Epstein Secrets

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, and ■l., individually, Defendants. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR COURT TO DECLARE RELEVANCE AND NON-PRIVILEGED NA

eference to Documents Containing Privileged Materials Listed on Edwards' Privilege Log, filed on March 5, 2018. 2. In addition to those arguments, Edwards states as follows: I For brevity, Edwards shall refer to Epstein's motion as the "Motion for Court to Declare Relevance." EFTA00808645 Edwards ad

enterprise, which included access to every email on the RRA server. No one (aside from Jeffrey Epstein) ever suggested, implied, or insinuated that Brad Edwards had any involvement or knew anything about Rothstein's illegal activities. Brad Edwards was never even formally interviewed by the authorities. Yet

ion titled "Edwards' Direct Involvement in Rothstein's Ponzi Scheme." If nothing but consistent, Epstein, through counsel, then sprinkles throughout the Motion for Court to Declare Relevance direct accusations and implicit insinuations that, regardless of whether 2 The idiom "jumping the shark" is a pejorative refer

EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 13, 2018, Motion to Strike Epstein's Motion for in Camera Inspection of 30 E-Mails and states: INTRODUCTION Edwards knows onl

ividually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to C

ion titled 'Edwards' Direct Involvement in Rothstein's Ponzi Scheme.' If nothing but consistent, Epstein, through counsel, then sprinkles throughout the Motion for Court to Declare Relevance direct accusations and implicit insinuations that, regardless of whether Epstein had probable cause to institute or continue h

EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to Counter-Plaintiff Bradley J. Edwards' ("Edwards") November 13, 2018, Motion to Strike Epstein's Motion for in Camera Inspection of 30 E-Mails and states: INTRODUCTION Edwards knows onl

ividually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EDWARDS' MOTION TO STRIKE EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF 30 E-MAILS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") responds in opposition to C

ion titled 'Edwards' Direct Involvement in Rothstein's Ponzi Scheme.' If nothing but consistent, Epstein, through counsel, then sprinkles throughout the Motion for Court to Declare Relevance direct accusations and implicit insinuations that, regardless of whether Epstein had probable cause to institute or continue h