Epstein Secrets

T COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS VOLUME I DATE TAKEN: Tuesday, October 3r

4 25 of the primary element of the malicious prosecution claim, what may have been in the mindset of Mr. Epstein when he filed the claim against Rothstein, Edwards and LM -- initials being used only since she was allegedly a minor at the time that the suit was brought -- is of importance to the Court

his deposition testimony, his response to certain discovery requests, the undisputed facts available at the time he filed suit, the indictment of Scott Rothstein, every report in which it's discussed what Mr. Edwards and RRA were doing in these Epstein cases, as well as the filings in the federal court, and

il late after hours Monday, September 18th, 2017. As the Court is also aware, at the last hearing at which the Court ordered these deadlines, Mr. Brewer -- who is also a sole practitioner, who is my civil co-counsel in this matter -- indicated to the court in the transcript that he was going to be

CUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 502009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. JUDGE: HAFELE SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMEN

2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. JUDGE: HAFELE SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

ther deadlines, and client matters already scheduled in those three days (not to mention the backlog from ten days out of the office), and with Mr. Brewer, as this Court was notified, out of town and unavailable this entire week: four (4) deposition notices and subpoenas duces tecum to Epstein's crimin

2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. JUDGE: HAFELE SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

CUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 502009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. JUDGE: HAFELE SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMEN

ther deadlines, and client matters already scheduled in those three days (not to mention the backlog from ten days out of the office), and with Mr. Brewer, as this Court was notified, out of town and unavailable: four (4) deposition notices and subpoenas duces tecurn to Epstein's criminal defense couns

2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. JUDGE: HAFELE SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

CUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 502009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG vs. JUDGE: HAFELE SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMEN

ther deadlines, and client matters already scheduled in those three days (not to mention the backlog from ten days out of the office), and with Mr. Brewer, as this Court was notified, out of town and unavailable: four (4) deposition notices and subpoenas duces tecurn to Epstein's criminal defense couns

ntiff, /env Doe: 3 BRAD J. ED WARDS. ESQ1.7IRE ROTHSTEIN ROSIDIPELDT ADLER Las Oles City Cant, Stitt 1650

17 A. Eleven. 18 Q. Who were you living with — who were you 19 living with when you went to Duncan Middle? 20 A. My grandmother. 21 Q. Ms. Brewer? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. (Way. Who were you living with when you went 24 to Okeeheelee? 25 A. I was in between my grandmother and my Page 148 1 Q

Plaintiff. Jane Doe 3 BRAD 1. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Dietary Case, Sete 1650 40

5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 76 coming? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Who — who else was living with Ms. Brewer, in addition to yourself, at that time? A. I'm not sure. Q. Okay. Well, was the father of your child — A. Yes. Q. — excuse me -- living there at

the Plaintiff. /me Deo BRAD J. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Lea au ON Cate, Suite 1650 401

ther 5 that you liked going to Mr. Epstein's house? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you -- did - o r ever meet 8 Mr. Epstein? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Did Ms. Brewer ever meet Mr. Epstein? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Have ou seen — other than — well, who I — at least , looking 13 you've seen 14 at her resume, she's

e preservation of evidence (Reply to Response of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler P.A.'s ) filed by Jeffrey Epstei

enneth L. Ryskamp on 2/13/2009. (sh) (Entered: 02/13/2009) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by William Chester Brewer, Jr on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein (Brewer, William) (Entered: 03/17/2009) ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Jeffrey Epstein.(Brewer. William) (Entered: 03/17/2009) MOTION for

United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 1 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 2, 689 (1972)). 1© See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 19

ch Police Department: Police Case No. 05- 368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at http://goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text a

United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ™ See, e.g., Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 172-73 (2001). 75 Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 398 (1977) (quoting Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972)). 76 See, e.g., United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191,

ach Police Department: Police Case No. 05-368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at hitp:-//goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text