Epstein Secrets

r reconsideration of this Court's non-final oral ruling denying summary judgment. For the reasons stated in this motion, Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' malicious prosecution claim fails as a matter of law on an essential element: the absence of probable cause for Epstein's underlying lawsuit. The C

l., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF BRADLEY EDWARDS'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING, REOUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND SUPP

tence of probable 2 EFTA00799340 United States of America v. Scott W. Rothstein, 09-6033 I-CR-COHN; Epstein's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Edwards's Fourth Amended Counterclaim; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Fu

se is encapsulated by the following paragraph from Edward's Opposition: Epstein knew that he had in fact molested each of the minors represented by Brad Edwards. He also knew that each litigation decision by Brad Edwards was grounded in proper litigation judgment about the need to pursue effective discovery

which was during the same period when, according to the Razorback Complaint, the Epstein cases were allegedly misused. See Deposition Transcript of Bradley Edwards dated March 23, 2010; Deposition Transcripts of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR and Razorback Funding, LLC

Ponzi Scheme was becoming urgent. Depositions taken of Scott W. Rothstein in In re: Rothstein Rosenfeld: Adler, PA; 09-34791-RBR. The court rejected Edwards's Motion, calling it "devoid of evidence." See Order in Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Dated November 5, 2009, 08-cv-80119. The connection between many of these

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

as "government privilege," notwithstanding that it is he who is prosecuting this matter and who bears the burden of proof. As such, not only should Edwards's Motion to preclude evidence be denied, but Edwards should also be precluded from presenting any evidence or testimony for which he has asserted any privil

30 Marc S. Nurik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. NURIK One E. Broward Boulevard, Ste. 700 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS POTT1NGER LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, Ste. 2 Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33301-3268 Attormeys for Bradley J. Edwards EFTA00808548

on and the procurement of minors to engage in prostitution and further agreed to be registered as a sex offender (App.13, p.133). Bradley Edwards ("Edwards") is a civil attorney who represented multiple victims of Epstein's serial abuse of children. Edwards filed three civil actions against Epstein in

derdale. FL 33301 Attorneys for Scott Rothstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS POTT1NGER LLC 425 N. Andrews Avenue, St

f the cases were to be tried together (App.19, p.266) Thus, the trial court denied Epstein's motion to remove the case from the docket and granted Edwards's Motion to sever the two cases for trial (App.18, p.184; App.19, pp.265-67). The court held that it would try Edwards v. Epstein as scheduled on March 13,

ward Blvd. Suite 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos Lehrman 42

tein"), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files his Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Bradley Edwards's ("Edwards") legally and factually deficient Motion for Protective Order. In support thereof, Epstein states: INTRODUCTION On or about January 9, 2013, Edwar

ird, Edwards asserts that a protective order is warranted because the production requested "is unnecessarily intrusive into the financial privacy of BRADLEY EDWARDS'." See Exhibit B. However, because Edwards has put his financial status at issue by his assertion of damages, his Motion must be denied. When a party

either good cause or any law in support thereof, fails to satisfy the heightened requisite showing for an order of protection, mandating denial of Edwards's Motion. Third, Edwards asserts that a protective order is warranted because the production requested "is unnecessarily intrusive into the financial privac

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 OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO IMPROPER FILING OF SUPPLE

TAL AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION 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

fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should ne

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 502009CA0408003OOOCMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, VS. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RE

CONSIDERATION INTRODUCTION 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

in fifty states and the District of Columbia," which are inapposite to this matter. See Edwards's Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2. The remainder of Edwards's Motion reiterates cases that he already presented, briefed, and argued to this Court; arguments that this Court rejected. Accordingly, the Court should no