Epstein Secrets

ellate Case No.: 4D18-0762 LT Case No: 502009CA0408003C3C3OCNIB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Review of a Non-Final Order of the Circuit

Confronted with Rule 1.440, a compulsory rule of Florida Civil Procedure, and unequivocal legal precedent interpreting the same clearly against him, Edwards levels false and misleading accusations against Epstein and injects impertinent allegations into his argument in an obvious attempt to divert the C

final judgment would be insufficient to remedy the rule's provisions t re q g -in a 50-day hiatus between trial and service of the last pleading); Precision Constructors, Inc., 825 So. 2d at 1063 (judgment vacated because failure to adhere strictly to the mandates of Rule 1.440 is reversible error). Absent mandamus relie

plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018' by the Honorable Donald Hafele, granting Respondent Bradley J. Edwards' Motion for Separate Trials.'' By separate motion, Petitioner moves to consolidate this petition with his pending Emergency Petition for Writ of Man

admittedly running a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme by convincing investors he had negotiated multi-million settlements in high-profile cases. Three of Edwards' clients at the time alleged tort claims against Epstein, which Epstein ultimately settled. Based on publicly available information about 3 All bac

Y. Mellon, 175 So. 3d 305, 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (final judgment reversed because case noticed for trial before answer to counterclaim was filed); Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Yalta: Constr. Corp., 825 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (judgment vacated because failure to adhere strictly to the mandates of Rule 1.44

DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING STAY Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(0,

is case on August 9, 2010. (App. 5). 2 EFTA00793768 (App. 1). On December 21, 2009, just 17 days after Epstein instituted the civil proceeding, Edwards filed a Counterclaim for abuse of process against Epstein. (App. 2). Thereafter, Edwards amended his Counterclaim several times, ultimately allegi

Y. Mellon, 175 So. 3d 305, 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (final judgment reversed because case noticed for trial before answer to counterclaim was filed); Precision Constructors, Inc. v. Vallee, Constr. Bifurcation is improper here, because the issues presented by the claim and counterclaim are so inextricably intertwined that it