Epstein Secrets

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

hat case, and so there's actual knowledge of the entity of 24 those statements, which then can go for state of mind. 25 There are two more cases. Crescenz v. Penguin Group, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00794669 115 H3v1giu2 1 and the case says, it's undisputed the defendant had actual 2

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

ut in that case, and so there's actual knowledge of the entity of those statements, which then can go for state of mind. There are two more cases. Crescenz v. Penguin Group, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00612363 H3v1giu2 1_5 1 and the case says, it's undisputed the defendant had actual 2

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

ut in that case, and so there's actual knowledge of the entity of those statements, which then can go for state of mind. There are two more cases. Crescenz v. Penguin Group, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011417 10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 115