Epstein Secrets

-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against

-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Countercla

COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

ede from the controlling decision of" an appellate court. See System Components v. FDOT, 14 So. 3d 967, 973 n.I (Fla. 2009); see also State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 24 So. 160, 315 (1898) ("There is and can be no authority in an inferior court to correct mistakes made by this court in its conclusions of fact or

-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against

-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Countercla

COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

ede from the controlling decision of" an appellate court. See System Components v. FDOT, 14 So. 3d 967, 973 n.I (Fla. 2009); see also State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 24 So. 160, 315 (1898) ("There is and can be no authority in an inferior court to correct mistakes made by this court in its conclusions of fact or

15-000072 Plaintiff(s), JUDGE: LYNCH v. ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant. I MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), a non-party to this action, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant t

nt. I MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), a non-party to this action, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.530 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby mo

DERATION OF THIS COURT'S ORDER DENYING NON- PARTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO OUASH SUBPOENA Jeffrey Epste

ecede from the controlling decision of an appellate court. See System Components v. FDOT, 14 So. 3d 967, 973 n.1 (Fla. 2009); see also State a rel. Reynolds v. White, 24 So. 160, 315 (1898) ("Where is and can be no authority in an inferior court to correct mistakes made by this court in its conclusions of fact or

-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Sc

TER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Countercla

OUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOOCMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOT

cede from the controlling decision of an appellate court. See System Components v. FDOT, 14 So. 3d 967, 973 n.l (Fla. 2009); see also State ex ref. Reynolds v. White, 24 So. 160, 315 (1898) ("There is and can be no authority in an inferior court to correct mistakes made by this court in its conclusions of fact o