Epstein Secrets

The Palm Beach Post's (the "Post") Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access to certain court records in this case. It is our understanding that Bradley Edwards and William Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler have filed a similar motion on behalf of a non-party known as =11 and that a motion is set for he

• •••••••• ••••••••••••••• • To: R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. Fax: Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. Michael McAuliffe, Esq, Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Brad ley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. From: Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Date: 06/01/2009 Re: State v. J. Epstein Pages: 6 Urgent U For review U I Pl

el for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las O

hael McAuliffe, Esq. Jack Alan Coldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. From: »minne K. Shullm

thout knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41" DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination C

Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-686-6300 Fax: 561-383-9424 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-522-3456 Fax: 954-527-8663 bedwar

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff, C.M.A. Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las O

tion where a litigant or witness is being asked to provide information or respond to a question that may incriminate him in a crime. See generally, DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1983). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litig

lbath, with the agreement of the Palm Beach Post, Brad Edwards, Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "l

This Improper Motion Practice And Have No Demonstrable Need For More Several depositions have occurred over the last 4 weeks wherein it appears Mr. Edwards already has the information he seeks responsive to these requests, which is likely the reason Mr. Edwards has not filed any affidavits supporting t

n den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cl

D MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") and states as follows:' SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgmen

OTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to De

ot seek affirmative relief in a civil action and then invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid giving discovery in matters pertinent to the litigation.' DeLisi v. Bankers, Ins. Ca, 436 So. 2d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (quoting City of St. Petersburg v. Haughton, 362 So. 2d 681, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (

IT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800)OOOCMJ3AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and individually, Defendant(s). MOTION TO COMPEL OR ALTERNATIVELY TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Defendant, Bradley J. E

ry, Goldberger & Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm B FL 33401 ax: Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fax: (954)-524-2822 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Jos h L. Acker

would be unreasonable, and would therefore violate the Constitution. Epstein asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cl

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 17 of 18 Respectfully Submitted, Plaintiff, by One of Her Counsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone

Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of

thout knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination C

ddress) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Stuart S. Mermelstein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Bradley James Edwards Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Blvd Suite 1650 Ft. Lauderdale , FL 33301 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Paul

Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 14k RESPONSE in Opposition re 144 Defendant's MOTION to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket filed by Jane Doe. (Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 06/08/2009) 06/08/2009 147 RESPONSE in Opposition re 104 Defendant's MOTION to Strike Cases from Current Trial Docket filed b

Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 23 through 27 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi I Bankers ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy I Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Cla

elief in this regard should be denied. (ii) Mr. Edwards Already Has the Information He Seeks Pursuant to

18 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 10 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th

to Amended to Assert Punitive Damages; Exhibit “E” — Transcript of Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein dated January 25, 2012; Exhibit “F’ — Deposition of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Exhibit “G” - Deposition of Scott Rothstein dated June 14, 2012; Exhibit “H” — Order of HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013305 --- PAGE BREAK

oid giving discovery, using the fifth amendment as both a ‘sword and a shield.” DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Put another way, “[a] civil litigant’s fifth amendment right to avoid self-incriminat

dwards Affidavit”) (Exhibit 32. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent E.W.; on July 2, 2008, tomes