Epstein Secrets

matters; issues (in all cases) 04/24/2009 RHB Review Jane Doe 101 Motion to File Omicus brief 04/24/2009 RHB Review Jane Doe 101 Complaint in Federal Court 04/24/2009 RHB Draft e-mail correspondence to RDC re: thoughts on Jane Doe 101 Amicus Brief 04/24/2009 RI-IB Review BB Complaint 04/24/2009 R

00602007 LAW OFFICES OF BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 400 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 May 08, 2009 Darren K. Indyke, Esq. 301 East 66th Street, Ste. 10B New York, NY 10065 INVOICE Matter ID: 2008-029 Client ID: 3371 EPSTEIN, JEFFREY Invoice # 29879 Federal

00 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 May 08, 2009 Darren K. Indyke, Esq. 301 East 66th Street, Ste. 10B Ne

08, 2009 3:09 PM To: 'Jeffrey Epstein'; 'Darren Indyke' Cc: Robert D. Critton Jr. Subject: Epstein M

00 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 May 08, 2009 Darren K. Indyke, Esq. 301 East 66th Street, Ste. 10B New

h apparently he has, which is that the 21 $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That 22 if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get 23 fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but 24 he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means 25 that,

per week and earned no compensation. (Sag page 6 of each return.) All of these returns were signed under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work release file as Mr. Epstein's "supervisor." Mr. Epstein's representations concerning his prior work duties and

lary and employment verification requirements of C.O.P. #926.01(V)(CX7) and (8). In response to your requirement of "a detailed work schedule," Mr. Indyke has provided the following two sentences: [Mr. Epstein's] duties will require him to work six days a week, Monday through Saturday, at the Foundat

under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work rele

h apparently he has, which is that the 21 $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That 22 if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get 23 fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but 24 he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means 25 that,

per week and earned no compensation. (See page 6 of each return.) All of these returns were signed under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work release file as Mr. Epstein's "supervisor." Mr. Epstein's representations concerning his prior work duties and

lary and employment verification requirements of C.O.P. #926.01(V)(CX7) and (8). In response to your requirement of "a detailed work schedule," Mr. Indyke has provided the following two sentences: [Mr. Epstein's] duties will require him to work six days a week, Monday through Saturday, at the Foundat

under penalty of perjury by either Mr. Epstein or Darren Indyke, who is listed in Mr. Epstein's work rele

you let us know? A. Okay. Will do. Q. What is your understanding of the ethical responsibility of an attorney in signing a pleading to be filed in Federal Court, and let's say in the Southern District of Florida, if that's any different than elsewhere? A. Sure. Q. Just give me your understanding. A. Sure. T

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

ed in 2016 for obtaining one of the top 50 jury verdicts in the United States resulting from a high-profile sexual abuse case that was litigated in Federal Court in Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Henderson was again recognized in 2018 after she obtained a $71 million verdict in state court on behalf of a young woman

tigation against Epstein's Estate, see Fanner v. Indyke, et at (I:19-cv-10474); Fanner v. Indyke, et at (