Epstein Secrets

the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1,

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Do

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

ell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10.

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceed by way of pseudonym as victims of child sexual assault. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Attorney for Appellees C-2 of 2 EFTA00209357 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTRODUCTION 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 The Epstein Investigation and the Non-

the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14.

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jef

7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209568 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court bel

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceed by way of pseudonym as victims of child sexual assault. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Attorney for Appellees C-2 of 2 EFTA00209569 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTRODUCTION 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 The Epstein Investigation and the Non-

UIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF'

aintiffs. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") an

SE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT

er proper person attesting to their authenticity or correctness. . . . They were received without any foundation other than the representations of Appellees counsel. In short, rule 1.510(e), by its very language, excludes any document from the record on a motion for summary judgment that is not one of t

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT DCA CASE NO.: 3D18-1997 L.T. CASE NO.: 2014-021348 CA 01 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellant/Defendant, vs. JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC, Appellees/Plaintiffs. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT On

es and Other Authorities iii EFTA00808438 PREFACE Appellant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, was the Defendant below and will be referred to in this brief as "Epstein." Appellees, JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC, were the Plaintiffs below and will be referred to in this brief as

NO.: 3D18-1997 L.T. CASE NO.: 2014-021348 CA 01 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellant/Defendant, vs. JEAN-LUC BRU

r Authorities iii EFTA00808438 PREFACE Appellant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, was the Defendant below and will be referred to in this brief as "Epstein." Appellees, JEAN-LUC BRUNEL, individually, and MC2 MODEL & TALENT MIAMI, LLC, were the Plaintiffs below and will be referred to in this brief as "Plaintiffs"

S. 427, 87 S.Ct. 1 , 18 L. Ed.2d 865 (1967); Buchanan Rhodes. 885 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 83, 17 .Ed.2d 9 (1966); Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed2d 794 (1962). Since in this case we affirm that refusal, we need not now decide whether or not there is juri

, Gary A. Hughes, J.D, Steven D. Najarian, J.D., Jeffrey A. Schafer, J.D., and Jeffrey J. Shampo, J.D. II

Adam Augustine Caner, Law Office of Adam A. Carter, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil Matthew Corwin, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Appellees. Before: and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, SIIIMnior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. "1 This case was considered on the record from O 2007 Thom

defendant-appellant Miguel Plascencia-Alvarado. Jeffrey E. Ellis, Law Offices of Ellis, Holmes & Witchley,

defendant-appellant Miguel Plascencia-Alvarado. Jeffrey E. Ellis, Law Offices of Ellis, Holmes & Witchley,

taken and now appellants move us to order a stay of the removal pending disposition of the appeals from the orders dismissing the equity suits. Appellees, in response, show that ap- pellants have given bail bonds on remov- al calling for their appearance in the Michigan District to answer the indict-

. Harold E. WOLFE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Jeffrey T. FOREMAN, et al., Appellees. No. 3D10-3055. I

ION OR WITHDRAWAL. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Harold E. WOLFE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Jeffrey T. FOREMAN, et al., Appellees. No. 3D10-3055. I July 17, 2013. Synopsis Background: Partner in a limited liability company (LLC) brought abuse of process and malicious pros