Epstein Secrets

we have no 9 control over them, in securing their testimony or requiring 10 them to cooperate in any sense. 11 I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. 12 Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last 13 night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is 14 Mr.

stions that were posed to 15 these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have 16 been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's 17 Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom 18 Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. 19 These are no

itions, but we have no control over them, in securing their testimony or requiring them to cooperate in any sense. I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is Mr. Edwards' for

stions that were posed to 15 these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have 16 been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's 17 Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom 18 Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. 19 These are no

ositions, but we have no control over them, in securing their testimony or requiring them to cooperate in any sense. I cite to the Court the case of Coquina Investments v. Rothstein, which I didn't realize until I was reading this last night is ironic because the defendant in the Rothstein case is Mr. Edwards' for

d of questions that were posed to these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. These are not technical