Epstein Secrets

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IN LIMINE OF UNRELATED

ments and amounts and for a finding that such are inadmissible evidence, and states: INTRODUCTION Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards") represented three plaintiffs who brought tort claims seeking money damages against Epstein. Edwards possesses the confidential settlement agreeme

is error if we were not permitted to talk about what Mr. Epstein's motive was for taking the extraordinary step of filing a baseless claim against Bradley Edwards. THE COURT: Well, until we get into, Palm Beach Reporting Service, Inc. 561-471-2995 EFTA00805183 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Tort Claimants and possibly others. Epstein denies this motivation EFTA00805158 and maintains his probable cause was grounded in media reports of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and the realization of the possible connection for Edwards' litigation behavior unrelated to the claims of his three clients. Court's Rulin

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

btain summary judgment. Third, Edwards has not demonstrated the absence of material issues of fact. His alleged participation in and/or knowledge of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and the validity of, and motivation in conducting, the discovery at issue in the underlying Epstein actions are matters of considerable deba

Appellate Case No. 4D18-0787 LT Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants.1 REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI On Review of a Non-Final Order of the Circuit Court of

E.W. and Jane Doe have sought to intervene below on a limited and unrelated issue. As such, they are not parties in this certiorari proceeding, and Edwards has improperly captioned them as such on his Response. EFTA00808455 INTRODUCTION Disappointingly, Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") has used his Respo

aim against both Rothstein and Edwards) in connection with the use of Epstein case materials, which were improperly utilized to lure investors into the Rothstein Ponzi scheme is clearly and irrefutably related to Edwards' counterclaim against Epstein for filing that original claim. Yet, to mislead this Court into

From: To: Subject: RE: Lawsuit Against Brad Edwards Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:24:34 +0000 Importance: Normal H Yes, Roy Black just sent me a copy. Assistant V.J. Anor ley 500 S. Australian Ave, W

From: To: Subject: RE: Lawsuit Against Brad Edwards Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:24:34 +0000 Importanc

in claims misused the sexual abuse lawsuits filed against Epstein for the purposes of pumping up the value of the potential settlements, as part of the Rothstein Ponzi scheme. A copy of the complaint is attached. What a small world. « File: rothstein-complaint-l.pdf » EFTA00212613

RIDA JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Complex Litigation, Fla. R. Civ. Pro.120 I Plaintiff, Case No. 50 2009CA040800XXXXMB AG v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and L.M., individually, Defendants. AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT EDWAR

on Friday, April 1, at 9:00 a.m., the following: EPSTEIN'S AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION OF PLAINTIFF TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS AND COMPEL DEFENDANT EDWARDS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND APPEAR FOR FURTHER DEPOSITION The following procedures must be noted on all specially set hearing notices in Division AG:

in a case like this where incentives offered to Edwards and accepted by Edwards are plainly relevant to a determination of whether he was privy to the Rothstein Ponzi scheme and why he decided even to join RRA. It is significantly relevant to his counterclaim since he is claiming loss of profits and injury to his