Epstein Secrets

eral law are "identical" to those under the applicable New York statute.— See Persky, supra. 2002 WL 31769704, at *3 (McKenna. J.). " Notably. Mr. Fisten claims he "wrote up a report memorializing what Rush had told me" shortly after his conversation with Mr. Rush (Fisten Aft*" I I) but chooses not to

ed on April 13.2010 ("Si Opp.").8 she repeatedly argues that in fact she has more than enough evidence against him to survive the motion. See. egs, SJ Opp. at 12 ("far from supporting summary judgment for the defendant, the evidence overwhelmingly inclines in favor") (see other examples Carroll Reply

tled his case; finding that "the probative value of this testimony is ex- tremely high because of its similarity with the allegations in this case"); SJ Opp. at 10-11 (- Statement of Material Fact (-SOMF") 1 19), citing F.R.E. 415 and passages of Epstein's and her own depositions in support of statement

unsel responded that they would do so only if movants would stipulate to the accuracy of all facts alleged in the subpoenas of Brad- ley Edwards and Michael Fisten submitted in support of Doe's opposition to movants' motion to quash or for a protective order. I declined. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that

interview with Jeffrey Epstein but whom I did not identify in my prior affidavit. Hearing that refreshed my memory that in fact I did speak to Mr. Fisten about the interview. The attorney's representation that the interview with Mr. Epstein must have occurred prior to October 22, 2009, because my conv

for Admission as "[y]ou have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor," and "[y]ou digitally penetrated Plaintiff when she was a minor," SJ Opp. at 4, and his refusal to answer numerous questions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of

eral law are "identical" to those under the applicable New York statute.— See Persky. supra. 2002 WL 31769704, at *3 (McKenna. J.). " Notably. Mr. Fisten claims he "wrote up a report memorializing what Rush had told me" shortly after his conversation with Mr. Rush (Fisten Aft*" I I) but chooses not to

d on April 13, 2010 ("Si Opp.").8 she repeatedly argues that in fact she has more than enough evidence against him to survive the motion. See. egs, SJ Opp. at 12 ("far from supporting summary judgment for the defendant, the evidence overwhelmingly inclines in Jane Doe's favor") (see other examples Carr

tled his case; finding that "the probative value of this testimony is ex- tremely high because of its similarity with the allegations in this case"); SJ Opp. at 10-11 (Doe's Statement of Material Fact (-SOMF") 1 19), citing F.R.E. 415 and passages of Epstein's and her own depositions in support of state

unsel responded that they would do so only if movants would stipulate to the accuracy of all facts alleged in the subpoenas of Brad- ley Edwards and Michael Fisten submitted in support of Doe's opposition to movants' motion to quash or for a protective order. I declined. I declare under penalty of perjury that

interview with Jeffrey Epstein but whom I did not identify in my prior affidavit. Hearing that refreshed my memory that in fact I did speak to Mr. Fisten about the interview. The attorney's representation that the interview with Mr. Epstein must have occurred prior to October 22, 2009, because my conv

tein's silence in the face of such confrontational Requests for Admission as "[y]ou have committed sexual assault against Plaintiff, a minor," and SJ Opp. at 4, and his refusal to answer numerous questions at a Mar. 8, 2010, deposition, id. at 10 & Ex. D. 8. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E is a copy of