Epstein Secrets

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, Intervenors.' ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CASE NO. 4D18-0762

Background Facts 4 Epstein Attempts to Intimidate His Victims by Filing Suit Against and 5-11 Retaliates Against their Lawyer ARGUMENT 12-26 EPSTEIN'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE EPSTEIN WAITED UNTIL THE EVE OF TRIAL, MORE THAN TEN MONTHS AFTER THE CASE HAD BEEN SET F

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

ision AG of anything whatsoever having to do with Mr. Epstein's prosecution of that one-count Complaint agains

, 18, 19, 20 148 So.3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) Jane Doe No. 1, et al. v. United States, 4 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. ffi, 14, 16, 17 962 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) Parrish v. Dougherty, 14 505 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) Pleus v. Crist, 22 14 So.3d 94

. Link & Rockenbach, PA A ellate Counsel for Petitioner EFTA00793730 INTRODUCTION In this Emergency Petition for a writ of mandamus, Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018, by the Honorable Donald Hafele, denying Epstein'

Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018, by the Honorable Donald Hafele, denying Epstein's Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in Order to Comply With the Mandate Set Forth in Rule 1.440. Epstein requests Emergency treatment because

Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

ke in this case—an amended pleading is filed subsequent to an otherwise compliant order setting_trial under Rule 1.440. See Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. Ass'n, 962 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Labor Ready was another final appeal, not a mandamus proceeding. The appellant in that case argued tha

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA0408003C3C3OCNIB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO EME

Civil Procedure, and unequivocal legal precedent interpreting the same clearly against him, Edwards levels false and misleading accusations against Epstein and injects impertinent allegations into his argument in an obvious attempt to divert the Court from its inevitable decision. Throughout his Respon

18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA0408003C3C3OCNIB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

Epstein agreed and objected before trial occurred. Edwards' attempt to pigeon-hole this case to fit within the purview of Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. =, 962 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), and HSBC Bank USA,.. v. Serban, 148 So. 3d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), is unavailing. In fact, the instant

F APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 Appellate Case No.: 4D18-0787 LT Case No: 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMEN

eleventh-hour misuse of Rule 1.440 in a maneuvering effort to achieve severance or bifurcation of his counterclaim from the original claim filed by Epstein. Oral argument would benefit this Court in reviewing why Edwards' tactical gambit 2 EFTA00808507 should not be permitted to effect a violation o

: 4D18-0787 LT Case No: 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

s are "at issue" and reported decisions from this Court and other appellate courts on the mandatory nature of the rule. See Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. Ass 'n, 962 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(brought on final appeal, not mandamus, and therefore Rule 1.440 was "waived [by] the aggrieved party w