Epstein Secrets

ERVICE 91 WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via o U.S. Mail; K Facsimile; 0 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Judith Stevenson Areo, Esq., Stat

K Facsimile; 0 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern Distri

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian, Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did

Y that a true and correct copy of the foiegoing has been flunishad '. :II I. . , • I. .., ! ' .,. : ' " 17 t 'via fet‘mileabe U.S. Mail to:. R. Alexander Acosta; United StatcrAttoracY'i Office _Southern qh . . . .. •••• : i Thstn • . .. ; . • . :. .., '.' 1• : . ci, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, c

17 t 'via fet‘mileabe U.S. Mail to:. R. Alexander Acosta; United StatcrAttoracY'i Office _Southern qh . .

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian, Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did

OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via o U.S. Mail; K Facsimile; a Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Judith Stevenson Areo, Esq., Stat

i Nials4IntileTaixt U.S. Mail to; R. Ainstneter Acosta; United StatesAtIhnt&s Oiglet ;•Soulhorn • !I l

We note that the Former Husband's petition did not seek an award of split cus- tody. In its order, the court noted that the Guardian. Jac- queline Valdespino, testified there was a substantial change in circumstances in accord with the Former Husband's position. However, the court explained that it did