Epstein Secrets

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG

502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UPDATED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pu

v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA case"). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition

in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA cas

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG

502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UPDATED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pu

v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA case"). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition

in the chain of evidence" that could be used to prosecute me in criminal proceedings. See Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA cas

This Improver 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

ached to the NPA is a list which delineates alleged victims. Once the NPA was made public, Judge Colbath, with the agreement of the Palm Beach Post, Brad Edwards, Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "list" would remain private. As such, Request for Production Numbers 7, 9 and 10 seeks information th

486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can deny the occurrence of the nesindta alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5'" Amendment2 ate Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (1991). 2 See PeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4d. DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan. 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964Xthe Fifth

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

, 486 (1951). Epstein, in fact, can 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 Fift

a "non-captioned party in interest 7 EFTA00589516 here," id. at 10, only reinforces Mr. Epstein's understandable belief that Mr. Cassell and Mr. Edwards—both of whom have repeatedly sued Mr. Epstein on behalf of others and who have, since this litigation commenced, brought yet another lawsuit, see Ja

ite 1200 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jeffrey S. Pagliucca Laura A. Menninger Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East Tenth Ave. Denver CO 80203 Bradley James Edwards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing. Edwards, Fistos, Lehrman, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney Coll

ge. Response at 3-4. Leaving aside the question whether one can "contaminate" proceedings by quoting from opinions of the Supreme Court, see Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001)("we have emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions . . . is to protect innocent men ... who otherwise mi

TRUE 680, LLC KING,GIOCONDA ST EDWARDS RECTORY BELL JR,LOWRY M 375 SOUTH C

BEACH BEESON,JOHN KRAUSS,K W RINKER,JOHN J DERRIN,MICHELLE SALTZMAN,SHI

eutsche Asset Mgmt, Inc. v. Callaghan, No. 01 Civ 4426 CBM, 2004 WL 758303 16 Dillon v. City of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 5 (1st Dep't 1999) 8,18 Edwards v. Great Northern Ins. Co., No. 03 CV 2947 (NG) (RML), 2006 WL 2053717, (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2006) 18 Foretich v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 37 F.3d

force, Inc. v. Alden Personnel, Inc., 288 F.Supp.2d 513, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) 16, 21 Kirk v. Heppt, 532 F.Supp.2d 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 14 Krepps v. Reiner, 588 F.Supp.2d 471, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 7 Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 590 (N.Y. 1992) 22 McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D

, as I ng as such a reading is not plainly contrary to the intent of Congress United States X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 78 (1994), citing Edward." DeBartolo Corp. Florida GulfCoast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988). At e least, to eliminate questions as to its constitut

of their trip and that one of the motivating purposes of requiring victim to accompany him was to facilitate their sexual relationship. 3) U.S. I Reiner, 397 I Supp. 2d 101 (D. Me. 2005). This case discusses the forfeiture of assets related to a "massage parlor"/ "health club" that was a front for p