Epstein Secrets

ed by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a mino

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "[ail' taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

a weekly columnist in the Daily News, that in the fall of 2009 he began to follow criminal and civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7, 2010, Ex. G) 11 1-2), and that in November of 2009 he was able to arrange a telephone interview of

outhern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plainti

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

n part and denied in part a motion to compel production of unedited videotapes from NBC and the deposition of certain NBC personnel. In Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 155 F.3d 618 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Gonzales II"), the Second Circuit affirmed Gonzales I. In Gonzalez III the Second Circuit, on rehearing, withdrew i

ed by counsel for the plaintiff in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages arising out of the defendant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a mino

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "(ail' taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

a weekly columnist in the Daily News, that in the fall of 2009 he began to follow criminal and civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7, 2010, Ex. G) 11 1-2), and that in November of 2009 he was able to arrange a telephone interview of

outhern District of Florida entitled Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein (08 Civ. 80893 KAM), in which the plainti

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

n part and denied in part a motion to compel production of unedited videotapes from NBC and the deposition of certain NBC personnel. In Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 155 F.3d 618 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Gonzales II"), the Second Circuit affirmed Gonzales I. In Gonzalez III the Second Circuit, on rehearing, withdrew i

3)(United States District Court, S.D. Fl.); v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB)(Florida Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit). v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB ABXFlorida Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit). 3. In December 2009, Epstein brought a vendetta action against me

itution in Florida. Subsequently, Bradley James Edwards, a Florida lawyer, brought civil actions on behalf of several girls alleging molestation by Epstein while they were minors. Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, (08- 80893)(United States District Court, S.D. Fl.); E v. Jeffrey Epstein (Case No. 502008CA

endant's alleged sexual abuse of her when she was a minor. The subpoenas seek the production of "(a)11 taped conversations between George Rush and Jeffrey Edward Epstein, including telephone recordings, all emails to and from Jeffrey Edward Epstein or someone representing themselves to be Jeffrey Epstein," and the t

n between George Rush, one of its reporters, and Jeffrey Epstein, and granting such other relief as the C

d civil legal proceedings in Florida relating to Mr. Epstein (Rush Aff., Apr. 6, 2010 [Carroll Decl., Apr. 7,

n part and denied in part a motion to compel production of unedited videotapes from NBC and the deposition of certain NBC personnel. In Gonzales v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc. 155 F.3d 618 (2d Cir. 1998) ("Gnnzalei, II"), the Second Circuit affirmed Gonzales I. In III the Second Circuit, on rehearing, withdrew its Gon