Epstein Secrets

at has JEFFREY EPSTEIN, S transpired is of extreme consternation to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. 4 the court. It has caused me to have to SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; 7 engage in an inordinate amount of time to BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, 8 the exclusion of other natters that needed Defendan

ion for trial on May 24th, 2017. There is no dispute. And Mr. Edwards has actually pointed it out, Mr. Epstein did not have a default against Mr. Rothstein. Contrary to what Mr. Edwards' suggestion is, is to cure this issue -- 10 THE COURT: Mr. Epstein did not have a 11 default against Mr. Rothstein

was the case at issue. Rule 1.440 is ono of the most strictly complied with mandatory rules of civil procedure, which has boon recognized by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, and it's ono of those rare instances when a petition for writ of mandamus is appropriate when it's not complied with. So we need to look at the

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

ution, and entered Final Judgment in accordance therewith. Edwards timely appealed this Court's ruling as to his Malicious Prosecution count to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The issue was fully briefed, and on November 12, 2015, Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301• 954.467.1223 EFTA0061163

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

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

ution, and entered Final Judgment in accordance therewith. Edwards timely appealed this Court's ruling as to his Malicious Prosecution count to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The issue was fully briefed, and on November 12, 2015, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed this Court's ruling and certified conflict with