" ESQUIRE 3 I'm William Scherer and I'm here on behalf of a 4 s on WINIIM Ea Emote 4 number of victims in the State Court action, as 6 CONRAD & SCHEItElt, by $ Wen aS the chairman of the creditors' committee WILLIAM R. SCNEKO, ESQUIRE 6 In the banIcruptiry. 7 s

1O41O111: Good morning, your Honor, MR. NESVEZTH: — both of whom are MOTE MOTION TO COMP ILPRODUCTTON OF DOCUMENT'S FROM TRUSIta, 12 familiar with the State Court angle on this than 1 12 PURSUANT TO COMMENT PRCOUCTION PROTOCOL BSTABLISHED 13 am, so they came along to be able to elucidate that BY DB0672 (S07),

n of not only the instant claim, but for other suits filed against Defendant EPSTEIN, including but not limited to the Florida RICO claims filed in State Court. 6. As stated in the certificate, the undersigned has conferred with counsel for EPSTEIN. They take the position that this motion would be moot bec

#12 in the case of JANE DOE, a/k/a. JANE DOE NO. 1 v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al. Case NO.08-80804-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON should it be Returned to EPSTEIN by the State Court, and expedite the duplication of this evidence immediately upon its return, in advance of any Rule 26 conference. EFTA00175478 Case 9:08-cv-86, .