Epstein Secrets

nswering. Id. at page 89; lines 4-8. Q: With regard to E.W. you filed a case — well, let me ask you this: Do you know how E.W. come to contact Mr. Howell? Did he ever relate that to you? Id. at page 89; lines 9 -12. MR. SCAROLA: If it's in information that you obtained from your client, I instruct y

R. SCAROLA: If it's in information that you obtained from your client, I instruct you not to answer. If it's information that you obtained from Mr. Howell, I also instruct you not to answer. Both instructions are on the basis of attorney-client and work-product privileges. Id. at page 89; lines 3-19.

AROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. Id. at page 98; line 24-25. Q: All right. At the time you began representing E.W. or at any time prior to the filing of the lawsuit against the United States Government in July of '08, did you learn whether she was listed as a, o

reet, Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330I• 954.467.1223 EFTA00799405 lines 20-21. Q: During that time that you have been involved in this case on behalf of E.W., has Mr. Howell participated in the case; that is, has he done work on the case? Id. at page 90; lines 20-23. A: Yes. Id. at page 90; line 24. Q:

nswering. Id. at page 89; lines 4-8. Q: With regard to E.W. you filed a case — well, let me ask you this: Do you know how E.W. come to contact Mr. Howell? Did he ever relate that to you? Id. at page 89; lines 9 -12. MR. SCAROLA: If it's in information that you obtained from your client, I instruct y

R. SCAROLA: If it's in information that you obtained from your client, I instruct you not to answer. If it's information that you obtained from Mr. Howell, I also instruct you not to answer. Both instructions are on the basis of attorney-client and work-product privileges. Id. at page 89; lines 3-19.

AROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. Id. at page 98; line 24-25. Q: All right. At the time you began representing E.W. or at any time prior to the filing of the lawsuit against the United States Government in July of '08, did you learn whether she was listed as a, o

Attorney-Client and work-product privileges. Id. at page 89; lines 20-21. Q: During that time that you have been involved in this case on behalf of E.W., 3 It is significant to note that other jurisdictions have sanctioned counsel for just this behavior during deposition. See e.g. Van Pilsum v. Iow

EFTA00606629 1.) For example, Edwards's attorney instructed him when Edwards was asked how one plaintiff, E.W., came to contact referring attorney Howell. Id. at 89, lines 9-19. Edward's attorney told him he could not even answer the threshold "yes" or "no" question: Did [Mr. Howell] ever relate that

referring attorney Howell. Id. at 89, lines 9-19. Edward's attorney told him he could not even answer the threshold "yes" or "no" question: Did [Mr. Howell] ever relate that to you." Id. 9. Edwards in one instance when asked what his client E.W. told him on the phone, himself claimed privilege. Id. a

answer the threshold "yes" or "no" question: Did [Mr. Howell] ever relate that to you." Id. 9. Edwards in one instance when asked what his client E.W. told him on the phone, himself claimed privilege. Id. at 90. Later, when asked "for what purpose did Ms. L.M. originally hire you?," his attorney o

d BE bring active filed cases agst JEE to RRA when he joined? 14.9 Did you know Paul Cassell? If yes, since when and how did you meet? 14.10 A Mr. Howell? same as for Cassell. 14.11 3 files: State court was ■. (Jane Doe # 2), E.W. (Jane Doe #1) and . 14.12 Who staffed the Epstein files? 14.12.1 BE

Paul Cassell? If yes, since when and how did you meet? 14.10 A Mr. Howell? same as for Cassell. 14.11 3 files: State court was ■. (Jane Doe # 2), E.W. (Jane Doe #1) and . 14.12 Who staffed the Epstein files? 14.12.1 BE testified that you Judge Stone, Bill Berger and Rob Buschell worked on cases?

t the Palm Beach County Bench Bar Conference likely delayed Edwards' efforts at submitting an order. 6 EFTA00805463 For Mr. Cassell, through Mr. Howell, to suggest anything contrary to Epstein's counsel's complete cooperation and compliance with the trial court's rulings is unfounded, scandalous, i

f from Stay with Request for Expedited Consideration" and as grounds states: Introduction No legal standing or basis exists for non-parties, L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe, to "join" any appellate motion or action by Edwards.' The unnecessary intervention appearance below by E.W., L.M. and Jane Doe, whil