Epstein Secrets

08-CIV-80893-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v . JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. DEFENDANT, JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, BRADLEY J. EDWARDS' RESPONSE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OBJECTIONS TO DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS Pursuant to the ruling of United Sta

rict Court, [D.E. 222], the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), files his Reply to the Response to Real Party in Interest, Bradley J. Edwards ("Edwards"), to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Protective Order and Objections to Disclosure of Certain Documents [D.E. 217]. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The re

ollowing service list in the manner specified via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this day of November, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman PL Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Aueroury uotaneriter K weirs, r., FOWLER WHITE BURNER, PA

rt does have authority to enforce the Agreement's terms. By agreement, this can occur even if the case is closed. American Disability Assn, Inc. v. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (1 Cir. 2002). Presently, as things stand, Edwards has the ability to use these documents in any manner he pleases without fi

rey Epstein Case No. 08-CIV-80893•MARRA/JOHNSON Epstein's Rule 4 Review and Appeal of Mag. Order and Memo of Law. In response to Epstein's motion, Edwards, and not the Plaintiff, Jane Doe, responds for himself and on behalf of others not party to these proceedings. Edwards response fails to establish h

wing service list in the manner specified via transmission ofNotices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on this atth day of September, 2010. Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL 423 N. Andrews Avenue Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-524-2820 954-524-2822

risdiction over the parties' Settlement Agreement, the Court does have authority to enforce the Agreement's terms. American Disability Assn, Inc. v. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11' Cit. 2002). The Magistrate's Order is clearly erroneous because it states the matter is not properly before the Court. B

ry]" is confidential.(D.E. #207, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel

e Court has jurisdiction to enforce the stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation. See American Disability Assn., Inc. ff. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). The stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation and as approved by the District Court

ry]" is confidential.(D.E. #207, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel

e Court has jurisdiction to enforce the stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation. See American Disability Assn., Inc. ff. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). The stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation and as approved by the District Court

ry]" is confidential.(D.E. #207, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel

he Court has jurisdiction to enforce the stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation. See American Disability Assn., Inc. V. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). The stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation and as approved by the District Court

ry]" is confidential.(D.E. #207, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein v. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel

he Court has jurisdiction to enforce the stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation. See American Disability Assn., Inc. V. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). The stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation and as approved by the District Court

ry]" is confidential.(D.E. #207, p.1). In light of said disagreement, the parties jointly stipulated that to the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel "or Mr. Edwards as a Defendant in the Epstein I. Rothstein case" wished to file, disclose or make available to anyone else the subject Correspondence, said Counsel

e Court has jurisdiction to enforce the stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation. See American Disability Assn., Inc. ff. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2002). The stated wishes of the parties as set forth in the Joint Stipulation and as approved by the District Court