Epstein Secrets

INTEL REPO No Photo Available Addresses 358 EL BRILLO WAY PALM BEACH, FL 33480 Import From Per: Associates Urtkno... Girlizi Media Maxwell, Ghislaine W/F X1 1 EPSTEIN17S Notes IMAGE EPSTEIN_175.JPG See Drug Trak Case #2002-10 See associate Ghislaine Maxwell 03-11-04 File I 2600 Det. Silvest

kfu M A. MOO I l Asenq I mg I G4 I Narrative/Notes 12/07/01 File 100 Sgt. On 12/06/01, OCVAN received intelligence from the WPBPD concerning Maxwell. According to the report, Maxwell is hiring young women from PBAC to come toher house and answer the phone. They are paid $200.00 per day for htis

ash pull on 3/29/02), front page of bell south phone bill indicating phone account under the name of Jeffrey Epstein and account under the name of Ghislainne Maxwell, correspondence to in cate a weapon s kept on the property, financial information, nude photographs of women and numerous references to massages th

ch intern. once report read as follows: "Three female college students from PBAC and 2 were approached by an Eng is woman w o isenti ie• erse as Maxwe , on the Palm Beach Atlantic Campus. Maxwell said she needed young, beautifu l unmalried women to answer phones and do office work at her home on P

e. On 02/22/02, I received information from Bell South which revealed the following telephone lines are installed at 358 El Brillo Way: Under name G. Maxwell Jeffrey Epstein Main house line All above lines are considered to be residential linos. On 02/27/02, an investigative subpoena was completed reque

1, information was passed on from Sgt. regarding Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein of 358 El Brillo way

tment Record Custodian (collectively 'Town of Palm Beach Police Officers"), hereby move to quash the subpoena or for a protective order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) directing that discovery sought by the civil subpoenas for deposition issued by Plaintiff, B.B , and the cross-notices with subp

ut I am just going through the questions that refused to be answered at this time. Next it discusses the deposition of the subpoena served on Ms. Maxwell. And Mr. Edwards is asked, "Do you -- is she neither -- would you agree that neither Jane Doe nor LM" -- who are, again, Mr. Edwards' two clients

scusses the deposition of the subpoena served on Ms. Maxwell. And Mr. Edwards is asked, "Do you -- is she ne

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way, that the court should grant us the access to the information. That's in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4), and in Genovese versus Provident Life 74 So.3d 1064 Florida Supreme Court 2011. It's also established, Judge, under the la

ourt of Appeal's controlling case of General Motors Corp v. McGee, 837 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4'h DCA 2002), Edwards is about to suffer the same fate as GM based on his Rule 1.280-noncompliant privilege log and the central issues to Edwards' lawsuit that the e-mails implicate. As the trial judge in the

ils), Edwards clearly waived any work-product protection he may have had by — among other compelling reasons -- his complete failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). With Epstein's citation in his motion to the Fourth District Court of Appeal's controlling case of General Motors Corp v. Mc

home and produced to the FBI by Rodriguez. That's the houseman. Same ruling as I made earlier with regard to that. Photograph depicting Roberts, Maxwell and Prince Andrew. MS. ROCKENBACH: No relevance to this action. It's prejudicial. THE COURT: Same argument, Mr. Scarola? MR. SCAROLA: Yes, sir.

VE ORDER AND IN LIMINE OF UNRELATED SETTLEMENTS Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), moves for a protective order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) on the production and disclosure of any additional confidential settlement agreements and amounts and moves in limine pursuant to

urt of Appeal's controlling case of General Motors Corp v. McGee, 837 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. zPil DCA 2002), Edwards is about to suffer the same fate as GM based on his Rule 1.280-noncompliant privilege log and the central issues to Edwards' lawsuit that the e-mails implicate. As the trial judge in the

ils), Edwards clearly waived any work-product protection he may have had by — among other compelling reasons -- his complete failure to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(6). With Epstein's citation in his motion to the Fourth District Court of Appeal's controlling case of General Motors Corp v. Mc