Epstein Secrets

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

rivolous; 17. That the presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a good faith basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 1 I: IS. That MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these funds by JONES, that said funds are hereby frozen and no

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

ut merit and frivoh • 17. Tha, presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 11: MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these + funds by JONES, that said funds are hereby frozen and not subje

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

rivolous; 17. That the presentation of such evidence by counsel for JONES demonstrates a lack of a good faith basis to prevent same in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 11; 18. That MORSE has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, ownership of these funds by JONES, that said funds are hereby frozen and not