Epstein Secrets

your letter, you enclosed a communication from Mr. Stamen to Judge Davis dated October 25, 2007 and an additional document, presumably aiso from Mr. Sloman, entitled: "PROPOSAL FOR PROCEEDING ONCE ATTORNEY 1S SELECTED." While you refer to these documents as your "marching orders," neither document is p

change the fact that everything we've done is necessary in order to determine if we should settle: As a matter of fact, you and I discussed hiring Sandy Marks, a jury consultant Again, such an exercise would be extremely helpful at trial, but an analysis of what would happen at trial is exceptionally benef

nd it is in breach of his Non-Prosecution Agreement. The agreement speaks for itself. Enclosed is a copy of the marching orders I received from Mr. Sloman. Pursuant to these directions and the ethical requirements of the legal profession to zealously represent my clients, I have attempted to efficientl

change the fact that everything we've done is necessary in order to determine if we should settle: As a matter of fact, you and I discussed hiring Sandy Marks, a jury consultant. Again, such an exercise would be extremely helpful at trial, but an analysis of what would happen at trial is exceptionally bene

nd it is in breach of his Non-Prosecution Agreement. The agreement speaks for itself. Enclosed is a copy of the marching orders I received from Mr. Sloman. Pursuant to these directions and the ethical requirements of the legal profession to zealously represent my clients, I have attempted to efficientl

change the fact that everything we've done is necessary in order to determine if we should settle: As a matter of fact, you and I discussed hiring Sandy Marks, a jury consultant. Again, such an exercise would be extremely helpful at trial, but an analysis of what would happen at trial is exceptionally bene