Epstein Secrets

ent Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA EFTA00210576 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 312-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2015 Page 9 of 25 "Mr. Josefsberg can provide further guidance on this issue, or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the Court's order in the ma

ry 2009 from the U.S. Attorney's Office of Epstein's guilty pleas and the potential of obtaining compensation from Epstein, Jane Doe No. 3 contacted Robert Josefsberg, Esq., the attorney referenced in the notification letter, and a lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2009, on her behalf. D.E. 290-2. Despite living in Aus

Rule 15) or must he obtain leave (Rule 21)? The district court cases are divided. The question has not been squarely decided at the circuit level. The District Court in this case gave precedence to Rule 21. We reach the opposite conclusion. Id. at 872-73 (footnotes omitted). The Fifth Circuit noted that Rule 15

ry 2009 from the U.S. Attorney's Office of Epstein's guilty pleas and the potential of obtaining compensation from Epstein, Jane Doe No. 3 contacted Robert Josefsberg, Esq., the attorney referenced in the notification letter, and a lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2009, on her behalf. D.E. 290-2. Despite living in Aus

wo victims regarding the disclosure of the entire agreement between the United States and Epstein. D.E. 290-1 at 3. The letter suggested that, "Mr. Josefsberg can provide further guidance on this issue, or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the Court's order in the ma

Rule 15) or must he obtain leave (Rule 21)? The district court cases are divided. The question has not been squarely decided at the circuit level. The District Court in this case gave precedence to Rule 21. We reach the opposite conclusion. Id. at 872-73 (footnotes omitted). The Fifth Circuit noted that Rule 15

ng the disclosure of the entire 5 EFTA00210624 agreement between the United States and Epstein. D.E. 290-1 at 3. The letter suggested that, "Mr. Josefsberg can provide further guidance on this issue, or if you select another attorney to represent you, that attorney can review the Court's order in the ma

guilty pleas and the potential of obtaining compensation from Epstein, Jane Doe No. 3 contacted the attorney referenced in the notification letter, Robert Josefsberg, Esq., and a lawsuit was filed on May 2, 2009, on her behalf. Despite living in Australia, Jane Doe No. 3 had no difficulties in accessing courts in

Rule 15) or must he obtain leave (Rule 21)? The district court cases are divided. The question has not been squarely decided at the circuit level. The District Court in this case gave precedence to Rule 21. We reach the opposite conclusion. Id. at 872-73(footnotes omitted). The Fifth Circuit noted that Rule 15

05/29/2009 122 MOTION for Hearing MOTION TO RESCHEDULE HEARING by Jane Doe No. 102, Jane Doe No. 101. Associated Cases: 9:08-cv-80119-KAM et al. (Josefsberg, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2009) 06/01/2009 Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines: Calendar Call set for 5/28/2010 10:00 AM in West Palm Beach Division b

ng in part and denying in part 129 Motion to Reschedule Hearing. The hearing will not be reset. However, Robert Josefsberg may r tel honically. Mr. Josefsberg shall contact the courtroom deputy at chambers at least 24 hours prior to the hearing.. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 06/01/09. (1c3) (Entere

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe I. Francis. No. 5:

pley, P.A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Counsel for Plaintiff, Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800 130 EFTA00182754 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 E

No. 3-89-293-H. Jan. 16, 1990. Defendant who allegedly breached nonprosecu- lion agreement moved to dismiss indictment or to suppress statements. The District Court, Sanders, Chief Judge, held that: (I) defendant, who refused to cooperate by failing to meet with Government representatives, failing to testify b

gency and sought no expedited relief, Mr. Epstein, pursuant to his obligation under the Non-Prosecution Agreement, paid an attorney representative, Robert Josefsberg, substantial legal fees to represent many of the witnesses against him and settled many civil cases brought by the attorney representative. Mr. Eps

stemming from coverage dispute over hurricane dam- age. Association's former attorneys moved to intervene and for ancillary proceeding. Holdings: The District Court, Chris McA- liley, United States Magistrate Judge, held that: (1) intervention as of right was warranted, and (2) ancillary proceeding to sanctio