Epstein Secrets

she was coming to give t 20 massage? 21 A. No. I assumed she was a massage therapy 22 because I was -- I drove Ms. Maxwell to Mar-a-lago. 23 Donald Trump's residence. And I wait in the car while 24 Ms. Maxwell got a -- I think it was a facial or massage. 25 I don't know. But that day I remember this

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 71 Diane's secretary, she stay there for a week with her kids and we took care of her. Who else? Mr. Trump. That's a celebrity. Mr. Robert Kennedy, Junior. Mr. Frederick Fekkai. Q. Who is that? A. Fekkai, Frederick Fckkai, the famous hairstylist. Who e

I was -- I drove Ms. Maxwell to Mar-a-lago. 23 Donald Trump's residence. And I wait in the car while 2

ith her kids and we took care of her. Who else? Mr. Trump. That's a celebrity. Mr. Robert Kennedy, Junior.

-- I drove Ms. Maxwell to Mar-a-lago. 23 Donald Trump's residence. And I wait in the car while 24 Ms. M

44 22 one: 22 23 (Via tekpbone) 23 24 24 25 25 Page 6 Page 8 I Appearances contimied... 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff. Jane Doe II: 3 ISIDRO MANUEL GARCIA, ESQUIRE 2 — — — GARCIA EI.K1NS & BOEHRINGER 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on video 4 I record. This is Media No.

tion. The undisputed facts show the following with regard to each of the persons raised in Epstein's complaint: • Complaint ¶38(i): With regard to Donald Trump, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Trump had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint

ach of the persons raised in Epstein's complaint: • Complaint ¶38(i): With regard to Donald Trump, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Trump had relevant and discoverable information. See Statement of Undisputed Facts. • Complaint ¶38(ii): With regard to Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law Pro

s complaint: • Complaint ¶38(i): With regard to Donald Trump, Edwards had sound legal basis for believi

ump, Edwards had sound legal basis for believing Mr. Trump had relevant and discoverable information. See St

, 08-80802), . (Case No.08-80811), Jane Does Nos. 101, 102 and 103 (Case Nos. 09-80591, 09-80656, 10-80309), another Jane Doe (Case No. 08-80804), Jane Doe II (Case No. 09-80469), as well as other non-filed claims. Furthermore, Defendant has also resolved three state court claims. The only cases not resolv

ulated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 11326-11331 08/03/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley Edwards Donald Trump depo Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; pr

ulated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 11366.11371 08/11/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley Edwards Trump depo info Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence

31 08/03/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley Edwards Donald Trump depo Work product; attorney/client priv

ted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at RRA Bradley J. Edwards Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidenc

ulated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 11326-11331 08/03/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley Edwards Donald Trump depo Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; pr

ulated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 11366.11371 08/11/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley Edwards Trump depo info Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence

31 08/03/2009 Jacquie Johnson Bradley Edwards Donald Trump depo Work product; attorney/client priv

ted to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at RRA Bradley J. Edwards Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidenc

6007 08/05/2009 Bert Patton Jacquie Johnson RE:Epstein Depo-New York Joint W/P Priv. 16057-16065 08/06/2009 Mercedes Estrada Jacquie Johnson Trump and Maxwell Dep dates Joint W/P Priv. 15918-15949 08/04/2009 Adam Horowitz Jacquie Johnson RE:Epstein Depo's 08/14,17,18 in NY & OH Joint W/P

19 08/11/2009 Denis Kleinfeld Bradley Edwards Trump's Depo Work Product;attorney client privilege;i

/02/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Meeting w/Stanley Arkin Joint W/P Priv. 06861-06863 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06876.06879 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Stuart Mermelstein RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06891-06897 05/

6007 08/05/2009 Bert Patton Jacquie Johnson RE:Epstein Depo-New York Joint W/P Priv. 16057-16065 08/06/2009 Mercedes Estrada Jacquie Johnson Trump and Maxwell Dep dates Joint W/P Priv. 15918-15949 08/04/2009 Adam Horowitz Jacquie Johnson RE:Epstein Depo's 08/14,17,18 in NY & OH Joint W/P

19 08/11/2009 Denis Kleinfeld Bradley Edwards Trump's Depo Work Productattorney client privilege;ir

/02/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Meeting w/Stanley Arkin Joint W/P Priv. 06861-06863 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Katherine Ezell RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06876-06879 05/12/2009 Bradley Edwards Stuart Mermelstein RE:Jane Doe II v. Epstein Joint W/P Priv. 06891-06897 05/

irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 11366-11371 08/11/2009 Trump depo info Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidence

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; protected by privacy rights 02411-02413 05/12/2009 Attorneys at I Jane Doe II v. Epstein Work product; attorney/client privilege; irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of the admissible evidenc