Epstein Secrets

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

stitutional principle of separation of powers. Attorneys and Law Firms *1198 Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, EdwardsPottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

her. The U.S. Attorney's Office continued to conceal the existence of the NPA from all the victims for months to come. In mid- June *1233 of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the Fort Lauderdale, Florida attorney for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and

for several of Epstein's victims, contacted AUSA Villafana to inform her that he represented Jane Doe I and, later, Jane Doe 2. AUSA Villafana and Edwards discussed the possibility of federal charges being filed against Epstein in the future. Edwards was led to believe that federal charges could stil

an "appear: rather, as the CVRA requires, she filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3): see also 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3932 (3d ed. 2019) (explaining that a mandamus petition is "an original application to the court of appeals"). Th

istrict of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Attorneys and Law Firms Paul Cassell, University of Utah College of Law, SALT LAKE CTY, UT, Bradley James Edwards, Edwards Pottinger, LLC, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, for Petitioner. Richard Christian Komando, Bradley Garrison & Komando, ORANGE PARK, FL, for Amicus C

ted. During that meeting, however, the federal prosecutors and FBI agents still did not disclose the Agreement to Wild. Then, in mid-June of 2008, Bradley Edwards, the attorney for Wild and several of Epstein's other victims, discussed with AUSA Villafafia the possibility of federal charges being filed agains

18 months' imprisonment in the county jail. Having still not been informed of the resolution of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office communicating the victims' wishes that federal charges be filed against Epstein. II. PROCEDURAL HISTOR

tion of Epstein's federal case, on July 3, 2008, attorney Edwards sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office comm

an "appeal"; rather, as the CVRA requires, she filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3); see also 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3932 (3d ed. 2019) (explaining that a mandamus petition is "an original application to the court of appeals"). The

ent for filing the Joinder Motion." (Id. at ¶ 11). alleges that Dershowitz made this statement about her counsel "wrongfully." (a) Cassell *567 and Edwards sued Dershowitz for defamation, and that case was settled in April 2016. (I at 'II 11-12). In 2015, Dershowitz made a number of statements in va

lleged sexual activity. (a at ¶ 10). Thereafter in 2015 Dershowitz said on national television that counsel on the joinder motion, Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, had engaged in "unethical behavior warranting "s ent for filing the Joinder Motion." (Id. at ¶ 11). alleges that Dershowitz made this statement ab

Dershowitz's quarrel properly is with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which "represented a major break from the common law and code systems." Arthur R. Miller From Conley to Twombly to lqbal: A Double Play on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60 Duke L.J. I, 3.5 (2010) (Explaining that the drafters of

ein Case No. 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON Stuart S. Mermelstein, Esq. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Mermelstein & Horowitz, P.A. 18205 Biscayne Boulevard Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 342 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/20

ant may legitimately use the Fifth Amendment to avoid having to answer inquiries during any phase of the discovery process. See 8 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 2018, at 273 (2d ed. 1994) ("[C]ourts have repeatedly held that the privilege against self-i