Epstein Secrets

E. The Present Motion to Compel I0 ARGUMENT 11 I. EDWARDS MAY NOT RELY ON THE VACATED DISTRICT COURT ORDER FROM THE JANE DOE ACTION 12 II. EDWARDS FAILS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCOVERY OF A NON-PARTY UNDER CPLR 3101(a) 14 A. The Epstein Interview Does Not Have Heightened Relevance to

a deposition in one of the now-settled suits by implying that "he did not recognize" reporter Rush. Moving Br. at 17; see also Moving Affidavit of Bradley James Edwards, sworn to Sept. 14, 2010 ("Edwards Aft"), ¶ 22. Besides being farfetched and factually unsupported, Edwards' apparent desire to attack Epstein's cr

pstein sex abuse litigation, as even a quick Google search reveals. See. e.g., Heiress Quizzed in Sex Suits. M. POST, Oct. 12, 2009 ("Florida lawyer Brad Edwards. who represents three of the 'Jane Does' who are suing Epstein, told Page Six that Phislaine] Maxwell would be questioned over her knowledge of how

lawyers and others close to the case — including attorney Edwards — who could provide tips and information to assi

in's complaint alleges claims against Rothstein and Edwards for fraud, violation of Florida's civil racketeering statute and violation of Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act. Ponzi Scheme Complaint ¶¶ 26, 54-68, 73-78.4 The complaint also pleads an abuse of process claim alleging that after the thrce sex abuse suits were

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470, files this Notice of Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form. Epstein adopts Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 9, 2017, proposed Standard (Civil) Jury Instructions Nos. 201.3, 202.2, 202.3, 202.4, 301.1, 301.2, 301.3, 301.4, 301.5, 406.1

Procedure 1.470, files this Notice of Proposed Jury Instructions and Verdict Form. Epstein adopts Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 9, 2017, proposed Standard (Civil) Jury Instructions Nos. 201.3, 202.2, 202.3, 202.4, 301.1, 301.2, 301.3, 301.4, 301.5, 406.1, 406.3, 4

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 33 !BIFURCATED ISSUE! 503.2 PUNITIVE DAMAGES' There is an additional claim in this case that you must decide. If you find for Bradley Edwards and against Jeffrey Epstein, you must decide whether, in addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages are warranted as punishment to Jeffrey E

and engaging in improper litigation tactics in order to promote and sustain that Ponzi scheme. Epstein brought claims for violations of Florida 's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, violations of Florida's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO), abuse of process, fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. Rothstein di

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO. 4D14-2282 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT The appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully moves for

28 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process). Edwards appealed and is challenging the final judgment solely as to the malicious prosecution claim. 2. After the parties' briefs were filed, this Court is

rds, Rothstein was deposed. At the morning session of deposition on December 12, 2011, Rothstein was asked the following about Bradley Edwards: Q: Brad Edwards, would he have reported illegal activity? A: I don't know. Q: Would he have reported trust account defalcations? 22 R. 816, citing letter dated Ju

three defendants -7- EFTA00612489 including: Edwards, and his then partner Scott Rothstein. The four counts alleged: (1) violations of Florida's Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act; (2) violations of Florida's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act; (3) abuse of process; and (4) fraud. Epstein's complaint set for