Epstein Secrets

er young girls. She knew the civil lawsuits had to be based on the sexual abuse by Epstein. In a telephone interview conducted on April 7, 2011, by Jack Scarola, Esq., representing Brad Edwards, Esq. in Epstein'. Rothstein. Edwards. and L.M. Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG (Circuit Court, Palm Beach County,

one interview conducted on April 7, 2011, by Jack Scarola, Esq., representing Brad Edwards, Esq. in Epstei

98 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2015 Page 6 of 14 limitations, no period of limitations applies, is refuted by Center for Biological Diversity.' That case dealt with the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and in particular, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). 453 F.3d at 1334. The Eleven

er young girls. She knew the civil lawsuits had to be based on the sexual abuse by Epstein. In a telephone interview conducted on April 7, 2011, by Jack Scarola, Esq., representing Brad Edwards, Esq. in Epstein v. Rothstein. Edwards. and L.M., Jane Doe #3 stated she was first contacted by the FBI "in 2007 s

one interview conducted on April 7, 2011, by Jack Scarola, Esq., representing Brad Edwards, Esq. in Epstei

F.2d at 55. Also, petitioners' contention that, because the CVRA contains no statute of limitations, no period of limitations applies, is refuted by Center for Biological Diversity. That case dealt with the interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, and in particular, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(C). 453 F.3d at 1334. The Elevent

nvolving two other victims (Dkt 290.1, Dkt 311 at 12), and she was making herself publicly available by giving interviews to the and to Edwards and Scarola in 2011. She was an adult in 2008 (25) and 2011 (28). She has a responsibility to join the lawsuit prior to the completion of JE sentence. Principle

erful people. 50. In around April 2011, as a follow-up to my earlier call with Brad Edwards, I got a telephone call from him and another attorney, Jack Scarola. They just wanted general information about whether various people had information relevant to the lawsuit. They told me that they were taping the

tims' all agree. Given entirely reasonable. Indeed, any other course would have been foolhardy. 4 The Government's concession readily distinguishes Center for Biological Diversity v. Hamilton, 453 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2006), which is clearly not an "ancillary criminal proceeding," but rather a civil enforcement action of the