Epstein Secrets

you represented Jane Doe. .. whether she was considered a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" and then re-phrased: ". . .[D]id you learn whether [Jane Doe 1] was listed as a, or deemed to be a victim by the U.S. Attorney's Office?" Id. at 100-104. Although contrary to law, Mr. Scarola's stated position

ROLA: I am going to object. That calls for attorney-client privilege. 100/9-14 Q. At the time do you know whether, at the time that you represented Jane Doe 1, do you know whether her name, whether she was considered a victim by the United States Attorney's Office? 100/15-23 A. SCAROLA: If that informati

in a case like this where incentives offered to Edwards and accepted by Edwards are plainly relevant to a determination of whether he was privy to the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and why he decided even to join RRA. It is significantly relevant to his counterclaim since he is claiming loss of profits and injury to his

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that were brought by Edward's clients -- E.W., L.M. and Jane Doe -- were relevant. So I just wanted, for the record, to be definitive, in that, we are not trying the other claims that may have been represented

Tort Claimants and possibly others. Epstein denies this motivation EFTA00805158 and maintains his probable cause was grounded in media reports of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and the realization of the possible connection for Edwards' litigation behavior unrelated to the claims of his three clients. Court's Rulin

perfield and Bill Richardson for deposition en 70-75); purported relevancy of pilot and flight logs to show interstate airplane travel in support of Jane Doe's Federal Rico claims and punitive damages (911 77-79); Epstein's interview with a New York newspaper reporter (9191 80-81); Epstein's alleged threat

btain summary judgment. Third, Edwards has not demonstrated the absence of material issues of fact. His alleged participation in and/or knowledge of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and the validity of, and motivation in conducting, the discovery at issue in the underlying Epstein actions are matters of considerable deba

el for Petitioner 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. Suite 301 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 'As set forth in Epstein's Petition, non-parties E.W. and Jane Doe have sought to intervene below on a limited and unrelated issue. As such, they are not parties in this certiorari proceeding, and Edwards has impro

aim against both Rothstein and Edwards) in connection with the use of Epstein case materials, which were improperly utilized to lure investors into the Rothstein Ponzi scheme is clearly and irrefutably related to Edwards' counterclaim against Epstein for filing that original claim. Yet, to mislead this Court into