Epstein Secrets

inor females, including 3. In about April 2008, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., was a licensed attorney in Florida, practicing

RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, P.A., Debtor. CASE NO.: 09-34791-RBR CHAPTER 11 RESPONSE OF= BRADLEY J. EDWARDS. AND FARMER. JAFFE. WEISSING, EDWARDS. FISTOS & LEHRMAN. P.L TO CREDITORS MOTION TO CLARIFY PRIOR ORDERS (a minor victim of sex offenses), Bradley J. Edwards, and Fanner, Jaffe, Weissin

ral statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse, 18 U.S.C. § 2255. 7. On September 11, 2008, at the request of his client Brad Edwards filed a civil suit against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault on Around the same time, he also filed suits for 8. At abou

ile they were minor girls. 4. On June 13, 2008, attorney Edwards agreed to represent on July 2, 2008, attorney E

very matter arising purely under state law claims filed in state court. The Razorback Creditors in essence are seeking to perform an end run around the Circuit Court's proper exercise of its jurisdiction to adjudicate matters pending before it, including subpoenas issued from that court. For reasons of comity alone

ulted her when she was a minors. The parties recently reached a confidential settlement of this lawsuit on the eve of trial. 4. Movant's counsel, Brad Edwards was employed by RRA. During this time Attorney Edwards securely and confidentially maintained hard-copies of certain file materials and maintained

d a confidential settlement of this lawsuit on the eve of trial. 4. Movant's counsel, Brad Edwards was employed by RRA. During this time Attorney Edwards securely and confidentially maintained hard-copies of certain file materials and maintained substantial parts of client case files and investigative

eeking production from Trustee Herbert Stettin of Attorney Edwards case files and investigative files which relate

er arising purely under state law claims filed in state court which are not before the Bankruptcy Court. Epstein seeks to perform an end run around the Circuit Court's proper exercise of its jurisdiction to adjudicate matters pending before it, including subpoenas issued from that court. Moreover, the honorable Ci

DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Review of a Non-Final Order of the Circuit Court of the Fifteen

ocess d. (4) Fraud e. (5) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud (App. 1). On December 21, 2009, just 17 days after Epstein instituted the civil proceeding, Edwards filed a Counterclaim for abuse of process against Epstein. (App. 2). Thereafter, Edwards amended his Counterclaim several times, ultimately allegi

reversible error if this action proceeds to trial on March 13, 2018. Appellate Courts are Clean Strict Compliance with Rule 1.440 is Mandatory and the Circuit Court's Failure to Follow the Rule Warrants Mandamus Relief This Court, in particular, has spoken on the "mandatory" nature of the timing of Rule 1.440, an