Epstein Secrets

ition or in attempting to take the deposition of Donald Trump, you had no information that Mr. Trump had

osing of any of the people of these individuals, Mr. Trump; that is, in discussions with any other lawyers

at page 283; line 18-20. Q: Mr. Edwards, were you involved in the discussions regarding the deposing of any of the people of these individuals, Mr. Trump; that is, in discussions with any other lawyers in your firm including Scott Rothstein? Id. at page 283; line 21-25. MR. SCAROLA: Same objection,

e instruction. Id. at page 286; line 18-19. Q: Isn't it true, Mr. Edwards, that in taking the deposition or in attempting to take the deposition of Donald Trump, you had no information that Mr. Trump had any knowledge of any female having; that is, underage female ever having been on Mr. Epstein's plane and

complaint, even if the information requested through questioning implicitly reveals his legal theory of his case. See Dunkin Donuts Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 518 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (work product privilege may not be asserted by deponent to avoid providing information supporting contentions in p

odesta, occult, pedophiles: A month before election day, the MSM exploded with nonstop coverage of a decade-old audio recording of lewd talk between Donald Trump and Hollywood reporter Billy Bush. However, coverage was virtually nil of Bill and Hillary Clinton's hobnobbing with convicted notorious pedophile J

. However, this practice intensified to an alarming degree during the recent election cycle - and after. Dozens of stories of alleged hate crimes by Trump supporters have been given huge media coverage, only to be later proven to be fabricated (often with the "victim" confessing and being prosecuted f

New American, The May 8, 2017 Monday Long before Donald Trump made the "Fake News" meme synonymous with t

the subject matter of the action." Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691, 695-96 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Dunkin' Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., No. 01- 0392, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25205, 2001 WL 34079319, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2001)). 1. Request No. 1--the FBI File on the Epstein Matter

ERSHIP December 9, 2009 BY HAND DELIVERY Judge Donald Hafele Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Palm Beach Co

0119-KAM Document 242 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2009 Page 14 of 22 unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome."); Dunkin Donuts, Inc. v. Mary's Donuts, Inc., 2001 WL 34079319 (S.D. Fla. 2001)("the burden of showing that the requested information is not relevant to the issues in the case is on the party