Epstein Secrets

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 1 of 24 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON ----------~/ JANE DOE NO. 3, Plaintif

HNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80381-MARRA/JOHNSON I Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2009 Page 2 of 24 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra/Johnson Epstein's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Jane Doe's Injunction Motion Page 2 of24 JANE DOE NO. 6, Plainti

majority of Mr. Cassell's assertions in his affidavit are based on a 2005 Vanity Fair article (the "2005 Vanity Fair Article"). See Vicky Ward, "The Talented Mr. Epstein," Vanity Fair <http://vickyward.com/wordpress/archives/30>, (January 24, 2005; accessed June 24, 2009). Mr. Cassell's affidavit is essentially a

Weinstein .... " See Vicky Ward, "You Will Have Jeffrey Epstein to Kick Around!" Vanity Fair <http://www

strict Court of Appeals characterized as "a series of temporary injunctions without the necessary showing of entitlement to injunctive relief." Id. The Second District quashed the order granting the injunction and held that "[a]n injunction cannot be used to enforce money damages or prevent a party of disposing of

lly, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING STAY Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(0, Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, files this motion for review of the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018 denying a stay of trial cour

(the Honorable Donald Hafele) has just made two rulings which warrant extraordinary relief. The first ruling in an Order of March 8, 2018, denying Epstein's Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in I In compliance with this Court's Administrative Order No. 2014-1, the Petitioner has contemporaneousl

Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

arately. (App. 19)6. The court denied Epstein's ore tenus motion for stay. and this motion for review of that denial follows. (App. 20). ARGUMENT I. EPSTEIN IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF HIS MANDAMUS PETITION BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT MUST REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE TRIAL DOCKET IN ORDER TO COMPL

cognizes that compliance with the mandatory nature of Rule 1.440 is so fundamental that it warrants mandamus relief. Id. at 421. 9 EFTA00793775 The Second District also has recognized that strict compliance with Rule 1.440 is required, and has granted mandamus relief absent such compliance. See Gawker Media, L

. Link & Rockenbach, PA A ellate Counsel for Petitioner EFTA00793730 INTRODUCTION In this Emergency Petition for a writ of mandamus, Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018, by the Honorable Donald Hafele, denying Epstein'

Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018, by the Honorable Donald Hafele, denying Epstein's Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply With the Mandate Set Forth in Rule 1.440. Epstein requests Emergency treatment because

Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

ari, this Court recognizes that compliance with the mandatory nature of Rule 1.440 is so fundamental that it warrants mandamus relief. Id. at 421. The Second District also has recognized that strict compliance with Rule 1.440 is required, and has granted mandamus relief absent such compliance. See Gawker Media, L

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

secution action brought by a physician against his patients and an expert after he successfully defended a malpractice claim. Also of significance is the Second District’s opinion in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In that case, the court observed that the litigation (or judicial) privilege would no

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