Epstein Secrets

. 4D18-0762 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, RECEIVED, 3/13/2018 5:01 PM, Clerk, Fourth District Court of Appeal Petitioner, -VS- SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., E.W., and JANE DOE, Intervenors. Respondents / JOINDER BY VICTIMS IN EDWARDS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM STAY WITH

COTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., E.W., and JANE DOE, Intervenors. Respondents / JOINDER BY VICTIMS IN EDWARDS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM STAY WITH REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION Victims L.M., E.W., and Jane Doe (hereinafter "the victims"), inter

ained images or copies of the subject documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, Brad Edwards or his client. Exhibit B at 2 (emphasis added). In spite of that clear order from Judge Ray, Epstein's lawyers appear to have flagrantly disregard

marcenuriklaw.com Attorney for Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, St

ral bankruptcy court order. See Supplement to Edwards' Mot. to Strike, Exhibit B at pp. 1-3. In particular, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Raymond B. Ray of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Florida entered an explicit order that Epstein's attorneys (at the Fowler White law firm) would merely print out thousa

D MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to Defendant Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") and states as follows:' SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Edwards' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgmen

OTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EDWARDS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, Jeffrey Epstein ("Plaintiff" or "Epstein"), hereby files the following Response in Opposition to De

the place of the now-defunct firm's management since before this case was filed. The subpoena resulted in proceedings before Honorable Judge Ray of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, who appointed a Special Master. In response to several Orders entered by Judge Ray, Edwards filed a I59-page privilege log claiming that over 200

#291874/mep JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and M., individually, Defendant(s). IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

r January 20, 2011. The deposition was cancelled upon an agreement reached between counsel for Epstein and the Trustee respectively. EFTA00599571 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG 3. Plaintiff failed to serve the Trustee Depo Notice on Defendant/Counter-Claimant Bradley J. Edwar

ts which are the supposed subject of his request. 9. The parties previously agreed to the appointment of Robert Carney as a special master before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to address the issues that arose in connection with the first discovery request. 10. The parties have agreed to the appointment of Robert Carney a

#291874/mep JEFFREY EPSTErN, Plaintiff(s), vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendant(s). IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORI

r January 20, 2011. The deposition was cancelled upon an agreement reached between counsel for Epstein and the Trustee respectively. EFTA00283658 Edwards adv. Epstein Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG 3. Plaintiff failed to serve the Trustee Depo Notice on Defendant/Counter-Claimant Bradley J. Edwar

ts which are the supposed subject of his request. 9. The parties previously agreed to the appointment of Robert Carney as a special master before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to address the issues that arose in connection with the first discovery request. 10. The parties have agreed to the appointment of Robert Carney a