Epstein Secrets

of everything, as far as maintenance. Page 11 1 about seven months before -- after I become a full-time 2 employee. 3 Q. Okay. And how did Ms. Maxwell come into the 4 picture? 5 A. It was his girlfriend, his main girlfriend. 6 Q. Okay. Had you known her before she became -- 7 A. No. 8 Q. --

Would you have referred to her as your 13 supervisor or your superior or what would you have 14 called Mrs. Maxwell? 15 A. I used to call her Ghislaine. 16 Q. Okay. And how was it explained to you that 17 you were now to deal with Ms. Maxwell, as opposed to 18 Jeffrey Epstein? 19 A. She would

ng with Mr. Epstein, directly to 17 him. 18 Q. Did that change? 19 A. Later on, yes. 20 Q. And how did that change? 21 A. When Ms. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell came to 22 the picture. 23 Q. Okay. About when was it that she came into 24 the picture? 25 A. Exactly date, I cannot remember. But it was P

16M, L..1,t‘ 2-S It G- -II 51 B N (30931:. SCN-Ni Vf3,I2 tv. 1..v 5- %, n PB / €'91( Po (2-M i_v I/ k 6 5 11 %, fc.)K .TC:53 t'-0 GM LV ‘.../ i S G., C, ---y2.1.31 it mice:56 1'53 t . IS f'`:. 3:-.- t vril ‘ / 1 9— 5- 2,1 Cs —116ciii c-101Se--2 ('GL 61- 111 IN LV 2. 3

full-time 2 employee. 3 Q. Okay. And how did Ms. Maxwell come into the 4 picture? 5 A. It was his girl

effrey Epstein's 17 Q To your knowledge, has Jeffrey Epstein 18 sex slave. is or was 18 flown to New York while on probation or community 19 Chislaine Maxwell's sex slave? 19 control? 20 MR. YAREMA: Object to the fonn. 20 MR. YAREMA: Object to the form. 21 A Fifth. 21 A Fifth. 22 Q Chislaine Maxwe

dence, Incorporated. Would the attorneys please announce their appearances for the record. MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits, representing MR. BERGER: William J. Berger, representing M., M. and Jane Doc number two. MR. MERMELSTEIN: Stuart Mennetstein of Mermelstein and Horowitz. representing Jane Does numbers two

hysical presence of the other person”); State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680, 685-86 (Or. App. 2000) (affirming

ert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Adam D. Horowitz [email protected] Stuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 297 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2009 Page 9 of 11 DOE v. EPSTEIN, Case No. 08-CV-8

hysical presence of the other person”); State v. Maxwell, 998 P.2d 680, 685-86 (Or. App. 2000) (affirming

tuart S. Mermelstein [email protected] William J. Berger [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6107 08/11/2009 Adam Horowitz Jacquie Johnson Maxwells deposition Joint-privilege 16123-16124 08/11/20

m Horowitz Bradley J. Edwards Epstein Matter — Cross Notice of Alfredo Rodriguez Deposition Joint-privilege 02209-02210 07/01/2009 Bert Patton William J. Berger Epstein v. State of Florida — Emergency petition for Writ of Certiorari; Emergency motion to review denial of stay Joint-privilege 02215-02217

ed to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 06540-06541 09/21/2009 Bradley Edwards Mike Fisten Info on Maxwell Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

ot reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 01930 09/05/2009 Bradley J. Edwards William J. Berger Client info Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evide

6107 08/11/2009 Adam Horowitz Jacquie Johnson Maxwells deposition Joint-privilege 16123-16124 08/11/20

m Horowitz Bradley J. Edwards Epstein Matter — Cross Notice of Alfredo Rodriguez Deposition Joint-privilege 02209-02210 07/01/2009 Bert Patton William J. Berger Epstein v. State of Florida — Emergency petition for Writ of Certiorari; Emergency motion to review denial of stay Joint-privilege 02215-02217

ed to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 06540-06541 09/21/2009 Bradley Edwards Mike Fisten Info on Maxwell Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protect

ot reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 01930 09/05/2009 Bradley J. Edwards William J. Berger Client info Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evide