Epstein Secrets

ts,, 22 construction diagrams, anything like that, documents 2 3 from the contractor? 24 A No, 25 Q No, you didn't, or no — ■ Page 151 i i 1 with Mr. Indyke? 2 A No. 3 Q There appear to be a number of 4 corporations. El Zorro Ranch Corporation, New York 5 Strategy Group, Ghislaine, G-HT-S-L-ArEN-E, 6 Corp

A No, not that I can recall. 20 Q Page 87, last page. Middle of the page 21 references Epstein's corporation attorney, a 22 gentleman by the name: of Darren Indyke/I-N-D-Y-K-E 23 Dp you see that? 24 A Not yet. Okay, yes. 25 Q Do you recall having any conversations: Page 152 1 determination to go to the Grand Jur

poration attorney, a 22 gentleman by the name: of Darren Indyke/I-N-D-Y-K-E 23 Dp you see that? 24 A Not y

purports to bind “the Government.” See Annabi, Tl\ F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (“Defendant’s argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is presum

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168 United States v. Lain hus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) passim United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 8 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

4 United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) passim United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 8 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

4 United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) passim United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 8 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

ates v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 114 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) 110, Ill, 113, 114 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 4, 6 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1978) 53 United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir.

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) 168 United States v. Lambus, 897 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2018) passim United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) 8 United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (tbl.) 5 United States v. Laurenti, 581 F.2d 37