Epstein Secrets

istrict of Florida (the "Federal Action") more than eight years ago. In the Federal Action, Edwards and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend that the Government violated their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (the "CVRA"). Specifically, the

the Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement (the "NPA") with Epstein, who allegedly subjected them to various sexual crimes when they were minors. On December 30, 2014 — more than eight years after the Federal Action

and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend t

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend t

istrict of Florida (the "Federal Action") more than eight years ago. In the Federal Action, Edwards and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend that the Government violated their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (the "CVRA"). Specifically, the

the Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement (the "NPA") with Epstein, who allegedly subjected them to various sexual crimes when they were minors. On December 30, 2014 — more than eight years after the Federal Action

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

ugh his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Epstein seeks Summary Judgment on the claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution set forth in Brad Edwards’ Fourth Amended Counterclaim. Each of th

Epstein. Sexual Abuse of Children By Epstein 1. Defendant Epstein has a nexual preference for young children. Depos

al complaint with obstruction of justice in eanneetinn with trying to obtain $50,000 from civil attorneys pursuing civil sexual assault cases against Rpatein as payment for producing the book to the attorneys. See Criminal Complaint at 4, US. v. Rodriguez, No. 9:10-CR-80015-KAM (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Exhibit “G

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the

unting the allegations: The Joinder Motion then goes on to allege — without any supporting evidence — as follows: One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein’s and well-kn

Q. [Y]ou [are] aware that years before December of 2014, when the CVRA pleading was filed, that your name had come up repeatedly in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minors, correct? . . . A. Let me answer that question. I am aware that never before 2014, end of December, was it ever, ever alleged that I