Epstein Secrets

imself as Jeffrey Epstein's personal assistant, right? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q That's somebody who you know to work for or at the Florida Science Foundation, which is owned by Jeffrey Epstein, correct? MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. A Fifth. Q It Is also somebody that you know to have stayed at Jeff

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in either 2001 or 2002? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q Did you, in fact, call A.G. to come to Jeffrey Epstein's home and give him a massage in a sexual nature in 2001 or 2002? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q Dld you

for a massage of a sexual nature? MR. YAREMA: Object to the Iona. A Fifth. Q Did Jeffrey Epstein tell you it was his intent during the course of A.G.'s visit to his home to persuade, induce or entice her to engage in sexual activity? MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. A Fifth. Q Didn't Jeffrey Ep

e same building (and on the same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Jack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation — an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." See http://www.brucereinhartlaw.corn. 53. While working in this Office

sonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. I1(b). Rule 1 1 uses an objective standard. Kaplan v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., 331 F.3d I251, 1255 (11th ar. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe that his actions were factu

e same building (and on the same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, Jack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation — an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work release." See http://www.brucereinhartlaw.com. 53. While working in this Office a

reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 uses an objective standard. Kaplan'. Daimleravysler, A.G., 331 F.3d I251, 1255 (11th ar. 2003). The analysis is whether "a reasonable attorney in like circumstances could believe that his actions were factu