Epstein Secrets

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG

502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UPDATED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pu

v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA case"). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition

.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA case"). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth and Four

JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG

502009CA0408003OOOCMBAG JUDGE: HAFELE Defendants. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S UPDATED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S NET WORTH INTERROGATORIES TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), by and through his undersigned counsel and pu

v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA case"). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition

.S. 479, 486 (1951); Ohio v Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001). My concern is in part derived from the continued efforts utilized by Edwards in the case of Doe v United States ("the CVRA case"). I cannot provide answers/responses to questions relating to my financial history and condition without waiving my Fifth and Four

Boulevard Miami, FL 33160 16 For Jane Doe 17 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 18 401 East Las Ola

l state their appearances? 4 MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 5 Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 6 THE COURT: Good morning. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 8 Doe. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11 Jane Doe

heir appearances? 4 MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs 5 Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. 6 THE COURT: Good morning. 7 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane 8 Doe. 9 THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11 Jane Doe II. 12 THE

ty agreement between your Office and Mr. Epstein as well as the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). As to the NPA, you have repeatedly asserted in Doe v United States, No. 9:08-cv-80736- KAM, that the NPA was a confidential document. For instance, in paragraph 6 of Document 14, your own Declaration, you stated tha