Epstein Secrets

Many. It was senators. It was Senator 13 met him. 14 Mitchell. George Mitchell. It was Prince Andrew. It 14 Q. Were Prince Andrew and Princess Sarah friends 15 was Princess Sarah. 15 of Ms. Maxwell? 16 Q. Princess? 16 A. Both of them. 17 A. Sarah. the wife of Andrew. 17 Q. Both Ms. Max

Sarah. 15 of Ms. Maxwell? 16 Q. Princess? 16 A. Both of them. 17 A. Sarah. the wife of Andrew. 17 Q. Both Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein? 18 Q. Sarah Ferguson? 18 A. Yeah. 19 A. Ferguson. 19 Q. Did -- did they ever have massages when they 20 And it was a couple Misses. Misses Yugoslavia. 20 were t

. Both Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein? 18 Q. Sarah Ferguson? 18 A. Yeah. 19 A. Ferguson. 19 Q. Did -- d

20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Plaintiffs: RICHARD WII.I.ITS. ESQUIRE RICHARD H. WILLITS PA STUART hIERAIELS1EIN. ESQUIRE KATHERINE W. EZELL. ESQUIRE Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXHIBITS NUMBER DESCRIPTION Exhibit n

encompasses any deviation from the Board's recommendation, including the People's discretion to recommend a lower risk level. See, e.g., People v. Ferguson, 53 A.D.3d 571, 572 (2d Dep't 2008) (holding that 10- day notice requirement applies not only to changes in RAI scoring, but to changes in factual p

. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. 2 Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street 3 Miami, FL 33130 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 4 (Via telephone) 5 KATHERINE W. EZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 6 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 7 For Jane Doe 101 305.358.2800 8 FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRI

orrespondence, including the attachments and the response of Assistant Ethics Counsel Gail E. Ferguson, dated November 4, 2008. In her letter, Ms. Ferguson reported that she could not provide an opinion letter because my inquiry was based, in part, on past conduct and that she could not provide legal ad

cted any victim. His partner, Kathy Ezell, attempted to contact three victims before receiving Mr. Mermelstein's notification of representation. Ms. Ezell spoke directly only to one victim, and as soon as the victim stated that she was represented, Ms. Ezell ended the conversation. Ms. Ezell left a m

, in part, on past conduct and that she could not provide legal advice regarding my obligations pursuant to statute or court order. Nonetheless, Ms. Ferguson did refer me to the relevant Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, specifically Rules 4-7.4(a), 4-4.2(a), and 4- 3.4(c). EFTA00216178 Rule 4-7.4 Mr.

cted any victim. His partner, Kathy Ezell, attempted to contact three victims before receiving Mr. Mermelstein's notification of representation. Ms. Ezell spoke directly only to one victim, and as soon as the victim stated that she was represented, Ms. Ezell ended the conversation. Ms. Ezell left a m

orrespondence, including the attachments and the response of Assistant Ethics Counsel Gail E. Ferguson, dated November 4, 2008. In her letter, Ms. Ferguson reported that she could not provide an opinion letter because my inquiry was based, in part, on past conduct and that she could not provide legal ad

cted any victim. His partner, Kathy Ezell, attempted to contact three victims before receiving Mr. Mermelstein's notification of representation. Ms. Ezell spoke directly only to one victim, and as soon as the victim stated that she was represented, Ms. Ezell ended the conversation. Ms. Ezell left a m

espondence, including the attachments and the response of Assistant Ethics Counsel Gail E. Ferguson, dated November 4, 2008. F'- In her letter, Ms. Ferguson reported that she could not provide an opinion letter because my inquiry was based, in part, on past conduct and that she could not provide legal ad

cted any victim. His partner, Kathy Ezell, attempted to contact three victims before receiving Mr. Mermelstein's notification of representation. Ms. Ezell spoke directly only to one victim, and as soon as the victim stated that she was represented, Ms. Ezell ended the conversation. Ms. Ezell left a me