Epstein Secrets

good faith basis for my filing these claims against Mr. Edwards because there was this case filed down in Broward County that never even mentions Bradley Edwards' name. And he can't come and stand before Your Honor and say, as he just did through Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00788196

EFTA00788113 3 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We have various motions on the Edwards counterclaim that was brought against Mr. Epstein relative to the remaining count of malicious prosecution. I have read as much as the materials

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things until the Ponzi scheme gets uncovered and he seizes upon the Ponzi scheme as a means by which to try to extort Bradley Edwards into abandoning the legitimate interest of his clients or compromising those interests for less than those interests were worth. THE COURT: Let's

e this court should not be entertaining the merits of this. The law is determined by the Fourth District and under the law and case doctrine. And Juliano is the Florida Supreme Court case that establishes that any determination of law made by an appellate court is binding through all subsequent pro

t Lauderdale, FL 33301 ttorneys or e rey pstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

rclaim and Supporting Memorandum of Law, based on the law of the case doctrine. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the Fourth Amended Counterclaim, Edwards raised two claims against Epstein: 1) abuse of process and 2) malicious prosecution. As to the malicious prosecution claim, Edwards alleged that th

n appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court, through all subsequent stages of the proceedings." Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001) (citing Greene v. Massey, 384 So.2d 24, 28 (Fla. 1980) ("All points of law which have been adjudicated become th

rejected it and approved this Court's ruling on that issue, and "the facts on which this decision [was] based continue to be the facts of the case." Juliano, 801 So.2d at 106. Therefore, the law of the case doctrine binds this Court to follow the Fourth District's holding (and therefore this Court's pri

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO: DEFE

t this Court's consideration of the probable cause issue raised in Epstein's motion for summary judgment is barred by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a point on appeal in Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and that

octrine is limited to those questions of law that were "actually presented" and "actually decided" on a former appeal." Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001). The doctrine allows the trial court upon remand from the appellate court to consider a party's alternative arg

N THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 50-2009-CA-040800XXXXMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFEN

on for Summary Tonga Haddad. P.A. • 315 SE 7th Street, Fon Lauderdale, FL 33301. EFTA00808559 Judgment is batted by the law of the case doctrine. Edwards argues that the probable cause issue was raised by Epstein as a point on appeal in Edwards v. Epstein, 178 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), and that

doctrine is limited to those questions of law that were "actually presented" and "actually decided" on a former appeal. Florida Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001). The doctrine allows the trial court, upon remand from the appellate court, to consider a party's alternative a