Epstein Secrets

a briefcase, 1 Whit,: WC haw never intended to and do not here seek to watuitously coo aspersions on any of tlw witnesses. in previously asking the Stale and now asking you to evaluate she strength of this ease, we have been constrained to point out the fact thin the alleged victims chose to present t

andle the case pro bono, with no financial benefit even to himself. Furthermore, you were given several other options to choose from, including the Podhurst firm, which was later selected by Judge Davis. You rejected those other options. You also allege that I improperly disclosed information about the

m a briefcase, While we have never intended to and do not here seek lu gratuitously cue aspersions on any or the whin:saw. in previously asking the Stale and now asking you to evaluate the strength of this case. we have been constrained to point out the fact that the alleged victims chose to present t

nst Mr. Epstein. The initial draft victim notification letter contained language that confirmed your Office's interpretation and indicated that Mr. Podhurst and Mr. Josefsberg, the selected attorney representatives. may "represent" the identified individuals. This language assumes that the selected repre

9100 Havensight Port Of Sale St Thomas, VI 00802 457 Madison Ave New York, NY 10022-6843 49 Zorro Ranch Rd Stanley, NM 87056-9743 PO Box 567 Stanley, NM 87056 7. MELLON UNITED NATIONAL BANK 1111 Brickell Ave Fl 30th Miami, FL 33131-3112 8 9. SABADELL UNITED BANK, N.A. AMERICAN AWNINGCO INC

dential Due Diligence Report UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (Miami) Podhurst Orseck, PA v. Epstein PLAINTIFF: Orseck, Podhurst, PA DEFENDANT: Epstein, Jeffrey DOCKET CASE NUMBER: 1:10cv21586 FILING DATE: 5/17/2010 JURISDICTION: Diversity JUDGE: Gold, Alan S NATURE OF SU