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,

l Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action as

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

on; 5) malice; 6) damages. Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action a

APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually,

ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN A16 EFTA00798182 Da-CT-CT 04 :55pet F oe-For I er-ni te Burnett 3051800201 T-066 P 0C3/004 F-976 AThrsoation Jeffrey B. Epstein do hereby ro-41Emt the Non-Prosecution Accemerd and Addendum to mint dazed October 30, 2007, A17 EFTA00798183 Filing # 63628489 E-Filed 11/01/20

EY EPSTEIN RAW LEFCOCIRTI ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFF Y EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EP

o him, in the validity of his claim." See Wright v. Yurko, 446 So. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (defining probable cause) (citing Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). Bifurcating the trial and first addressing Plaintiff's case and damages against Rothstein and the related issue of wha

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

l Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 880 (1931). The fourth element, the absence of probable cause, is at issue here. In Goldstein v. Sabella, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956), the Supreme Court of Florida explained the meaning of probable cause in the context of a malicious prosecution action as