Epstein Secrets

D, ¶ 15. The first declaration actually included multiple photographs purportedly of Jane Doe No. 3 as a minor, including one of Jane Doe No. 3 and Prince Andrew. Id. ¶ 32. With respect to Dershowitz, Jane Doe No. 3's first declaration provided gratuitous (and false) details about six specific instances in wh

d the names of prominent people, including Prince Andrew. That the allegations were improper and irrespon

eneral public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Vietims=Rights-26tetr Id. The Joinder Motion included similar public allegations against Prince Andrew. Edwards and Cassell filed the Joinder Motion on the public docket in the Federal Action, without any accompanying motion to seal. The Joinder Moti

tain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her post-judgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed

d the names of prominent people, including Prince Andrew. That the allegations were improper and irrespon

views and avoided rather than sought publicity. As to the federal lawsuit, Judge Marra has already held that the allegations against Dershowitz (and Prince Andrew) should never have been included in Jane Doe No. 3's pleadings at all. And, even if those allegations had some legitimate purpose, which Judge Marra

general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Id. The Joinder Motion included similar public allegations against Prince Andrew. Edwards and Cassell filed the Joinder Motion on the public docket in the Federal Action, without any accompanying motion to seal. The Joinder Moti

tain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her post-judgment action seeking to compel payments that the ex-husband owed

21-0400 Attorneys for Bradle J. Edwards By: /s/ Andrew A. Harris ANDREW A. HARRIS Florida Bar No. 1006

e, even though Epstein is a non-lawyer. This Court dismissed Edwards' lawsuit, concluding it was bound under case precedent from a single case from the Third District to apply the litigation privilege. Epstein seeks attorneys' fees pursuant to his Proposal for Settlement served in 2011. Over Edwards objection, I

izabeth City; Isaac M. Meekins, Judge. Action by Andrew E. Cole, A. K. Smith and Everett B. Costner agai

the Southern District of New York restraining, pending final hearing, the defendant McElligott, Acting and Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue of the Third District of New York, from refusing to issue licenses to the complainants as brewers of beer, or to issue revenue stamps in respect to their beer, provided