Epstein Secrets

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWAR

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

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 20O9, transcript when EDWAR

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

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 20O9, transcript when EDWAR

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

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWAR

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

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWAR

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

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWAR

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

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWAR

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

would violate the laws of this state"); Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); (wh

egations in depositions and other court filings. (See, e.g., Jane Doe' Jeffrey Epstein, Haley Robson, and Sarah Kellen, Court File No. 08-80804-Civ- Marra/Johnson, DEl at 44-52.) 42 EFTA00177092 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 43 of 54 Petitioners' allegations pro

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWAR

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

pled to ridiculously inflammatory and sound-bite rich such as the July 31, 2009, transcript when EDWAR

ver to Take Charge of Property of Epstein, and to Post a $15 million Bond to Secure Potential Judgment, in Jane Doe 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