Epstein Secrets

• U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation In Reply, Please Refer to Pile No. Seth Lehrman, Esquire Rothstein Rosenfeldt, Adler Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Jane Doe v. Jeffre Case No: 08-8089 Dear Mr. Lehrman: stein IN/ 16320 N.W.

eral Bureau of Investigation In Reply, Please Refer to Pile No. Seth Lehrman, Esquire Rothstein Rosenfeldt, Adler Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Re: Jane Doe v. Jeffre Case No: 08-8089 Dear Mr. Lehrman: stein IN/ 16320 N.W. 2nd Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33169 October 20, 2009 We are in rece

w." Rothstein's response to the same line of questioning when asked about all of the other attorneys with whom Edwards worked, such as Gary Fanner, Seth Lehrman, and Mark Fistos was, unequivocally, "yes", that they would have reported illegal activity." In the afternoon session of his deposition on that sa

ge female plaintiff. To augment his concocted story, Rothstein invited D3 to his office to view the thirteen banker's boxes of actual case files in Jane Doe in order to demonstrate that the claims against Epstein were legitimate and that the evidence against Epstein was real. In particular, Rothstein cla

224 Datum Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 68 Igor Zinoview Addres,, Ci i ently Unknown 69. Address Currently'Unknown 70. • 71. Seth Lehrman 425 N ANDREWS AVE., SUITE 2 FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 72 Matt Weissing 425 N ANDREWS AVE., SUITE 2 FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 73. Maria Villafan

AL 10104 FORREST HILL BLVD WELLINGTON, FL 33414 150. All witnesses that Defendants have listed on their Witness List not objected to by Plaintiff, Jane Doe. 151. All rebuttal witnesses. 152. All People on Jeffrey Epstein's Inmate Visitor Log while he was in jail. WITNESS TESTIMONY EXPECTED TO BE PRESE

mer. Jaffe. Weissing. Edwards. Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE TO FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION protected by privacy rights 06118-06146 09/15/2009 Seth Lehrman Bradley Edwards Farnsworth v. Marys case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the dis

to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 05541 07/31/2009 Carolyn Edwards Bradley Edwards All depos in Jane doe's case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; pr

mer, Jaffe, Weissing. Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman BATES DATE LQ FROM DESCRIPTION OBJECTION protected by privacy rights 06118-06146 09/15/2009 Seth Lehrman Bradley Edwards Farnsworth v. Macys case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the dis

to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 05541 07/31/2O09 Carolyn Edwards Bradley Edwards All depos in jane doe's case Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; pr