Epstein Secrets

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN: Mon

don't think this has anything whatsoever to do 23 with the matter, but I should let you know that I 24 handled the state claims that involved Mr. Epstein 25 when I was in Division B. So I have a significant www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606512 1 amount of familiarity with the claim

6 35:1443:18,20 27:16 36:745:9,10 1:18 33:5 58:6 www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606578 70 impeachment ... 27:5 3:24 5:11,13 Jeffrey (2) juncture (1) 7:10 influence (1) 7:21 17:20 1:4 6:11 5:24 implicitly (3) 33:1 29:21 31:5 jgoldberger@... jurisdiction (1) 27:22,24 30:2

hat I 24 handled the state claims that involved Mr. Epstein 25 when I was in Division B. So I have a signif

Corrigan in North Star Capital 22 Acquisition, LLC vs. Krig, 611 F.Supp.2d 1324 23 (M.D. Fla. 2009), another decision that was 24 decided after Levin and Echevarria. And the court 25 in that case discussed -- let me just for a moment www.phippsreporting.com 888 811-3408 EFTA00606537 29 1 here -- 2 Well,

-Plaintiff, Bradley J. Edwards, individually, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files this Motion to Strike Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Fourth Amended Counterclaim and Supporting Memorandum of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PR

of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, Edwards raised two claims against Epstein: 1) abuse of process and 2) malicious prosecution. As to the malicious prosecution claim, Edwards alleged that the filing of the original complaint

) 27:22,24 30:21 imploded (1) 27:5 influence (1) 33:1 information (2) 8:1 13:24 3:24 5:11,13 7:21 17:20 29:21 31:5 33:12 38:9 39:20 40:9 Jeffrey (2) 1:4 6:11 jgoldberger@... 2:11 job (2) juncture (1) 5:24 jurisdiction (1) 28:17 jury (3) 19:5 inherent (1) 44:2 48:5 58:I9 61:13 17:

hat I 24 handled the state claims that involved Mr. Epstein 25 when I was in Division B. So I have a signif

on of Judge Corrigan in North Star Capital Acquisition, LLC vs. Krig, 611 F.Supp.2d 1324 (M.D. Fla. 2009), another decision that was decided after Levin and Echevarria. And the court in that case discussed -- let me just for a moment www.phippereporting.com 888 811-3408 001238 EFTA00613535 29 1 here -- 2 W

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 I ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEFFR

as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the determination of whether the litigation privilege extends to the alleged tor

BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APP

t 68. The Wolfe court continued, unequivocally stating that: It is difficult to imagine any act that would fit more firmly within the parameters of Levin and Echevarria than the actual filing of a complaint. The filing of a complaint, which initiates the judicial 11 EFTA00589631 proceedings, obviously "occurs du

RECEIVED, 2/25/2015 3:10 PM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 4D14-2282 L.T. Case No.: 502009CA040800 ANSWER BRIEF OF APPELLEE JEF

as its finding that the litigation privilege was applicable specifically to Edwards's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Epstein, constituted issues of law. DelMonico, 116 So. 3d at 1211 (stating the determination of whether the litigation privilege extends to the alleged tor

t of Appeal BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT O

t 68. The Wolfe court continued, unequivocally stating that: It is difficult to imagine any act that would fit more firmly within the parameters of Levin and Echevarria than the actual filing of a complaint. The filing of a complaint, which initiates the judicial proceedings, obviously "occurs during the course of

Epstein v. Edwards Page 1 of 1 From: John Beranek > To: wcbiew ; wcbcg Subject: Epstein v. Edwards Date: Mon. Jun 16, 2014 4:06 pm Chet -- I have rev

rous cases in his Steinberg brief but he does not really cite or discuss Levin and Echevarria. The Wolf case which he is trying to reverse relies on Levin and Echevarria and Burlington does not really address them. The trial judge said he really had no choice and had to follow this absolutely binding case-law. Of co