Epstein Secrets

he say? 4 A. She, she said she doesn't really know. I 5 guess she doesn't remember. She says that she was asked 6 if she knew about my going to Jeffrey Epstein's house, 7 and she told them that she gave me a ride there before. 8 Q. And was that true? 9 A. Yes. 10 1Okay. On how many times did your sist

the same conduct or what I would say lack of professionalism to do something like that. MR. EDWARDS: Well, but, obviously, the difference is Mr. Epstein's anonymity has not been protected in this case, and these victims have. So... MR. CRITTON: So it's okay to humiliate and embarrass someone and t

e; true? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You so if I ask you is it your testimony, 6 as you sit here today, that since the time you filed the 7 lawsuit against MrStein, you have never discussed 8 your lawsuit withM.? 9 A. No. 10 Q. That's not true — that's not correct? 11 A. What is not correct? 12 Q. All

-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, -vs- JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. VOLUME I Related cases: 0

EDWARDS: Well, but, obviously, the difference is Mr. Epstein's anonymity has not been protected in this case,

ed out °M.'s the 21 first time. 22 Q. All right So sometime in the latter part of 23 2006ar moved back ton's - I'm sorry -- you moved 24 from M.'s apartment in West Palm Beach, so the latter 25 part of 2006 to sometime In 2007, you were living back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1

hich of his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to =, M., and M. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. L2The undersigned does not know when Mr. Edwards began representing M. or whether

ey. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation. U 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation. At that

States Attorney assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federa

the investigation. U 5. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

e the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not includ

efendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RELATING TO =.'S DEPOSITION AND MOTION TO COMPE

O COMPEL M. TO ANSWER OUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CRIMES VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT AND TO REOPEN DEPOSITION Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), responds in opposition to the Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 1026] filed by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"), relatin

ction was to, among other things, force Edwards to abandon his efforts to set aside the NPA through the CVRA action: 10 And we intend to prove that Jeffrey 11 Epstein's motive in filing these knowingly 12 false claims against Brad Edwards - his 13 motive was to extort Bradley Edwards into 14 abandoni

agreement. (11/29/17 Tr. 106:10-18, e.s.) 3 And Mr. Epstein clearly knows that 4 Mr. Edwards is lead counsel

9/17 Tr. 110:13-19.) Edwards has identified M. on his Witness List. [D.E. 1042, ¶ 15.] Edwards has also designated and cross designated portions of M.'s testimony to be used at the trial of this matter. [D.E. 1022; D.E. 1130.] Because M. is incarcerated, the parties can only rely on her deposition t

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.201 CASE NO. Plaintiff, v. 50 2009CAO it 0B 'ist1)00004B SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, IV DLEY J. ED

ividually, and , individually, COPY RECEIVED FOR FILING Bic A 12099 stinnoN fl, DOCK WM4 OQMPTFIC2660 Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, (hereinafter "EPSTEIN"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, files this action against Defendants, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

EPSTEIN and like other RRA clients, sought tens of millions of dollars. a. For example, in her sworn statement to the FBI, III was insistent that "Jeffrey is an awesome man.' (p. 21 — FBI); At the conclusion of she stated: "I hope Jeffrey, nothing happens to Jeffrey because he's an awesome man and it

hat the evidence is really going to show is that Mr. Epstein — at least dating back as EFTA00286298 Epstein

g a book of "Psalms" that she obtained from a religious store (DT 152:1-14). Under the circumstances, her claim for damages against EPSTEIN, one of M.'s many "Johns" during that same period, would be so incredible and certainly not likely to produce the extraordinary settlements promised to "RRA's i

which of his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to =, M., and M. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when the were fifteen years old. Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to and M. are no

y. That attorney was James Eisenberg, and his fees were paid by Jeffrey Epstein, the target of the investigation. Fs 4. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("the Office") entered into negotiations to resolve the investigation. At that t

States Attorney assigned to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. The case was investigated by the Federa

the investigation. Fs 4. In the summer of 2007, Mr. Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern

e the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not includ

IN THE COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA E.W., CASE NO. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON LAND THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiffs Request for Entry Upon Land, and the C

TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ORDER ON EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Epstein's Motion To C

CASE NO. 502008CA028058XXXXMB AB Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

REY EPSTEIN, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SPECIAL SET HEARING THIS CAUSE having come before this Court upon Plaintiff, M.'s, Motion for Special Set Hearing, and the Court having reviewed the Motion and being fully advised of the premises, it is hereby: ORDERED AND ADJUD