Epstein Secrets

nt. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as well as Scott Rothstein. Edwards' former law partner. ee infra. Kam incorrectly states that "Imlore recent cases" in this Circuit and District have demoted the showing req

more so in light of Epstein's admission in his lawsuit against M. and others that he that he was "one of M's many `Johns.— See Complaint Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards & M s, No. 50 2009 CA0 40800 (Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach Co.. Dec. 7, 2009) at 146(a), pertinent pages annexed as Ex. E to the C

o. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5 Baxter v. Palmigiano 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 7 Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 19

nt. Edwards Mitt 11 I I.24. She is also a co- defendant with Edwards in Epstein's racketeering and fraud suit against both Edwards and M. as well as Scott Rothstein. Edwards' former law partner. ee infra. 1° Doe incorrectly states that "Imlore recent cases" in this Circuit and District have demoted the showing

ges in his complaint against M. 13 12 The document is available online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/23947743/121009-epstein. "Complaint, Epstein v. Rothstein et al., II 42(h)(i) ("M. testified that she ... worked at various strip clubs; is an admitted prostitute and call girl; has a history of illegal dru

o. v. Building & Constr. Trades Council 443 F. Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1977) 19 Apicella v. McNeil Labs. Inc. 66 F.R.D. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) 4 Mel v. Murphy, 70 F.R.D. 651 (D.R.I. 1976) 5 Baxter v. Palmigiano 425 U.S. 308 (1976) 7 Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co. 757 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 19

Ponzi Scheme Money Was Spent hrip://miami.cbslocalcomr2011il2+30/rodistein-reveals-how-l-2-billion- porin-scheme-money-was-spent: The Ultimate Ponzi: Scott Rothstein Book Excerpts Reveal Juicy Details httpsurAvww.huffingtonpost.comr2Ol3103/I2fscott-rothstein-book-the-ultimate-ponzi_n_2862093.html; Scott Rothstein's Ch

wsuit against Mr. Edwards? 3 EFTA00601579 10. For brevity, I refer to the statements associating Mr. Edwards with the illegal activities of Mr. Rothstein as a result of Mr. Epstein's lawsuit as the defaming statements, the statements, or the defaming statements associating Mr. Edwards with Rothstein's

ormance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(8), 1572-1595. Flaherty, T. B., Jansen, B.J., Hofacker, C., and Murphy, J. (2009). Insights on the Google Online Marketing Challenge and Its Successful Classroom Implementation. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individually. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH C

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J, EDWARDS, individu

oday, hereby files this Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority. This filing contains the following United States Supreme Court Cases: Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) and Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951), which were referenced by undersigned at today's hearing. WE HEREBY CERTIFY

il 22, 2013 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS The Honorable David Crow Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 • • Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: Epstein v. Rothstein. et at Dear Judge Crow: elephone facsimile As discussed in Court this morning, enclosed please find copies of the following two United States Su

one facsimile As discussed in Court this morning, enclosed please find copies of the following two United States Supreme Court cases: Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) and Hoffinan v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951). Please feel free to contact my office should any additional information be

nsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East

d after the date of enactment,' " referenced in Landgraf, "unambiguously addresses the temporal reach of the statute" (citation omitted)); Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 329 n. 4, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2064 n. 4, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (recognizing from Landgraf that statutory language such as, " `[This Act