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

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, 1 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution." D.E. 1,1 2. Once they received the non-prosecution Jane Doe No. 3, who seeks to be added as a party, also wasted little time in utilizing the non- prosec

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

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, ¶ 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

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

FBI's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. She told S/A Slater that she did not want to be bothered about the Epstein matter again. D.E. 304-1, ¶ 7 and D.E. 290-3 at 17-18. In their motion, petitioners claim that the facts surrounding this exchange are highly disputed, when they are not. D.E. 311 at 16

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

EPSTEIN upon her, Plaintiff intends to rely exclusively on the statutory damages, rather than those damages which are available at common law. (See D.E. 113). If however, the Court rules that the statutory floor applies only one time, regardless of the number of times EPSTEIN committed an enumerated

nsel Jane Doe Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Garcia Law Finn, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 08-80469 in elated Case No. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases

s extended. In light of Plaintiffs filing of her Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255 (D.E. 113) on June 5, 2009, Plaintiff agrees to a modification of the pretrial schedule as outlined in Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to Strike (D.E. 104); to