Epstein Secrets

the undersigned that they coordinate their efforts in joint conference calls at least two times per month. At recent depositions of two witnesses, Alfredo Rodriguez and Juan Alessi, five different plaintiffs' attorneys questioned the witnesses for approximately six to eight hours, often repeating the same or sim

At recent depositions of two witnesses, Alfredo Rodriguez and Juan Alessi, five different plaintiffs' attor

s the parties were present and represented by counsel. Based upon argument, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 1. The Motion to Stay is denied. 2. The Clerk of Court shall make the documents available for disclosure at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. It is the intent of the Court to give the Defendant, Mr. Epste

s home. As no one was home, a business card was left for him to return my call. We then traveled to 11349 sw 86th Lane in Miami in hopes to interview Alfredo Rodriguez, a former house man of Epstein. We did not locate them at home. I left a business card for him to return my call. We then traveled i A Co met_with D

e: 7/13/06 “PALM BEACH POLICE en Time: 9:27:55 Incident Report Program: CMS301L Case No. . . . : 1-05-000368 (Continued) the previous houseman left. Rodriguez stated that it was his responsibility to keep the identity of the masseuses private. Mr. Epstein had a massage in the morning and one in the afternoo

by Investigator Joseph Recarey as affiant dated and related Search Warrant dated October 18, 2005 hereby sealed until further order of the Court. The Clerk of Court, Criminal Division is hereby ordered to seal said Search Warrant and Affidavit and Application for Search Warrant until further order of the Court. I

dly discrimi- nates against a large, diverse, and amor- phous class, unified only by the common factor" of language. San Antonio School District v. Rodrigues, 411 U.S. 1, 28, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1293, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973). We agree that within a society "of multitudi- nous origins, customs, tongues, beliefs,

s granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the sole purpose of the filing of this action. 2. Reynolds' habeas corpus petition is DENIED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 4. Based on the Court's determination herein, there is no basis for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability.