Epstein Secrets

we see. We see many different things that happened. So, for example, all of a sudden you have Mr. Edwards and his team saying they want to depose Donald Trump, Bill Clinton. And there wasn't any testimony from the three folks that Mr. Edwards represented DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792836 27

6 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that they had any contact with Mr. Clinton or Mr. Trump, or any of the other folks that they said they wanted to depose. The three folks that Mr. Edwards represented never said they were on one of Mr.

Edwards and his team saying they want to depose Donald Trump, Bill Clinton. And there wasn't any testim

5 that they had any contact with Mr. Clinton or Mr. Trump, or any of the other folks that they said they w

ck is a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792856 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fourth DCA decision called Frazier versus Security and Investments, 1993. What does Frazier tell us? Not only do we build off the US Supreme Court and say yo

r-Plaintiffs. / PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE JUDGE DONALD HAFELE Epstein's Motion for Fees and Costs HELD

forever. And there is no reference to what the remedies would be. So under the guidance of Schwartzle, the criteria that had been laid out by the Fourth DCA have clearly not been met. That's defect Number 1 in the confidentiality provision. Defect Number 2 is that obviously because this confidentialit

asked about whether there is any appellate authority that assists the Court in addressing this issue, and the answer to that question is there is Fourth DCA precedent that is in fact very directly on point. PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2

y of July, 2017. CIRCUIT *1:. Arl. c.it JUDGE DONALD HAFELE Circuit Judge Copies furnished to: F F

esponse in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Binger). As the Fourth DCA aptly stated in Tomlinson-McKenzie: The objecting party is prejudiced by the admission of such evidence if the party might have taken some action