Epstein Secrets

oing was served on July 28, 2008 by U.S. mail on all counsel named on the service list. ea* Michael R. Tein SERVICE LIST Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. 11101011n. Miami, Florida 33160 12 EFTA00215871

nly reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government's criminal investigation of the defendants a

ng was served on July 28, 2008 by U.S. mail on all counsel named on the service list. 4444 Michael R. Tein SERVICE LIST Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstcin, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 12 EFTA00221976

nly reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government's criminal investigation of the defendants a

fy that the foregoing document is being served this day on counsel of record identified below by facsimile and U.S. Mail. Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstein, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 Fax: 305 931 0877 /s/ Jack A. Gold

id service was service under New York rules of procedure. Cf. RCP's Lear, LLC I. Taughannock Aviation Corp., No. 5:07-CV-96, 2008 WL 305103, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2008) (observing that "[a]s a threshold matter, the court must [first] address the rules pursuant to which process was served"). Service

ng was served on July 28, 2008 by U.S. mail on all counsel named on the service list. 4444 Michael R. Tein SERVICE LIST Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstcin, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 12 EFTA00222419

nly reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government's criminal investigation of the defendants a

tirety. Dated: October 31, 2008. Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Jeffrey M. Herman Jeffrey M. Herman (FL Bar No. 521647) [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein (FL Bar No. 947245) ,smehermanlaw.com Adam D. Horowitz (FL Bar No. 376980) [email protected] HERMAN & MERMELSTELN, P.A. Attorneys for Plai

i, Florida 33160 Re: Jeffrey Epstein: NOTIFICATION QF IDENTIFIED VICTIM Dear Mr. Herman: By virtue of this letter, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida asks that you provide the following notice to your client, On June 30, 2008, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter referred to as "Epstein) enter

ng was served on July 28, 2008 by U.S. mail on all counsel named on the service list. 4444 Michael R. Tein SERVICE LIST Jeffrey M. Herman, Esq. Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Herman & Mermelstcin, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2218 Miami, Florida 33160 12 EFTA01660036

nly reported decision addressing this provision interpreted it according to its plain language. See Ara v. Khan, No. CV 07-1251, 2007 WL 1726456,'2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2007) (ordering "all proceedings in this case stayed pending the conclusion of the government's criminal investigation of the defendants a

t 06/10/2009 Page 7 of 8 Doe 101 v. Epstein Page 7 Certificate of Service Jane Doe No. 2 v. Jeffrey Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 2218 Miami FL 3 160 Fax: ssmasexabuseattomev.com Coun

EFTA00182828 Page 18 of 20 908 F.Supp. 1265 908 F.Supp. 1265 (Cite as: 908 F.Supp. 1265) Memorandum of Decision and Order, October 19, 1995 (E.D.N.Y.). In Brechner, a defendant subjec- ted to a similar truthfulness obligation was asked in a debriefing session whether or not he had received unrepo