Epstein Secrets

21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800SSSSMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / PROCE

. . EFTA00617907 2 1 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 -14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF EPSTEIN: W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 By: W. CHESTER BREWER, JR. LAW OFFICES OF TONJA HAD

COURT: Thank you. Good morning. This is counter-defendant Epstein's motion for fees and costs pursuant to an offer

COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800SSSSMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOT

e record, my name is Chester Brewer. I represent Mr. Epstein. We have with us also representing Mr. Epstein M

RTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Schwartzle versus Publix Super Markets is a case in which the appellate court, the Fourth DCA, was asked to address the issue of the inclusion of a confidentiality provision in a propos

istrict of Florida (the "Federal Action") more than eight years ago. In the Federal Action, Edwards and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend that the Government violated their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (the "CVRA"). Specifically, the

the Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement (the "NPA") with Epstein, who allegedly subjected them to various sexual crimes when they were minors. On December 30, 2014 — more than eight years after the Federal Action

and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend t

udgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed under a previously entered final judgment dissolving their marriage. In Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the Fourth District held that a party cannot issue an indiscriminate request to the attorney of a non-par

and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend t

istrict of Florida (the "Federal Action") more than eight years ago. In the Federal Action, Edwards and Cassell represent certain alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein, a client of Dershowitz's, who contend that the Government violated their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (the "CVRA"). Specifically, the

the Government violated their rights under the CVRA by failing to consult with them before negotiating a non-prosecution agreement (the "NPA") with Epstein, who allegedly subjected them to various sexual crimes when they were minors. On December 30, 2014 — more than eight years after the Federal Action

udgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed under a previously entered final judgment dissolving their marriage. In Toledo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 30 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the Fourth District held that a party cannot issue an indiscriminate request to the attorney of a non-par