Epstein Secrets

KR. SCAROLA: May I now to this podium now? JEFFREY EPSTEIN, biaintirs/countor -Defendant, vs 4 THE CO1RT: Sure. 'at. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; • Your 110nOr, have we decided what notions were BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, , going to hoar? boranciants/countor -Plaintiffs

ng CO your Honor that 12 during a very CUTUICUOUSI period of CIAO these would I) the first notice we got of an Intent CO attempt. to to be the Rothstein fines, erployee. 14 use chose documents was March S. The first notice 14 KR. SMOLA: Yes, air. Let ne go through IS wo got of an intent CO attem

o consideration was it Mr. Edwards who 33 the English language, and we've cited Miriam 23 mete co the press, did he do a pros➢ release, when 24 Webster, which is about as white bread as you can 24 did these -- when were the -- when did the 23 get on a definition. 25 diatmination take place, did

KR. SCAROLA: May I now to this podium now? JEFFREY EPSTEIN, biaintirs/countor -Defendant, vs 4 THE CWRT: Sure. 'at. SCAROLA: Thank you, sir. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; • Your Honor, have we wowed what notions were BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, boranciants/countor -Plaintiffs. , 10 going to hoa

ng CO your Honor that 12 during a very CUTUICUOUSI period of CIAO these would I) the first notice we got of an Intent CO attempt. to to be the Rothstein fines, erployee. 14 use chose documents was March S. The first notice 14 KR. SMOLA: Yes, air. Let ne go through IS wo got of an intent CO attem

o consideration was it Mr. Edwards who 33 the English language, and we've cited Miriam 23 mete co the press, did he do a pros➢ release, when 24 Webster, which is about as white bread as you can 24 did these -- when were the -- when did the 23 get on a definition. 25 diatmination take place, did

them, in securing their testimony or requiring 10 them to cooperate in any sense. 11 I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. 12 Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last 13 night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is 14 Mr. Edwards' former pa

advance the 3 search for truth. And here we have a conspiracy, and I'm using 4 that term not as a lawyer but as a layperson for this purpose. 5 Webster's defines to conspire means to join together in a 6 secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act 7 which becomes unlawful as a re

control over them, in securing their testimony or requiring them to cooperate in any sense. I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is Mr. Edwards' former partner, w

is whether admitting the evidence will advance the search for truth. and I'm using that term not as a lawyer but as a layperson for this purpose. Webster's defines Of course once you determine that something's relevant, you then have to consider possible prejudicial effect. Obviously this is a case

control over them, in securing their testimony or requiring them to cooperate in any sense. I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is Mr. Edwards' former partner, w

ence will advance the search for truth. And here we have a conspiracy, and I'm using that term not as a lawyer but as a layperson for this purpose. Webster's defines to conspire means to join together ina secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of