Epstein Secrets

:24 18:16 11:8 42:22 13:2 14:4,17 Madam (1) matters (1) LatAm (1) level (1) 14:22 15:2,9 61:16 8:19 39:25 52:16 16:9 17:1 maintain (1) Maxwell (3) latch (1) Levin (23) 18:20 19:21 40:10 1:24 62:8,18 40:5 11:10,25,25 21:6,9,10,19 making (3) mean (2) late (2) 12:6,19 13:6 21:22,25

9 NR. KING: That is the decision in -- bear 20 with me, Judge. 21 THE COURT: No problem. 22 MR. KING: That is the decision in Johnson 23 vs. Libow, a 2012 -- Westlaw 4068409 in 2012. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. KING: It is concise. It's to the www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606

rivilege. 12 But as I've indicated, the most cogent and 13 well articulated opinion on this subject is 14 Judge Sasser's opinion in Johnson vs. Libow. She 15 expressly revoked the arguments that are raised by 16 Wolfe, which arguments, of course, are opposed by 17 the assertion in Olson. The

24 18:16 11:8 42:22 13:2 14:4,17 Madam (1) matters (1) LatAin (1) level (1) 14:22 15:2,9 61:16 8:19 39:25 52:16 16:9 17:1 maintain (1) Maxwell (3) latch (1) Levin (23) 18:20 19:21 40:10 1:24 62:8,18 40:5 11:10,25,25 21:6,9,10,19 malting (3) mean (2) late (2) 12:6,19 13:6 21:22,2

rivilege. 12 But as I've indicated, the most cogent and 13 well articulated opinion on this subject is 14 Judge Sasser's opinion in Johnson vs. Libow. She 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expressly revoked the arguments that are raised by Wolfe, which arguments, of course, are opposed

9 MR. KING: That is the decision in -- bear 20 with me, Judge. 21 THE COURT: No problem. 22 MR. KING: That is the decision in Johnson 23 vs. Libow, a 2012 -- Westlaw 4068409 in 2012. 24 THE COURT: Okay. 25 MR. KING: It is concise. It's to the cogent, most well-reasoned, and rejects those p

LING PALM BEACH LLC OTTO,JONATHAN B MAXWELL,GERTRUDE COLEMAN,CATHERINE FISHER,K

BERMUDA HOUSE DEZIEL,ROBERT E LEBOW,PATRICIA GROW,RICHARD D GAY JR,JOHN

e perhaps malicious prosecution, for testimony or other sworn statements which he or she gives in the course of the subject proceeding.”); Johnson v. Libow, 2012 WL 4068409 (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. March 1, 2012)(the purpose of the litigation privilege does not preclude the tort of malicious prosecution). I

f Podhurst Orseck. See Complaint, Jane Doe 102 v. Epstein (Exhibit “B”). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein’s house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein we

“B”). As recounted in detail in this Complaint, Jane Doe 102 was 15 years old when Ghislaine Maxwell discovered her and lured her to Epstein’s house. Maxwell and Epstein forced her to have sex with both of them and within weeks Maxwell and Epstein were flying her all over the world. According to the Compla

s personal pilot), Larry Harrison (Epstein’s personal pilot), Louella Rabuyo (Epstein’s housekeeper), Nadia Marcinkova (Epstein’s live-in sex slave), Ghislaine Maxwell (manager of Epstein’s affairs and businesses), Mark Epstein (Epstein’s brother), and Fane Banasiak (Epstein’s house manager) It was nearly im