Epstein Secrets

6, 2010 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Maritza Milagros Vasquez 1263 S.W. 21st Terrace Miami, FL 33145 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Vasquez: Enclosed please find a copy of Re-notice of Taking your Deposition which is now scheduled for Tuesday, June 15, 2010 beginning at 10:00 a.m. Plea

ct copy of this Notice was mailed this 7 day of /4 F2010 to Jack A. Goldberger, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Bruce E. Reinhart, Esq., 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Jr., Michael J. Pike, 303 Banyon Boulevard, Suite 400,

actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them." Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights

t one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abu

il actions when they refuse to testify in response to mobative evidence offered against them." Baxter Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez'. Slate, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule "is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights o

t one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein's mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls to come to Epstein's mansion to be sexually abu

l actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights o

st one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein’s mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on 22 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010587 --- PAGE BREAK --- all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls t

actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); Accord, Vasquez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. at 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of

st one of the complaints against Epstein for her role in bringing girls to Epstein’s mansion to be abused. At the deposition, she was represented by Bruce Reinhart. She invoked the Fifth on 22 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013340 --- PAGE BREAK --- all substantive questions regarding her role in arranging for minor girls t