Epstein Secrets

plaintiff/counter-defendant below, challenges the circuit court's Order entered March 8, 2018' by the Honorable Donald Hafele, granting Respondent Bradley J. Edwards' Motion for Separate Trials.'' By separate motion, Petitioner moves to consolidate this petition with his pending Emergency Petition for Writ of Man

admittedly running a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme by convincing investors he had negotiated multi-million settlements in high-profile cases. Three of Edwards' clients at the time alleged tort claims against Epstein, which Epstein ultimately settled. Based on publicly available information about 3 All bac

im which has neither been answered nor defaulted, then the entire action (excluding only crossclaims) is not at issue. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440. 6 Accord Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d 37, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). See also Melbourne HMA, LLC v. Schoof, 190 So. 3d 169, 170 (Ha. 5th DCA 2016) ("Strict compli

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

ear: "strict compliance with rule 1.440 is mandatory." Bennett v. Cont'l Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (emphasis added). Accord Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d 37, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). See also Melbourne HMA, LLC v. Schoof, 190 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("Strict compl

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 MOTION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DENYING STAY Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(0,

is case on August 9, 2010. (App. 5). 2 EFTA00793768 (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

ear: "strict compliance with rule 1.440 is mandatory." Bennett v. Cont'l Chemicals, Inc., 492 So. 2d 724, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (emphasis added). Accord Teelucksingh v. Teelucksingh, 21 So. 3d 37, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). See also Melbourne HMA, LLC v. Schoof, 190 So. 3d 169, 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("Strict compl