Epstein Secrets

LLP, 176 Misc.2d 73, 77, 670.I.2d 753, 756 (Sup. Ct.M. Co. 1998) (under CPLR 3102(e), "[t]his Court may not simply rubber stamp the decision of the Minnesota court"); In re Pennzoil Co., 108..2d 666, 667, 485.1.2d 533, 535 (Ist Dep't 1985) (under Section 3102(e), quashing portion of subpoena seeking unpu

accurate misdescription. Nowhere in his complaint in the Ponzi Scheme Action does Epstein allege that the sex abuse suits brought by Jane Doe,. and E.W. were fabricated. Instead, what the complaint actually alleges is that Rothstein used 9 DWI 1584534543 3970112.000042 EFTA00596463 these three le

minors); id. at 7 ("the evidence of Epstein's crimes is now clear"). Among the many other evidentiary sources listed by Edwards: • Jane Doe,.. and E.W. have all provided graphic eyewitness testimony that they were sexually abused by Epstein when minors. See SUF ¶ 2 ("Deposition of Jane Doe, Septemb

bers of Congress. they have only 59 senators — one short of the number needed to end a Republican filibuster. Even if Al Franken were seated as Minnesota's sec- ond senator, Kennedy and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., are suffering health prob- lems that could preclude them from casting votes to end the

th to do so today. "It is against public policy for these documents to have been sealed and hidden from public scrutiny. As a member of the public, E.W. has the right to have these documents unsealed," wrote former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, now in private practice and representing one of the women.

F. Levi in Sacramento, California, I was admitted to practice in California in 1995. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the Di

ATE OF FLORIDA, E.W., THE PALM BEACH POST, B.B, Respondents. E.W.'S SEALED REQUEST TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Respondent, E.W., would show the Court as follows: 1. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this petition. The order under review is a non-final order for which no