Epstein Secrets

agent, associate, partner, shareholder, and/or other representative of RRA. 15. Defendant, WILLIAM BERGER ("BERGER"), is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. At all times relevant hereto, BERGER was an employee, agent, associate, partner, s

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

e marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00207314 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

r to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

e marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00612047 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

r to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

the marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00190040 Epstein'. RRA, et at Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

r to Take Charge of Properly of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe I. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

e marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00596503 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

e marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00729418 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

e No. 50 2008 CA 028058 XXXXMB AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach County, Florida); Complaint, L.M. I Epstein, Case No 50 2008 CA 028051 XXXXMB AB (15th Cir. Palm Beach Count, Florida). 2. Jeffrey Epstein flew at least one underage girl on his private jet for the purpose of forcing her to have sex with him and others. E

egations in depositions and other court filings. (See, e.g., Jane Doe' Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, Court File No. 08-80804-Civ- Marra/Johnson, DEl at 44-52.) 42 EFTA00177092 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 43 of 54 Petitioners' allegations pro

e marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00286297 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner In RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, In Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

Team's clients, E.W., L.M. or Jane Doe. EFTA00193786 Epstein'. RRA, et al. Page 16 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Berger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe I pstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

the marketing effort of the Ponzi scheme. EFTA00223282 Epstein 1RRA, et al. Page S6 investors or to prejudice Epstein's right to a fair trial in Palm Beach County. c) EDWARDS, Borger and Russell Adler (another named partner in RRA) all attended EPSTEIN's deposition. At that time, outrageous questions were a

ver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint