Epstein Secrets

6th day of August, 2013. /s/ Bradley J. Edw rds BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Attachments: 1. October 3, 2011, request for pr

nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. /s/ Bradley J. Edw rds BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Attachments: 1. October 3, 2011, request for production; 2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and 3.

fication obligations, the USAO altered the language that was ultimately contained in the July 9, 2008 notification letter to Jane Doe #1 in care of Bradley Edwards. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(d). (e) At least in part as a result of the negotiations, Jane Doe #1 and

ys to reduce any such burden. DATED: October 3. 2011 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Flori

partly in the interests of others, and those others . . . seek access to the subject matter of the communications." Id. at 1101 (emphasis added). In Garner, the Court refused to allow the management of a corporation to invoke attorney-client privilege in the context of a shareholder derivative action,

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. L U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constituti

d by CM/ECF on this t5 day of March, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ounse or ant in e a e ase No. 084089-3 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice EFTA00

f legislative interpretation, and where they often should end it as well, which is with the words of the statutory provision.'") (quoting Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) (en bane)) (first alteration omitted). In this case, the plain text of the 2003 statute is both clear and unmist

is ample good cause. See generally Affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. (filed concurrently with this motion as an attac

trovsky, 10 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 1993), the Sixth Circuit applied Brady in the context of a denaturalization and extradition case. In United States v. Edwards, 777 F.Supp.2d 985 (E.D.N.C. 2011), the district court applied Brady to civil commitment proceedings for sexual offenders. And in EEOC v. Los Alamo

partly in the interests of others, and those others . . . seek access to the subject matter of the communications." Id. at 1101 (emphasis added). In Garner, the Court refused to allow the management of a corporation to invoke attorney-client privilege in the context of a shareholder derivative action,

obert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garci

ithout violating the Fifth Amendment”). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1

Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (I Ith Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Cald

the statutory provision."') ( quoting Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 972 (11th Cir. 2000) (en bane)) (f

ct Court, Southern District of Florida Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. [email protected] Robert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia [email protected] Jack Patrick Hill [email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell K

rimination claim because the government may use voluntarily filed tax returns against a defendant without violating the Fifth Amendment”). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1976) (holding that disclosures in tax returns are not compelled incriminations and may be used as e

obert D. Critton, Esq. [email protected] Bradley James Edwards [email protected] Isidro Manuel Garcia

ithout violating the Fifth Amendment”). See also Garner v. United States, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 424 U.S. 648 (1

ion of official business, violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building." Edwards is currently free on $100,000 bond. "Although the posts were removed, an informant took screenshots and provided them to the FBI, documents show. Ag

o may have otherwise been hesitant to get vaccinated or get their children vaccinated once available." CDC Director Walensky is expected to "talk to Garner about vaccines for a live Instagram event," and officials including Walensky, White House Health Equity Task Force Director Marcella Nunez-Smith, a

ion of official business, violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building." Edwards is currently free on $100,000 bond. "Although the posts were removed, an informant took screenshots and provided them to the FBI, documents show. E

o may have otherwise been hesitant to get vaccinated or get their children vaccinated once available." CDC Director Walensky is expected to "talk to Garner about vaccines for a live Instagram event," and officials including Walensky, White House Health Equity Task Force Director Marcella Nunez-Smith, a

o "Rock’ no more Alec Baldwin is going from "Rock" to "Rock" as the "30 Rock" star preps for his role in an... Back to Bayside Good grief, Jennifer Garner is such a dork Jennifer Garner may have a body, life and closet to kill for, but every time she does... Watch two minutes from ‘Workaholics’ Comedy

rns out, the same Visoki was deposed last week by Bradley Edwards, an attorney for three of the women su- ing Epstei