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

the motion to add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, petitioners still maintain such motion is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 21, entitled "Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties." Petitioners have not identified which party is misjoined, or which party needs to be joined in order for this CVRA proceeding to properly go forw

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

the motion to add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, petitioners still maintain such motion is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 21, entitled "Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties." Petitioners have not identified which party is misjoined, or which party needs to be joined in order for this CVRA proceeding to properly go forw

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

the motion to add Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, petitioners still maintain such motion is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 21, entitled "Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties." Petitioners have not identified which party is misjoined, or which party needs to be joined in order for the lawsuit to properly proceed. With on