Epstein Secrets

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT individually, Intervenors.' ROTHSTEIN, BRADLEY J. individually, and and JANE DOE, Respondents CASE NO. 4D18-0762 RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS SEARCY DENNY S

ember 7, 2009, while Edwards was pursuing the cases noted above on behalf of his clients, Epstein filed the original Complaint here against Edwards, Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein"), and one of Edwards' clients, designated as ".." (App. 1). The gravamen of the Complaint was that after Edwards had filed those cases

f the cases were to be tried together (App.19, p.266) Thus, the trial court denied Epstein's motion to remove the case from the docket and granted Edwards's Motion to sever the two cases for trial (App.18, p.184; App.19, pp.265-67). The court held that it would try Edwards v. Epstein as scheduled on March 13,

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

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

either good cause or any law in support thereof, fails to satisfy the heightened requisite showing for an order of protection, mandating denial of Edwards's Motion. Third, Edwards asserts that a protective order is warranted because the production requested "is unnecessarily intrusive into the financial privac

1hENTH 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. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S OBJECTION AND

ONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against

fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should ne

[PROVIDE CITATION FROM NYT ARTICLE, WSJ ARTICLE, SUN-SENTICAL ARTICLE AND EPSTEIN AFFIDAVIT]; Amended Complaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09- 062943(19); see Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in

and equipment in order to enrich the personal wealth of persons employed by and associated with the RRA Enterprise. See Information Charging Scott W. Rothstein in United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-60331-CR-COHN. Scott Rothstein, Edwards's partner at RRA, admitted to and was convicted for th

Ponzi Scheme was becoming urgent. Depositions taken of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeld: Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR. The court rejected Edwards's Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." See Order in Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Dated November 5, 2009, 08-cv-80119. The connection between many of these

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

as "government privilege," notwithstanding that it is he who is prosecuting this matter and who bears the burden of proof. As such, not only should Edwards's Motion to preclude evidence be denied, but Edwards should also be precluded from presenting any evidence or testimony for which he has asserted any privil

EENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOOCMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OP

OSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against

in fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should no