Epstein Secrets

lly, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING STAY Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(0, Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein, the plaintiff/counter-defendant below, files this motion for review of the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018 denying a stay of trial cour

(the Honorable Donald Hafele) has just made two rulings which warrant extraordinary relief. The first ruling in an Order of March 8, 2018, denying Epstein's Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket in I In compliance with this Court's Administrative Order No. 2014-1, the Petitioner has contemporaneousl

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

arately. (App. 19)6. The court denied Epstein's ore tenus motion for stay. and this motion for review of that denial follows. (App. 20). ARGUMENT I. EPSTEIN IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS OF HIS MANDAMUS PETITION BECAUSE THE CIRCUIT COURT MUST REMOVE THE CASE FROM THE TRIAL DOCKET IN ORDER TO COMPL

this Court's Labor Ready decision as the controlling precedent governing his authority to deny Epstein's motion to remove the case from the docket. Labor Ready, though well-decided, is both distinguishable and inapplicable to this case. First of all, Labor Ready was a final appeal, not a mandamus proceedin

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

e final hearing without objection. No one argued they were not ready for trial, but simply argued a technical violation of rule 1.440. On appeal in Labor Ready, the defendants argued that the Rule 1.440 violation entitled them to a new hearing. This Court rejected the argument, noting that the defendants'

. 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

raises no objection to the noncompliance." [e.a.] Id. at 1055 (quoting Parrish, 505 So. 2d at 648). The case at bar is clearly distinguishable from Labor Ready. First, Epstein did not waive the error by appearing at trial without raising an objection. See id. Again, Epstein adamantly voiced his objection b