Epstein Secrets

Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg rjosefsbe rg@pod h u rst.com Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger [email protected] 21 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009

ut Jeffrey Epstein, he is a billionaire and owner of a private island in the Virgin Island (Little St. James Island), and was a financial trader at Bear Steams. He then founded his own financial management firm, J. ..-- EXHIB\1 ~ Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2009

s and Emery Air Freight. 6. According to the Vanity Fair article, before working with Wexner and Hoffenberg, defendant Jeffrey Epstein worked with Beam Stearns. He left the firm very suddenly in 1981 after being questioned by S.E.C. investigators in an insider trading scandal involving several Italian and

Epstein be ordered to answer interrogatories and produce responsive documents. Dated: April 20, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MER

AM Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/20/2009 Page 4 of 11 potential sources of information and to produce those sources.” Id. at 41. In Bear Sterns, the Court explained that the facts of Hubbell were unique and do not support a blanket, all-encompassing assertion by a witness or party that the

declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself; his assertion does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination. Id. at 684. In Bear Sterns, the Court found that the defendant failed to meet his burden in asserting the privilege against self-incrimination in response to a request for pro

sition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 23 of 24 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No

his untenable connection. Similarly, Mr. Cassell states that Epstein was questioned by the SEC in 1981 regarding an insider trading investigation at Bear Steams involving EFTA00221934 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 7 of 24 Jane Doe v. EDSICia Case No. 08-CV-

tely twenty-eight years ago, in 1981, and that Epstein was merely questioned because the SEC believed "Epstein had information on insider trading at Bear Sterns." The foregoing assertions in Mr. Cassell's affidavit have absolutely no bearing on Jane Doe's Injunction Motion. Then, Mr. Cassell goes beyond the

com Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz ahorowitz sexabuseattomev.com Stuart S. Mermelstein ssmsexabuseattornev.com William J. Berger [email protected] 21 EFTA00234891 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 165 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/

the Virgin Islands (Little St. James Island), where he serves as a financial advisor to other billionaires. He was previously a financial trader at Bear Steams. It is therefore reasonable to infer that he has a great deal of financial sophistication. See Affidavit of Paul Cassell at ¶ 2 Attachment A to this

s and Emery Air Freight. 6. According to the Vanity Fair article, before working with Wexner and Hoffenberg, defendant Jeffrey Epstein worked with Beam Stearns. He left the firm very suddenly in 1981 after being questioned by S.E.C. investigators in an insider trading scandal involving several Italian and

ordered to answer interrogatories and produce responsive documents. Dated: April 20, 2009 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Stuart S. Mermelstein Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] MERMELSTEIN & HOROWITZ, P.A. At

ertain records sought in the government's subpoena would be directly incriminating. Hubbell, 167 F.3d at 582. Id. at 683. As noted by the Court in Bear Sterns, a determination that the production of documents would be testimonial cannot be premised on the witness's say so: A witness is not exonerated from