Epstein Secrets

stein, and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, 1 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

on June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County to various similar state offenses including solicitation of minors for prostitution." D.E. 1,1 2. Once they received the non-prosecution Jane Doe No. 3, who seeks to be added as a party, also wasted little time in utilizing the non- prosec

ould have consulted with her attorney regarding the CVRA lawsuit mentioned in the September 3, 2008 letter.3 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did

n letter to me. This was the first written communication I had received from the FBI. The letter was attached as Exhibit 1 to my earlier statement." D.E. 310- 1, ¶ 34. Exhibit 1 to her earlier statement of January 19, 2015 (D.E. 291-1), is the notification letter from the United States Attorney's Offi

and how she could assert that claim. Despite her attempts to rationalize her actions in January 2009, it is 2 In their reply, petitioners refer to Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and contend that, "[t]hat firm had to work within the confines of that Government assignment and direction and therefore could not, and did n

FBI's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. She told S/A Slater that she did not want to be bothered about the Epstein matter again. D.E. 304-1, ¶ 7 and D.E. 290-3 at 17-18. In their motion, petitioners claim that the facts surrounding this exchange are highly disputed, when they are not. D.E. 311 at 16

m Beach, FL 33409 Counsel for Plaintiff, Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08- 80469 Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Hagler Street, Suite 800 130 EFTA00182754 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 152 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 8 of 8 Do

EPSTEIN upon her, Plaintiff intends to rely exclusively on the statutory damages, rather than those damages which are available at common law. (See D.E. 113). If however, the Court rules that the statutory floor applies only one time, regardless of the number of times EPSTEIN committed an enumerated

n, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 08-80469 in elated Case No. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases EFTA00182996 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 1

s extended. In light of Plaintiffs filing of her Conditional Notice of Intent to Exclusively Rely on Statutory Damages Provided by 18 U.S.C. §2255 (D.E. 113) on June 5, 2009, Plaintiff agrees to a modification of the pretrial schedule as outlined in Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to Strike (D.E. 104); to