Epstein Secrets

LD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, TO PERMIT DISCOVERY, TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AND COSTS, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. ("Farmer Jaffe"), through counsel, hereby moves this honorable Court for an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffre

bankruptcy proceedings, in 2010, Epstein served a broad subpoena attempting to secure thousands of attorney communications by Fanner Jaffe attorney Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., who while previously employed as an attorney at Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler ("RRA") had represented a number of Epstein's victims in their civ

ained images or copies of the subject documents on its computer or otherwise, the Court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions in favor of Farmer, Brad Edwards or his client." [DE 1194]. Remarkably, in clear and intentional defiance of this Court's order, Fanner Jaffe recently discovered that Fowler White

's files." Letter of transmittal attached hereto as Exhibit A. The subject flash drive contained three separate PDF files respectively titled: (I) "Bradley Edwards.pdf' containing 8,507 pages of emails; (2) "Epstein Searches.pdf' containing 17,348 pages of emails; and (3) "Scott Rothstein.pdf" containing 1,687 page

from the Trustee, which included documents from attorney Edwards related to Edwards' representation of the sex ab

unsel, hereby moves this honorable Court for an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: INTRODUCTION As the Court will recal

nds therefore states as follows: Jeffrey Epstein issued a subpoena, through the Palm Beach State Court case of Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards, and L.M., Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case No. 50-2009 CA 040800XXXX MB AG (hereinafter "the Epstein lawsuit

the costs of the printing and Bates Numbering of the documents, and this Court retained jurisdiction to award sanctions on behalf of Fanner Jaffe, Edwards, or clients in the event that it was determined that Epstein or Fowler White retained images or copies of the subject documents on computer or other

or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Brad Edwards Brad Edwards SERVICE LIST Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr., Esq. Fowler White Burnett, P.A. 901 Phillips Point West 777 South Flagler Drive West Palm B

ummary of Damages in Support of Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: Jeffrey Epstein issued a subpoena, t

ncludes counsel identified on the service list below. SERVICE LIST Jack Scarola Sears Denn , Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. yard Counsel for Bradley J. Edwards Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Counsel for LM., E.W. and Jane Doe Chad Pugatch, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards

to Compel Jeffrey Epstein to Pay for the Production of All Documents in Response to his Requests filed by Interested Party Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L ("Farmer"), was adequately resolved by agreement of the parties as follows. The law firm of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., will

nds to Farmer Jaffe's Motion for Issuance of an Order to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Relief (DE 6323; re-docketed as DE 6326) and Bradley Edwards' Joinder in Motion for Issuance of an Or

AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, TO PERMIT DISCOVERY, TO ASSESS SANCTIONS AND COSTS, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF Bradley J. Edwards, through counsel, hereby files this Reply to Jeffrey Epstein's Response in Opposition to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Je

ODUCTION Jeffrey Epstein's Motion, through one misstatement after another, amounts to nothing more than his continued baseless disparagement of Mr. Edwards, and a poor attempt to deflect from his wrongdoing and avoid the pertinent issues. [DE 6351]. In 2010, a subpoena was issued to the RRA trustee tha

in's Response in Opposition to Farmer Jaffe's Motion to Show Cause Why Fowler White and Jeffrey Epstein Should Not Be Held in Contempt of Court, to Permit Discovery, to Assess Sanctions and Costs, and for Other Appropriate Relief, and as grounds therefore states as follows: INTRODUCTION Jeffrey Epstein's Motio