Epstein Secrets

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' has not been

rt's March 8, 2018, rulings, (Composite Exhibit B) Link & Rockenbach maintains in a sealed box in its offices: (1) the unredacted Appendix filed in the State Court Action; and (2) a set of the e-mail exhibits Epstein's counsel printed from the disc and identified on Epstein's March 5, 2018 Clerk's Trial Exhibit List

nd depositions, and in support thereof, states: INTRODUCTION Defendant, Bradley J. Edwards, along with Farmer 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 has not been vi

h the Court's March 8, 2018, rulings, (Exhibit B) Link & Rockenbach maintained in a sealed box in its offices: (I) the unredacted Appendix filed in the State Court Action; (2) Fowler White's original disc; and (3) a set of the exhibits Edwards claims should not be allowed into evidence because they were identified on

MOTION TO TAKE THE INTERVENORS' DEPOSITIONS AND TO COMPEL THEIR MENTAL EXAMINATIONS Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") replies to the Intervenors, IM and Jane Doe's Response (D.E. 6446) to Epstein's Motion to Take the Intervenors' Depositions and to Compel their Mental Examinations (Epstein's "Motion") (D.E. 64

-1Vest PS Beach. FL 33401 - - EFTA00808427 exceptions require disclosure to the state court jury in December. The Honorable Donald J. Hafele in the State Court Action will make those determinations. Finally, it is illogical and absurd for the Intervenors to premise their claim of "significant emotional distress"

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION www.flsb.uscourts.gov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., Debtor. CASE NO.: 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 M..... AND JANE DOE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF JOINDER IN MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AND COSTS FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF

n by his current counsel would, in fact, represent Link & Rockenbach's never-before-disclosed opinion work product and attorney-client privilege in the State Court Action." DE 6353 at 7. Somehow Epstein and his new lawyers argue that the attorney-client and work-product emails that were improperly obtained have now t

) Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), (2) Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), (3) Fowler White Burnett, P.A. ("Fowler White") and its insurer, (4) Intervenors Jane Doe, L.M. and E.W. (collectively, "Intervenors"), and (5) Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos and Lehrman ("Farmer Jaffe") (collectively, the "Mediati

ducted in both this action (In re Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A., U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 09-34791-RBR) and the State Court Action (Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein and Bradley J. Edwards, 15th Judicial Circuit Case No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG), and will also address Epstein