Epstein Secrets

back Funding, ac, et at v. Scott W. Rothstein, et 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 cl

n. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter- claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation p

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which RRA represented the strip club, The Cheetah, and that EW also worked as a showgirl. Then the same thing with Jane Doe, seeking damages, claiming severe emotional distress. So these are the three cases that Edwards was prosecuting against Mr. Epstein while working

rocess claim has been disposed of. It was successfully won on the summary judgment and is no longer an issue. So the only operative portion of the Fourth Amended Counterclaim is count two, malicious prosecution. In that complaint, Judge, against Mr. Epstein, Mr. Edwards asserts in paragraph 24, "While pro

ck Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et 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 cl

n. Epstein subsequently dismissed his Complaint without prejudice. The counter- claim proceeded, undergoing several amendments. As it now stands, the Fourth Amended Counterclaim has two causes of action: abuse of process and malicious prosecution. Epstein moved for summary judgment arguing that the litigation p