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

ant has not yet answered the complaint, and the plaintiff has failed to obtain a default, the action is not yet at issue. Reilly v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 185 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). The rule "exempts only cross-claims from the determination o

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) NO. ST-10-CV-443 ) FANCELLI PANELING, INC., ) ) (CARROLL, J.) Defendant. ) OPPOSITION TO MOTION

ourt held that: EFTA00308324 ii Ii iI In the Factual and Procedural Background section of the Memorandum Opinion, the Court noted that in 2005 Epstein contracted with non-parties — "J.P. Molyneux Studio, Ltd., and Juan Pablo Molyneux (collectively, "Molyneux")" — to design a residential project on

rt of the Virgin Islands, bearing the Case No. 3:10-cv-00034, captioned 4 EFTA00308327 J.P.Molyneux Studio, Ltd. and Juan Pablo Molyneux against Jeffrey Epstein and L.S.J. LLC. (the "Molyneux Action'), in which Molyncux alleges: [s]ubsequent to the execution of the Design Services Agreement, Plaintiffs, wi

IRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN JEFFREY EPSTEIN, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.

.N.J. Aug. 30, 2007). "Most eases .. . use the term "manifest injustice' to describe the result of a plain error." Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1425 (5m Cir. 1996). When Plaintiffs fail to point to any error and set forth the facts that would support the inference of manifest

. 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

ant has not yet answered the complaint, and the plaintiff has failed to obtain a default, the action is not yet at issue. Reilly v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 185 So. 3d 620, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (emphasis added; internal citations omitted). The rule "exempts only cross-claims from the determination o