Epstein Secrets

OTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) Included claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho

ren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes L.M. made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, L.M. may knowingly have compromise

.D. Tenn. 2008). 5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is the Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush in this proceeding, sworn to on April 30, 2010. 6. Jane Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER,

eren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes 115 made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, may knowingly have compromised he

A, ROTHSTEIN and EDWARDS claiming the need for anonymity with regard to existing or fabricated clients, they were able to effectively use initials, Jane Doe or other anonymous designations which was a key element in the fraudulent scheme. Fictitious names could be created to make the investors believe m

weren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes... made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, may knowingly have compromised he

OTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) Included claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho

ren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes L.M. made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, L.M. may knowingly have compromise

.D. Tenn. 2008). 5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is the Supplementary Affidavit of George Rush in this proceeding, sworn to on April 30, 2010. 6. Jane Doe's brief in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal claims in this action ("Si °pp.') may be found on PACER,

eren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes 115 made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, may knowingly have compromised he

THSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, L.M. in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) Included claims for dirnages in Jane Doe's federal action in excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho

ren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) 1. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes L.M. made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, L.M. may knowingly have compromise

ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) Included claims for de-triages in Jane Doe's federal action in excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho

eren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes'''. made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, may knowingly have compromised he

N, ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS (who either know or should have known) and, at times, in her Civil Action against EPSTEIN: a) Included claims for damages in Jane Doe's federal action in excess of $50,000,000.00 rather than simply alleging the jurisdictional limits. b) Organized a Jane Doe TV media interview witho

s weren't comfortable. (DT 171:13) f. The above represent only a few of the dramatic changes made in her testimony prior to her representation by EDWARDS/RRA and after she hired ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and RRA. 48. As a result of the fraudulent investment or (Ponzi) scheme, may knowingly have compromised he