Epstein Secrets

not aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the "expiration" of the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United States Attorne or CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically fi

f the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Assistant United St

ircuit pointed out the wealth of other evidence that could be used to defeat a liability claim that did not rest upon the defendant's testimony. See Lot S , 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts

not aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the "expiration" of the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: loor CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 28, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with

f the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: loor CERTIFICATE O

ut due to his entry into a contractual agreement with the United States for which the identified victims are third-party beneficiaries. n Second, in Lot S , the Eleventh Circuit pointed out the wealth of evidence other than the defendant's testimony that could be used to defeat a liability claim. See

not aware of any "special circumstances" that warrant staying all of the civil cases pending the "expiration" of the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: it appears from a brief review of some of Epstein's discovery responses that Epstein has simply made a blanket asserti

f the NPA. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: it appears from a b

ircuit pointed out the wealth of other evidence that could be used to defeat a liability claim that did not rest upon the defendant's testimony. See Lot S , 23 F.3d at 364 ("Thus, Claimant's assertion that only her own testimony could vindicate her is groundless; other participants to the illegal acts