Epstein Secrets

T C EFTA00207304 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x IN RE APPLICATION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS TO DAILY NEWS, L.P., AND GEORGE RUSH x No. 10 M8-85 (LMM) SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE RUSH STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) GEORGE RUSH, being duly sworn, depo

am admitted to practice before this Court. 2. I make this Declaration in further support of the motion of the Daily News and Daily News journalist George Rush for an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(cX3XAXiii) quashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe

reto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of L.W. v. Knox County Bd. of Educ.. 36 Med. L. Rptr. 17

r to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

T C EFTA00612037 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x IN RE APPLICATION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS TO DAILY NEWS, L.P., AND GEORGE RUSH x No. 10 M8-85 (LMM) SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE RUSH STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) GEORGE RUSH, being duly sworn, depo

am admitted to practice before this Court. 2. I make this Declaration in further support of the motion of the Daily News and Daily News journalist George Rush for an Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(cX3XAXiii) quashing subpoenas ad testificanduni and duces twain served on than by plaintiff Jane Doe

reto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of L.W. v. Knox County Bd. of Educ.. 36 Med. L. Rptr. 17

r to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

J. MICHAEL BURMAN. P.A." GREGORY W. COLEMAN, PA ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR.. PA' BERNARD

l Release ("Settlement Agreement") in order to resolve the pending litigation (the "Litigation") between them as follows: 1. Case No. 09-CV-80591—Marra/Johnson. The Parties agree to immediately dismiss the pending lawsuit presently styled Jane Doe No. 101 vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 09-CV-80591 — Marra/J

EFTA00725295 Epstein v. RRA, et al. Page 8 E.W. v. Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB), (h

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

mplaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09- 062943(19); see De

ds already had been prosecuting against Epstein on behalf of that same plaintiff for the better part of a year. See LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 09-81092 Marra/Johnson; Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23; line 4-p. 38; line 22. The federal complaint, signed by Edwards, himself, was filed in federal cou

United States in United States of America'. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United Sta

r to Take Charge of Properly of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe I. Epstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

nited States in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United Stat

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

nited States in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United Stat

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

nited States in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United Stat

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, In Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint

ted States in United States of America I Scott W. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, United Stat

er to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe I pstein, Case No. 08-CV-80893- Marra/Johnson. The motion was reported in the press as was the ultimate goal (i.e., to "pump" the cases for investor following). However, the Court found "Plaint