Epstein Secrets

roward Blvd., Ste. 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL

is case arises from Plainfiffitounter-Defendant Jeffery Epstein's lawsuit against Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Bradley Edwards and Scott Rothstein. Edwards then countersued Epstein for malicious prosecution. Epstein voluntarily dismissed his initial suit On Augustin 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Jud

ger & 250 S. Australian Avenue Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esquire 1 East Broward Blvd. Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale FL 301 Bradley J. Edwards Esquire Staftefil Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 425 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fred ' de I Financial Plaza S

, PA 250 Australian Ave. South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Marc Nurik, Esq. 1 East Btoward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradle J. Edwards Es . brad Fan a e eissing 425 N Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fred Haddad, Es . tnancta aza Suite 2612 Fort Lauderda

N, against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, and are not part of the legal claims brought by Defendant/Counte•-Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN. However, this Proposal is intended to resolve all such claims if available.

ourt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int?, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer of judgment is typically deemed to be

Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby serves this Proposal for Settlement upon Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Stat. and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442: 1. This Proposal is being made pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Stat. and Fla. R

s Motion requesting that the Court enter an Order of entitlement to costs and attorneys' fees against Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). In support of thereof, Epstein states as follows: INTRODUCTION; On August 25, 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Judgment on Edwards in the amoun

ndant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, against Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, and the claims brought by Defendant/Counter- Plaintiff, BRADLEY EDWARDS, Individually, sinst Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The part

urt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int'l, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Ha. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer of judgment is typically deemed to be a

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. L U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constituti

d by CM/ECF on this t5 day of March, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ounse or ant in e a e ase No. 084089-3 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice EFTA00

] disadvantage[s) the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lvnce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29,101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Siegel

OR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM

is Motion requesting that the Court enter an Order of entitlement to costs and attorneys' fees against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). In support of thereof, Epstein states as follows: INTRODUCTION On August 25, 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Judgment on Edwards in the amount

ourt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Intl, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer of judgment is typically deemed to be a

R PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA040800XXXXMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM

s Motion requesting that the Court enter an Order of entitlement to costs and attorneys' fees against Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"). In support of thereof, Epstein states as follows: INTRODUCTION On August 25, 2011, Epstein served an Offer of Judgment on Edwards in the amount

urt cannot disallow an entitlement to an award of fees." Downs v. Coastal Sys. Int'l, Inc., 972 So. 2d 258, 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (citing Vines v. Mathis, 867 So.2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). See also McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077,1083 (11th Cir. 2002). An offer ofjudgment is typically deemed to be a

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 17 of 18 Respectfully Submitted, Plaintiff, by One of Her Counsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone

Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of

disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." 14/rice v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Sieuel,

y or punishment for the alleged criminal conduct. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998). U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constituti

d) disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lynce v. Mathis 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Siegel

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. EFTA00222820 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, e

] disadvantage[s] the offender affected by it' by altering the definition of criminal conduct or increasing the punishment for the crime." Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 117 S.Ct. 891, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 (1997) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)). U.S. v. Siege