Epstein Secrets

nymously, having previously moved to intervene in this action and having filed a motion for an order to show cause [DE 6345], now file this reply to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ■., ■., and Jane Doe's Joinder in Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs,

anctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief [DE 6353]. INTRODUCTION In their motion, the Victims sought sanctions against Fowler White and Epstein for illegally retaining copies of materials forbidden to be retained or copied by this Court's November 2010 order — including a disk of thousands

r to show cause [DE 6345], now file this reply to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to ■., ■., and

e won't use them. MR. SCAROLA: Does that include Mr. Epstein? THE COURT: Does what include Mr. Epstein? MR.

eemingly contrary and unsupported factual assertions in his most recent pleadings, which are inadmissible in these proceedings. See Rule 9017, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9017 (rules of evidence apply to bankruptcy proceedings). See, e.g., hi re Arrow Air, Inc., No. 10-28831-BKC-AJC, 2012 WL 314192, at *2 (Bankr.

ICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION www.flsb.uscourts.gov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, M., Debtor. CASE NO. 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO THE INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO TAKE THE INTERVENORS' DEPOSITIONS AND TO COMPEL THEIR MENTAL EXAMINATIONS Jeffrey Epstei

rts.gov IN RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, M., Debtor. CASE NO. 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO THE INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO TAKE THE INTERVENORS' DEPOSITIONS AND TO COMPEL THEIR MENTAL EXAMINATIONS Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") replies to the Intervenors, IM

M., Debtor. CASE NO. 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO THE INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO E

nors suggest that Rule 35 does not apply, but Epstein previously showed why this is incorrect. See Epstein's Motion, D.E. 6440 at n.4. See also Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 7035; see also generally In re Dillon, 194 B.R. 533 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1996). In fact, the Intervenors make no actual or genuine effort to su

Source Document(s) 1 Source Document(s) IN RE: JEFFREY J. PROSSER, Debtor. NORTH SHORE REAL ESTATE CORP

t filed a notice of appeal from a decision of the bankruptcy court. Appellee trustee moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a). Of the six Poulis factors. five weighed in favor of dismissal and one weighed against dismissal. The court took into account the possi