Epstein Secrets

t Edwards and Cassell made in this other lawsuit are somehow 2 binding on Ms. Edwards and Cassell had separate legal 3 counsel, Florida attorney Jack Scarola. Whatever was going on 4 in that case isn't binding on Ms. 5 Under the relevant rules, an attorney's statements are 6 binding on a client only

separate legal 3 counsel, Florida attorney Jack Scarola. Whatever was going on 4 in that case isn't bin

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

that Edwards and Cassell made in this other lawsuit are somehow binding on Ms. . Edwards and Cassell had separate legal counsel, Florida attorney Jack Scarola. Whatever was going on in that case isn't binding on Ms. 5 Under the relevant rules, an attorney's statements are 6 binding on a client only on

ad separate legal counsel, Florida attorney Jack Scarola. Whatever was going on in that case isn't bindin

s 13 just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these 14 other bad acts. 15 Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh Circuit case, 16 Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the 17 Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when 18 it ruled that the de

Edwards and Cassell made in this other lawsuit are somehow binding on Ms. Giuffre. Edwards and Cassell had separate legal counsel, Florida attorney Jack Scarola. Whatever was going on in that case isn't binding on Ms. Giuffre. Under the relevant rules, an attorney's statements are binding on a client only o

had separate legal counsel, Florida attorney Jack Scarola. Whatever was going on in that case isn't binding

now, that there is just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these other bad acts. Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh CircuLt case, Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when it ruled that the defendant,