Epstein Secrets

1F 8-87'9 7121 IN:1)) 41-487 It el Rs A\11 EFTA00191541 SOblillOarra1128 Acquenee 55 E 65th St 717 NYMY 10021 NI61 (h ) 1 (w) Solomon, Andrew The New York Times 18 West 10th St, _ 100114702 IT)olomootorn Hm)154 Kensington Park Rd ondon. United Kingdom W11 Ö ER;-3; 58.2 (I) Soros, pete

i4 70)11 214 704 1 $1 cell 214 720 0 82 (wt) Duke of York Buckinoham Palace LO7 Lond wiewr w 1/4 024 5 w

r, Dan 721 5th n739 NY 001 001 001 h c) tvOlict • EFTA00191490 Park House 7.11 Onlow SO London 1A7 J 017-22 314 (w) 0171-581 118 11) Foman, Bobby & Jeanette r/o, Forbes Zand 001 017 8-16 7617 pf Forbes, Chris (Kip) Astrid Knishtinoram• 95 Old Dutch Road (h) Far Hills N York ve

he laughed and said, “He owes me some favours.” Maybe he was just joking but it constantly surprised me that people with as much to lose as Bill and [Prince] Andrew weren’t more GM_00716 http:/Awww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363452/Bill-Clinton-15-year-old-masseuse-I-met-twice-claims-Epsteins-girl.htm| 2/7 H

or identified in FBI and subsequent civil proceedings against wealthy financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A photo of Epstein and the Duke of York, Prince Andrew, together last week compelled Ms Roberts to come forward. First employed as a 15-year-old as Epstein's masseuse, she alleges he groom

at she was forced to have sex while underage with Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The second denial comes after two Sunday papers

d to meet Prince Andrew « Epstein trained her ‘as a prostitute for him and his friends’ As the UK's special representative for international trade, the Duke of York holds an important position, requiring sound judgement and widespread respect. But those qualities have been thrown into question since photographs

he laughed and said, “He owes me some favours.” Maybe he was just joking but it constantly surprised me that people with as much to lose as Bill and [Prince] Andrew weren't more careful. ‘Bill must have known about Jeffrey's girls. There were three desks in the living area of the villa on the island. Speaking o

. . undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.’” Laurie, 256 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). In addition to considering the effect of amendment on the parties, the court must consider “the importance of t