Epstein Secrets

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants, v. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff. DEFENDANT / COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN DERSHO

king and who would prefer to avoid public attention.' Nothing could be further from the truth. This case began when Jane Doe No. 3 and her lawyers, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell"), made a deliberate decision to file a pleading in a federal lawsuit accusing Dershowitz of committing a

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 15-000072 EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs / Counterclaim Defendants, v. DERSHOWITZ, Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff. DEFENDANT / COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF ALAN DERSHO

king and who would prefer to avoid public attention.' Nothing could be further from the truth. This case began when Jane Doe No. 3 and her lawyers, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") and Paul G. Cassell ("Cassell"), made a deliberate decision to file a pleading in a federal lawsuit accusing Dershowitz of committing a

ment are inapposite because they involved attempts to obtain information that had no "possible relevance" to the issues in dispute. For example, in Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), the Third District held that an ex-wife's financial records had no "possible relevance" to her po

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

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

ed hereto as Exhibit “LL.” Edwards Pursues Other Lines of Discover 69. Because of Epstein’s thwarting of discovery and attacks on Edwards’s clients, Bdwards was forced to pursue other avenues of discovery. Edwards only pursued legitimate discovery designed to further the cases filed against Epstein. See E

Lake City, Utah 84114; [email protected] to: Bradley J. Edwards, Esq, Farmer, Jaffe et al, 425 North Andrews Aven

BREAK --- BACKGROUND The underlying action before this Court is a defamation case filed by a former federal judge, Paul Cassell, and his colleague Brad Edwards, who represent various sexual trafficking victims in a case pending in the Southern District of Florida, specifically case no. 08-cv-80736- KAM, here

at the contents of the “subpoena is a classic ‘fishing expedition’ and the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law.”); Calvo v. Calvo, 489 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (quashing subpoena served on wife’s bank for financial records finding them irrelevant: “indeed, the