Epstein Secrets

in reliance on Edwards' previous waiver and agreement to produce the same, these e-mails must be deemed not protected by Edwards' clear waiver. See Jane Doe No. I v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014)(held that Epstein's former counsel had waived the work-product privilege with respect to docum

jury from case-eviscerating e-mails would result in reversible error and lead to a second trial. Because these e-mails are case-ending or worse for Edwards, Edwards has attacked Epstein's counsel and derided the truth of these e-mails in an attempt to hide them from the light of the courtroom, but in the end, t

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

rounds for suspicion, which were in abundance on the facts cited by Epstein. 20 EFTA00799358 For example, at the time Epstein filed suit against Edwards, Edwards neither disputed nor provided any explanation for filing a federal lawsuit against Epstein on behalf of one of the clients for whom Edwards had alr

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

grounds for suspicion, which were in abundance on the facts cited by Epstein. 24 EFTA00583975 For example, at the time Epstein filed suit against Edwards, Edwards neither disputed nor provided any explanation for filing the duplicative federal lawsuit against Epstein on behalf LM, of one of the clients for wh