Epstein Secrets

ce and documents between Epstein's counsel and Federal prosecutors violates an Order entered in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex. A attached hereto). Pursuant to that Order, Edwards is required to seek leave of court before filing or mak

DCA 1978) (emphasis added)). See also Brancaccio v. Mediplex Mgmt. of Pon St. Lucie, Inc., 711 So. 2d 1206, 1208-1210 (Ha. 4th DCA 1998) (approving City of St. Petersburg and Village Inn Rest v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778,782 (Ha. 1st DCA 1989)), in which the First District agreed that "sanctions may be necessary where a

aL, Case No. 09-062943(19); Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson. Rothstein returned to South Florida in November 2009 to face federal criminal charges and civil claims by private investors arising out of what w

ic records). Id. at *4. "[A]n identification or a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness can provide the basis for probable cause ...." City of St. Petersburg v. Austrino, 898 So.2d 955, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (emphasis added).1° 10 Paragraph 20 of Epstein's original complaint demonstrates his reliance up

LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB; and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson; Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein, p. 23; line 4-p. 38; line 22. 5 Among the allegations in the Razorback Complaint regarding the fraudulen

robable cause is proper. "[A]n identification or a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness can provide the basis for probable cause ...." City of St. Petersburg v. Austrino, 898 So.2d 955, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (emphasis added).13 See, also, e.g., EMI Sun Village, Inc. v. Catledge, No. 13-cv-21594, 2013 WL