Epstein Secrets

:00 p.m. and introduced myself then told her that I wouild contact her at a later date. On 03-11-04, I left a message for to call me regarding the Epstion incident. Her phone number is name Investigation Continues File 2600 August 10, 2004 Dot. CONFIDENTIAL SONY_GM_00329840 EFTA_00202566 EFTA0

bove referenced subpoena was received from the SAO and was served on Bell South via fax. On 02/12/02, an inquiry into corporations on line revealed Jeffrey E. Epstein related to three Florida entities: Financial Strategy Group, Inc; Ghislaine Corp; Financial Trustees, Inc. None of the aforementioned entities are

casssions and described the telephone ails as mon call in saying when they were going to drop of particular girls. All three girls said Maxwell and Epstein were secretive about what was going on at the house, and at least two of the girls complained about Epstein touching them inappropriately. They sai

02562 EFTA01308891 Narrative/Notes A check of Jeffrey E Epstein, DOB 01/20/53, revealed an expired florid

l is clearly exempt from public inspection under the Public Records Law. Fla. Stat. §119.071(2Xd), referring to Section 24(a), Art. I, Fla. Const. D. Epstein's Requests are Unduly Burdensome Finally, even if subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law, Mr. Epstein's request for la]ll cell phone reco

02, an inquiry into corporations on line revealed Jeffrey E. Epstein related to three Florida entities: Finan

ain documents and associated testimony sought by Mr. Epstein, including personal cell phone records, calendars

ney General, are not agency records 7 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_00329854 EFTA_00202580 EFTA01308909 under the Freedom of Information Act)" Union. United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. v. Voinovich 654 N.E.2d 139, 142-43 (Ohio App. 1995) (holding governors personal calendars and

vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN The undersigned, Jeffrey E. Epstein, having first been duly sworn, hereby deposes and says: 1. I am over eighteen (18) years old and have personal knowledge of the facts stated here

or leave to file the supplemental argument contained herein on the following grounds: 1. The trial judge entered summary final judgment in favor of Epstein on the ground that the litigation privilege bars the malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims filed against Epstein by the appellant, Brad

unrelated to the underlying litigation against me, and (b) asserting my causes of action against Edwards and Rothstein in the Action. FURTHER AFFI JEFFREY EPS STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) _ - Sworn and subscribed to before me, the undersigned authority, by Jeffrey Epstein, this 25t

e of these potentially explosive facts, putative defendant Epstein had allegedly offered $200,000,000.00 for settle

. 4D14-2282 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUP

an doctrine because the trial court `reache[d] the right result, but for the wrong reasons.") (quoting Advanced Chiropractic & Rehab. Ctr. Corp. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 866, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); see also Shands Teaching Hosp. and Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 97 So. 3d 204, 2

-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

nt on a point previously determined not amenable to a summary judgment. Gabor v. Gabor & Co., Inc., 599 So.2d 737, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); see also United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Comprehensive Health Or., 173 So.3d 1061, 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (entry of summary judgment, which was affirmed on appeal, precluded