Epstein Secrets

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, 1 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution." D.E. 1,1 2. Once they received the non-prosecution Jane Doe No. 3, who seeks to be added as a party, also wasted little time in utilizing the non- prosec

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust'. Lepone 305 F.3d 1 (I' Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impendi

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, ¶ 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe

FBI's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. She told S/A Slater that she did not want to be bothered about the Epstein matter again. D.E. 304-1, ¶ 7 and D.E. 290-3 at 17-18. In their motion, petitioners claim that the facts surrounding this exchange are highly disputed, when they are not. D.E. 311 at 16

cause they were aware of the original plaintiffs' timely claims. The appellate court rejected this argument, citing this passage from Young ex rel. Nutramax Litig. Trust I. Lepone, 305 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002): [W]e repudiate the conceit that an action filed by one plaintiff gives a defendant notice of the impe