Epstein Secrets

ppropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tune order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior

n earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Let's work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropria

ppropriate. Eighth, it is both unreasonable and unjustifiable to hold Mr. Epstein responsible—never mind declare him in breach—with regard to Judge McSorley's nunc pro tune order. Exhibit 1, June 15, 2009 Letter at 3. Neither Mr. Epstein nor defense counsel had anything to do with and certainly no prior

n earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Let's work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropria

s Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecutio

n earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related Issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Lets work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriat

s Office about legal repercussions if he was not admitted to the program. I also discovered—again, not from Mr. Epstein or his attorneys—that Judge McSorley had modified Mr. Epstein's judgment motc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I," which directly contradicted the terms of the Non- Prosecutio

n earlier proposal that had been discussed amongst the parties to rely on a Special Master to resolve outstanding fee-related Issues. We agree with Kathy's "proposal" that we rely on a Special Master to resolve all outstanding fee issues. Lets work during our Wednesday meeting to select an appropriat