Epstein Secrets

first met Epstein in 1999 and that Epstein "kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, w

e defenses without questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about her false and outrageous allegations against him. For this reason, Jane Doe No. 3's reliance on Peisach v. Antzma, 539 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), is misplaced. In Peisach, the Third District held that an ex-husband in a post-divorce custody d

first met Epstein in 1999 and that Epstein "kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, w

e defenses without questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about her false and outrageous allegations against him. For this reason, Jane Doe No. 3's reliance on Peisach v. Amino, 539 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), is misplaced. In Peisach, the Third District held that an ex-husband in a post-divorce custody di

12, 2016, and in support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order shou

n M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12,

support thereof states the following: On January 16, 2016, Defendant Alan M. Dershowitz began the deposition of non-party Virginia Roberts Giuffre (“Roberts”). Pursuant to this Court’s January 12, 2016 Confidentiality Order, that transcript currently is under seal. The Confidentiality Order should be modi

inor child and a victim of sexual trafficking. There is no reason this non-party should be forced to produce her diary from when she was a child. See Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989) (court of appeal holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by granting d

poena, as to the law firm, is quashed As to the "Jane Doe #3" subpoena: The motion is granted as to request #9