Epstein Secrets

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800SSSSMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE JUDGE DONALD HAFELE Epstein's Motion for Fees and Costs HELD: Decembe

p?-4.* EFTA00617909 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 materials here from you and I've got the response in opposition filed by Mr. Edwards as well. MR. BREWER: As your Honor might remember, you entered a summary judgment THE COURT: Right. I remember the facts. I presume it's on appea

de it absolutely unethical _ ..pgam BEACH REPOR.T1NG SERVICE, INC. _561-471-2995 EFTA00617920 15 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 for Brad Edwards to have accepted this proposal for settlement. That requires an evidentiary basis, and I am prepared to give testimony with regard to that aspect.

forever. And there is no reference to what the remedies would be. So under the guidance of Schwartzle, the criteria that had been laid out by the Fourth DCA have clearly not been met. That's defect Number 1 in the confidentiality provision. Defect Number 2 is that obviously because this confidentialit

asked about whether there is any appellate authority that assists the Court in addressing this issue, and the answer to that question is there is Fourth DCA precedent that is in fact very directly on point. PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We are here on Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards. The two applicable parties being dealt with -- have a seat, please. Thank you. -- being Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards, and the counterclaim brough

Mr. Edwards. THE COURT: Did he bring it against Rothstein's firm? I only have Rothstein individually -- MR. SCAROLA: Rothstein, individually and Bradley Edwards, individually. MR. LINK: My apologies. THE COURT: That statement is retracked. It's Rothstein individually and Edwards, individually. Mr. Scarola

file claims that were false. We are not taking about malice yet. Independent of any evidence that relates to malice, we get to prove the truth of Brad Edwards' underlying claims on behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. So that then brings us -- THE COURT: I think I have already essentially ruled on that from

oof with regard to every element. It is also our position that the issue as to whether the underlying claim was bona fiably terminated in favor of Bradley Edwards is an issue of law for the Court. There are no disputed -- Mr. Edwards is present, yes. There are no disputed issues of fact with regard to what

ck is a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792856 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fourth DCA decision called Frazier versus Security and Investments, 1993. What does Frazier tell us? Not only do we build off the US Supreme Court and say yo

c.it JUDGE DONALD HAFELE Circuit Judge Copies furnished to: F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F Andrew A. Harris (~~) Bradley James Edwards (ffillia Fred Haddad an) John Scarola irsETPH \CKERMAN JR Maria Kelchian ~la) Matthew D Weissing II~M) Pi 4IMP M RUM INC- roN service@jurytri

ENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT LIST AND SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT LIST Bradley J Edwards ("Edwards"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Allow Amendment to Exhibit

esponse in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Binger). As the Fourth DCA aptly stated in Tomlinson-McKenzie: The objecting party is prejudiced by the admission of such evidence if the party might have taken some action

s R day of 2009: EFTA00234869 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2009 Page 26 of 26 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 26 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Counsel for Plaintiff Paul G. Cassell, Esq.

Page 26 of 26 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 26 Brad Edwards, Esq. Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las O

nderlying wrong of continued childhood sexual abuse brought against the Archdiocese did not allow for recovery under RICO). Finally, even Florida's Fourth DCA confirms that in order to have a claim for RICO, there must be damage to "business or property." Petrol. LTD. v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th