Epstein Secrets

ction by the Daily News of the recording. I attach the Rush declaration hereto as Ex. 3. 3 EFTA00728446 7. The Daily News then took an appeal to the Second Circuit. While the appeal was pending, however, the underlying civil suits by the three girls settled, leading to an automatic vacation of the district cou

e counsel a copy of the interview recording. (Id. I 8.) Mr. Rush subsequently corrected the date of the interview to "prior to October 22, 2009." (Rush Supp. Aff., Apr. 30, 2010 [Carroll Reply Decl., May 3, 2010, Ex. C] I 2.) At the outset of the interview, Mr Epstein said that it was off-the-record, a

Id. This is unique and direct evidence of Epstein's lack of remorse that is not cumulative of anything else Edwards can present' 7 In its brief to the Second Circuit on the "Jane Doe" case, the Daily News claimed that Epstein's recording "shows little more than a defendant, charged in multiple actions with commit

ourt conclude that "Epstein made no material admissions regarding the young women suing him for sexual abuse." Daily News Memo. of Law at 6 (citing Rush Supp. Aff. 7 4-5) (emphasis in original). This conclusory assertion is flatly inaccurate, as others who have listened to the recording have explained. On

nfidential source and his unpublished interview therefore fell within the federal qualified privilege that governs non-confidential news material in the Second Circuit. Dist. Ct. Op. at 4 (quoting Gonzales v. NBC, 194 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1999)). Applying the federal qualified privilege standard (which is signific

on a digital recording device. Id. During the interview, Epstein made no material admissions regarding the young women suing him for sexual abuse. Rush Supp. Aff. ¶¶ 4-5. So too, because the interview took place months before Epstein filed the Ponzi Scheme Action (and before Rothstein was even publicly