Epstein Secrets

ears in the making! April 5.9th 2018 — Visit for more =nfo <https://www.originsl0year.com/> cimage002.png> =/div> Begin forwarded message: From: Adam Waldman Subject: FW: Private and =onfidential, in response to our meeting. Date: February 27, 2018 at 12:28:21 PM =ST To: Lawrence Krauss Fyi Just got b

ck =n wifi and reading now From: =ynthia Jewett <mailto. Date: =uesday, February 27, 2018 at 3:21 PM 2 EFTA_R1_01657477 EFTA02520608 To: =dam Waldman <mailto • = mah Saadiq mailto Subject: =W: Private and Confidential, in response to our meeting. Erin Ellison Mr. Waldman, Your client, Lawren

eted its fact =athering. Our courts recognize that participants in an =dministrative investigation have a privilege against a defamation =harge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 =riz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized =hat the employer's response to a notice of charge of =iscrimination filed

urple" <mailt =t• Cc: Naimah Saadiq mailto: , Erin Ellison &I mailto: Subject: FW: Private and Confidential, i= response to our meeting. Mr. Waldman, Your client, Lawrence Krauss, copied me on his Febr=ary 23rd email communication to the Office of Equity and Inclusion= I am writing to convey the

Fyi Just got back on wifi and reading now<=u> </rpan> =Able> From= <=span>Cyn=hia Jewett ailt Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 3:21=PM To: Adam Waldman <=span style="color:purple" <mailt =t• Cc: Naimah Saadiq mailto: , Erin Ellison &I mailto: Subject: FW: Private and Confidential, i= response

Times=New Roman",serif'> Our courts recognize that participants in=an administrative investigation have a privilege against a defamation char=e. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Di=. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employer's response to a =otice of charge of discrimination filed

uch a source by presenting them directly to current and/or former employees or to others. To do so would be to further their =ibelous agenda, as Mr Waldman has emphasized. In this regard, I would appreciate seeing copies of the correspondence you might send to =urrent or former employees about this in t

018, at 1:58 PM, =ynthia Jewett ailto Thank you. From: Lawrenc= Krauss [mailto Sent: Tuesday= Februa 27 2018 1:55 PM To: C nthia=Jewett mailt Adam Waldman Naimah =aadiq mailto: Erin Elliso c: awrenc= rauss mailto Subject: Fwd: =rivate an on i entia , in response to our meeting. Dear Cynthia et a

eted its fact =athering. Our courts recognize that participants in an administrative investigation have a =rivilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 14= Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employer's response to a notice of charge of =iscrimination filed

ectly to current and/or former employees or to others. To do so would be to 2 EFTA_R1_01658872 EFTA02521592 further their =ibelous agenda, as Mr Waldman has emphasized. In this regard, I would appreciate seeing copies of the correspondence you might send to =urrent or former employees about this in t

Celebration- Be a part of something 10 years in the making! April =-9th 2018 — Visit for more info <image001.png> Begin forwarded message: From: Adam Waldman =lt <mailto > > Subject: FW: =rivate and Confidential, in response to our meeting. Date: February 27, 2018 =t 12:28:21 PM PST To: Lawrence Kraus

eted its fact =athering. Our courts recognize that participants in an administrative investigation have a =rivilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employer's response to a notice of charge of =iscrimination filed

ch a source by presenting them directly to current and/or former employees or to others. To do so would be to further their libelous =agenda, as Mr Waldman has emphasized. In this regard,=I would appreciate seeing copies of the correspondence you might send to curr=nt or former employees about this in t

_01657604 EFTA02520709 Our courts recognize that participants in an adm=nistrative investigation have a privilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz.=335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the emp=oyer's response to a notice of charge of discrimination filed

ref="mailto: style="color:purple;text-decorat=on:underline" target="_blank" Subject: FW: Private and Confidential, in resp=nse to our meeting. Mr. Waldman, <=iv style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times=New Roman",serif">Your client, Lawrence Krauss, copied me on =is February 23

657719 EFTA02520780 * Our courts recog=ize that participants in an administrative investigation have a privilege =gainst a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 140 Ariz. 335= 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that the employ=r's response to a notice of charge of discrimination filed

ch a source by presenting them directly to current and/or former employees or to others. To do so would be to further their libelous =agenda, as Mr Waldman has emphasized. In this regard,=I would appreciate seeing copies of the correspondence you might send to curr=nt or former employees about this in t

fact gatherin=. <=span> Our cour=s recognize that participants in an administrative investigation have a pri=ilege against a defamation charge. In Paros v. Hoemako Hospital, 1=0 Ariz. 335, 681 P.2d 918 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1984), the court recognized that=the employer's response to a notice of charge of discrimination fil=d