Epstein Secrets

amination by Mr. Lick SS Vs. 7 Redirect Examination by Mr. Scarola 131 SCOTT 0.0TNSTBIN, individually; 0 Rocones-Exaninatien by Mr. Lick 138 BRADLEY EDWARDS, Individually, 9 Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Scarola 160 Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. 10 Certificate of Oath 170 / 11 Certificate

5 5 Berger in the matter of Jeffrey 5 APPEARANCES: 6 For Plaintiff: 4 Epstein versus Scott Rothstein and Bradley 7 LINK 4 ROCKENBACH, . Edwards. 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 301 0 9 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By SCOTT J. LINK, ESQUIRE , This deposition is being hold 2255 Glad

would moan -- for example, 1 when you aay -- it wasn't during the time of the 2 Mr. Scarola's firm represented a client against 2 Rothstein -- Brad Edward➢ wasn't working for the ) Mr. Epstein, right? ) Rothstein firm, I don't believe, when this happened. 4 A Correct. 4 Q When he settled? 5 Q

if it happened it's relevant to 5 proving that it had happened to your client. 4 The whole point is to prove that it / happened to your client, Donau.* it happened to • other people. And the circumstances, if they can be • similar, that helps as wall. 10 II • You spoke about modus operandi.

ee Ex. 4 at 1).22 AUSA-1 agreed to the meeting, and on or about February 29, 2016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had al

016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwe

Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Donau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate Ig The Government notes t

ee Ex. 4 at 1).22 AUSA-1 agreed to the meeting, and on or about February 29, 2016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had al

016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger— regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwe

Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Donau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate Ig The Government notes t