Epstein Secrets

42075 E-mail: [email protected] and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: [email protected] Case

icial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail. 3. In the course of the plea/sentencing colloquy, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly instructed Defendant as follows: Court: Okay. [Item] D is, you shall not have any contact with the victim,

, Esq. Pro Hae Vice 332 South 1400 E, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801-585-5202 801-585-6833 Fax cassel

fendant's state plea conference of June 30, 2009, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly instructe

ice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202

. In the course of the plea/sentencing colloquy, Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillio explicitly instructe

rida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: 801-585-5202 Facsimile: 801-585-6833 E-Mail: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 2, 2010 I electronically

added). Epstein's intimidation-by-surrogate also violates a no-contact order entered during the course of his guilty pleas on June 30, 2008, before Palm Beach Circuit Court Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo, who ordered Epstein "not to have any contact, direct or 2 EFTA00728794 CASE NO: 08-CV-80893-MARRAMOHNSON indirect"

a 33301 Tel: E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Tel: E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 Jacqueline Perczek BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201

epresented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (ti) This placed both petitioners on notice that Epstein would be pleading guilty on June 30, 2008, in Palm Beach Circuit Court. Petitioners' arguments and the record in this case simply do not establish that there was any violation of the petitioners' right to confer. See a