Epstein Secrets

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, -VS- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE

URLINGTON Florida Bar No. 285862 By:/s/ Nichole J. Segal NICHOLE J. SEGAL Florida Bar No. 41232 /kbt 6 EFTA00613506 SERVICE LIST Epstein v. Rothstein/Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB W. Chester Brewer, Jr., Esq. W. CHESTER BREWER, JR., P.A. 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400 West Palm Beac

dismiss), rev. denied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individu

414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown part

Judgment motion that Appellant could not satisfy all of the elements of a Malicious Prosecution claim, including that the suit by Appellee against Appellant resulted in a bona-fide termination in favor of Appellant. Appellee took a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which does not constitute a bona-

ied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and ot

dismiss), rev. denied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individu

414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown part

dismiss), rev. denied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individu

ied, 81 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and ot

414 (Fla. 2012). STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In December 2009, Appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Appellant, Bradley J. Edwards, based upon Epstein's justifiable belief at the time of filing his Complaint that these two individuals, and other unknown part

6 32:7 risk 9:610:6,7 18:25 38:6 40:10 41:6,11 risks 21:5 Robert 2:1,8 4:2 6:3 role 25:13 37:7 Room 2:23 Rosenfeldt 1:17 rose-colored 11:16 Rothstein 1:17 FtPR-CM-RMR-F... 44:21 RPR-R111R-PCRFt... 2:21 rule 39:9 42:13 rules 22:3 25:1 34:24 40:15 42:13 ruling 8:25 42:7 runup 1931 23:8 25:2

y in its response to hearing the District Attorney disavow the reliability of the Board's recommendation, in receiving the arguments of counsel for Appellant, and in rendering its Order as a whole. First, although the SORA statute clearly contemplates that the District Attorney may depart from the Board'

many SORAs much less troubling than this one where the People would never make a downward departure like this.16 A.84:21-85:10 (Tr.). Later, when Appellant's counsel disputed that there were any credible -- much less prosecuted -- allegations that Appellant ever used force, the Court again began compar

. • . .1.. - . ! I bi . .. .c. 111 . Palm )jeach,PL 33401:(fax: 561-835.8691); and Bradley ,T• Edwitd;,• q. and WIlliatu J. • s. Berger Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt•Adler 401 East Las O. ;sit' 131i vl cit‘#41 1; )650, lion Lauderdale, • - • i• • ,,-. t . : • 1. • ., ' • ' 1 ' i• • - I . ! i

769 So.2d 389 769 So.2d 389, 24 Ha. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 So.2d 389) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Deborah PEREZ, Appellant, v. Jorge M. PEREZ, Appellee. No. 99.2182. Oct. 27, 1999. Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1999. Following divorce, parties agreed to modification of

st Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite

stlaw. 76912d 389 769 2d 389 Fla. L. Weekly D2439 (Cite as: 769 ..241 389) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Deborah PEREZ, Appellant, v. Jorge M. PEREZ, Appel lee. No. 99.2182. Oct. 27, 1999. Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1999. Following divorce, parties agreed to modification of