Epstein Secrets

FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Case No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG v. BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, et al., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. JUDGE: HAFELE JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO BRADLEY EDWARDS'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO STRIKE THE JUNE 30.2017

ion for Summary Judgment, and to "exclude evidence as to which discovery was withheld under claims of privilege." As demonstrated more fully below, Edwards's Motion is deficient on its face, and in direct contravention to the facts. As such, Edwards's Motion should be denied. INTRODUCTION Epstein file

that there were other media, local media. I've been told that the -- his investigator was sent to California to harass people representing his -- Brad Edwards' investigator -- representing fictitiously, fraudulently that he was a FBI agent to try to gather information for Mr. Edwards' claims. See Depositi

sitting over their computer looking at their bank accounts. So, unfortunately, I would have to say, no, sir. Q. Have you ever personally witnessed Bradley Edwards engaged in money laundering? MR. PIKE: Form. THE WITNESS: Again, sir, the U.S. Attorney's Complaint of the Rothstein firm alleges money laundering

ion is deficient on its face, and in direct contravention to the facts. As such, Edwards's Motion should be denied. INTRODUCTION Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on June 30, 2017, and in support thereof executed an affidavit, which was nearly identical to the one he executed in support of his previously file

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 RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINT

Epstein ("Epstein"), responds in opposition to the Motion for Protective Order [D.E. 1026] filed by Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley Edwards ("Edwards"), relating to the deposition of M. 1 [D.E. 1027], and moves to compel her to answer questions relating to the Crimes Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA") a

side the NPA through the CVRA action: 10 And we intend to prove that Jeffrey 11 Epstein's motive in filing these knowingly 12 false claims against Brad Edwards - his 13 motive was to extort Bradley Edwards into 14 abandoning or cheaply compromising the 15 rights of his clients, and abandoning his 16 effo

00808640 for.") (8/4/08 Tr. 4-5) (Ex. A.) It was not until March 21, 2011, about a year after settling her lawsuit with Epstein, when M. filed her Motion for Summary Judgment for Finding Violations of the NPA, that it was clear that M. was continuing with her efforts to invalidate the NPA. Epstein should be able to prese

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

ng to the Order granting additional time, not only for an extension of time but also for a stay in the preparation of the privilege log pending its Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard by this Court (A: 16). Edwards filed a similar motion with this Court which is presently set for hearing on January 27, 2011. On Decem

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. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS CAUS

ds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein; abuse of process and mali

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the lit

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. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JU DGMENT THIS CAU

nds and decides as follows: In December 2009, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") filed suit against Scott Rothstein ("Rothstein") and Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"). In response to Epstein's lawsuit, Edwards filed a Counterclaim, alleging therein two causes of action against Epstein; abuse of process and malic

cess and malicious prosecution. Both causes of action were premised upon Epstein's initial filing of his lawsuit against Edwards. Epstein filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting therein that both the abuse of process claim and the malicious prosecution claim filed by Edwards against Epstein were barred by the liti