Epstein Secrets

on Of Premises The premises at issue in this lawsuit were the residence of a diplomat of the government of Iran (Declaration of Richard C. Massey ("Massey Dec."), Exh. A thereto). As such, they were recognized as consular property by the United States Department of State ("State Department"), Office of

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alkla The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS Government's Protection Of Premises The premises at

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

er, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

Heilbrun, Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

on Of Premises The premises at issue in this lawsuit were the residence of a diplomat of the government of Iran (Declaration of Richard C. Massey ("Massey Dec."), Exh. A thereto). As such, they were recognized as consular property by the United States Department of State ("State Department"), Office of

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alk/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Governme

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously re- quired that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted un- der the leas

case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) 0FM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) 0FM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease be- Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the -Subtenants"). The Subtenants were add

dant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fish- er in 1996, purportedly without the Govern- ment's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to ter- minate Epstein's lease and brought this

on Of Premises The premises at issue in this lawsuit were the residence of a diplomat of the government of Iran (Declaration of Richard C. Massey ("Massey Dec."), Exh. A thereto). As such, they were recognized as consular property by the United States Department of State ("State Department"), Office o

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher a/k/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soffer ("Soffer")' from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). On February 2, 1998, the Governme

Administration for attorney registration purposes (see id., Exhs. E-F). The Government has not consented to the occupancy of the premises by any of Fisher's subtenants, including the present respondents (Massey Dec. ¶ 2 & n.1). Accordingly, the present SONY_GM_02742791 EFTA _00229440 EFTA01325006

r, on the following issues: (1) whether the lease unambiguously required that OFM's consent to an assignment or sublet be in writing, in which case Massey could not have orally consented, as a matter of law, to Epstein's sublet of the Premises to Fisher, (2) whether OFM was permitted under the lease to

is case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) OFM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) OFM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease because it breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably with

efendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this

ion a under ay state securities laws. We proide waited wears for private investment wad is and structured products for edorniatkrul purposes only. Massey knot giarenteed. - These values may differ abstantiaby from pricer. if any, at Mich a paw investment security a structured prixtaa may be bough or

batros et tie Bak Sweep Programs or OA mate vatittain axi ties of a Mwey Fund maybe hundred, and thepotted' returned to your you, to:trite% lanll Fisher ofMOO, tout tattle sweep *pions. Wang avers mown FAO) ad yekh. d wit** a wow Ott ion your f natal Advisor a by eating U.S Pasneiel Stokes woo* p