Epstein Secrets

failure to set a timely plea and sentencing date. At that time, you assured me that the scheduling delay was caused by the unavailability of Judge McSorley. You promised that a date would be set promptly. On November 15th, Rolando Garcia met with Barry Krisher on another matter, and was told by Mr. Kris

EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 8 Doe. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11 Jane Doe II. 12 THE COURT: Good morning. 13 MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 14 Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff C.M.A.. 15 THE COUR

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

ot meet the threshold requirements for the imposition of the waiver of liability portion of Paragraph 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Jane Doe II in 09-80469-CIV-Marra, a federal lawsuit filed in March, 2009 seeking "exclusively 2255" damages, while Jane Doe I1 already bad a pending state cou

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

ot meet the threshold requirements for the imposition of the waiver of liability portion of Paragraph 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Jane Doe II in 09-80469-CIV-Marra, a federal lawsuit filed in March, 2009 seeking "exclusively 2255" damages, while Jane Doe I1 already bad a pending state cou

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

ot meet the threshold requirements for the imposition of the waiver of liability portion of Paragraph 8 of the NPA is demonstrated by the filings of Jane Doe II in 09-80469-CIV-Marra, a federal lawsuit filed in March, 2009 seeking "exclusively 2255" damages, while Jane Doe I1 already bad a pending state cou

provide certified copies of same to the officer for use in compliance with the requirements of law. DONE AND ORDERED, on NUNC PRO TUNC 06-30-2008 Sandra K. McSorley, Circuit dge I ac ow ge receipt of a copy of this order and that the conditions have plained to me and I agree by them. ep/07-02-08 Defendant

ontinue to attempt to control how discovery is conducted in this case and how this court has historically governed discovery. 9. Interestingly, in Jane Doe II, the state court case, attorney Sid Garcia took the deposition of the Defendant and his client, Jane Doe II, was present throughout the deposition.

provide certified copies of same to the officer for use in compliance with the requirements of law. DONE AND ORDERED, on NUNC PRO TUNC 06-30-2008 Sandra K. McSorley, Circuit dge I ac ow ge receipt of a copy of this order and that the conditions have plained to me and I agree by them. ep/07-02-08 Defendant

ontinue to attempt to control how discovery is conducted in this case and how this court has historically governed discovery. 9. Interestingly, in Jane Doe II, the state court case, attorney Sid Garcia took the deposition of the Defendant and his client, Jane Doe II, was present throughout the deposition.