Epstein Secrets

deposition to begin on December 12, 2011, granting a stay to the government. Epstein sought leave of the Bankruptcy Court to take the deposition of Scott Rothstein on December 1, 2011. At that time, Judge Ray denied the Motion without prejudice, because there was no time in the schedule to depose Mr. Rothstein.

y Edwards. The Statement of Undisputed Facts is identical to the one used for Edwards' first Motion for Summary Judgment. EFTA00808026 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Div. AG Epstein's Response in Opposition to Edwards' MSJ to obtain summary judgment. Third, Edwards has

n for summary judgment." Fid. Funding of Cal., Inc. v. Reinhold, 79 F. Supp. 2d 110, 116 (E.D. N.Y. 1997). As explained in LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F. 3d 387, 391 n.7 (7th Cir. 1995): Treating Segubans' silence as a separate piece of evidence supporting the Bank's motion for summary judgme

out of millions of dollars, claims of outrageous sums of money were made on behalf of alleged victims across the board. And the only way -- in fact, Scott Rothstein sits in jail. And what I've read in the paper, claims that I've settled cases for $200-million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of

Edwards, creating -- excuse me -- creating fraudulent cases of a sexually charged nature in which the U.S. Attorney has already charged the firm of Rothstein, a firm of which Bradley Edwards is a partner, was a partner, with creating, EFTA00582822 fabricating malicious cases of a sexual nature, includi

of reliance on Fifth Amendment; there must be other evidence. Baxter, 425 U.S. at 318; Lefkowitz, 431 U.S. at 808, n. 5;Lasalle Banks Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995); National Acceptance Co.of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924 (7th Cir. 1963) (assertion of Fifth Amendment in an answ

ENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, vs. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff, JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OMNI

EFTA00585430 142. All pleadings filed by Epstein in the Rothstein Bankruptcy Proceeding. 143. All submissions by Epstein in connection with the Rothstein deposition. 144. All Settlement Agreements between Epstein and victims of his sexual molestations. 145. Phone journal taken from Epstein's home a

upon the basis of reliance on Fifth Amendment; there must be other evidence. Baxter v. Pahnigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976); Lasalle Banks Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995); National Acceptance Co.of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924 (7th Cir. 1963) (assertion of Fifth Amendment in an answ

Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 4

ng the relief sought by Jane Doe based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. See LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that "the Supreme Court has prohibited practices that are coercive in that they make the exercise of the p

Esq. Brad Edwards, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. C

nting the relief sought by Jane Doc based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that "the Supreme Court has prohibited practices that are coercive in that they make the exercise of the p