Epstein Secrets

SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associa

heir failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in light of the Court's Order, it would seem that this issue is better resolved in a Motion for Reconsideration or on appeal of that ruling rather than in this Supplemental Briefing. Accordingly, the Intervenors' third argument is not addressed herein. 5 EFT

ied or, in the alternative, Jane Doe should be granted an evidentiary hearing regarding the book. DATED: June 23, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Te

iary hearing regarding the book. DATED: June 23, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone Facsimile ( Florida Bar E-mail: and Paul G

econsideration (DE #560). Jane Doe will respond to this amended motion for reconsideration. ARGUMENT Jane Doe has an interest in Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration (DE #560), which should be dismissed as utterly without merit (and seemingly filed simply for obstructionist purposes). Epstein's claim that the b

ied or, in the alternative, Jane Doe should be granted an evidentiary hearing regarding the book. DATED: June 23, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, IM. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel

iary hearing regarding the book. DATED: June 23, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, IM. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone Facsimile ( Florida Bar E-mail: and Paul G.

econsideration (DE #560). Jane Doe will respond to this amended motion for reconsideration. ARGUMENT Jane Doe has an interest in Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Reconsideration (DE #560), which should be dismissed as utterly without merit (and seemingly filed simply for obstructionist purposes). Epstein's claim that the b

SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associates, LLC 2028 Harrison Street, Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 (954) 414-8033 Fax: (954) 924-

istrict Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., The Law Offices of Brad Edwards & Associa

heir failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in light of the Court's Order, it would seem that this issue is better resolved in a Motion for Reconsideration or on appeal of that ruling rather than in this Supplemental Briefing. Accordingly, the Intervenors' third argument is not addressed herein. 5 EFT

ward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 42

TAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein; abuse of process and mali

, FL 33301. EFTA00613846 Reconsideration. Three months later, Edwards has filed this purported "supplemental authority" in support of his initial Motion for Reconsideration. However, this supplemental authority" does nothing more than establish the fact that another trial court, just as this Court did in the case at h

L DIVISION CASE NO.: 502009CA040800 AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, etc., et al., Defendant(s). ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT EDWARDS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Defenda

TEIN, etc., et al., Defendant(s). ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT EDWARDS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Defendant, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed the Motion and is fully advised in the premi

. The Court has reviewed the Motion and is fully advised in the premises. It is thereupon CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant EDWARDS' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this _ day of January, 2011 at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. 8 /04% ) DAVID F. CROVIVRe. "<$ 4

nfra, the federal government provided Epstein with the NPA and the list attached thereto. The NPA is now a public document and the list, pursuant to Brad Edward's Agreement with Judge I. Colbath, remains confidential. 2 FRE 410(4) is particularly directed to communications in matters which, like Epstein's, di

y transmit passenger and crew manifest information for all flights arriving into and/or departing out of the United States. As this court knows, Mr. Edwards has conducted extensive discovery, has questioned individuals as to whether Epstein owns private aircraft and has obtained certain flight manifests

ED OBJECTIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein (hereinafter "Epstein"), by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby files his Motion for Reconsideration and/or for Request Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Portions of the Magistrate's Order (DE 462) pursuant to Rule 60, Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 4, Rule 4(c) and