Epstein Secrets

ALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION AG CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB Judge David F. Crow JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR CLARI

also expressed the need to get the pleadings at issue before addressing discovery objections and other discovery issues. EFTA00613622 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Division AG 3. At the hearing on September 28, 2011 on Edwards' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Co

very issues. EFTA00613622 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB/Division AG 3. At the hearing on September 28, 2011 on Edwards' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, this Court reiterated that it wanted to get the issues in the pleadings resolved before addressing discove

TEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN

the falsity of Edwards' claim that he was hurt by Epstein's lawsuit and that Epstein had no reasonable basis to allege that Edwards was involved in Rothstein's Ponzi scheme using the tort claimants' cases. Finally, Epstein urges this Court to recognize that Edwards' moving to prevent Epstein from discuss

Fourth District Court of Appeal. Obviously, however, Epstein's general references to documents could not possibly have violated the Court's ruling. Edwards' Motion is just another attempt to derail an in camera review of 'A written Order has not been issued on the Court's March 8, 2018, rulings. EFTA00808672

TEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN

INTRODUCTION Edwards seeks to prevent Epstein from introducing any testimony and evidence regarding the criminal misconduct that occurred with the Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler law firm ("RRA") during the six months that he was employed there, but that was not known to Epstein until after December 9, 20

aint. Significant to this case and Epstein having probable cause to continue with this suit against Edwards was Judge Crow's finding when he denied Edwards' Motion to Dismiss Epstein's Second Amended Complaint. Edwards' Motion to Dismiss asserted the litigation privilege as an absolute bar to Epstein's cause of

TEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN

be 18 relevant to the malicious prosecution claim 19 and the alleged ginning up of those claims, 20 the alleged attempt to align himself with 21 Rothstein, the alleged attempt to factor 22 these cases, potentially Mr. Edwards' 23 conduct as it related to those factoring 24 matters. (12/5/17 Tr. 79:2

d the NPA and there was no legitimate purpose for them to make the agreement public. Furthermore, the CVRA court had recently (February 2009) denied Edwards' Motion to Unseal the NPA in that action. (Jane Doe v. U.S., Case No. 08-CV-80736, D.E. 36.) Edwards wants the Court to believe, however, that Epstein's mo

TEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN

EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individua

t to avoid the Florida Evidence Code by propounding the tardy discovery requests should be rejected. CONCLUSION Epstein respectfully requests that Edwards' Motion be denied. Edwards asked for confirmation of the pretrial deadlines and must be held to that request. There was no court ruling "on motions current

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN

EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individua

cutoff date" and Edwards objected "to any effort to expand existing deadlines." Id. On November 27, 2017, the Court agreed with Edwards and granted Edwards' Motion finding that, "to the extent that wholesale additional discovery will not be permitted but individual discovery requests may be allowed on a matter

EAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI On Review of a Non-Final Order of th

underlying all counts were interrelated). BACKGROUNDS This unique and complex case arose from the 2009 implosion of the Fort Lauderdale law firm Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, where defendant/counter- plaintiff Bradley Edwards worked and held himself out as a partner. The principal of the firm, defenda

nday, March 5, 2018, Epstein filed his to motion to remove the case from trial docket in order to comply with the mandate of Rule 1.440 and opposed Edwards' Motion for Pursuant to the clear language of the rule, if the action involves a main claim or counterclaim which has neither been answered nor defaulted,

F THE I- 1- 1EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and ■., individually, Defendant(s). ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING HEARING THIS CAUSE having come to b

MBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually,

V. EPSTEIN Case No.: S02009CA040800XXXXMBAG Order Specially Setting Hearing Response in Opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's Omnibus Motion in Limine; Edwards' Motion in Limine to Strike the June 30, 2017 Affidavit of Jeffrey Epstein and to Exclude Evidence as to which Discovery was withheld under Claims of Privil