Epstein Secrets

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

Doc-4, Plaintiffs, MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND HISTORY OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., Defendant. Nos. 92-32567-CI-CI, Div. 32. June 8, 1994. William H. Ogle, Ormond Beach, FL. W. Douglas Childs, Jacksonville, FL. Jonathan D. Kaney Jr., Daytona Beach, FL. OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO CLOSE TRIAL RICHARD B. ORFING

f his clients is the purported victim. Accordingly, I will address facts related to C.W., T.M., and S.R. All three of those clients were victims of Jeffrey Epstein's while they were minors beginning when they were fifteen years old. 'Please note that the dates on the U.S. Attorney's Office letters to C.W. and T.

tates receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. (NPA, paragraph 13(emphasis added.) The first sentence of the above quote does no more than state an expectation b

8:4 15:19 11:19,24 1:17 2:10,11 moment 13:24 3:10 2:13 15:16 hur Jack Lauderdale months Hafele 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 JA 8:6 11:11 4:7 6:2 7:6 5:13 9:1 imme

have signed off and said they will not prosecute Mr. Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for any offe

Doe-4, Plaintiffs, MUSEUM OF SCIENCE AND HISTORY OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., Defendant. Nos. 92-32567-CI-CI, Div. 32. June 8, 1994. William H. Ogle, Ormond Beach, FL. W. Douglas Childs, Jacksonville, FL. Jonathan D. Kaney Jr., Daytona Beach, FL. OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO CLOSE TRIAL RICHARD B. ORFING

-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

g v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1

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

g v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, M., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 198

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

g v. Steinberg, 152 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) 6, 9 Valdes v. GAB Robins, 924 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) 7 Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) 2 Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (FIa. 3d DCA 2013) passim Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1

S. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment as to De

ing heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, finds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Countercla

H COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

oper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000); Smith v. Shelton, 970 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Likewise, Summary Judgment is mandated when the pleadi

COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

S. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JU DGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the court on Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment as to D

ving heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, finds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclai

oper if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000); Smith v. Shelton, 970 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Likewise, summary judgment is mandated when the pleadin