Epstein Secrets

6th day of August, 2013. /s/ Bradley J. Edw rds BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Attachments: 1. October 3, 2011, request for pr

nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 16th day of August, 2013. /s/ Bradley J. Edw rds BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Attachments: 1. October 3, 2011, request for production; 2. June 24, 2013, supplemental request for production; and 3.

fication obligations, the USAO altered the language that was ultimately contained in the July 9, 2008 notification letter to Jane Doe #1 in care of Bradley Edwards. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. 2(d). (e) At least in part as a result of the negotiations, Jane Doe #1 and

ys to reduce any such burden. DATED: October 3. 2011 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 (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Flori

icipation of litigation, and certainly not litigation about the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See, e.g., Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 205 F.R.D. 542, 549 (D. Ariz. 2002) (documents not protected by work product because not prepared in connection with case at hand). II. Specific Responses to

The Palm Beach Post's (the "Post") Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access to certain court records in this case. It is our understanding that Bradley Edwards and William Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler have filed a similar motion on behalf of a non-party known as =11 and that a motion is set for he

• •••••••• ••••••••••••••• • To: R. Alexander Acosta, Esq. Fax: Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq. Michael McAuliffe, Esq, Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Brad ley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. From: Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. Date: 06/01/2009 Re: State v. J. Epstein Pages: 6 Urgent U For review U I Pl

el for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 80811 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las O

hael McAuliffe, Esq. Jack Alan Coldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. From: »minne K. Shullm

ere, preventing Epstein from identifying Plaintiffs' in subpoenas and other type discovery overwhelmingly inhibits discovery. Ees Doe v. Evans, 202 F.R.D. at 176 (E.D. P.A. 2001) (denying protective order where alleged sexual assault victim did not demonstrate a serious specific injury and allowing De

This Improver Motion Practice And Have No Demonstrable Need For More Several depositions have occurred over the last 4 weeks wherein it appears Mr. Edwards already has the information he seeks responsive to these requests, which is likely the reason Mr. Edwards has not filed any affidavits supporting t

ached to the NPA is a list which delineates alleged victims. Once the NPA was made public, Judge Colbath, with the agreement of the Palm Beach Post, Brad Edwards, Esq. and Spencer Kuvin, Esq. agreed that the "list" would remain private. As such, Request for Production Numbers 7, 9 and 10 seeks information th

to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Coro. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. III. 1972X"it is the opinion of this court that (§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This

ntained, inter alia, in the attached affidavit of Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. The victims have also concurrently filed itemize

ocket 08/16/2013 Page 9 of 10 DATED: August 16, 2013 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 (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Flori

icipation of litigation, and certainly not litigation about the Crime Victims' Rights Act. See, e.g., Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp., 205 F.R.D. 542, 549 (D. Ariz. 2002) (documents not protected by work product because not prepared in connection with case at hand). II. Specific Responses to

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

to embody a general federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Say. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. Ill. 1972X"it is the opinion of this court that [§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This

ent's charges, this Court assured both adequate notice of the allegations against the defendants and ample opportunity for a meaningful de- fense. Edwards, 430 A.2d at 1339-41. 4. Even in full-blown criminal trials, the Sixth Amendments Confrontation Clause poses the only constitutional objection to

vernment is required to demonstrate that there are grounds for a hearing under the specific provisions of either 3142(f)(1) or (f)(2)." Butler, 165 F.R.D. at 71. "When there exists one or more grounds for holding a hearing under those provisions, the government may proceed on the theory of risk of fli