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

ee related issues that the Podhurst firm and Mr. Epstein's civil counsel cannot resolve. See Exhibit 20, June 15, 2009 Letter from Robert Critton to Kathy Ezell. There is nothing about the exchanges between counsel and the USAO regarding the attorney representative that even begins to approach a "willful" b

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

ee related issues that the Podhurst firm and Mr. Epstein's civil counsel cannot resolve. See Exhibit 20, June 15, 2009 Letter from Robert Critton to Kathy Ezell. There is nothing about the exchanges between counsel and the USAO regarding the attorney representative that even begins to approach a "willful" b

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

effiey Epstein I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fe

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

pstein Dear a I am attaching a letter authored by my co-counsel, Robert Critton, on today's date. It represents our agreement with a proposal that Kathy Ezell indicated in a letter dated June 8, 2009 would be fully acceptable to her and Bob Josefsberg as a means to resolve expeditiously all outstanding fe

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

J. BENAVENTE PARALIOAL/M55113.700. BARBARA M. McYJNNA ASHUB SIDKEN•BARMO BETTY STOKES PAPALZO&L1 RITA H. BUDNTIC Or COUPRIA On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been

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

J. BENAVENTE PARALIOAL/M55113.700. BARBARA M. McYJNNA ASHUB SIDKEN•BARMO BETTY STOKES PAPALZO&L1 RITA H. BUDNTIC Or COUPRIA On June 8, 2009, Kathy Ezell wrote a letter to me regarding outstanding fee payment issues. At page 3, she stated that she was not adverse to an earlier proposal that had been