Epstein Secrets

tes District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehr

ts that the victims have offered. DATED: March 21, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, l Bradley J. Edwards adley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 Flori

n that we believe is material to the victims' CVRA case — a limited amount of information that could be swiftly located by your Office." Letter from Bradley J. Edwards & Paul G. Cassell to Wifredo A. Ferrer, Mar. I, 2011. The victims have, for example, requested that the U.S. Attorney's Office provide to them unreda

, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

dential communications to the media to ridicule and prejudice Mr. Epstein. And currying favor with the media at Mr. Epstein's expense is not new to Bradley Edwards, the lawyer who represents Jane Doe 2 EFTA00205543 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 160 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 3 of 13 1 and Jane

ory statements about Mr. Epstein. If the correspondence between the defense team and the government is not kept confidential, attorneys Scarola and Edwards could reasonably be expected to continue disseminating out-of-court publicity and making extrajudicial statements and commentary to the media to pre

a, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); ax v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 422 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2017 Page 11 of 12 DATED: September 1, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, AI taut 9. Samna Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-28

D Docket 09/01/2017 Page 11 of 12 DATED: September 1, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, AI taut 9. Samna Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 524-2820 Facsimile (954) 524-2822 E-mai

examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." DE 421 at 7 (citing Cox v. Administrator, U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994)). The Government has clearly injected its deliberations into the case, and fairness requires that the Court fi

ssistant United States Attorney 9 EFTA00601690 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 10 of 11 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954 524-2820• Fa

90 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 10 of 11 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Tel: (954 524-2820• Fax: 954 524-2822 E-mail: Paul G. C

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

ssistant United States Attorney 9 EFTA00799972 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 10 of 11 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Paul G. Cassell Pro H

72 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 10 of 11 SERVICE LIST Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of La

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

DDITIONAL PERSONAL INFORMATION SSN DOB Gender LexID(sm) 090-44-XXXX 111953 Male 000752546965 (Age 64) Subject Summary Name Variations 1: EDWARDS. JEFFERY 2: EPSTEIN, J 3: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY 4: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY E 5: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY 6: EPSTEIN. JEFFREY E 7: EPSTEIN. JERRERY 8: EPSTI

nal version, responsive, chain, grand jury, crime victims, federal government, non-prosecution, investigative COUNSEL: Mi For Jane Doe, Petitioner: Bradley James Edwards, LEAD ATTORNEY, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman PL, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Jay C. Howell, PRO HAC VICE, Jay Howell & Associates PA, Ja

Such "opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances." Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059575 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022399 EF

rsons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923

urch of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) 21 Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164