Epstein Secrets

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus

Calendar entries 307 1] Composite - Calendar entries 307 12 Composite - Calendar entries 307 APPEARANCES (Continued): On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. New York, New York BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQ. (Via phone) On behalf of Virginia Roberts: BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER

RANCES (Continued): On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. New Yor

HE REPORTER: He's going to have to speak up. MR. SCOTT: You're going to have to speak up a little bit more, Counsel. MR. INDYKE: Objection. This is Darren Indyke. Anything that Alan might have to say to that, to the extent they are covered under conversations with Jeffrey Epstein, privileged under attorney-

e extent that requires -- MR. SCOTT: Whoa. MS. McCAWLEY: -- you to disclose anything you gave -- THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear. I'm sorry, Mr. Indyke, can you repeat your objection? MR. SCOTT: Can you say that a little louder? MR. INDYKE: Darren Indyke. I would object to the extent that your answ

RANCES (Continued): On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC 575 Lexington Ave., 4th Fl. New York

SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 4 APPEARANCES CONTINUED 2 BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 Telephonicatiy on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein: 3 CASE NO. CACE 15-000072 DARREN K.INDYKE, PLLC 4 4 BY: DARREN K. INDYKE, ESQUIRE 5 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS and PAUL G. CASSELL, 575 Lexington Avenue 6 § 4th Floor 7 Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defend

2009 FILED CLERK'S OFFICE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION GENERAL ORDER AMENDING FILING DEADLINES On March 26, 2009, the United States Supreme Court approved revisions to federal court procedural rules, inter alia, changing the method by which time is calculated in the federal courts to multiple

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN K. DEMA, P.C. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW JOHN K. DEMA ADMITTED USVI-CA 8 January 2010 Vla Cat(/!d mall- Return Recdpt and E-ntall Darren K. Indyke, Esquire President, Financial Trust Company, Inc. 6100 Red Hook Quarter, Suite B-3 St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802 301 East 66ih Street Ne

at(/!d mall- Return Recdpt and E-ntall Darren K. Indyke, Esquire President, Financial Trust Company, Inc

010 Vla Cat(/!d mall- Return Recdpt and E-ntall Darren K. Indyke, Esquire President, Financial Trust Comp

010 Vla Cat(/!d mall- Return Recdpt and E-ntall Darren K. Indyke, Esquire President, Financial Trust Compa

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus Go

icion that maybe Mr. Dershowitz when he had -- MR. SCOTT: I just got a call from a lawyer on the screen. His phone is not working, Epstein's lawyer, Darrin Indyke. Do you want to take a break for a second? MR. SIMPSON: Why don't we let him finish his answer. MR. SCAROLA: Finish the answer. MR. SCOTT: You're

is phone is not working, Epstein's lawyer, Darrin Indyke. Do you want to take a break for a second? MR. S

aith claim is simple: There can be no good faith when the government willfully and intentionally misleads the court into authorizing its search. As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Leon, Suppression . . . remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by inform

nited States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell,

aith claim is simple: There can be no good faith when the government willfully and intentionally misleads the court into authorizing its search. As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Leon, Suppression . . . remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by inform

nited States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2$ Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 v. Maxwell,

aith claim is simple: There can be no good faith when the government willfully and intentionally misleads the court into authorizing its search. As the United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Leon, Suppression . . . remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by inform

ted States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v.