Epstein Secrets

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: We are here on Epstein versus Rothstein and Edwards. The two applicable parties being dealt with -- have a seat, please. Thank you. -- being Mr. Epstein and Mr. Edwards, and the counterclaim brough

Mr. Edwards. THE COURT: Did he bring it against Rothstein's firm? I only have Rothstein individually -- MR. SCAROLA: Rothstein, individually and Bradley Edwards, individually. MR. LINK: My apologies. THE COURT: That statement is retracked. It's Rothstein individually and Edwards, individually. Mr. Scarola

file claims that were false. We are not taking about malice yet. Independent of any evidence that relates to malice, we get to prove the truth of Brad Edwards' underlying claims on behalf of L.M., E.W. and Jane Doe. So that then brings us -- THE COURT: I think I have already essentially ruled on that from

oof with regard to every element. It is also our position that the issue as to whether the underlying claim was bona fiably terminated in favor of Bradley Edwards is an issue of law for the Court. There are no disputed -- Mr. Edwards is present, yes. There are no disputed issues of fact with regard to what

se Fifth Amendment questions that were asked of my client -- THE COURT: No probative value. MS. ROCKENBACH: No probative value. And the Frazier -- the Fourth DCA says that even that adverse inference against parties when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them. If my c

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 502009CA040800SSSSMB JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, vs. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. / PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE JUDGE DONALD HAFELE Epstein's Motion for Fees and Costs HELD: Decembe

p?-4.* EFTA00617909 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 materials here from you and I've got the response in opposition filed by Mr. Edwards as well. MR. BREWER: As your Honor might remember, you entered a summary judgment THE COURT: Right. I remember the facts. I presume it's on appea

de it absolutely unethical _ ..pgam BEACH REPOR.T1NG SERVICE, INC. _561-471-2995 EFTA00617920 15 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 for Brad Edwards to have accepted this proposal for settlement. That requires an evidentiary basis, and I am prepared to give testimony with regard to that aspect.

00617917 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Schwartzle versus Publix Super Markets is a case in which the appellate court, the Fourth DCA, was asked to address the issue of the inclusion of a confidentiality provision in a proposal for settlement. What that opinion says is -- and thi

as Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas B

Critton, Esq. were present on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Shullman, Esq. was present on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, Mr. Berger, Esq. and Mr. Edwards, Esq. were present on behalf of M., Mr. Kuvin, Esq. was present on behalf of M., Assistant State Attorney Barbara Burns was present-on behalf-of-the

o & Bralow 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue - Ste 1500 22 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 23 ON BEHALF OF EW, THE INTERVENER: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE 24 BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE 225 NE Mizner Blvd Ste 675 25 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00231347 2 1 ON BEHAL

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

as Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas B

Critton, Esq. were present on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Shullman, Esq. was present on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, Mr. Berger, Esq. and Mr. Edwards, Esq. were present on behalf of M., Mr. Kuvin, Esq. was present on behalf of Assistant State-Attorney Barbara Burns-was present on behalf-of-the Sta

o & Bralow 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue - Ste 1500 22 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 23 ON BEHALF OF EW, THE INTERVENER: WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE 24 BRAD EDWARDS, ESQUIRE 225 NE Mizner Blvd Ste 675 25 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00232467 2 1 ON BEHAL

in's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it mg on the production of the NPA agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NPA was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has

iff/Counter-Defendant, vs. 4 the court. It has caused me to have to SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually; 7 engage in an inordinate amount of time to BRADLEY EDWARDS, individually, 8 the exclusion of other natters that needed Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. 4 my attention. 10 While the Court understands the

thank Hr. Cassell for being here today. Your Honor, this is Mr. Epstein's motion to remove this case from the trial docket. It was prompted by Mr. Edwards' motion to separate the trials, which was motion -- for the obvious reason, when he • filed his motion to sot the case in the above-styled cause

Appeal in my motion. And I understand 22 Mr. Edwards intends to rely upon it. But iS this was an authored decision by Judge 24 Melanie May from the Fourth DCA. And that 25 case has great language to guide this Court 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 20 21 22 23 24 IS 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 f

as Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas B

-3456 Telecopier (954) 527-8663 By: Bradley J. Edwards Florida Bar No. 542075 bcdwardsarra-law.com Wi

n's Motion to Stay, and states: In their motion, Defendant asks the Court to stay it. P mg on the production of the NM agreement pending review by the Fourth DCA. Since this NM was never properly sealed in the first place, a Stay is improper because this document is a public record until such time as it has