Epstein Secrets

no such offer had ever been made. 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attomey and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal d

depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) A

ake the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul);

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Ha. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to t

no such offer had ever been made. 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal

depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) A

ake the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul);

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to

no such offer had ever been made. 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal

depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) A

ake the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul);

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and ■.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to th

d; no such offer had 4 -be made. 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowiti (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney and one of EPSTEIN'S criminal

depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) A

ake the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul);

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to

no such offer had ever been made. 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney . and one of EPSTEIN'S crimin

depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) A

ake the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul);

Epstein as well as the improper litigation tactics outlined above) occurred within a five-year time period. 58. As a direct and proximate result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and ■.'s violations of §772.103, Fla. Stat., EPSTEIN has been injured. 59. Pursuant to §772.104(1), Fla. Stat., Plaintiff EPSTEIN is entitled to th

ake the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul);

no such offer had ever been made. 38. EDWARDS' office also notified Defendant that he intended to take the depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) Alan Dershowitz (noted Harvard Law professor, constitutional attorney . and one of EPSTEIN'S crimin

depositions of and was subpoenaing: (i) Donald Trump (real-estate magnate and business mogul); (ii) A

TEIN, EDWARDS and L.M. possessed ulterior motives or purposes in exercising such illegal, improper, or perverted use of process. 72. As a result of ROTHSTEIN, EDWARDS and L.M.'s actions, EPSTEIN suffered damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff EPSTEIN respectfully demands the entry of a judgment for damages against all th