Epstein Secrets

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- the case had basically not been actively prosecuted in this court until June 2017 when the Florida Supreme Court issued its final ruling. So should the Court grant our motion, we did preserve the right to redepose Mr. Edwards on these issues. We feel not onl

108 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT R

l Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a "bone-tide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff" as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim, has not been, nor can it be, satisfied. See 6 EFTA00299004

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XxxxmBAG PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPST

l Procedure. Specifically, the requisite of a "bone-fide termination of the original proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff' as delineated by the Florida Supreme Court as one of the legally-mandated elements to bring forth a Malicious Prosecution claim, has not, nor can it, be satisfied. See Alamo rent-A-Car v. Ma

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPST