Epstein Secrets

3301 54)467-1223 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

f/Counter-Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs, and as grounds therefor would state: INTRODUCTION This case arises from Epstein's lawsuit against Edwards, when Epstein sued Edwards merely for his legal representation of people accusing Epstein of misconduct. Edwards counter- sued Epstein for, inter al

in, supra. The Confidentiality Agreement would give Epstein rights that exceed those which could be obtained by a resolution of Edwards' claim. The Clause is accordingly not contemplated or permissible under Rule 1.442 or §768.79. Some non-monetary terms are permissible. An example is a requirement th

ue . .. ." United States v. Young, No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, "[b]ecause minors often are not capable of remembering

ecause double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successivepunishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 ("Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy

ssue ...." United States v. Young, No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, lbJecause minors often are not capable of remembering

cause double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 ("Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy

ssue ...." United States v. Young, No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, lbJecause minors often are not capable of remembering

cause double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 ("Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy

d States v. Young, 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation 154 EFTA00095246 mark omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Mazzuca, No 00 Civ. 2290 (12.1S), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, "[b]ecause minors often are not capable of rememberin

cause double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 ("Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy

ten and adopted to guarantee Americans greater freedom than had been enjoyed by their ancestors who had been driven from Europe by per- secution." Edwards, 430 A.2d at 13 (Mack, J., dissenting) (quoting Carlson i Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 556, 72 S.Ct. 52 , 542, 96 L.Ed. 547reh. denied,343 U.S. 988, 72

m might commit in the future. In so doing, the Court stated: Appellee's argument assumes the exist- ence of a periphery of the Self—Incrimi- nation Clause which protects a person against incrimination not only against past or present transgressions but which supplies insulation for a career of crime

e . . . ." United States v. Young, No. 08 Cr. 285 (KMK), 2008 WL 4178190, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (RJS), 2007 WL 2994449, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2007)). Indeed, "[b]ecause minors often are not capable of rememberin

cause double jeopardy is meant to protect a defendant from successive punishments for the same offense, a multiplicitous count does not violate the Clause unless and until sentence is imposed. See Josephberg, 459 F.3d at 355 ("Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy