Epstein Secrets

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

er than to Epstein, an offer to which the Government never responded. At that time, Fisher stopped paying rent to Epstein pursuant to the sublease. B. Prior Proceedings 1. The Original Actions *4 The Government commenced this action against Epstein and Fisher in October of 1996. It seeks a declaration by the Court

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

er than to Epstein, an offer to which the Government never responded. At that time, Fisher stopped paying rent to Epstein pursuant to the sublease. B. Prior Proceedings I. The Original Actions *4 The Government commenced this action against Epstein and Fisher in October of 1996. It seeks a declaration by the Court

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

han to Epstein, an offer to which the Government never re- sponded. At that time, Fisher stopped pay- ing rent to Epstein pursuant to the sublease. B. Prior Proceedings 1. The Original Actions The Government commenced this action against Epstein and Fisher in October of 1996. It seeks a declaration by the Court

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

r than to Epstein, an offer to which the Government never responded. At that time, Fisher stopped paying rent to Epstein pursuant to the sublease. B. Prior Proceedings 1. The Original Actions *4 The Government commenced this action against Epstein and Fisher in October of 1996. It seeks a declaration by the Court