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,

. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). "The standard for establishing probable cause in a civil action is extremely low and easily satisfied." Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1354, 1364. Even in the criminal context, such as when analyzing probable cause to support a search warrant, probable cause can be in

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

relevant because the probable cause determination is controlled by the facts relied upon by Epstein at the time he filed his complaint. See Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d at 1364 ("A determination of whether probable cause exists is based on the facts known by the defendant in the malicious prosecution

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

relevant because the probable cause determination is controlled by the facts relied upon by Epstein at the time he filed his complaint. See Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1354, 1364 (M.D. Fla. 2000) ("A determination of whether probable cause exists is based on the facts known by the defendant in the m

OUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT

efendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE ADDRESSING SCOPE OF ADMISSIBLE EVI

FF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION IN LIMINE ADDRESSING SCOPE OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), opposes Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") December 11, 2017, Second Supplement to Motion in Limine Addressing Scope of

n v. Sabena, 88 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 1956)). A litigant may rely on first-hand knowledge or "trustworthy information that was provided" to him. Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1364 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Significantly, counsel for Epstein, Scott Link, at a recent hearing indicated that Edwards' burden wa

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

. 2d 1162, 1166 (Fla.5th DCA 1984). "The standard for establishing probable cause in a civil action is extremely low and easily satisfied." Gill v. Kostroff, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1354, 1364. Even in the criminal context, such as when analyzing probable cause to support a search warrant, probable cause can be in