Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00614553DOJ Data Set 9Other

I. MICHAEL BURMAN. P.A."

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00614553
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
I. MICHAEL BURMAN. P.A." GREGORY W. COLEMAN. PA ROBERT D. CRITTON. JR.. PA' BERNARD A. LEBEDEKER MARK T. LUTTIER. P.A. MICHAEL ). PIKE MICHAEL L. SCHEVE DEAN T. XENICK DAVID A. YAREMA 'FLORIDA BOARD MIMED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER 2ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO Sent by E-Mail and U.S. Mail Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 2218 Miami, FL 33160 BURMAN, CRITTON LUTTIER&_COLEMAN. uy YOUR TRUSTED ADVOCATES A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP May 27, 2010 ADELQUI ). BENAVENTE PARALEGAL/IinSTIGATOR JESSICA CADwELL BOBBIE M. MCKENNA ASHLIE STOKEN-BARING BETTY STOKES PAML MALE RITA H. BUDNYK Of COWER EDWARD M. RICCI OF COIROO. CONFIDENTIAL - FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY Re: Jane Does #2 through #8 v. Epstein Dear Stuart: When I spoke with Adam on Tuesday, he indicated I would be receiving a letter from you. I believe your clients and your valuation of the cases is greatly misplaced. I have heard your clients testimony; I have listened to their parents and their friends describe issues that they had in their lives separate and apart from and completely unrelated to Mr. Epstein, and yet they are maintaining an unrealistic value of their potential claims. However, you feel about Mr. Josefsberg's handling of his cases, the one aspect is clear: he was thoughtful, he was aggressive and he actually was looking out for the benefit of his clients who wished to move on with their lives. Without regu whic said at mediation, I am confident that Mr. Epstein's impact on and was, if at all, minimal. On the other hand, other aspects of their lives, which they now gloss over shaped who they were, what they did and who they are now. I will save my thoughts and argument for another day. On the other hand, we agree on one thing, see you for two hours on June 4th. Cordially yor, Roberti Critton, Jr. RDC/clz 303 BANYAN BOULEVARD • SVITE 400 • WEST PALM BEACH, H. 33401 • PFIONE: WWVV.BCLCLAW.COM • [Kt: EFTA00614553

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Domainwwvv.bclclaw.com

Related Documents (6)

Court UnsealedSep 9, 2019

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

839p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

J. MICHAEL BURMAN. RA'

18p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

9p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Du..ument 511 Entered on FLSD Docku, J3/29/2010 Page 1 of 11

11p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM

Case 9:08-cv-80993-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80993-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 7 Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files his Answer to the Second Amended Complaint and states: 1. Without knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - "[i]t would be incongruous to have different standards determine the validity of a claim of privilege bas

7p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.