Epstein Secrets

40800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE HAFELE v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION F

DERATION OF ORAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Renewed Motion for

of March 23, 2010; dockets and pleadings in LM v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008C44028051)OOCXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein, 502008CA028058DOCAMB AB; LM v. Jay Epstein, 09-81092 Marra/Johnson and Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, 08-80893-CIV Marra/Johnson; copies of subpoenas; Deposition Transcript of Jeffrey Epstein,

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

CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG Plaintif

(the "Epstein Cases"). See pleadings in LM v. Jee•ey Epstein, 502008CA028051XXXXMB AB; EW v. Jeffrey Epstein,

ic records). Id. at *4. "[A]n identification or a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness can provide the basis for probable cause ...." City of St. Petersburg v. Austrino, 898 So.2d 955, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (emphasis added).1° 10 Paragraph 20 of Epstein's original complaint demonstrates his reliance up

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE HAFELE MOTION F

unter Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' malicious prosecution claim fails as a matter of law on an essential element: the absence of probable cause for Epstein's underlying lawsuit. The Court has yet to hear argument from the parties on the issue of probable cause. Oral argument is therefore respectfully r

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

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

he time of the arrest). "[A]n identification or a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness can provide the basis for probable cause ...." City of St. Petersburg v. Austrino, 898 So.2d 955, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (emphasis added)! The same principles of probable cause apply in a malicious prosecution case,

UIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF'

aintiffs. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") an

SE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT

DCA 1978) (emphasis added)). See also Brancaccio v. Mediplex Mgmt. of Pon St. Lucie, Inc., 711 So. 2d 1206, 1208-1210 (Ha. 4th DCA 1998) (approving City of St. Petersburg and Village Inn Rest v. Aridi, 543 So. 2d 778,782 (Ha. 1st DCA 1989)), in which the First District agreed that "sanctions may be necessary where a

40800XXXXMBAG Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JUDGE HAFELE v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWAFtDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTIN

EDWAFtDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.510 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Motion for Summary

s Rights Act: When asked whether Epstein "pulled you closer to him in a sexual way," [LM] replied: A. I wish. No, no, never, ever, ever, no, never. Jeffrey is an awesome man, no. At the end of her interview, [LM] was asked if she had any questions for the agents or AUSA Villafana. [LM] responded: A. N

robable cause is proper. "[A]n identification or a report from a single credible victim or eyewitness can provide the basis for probable cause ...." City of St. Petersburg v. Austrino, 898 So.2d 955, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (emphasis added).13 See, also, e.g., EMI Sun Village, Inc. v. Catledge, No. 13-cv-21594, 2013 WL