Epstein Secrets

RT: We'll call him. THE CLERK: CourtCall, that won't be necessary. I'll call the attorney myself. Thank you. OPERATOR: Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. THE COURT: All right. That concludes --- MR. LINK: May I, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. LINK: I was just going to ask for -- since Mr. Epstein'

r Shapiro present in the courtroom? MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I was informed that Mr. Paul Cassell was to call into this hearing on behalf of L.M., E.W. and S.R. THE COURT: I don't MR. EDWARDS: I don't know what arrangements he made. THE COURT: No such arrangements were made. So, we'll just -- on

R. CASSELL: Cassell is C-a-s-s-e-1-1. THE COURT: And who are you representing in this matter? MR. CASSELL: I represent putative intervenors L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, who have a pending motion for leave to intervene. THE COURT: All right. Let me ask, is there any opposition to the motion to interve

rding the sealing of a record is not practicable, the Court will address such Motion, and if granted, provide notice of any decision to seal on the Clerk's electronic bulletin board. Unless otherwise ordered with a reason given by the Court, notice should include enough disclosure to identify the ca

'S MOTION TO DISIMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, replies to the three separate responses filed by respondents, E.W., B.B., and the Post, and responds to E.W.'s Request to Dismiss Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction as follows: The non-prosecution agreement and adde

agreement and addendum is confidential by its terms. Mr. Epstein directs this Court to review paragraph 13 of the sealed non-prosecution agreement. E.W.'s argument is also disingenuous. EW has had the non-prosecution agreement for months, yet never advanced this position in federal or state court un

8, hearing, the Court instructed Epstein to file under seal Link & Rockenbach's copy of the disc and exhibits identified on Epstein's March 5, 2018, Clerk's Trial Exhibit List which Edwards claimed were privileged. The exhibits were filed under seal to protect Epstein's appellate rights. The sealing w

ons, and in support thereof, states: INTRODUCTION Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), along with Fanner Jaffe and Intervenors L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe (collectively, the "Bankruptcy Movants") have moved the Bankruptcy Court for an Order to show cause why a November 2010 Agreed Order' h

aims are privileged are accepted by the Clerk under seal and remain under seal, Epstein requests an Order authorizing such filings and advising the Clerk that such filings shall remain under seal until further order of the Court. By filing this Motion, Epstein does not agree with Edwards' privilege a

discs that they had in their possession. • On March 6, 2018, Epstein filed his Notice of No Objection to Attorney Paul Cassell, on Behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe, or Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards Moving to Seal Court Records Until the Court Makes a Determination on How the Docum

3/18 PVD [No Charge] Work on exhibit of comparison of privilege log for in camera inspection; work on Exhibit A re documents from Epstein's 3/5/18 Clerk's Trial Exhibit List Seeking In Camera Review - Compared to Privilege Log 04/03/18 TLC Work on Motion for In Camera Review to incorporate D. Ind

n, and outline Response in Opposition 04/03/18 PVD [No Charge] Work on hearing binder re Farmer l e 's Motion to Show Cause, Edwards' Joinder, , E.W. and Jane Doe's Joinder and Motion to ervene 04/03/18 PVD [No Charge] Work on exhibit of comparison of privilege log for in camera inspection; wor

her identifying number of a case that is sealed by court order. 6. The Court will direct the Clerk to post the order sealing the court file on the Clerk's website as well as on the bulletin board located at the Main Courthouse within ten (10) days following the entry of the order and must remain pos

ATE OF FLORIDA, E.W., THE PALM BEACH POST, B.B, Respondents. E.W.'S SEALED REQUEST TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Respondent, E.W., would show the Court as follows: 1. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this petition. The order under review is a non-final order for which no