Epstein Secrets

TEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800SSSSMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE JUDGE DONALD HAFELE Epstein's Mot

PSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, INDIVIDUAL

forever. And there is no reference to what the remedies would be. So under the guidance of Schwartzle, the criteria that had been laid out by the Fourth DCA have clearly not been met. That's defect Number 1 in the confidentiality provision. Defect Number 2 is that obviously because this confidentialit

asked about whether there is any appellate authority that assists the Court in addressing this issue, and the answer to that question is there is Fourth DCA precedent that is in fact very directly on point. PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2

T OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN. Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTIISTEIN. individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and EL, individually. Dcfendant(s). EXHIBIT b ORDER ON MOTION TO RECONFIRM EXISTING PRETRIAL D

s Motion to Amend Exhibit List. was not at issue as a result of Epstein's own dilatory conduct in failing to know what pleading was pending against Rothstein and failing to know whether a default had been entered. At the hearing on March 8, 2018, Epstein's trial counsel nonetheless repeatedly claimed tha

esponse in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Binger). As the Fourth DCA aptly stated in Tomlinson-McKenzie: The objecting party is prejudiced by the admission of such evidence if the party might have taken some action

EFTA00792812 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We are here on Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards. The two applicable parties being dealt with -- have a seat, please. Thank you. -- being Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards, and the counter

ut 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 have read in the paper, claims that I settled cases for $200 million, which is totally not true. She has made claims of

ck is a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792856 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fourth DCA decision called Frazier versus Security and Investments, 1993. What does Frazier tell us? Not only do we build off the US Supreme Court and say yo

Doe v. Epstein Page No. 26 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Su

nderlying wrong of continued childhood sexual abuse brought against the Archdiocese did not allow for recovery under RICO). Finally, even Florida's Fourth DCA confirms that in order to have a claim for RICO, there must be damage to "business or property." Petrol. LTD. v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th