Epstein Secrets

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CP003626XXXXMB • Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF tits RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PARTI UMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502008CP003626XXXXMB • Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF tits RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PARTI UMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff ■ hereby responds to defendant Epstein's Motion

N COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff ■ hereby responds to defendant Epstein's Motion for Partial Summary judgment on Count I. Epstein claims that he is entitled to summary judgment on Count 1 because there is no private right of action under various criminal statutes. Epstein simp

EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF tits RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PARTI UMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT I O

CASE NO. 502008CP003626XXXXMB • Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PLAINTIFF tits RESPONSE TO

of those cited by Epstein), "The courts of Florida have long recognized that the violation of a statute may be utilized as evidence of negligence." Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2007). The only question, then, is how may the statutes be used as evidence of negligence. As th

I R, 2008 United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Marie: Fauzintikt: I write in response to your letter dated August 15. 2008 regarding the civil restitution portion of the Deferred Prosecut

lete any of the names on the list provided to Mi..Epstein's counsel, you do not confirm that the prior list

4 15:19 11:19,24 1:17 2:10,11 moment 13:24 hur 3:10 Jack 2:13 Lauderdale 15:16 months H Hefei° 4:24 2:2 4:5 2:14,21 13:20,21 10:10 Jeffrey leave morning I half 1.11,17 3:4 8:14 3:20,21 idea 13:20 14:21 4:6 let's motion handed 5:16 JR 8:6 11:11 4:7 6:2 7:6 5:13 9:1 imme

no.* CRDCOAL STATE or FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. JE/OVEY Eft:EYE, Defendant. rrocuormos NEW BEFORE

greement, which resulted in state charges against Mr. Epstein. has caused several miscommunications with respe

rcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 6 Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Motion for Stay ' 7 Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc.'. Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir.), 8 Order Releasing Public Records dated September 20, 1991 2 EFTA00183593

-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

ns of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings." Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001) (citing Greene v. Massey, 384 So.2d 24, 28 (Fla. 1980) ("All points of law which have been

r-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Response in Opposition to PlaintifVCounter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Continue Hearing Scheduled for October 3, 2017 and/or Extend Time to File Motions Related to Collateral Quasi-Criminal Cases, and as groun

efendant Jeffrey Epstein filed suit against attorney Bradley J. Edwards, alleging that Mr. Edwards had fabricated certain civil claims arising from Epstein's systematic sexual abuse of minor female children as part of a fraudulent Ponzi scheme that Edwards was running with Scott Rothstein and one of Edw

OUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, indiv

stay this case is also barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which has been a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence for centuries. Florida Dept. of Health & Rehab. Services v. S.A.P., 835 So. 2d 1091, 1096 (Fla. 2002). Equitable estoppel is "based on principals of fair play and essential ju