Epstein Secrets

ttlement Conference, or in the Alternative, Motion to Direct Parties back to Mediation, Doe v. Epstein, No. 9:08-CV-80893 (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2010) (Marra, J.) (doc. #168) attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Notably, Epstein sought this settlement conference — and ultimately made his payments as a result

there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein simply chose to settle that case. He is therefore now barred by the doct

of such conduct that the law expressly permits the jury to make adverse inferences from a party's efforts to intimidate witnesses . . . :' Jost v. Ahmad, 730 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2 nd Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). To be clear, Epstein's attempt to tamper with witnesses is "not si

refrain from weighing the evidence, determining the credibility of witnesses, or substituting [itsj own version of the facts for that of the jury." Marra v. Phila. Nous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A motion for judgment as a matter of law

n Gourmet Market, Inc et al PLAINTIFF: Supermarket Source, Inc A Florida Corporation DEFENDANT: Dolphin Gourmet Market, Inc A Foreign Corporation; Ahmad, Nael Abdel Rahim DOCKET CASE NUMBER: 1:10cv23986 FILING DATE: 11/4/2010 JURISDICTION: Diversity JUDGE: Graham, Donald L NATURE OF SUIT: 190 Oth

lved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the fed

litigation. The RICO claim alleged that Epstein ran an expansive criminal entirpitge that involved and depended upon his plane travel. Although Judge Marra dismissed the RICO claim at some point in the federal litigation, the legal team representing ever clients intended to pursue an appeal of that dismi

at there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe’s case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising any such claim, Epstein sinisly chose to settle that case. He is therefore now barred by the doct

ature of such conduct that the law expressly permits the jury to make adverse inferences from a party's efforts to intimidate witnesses... .” Jost v. Ahmad, 730 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2" Dist. Ct. App. 1998) Gnternal quotation omitted). To be clear, Epstein’s attempt to tamper with witnesses is “not simply