Epstein Secrets

r and the Palm Beach Police Department attempted to provide notice to all the victims. D.E. 14, ¶ 11; Ex. S ¶ 38. The prosecutor contacted attorney Edwards by phone to advise him of the state court plea hearing. (Id.) At that time, Edwards represented Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. (a) This placed b

ximately 4:15 p.m., that Epstein's plea to state charges had been scheduled by state officials for 8:30 a.m., AUSA specifically called and informed Brad Edwards, the attorney for petitioners, of the date and time of Epstein's state court plea hearing. Ex. S ¶ 38. Attorney Edwards informed AUSA that someone

filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached service list using CM/ECF. is/Dexter . Lee 31 EFTA00211748 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. ~It Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice 3 Attorneys for Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 Jacquelin

Epstein's state court plea hearing. Ex. S ¶ 38. Attorney Edwards informed AUSA that someone would be present for

t party in a previous proceeding.' Judicial estoppel is an equitable concept intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial process." Burnes 1. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Judicial estoppel prohibits "parties from deliberately changing positions according to th

JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottinger LP 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone : (800) 400-1098 E-Mail: [email protected] Paul G.

CVRA action and the related civil suits. There is no concealment or unfairness that are the hallmarks for applying judicial estoppel. Cf. Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying doctrine in circumstances showing deliberate concealment of assets). Instead of presenting evidence (such

JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only

CVRA action and the related civil suits. There is no concealment or unfairness that are the hallmarks for applying judicial estoppel. Cf. Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying doctrine in circumstances showing deliberate concealment of assets). Instead of presenting evidence (such