Epstein Secrets

3432 7 8 ROTHSTEIN, ROSENFELDT & ADLER 9 BY: BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ., 401 East Las Olas Boulevard 10 Suite 1650 Fo

hat are involved 6 here, so we can get started. 7 Mr. Berger, go right ahead. 8 MR. BERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. 9 William J. Berger and Brad Edwards for the 10 moving parties, and that's who's the 11 Plaintiff in one case today, and then there's 12 III., who's a Plaintiff in another case th

rd to the 13 non-prosecution agreement and what happened. 14 If the Court will also recall, the NPA is 15 under, basically, a freeze order. Mr. Edwards, 16 on behalf of two of his Jane Does, tried to get 17 that order so it would become public. Judge 18 Marra said, no, and they keep trying and

rest that both sides receive, as I mentioned earlier, a fair consideration of their case. I do temper my comments today with the understanding as the Fifth District in the Ballast case made clear, that discovery is far EFTA00776416 52 1 broader than admissibility. I'm not suggesting 2 at this juncture tha

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO. 4D14-2282 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Appellee. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT The appellee, Jeffrey Epstein, respectfully moves for

28 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding that the litigation privilege applies to causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process). Edwards appealed and is challenging the final judgment solely as to the malicious prosecution claim. 2. After the parties' briefs were filed, this Court is

rds, Rothstein was deposed. At the morning session of deposition on December 12, 2011, Rothstein was asked the following about Bradley Edwards: Q: Brad Edwards, would he have reported illegal activity? A: I don't know. Q: Would he have reported trust account defalcations? 22 R. 816, citing letter dated Ju

n by the defendant in the malicious prosecution action at the time the underlying action was initiated, not some later point in time."). In Yurko, the Fifth District concluded: "The affidavit here shows Yurko reasonably researched and investigated his case, and had a tenable theory to present to the court and ju

3301 54)467-1223 Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHR

f/Counter-Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs, and as grounds therefor would state: INTRODUCTION This case arises from Epstein's lawsuit against Edwards, when Epstein sued Edwards merely for his legal representation of people accusing Epstein of misconduct. Edwards counter- sued Epstein for, inter al

differential. Under section 768.79, you offer an "amount," not a deal. You can't apply mathematics to "non-monetary offers." As a later panel of the Fifth District noted, "One might logically posit, in fact, that 'the only enforceable non-monetary condition allowable under the rule is one that does not go beyon