Epstein Secrets

Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

. On March 13, 1998, after the Government submitted its motion, Diane Fisher executed the stipulation and order, also agreeing to be bound. To date, Soffer still has not executed the stipulation. Hence, the Government's motion for summary judgment against the Subtenants is still pending with respect to

Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H. Martin, Jesse Siegel a/k/a Jessie Siegel, Siegel, Martin & Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, and Carmen Tausik, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April I, 1998. Mary Jo White, Esq., United St

Heilbrun, Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the "Subtenants"). The Subtenants were added as defendants after the Government learned that Fisher had sublet to them without consent of OFM. Epstein and Fisher oppose ejectment on numerous grounds, some of which were rejected when I heard oral a

defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this a

ion is not returnable until April 20, 1998. Soffer, however, can have no greater rights than Fisher. Hence, the Government's motion is granted as to Soffer as well. Of course, if Soffer believes he has some basis for arguing that he has greater rights than Fisher has, he may make a motion for reconside

isher & Sophir, D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H. Martin, Jesse Siegel a/k/a Jessie Siegel, Siegel, Martin & Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, and Carmen Tausik, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April I, 1998. Mary Jo White, Esq., United St

is case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) OFM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) OFM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease because it breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by unreasonably with

efendant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fisher in 1996, purportedly without the Government's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to terminate Epstein's lease and brought this

ophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun, Suzanne McDermott, Christopher H. Martin, Jesse Siegel a/k/a Jessie Siegel, Siegel, Martin & Heilbrun, Ron Soffer, and Carmen Tausik, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. April 1, 1998. Mary Jo White, Esq., United St

On March 13, 1998, after the Government submitted its motion, Diane Fisher executed the stipulation and order, also agreeing to be bound. To date, Soffer still has not executed the stipulation. Hence, the Government's motion for summary judgment against the Subtenants is still pending with respect to

gel, Martin & Heilbrun; McDermott, Suzanne; Martin, Christopher H; John Does 1 Through 10; Heilbrun, Robert; Gerzog, Lawrence D; Fisher, Ivan; Fisher, Diane DBA the Fisher Group; Fisher & Soffer AKA Fisher & Sophir; Epstein, Jeffrey E; Ellyn Bank; Cohen, Debra Elisa COUNTER-CLAIMANT: Fisher, I

se Siegel; Siegel, Martin & Heilbrun; McDermott, Suzanne; Martin, Christopher H; John Does 1 Through 10; Heilbrun, Robert; Gerzog, Lawrence D; Fisher, Ivan; Fisher, Diane DBA the Fisher Group; Fisher & Soffer AKA Fisher & Sophir; Epstein, Jeffrey E; Ellyn Bank; Cohen, Debra Elisa COUNTER-CLAI

- NYC) USA v. Epstein, et al PLAINTIFF: United States of America DEFENDANT: X Corporations 1 Throught 10; Tausik, Carmen (Terminated 8/6/1998); Soffer, Ron; Siegel, Jessie AKA Jesse Siegel; Siegel, Martin & Heilbrun; McDermott, Suzanne; Martin, Christopher H; John Does 1 Through 10; Heilbrun,

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alkla The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS Government's Protection Of Premises The premises at

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

isher Group occupies the premises and apparently uses them to conduct business as a real estate salesperson ( see Nakano Dec., Exhs. C-D). Moreover, Soffer uses the premises as a business address and has registered the premises as his office with the New York State Office of Court Administration for at

ssions ("OFM") of the United States Department of State (the "State Department") against defendants Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"), Ivan S. Fisher ("Fisher"), Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun,

ssession of the Premises to the Government. Defendant Fisher is a resident of the State of New York and is an unapproved subtenant of the Premises. Fisher has availed himself of the use and benefits of the Premises and has failed to surrender possession of the Premises to the Government. Defendant Elly

sher & Sophir ("Fisher & Soifer") is a general partnership with a business address at 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York. Defendants Fisher and Soffer are partners in EFTA00204742 Fisher & Soifer. Fisher & Soifer is named as a defendant because it is an unapproved occupant of the Premises; has a

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher alk/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soifer ("Soifer") a from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Governme

overnment learned that a number of persons and entities other than the original defendants potentially asserted possessory claims to the Premises as Fisher's subtenants ( see Nakano Dec. ¶ 3). The Government then sought leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to name Fisher's subten

isher Group occupies the premises and apparently uses them to conduct business as a real estate salesperson ( see Nakano Dec., Exhs. C-D). Moreover, Soffer uses the premises as a business address and has registered the premises as his office with the New York State Office of Court Administration for at

case on December 17, 1997. Defendants' sole remaining defenses are that (1) 0FM orally consented to Epstein's proposed sublet of the premises to Fisher, and (2) 0FM did not properly terminate Epstein's lease be- Ron Soifer, and Carmen Tausik (collectively, the -Subtenants"). The Subtenants were add

dant Jeffrey E. Epstein in 1992. Epstein sublet the building to defendant Ivan S. Fish- er in 1996, purportedly without the Govern- ment's consent. Fisher, in turn, sublet a portion of the building to several subtenants. In 1996, the Government purported to ter- minate Epstein's lease and brought this

he Govenune attention S on Softer by telecopying a copy to his and by sending a copy by Federal Express or overnight mail to the attention of Mr. Soffer at 34 East 69th Street, NY, NY as soon as it is received by counsel for the Government (signed by Judge Denny Chin) (djc) (Entered: 04/13/1998) 04

766 EFTA _00229415 EFTA01324981 Department of State (the "State Department") against defendants Jeffrey E. Epstein ("Epstein"), Ivan S. Fisher ("Fisher"), Ellyn Bank, Debra Elisa Cohen, Diane Fisher d/b/a The Fisher Group, Fisher & Soffer a/k/a Fisher & Sophir, Lawrence D. Gerzog, Robert Heilbrun,

ion of the Premises to the Government. 5. Defendant Fisher is a resident of the State of New York and is an unapproved subtenant of the Premises. Fisher has availed himself of the use and benefits of the Premises and has failed to surrender possession of the Premises to the Government. 6. Defendan

Ron Soffer ("Soffer") is a resident of both the State of New York and France, with a business address at 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York. Soffer is named as a defendant because he is an unapproved occupant of the Premises; has availed herself of the use and benefits of the Premises; and has o

y judgment on its second cause of action in the second amended complaint for an order ejecting defendants Diane Fisher a/k/a The Fisher Group ("Ms. Fisher") and Ron Soffer ("Soffer")' from the premises known as 34 East 69th Street, New York, New York (the "premises"). On February 2, 1998, the Governme

Administration for attorney registration purposes (see id., Exhs. E-F). The Government has not consented to the occupancy of the premises by any of Fisher's subtenants, including the present respondents (Massey Dec. ¶ 2 & n.1). Accordingly, the present SONY_GM_02742791 EFTA _00229440 EFTA01325006

isher Group occupies the premises and apparently uses them to conduct business as a real estate salesperson (see Nakano Dec., Exhs. C-D). Moreover, Soffer uses the premises as a business address and has registered the premises as his office with the New York State Office of Court Administration for at