Epstein Secrets

z 22 EFTA00582670 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E- mail on May 9, 201 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for Plaintiffs, and to Sigrid McCawley, Esquire, Boies Schiller & Flexner, counsel for Jane Doe No. 3, a

ing was sent via E- mail on May 9, 201 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for P

e defenses without questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about her false and outrageous allegations against him. For this reason, Jane Doe No. 3's reliance on Peisach v. Antzma, 539 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), is misplaced. In Peisach, the Third District held that an ex-husband in a post-divorce custody d

ail on May 6, 2015,46,; S-204544ar554046 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for Pl

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E- mail on May 6, 2015,46,; S-204544ar554046 to: Jack Scarola, Esquire, Searcy Denny et al and counsel for Plaintiffs, and to Sigrid McCawley, Esquire, Boies Schiller & Flexner, counsel for Jane Doe No. 3, at

e defenses without questioning Jane Doe No. 3 about her false and outrageous allegations against him. For this reason, Jane Doe No. 3's reliance on Peisach v. Amino, 539 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), is misplaced. In Peisach, the Third District held that an ex-husband in a post-divorce custody di

by using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal and thus served by electronic mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] to: Jack Scarola, Esq, Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., Counsel for Plaintiff, 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409; jonijones@

inor child and a victim of sexual trafficking. There is no reason this non-party should be forced to produce her diary from when she was a child. See Peisach v. Antuna, 539 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989) (court of appeal holding that trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by granting d

rshowitz Case No.: CACE 15-000072 Edwards and Cassells Response to Dershowitz's Motion to Determine Confidentiality of Court Records Page 12 of 20 Scarola) and Dershowitz’s extended answer are quoted in full— including Dershowitz’s reference to the oral sex allegation that he now argues this Court shoul