Epstein Secrets

08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v . JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' RESPONSE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the ruling of United Sta

rict Court, [D.E. 222], the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), files his Reply to the Response to Real Party in Interest, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Disclosure of Certain Documents [D.E. 217]. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The re

ollowing service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this day of November, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman PL Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Aueroury uotaneriter K weirs, r., FOWLER WHITE BURNER, PA

the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9`h Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 411' DCA 2008). Moreover, Edwards' arguments in his response to this motion are disingenuous. Epstein respectfully directs t

rey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893•MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Mag. Order and Memo of Law. In response to Epstein's motion, Edwards, and not the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, responds for himself and on behalf of others not party to these proceedings. Edwards response fails to establish h

wing service list in the manner specified via transmission ofNotices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this atth day of September, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 423 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-524-2820 954-524-2822

g the procedures available in those proceedings. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (99' Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp. v. O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4DCA 2008) The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because while it does leave the use of the documents to the Court ove

. . Mr. Epstein, in a sense, would then be adversely affected by my actions when he acted in reliance upon the agreement. How does that work? MR. EDWARDS: Certainly, we are only asking you to vacate the agreement. I understand and your point is well taken. And I believe that at that point in time his

ated matters without first using the procedures available in those proceedings. See Foltz' State Fann, 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Cordis Corp.' O'Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The plaintiffs' arguments that the Magistrate 5 EFTA00205665 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 169 Entered on

onstitutional basis for precluding trial of criminal case by injunction. Melvin L. Klafter, Leonard R. Harten- feld, Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Edward,. Hanrahan, U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Thomas W. James, Asst. U. S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., William W. Goodrich, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Joanne

appropriateness of the investigatory methods employed, which raises voting rights and first amendment concerns. This case is distinguishable from O'Shea and City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 76 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (Lyons). In O'Shea, the plaintiffs chal- lenged certain arres