Epstein Secrets

CT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs I. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant / INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT OR PARTICIPATION IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein has requested that he be permitted

likely that any meaningful settlement discussions can take place between the plaintiffs and the government without touching on remedy. Granting Mr. Epstein, through counsel, the right to participate in the settlement conference is necessary to effectuate Judge Marra's order granting Mr. Epstein's motion

ED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant / INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANC

government without touching on remedy. Granting Mr. Epstein, through counsel, the right to participate in the

.D. 582, 601 (N.D. Ill. 1998)(intervention allowed so that intervenor could participate in settlement negotiations); United States.. Maine Dep't of Transp., 980 F.Supp. 546, 549 (D.Me. 1997)(noting that intervenors participated in settlement discussions); Buchet ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 845 F.Supp. 6

ISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANCE AT OR PARTICIPATION IN SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein has requested that he be permitted

conference to be convened in this matter. The right to participate in the settlement conference flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy stage of these proceedings to advocate for why the remedy in this case—to the extent that the plain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS ATTENDANC

e flows inexorably from Judge Marra's granting of Mr. Epstein's motion to intervene as of right at the remedy

D. 582, 601 (N.D. III. 1998)(intervention allowed so that intervenor could participate in settlement negotiations); United States v. Maine Dep't of Transp., 980 F.Supp. 546, 549 (D.Me. 1997)(noting that intervenors participated in settlement discussions); Bucket v. ITT Consumer Fin/Corp., 845 F.Supp.

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein, by and

UCTION Edwards's Motion to Strike is based solely upon his erroneous argument that this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's Motion for Summary Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fon Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00808559 Judgment is batted by the law of the case doc

IRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADL

or judicial proceeding . . ."). Accordingly, Edwards's Motion to Strike should be denied on the grounds of both the law of the case and estoppel. B. Epstein Did Not "Actually Present" to the Fourth District Court of Appeal the Issue of Probable Cause The positions Edwards now takes in his Motion to Stri

of the case doctrine is limited to those questions of law that were "actually presented" and "actually decided" on a former appeal. Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001). The doctrine allows the trial court, upon remand from the appellate court, to consider a party's a

-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

y 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 adjudicat

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM AND SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein respect

49 Introduction Edwards' motion to strike is based solely upon his argument that this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's motion for summary judgment is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a po

IRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADL

the case doctrine is limited to those questions of law that were "actually presented" and "actually decided" on a former appeal." Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001). The doctrine allows the trial court upon remand from the appellate court to consider a party's alte