Epstein Secrets

s counsel identified on the service list below. RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & COHEN, PLLC By: /s/

Epstein. This Court has already ruled that everything post Link & Rockenbach is not a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order but, rather, is a State Court issue, and will not be considered at the Show Cause hearing. Therefore, there is no further live testimony that can be elicited from Epstein that wo

ied on the service list below. 6 EFTA00794243 RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & By: /s/ had P. Pu atc

Epstein. This Court has already ruled that everything post Link & Rockenbach is not a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order but, rather, is a State Court issue. Therefore, there is no further live testimony that can be elicited from Epstein that would benefit the Court in deciding if Epstein violated

s counsel identified on the service list below. RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & COHEN, PLLC By: CHA

ese show cause proceedings were instituted shortly thereafter. A privilege determination has never been made and that issue is currently before the State Court. The only issue for this Court to decide on October 26, 2018, is if Fowler White and/or Epstein violated the November 2010 Agreed Order. 2Jeffrey E

s counsel identified on the service list below. RICE PUGATCH ROBINSON STORFER & OM By: Is/ Chad P. P

Epstein. This Court has already ruled that everything post Link & Rockenbach is not a violation of the November 2010 Agreed Order but, rather, is a State Court issue, and will not be considered at the Show Cause hearing. Therefore, there is no further live testimony that can be elicited from Epstein that wo

IA Z≥) 2019-08-29 D. (U) Interview of MARQUEA RICE (U) RICE Notes IA 27 2019-08-29 70 Ill) Int

Case Summary: Child Prostitution case against Epstein brought by PBPD, opened 07/25/2006 by FBI Miami Palm Beach RA, resulting In a guilty plea in State Court. This case has remained in Pending Inactive status since 07/25/2017 and case materials have been preserved for a civil litigation hold. The 18 item

t or increasing the punishment for the crime." 14/rice v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.

), the District Court dismissed a purely state law claim for equitable subrogation because there had been an earlier claim for declaratory relief in State Court; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, concluding ...that no exceptional circumstances require dismissal of this case in deference to the pending state c