Epstein Secrets

ress conferences. The most recent estimate of the financial scope of the scheme is as much as $1 billion dollars. 30. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a recent article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. He state

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

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with. ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious.

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

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

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

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

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

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious. H

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

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions, 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009. article as saying that he had met with, ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August of 2009, but became suspicious.

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

ertain of the named Defendants, which scheme directly impacted EPSTEIN as a named defendant in the Civil Actions. 19. Miami attorney and developer, Alan Sakowitz, was quoted in a November 2009 article as saying that he had met with,ROTHSTEIN as a potential investor in August.of 2009, but became suspicious. H

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