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

Appeal in my motion. And I understand 22 Mr. Edwards intends to rely upon it. But iS this was an authored decision by Judge 24 Melanie May from the Fourth DCA. And that 25 case has great language to guide this Court 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 20 21 22 23 24 IS 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f

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

00617917 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Schwartzle versus Publix Super Markets is a case in which the appellate court, the Fourth DCA, was asked to address the issue of the inclusion of a confidentiality provision in a proposal for settlement. What that opinion says is -- and thi

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

se Fifth Amendment questions that were asked of my client -- THE COURT: No probative value. MS. ROCKENBACH: No probative value. And the Frazier -- the Fourth DCA says that even that adverse inference against parties when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them. If my c

. • . .1.. - . ! I bi . .. .c. 111 . Palm )jeach,PL 33401:(fax: 561-835.8691); and Bradley ,T• Edwitd;,• q. and WIlliatu J. • s. Berger Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt•Adler 401 East Las O. ;sit' 131i vl cit‘#41 1; )650, lion Lauderdale, • - • i• • ,,-. t . : • 1. • ., ' • ' 1 ' i• • - I . ! i

n's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it. P mg on the production of the NM agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NM was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

st Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

st Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has